New Spaceflight Era

I'm pretty hyped about this stuff OP. SpaceX is doing some cool ass shit.

>tfw currently in interview process with spacex
>new phd grad in EE from top-15 school
>apply online
>takes 4 months of working 2nd-degree linkedin connections to even get noticed
>pass first round phone interview with recruiter
>pass second round phone interview with engineer
>pass third round phone interview with engineering manager
>just turned in my 4th-round week-long take-home assignment
>if i pass, the next round is the final round; an on-site interview

pray for me, /g/

inb4 marine lovers start crying about ocean noise pollution with these ear breaking loud rockets

File: 1335125177858.png (5KB, 493x402px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 493x402px

>>59705805
Good luck anon-kun!

>>59705666
>Also, are russians aware that their space program is basically screwed, just like ESA
Don't know avout the russians, but ESA is probably glad to have a low cost option. They are a research group and don't aim to profit on space lifts

>>59705666
ESA is not a launch service provider

>>59705805
As a mech eng i'm jealous af. Good luck anon!

File: 1408328341090.jpg (52KB, 457x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 457x400px

>>59705805
If you don't reply to this post with "Thank you ~xx~Pigeon_Master~xx~" you will fail to land a position at SpaceX.

File: 1490123472381.jpg (129KB, 655x578px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 655x578px

The falcon rockets are CGI

You'd have to be an idiot to think that those waffle things can direct something of that size coming in to land.

Fucking idot kids these days

>>59705805
How much time and energy did you put so far in getting hired there?
Why no one ever attempted that before? Was it too hard without today's level of computer programs?

>>59705666
>tfw got a job offer from spacex
>tfw turned it down to work at a comfy silicon valley company

i wonder how things would have been different

It still costs a fuck ton of monies to lunch a sat and set it to orbit.

wow I'm so hyped for what is basically an inferior Space Shuttle

good job elon

>>59706808
This. Not to mention whatever fell in the cracks when the space went private and the government program """stopped""".

Fucking gee teenagers don't have a fucking clue about the world.

>>59706954
*the space industry

>>59706954
space shuttle and virtually half of NASA's contracted industries are no more private than SpaceGoy.

SpaceGoy takes money from them just like Rocketdyne, Lockheed, Thiokol, etc.

this PR meme bullshit needs to stop.

>>59705666
>This means they will be able to launch a rocket, re-fuel it and launch it again within 24 hours.

unless it blows up on the launch pad ...

>>59705666
Is there a reason why they are launching rockets from a barge out at sea? Isn't launching from solid ground easier?

>>59707187
That was the landing.

File: 1425012881715.jpg (428KB, 1094x1156px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1094x1156px

>>59705666
Reminder the Space Shuttle had 100% reusable engines

Reminder it actually turned out to be more expensive to do this than use expendable engines like the Russians do

Reminder this was the same idea they had with the shuttle, to reuse the engines and crew vehicle

Reminder it was a disaster and the shuttle cost over a billion dollars per launch

Turned out it was cheaper to make new engines on an assembly line than to have used engines painstakingly rebuilt by hand dealing with different issues on every engine after every launch to get them back to 100% human launch capable rockets

Reminder Musk only wants to reuse his engines a few times anyway, they are not infinitly reusable and very expensive parts must be replaced by techs who can certify the rebuilt engine is OK to be responsible for human lives

Reminder people have been saying the Russian space program is done for 40 years after the moon race..., during that time they have logged more man hours in orbit with more men/women astronauts and fewer fatalities than the USA

Reminder the USA has no way to put a man into orbit right now (and has not for many years) and relies on the Russians and their single use rockets to get to the space station

Reminder Elon can only figure out how to get back his first stage rocket, his second stage rocket will still be expendable... the space shuttle reused all it's rocket stages

mfw

>>59706776
>It still costs a fuck ton of monies to lunch a sat and set it to orbit.

this, just the fuel is millions of dollars per 150lb person

>>59707187
>Is there a reason why they are launching rockets from a barge out at sea? Isn't launching from solid ground easier?

wow

>>59705666
>Of course it will take them a few years to get that far, but its fair to say this is a quantum leap for spaceflight technology. We now have re-usable rockets!

WOW IT'S 1977 ALL OVER AGAIN

When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000/kg (approximately $27,000 per pound) to LEO.[5] This should be contrasted with the originally envisioned costs of $118 per pound of payload in 1972 dollars (approximately $657 per pound adjusting for inflation to 2013).[6]

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

>>59707255
>>59706776
The fuel for the entire space shuttle was like 1 million per launch, it's not a lot really

>>59705805
>4 rounds and no offer yet
You must really want it lol

>>59707221
disgusting feet desu

File: 1436620889013.jpg (115KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x1136px

>>59707377
>When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000/kg (approximately $27,000 per pound) to LEO.[5] This should be contrasted with the originally envisioned costs of $118 per pound of payload in 1972 dollars (approximately $657 per pound adjusting for inflation to 2013).[6]
KEK it's literally happening all over again and everyone is falling for the reusable meme, again

>>59707391
>The fuel for the entire space shuttle was like 1 million per launch, it's not a lot really

That is not true if you take into account the expense of handling the fuel and managing it

Especially the solid rocket fuel for the boosters

Additionally this was what seduced people into the total reusable system back then, but overall the space shuttle cost more to get a pound of cargo to orbit than the russian non reusable system

largely due to the effects that fuel has on engines when they actually run, it tears them up and the rebuilds were costly, upkeep on the reusable orbiter was costly

reusing the rocket engine has been tried and it was not the magic cure to get teachers to space

>>59707457
Well the current non reusable falcon 9 carries at $2000 per kg which is already 30 times more efficient than the shuttle. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the space shuttle was an idea simply too ambitious for that time. On top of that it was very inefficient because muh government program needs to make every state make one part. Nowadays the technology is just better, more durable materials are available and more powerful computers and faster mechatronics allow for more complex maneuvers (like landing a pencil shaped rocket on its base rather than landing like an airplane with massive heat shields)

>>59707221

The SSME (space shuttle main engines) were works of art. They operated at super high pressures, and they had unreal specific impulse. They were lightweight. They were also run at 105%-106% of their design thrust on a normal basis for a SS launch.

To run the turbo pumps most rocket engines burn some fuel with reduced oxygen (to drop the flame temps) then take that gas and run it though a turbine.

The SSME took the liquid hydrogen and 1st passed it around the hot nozzle to cool the nozzle. Then they allowed that hydrogen to expand, and that hot, expanded gas ran the turbopump. No wasted chemical energy to run the turbopump, just scavenged heat. (~30,000hp - number pulled from my ass)

tldr, the SSME was so expensive because it was a cutting edge Thoroughbred, not a Plain Jane 350 V8. It had to be completely refurbished after each launch because it was pushed so hard and was operated with very little design margin.

>>the space shuttle reused all it's rocket stages

it did throw away the main tank, not an inexpensive bit of kit.

>>59707484
>Well the current non reusable falcon 9 carries at $2000 per kg which is already 30 times more efficient than the shuttle.

can't compare

The falcon 9 is not currently man rated, you would have to compare cost to orbit to a freight non-man rated rocket like the Boeing delta series

launching a man rated vehicle on a man rated engine costs a fucton more than a cargo ship, the shit needed to keep men alive (that does not count as cargo) takes up a lot of weight and thus fuel

>>59707486
>It had to be completely refurbished after each launch because it was pushed so hard and was operated with very little design margin.
Which is fucking retarded if you think about its use as a reusable engine.

I heard that by the hydrogen running through btw it would be possible to touch the engine on the outside running at full power without burning your hand. Not sure if this is just a myth or not

>>59707486
>it did throw away the main tank, not an inexpensive bit of kit.

ACTUALLY it was inexpensive comparitivly and was designed to just be a big pressure vessle that would be discarded
Spacex is throwing away it's whole second stage and fuel tank and rocket motor

not an inexpensive piece of kit

>>59705666
What a waste of reaction mass.

File: 1421080718661.jpg (83KB, 607x835px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 607x835px

>>59705666
>this is a quantum leap for spaceflight technology
>quantum leap

>>59707534
>Spacex is throwing away it's whole second stage and fuel tank and rocket motor
>not an inexpensive piece of kit

Yes. What they are trying to do now is the best they can.

What finally killed the SS was that the entire concept was shit. Not only did its particular implementation never live up to cost expectations, but the ice and insulation shedding from the main tank always was a risk to the main vehicle.

I have always wondered: At one point they changed the foam insulation covering the main tank to get rid of the CFC's. Did this particular change compromise the foam's integrity?

That would be a fucking riot.

>>59705805
That sounds like a ridiculous hiring method

>>59705666
It would be such a shame if someone ... accidentally... created the Kessler Synrome...

File: basket.jpg (43KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x399px

>>59707731
>What finally killed the SS was that the entire concept was shit. Not only did its particular implementation never live up to cost expectations, but the ice and insulation shedding from the main tank always was a risk to the main vehicle.

If you look at the original engineering estimates and requirements for the shuttle it shows just what a failure it was, they were supposed to launch a shuttle every 2 or 3 weeks year round, it was supposded to get the price down so low that regular people could ride it, It was supposed to cost like half a billion per year for the whole program, not 1.5 billion per launch with a turnaround time of 6 to 9 months

As and oldfag who remembers all this (remember the canceled 2 trips to the moon to move along with the shuttle, the shuttle came on the heels of the success of Apollo) it just strikes me how Spacex is basically promising the exact same shit for the exact same reasons as the shuttle program promised int he late 70s.

Musk has not yet lost people in space, he has not lost a major billion dollar DARPA sat or anything like that. Those setbacks are inevitable and when they happen so much bureaucracy and redundancy goes into fixing them to get back to flight after killing people that it will triple his cost per pound of payload to orbit. All the other players have learned this lesson the hard way, Musk will too.

It's not the cost of fuel and the cost of the engine that kills you, it's the entire program apparatus around a "safe" human spaceflight program that does you in price wise

>the goyim fell for the balding old man while the military has had tr3b for decades

Five shuttles were built, Two blew up and killed everyone inside. Not a good success rate.

>>59708966

I suspect that the risk profile for spaceX will be different. NASA tries to be perfect. In spite of that about 1-2% of every rocket launches kill their crew (every nation combined). It is the most dangerous occupation.

People are fully willing to die in a journey to Mars for example. Hell, the first woman in space (Russian) is willing to go on a one way trip to Mars. The risk profile that NASA wants to have is absurd. Because NASA and the space program is ostensibly a national treasure, and so much political weight is put behind not slaughtering a bunch of national heroes (or spam in the can), safety and risk management have gotten out of hand.

What were the odds of survival of the first people crossing the Atlantic? Not great. Yet they got on with it.

>>59705805
Everything I hear about the work ethic there is you put in 90 hours a week and you love it or you quit.

>>59709449

NASA is willing to take big risks when trying to go to the moon or mars, but not when trying to take some engineer to LEO and the space station, which is where we are now.

I don't know if Spacex will really get to take US Astronauts into orbit, but I suspect that Orion will be run and managed by nasa

if musk starts getting space tourists killed at the 2% rate it will put him out of business IMO

>>59707513
You sound like an intel shill

>>59709512
>if musk starts getting space tourists killed at the 2% rate it will put him out of business IMO

Hang with me here:
SpaceX is the single most valuable company right now on the planet. Not because of what they have right now, it is because of what they will/may become. The opportunities to create LEO private satellite internet. global coverage. low latency. This one company has the tools and technology to replace every single communications company on the planet and get a monthly fee from everybody on the planet.

No shit, they are working hard on the Interplanetary Transport System. This hardware is insane.

They expect a launch to mars with the Falcon Heavy by 2020. They expect to privately land a craft on mars.

All of the resources of the entire solar system are in the reach of being tapped by a single company led by a guy that just wants to kick ass and take names.

NASA, the Russians, Boeing; they are all punks.

This single company has the potential to be "The Company" from the alien/aliens movies.

Amazing potential, and being privately held so they don't have to answer to shareholders right now.

>>59705805
/g/entooman in spacex?

>>59705805
luck anon!

>>59709837
>The opportunities to create LEO private satellite internet. global coverage. low latency. This one company has the tools and technology to replace every single communications company on the planet and get a monthly fee from everybody on the planet.

It would be amazing if they did this and it is within their means, they should focus on this. But that makes them a telecom company.

>>59709837
>They expect a launch to mars with the Falcon Heavy by 2020. They expect to privately land a craft on mars.

They might land a rover by 2020 but taking people to mars is a long way off and would require everyone (nasa ATK, lockhead etc... all working together) Go look at how many companies were involved in the moonshot, they had literally 100,000 engineers employed at one point, it would require that kind of effort, spacex can't pull it off alone and with no expected direct profit return

I don't hate spacex or anything, but I have heard their line of reasoning before and it did not work out. Running deliveries to the space station of cargo and putting sats in orbit are what they do, they have never put a human into LEO, they should put a human into LEO or land a man on the moon before they start talking smack about colonizing mars in the next 20 years

>>59709923
ummm that does look like cgi?

>>59706280
>Not knowing the benefits of waffle fins
>Implying it's not a mostly empty aluminum can at that point
>Hurr durr what is torque

>>59709906

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPQvTgD2quQ

it's been done

>>59709923

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

>>59705666
why not just built two...

>>59710021

Same reason you don't get a new car when all you need is an oil change.

>>59709837
>NASA, the Russians, Boeing; they are all punks.
>This single company has the potential to be "The Company" from the alien/aliens movies.

Literally all spacex does is deliver supplies to the space station (built by NASA mainly). They are a cargo delivery company, that's all. NASA puts rovers on mars and operates Hubble and the ISS, spacex literally takes out the garbage from the ISS, delivery of cargo and garbage removal, that's their thing.

I don't think it's time to write of NASA and the Russians just yet

>>59709992
>>59710005

Are you retarded?

>>59709956
>It would be amazing if they did this and it is within their means, they should focus on this. But that makes them a telecom company.

They are working on it, I think with google. Maybe a year or two ago it was in the news. They basically are going to have lots of rockets (?how many have they landed?) These things are now already paid for, and can launch satellites for the company itself. Even if a used rocket could never be man-rated, it can launch lots of satellites.

>>I don't hate spacex or anything, but I have heard their line of reasoning before and it did not work out.

The only reason they have not already launched people is they are working on improving the safety of the systems enough to satisfy NASA. Their rockets are already much better than anything used to launch the first people.

Watch this video (99% sure this is the right one). It almost seems like a bunch of sci-fi bullshit until the end, when they show hardware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1YxNYiyALg


They are much further along the design and engineering than their launch manifest would indicate.

>>59710158
I know about their internet LEO constellation promises, I keep up with space news

>>59710158
>The only reason they have not already launched people is they are working on improving the safety of the systems enough to satisfy NASA. Their rockets are already much better than anything used to launch the first people.

not much of a measure of safety as the first rockets were converted ICBM boosters flown by military test pilots who knew they might die

They just lost a rocket last year, I don't think spacex is going to beat that 1-2% death rate

But where is the money to get to mars going to come from? Let's say you have to employ 100,000 engineers for 5 years and then build the space ship, and your target market is people who want to die on mars, there is no direct profit in it for them, how can they spend 500billion dollars on a trip to mars with no return?

That is the kind of thing governments and nations do

>>59710158
>Watch this video (99% sure this is the right one)

That's the right video, see the ~1:20 mark

>>59710228

musk is so pretentious, he's the steve jobs of space except he makes wild claims and does not deliver

>>59705805
Good luck anon!

>>59708854
Sounds to me like SpaceX will only hire people who are willing to put the work in. Not a bad thing.

>>59710214
>But where is the money to get to mars going to come from?

I think a lot of the $$ will come from governments and nations. Musk can say, to NASA and anybody else, "we are going to do this with or without you, do you want to be a part of it?" You would have to be a total fool to say no.

NASA struggles to do anything beyond probes on time and under budget. If Musk has a massive rocket ready, one big enough to take people beyond Mars, do you really think Congress is going to say no?

That rocket could have a big NASA painted on the side (right below SpaceX) or not. Do you think NASA is going to say no?

I think the real market is going to be colonization and materials. Once you get a colony established for whatever reason, you need a lot of cargo going back and forth.

File: bluemarblewest.jpg (1023KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 2048x2048px

Looks flat to me.

>>59709837
good post

>>59710134
If you call SpaceX a cargo delivery company then so is NASA, so are the Russians, just biological cargo. Basically your argument is bullshit because USA could not even get to the Space Station without Russian rockets. NASA buys Soyuz rockets to get people to and from ISS, that means your tax dollars are funding the Russian rocket industry. Not sure why you're so willing to shit on the only USA based company that can build a rocket to get to the ISS?

>>59705805
Good luck anon! You are going to make the space industry great again.

>>59706563
attempt what before? Getting hired by spaceX or sending rockets repeatedly into space?

if it's the latter, because they don't care about efficiency or saving materials

>>59709837
God willing

>>59705805
be sure to leak us awesome info

>>59710325
>I think a lot of the $$ will come from governments and nations. Musk can say, to NASA and anybody else, "we are going to do this with or without you, do you want to be a part of it?"

no he really can't, he does not have the capital

You know the Space Launch System is going on right?

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

Bigger than a Saturn 5 or anything musk could dream of

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/orion/index.html

Musk is a master marketer but the idea that NASA is full of punks and the Rrussians don't know what they are doing is laughable

NASA's budget is 18 billion dollars per year, musk makes most of his money taking out their trash, he will never have tens of billions of dollars to play with without having to show a return on investment, but that's what NASA can do

>>59710244

Yeah the guy is a hell of a salesmen, but landing a rocket on its ass in the middle of the ocean is batshit insane. Do you think NASA or Boeing would EVER have even tried this? Not a fucking chance. Too much risk of failure. Those organizations are allergic to failure, and yet failure is required for success.

>>59710344
>If you call SpaceX a cargo delivery company then so is NASA, so are the Russians, just biological cargo. Basically your argument is bullshit because USA could not even get to the Space Station without Russian rockets. NASA buys Soyuz rockets to get people to and from ISS, that means your tax dollars are funding the Russian rocket industry. Not sure why you're so willing to shit on the only USA based company that can build a rocket to get to the ISS?

Delivering human cargo may be a privilege musk never earns

humans are not cargo, conflating cargo success with having man capable systems is foolhardy at best and disingenuous at worst

>>59710419
>Yeah the guy is a hell of a salesmen, but landing a rocket on its ass in the middle of the ocean is batshit insane. Do you think NASA or Boeing would EVER have even tried this? Not a fucking chance. Too much risk of failure. Those organizations are allergic to failure, and yet failure is required for success.

ATK Ratheon and Boeing built the space shuttle

they are not immune or allergic to faluire

Which group is stranger. The one that thinks Elon Musk is a super human sent by god to save humanity or the one that thinks he's literally a low IQ / Steve Jobs type who doesn't known anything about math science and engineering?

>>59710487
>or the one that thinks he's literally a low IQ / Steve Jobs type who doesn't known anything about math science and engineering?

I don't think that, I think he is grandiose and so far from sending men to mars that it's comical to hear him talk about it happening anytime soon

he's no idiot but he has drank his own kool aid

The people who like him have no idea what NASA does or how much work goes into it, the group writing off nasa as a bunch of fags lumped with boeing who never did anything and the Russians who are fools is the worst group imo

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-30 at 1.49.46 PM.png (332KB, 431x677px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 431x677px

>>59710325
>you need a lot of cargo going back and forth.

You need a lot of cargo going there and hardly any going back. As elon put it, you could have pre-packaged pallets of crack cocaine and it would still not be profitable to send it back; output of mars will be for mars exclusively. This is not including humans and research materials which will surely be sent back.

The main output of Mars will be software. That is the only export of Mars that will make sense to send back. And Martians (that is, people who are from Earth who live on Mars) will be writing a fuck ton of software, I guarantee it.

Why does our software on Earth suck? Because we're suckers for convenience: You pick convenient software (Windows) to use, and it becomes supported; you don't study harder because it's easier to jerk off and get high, and so our engineers write worse softaware; we work for oil companies or government or other subsidized industries, where the quality of the software doesn't matter, and so we produce bad software AND let our skills decline.

These are kind of hand-wavey (very hand-wavey) reasons, but I feel like the intense resource constraints that Martians will endure is going to help us produce some insanely good software. We don't have as much energy, compute power, sure. But also we don't have wide open spaces, freedom of picking our foods, we could die anytime, our systems could leave us open to radiation poisoning or without water, or stranded without a fuel refinery/factory. The intense restrictions on human and compute resources will produce better software, just like the intense competition for mates on Earth produces Humans through evolution.

I surmise that AI revolution and Mars colonization will come around the same time

>>59710428
>something might never happen
>humans are not cargo, you're foolhardy etc
Try telling a ferry operator or Boeing that humans aren't cargo.

>>59710403
>no he really can't, he does not have the capital

I think he is going to get the capital from satellite internet eventually.

He just about has the capability to own the entire global market for satellite launches. Except for nation states that might refuse to launch on his system out of pride, his operating costs are what, 1/5; 1/10th of anybody elses. That money is pure fucking profit. He drops the price of a 'launch tested' rocket by 30%, the insurance rates to up by 20%, the customer is still super happy even if it has a slightly higher chance of blowing up.

Nobody can match the dude on $/lb to orbit. He will have a stream of $$$ to plow into R&D as he sees fit.

The SLS is only going to be bigger than the Saturn V in its later revisions. The Saturn V put I think like 140 or 150 tons in LEO once. The SLS is going to start out at ?70? tons IIRC.

Hell, NASA can't even fund mission to put on the SLS. Maybe what, one launch a year? Musk is going to be recycling most of the falcon heavy each launch.

>>59710325
>I think the real market is going to be colonization and materials. Once you get a colony established for whatever reason, you need a lot of cargo going back and forth.

?

they are going to need food and water and machines and computers and rockets and other heavy shit, what are they going to send back? rocks?

how big will the colony be? 50 people? that's not going to pay us back for the trillion dollars it will take to land them there

>>59710555

He needs to deliver on the internet thing and then put one person in orbit one time, then start talking the far fetched "we mars now" shit he talks

>>59705666
>Also, are russians aware that their space program is basically screwed, just like ESA?

Russians won't move their arses until thunder strikes.

>>59710466
>ATK Ratheon and Boeing built the space shuttle
>they are not immune or allergic to faluire

No shit, they fail. Failure is going to happen. They engineer business systems to avoid something that could not be avoided and all they do is spend more $$$ and operate slower.

All they really want is a bullshit front to say, "well we did everything we could have done to prevent it"

>>59710609
>All they really want is a bullshit front to say, "well we did everything we could have done to prevent it"

That front comes in engineering studies and all kinds of committees and shit that cost literally billions of dollars

carrying humans drives up the cost

ask richard branson about be caviler regarding putting humans in space

you don't hear about his shit anymore do you? one day musk will fuck up like that and his company will become boeing or LM, it's just the way it works

>>59710558
>what are they going to send back? rocks?

Footlockers full of gold, platinum, rare earth minerals.

Humans have been scraping the best part of the earth away for a thousand years. Can you imagine being the first gold miner in California? You can't turn over a bolder without finding a nugget.

A virgin planet is just sitting there that has never been seen by a prospector.

File: elon_staring_into_distance.jpg (40KB, 550x320px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 550x320px

>>59710527
I think that this post is OK, poster clearly appreciates the work that goes into rocketry, how hard it is, etc. Those are good things, which are better than their opposites, arrogance and foolishness. This anon has learned the lesson of humility and to be cautious with taking risks.

But perhaps you are making the mistake of thinking it's too hard - What if rocketry can be re-invented and made more reliable and cheaper, so that we can get to Mars? Your claim is that it's simply too hard, but you might have learned the wrong lesson in that you take too little risk and don't try hard enough. Peter Thiel (I know, I'm name dropping a bit too much) talks about how you can learn the following unique lessons:

1. Something is doable, and you just have to try hard enough, when it is actually impossible
2. Something is too hard, and you can't do it no matter how hard you try, when the thing is actually possible
3. Something is doable, and you just have to try hard enough, when that thing is actually possible.

Elon and SpaceX are in category 3 and this poster is in category 2. No shame on him, better to be in category 2 than category 3 most times and end up like Terry Davis, but still he is wrong.

>>59710658

You could launch solid gold from mars to earth and lose a million dollars a pound, you have no idea how expensive this shit is

>>59710668
>But perhaps you are making the mistake of thinking it's too hard - What if rocketry can be re-invented and made more reliable and cheaper, so that we can get to Mars? Your claim is that it's simply too hard,

I am not saying it's "too hard" to do, I am saying it's "too hard" for musk to do alone while wearing a cape and giving the finger to NASA

>>59710668

I am the guy you are talking about, I am in category 3 firmly, we have the tech to go to mars right now if we wanted to, but the nation is not behind it like they were for the moon

we lack the national will to fund a trip to mars at this time

>>59710668
Branson sure is happy for a guy whose space ship blew up and killed a guy

File: space_shuttle_STS-122.jpg (217KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 3000x2000px

>>59706808
>inferior
The Space Shuttle never worked correctly. It was supposed to be a gas-and-go spaceplane but instead it had to be completely rebuilt after every flight. Each of the shuttles was like a Ship of Theseus. It was meant to be the cheapest flight system in the world and ended up as the most expensive - half a billion dollars for every launch.

The Falcon 9 may be the first launch system to fulfill the original Space Shuttle's design promise - a ship that can fly into space, send off its payload, fly back to earth, get refueled and fly right back into space again.

>>59710789
>after replacing the whole second stage and rocket

it's not totally reusable anon

>>59710754

if you think a nation is needed for colonization of Mars, you are mistaken

we need the entirety of -humanity- behind it, at least first world countries with the ability to go into space. dividing ourselves into nations does not help our cause to colonize space.

i've always said reluctantly that space travel and colonization is a meme. it's simply not possible unless we cooperate.

>>59710804
You're right, of course. Then again, the first stage is a big enough deal in and of itself that it means a $62 million launch now costs $40 million.

Maybe it won't be possible to revise this design to recover the second stage, but that means we're stepping towards a design that can be.

>>59705805
hope you get it dude, good luck

>>59710819
>if you think a nation is needed for colonization of Mars, you are mistaken
>we need the entirety of -humanity- behind it, at least first world countries with the ability to go into space. dividing ourselves into nations does not help our cause to colonize space.
>i've always said reluctantly that space travel and colonization is a meme. it's simply not possible unless we cooperate.

I totally agree anon

most people have no idea how big a job it would be and how little short term reward there would be for doing it

File: soyuz.jpg (837KB, 2274x1506px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 2274x1506px

>>59707221
The Russians are literally still launching the same rockets and capsules they were launching half a century ago

It's kind of pathetic.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't really apply when the fuckers still cost $81 million each

>>59710698

If you start by saying it's impossble you will never do it.

Musk estimated the cost per person to be $500,000 to Mars (volume price of course).

Say a 200lb dude, and lets not include the food or water. 200lb*16(oz/lb)*(1000$/oz) = $3.2 million in gold value. And a brick can be shipped a whole lot cheaper than a person.

The energy cost is all that matters for cargo if you can recycle the ship. Energy isn't that expensive.

And this stuff is assuming chemical rockets.

>>59705666
>this is a quantum leap
A quantum leap is the smallest distance a nuclear particle can move.
Are you sure this is what you had in mind or are you just parroting stuff you've heard people say on TV?

>>59710884
>The Russians are literally still launching the same rockets and capsules they were launching half a century ago
>It's kind of pathetic.

I would agree if anyone else on earth had the ability to reliably send humans to the ISS

what is pathetic is the USA not planning for the retirement of the space shuttle (the writing was on the wall in 2004, columbia just crashed and the newest shuttle was 20 years old)) that was 13 years ago and still no manned flight system, that's 3 years longer than it took us to go from having no human capable launcher to landing on the moon (1960-1969)

The Russian system works, has put more men and women in space than any other system and has the best safety rate over the last 40 years of any launch system

>>59710902
>If you start by saying it's impossble you will never do it.

It's not impossible, it's not cost effective claiming we are going to pay for trips to mars by sending ore back is pure fantasy and uninformed speculation

File: YJlOf.png (235KB, 646x444px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 646x444px

>>59710938
next year should FINALLY be the year that changes

>>59710884
its also interesting that all this time they couldnt come up with ways to reduce cost of production even if its all the same.

>>59710952
>by sending ore back

I NEVER suggested sending ore back. launching a bunch of tailings and a little mineral really would be dumb.

That rocket looks about as aerodynamic as elon musk's forehead.

>>59710938

And so the conclusion of some people in this discussion is that it should be left to Governments and Nations to drive this effort forward?

That's a laugh.

NASA is going to launch the SLS just to attempt to prove that they can still launch a rocket.

>>59711054
>And so the conclusion of some people in this discussion is that it should be left to Governments and Nations to drive this effort forward?
>That's a laugh.

worked for getting to the moon desu

>>59710721
dude, you are misinformed, Musk and NASA are like two peas in a pod. Musk is extremely grateful for the 1.5bn contract SpaceX received in December 2008, NASA gets cheap-as-hell flights to and from ISS thanks to SpaceX, and employees of SpaceX are often from NASA and vice versa.

But, haters gon hate as the saying goes

>>59705805

Try hard loser. SpaceX is going nowhere in a hurry and over budget.

>>59711087
>dude, you are misinformed, Musk and NASA are like two peas in a pod. Musk is extremely grateful for the 1.5bn contract SpaceX received in December 2008, NASA gets cheap-as-hell flights to and from ISS thanks to SpaceX, and employees of SpaceX are often from NASA and vice versa.

obviously you have never been around a bunch of musk fans

File: Screen Shot 2016-11-30 at 1.50.10 PM.png (305KB, 374x652px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 374x652px

Any pro Mars Anons want to pontificate on the future software exports of Mars? Pls respond

>>59710532

You seen how it lands? Holy fuck, I didn't even think such a thing was possible.

>>59711110
>You seen how it lands? Holy fuck, I didn't even think such a thing was possible.

it's how the Apollo LM landed on the moon

>>59711078

Very true, but only for the purposes of winning the cold war.

Rockets were the tools to deliver nuclear weapons. Russians were winning the space race. MUST DO SOMETHING. A total national commitment was made.

This nation has no money to do anything except boomers knee replacements for the foreseeable future.

Give some company a fucking profit motive, and the room to operate, and sure as shit it will happen.

>>59710555
>The Saturn V
Had it blown up on the launch pad, have the force of a small nuclear weapon
It was a monster

>>59711127

That landed on a planet. The area that the rocket is landing on, from re-entering earth's orbit, is the size of an average grocery store.

>>59710804
I doubt second stage recovery will every be feasible. The fact is that in order to reach the higher orbits, even with the Space Shuttle, another motor was required. In the case of the Space Shuttle the satellite itself had a larger motor attached to it so that it could be launched into higher orbits like GTO from the parking orbit that the Space Shuttle achieved.

Basically the Space Shuttle itself was never designed to go beyond LEO, which is probably achievable by just the first stage of the Falcon 9, but to get satellites into useful orbits they usually have to get boosted. With the Space Shuttle this was done by a motor strapped onto the satellite, with the Falcon 9 this is done by the second stage.

>>59706954
>>59706808
>being this retarded
The space shuttle didn't take itself to space. It was attached to rockets, which weren't reusable. Elon made reusable rockets.

>>59711295
The Shuttle SRBs were reused. They required a lot of refurbishment though.

>>59705666
>dont fund nsa subsidize my company instead

File: IMG_4323-879x485.jpg (54KB, 879x485px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 879x485px

>>59707221

this

REUSABILITY IS A MEME

>>59707534
>Spacex is throwing away it's whole second stage

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847882289581359104

>>59710926
Another way of looking at is as 'a movement from one discrete position to another', which is an appropriate description of SpaceX's affect on its field.

File: STS Orbiter 1.png (206KB, 834x473px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 834x473px

>>59708966

nasa wanted a tiny reusable spaceplane originally

the airforce and nro intervened though and this not only resulted in a substantially larger shuttle, but also a mission requirement for a polar orbit and landing at vandenberg

File: Maisie_Smith.jpg (93KB, 634x725px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 634x725px

>>59711462

Mars missions will be too expensive unless there's a cheap way to get bulk water, oxygen, food, building materials etc into Earth orbit. The stuff is practically worthless compared with the launch cost so hauling it up with 10th use rockets and capsules definitely makes sense.

tl;dr If you want manned space missions, you need cheap haulage.

How do we deal with the radiation issue of life on Mars

Shit that's cool.
Wonder if they won't bother with barges soon and just land it a mile or so away from the refurb plant/launch site?

File: macfag_beats.jpg (6KB, 232x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 232x250px

>>59711767

Magnets

https://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/2017/03/06/make-mars-habitable-artificial-magnetic-field-nasa-scientists-say/

>>59711767

Lots of tunnels. Hence Musk's obsession with the hyperloop.

Inb4 the bad domes and mutants of Ahnold's Total Recall.

>>59711801
They already have onshore landing sites, the problem is that to put craft into certain orbits requires longer first stage burns which doesn't leave as much fuel to return to those landing sites.

Block 5 may solve some of this. They certainly won't achieve 24 hour turn around if they have to land 80% of them on barges.

>>59705805
good luck my dude

>>59711805
>>59711808
You know how scientists wear hazmat suits to block radiation, well, why not make domes to live in made out of the same material, or is the radiation too strong. Is where is it coming from anyway? The sun?

File: mars_l1_magnetic_shield.png (638KB, 1491x1055px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 1491x1055px

>>59711909

Pic related.

>>59710214
Musk has repeatedly made clear than any manned missions they fly to Mars won't be one-way. The whole point of how the ITS is designed is that it can refuel itself from the Martian atmosphere and come back to Earth.

All intentionally one-way Martian spaceflights performed by SpaceX will be unmanned, e.g. pure cargo and rover missions.

>>59711909
>Is where is it coming from anyway? The sun?
Yes. You know that thing we have called an atmosphere? Well Mars doesn't have much of one. Also Mars doesn't have a magnetic field as good as Earth's.
Both these things help reduce the radiation from the Sun.

One solution is the materials used to make the habitats and space suits, another is to put the habitats under ground or cover them in soil.

Probably a combination of the two will be best.

>>59711954
Cool.

>>59711954
>giant solar power plant in mars lagrange 1
>doubles as solar deflector shield
>beams power to mars

File: ITS-and-Saturn.jpg (132KB, 1037x1977px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1037x1977px

>>59710403
>Bigger than a Saturn 5 or anything musk could dream of
ITS/BFR, if built as currently planned, makes the SLS look like a raging joke. 300T to LEO in reusable mode, 550T to LEO in expandable mode, and 450T to Mars with orbital refuel, compared to the permanently disposable SLS' meager 130T to LEO in Block 2 configuration, which won't even be flying until 2030.

SLS is a small-minded extension of pre-existing designs. That alone dampens its potential to near irrelevancy.

>>59711909

There is lots of different types of radiation. Alpha and Beta particles can be stopped by just a little air gap or a sheet of paper. Those suits are good for that as well as preventing breathing or ingesting small radioactive particles.

For anything harsh, they are not so good.

Our atmosphere is about the equivalent of many feet (?20'?) of concrete in regards to shielding us from the nasty stuff coming from the sun and the rest of space.

In spite of that we bathe in a soft radiation environment plenty harsh enough to occasionally break DNA and give us the cancer (and to evolve).

>>59711973
this guy has good info.

Water is a pretty good shield too.

>>59706280
#makefrogsstraightagain

>>59712097
>SLS is a small-minded extension of pre-existing designs.
>we have stuff left over from the shuttle program, lets make a rocket!
NASA's SLS program.

>>59712137
>Water is a pretty good shield too.
Water is too useful to irradiate.

>>59710527
Musk fans generally don't hate NASA, they hate the SLS and the companies that worked on the Shuttle.

And for good reason: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/new-report-nasa-spends-72-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/

The only reason there's so much overhead is due to congress scattering manufacturing across as many states as possible and cash disappearing into nameless pockets somewhere in ULA's endless chain of subcontractors.

NASA could be doing so much more if these bloated behemoths would just clean up their act and congress would defer to individuals who actually know a thing or two about spaceflight, but neither of these is happening any time soon. Looking at it this way, it's understandable why SpaceX and Blue Origin are attracting fanbases.

>>59710403
>what NASA can do

Yeah, exactly. If current NASA budget was allocated to a Mars mission (a Zubrin-like plan)--not that this would ever happen--we could be there in a decade. The point is that it's a government institution, and it's being pulled in every direction. The advantage of a private initiative is focus. So comparing budgets right now is misleading.

>>59705805
have fun with the south african slave labor

>>59712175
That'd be great if the development times and costs matched the concept of sticking pre-existing parts together to form a rocket. The problem is that they don't. Assuming FH flies late this summer, the SLS will have taken longer and costed far more to develop than it took to bootstrap a new space company from scratch, develop a moderate-lift orbital rocket, make the damn thing land itself, and develop a self-landing heavy-lift vehicle.

That's insane. It means that NASA potentially could've had their heavy lift rocket faster and cheaper if they had started a new company and developed it from scratch than they would have with the "duct tape it together" plan.

>>59709992
rocket boosters are recycled into new ones, they are not refueled and used again

>>59712182

If it is along for the ride, it is getting irradiated along with you. Better to stick it between you and space, and let any as much energy be absorbed by it rather than your DNA.

>>59712364
I honestly think that at this stage NASA should just stick to the science side; probes, ISS, etc and training astronauts while private companies supply the rockets.

There's really no need for them to be in the rocket business anymore, especially when they don't have any active launch platforms while they have multiple choices they can use instead, even discounting foreign.

This has been one of the best threads on this board that I've seen all week. Why the fuck don't we have a space flight general, this shit is fascinating as fuck.

If a bunch of dweebs can jerk off over other peoples rooms, we can jerk off over propulsion systems and satellites right?

>>59712421
I agree. NASA should pull the plug on Old Space's life support to force them to actually fucking compete for once and instead use that vast pool of funds for things like developing mind-shatteringly huge and capable telescopes, extensive plans for science missions on other worlds, etc.

>>59712379
They were refurbished, but the refurbishment was extensive while SpaceX aims to reduce the refurbishment of the Falcon 9s to the point where they either don't need to change out anything or so little they can do it within 24 hours.

Basically at this stage SpaceX is roughly equal to where NASA was at with the Shuttle, taking about a year to refurbish for reuse. Something NASA didn't manage to significantly improve on in the nearly 40 years the Shuttle program ran.

When they relaunch a booster within six months it will be a big deal. Three months will really nail the Shuttle coffin shut.

>>59705805
Don't blow anyone up anon.

>>59706682
>You will never be good enough to get job offers without even doing anything

>>59712522
Allahu Akbar

>>59712428
There's some ok space talk on /sci/ but you also get a lot of trolls and ultra-jaded folk who have just given up on space. The subject is certainly wide enough to have its own board.

>>59712487
Something worth emphasizing is that even if the refurbishment currently takes them a year, the cost of doing so is already dramatically lower than doing the same to the Shuttle costed, and that's only going to get cheaper as SpaceX figures out where the stress points are and rolls the changes into their fleet.

>>59705666
Did it land?

>Space X hasn't even managed a manned mission yet.
>People are excited about them reusing a cylinder.

We're never getting to Mars.

>>59706682
What role would you have been in?

Would they still be missing the barges if they had hired you?

>>59712676
Manned crewed dragon is coming next year. Most of the larger hurdles have been cleared at this point so it's very likely they'll hit their target date.

And then this is happening shortly after: http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year

>>59712428
this
and I think it is because someone who disagrees actually gave arguments, or at least showed how this had happened before

his point of view is interesting, because musk promises so much... yet lots of things still need to happen

File: K1471360556400.png (1MB, 1355x1208px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1355x1208px

>>59705805
Good luck anon. Screencap this thread and show it to your interviewer

PUT ME IN THE SCREENCAP

>>59712606
Yes. Musk is going to waste it by putting it on display like the first one they landed.

>>59712676
The Crew Dragon is a separate program that is in development. Manned missions are coming and will be exciting, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that SpaceX is achieving significant goals in their Falcon program.

>>59712725
>>59712735
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqQ6jD52r_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki_dS0vGmpE

>>59712768
Expecting zero failures is impractical and paralyzing. It's exactly how you rot an entire field as science as the other fields whizz past.

Instead, one should prepare well for inevitable failure (as Crew Dragon's escape systems do quite well) and learn as much as possible from each failure.

>>59712768
Do you want us to pull up all the failures on all previous rocket platforms?

Every rocket has had its share of failures. Soyuz had about 25 failures in it's history. Protons still occasionally fail. If we trace the Atlas family back there are about 40 failures.

The Falcon is a new rocket doing new things using technology that hasn't been done in its class of launch vehicle. The fact that it has had relatively few launch failures and has reached a point where landing the rockets successfully is normal is really quite astounding.

I just want to fucking live on Mars with a qt colonist. Wtf!

>>59712421
>There's really no need for them to be in the rocket business anymore, especially when they don't have any active launch platforms while they have multiple choices they can use instead, even discounting foreign.

They were never in the rocket business, rockets were always built by private companies

not much difference between buying them from some company or leasing them as with spacex

>>59708966
>It's not the cost of fuel and the cost of the engine that kills you, it's the entire program apparatus around a "safe" human spaceflight program that does you in price wise

this

>>59713692
The rockets were built by private companies but NASA was still planning them and ordering them.

>>59713814
>The rockets were built by private companies but NASA was still planning them and ordering them.

not really, they would list requirements (has to lift x load to y orbit etc...) and let private companies design the rockets

today it's just spacex designing some rockets and not ATK, but they are both private companies. Nasa never built or designed any vehicles

Does the navy design fighter jets? No they put out requirements then get Lockheed to design and build them, the navy just maintains them when purchased like nasa did with the shuttles

File: eyELdt9o.jpg (32KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 512x512px

>>59711695

NO

WE HAVE DONE THE MATH REUSABILITY MAKE NO SENSE

WE ALSO HAVE FULL LAUNCH SCHEDULE AND EVERYTHING IS GOING FINE JUST NEED MORE EU MONEY

He sure got a lot of press for landing that rocket.

>>59705805
>working 2nd-degree linkedin connections
explain?

>>59714623

it means he was bugging people he does not know to help him

File: 1491075799677.jpg (56KB, 1024x653px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1024x653px

Just a reminder that Elon Musk should be in jail for the rest of his life if not executed for receiving billions in tax payer money for high risk ventures even though he was already a billionaire from paypal.

>>59714962
How does that make any sense?

File: Artist_s_view_of_the_Ariane_6_four_boosters_configuration_A64.jpg (2MB, 3443x1732px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3443x1732px

leave spacex to me

>>59715089
>at least three more years until first flight

>>59715286
>how dare they not rush the construction of a new design

>>59715320
You can hardly say to "leave spacex to" it when SpaceX is continuing to advance their own projects in the meantime.

Falcon Heavy will have twice the payload capability and Falcon 9 is only a little behind the maximum projected Ariane 64 capability in the Full Thrust version while being substantially cheaper per launch.

Not quite sure where you are getting this confidence from.

>>59715378
>>59715320
>>59715089
>>59715286
Don't worry.
The EU will make sure Arianespace is kept alive on taxpayer dollars even if they hemorrhage money

>>59707221
reminder govt programs are always more expensive and less productive/able to accomplish their goals than private companies are.

It's not your money going towards it, so why not sit back and see what they come up with?

>>59707533
there is a tiny bit of truth, they design the engines so that a layer of cooler gas is protecting the cone, but I don't reckon you could put your hand on it.

>>59715378
Ariane rockets don't blow up on the launchpad, and they aren't attempting to refurbish engines

>>59715507
>always
wrong

>>59710158
they landed 8 rockets it think.

>>59715852
Ariane rockets have had explosive failures though, including the Ariane 5. It's not like they have a perfect launch history to boast of.

>>59705666
Space exploration will become mandatory for human survival.

That or fund a mass genocide project full of dakka.

>>59705666
> quantum leap
Fuck off you Buzz spewing faggot, go suck his rotting dick you brain dead shitter.

>>59716367
you don't know anything you popsci faggot

>>59715507
>It's not your money going towards it,

Our tax money directly pays spacex to deliver goods to the ISS, which is their main source of income dummy

>>59706229
lol

>>59710990
>>59710884
who cares, other nations are paying for them, they don't have the western culture to cut costs while maintaining prices up, they have a monopoly and no need to do something more

>>59710532
Completely and utterly wrong. When safety and survival is paramount and mistakes are costly the tried and tested reign supreme.

>>59714962
Cite what laws were broken or fuck off with your teentard rage.

>>59705805
CE undergrad here, looking to do an internship at spacex during my final summer.

Good luck man

So why didn't they have the same setup for recording the landing this time? The previous landing they had a long aerial shot, but nothing this time? Only the up close easy to fuck up shot? Seems suspicous that they wouldn't spend a few extra bucks adding a long distance shot so they can at least ensure they get something to show the public.