/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9868180]

Launch Vehicle Discussion, Part V: Absolute Unit edition

continued from >>9844772

[Anonymous No.9868189]

Why does bfr look so much like a penis?

[Anonymous No.9868191]

today in space
>RocketLab still has no new launch date
>Northrop Grumman CEO is stepping down
>Opportunity is still quiet on Mars
>Next SpaceX launch is now July 22nd (block 5!)
>A couple old pad towers at the cape have been demolished

[Anonymous No.9868197]

>>9868189
isn't the better question to ask, why don't the rest of them look like penises? BFR's uniform diameter from top to bottom reduced the manufacturing complexity and logistics greatly. You can re-use lots of equipment and hardware for both "halves"

[Anonymous No.9868243]

>>9868189
>BFR
pretty sure new glenn is literally modeled on a stainless steel dildo

[Anonymous No.9868276]

wew

[Anonymous No.9868296]

>>9868276
Elon is an authoritarian who pretends to be progressive. I bet he'll eventually rule his Mars colony as God-King

[Anonymous No.9868321]

>>9868296
>>9868296
> you will never be the Emperor of an entire planet and claim the vast asteroid belt's great wealth and create a fleet of autonomous drone spacecradt to bring the earthly powers to heel before ascending to transhuman immortality and shepharding your elect into a future if endless wealth and possibility among the stars

[Anonymous No.9868363]

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/8yps3h/elon_says_bfr_update_in_a_month_or_so/e2cva25/

>inb4 reddit

Anyone have any information on this? Some deleted comments so something has been censored.

[Anonymous No.9868367]

>>9868363

[Anonymous No.9868374]

>>9868363
someone mentioned that two of the big structural test articles were completed

>>9868367
reddit is fine if you ignore the large subreddits, don't be a conformists

[Anonymous No.9868388]

>>9868367
>not using r/spacex for SpaceX news

[Anonymous No.9868409]

>>9868374
>>9868388

[Anonymous No.9868412]

Wtf happened at the end of the last thread?

[Anonymous No.9868417]

>>9868191
Which block 5 is this a new one or used,are they going to land it again??

[Anonymous No.9868424]

>>9868296
>>9868321
So do you guys know about the whole Elon Von Braun thing in mars

[Anonymous No.9868434]

>>9868296
I hope so, a new lee kuan yew.
Fuck yes, no white people allowed, only high IQ East Asians and high IQ jews/Eastern Europeans.
Fuck this is getting me hard

[Anonymous No.9868467]

>>9868417
new one; the've only launched one b5 so far

[Anonymous No.9868495]

ghost dunes ooooOOOOOOOhhhhhhhHHHOooo https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2018/07/10/scientists-discover-ghost-dunes-on-mars/

[Anonymous No.9868504]

>>9868495
The spice must flow

[Anonymous No.9868608]

>>9868374
>>9868388
OUT

[Anonymous No.9868771]

>>9868374
>>9868388
>Using plebbit

Get the fuck OUT. It is actually possible to get information elsewhere than your garbage circlejerk, fuck off and don't come back.

[Anonymous No.9868790]

>>9868363
>>9868388
>>9868374
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.9868797]

>>9868771
>>9868608
literally no one in the history of the world has ever refused to come back to 4chan due to being screamed at by a petulant, irrational poster.

4chan has its ups and downs. So does reddit. Both have their advantages when it comes to discussing space, SpaceX, launch vehicles, etc. with the SpaceX subreddit for instance, it’s easy to use it as an aggregation of recent pictures and news related to SpaceX.

If you can’t separate the utility of reddit as a shortcut to other relevant topic-related sites from its loose “community”, then you’re a lost cause.

like most other things in life, the complaining about the existence of X is worse than the existence of X.

[Anonymous No.9868805]

>>9868797
Kill yourself Reddit scum.

[Anonymous No.9868811]

>>9868797
The SpaceX subreddit is filled with braindead retards like you.

[Anonymous No.9868814]

>>9868797
We don't give a shit about your cancerous website.

*downvotes*

Goodbye

[Anonymous No.9868831]

oh god why the fuck is ula fucking up centaur so much

[Anonymous No.9868837]

>>9868831
blame AR

[Anonymous No.9868840]

>>9868831
now what have they done?

[Anonymous No.9868854]

>>9868831
>ULA not fucking up ever
that would be the first step to losing their welfare

[Anonymous No.9868877]

>>9868831
link pls

[Anonymous No.9868883]

>>9868840
>muh cryogenic upper stage
>muh RL10

[Anonymous No.9868924]

>>9868243
It's because New Glenn has that rounded tip so as not to tear rectal walls.

[Anonymous No.9868959]

*inhales*

[Anonymous No.9868961]

>>9868924
This would not make a good dildo, m8.

[Anonymous No.9868964]

>>9868961
Literally all you have to do is remove the control surfaces, it even has a flared base

[Anonymous No.9868967]

>>9868959
We must go longer.

[Anonymous No.9868972]

>>9868959
what the hell is that

[Anonymous No.9868985]

>>9868959

[Anonymous No.9868989]

>>9868985
LONGER!

[Anonymous No.9868993]

>>9868989

[Anonymous No.9868996]

>>9868993
No that's too long.

[Anonymous No.9868998]

>>9868993
>>9868989
>>9868985
Someone at ULA has read Jack & The Beanstock again

[Anonymous No.9869000]

Based.

[Anonymous No.9869014]

>>9869000
>mfw that entire image is literally rhetoric

lmao can't wait until Elon btfos all these cunts with BFR.

[Anonymous No.9869015]

By 2020, the Dream Chaser will be able to deliver 5 tons to LEO for $105 million, and also it's owned and operated by a strong woman.

That's pretty much the end of the road for SpaceX, isn't it? Game over.

[Anonymous No.9869043]

>>9869015
Until it's shot down by cyborg Shotwell

[Anonymous No.9869060]

>>9869000
You think I'm gonna trust the company that made a poster where a comma overlaps the 'S' in the next line underneath?

[Anonymous No.9869064]

>>9869000
this is aimed at lockheed & boeing

>ULA: plz don't pull the plug on us

[Anonymous No.9869067]

>>9868972
abuse of solid rocket motor technology (after NG/OATK get the successor to minuteman III contract)

[Anonymous No.9869104]

>>9868409
>>9868608
>>9868771
>>9868790
>>9868805
>>9868811
>>9868814
Now this is just sad.

[Anonymous No.9869111]

>>9869015
5 tons? what?
also, f9 is being considered as the launcher for dream chaser.

[Anonymous No.9869141]

>>9868959
Belter scum.

[Anonymous No.9869160]

>>9868993
>>9868989
>>9868985
>>9868959
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-1Ue0FFrHY

[Anonymous No.9869175]

>>9869160
What a twiiiiiiiist.

[Anonymous No.9869223]

>>9869060
lol wtf, that's completely on the wrong line.

[Anonymous No.9869226]

>>9869064
KSP is jealous.

[Anonymous No.9869256]

>>9869064
Can you imagine how many hundreds of millions a Delta IV with 7 CBCs would cost?

[Anonymous No.9869724]

>>9868811
this board is filled with braindead retards like yourself as well. The difference with reddit is that verifiable insiders lurk there as well

[Anonymous No.9869838]

>>9869256
>b-but muh specific impulse, it's well worth the cost!

[Anonymous No.9870097]

in other news, elon just called someone a pedo on twitter.

>>9868993
now THAT's a fineness ratio

[Anonymous No.9870259]

>>9869724
>The difference with reddit is that verifiable insiders lurk there as well
There's half a dozen non-reddit website with more and better insiders. Do you enjoy giving the moderators a nice sloppy blowjob on each and every visit to reddit, fag?

[Anonymous No.9870271]

>>9870097
BASED diver.

[Anonymous No.9870275]

>>9868276
>>9870271
hopefully this chink-lover statist gets voted out of his own company soon

[Anonymous No.9870317]

>>9870275
>voted out of his own company soon
not with 51% of the shares

[Anonymous No.9870318]

>>9869104
It's summer, after all.

[Anonymous No.9870324]

[Anonymous No.9870447]

>>9870324
Elon showed his power level too soon.

[Anonymous No.9870536]

it really doesn't bother me. people should be judged by what they actually do rather than the act of flinging shit around on twitter.

However, unsubstantiated claims that someone is a pedo goes a step too far. That's like libel territory. Use your brain, Elon

>>9869226
I outta play KSP again. It's been like two years since I booted it up

[Anonymous No.9870545]

>>9868189
>constantly seeing penis-shapes
anon, i have some news for you..

[Anonymous No.9871029]

scotland joins the club (maybe) https://spacenews.com/u-k-selects-scottish-spaceport-site/

[Anonymous No.9871035]

>>9871029
Just how big is the need for more polar launch sites? Not that the UK has the latitude for non-polar launches, I guess.

[Anonymous No.9871047]

>>9871035
good for earth sensing. you get a snap of every part of the globe

[Anonymous No.9871049]

>>9870447
He probably needs to make a shitty apology and then stay off twitter for awhile. I would hate to see SpaceX and Tesla suffer from Elon dropping too many redpills, regardless of how truthful they may be.

[Anonymous No.9871053]

>>9870275
The moment Tesla gets rid of Elon is the moment Tesla starts to die. Musk has been the only force holding the company together for more than a decade, kicking him out over a fucking Twitter war would be moronic.

[Anonymous No.9871058]

>>9871049
yeah. it's not good optics at all. Any other CEO would be sacked. But, this is elon we're talking about. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like elon took his own advice to heart; here are some excerpts out of a Bloomberg interview from a couple days ago:


>"Generally the view that I've had on Twitter is if you're on Twitter, you're in like the meme—you're in meme war land. If you're on Twitter, you're in the arena. And so essentially if you attack me, it is therefore OK for me to attack back. Is there a place where you think I launched an attack on someone who has never attacked me?"
>"I would like to make the point that I never launched an attack on anyone who did not attack me first. So the question is: If somebody attacks you on Twitter, should you say nothing? Probably the answer in some cases is yes, I should say nothing. In fact, most of the time I do say nothing. I should probably say nothing more often."
>"I have made the mistaken assumption—and I will attempt to be better at this—of thinking that because somebody is on Twitter and is attacking me that it is open season. And that is my mistake. I will correct it."

I feel that one's twitter outburst can be completely separated from their engineering and industrialist humanity-advancing achievements, and so I still admire Elon. But, many many many other people don't feel the same way.

[Anonymous No.9871060]

>>9871035
we'll know who will actually be using it tomorrow, apparently.

[Anonymous No.9871063]

>>9871058
Luckily people will forget about this within a week, which is what usually happens in these situations. I bet Elon sympathizes a lot more with Trump now after his treatment by the media.

[Anonymous No.9871073]

>>9871063
then again, look at the pizza chain owner dude who said "nigger" last week. the backlash on that was huge. It's really a coin flip if the controversial thing becomes ingrained in cultural memory or not. Plenty of famous artists, actors, musicians, scientists, and politicians have used cruel language, been caught in affairs, been shitty people in general, beat their wives, taken bribes, etc and yet no one remembers/cares after a week, as you said. But—there are also lots of cases where we *do* remember.

[Anonymous No.9871086]

>>9871073
Calling a random boy fucker in Thailand a pedophile is several orders of magnitude less controversial than saying "nigger" in current year. In any case, Papa Johns probably just committed suicide. I mean, didn't that guy give the company its name? What the fuck are they going to do now, rebrand themselves because its former CEO said a bad word?

[Anonymous No.9871100]

>>9871086
I honestly didn't know that the "John" was a physical living dude until recently.

Either way, outrage culture keeps getting odder and odder. ScarJo just had to pull out of a film because people didn't want her to represent a transgender person.

Hopefully, elon spends more time with the engineering teams and less time mucking about with nobodies on the internet as a result of this. Wouldn't want him to turn into a Hughes 2.0

[Anonymous No.9871103]

>>9871086
They will probably rename themselves Papa Jamals, and do at an event chock full of virtue signalling.

[Anonymous No.9871105]

>>9871103
isn't the term now "pulling a Starbucks"?

[Anonymous No.9871126]

she (he) is hauling ass

[Anonymous No.9871130]

>>9871100
What happened to the first hughes

[Anonymous No.9871132]

>>9871130
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxcrM1ms1U8

also, Ice Station Zebra

[Anonymous No.9871417]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlCO7gBXWNA

can't get enough of this net

[Anonymous No.9871427]

What is the biggest launcher built currently? It isn't the Falcon Heavy or is it?

[Anonymous No.9871433]

>>9871427
biggest as in girth, DH. most payload to orbit, FH. Most thrust at liftoff, FH. largest payload fairing, DH.

BFR will blow everything out of the water of course. Saturn V will still be a bit taller tho

[Anonymous No.9871440]

>>9871427
FH is the biggest in terms of lifting capacity by about 2.2x flying fully expendable. SLS, BFR, Long March 9 and the new Soyuz Superheavy rocket are all going to be more capable though.

[Anonymous No.9871443]

>>9871427
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems

[Anonymous No.9871453]

>>9868417
1047. I helped build it

[Anonymous No.9871459]

>>9871453
does it have the B5 COPV? 1046 didn't.

[Anonymous No.9871461]

>>9871433
>Saturn V will still be a bit taller tho

Until Raptor gets its first round of thrust upgrades and they stretch the tanks on the Booster by 5 or 10%.

[Anonymous No.9871464]

>>9871461
The rocket shown at the IAC 2017 was the version with the tanks already stretched to accommodate Raptor's theoretical max performance.

Goddamn retarded redditors need to get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.9871466]

>>9871461
I wonder what a thrust upgrade would do to the number of 'refills' to land a full payload on the moon/mars? right now you need ~eight fuel tanker launches to launch 150t to the moon surface and return

[Anonymous No.9871467]

>>9871464
what? there has been no mention of theoretical max performance of raptor from SpaceX. Post a source or shut up.

[Anonymous No.9871470]

>>9871467
The version shown was the 250 bar engine. They haven't even built the engine yet let alone gotten to 250 bar, idiot.

[Anonymous No.9871471]

>>9871063
Yeah after the latest round of smearing I feel like he will roll out his media rating website soon. I can't wait for the screaming and to go and downvote a bunch of msm outlets.

[Anonymous No.9871474]

>>9871470
>implying they will stop at 250 bar

Also if they sized the tanks for the 250 bar engine but started off with the 200 bar engine they'd get abysmal TWR off the pad and it would severely limit their payload to orbit and overall vehicle performance. It makes more sense to design for the smallest flying version of the engine and have a functioning rocket, then just add tank length later as needed, since it's the easiest part of a launch vehicle to change.

[Anonymous No.9871478]

>>9871470
you moved the goalposts. Everyone knows that 250bar was the design goal.
They did not say that was the theoretical max performance.

[Anonymous No.9871482]

>>9871478
It's the max performance with the downsized engine from the more recent presentation.

Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.9871485]

>>9871482
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdUX3ypDVwI he literally says they are aiming for 300 bar in later iterations. @ 6:20

[Anonymous No.9871486]

>>9871485
He literally said the 300 bar was for the old engine in a more recent update.

[Anonymous No.9871487]

>>9871482
someone got bfto

[Anonymous No.9871495]

>>9871486
and yet you don't provide a source

[Anonymous No.9871497]

>>9871495
Die.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/780280440401764353?lang=en

[Anonymous No.9871502]

>>9871497
you just contradicted yourself lmao. keep digging that hole. he doesn't say max performance anywhere.
Thanks for the tweet, I forget about that. I'd work on your anger management though, you seem like a really shitty person in real life. Just saying.

[Anonymous No.9871512]

>>9871502
Like I said, it's the specs for the old engine.
>I'd work on your anger management though, you seem like a really shitty person in real life. Just saying.
Says the inebriate who worships a scumbag like Musk.

[Anonymous No.9871523]

>>9871512
I'm gonna nickname you the raptor floccinaucinihilipilificationist.

[Anonymous No.9871533]

>>9871512
Feel free to leave anytime m8.

[Anonymous No.9871535]

so lads, what the fuck is New Armstrong going to be spec-wise?

[Anonymous No.9871546]

>>9871535
Probably BFR scale or larger, if it's not, Bezos might as well give up because he will be too far behind.

[Anonymous No.9871556]

>>9871546
since his goal is heavy industry in space, I'd think the priority is payload size and durability. Setting up fabs in orbit will take a lot of big pieces of hardware. Then, some massive tug will shunt the finished AIO facility to an astroid somewhere for operation

with that in mind, a BFR without any human rating or human config, a massive fairing, and overbuilt to hell

[Anonymous No.9871713]

>>9871417
speedy little fucker

[Anonymous No.9871717]

>>9871713
Easier to build a giant net on a 60m maneuverable boat than designing a sufficiently agile parafoil for a composite payload fairing I suppose.

[Anonymous No.9872103]

>>9871417

[Anonymous No.9872177]

>>9871417
>>9872103
>i whip my net back and forth

[Anonymous No.9872286]

>>9872103
won't the fairing halves skate/roll around and finally crash into each other in the center?

[Anonymous No.9872309]

>>9871535
It will be a 20kt monster dwarfing ITS design.
Bezos has the cash to build optimal design from the ground up and not tinker with hacks to get things working

[Anonymous No.9872396]

>>9872286
one net per fairing.

[Anonymous No.9872418]

>>9872396
There's only one mr steven and only one net tho
Pretty sure they're just planning to stagger the fairings and chance it

[Anonymous No.9872431]

>>9872418
depends; they still might have some v1 fairings left. v2 fairings are the only ones that have the recovery hardware on both sides

still, wouldn't they try and recover one 3 million dollar fairing rather than potentially ruin both?

[Anonymous No.9872533]

>>9872309
I don't think the rocket engine tech is there yet. It would be an N1 on steroids, with a fuckton of engines. You can't just size up existing ones

[Anonymous No.9872547]

>>9872309
Last I heard bezos had been sinking cash into BO at the rate of 1b/y for a while now. Keep in mind he's had this company for nearly two decades now and to date they have a suborbital toy and an engine prototype. Sinking a ton of capital is not going to magically enable them to turn out a monster.

[Anonymous No.9872557]

>>9872547
the two decades fact is accurate, but not accurate. for many years, BO was only a think tank for Bezos. No engineering done at all.

They only recently passed 1500 total employees. SpaceX has ~7000

[Anonymous No.9872586]

>>9872177
THRUSTMASTER https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMj2WaSFZ2E

[Anonymous No.9872589]

|1| (absolute unit - badum tsssss)

[Anonymous No.9872652]

>when your engineers don't want to admit that SpaceX got it right and your engines can't throttle low enough so you waste years and millions on a silly system to appease managers, and end up never using it anyways since Bezos, Elon, and the Chinese eat you alive


poor, poor ULA

[Anonymous No.9872676]

>>9872418
There's going to be a future Mr. Even.

[Anonymous No.9872679]

>>9872676
Mrs. Teven would be GOAT name for the other fairing ship

[Anonymous No.9872687]

P120C has been hot-fired. Solids in 2018? Tsk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4r_1db6xYo

Ariane 6 will have a short, sad life it seems.

[Anonymous No.9872741]

hold on, wasn't he worth only 90 bil not too long ago?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/happy-prime-day-jeff-amazon-ceo-s-net-worth-tops-150-billion

Imagine if he just dumps 20 billion of that into cool space shit. What's he got to lose?

[Anonymous No.9872787]

>>9872679
Even better.

[Anonymous No.9872788]

>>9872741
NASA dumps $20 billion into space development every single year and look at what they accomplish

[Anonymous No.9872819]

>>9872788
only 2.5% of NASA's budget is space technology. 30% is science. Space Ops is 20%. SLS is a huge chunk. the rest is aeronautics, safety, security, and mission services, construction and environmental compliance and restoration, and the inspector general

[Anonymous No.9872871]

>>9872676
Don't you mean Saint Even?

[Anonymous No.9872948]

>>9872586
>Just what you need for capturing rocket parts, or shredding cave-diving pedo's

[Anonymous No.9872960]

>>9868993

[Anonymous No.9873000]

>>9872741
It makes me feel good to know that Bezos is there to take the reigns if Musk ever fucks up.

[Anonymous No.9873022]

>>9872960
They better watch out for all those expendable boosters up there.

[Anonymous No.9873061]

>this kills the spacex fags

[Anonymous No.9873092]

>>9873061
it’ll launch twice. I’m willing to bet money on that

[Anonymous No.9873166]

>>9872788
It only took 300m for the entire Falcon 9 development project. It's not about the amount of cash, it's about whether it's actually used properly or pissed away on diversity hires, beauracrats and endless paperwork.

[Anonymous No.9873177]

>>9873061
how?
by old age?

[Anonymous No.9873179]

>>9873166
>It only took 300m for the entire Falcon 9 development project.
False.

[Anonymous No.9873189]

>>9873179
https://web.archive.org/web/20130328121051/http://www.spacex.com/usa.php

[Anonymous No.9873192]

>>9873189
http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-reusable-rocket-launch-costs-profits-2017-6

[Anonymous No.9873203]

>>9873192
yeah no shit. F9 dev ≠ their reusability project.

[Anonymous No.9873208]

>>9873203
>the entire Falcon 9 development project

[Anonymous No.9873218]

>>9873208
NASA disagrees with your autism. SpaceX does stuff for cheap https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

[Anonymous No.9873229]

>>9873218
>moving the goalposts this hard

[Anonymous No.9873242]

>>9873179
Can you read?

>The Falcon 9 launch vehicle was developed from a blank sheet to first launch in four and half years for just over $300 million

[Anonymous No.9873243]

>>9873229
>providing a NASA report which specifically lays out the F9 development costs is moving the goalposts

you're pretty dumb. Even so, who the hell cares? the Augustine Commission said that a new heavy rocket for mars would cost 36 billion dollars. Even if you lump F9 and FH and reusability costs together, SpaceX has done it for 5% of the predicted cost

[Anonymous No.9873249]

bald British space video man has a new VTVL video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39cjZTCay24

[Anonymous No.9873252]

>>9873242
see >>9873192

[Anonymous No.9873253]

>>9873243
Just admit that you were wrong, fucktard.

F9 is not a mars rocket either.

[Anonymous No.9873255]

>>9873253
I'm not wrong. Are you the raptor floccinaucinihilipilificationist from earlier? You sure are acting the same. Please leave

[Anonymous No.9873262]

>>9873243
>>9873218
>this much damage control

[Anonymous No.9873268]

>>9873255
>I'm not wrong.
You're wrong, and also delusional apparently.

[Anonymous No.9873272]

Who here has sewing experience? SpaceX needs people to make space suits http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/217962

[Anonymous No.9873281]

How will r*ddit react to him getting thrown in prison?

[Anonymous No.9873298]

>>9873268
>>9873262
>>9873253
>>9873229
>2 cents have been deposited into your account

[Anonymous No.9873327]

>>9870275
Pig fucking alt right kike

[Anonymous No.9873655]

>>9873022
Ah yes, the scorched earth strategy. Pollute the LEO with so much junk that you can't even launch an Electron without it resulting in a Kessler syndrome.

[Anonymous No.9873759]

>>9873281
For what? Saying mean things over the internet? Trump likes Musk anyway, so he's got protection.

[Anonymous No.9873771]

>>9873759
there is a legitimate group of people who think that the SEC is sitting on a bombshell, and will throw Elon in the slammer for securities fraud or something. It's sad how much of an echo chamber their discussions are.

[Anonymous No.9873804]

>>9873771
Do they have an actual argument there, or is it just more Anti-Musk autism?

[Anonymous No.9873808]

>>9873804
I think it's because the SEC haven't specifically said they're not going to prosecute Musk. Also Musk shitposts a lot so he's probably guilty of something.

[Anonymous No.9873809]

>>9873804
it's based on unreliable reports that Tesla is falsifying production numbers, lying to investors in official filings, bribing news outlets, hiding violations from inspectors, lots of stuff.

It is all autism. One of the biggest pushers is a German dude (he actually works at BMW or VW or something) which has a network of twitter accounts that makes the whole conspiracy appear to be more legitimate. the identical owner of the accounts was figured out not too long ago.

[Anonymous No.9873811]

>>9873808
well his dad did kill eight people that one time. He's got some fightn' genes in him

[Anonymous No.9874164]

>>9870271
Diver sounds like a kike desu
>he said a single witty thing
>therefore everything Elon said is invalidated
humanity and its groupthink, everybody

[Anonymous No.9874229]

>>9873804

There major short positions against tesla stock. If the price doesn't tank, they lose billions. There is tremendous financial incentive to put out fake news. It doesn't help musk is autistic.

[Anonymous No.9874317]

>>9872652
>when you're flying in a helicopter to catch an engine block that is currently hurtling towards you at supersonic speeds and you just hope that the parachutes actually deploy

[Anonymous No.9874321]

>>9872687
Ariane 6 is going to be a good boy, leave her alone.
It's not her fault everyone else is going to be much better soon.

[Anonymous No.9874333]

>>9873061
Are they finally actually going to construct something?

[Anonymous No.9874498]

>>9872652
>poor ULA
Honestly couldn't these fags build their own Falcon 9/BFR/New Glenn clone/Mars colony/Dyson Sphere with the amount of money they pay in executive bonuses in a week?

[Anonymous No.9874503]

>>9874498
Old space is still convinced that reusability is a wasteful gimmick. They won't be convinced until they're out of business

[Anonymous No.9874510]

>>9874503
Oldspace: stuck on stupid

[Anonymous No.9874512]

>>9874498
But then the executives won't get their bonuses that week, we can't have that

[Anonymous No.9874634]

still no news from opportunity. damn.

>>9874229
turbo-autism, let's not forget
this is elon "if you [his first wife] were my employee I'd fire you" musk we're talking about

>>9874317
it's funny, the only way it works is due to how crazy expensive ULA's engines are. Each merlin only costs $300k a pop or something stupid small

[Anonymous No.9874639]

FAA NOTAM for New Shepard http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_8_6602.html

test tomorrow maybe, 1300-1900 GMT.

[Anonymous No.9874648]

"We’ll be doing a high altitude escape motor test – pushing the rocket to its limits."

[Anonymous No.9874651]

>>9870324
why is manley using a so᠍yboy profile pic?

[Anonymous No.9874654]

OHHHH NO OH NOOO OHNO https://twitter.com/AstroReeseW/status/1019275758026543109

[Anonymous No.9874655]

OH NOoooooooooooooooooo
>Potentially slipping first starliner flight to Q2 2019

[Anonymous No.9874672]

>>9874654
>>9874655
Boeing is ahead guys no really I mean it what do you mean we didn't even look at the capsule we just know - NASA

[Anonymous No.9874697]

>>9873243
36 billion dollars are you fucking retarded
mars rocket who said FH was mars rocket

[Anonymous No.9874711]

>>9874697
according to the specs of the commission report, FH is. They said it would take 12 years and 36 billion dollars. FH was developed for under a billion, and in half the time.

[Anonymous No.9874727]

>>9874711
not related to space but i recommend you must watch the movie (A GOOD AMERICAN ) real story
to get a glimpse about how corrupt the american bureaucracy is lobbyist are the biggest cancer

[Anonymous No.9874775]

>>9874634
Hey, niggas got high standards and his first wife didn't cut it.

[Anonymous No.9874777]

>>9874655
Boeing BTFO, Dragon first to space station after all.

[Anonymous No.9874898]

>>9874777
Did we ever really expect Boeing to get up first? And this is with two events that shut down SpaceX for about a year total.

[Anonymous No.9875038]

some of the NS team

[Anonymous No.9875042]

>>9873759
Libel.

[Anonymous No.9875066]

>>9874654
>>9874655
>literally fake news
Musktards are getting desperate.

[Anonymous No.9875162]

>>9875042
Nice bait

[Anonymous No.9875468]

>>9875066
tribalists are desperate indeed

[Anonymous No.9875479]

>>9875066
Imagine if trumptards held their cult leader to the same level of scrutiny

[Anonymous No.9875511]

9875479

[Anonymous No.9875518]

9875511
cannot even refute the point

[Anonymous No.9875523]

so he deleted the tweets; I'd imagine the source was some post on L2 or something. If I had an L2 subscription I'd check.

We'll know soon enough whether something happened or not. No reason to get all angry about it

[Anonymous No.9875558]

>>9874654
>>9874655

Somebody mentioned on /r/SpaceXLounge that this guy is not a reliable source.

[Anonymous No.9875564]

>>9874229
>There major short positions against tesla stock
For context, over a third of outstanding TSLA shares have been sold short. That's insane.

[Anonymous No.9875566]

>>9875558
a source is a source. I saw that shortly after I posted the tweets; it is odd how a graphic designer broke the news...? But now it seems to be a mistake on his part.

[Anonymous No.9875570]

>>9875564
just wait until SpaceX goes public, wew

[Anonymous No.9875583]

>>9875558
see >>9868367 >>9868608 >>9868790

[Anonymous No.9875591]

little does he know, more than half of the stuff posted here was first posted on reddit.
Ignorance is bliss, I suppose

[Anonymous No.9875595]

>>9868189
O P T I M A L

[Anonymous No.9875609]

>>9875558
>absolutely cancerous fucknugget used to be part of the kerbal space program community
what is it about that game that draws such awful creatures

[Anonymous No.9875610]

>>9875609
>complaining about community in a single player game
why tho

[Anonymous No.9875864]

>>9875610
>people on /sci/
>not whining about shit
>ever

[Anonymous No.9875920]

>>9868189
Well, now I can't stop pronouncing BFR as ButtFuckeR. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.9875937]

>>9875864
>people
>not whining about shit
>ever
fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.9875989]

>>9872652
>Jettison
>Jettison
>Jettison

[Anonymous No.9876161]

>>9875989
Be careful not to get hit by all the expendable launch vehicles.

[Anonymous No.9876643]

another industry insider posted on reddit about the Starliner failure, but then the post was deleted soon thereafter. What the heck is going on? He did say we'll know for sure by the end of today

[Anonymous No.9876673]

>>9868189
BFR is a meme that will never exist

SpaceX simply can't afford to make it. Nor do they have the capacity to. They're already running out of money as is.

[Anonymous No.9876681]

>>9876673
Getting your Spacex and Tesla shill points mixed up.

[Anonymous No.9876682]

>>9876673
excellent, it's been a long time since I've added an entry to my collage.

As for your post -
1) they have practically unlimited fundraising capabilities. They are extremely picky with their investors.
2) they're already building it as we speak
3) see point #2

[Anonymous No.9876709]

>>9876681
>>9876682
Do not respond to paid shills

[Anonymous No.9876712]

>>9876709
why would SpaceX pay people to shill for a rocket that they won't even make, according to you? Seems like a waste of money. And why on 4chan? I didn't know that 4chan was an influenceable marketplace which affects commercial satellite orders.

[Anonymous No.9876715]

>>9876681
Neither Tesla nor SpaceX is making any money.

There's no customers for the big meme rocket either. The concept only exists because SpaceX perpetually needs some grander claim to attract attention and investors.

When it turns out that there's no money, no subsidies, no nothing and the whole dumb-ass mars facade falls apart, it's going to get shelfed entirely.

[Anonymous No.9876730]

>>9876715
SpaceX is profitable. If you deny that then you are claiming that the COO is directly lying to the public. In which case, where is your proof?
Since you don't have any, there really is no use replying to you.
and no, random seekingalpha "analysis" is not proof

[Anonymous No.9876733]

9876715
>no customers
Planetary resources, deep space industries, just about every fucking sattilite company that exists, anyone and everyone that wants to put something in space, businesses that want to have their own space station for either industrial, commercial, or residential means
I could go on and on and on, and they're only going to snowball as one business builds the infrastructure that other things can branch off of
the orders are going to come like a fucking flood once they do their test demo, because it will show that they really are making the thing, and aren't doing the shit your bosses and promising everything and delivering absolutely nothing

No (You)s for shills :^)

[Anonymous No.9876745]

>>9876733
not to mention, LUVOIR is already being considered for BFR. NASA is funding a study to look at if they want to use BFR rather than SLS to launch it

[Anonymous No.9876755]

>>9876730
PR is protected under the first amendment, so as long as these claims aren't made directly to investors the COO can say whatever the fuck she wants.

What's more, the COO specifically didn't say that SpaceX was profitable, but that it had "many years of profitability"... Now what exactly does that even mean? The wording sure doesn't seem to imply that spacex is actually turning a profit.

Does she mean to say that SpaceX made a profit in certain years? Or is it just certain launches that are technically profitable, while the company itself isn't? Who the fuck knows with these people. I want to see the numbers before I trust any creative wording from a company run be Elon Musk.

[Anonymous No.9876760]

>>9876715

>There's no customers for the big meme rocket either.

Any payload that goes on Falcon can and will go on BFR. Also once SLS is onevitably cancelled, NASA will be willing to pay quite a few $ billions for SpaceX provided base on the Moon or a Mars mission.

[Anonymous No.9876764]

>>9873061
Nice and bulbous tank, such a shame it will be dumped into ocean after one use. Expendable rockets just dont do it for me anymore..

[Anonymous No.9876765]

>>9876733
>he orders are going to come like a fucking flood

Then why has Falcon Heavy only been able to sell one launch?

Right, because there is basically no customers for rockets that big. It's only going to be worse for the big meme rocket.

[Anonymous No.9876773]

>>9876755
profitable≠currently taking in more than they spend. No shit with San Pedro, BFR, hiring like mad, and Boca Chica they're probably spending more than they're making. That's par for the course. I would be surprised if the opposite was (currently) true

>>9876765
there are five FH launches on the manifest right now. You really do have no clue do you?


Why are so many morons attracted to talking about space, christ

[Anonymous No.9876780]

>>9876755
the numbers were leaked by the WSJ a couple years ago if you actually want 'proof'. but I guess that is fake news?

[Anonymous No.9876782]

>>9876765
>no one's going to pay orders of magnitude less for a launcher because it's too big
you got my (you) tony now go home

[Anonymous No.9876783]

>>9876760
>Any payload that goes on Falcon can and will go on BFR.
And why would anyone launch on the big meme rocket over a Falcon 9? It's way more expensive.

Do you not realize that customers to these things generally buy the entire rocket launch alone? You don't just jam in 17 different orders from different companies to maximize weight.

[Anonymous No.9876789]

>>9876783
are you trying to be dumb?
Falcon payloads can go on BFR the same as F1 payloads can go on F9 (in the case of Formosat-5).
Except in this case, BFR is specifically designed to be extremely cheap. You'll save money by launching on BFR no matter what.

[Anonymous No.9876795]

>>9876789
>BFR is specifically designed to be extremely cheap. You'll save money by launching on BFR no matter what.
Please tell me you don't believe this horseshit.

[Anonymous No.9876799]

>>9876783

>And why would anyone launch on the big meme rocket over a Falcon 9? It's way more expensive.

Manpower is the reason why rocket launches are expensive. If BFR has lower refurrbishment requirements than Falcon, it will be cheaper despite being bigger.

[Anonymous No.9876802]

>>9876795
man who believes the ocean is rocket heaven doesn't understand why rockets that don't go to rocket heaven can be launched for less

[Anonymous No.9876803]

>>9876795
instead of futilely arguing with you, let's just wait a couple years and see what happens hmmm?

[Anonymous No.9876805]

>>9876799
this is correct. Materials are less than five percent of the cost of building a Falcon 9.

[Anonymous No.9876808]

>>9876805
That’s generally true for any kind of construction. Labor is numero uno overhead.

[Anonymous No.9876812]

>>9876808
yep, SpaceX's yearly payroll is around two billion dollars right now. Although, lots of that is "offset" by the vertical integration. Paying your own employees to make parts is cheaper in the end than paying someone else to make the parts, who then has to pay their *own* employees.

[Anonymous No.9876921]

>>9876783
>>9876795
>why would anyone book a 150 ton rocket for $7 million when they could get a 20 ton rocket for $62 million?
You must be from /biz/

[Anonymous No.9877065]

>>9876803
That would require him to stop foaming at the mouth anon
On the other hand, you yourself also have to be prepared to accept BFR not being a cheaper option, if something like a space shuttle situation rears itself (feasibility of reusability) costing shittons just to make it reusable

[Anonymous No.9877072]

>>9877065
>if something like a space shuttle situation rears itself
complete non-starter comparison. in order to bring back anything akin to that disaster would require space-x to throw out every single thing they've learned about how to design a reusable rocket

[Anonymous No.9877080]

>>9877065
they didn't pull the 7 million number out of thin air; assuming that is their internal goal based on predictions of the final costs for refurb etc then there is a huuuuuge margin before it becomes anything but the cheapest option. They could be off by 40x and it will still be quite cheap.

[Anonymous No.9877150]

>>9877072
>>9877080
I agree
I'm just saying drop your holier than thou attitude, in the off chance you're wrong. and then these cunts have ammunition against you, buddy

[Anonymous No.9877164]

>>9877150
Good point.

nonetheless, the day I get to post my ultimate BFR doubter collage will be a wonderful day.

[Anonymous No.9877166]

>>9877164
Don't blow your load on the BFS tests, wait for the full stack to launch beforele you dump it.

[Anonymous No.9877169]

>>9877166
definitely.

[Anonymous No.9877187]

>>9877150
if the counterargument were "it's a risky project" or "there may be failures" then i would 100% agree. but if you want to say that the project is fundamentally flawed in some way the opposition needs an actual substantial argument why that's the case, which they can't provide. that's not holier than thou, it's just the truth

[Anonymous No.9877193]

>>9877187
I don't think the project is fundamentally flawed though.
But there are such a thing as unknown unknowns

[Anonymous No.9877229]

>all these people responding to the shill

[Anonymous No.9877400]

Static fire complete https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1019692740710260736

>Static fire test of Falcon 9 complete—targeting early morning launch on Sunday, July 22 of Telstar 19 VANTAGE from Pad 40 in Florida.

[Anonymous No.9877453]

Are we going to get a stream of the fairing catch?

[Anonymous No.9877461]

>>9877453
Mr Steven is on the west coast; Telstar 19 is launching at the cape. But, on the 25th there is a Vandy iridium launch, and yeah they should have a stream of Steve for it. I'd imagine part of the net upgrades was also more cameras

[Anonymous No.9877471]

>>9877461
Sick, I think they will manage it this time, they got within 50m last time I think and with the new net and whatever improvements they have made to the fairing control system should be enough to nail that last bit.

>ULAs face when

[Anonymous No.9877474]

>>9877065
>>9877072
>>9877150
In an absolute worst case nightmare scenario where somehow reality itself fucks up and the BFR proves as unsuitable to refurbishment as the Space Shuttle was, it would still cost "only" $335 million to launch it in a 250-tons-to-LEO expendable configuration.

Revolutionary in and of itself considering nothing that hauls over 150 tons has ever been launched before, and right now people willingly pay $400 million for a 28 ton Delta IV payload.

[Anonymous No.9877484]

>>9877474
>people willingly pay $400 million for a 28 ton Delta IV payload.

lets be realistic here, people don't pay $400 mil. The government does, because they have to. ULA has never won a Delta IV launch contract because of a bid.

[Anonymous No.9877598]

>>9877474
It's going to blow my mind of they can build BFRs for $335m and can reuse them dozens or hundreds! of times. Airlines pay a similar price for a 747 and look how many of those there are, space age is going to be 100% full steam ahead.

[Anonymous No.9877609]

>>9877598
It's bittersweet to me because all these hypothetical numbers sound like what the Space Shuttle was SUPPOSED to deliver.

Imagine if we had this capability in 1981, we'd be shitposting from fucking Europa right now.

[Anonymous No.9877620]

>>9877609
The space shuttle was inherently flawed: while the engines and orbiter being reused was a good start, it limited the system's maximum payload.
Buran's approach (a separate booster that can launch with huge payloads like pic related) was more future-oriented, as the liquid strap-ons and possibly even the core might have been recoverable as the technology matured...

[Anonymous No.9877624]

>>9877609
in the early 60s, a bunch of legit rocket scientists got together and produced a model of a hypothetical orbital battle station. Thousands of tons, nuclear powered, bristling with cannons and other weapons. They showed it off to Kennedy.

He was terrified at the prospect of such a weapon and refused to explore the idea further.

What could have been....


>>9877620
and, Buran didn't put the main engines on the orbiter, which was a silly feature of the STS. Once in orbit they're all dead weight for the most part.

[Anonymous No.9877628]

>>9877620
Not even DC-X vertical landing technology: pic related is a proposed strap-on LRB for the Soyuz successor that would use the Buran's automated landing software after it ran out of rocket fuel, using a small turbojet for a powered landing.

[Anonymous No.9877678]

>>9877624
We also didn't have a reason to keep humans in space because unmanned surveillance satellites became a thing, partly due to the electronics technology that let us get to the moon. That and nobody wanted the bad PR of having an astronaut die on a mission that was secretly spying on the Russians.

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

[Anonymous No.9877688]

>>9877624
>putting the most expensive component on the reusable orbiter instead of the expendable fuel tank was a bad idea

[Anonymous No.9877690]

>>9877678
>40 day missions
>to an 11 cubic meter enclosure
Jesus, that thing was about as roomy as a Soyuz/Dragon, imagine having to spend over a month in there with another dude

[Anonymous No.9877697]

>>9877688
Didn't we basically rebuild them from scratch every launch anyhow?

>>9877690
Skylab was still the coolest station so far. Until Bigelow gets some inflatables up there, it's the roomiest thing ever in orbit. Pic related was just the end where you entered.

[Anonymous No.9877705]

>>9877690
good doc on MOL, I watched it not too long ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2K6HHUbUe0

[Anonymous No.9877709]

>>9877697
>Didn't we basically rebuild them from scratch every launch anyhow?
They were taken apart and inspected after each flight, but the recent tests for the DARPA spaceplane program have shown that it was a lot more reusable than NASA believed and that it could have been made very robust with a few simple modifications.

[Anonymous No.9877711]

>>9877688

The engines on Buran were never designed to be reusable, so they were much cheaper than the RS-25. The most expensive parts of both launch vehicles were the orbiters by far. The external fuel tank of Shuttle cost ~$300 million by the way.

[Anonymous No.9877769]

>>9877709
>simple
Of course, but why would they have done that during the Shuttle program when refurbishing a single one of the RS-25 engines would net them millions and millions of dollars in revenue from the government?

[Anonymous No.9877785]

>>9877769
>S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

[Anonymous No.9877796]

>>9877688
They were working on a recoverable core that did away with the orbiter...kinda BFR-esque, but with strapon LRBs

[Anonymous No.9877826]

>>9877609
>>9877474
I want to be shitposting from europa. Preferably from under the ice as the jovian version of the van allen belts are really high in radiation
That aside, I agree with your assessment of the BFR. I'm just saying Elon fans / fanboys do themselves a disservice when they behave as if he's infallible, and on the other hand, the people hoping BFR fails are doing humanity a disservice by hoping a forward thinking project fails. Like hoping the wright brothers die in a crash on their airplane just because they wanna be able to say i told you so to somebody.

[Anonymous No.9877829]

>>9877620
Part of the reason the shuttle failed too was because it was a draw for politicians to get "muh jobs." Just a project that had bureaucracy all over it and jobs from all over the country just to make the unemployment stats look slightly better

[Anonymous No.9877843]

what do we think of the darpa spaceplane project

[Anonymous No.9877881]

>>9877826
I hate describing myself as an Elon fanboy because I'm excited about the BFR, I'm excited about the New Glenn/Armstrong, I'm excited about the Chinese Long March 8 and their pledge to completely phase out expendable rockets by 2035.

Right now the most tangible representation of that is the Falcon 9 that's in service, but hopefully it doesn't stay alone in the field for much longer.

[Anonymous No.9877890]

>>9877881
I agree anon

[Anonymous No.9877908]

>>9877843
Will probably be obsolete if BFR or New Armstrong are in service. I wish DARPA would work towards lowering the cost of satellites instead of building a meme rocket, since launch costs make up less than half of the total price.

[Anonymous No.9877986]

>>9877843
It's like a less effective version of Falcon 9, meant to be more rapidly reusable but I don't see anything inherent to the design that will facilitate that. Basically two stage partially reusable rocket if we were to design one in the 50's, it's only missing the cockpit for a pilot up front.

[Anonymous No.9878025]

You have been visited by Mr. Mass Driver. Good escape velocities will come to you but only if you reply with "Send me some mass Mr. Mass Driver."

[Anonymous No.9878328]

>>9877164
i really want to see this.
Kinda regretting not making one for the Falcon 9 landing/reflight people as well

[Anonymous No.9878413]

>>9878328
Did that many people think they wouldn't be able to land a falcon 9 and also refly them?

[Anonymous No.9878426]

>>9878413
yes

[Anonymous No.9878449]

>>9878413
/sci/ and 4chan isnt exactly a fair assessment of what the general populace thinks or its mentality, but every thread about SpaceX that i've read the last 5 years have been similar to the current "lol BFR a meme" crowd.
Was a lot of "SpaceX is a meme", then "lol never gonna make the rockets work", SpaceX fake never land rocket", "lol you ever think they will relaunch it, faggot fanboy btfo" and so on.

Then again, the fanboy "ELON HAVE MY BABY"-crowd haven't been any better.

Im more partial to what >>9877881 here said, i just like that something is happening

[Anonymous No.9878477]

>>9878426
Many people thought they will not be able to reuse them as often as they claimed, which is true.

[Anonymous No.9878552]

>>9878477
>many people
>as often as they claimed
Weasel words

>as often as they claimed
>which is true
No source

[Anonymous No.9878701]

>>9868189
all of them, men are masterrace

[Anonymous No.9879194]

>>9875038
God, what a weird lumpy crowd

[Anonymous No.9879211]

>>9873061
they fix that friction stir weld issue ?

[Anonymous No.9879979]

>>9875038
Working for BO must feel like getting one of those fake playstations for your birthday.

[Anonymous No.9881080]

>>9876715
>Elon Musk invested his entire fortune into a fucking rocket company to collect money to maintain a fortune
Seems easier if he had simply kept his fortune in the first place, desu.

[Anonymous No.9881082]

>>9881080
yeah, he's said that the two easiest ways to lose money are to start a rocket company, and to start a car company

[Anonymous No.9881086]

>>9876780
link?

[Anonymous No.9881093]

>>9881086
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exclusive-peek-at-spacex-data-shows-loss-in-2015-heavy-expectations-for-nascent-internet-service-1484316455

Other than the time around the failures, SpaceX has been quite profitable. Right now they have a 12 billion dollar launch backlog, plus major investment from google/fidelity/others.

[Anonymous No.9881116]

Commercial crew 1st 'crew' announcement is slated for Aug 3rd https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-space/2018/07/20/nasa-to-unveil-first-commercial-astronaut-crew-288697

[Anonymous No.9881120]

>>9881116
This place is gonna be toxic if there exists
a) 1 woman
b) person of color
or both on that list

[Anonymous No.9881121]

>>9881120
we've known since 2015 so it's really a meta-announcment. The four are Robert Behnken, Eric Boe, Douglas Hurley, and Sunita Williams

[Anonymous No.9881182]

>>9877609
The space shuttle was so flawed in its design that the russians took one long look at it and concluded that it had to be some sort of secret military project driving this terrible project.
With one glance they could tell it would be vastly more expensive and not less so.
Hence why they built their own system just in case. They didn't even know what they were gonna do with it in the frist place.

[Anonymous No.9881187]

>>9881182
>those darn Amerikans are going to build an orbital battle station!
>they're going to capture our satellites and bring them back to earth for examination
>wait, they're doing neither of these things?
god damn Air Force with their polar orbit requirements.

[Anonymous No.9881220]

>>9877688
It is, if you then have to expensively refurbish the expensive component anyway and pay for all of that by always having to launch your shitty shuttle craft with the actual heavy launch rocket that could do all kinds of cool shit on its own.

[Anonymous No.9881223]

>>9881220
Yep. We could have saved soooooo much money by buying rides on Proton to build the ISS rather than lugging up modules on STS.

Shuttle was cool and all, but I'm glad it's behind us

[Anonymous No.9881224]

>>9877624
Orion project was too fucking rad for this world.
Ironically the whole idea of putting guns to it was just a desperate try to grab the attention of higher-ups. Instead it got the project cancelled forever.
Oh well. The world wasn't ready for thousands of mini-nukes anyway.

[Anonymous No.9881228]

>>9881224
I still think that giant ground-based lasers + ablative "fuel" is a potential solution for cheap access to space. Pournelle discussed it to some length in his High Justice book

[Anonymous No.9881249]

>>9875038
>so many people not actually in the picture because people threw their hands up

[Anonymous No.9881444]

>>9881228
I think most people would agree. Sending out network of high powered lasers as a propulsion network would be quite advantageous. They could be charged / get powered by solar and/or nuclear depending on distance. All they'd have to do was push a craft along as it went by to keep it accelerating, and they could have them as far out as they want. maybe even on certain planetary bodies like say europa and enceladus and pluto. especially if fusion takes off, and they can juse use local water to power their lasers

[Anonymous No.9881611]

>>9881223
It's funny the way you worded that made me think you were sarcastic at first.

I think what we should have actually done was take those billions we were going to spend on Shuttle, and spend it on further developing and redesigning the Saturn IB and Saturn V rockets, with a focus on lowering manufacturing costs as opposed to increasing capability (since Saturn V was already capable of Moon missions anyway). We would have ended up much further ahead.

[Anonymous No.9881623]

>>9881228
Why do ablative fuel when you can just use pure hydrogen and a heat exchanger? Beamed power propulsion is literally the one scenario in which a space-plane can make sense, because the vehicle needs to be able to present a large surface area to the incoming laser/maser. Besides, ablative anything is usually shit because it keeps changing shape during flight.

[Anonymous No.9881674]

>>9881228
There are plenty of potential solutions, but I don't think I've ever seen an approach that looked better than just doing rockets competently.

The problem with rockets has been that governments took them over early on, preventing the free-market competition that would have led to cost effectiveness. In the world of government administrators, the man in charge of the more expensive program is the more important man, so effective cost-cutters undermine their own careers, whereas effective budget-powers gain the influence to have embarassingly efficient competitors cancelled. And of course, contractors are incentivized to bid low and then go over budget, making dirty back room deals as they go.

Reusable rockets were possible from the early days, as were far cheaper expendable rockets. If you don't account for the perverse incentives of government R&D, how mysterious it should be that costs went up from the V2 (which cost the equivalent of about $200,000 per unit toward the end, or $16/kg loaded, including launch costs, which should imply a payload to LEO figure around $800/kg).

OTRAG, a natural evolution of the expendable rocket concept, would have been cost-competitive with the partially-reusable Falcon 9, using 1970s technology. And it could have been evolved toward reusability. It was killed politically.

There were plans to recover the Saturn V first stages, providing a modest cost savings and starting on the evolutionary path toward efficient reuse. Early shuttle concepts were for small, simple vehicles of conservative design that could have been built quickly and inexpensively.

The founding of SpaceX roughly coincided with private orbital rocketry being permitted. They actually started a little early, before it was clear that they'd be allowed to do anything, which is why they got the first-mover advantage, skimmed the best talent, and leveraged that into grabbing up the subsidies the bureaucrats put out to get their fingers in this new pie.

[Anonymous No.9881679]

>>9881623
>Why do ablative fuel when you can just use pure hydrogen and a heat exchanger?
1) less dry weight
2) you can get it much hotter because you're not limited by keeping the heat exchanger cool
3) far higher density
4) no dealing with deep cryo

[Anonymous No.9882067]

>>9881679
>tfw K II civilization
>tfw sun-powered dyson swarm laser for propulsion
>tfw passing neptune at some high fraction of speed of light
>tfw passing neptune in a few days
We were born too soon bros

[Anonymous No.9882158]

there's a Delta IV Heavy launch coming up in early august. It's not that often that you get to see a spacecraft launched which is named after someone who is still alive (Parker)

[Anonymous No.9882286]

>>9882158

>Parker Probe
>Launch mass 685 kg (1,510 lb)[1]
>Dry mass 555 kg (1,224 lb)
>Payload mass 50 kg (110 lb)

>Delta IV Heavy
they gots to have that deltaV

[Anonymous No.9882305]

>>9882286
and they still have to use like right Mercury flybys for the right orbit.

1.5 billion dollars, oof. Why not just build ten class C missions instead?

[Anonymous No.9882363]

>>9882305
Votes for key congressional districts
embezzlement
and jobs programs for said congressional district
just your standard trickery and corruption of science

[Anonymous No.9882560]

SpaceX launch thread is up
>>9882557