It's easy to fake a rocket when nobody understands rocket

>>132284850
maybe capitalism works sometimes

>>132284850
>every space agency said it couldn't be done

Everyone always says that, until someone does it.

>>132284850
Musk hired a German engineer to design it

>>132284952
Rocketry is too mature a technology to produce monumental gains anymore.

I'll need to see an independent assay of their finances to see where the reusable rocket saved them money.

>>132284850
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to note that reusability reduces cost of manufacturing new parts.
Also NASA fiddled with the idea a while back in the 70's or so, but dropped it due to gps inaccuracies that wouldn't guarantee it would land on a defined portion of a ship.

>>132285138
>saved them money
They are in all probability cooking the shit out of their books

>>132285090
>Everyone always says that, until someone does it.

>Times this has happened: Zero.

>>132285103
They can't even manage to copy the russian RD-180 from the 1970's.

>>132285147
>You don't need to be a rocket scientist to note that reusability reduces cost of manufacturing new parts.

Not when the stresses placed on the vehicle make it impossible to recover the components without significant wear and tear. If they have to replace most of the components and pay people to do it, it won't be a reduction of cost.

>>132285269
I've no doubt that is exactly what they are doing.

>>132285442
Not outside parts faggot, instruments and the probe core and such like, although much of the engine can be salvaged also.

>>132284850
>How did they make a reusable rocket that costs less than a new one when every space agency said it couldn't be done?


They said it was pointless because there isnt that many rocket launches to make reusability worthwhile. Elon said we will launch hundreds so it will be worthwhile.

>I have searched high and low and i cannot find any evidence of outside groups that don't benefit from spaceX investigating their operations and observing the refurbishment process and accounting for the costs compared to a new rocket.


Nobody knows yet. It might even be more expensive. But making a rocket also costs time. If you get the rocket back at least you dont need to make a new one.

>They must be lying. It's not like anything else Musk does stands up under scrutiny.

They might be. Why is this on /pol btw?

>>132285288
>Times this has happened: Zero.

>You can't transmit information wirelessly!
>You can't split the atom!
>You can't become president by bullying people and verbally shitposting!

Maybe it was powered by Elon Musk's hubris?

File: Spacex reentry.webm (765KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 640x360px

>>132284850

>American does not understand the military industrial complex

They literally paid the media off to edit testimonials from Niel Armstrong and Eugene Cernan to discredit Spacex and continue burning taxpayer money.

>>132284850
Are you really asking why it's more expensive to build a whole new rocket every time you put something in orbit?

>>132286193
Fake af

>>132284850
What are you, a flat earther?

>>132284850
Let me guess, you have a BA in Baroque Chamber Music.

>>132285890
This.

>>132286259
I know it seems counter intuitive but yes that is exactly the case.

Over the course of its life, the Russian Soyuz rocket system has been more reliable, delivered more people and a larger payload to space for less money than the Shuttle program.

Maintenance costs exceed construction costs.

Op, I have to say you are quite silly.
Are you familiar with the concept of capitalism and the free market?
If there are costs are not actually reduced due to reuse, then they will either
a) not be able to win bids if their prices are too high,
or,
b) will go bankrupt due to costs being greater than income.
Either way they would cease to function.

File: cheap-drones.jpg (501KB, 1050x700px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1050x700px

>>132284850
can fly up, balance, land 100$
how can they do it on a larger scale for hundreds of millions of $ with the best scientists and engineers in the world ?
must be magic

File: 656546565.jpg (61KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1280x720px

>>132286477

Not an argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FU0l2JHhGs

>>132286688
Digits.....

>>132285890
No expert in those fields made those claims.
>>132285890

But you forgot one: "The Concorde is the future of air travel!"

Also, other space agencies and companies are now developing reusable rockets. See for example Blue Origin.
Go to reddit.com/r/spacex to get educated.

>>132287023
SpaceX doesn't operate in a free market.

>>132285860
/pol/ is the only place with level headed people.

>>132287099
Plenty of experts in those field made those claims. We have many political expect claim that Trump would lose. Those same experts claim that he will be impeached.

>>132287284
No expert in atomic theory said we couldn't split the atom.

All you're doing is showing how anecdote is not evidence.

>>132287255
It's true that gov subsidies distort the market. But in the long run I expect it to get more free.

>>132286259
Explosions/failures, limited re-use cycles, cost of recovery and rebuilding..
Musk doesn't have to prove profitability to float his scam indefinitely.

>>132287099
It would have been if fucking pussies didn't bitch and moan about sonic booms.

>>132285288
remember when flying was impossible? when computers where tought to be bigger in the future?

>>132287259
Why thank you!
Thats the only good thing I heard on /pol/ today.

File: Screen%20Shot%202017-03-12%20at%202.14.38%20PM.png (898KB, 574x908px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 574x908px

>>132284850
Elon is a 3d sensory appendage of a higher dimensional being, currently local in Hilbert space. You gotta know it by his record boys.

>>132287409
So wait you are saying that since if all three of those thing aren't met it must not be true. Also Atomic theory didn't always exist and these was a reason why the manhatten project was a big deal. You are pretending like every atomic scientist at the time knew how to split an atom.

>>132284850
>>132285288

Wew lad. Remember when people said we would never fly?
Also regardless of what you believe, the reason other space agencies didn't make much headway is because of, shocker, politics. NASA and similar organizations were hilariously politicized.
And I don't know if its actually "reusable" yet. It's merely refurbishable. They haven't quite gotten it down to reusable yet and have to at least take it apart for maintenance before every launch.

>>132284850
Every space agency never said it could not be done. They were doing it for quite a while, just in a different way. Space Shuttle was reusable, as were the SFBs. The only thing they threw away was the main fuel tank. The public just shit themselves the moment a shuttle explosion happened, and then quit on the entire thing when the second one went. Musk is doing great things, but his cost is very high still. They never mention that when they bring a Falcon back they have to totally rebuild it replacing almost every part every time. And just wait until one full of people explodes. It will be the shuttle program all over again.

File: eande-f1bchart.jpg (495KB, 1313x1080px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1313x1080px

>>132285138
Not entirely. Raptor is the powerful and efficient chemical rocket ever devised, but it's because of small improvements to technology over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)
The F-1 engines built for the Saturn V were giant monstrosities covered in welds, where the F-1B redesign a couple years ago of the exact same engine is incredibly elegant because of better manufacturing techniques (pic related).

>>132288280
i spel n thinc gud: Raptor is the best mix of thrust and efficiency chemical rocket ever devised

File: 4c (23).png (587KB, 999x533px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 999x533px

>>132284850
>said it couldn't be done

It's called engineering progress.
It's called learning from your mistakes.
It's called evolution.

You have a unique and very special type of stupid in your life.

>>132284952
>sometimes

100% of the time

File: mermack 304.jpg (39KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 620x413px

>>132284850
uhhhhh why is that rocket so fucking big? pic related is the boat it is on next to men for comparison

>>132285103
>Muh German engineering
t. Fag

>People actually accomplishing things with their lives
>IT'S FAKE

Some people would attribute your paranoia to being schizophrenic, but I attribute it to your inferiority complex. I'll give it to you, though. You can believe whatever you want to believe in order to give you the idea that you are "better" than others because you're not like all those other sheep and have acquired knowledge others could not. It's a great way to build up your ego without actually having to do anything. You probably need it, too. It's a huge world full of people doing all sorts of things, and boy do you need something.

>>132288525
because small rockets don't have enough dV.

>>132288525
big rocket hold more fuel. more fuel mean more potential for change in velocity. change in velocity needed to move things far. some things that need be move far are big. big things that need be move far need more change in velocity because heavy. more potential change in velocity need more fuel.

>>132288525
Escape velocity is relatively high and the things they shoot up into space are massive.

The scale doesn't look off at all. Put those guys at the cockpit of shuttle (one they are going to live in for a while, mind you) attached to the rocket and I'd say that's pretty on point.

>>132284850
easy
Just another CIA front
http://mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf

File: 1474436541420.jpg (72KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x640px

>>132288525
>why is a rocket meant to shoot huge payloads into outer space big

God damn public school education

>>132285288
>They can't even manage to copy the russian RD-180 from the 1970's.
That's united launch alliance with gibsmedats from congress, not spacex

And spacex wouldn't want to copy the RD-180 - their own engines are better.

File: 1325538763283.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

>>132288573

Damn, that's a great quote to use against conspiracy theorists.

In the 90's I touched with my own hand a rocket that could launch and land at McDonald Douglas. Cutbacks to space and the incoming merger sidetracked it by companies seeking higher profits with the Delta and ULA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

>>132284850
There's literally already 2 companies with functional reusable rockets. This isn't some musk conspiracy. Science advances, what couldn't be done yesterday can be done today.

>>132286756
The space shuttle also had to be taken apart and reassembled/refurbished after every single flight with mountains of checks.

The maintenance costs exceeded the construction costs because they were essentially taking the damn thing apart and reassembling it every launch.

>>132284850

magnets

>>132286193
I wasn't going to say this was fake until I saw how quickly it went from entering the atmosphere to reaching the ocean floor

File: spacex_its_diagram_01_by_william_black-dajb75b.jpg (144KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 894x894px

>>132289485
SpaceX ITS. The name of the first ship for a full test run: Heart of Gold.

File: FYvrC.jpg (663KB, 3478x2318px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 3478x2318px

launch in a few min btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASbCLpWDPV4

>>132284850
rocket science was hard when you didn't have the math and engineering needed to build one.

NASA has shared all of this info with spacex so they don't need to develop any one it, just reapply. I know alot of the guys that work there, and they are not rocket scientists. They're just engineers, many with only BS degrees.

The years of developtment cost much more than the cost of building a rocket, but thats not to take anything away from spacex. They were able to do much of the work without using union labor, which was dragging NASA projects with all the dead weight the extra cost, red tape, strikes, ect.

And, Launch Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASbCLpWDPV4

>>132288247
>They never mention that when they bring a Falcon back they have to totally rebuild it replacing almost every part every time.

No they don't

>>132289864

So I'm assuming you've never even operated a VCR and have no concept of the idea of fast forwarding footage?

NASAs space shuttle is reuseable.

>>132289978
Turns out we can do really cool shit if we don't have to purely rely on slide rules and analogous system analysis.

>>132289864

what is a sped up video

>>132290060
Not rapidly reusable. Their fuckup was design by committee and not iterating on the design.

>>132290052
nowhere in the video did it say it was fast forwarded

File: 1455876799056.jpg (63KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 633x758px

>>132289935

>SpaceX will not attempt to land Falcon 9’s first stage after launch due to mission requirements.

BUILD THE FUCKING HEAVY ALREADY YOU CHEAP FUCKS.

Watching the rocket land back on the dot does look pretty cool anon, have you included that in your costs vs benefits?
>>132286119
Kek

File: 1491778991151.jpg (98KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 409x409px

>>132289601
>the last 5 seconds

>>132284850
>every space agency

The only one worth even talking about is NASA, and they're not exactly in a position to be perfectly unbias are they champ

ABORT LUL

>>132290198

wow imagine that, an out of context webm doesn't have a whole minute dedicated to the specifics of the video

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

>>132290198
MENSA candidate right here

>>132289978

>many with only BS degrees

Frankly if you're a top player in your STEM industry and you wasted 4-6 years in college getting a masters, you made a mistake. Oh and if you are that smart, doors are automatically opened for you. I was in my field at 18.

File: krispykremecoffee-em-50850209.jpg (683KB, 3000x2004px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 3000x2004px

>>132288517
>100% of the time

File: 1440217271549.jpg (94KB, 858x536px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 858x536px

>>132290198
What a dingus

>>132290352
even if it was fast forward the amount of time it took to descend once it entered the atmosphere was disproportionately short

>>132289978
some of them are probably rocket scientists. the actual term for that is "aerospace engineer." if any of the guys you know hold a degree in that discipline, they are rocket scientists.

This fake rocket shit is a special kind of stupid. You know you can drive your ass down to Florida and fucking watch launches with your own two eyes, right? You used to even be able to drive right up to the launch complex before the sandniggers ruined it for everyone. Night launches of the space shuttle were fucking amazing.

>>132290121

yeah, its funny, SpaceX does things very "fly by your seat" compared to NASA. NASA was all about going by the book on everything, even when it was obvious you shouldn't. My bud said that NASA engineers spent a lot of time at their facility and there was lots of heated moments between them because NASA guys kept telling them they were doing things wrong, or too moving too fast on tests, ect.

>>132287023
>Heavy government subsidies & investment
>Selling the dream to venture capitalists without showing profits (yet)
>Free market memes
Come on anon, muh free market doesn't mean it's immune from bankruptcy or fraud or unrealisable business models.

>>132290248
Pretty sick huh? At least it didn't come down terminal top down. We only got one launch. Musk had many failures on landing. Thing about rockets, you have to blow them up to get it right.

File: jeff-bezos-tambien-planea-llegar-a-la-luna-con-blue-origin-y-entregar-paquetes-como-si-fuese-amazon.png (34KB, 450x437px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 450x437px

>>132284850
Computers

Also Blue Origin is making a reusable powered descent landing rocket too.

>>132290453
no, it wasn't.

>>132288373
No. that's the RD-180.

>>132290453

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

this little nigga right here tends to help once you get inside the atmosphere

>>132287781
Remember when people said you couldn't have an investment fund that made gains each & every year for decades on end, and then (((Bernie Madoff))) proved them wrong?

>>132290686
Yes it was. It took a fraction of a second and then all of a sudden - oh look, the ocean and the landing pad. Bullshit. You would have seen much more of a descent. There was none, it was instantaneous.

>>132290412
Agreed, I only have a BS, and work on really cool projects, and make over 140k/yr and would never think about going back for my masters in engineering. Maybe I might go bakc for an executive MBA so I can lead my company at a high level. but the math and engineering needed in the early space program couldn't have been done with just smart engineers with BS's, it can be done now because the groundwork has been done.

We stand on the shoulders of giants.

>>132290453
Why would it be short? It only reaches an altitude of 100-150km and it's traveling 1.5km/s

Have you ever considered the possibility that you're too much of a brainlet to grasp basic physics, rather than assuming spacex is faking everything?

>>132289978
>many with only BS degrees

in non-trash majors a BS is enough

>>132290822

>They said I couldn't dump radioactive waste in the lake! Suckers!
>5 years later everyone in your city has cancer

yeah some real pioneering you did right there

i agree with you but you picked a stupid analogy

>>132289601
Specs-wise, wasn't the delta clipper roughly equivalent to what Bezos is flying now?

>>132290792
Gravity doesn't make heavier objects fall faster. That's gravity 101. Go look at the Redbull jump that guy did from the stratosphere, it took him forever to reach earth's surface. It was a process, even if you sped up the video he didn't just exit the capsule and then all of a sudden "lol look the earth's surface". Get the fuck out of here.

File: 1488774930759.jpg (76KB, 887x686px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 887x686px

>>132284850
>how did a private company beat out a bloated bureaucratic government agency that hemorrhages money?

>>132290601
So is ULA

SpaceX innovated and now everyone else in the market is playing catch-up.

File: 1498621597610.jpg (14KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 320x320px

>>132290860

>>132289736
Functionable but at what cost?
Throw enough money at something and you can make it work, the question is:
IS IT PROFITABLE TO DO?

>>132290470
Most are electrical and mechanical engineers. They have a few aerospace engineers but almost none have higher level degrees

>>132291058

it certainly makes things fall a lot faster than when they're in fucking space, oh my GOD

That jump was performed inside the atmosphere, the jumper was not entering from space otherwise he would have burned up on reentry

>>132290925
So a rocket that's in free fall travels 1.5km/s?

>Near the surface of the Earth, an object in free fall in a vacuum will accelerate at approximately 9.8 m/s2, independent of its mass. With air resistance acting on an object that has been dropped, the object will eventually reach a terminal velocity, which is around 53 m/s (195 km/h or 122 mph)

>>132290822
You don't work for Macquarie do you?

>>132290744
Raptor has higher ISP. RD-180 is 338, Raptor is 361 atmo, 382 vac. It's the balance between the two: SSME has an even higher ISP at 453, but has a much lower thrust.

>>132288540
>missing the joke

File: chinese.png (53KB, 207x181px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 207x181px

>>132291110

ULA just works more carefully and they aren't interested in showboating every day like Elon Musk is. Look at ULA's successful launch percentages and their number of aborted launches compared to SpaceX.

>>132285138
>Rocketry is too mature a technology to produce monumental gains anymore.

so exploding upward is the end of the tech tree?

>>132291199
>atmosphere

That's why I said stratosphere dumb ass and my point still stands about him taking a long time to reach earth's surface. It wasn't instantaneous and you could see it was a process for him to reach the surface. Unlike the rocket video.

>>132290860
the boostback starts at around 200km above the ground. laterally, the booster travels about 95km over that time. clouds form anywhere between 2-18km above the ground. do the math.

>>132291317
Does ULA land rockets?
No

>>132290940
100% agree. In engineering, more than a BS is a waste as far personal career.

But it is needed for advanced research in breakthrough technologies. Space travel is not breakthough, its from the 50's, there isn't anything else we can do other than apply current processor or material science for micro-gains.

>>132284850
Jesus are you fucking dumb
Do you live on the space coast ?
If you do then I'll retract my statement
if not then you are fucking dumb

>>132291110
ULA is doing a parachute return thrust & avionics package, not a powered return rocket. I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the design for powered return though.

>>132291352

You're digging yourself into a deep black pit of retardation. the stratosphere is a layer of the atmosphere, not a separate entity. Which grade are you in?

What the fuck happened today?
Abort again???

>>132286193
I can do this sort of thing in Kerbal Space Program so I don't see why it cant be done in real life.

>>132290860
Google 'low ceiling + clouds'

>>132291467
>implying he is even in a grade

>>132287076
>Best Engineers
>UCF Graduates

>>132291467
You're not even refuting my points now, you're just insulting because you don't have an argument. I'm done arguing with you fanboys.

>>132291208
I know this is going to go over your brainlet head, but I'm going to quickly explain it anyways:

The rocket travels along a parabolic arc. It accelerates to ~1.5km/s on ascent, detaches the second stage - which burns to orbital velocity of ~8km/s - turns retrograde, and falls back to the earth.
During its descent the rocket motors fire a few times using the limited remaining fuel, to slow down and land the rocket.

The majority of its velocity is imparted by it traveling up into space to begin with.

Basically your shit's all retarded and you need to retake grade 9 physics classes.

File: 4chan.jpg (1MB, 1024x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x1536px

>>132289864
sped up footage + fish eye lens
quit pretending to be retarded

>>132291317
ULA is what all the spacex haters think spacex is.

It always amuses me to see people attacking spacex for getting any kind of loan or subsidy when that's pretty much all ULA has ever done.

For starters, ULA only existed in the first place because lockheed and boeing recognized that competing against each other would be more difficult and expensive than joining together and fucking the american taxpayer and the space program raw.

Anyone defending ULA is honestly an idiot and/or shill.

File: Look+whos+back+_1028da61edc696f0015b9ffd8a9613fa.jpg (21KB, 303x326px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 303x326px

>>132288573
>Some people would attribute your paranoia to being schizophrenic, but I attribute it to your inferiority complex. I'll give it to you, though. You can believe whatever you want to believe in order to give you the idea that you are "better" than others because you're not like all those other sheep and have acquired knowledge others could not. It's a great way to build up your ego without actually having to do anything. You probably need it, too. It's a huge world full of people doing all sorts of things, and boy do you need something.

So the Holohoax was real?

>>132291659

I'll see you at the McDonald's register.

>>132291659
You mean you're done getting btfo

If you were genuinely interested in learning this shit instead of remaining a retard, you'd go look up some information on how orbits, orbital mechanics, and rockets work.

Rather than being indefinitely retarded, you might actually learn something from the experience.

File: cloud pops into view at 11.jpg (50KB, 766x437px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 766x437px

>>132286193

Just noticed a little cloud magically appear out of nowhere at 0:11?

>>132284850
It's in the accounting.

>>132292137
that's just due to the resolution. you can see the same thing happen at the bottom left around the same time (right below the stabilizer).

>>132291873

Wow, fuck the US government for giving people with the knowhow to carry out space launches grant money! Am I right?

>>132292645
no, fuck the us government for propping up a literal monopoly, costing taxpayers more money than necessary.

>>132284850
>How did they make a reusable rocket that costs less than a new one when every space agency said it couldn't be done?
because space agencies are filled with niggers and poos now and they can't even wipe their own ass

>>132284850
>thinking space is even real
sort yourself out

>>132292789

So did Thomas Edison have a monopoly on the light bulb? No, he was just among the first in the industry until competitors came along. ULA's success is not preventing any other company's, and that includes SpaceX.

>>132292789
>>132293156

You should also look into Trump's revival of the NSC, which will open up grants for literally ANYONE with a good idea in regards to space.

File: 1497752767766.jpg (19KB, 280x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 280x400px

>>132284850
All these burger fat conspiracy theories must have something to do wih the flourine they sneak into their tap water.
wew.

>>132291668
We're talking about the time it took to descend, not its speed going up. Jesus man

>>132293378

>fluorine

I wish pal. We'd all have far less troubles to worry about. Sadly we're stuck with plain old fluoride.

>>132289864
You have to watch it a few times to really let the perspective sink in. It's also sped up, so it's not real time. I seriously doubt they are faking this shit. Satellites are real, even if we never went to the moon, or mars, there's tons of shit orbiting our planet.

File: 1491601973605.jpg (66KB, 720x707px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 720x707px

>>132291110
>>132284850
Rocket science isn't that complicated.
It's called applied physics.
- Mechanical Engineer
- Material Scientist
- Control Systems engineering
- Aerospace engineer (someone who is educated and trained in the building of systems based on various space based/force dynamic constants and dynamics

People have re-entry systems on hobby rockets ffs.
Nasa has demo'd this same tech years ago.
It all comes down to private/public sector and being able to get rid of the fat that adds cost. Technologically, this same tech existed years ago and has been proofed.

NASA :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5b9LnzjGgU

In hobbyist version :
- (micro thrusters)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq6rTT5VW9Q
- (servo controlled engine vectoring)
+ Some landing legs
Add in a solid control system at a decent sampling rate and some sensors (gyros) etc and you've got a mini Space-X.

Space-X didn't invent or proof this tech. How do you idiots think NASA gets its landers on planets and got on and off the moon? This has been standard stuff for the aerospace industry for decades. Why haven't you seen NASA with a space-x like system? Because of govt. red-tape and sensible risk protocols.

Professional race car drivers go through new engines per race. They could tear it down and rebuild the block. However, given the kind of stresses/forces it endures across all its components it isn't worth the risk or money. Space-X being a private company is looking for profits. So, they said : the hell with risk and used proven tech to allow them to reuse warn ass rocket stages for future missions. This is the private sector for you which is why they don't pioneer complex systems.. They only come along after something such systems/technology are proven and eek out efficiency and profit such as SpaceX is doing now.

>>132293853

Yes, to hell with risk. NASA primarily developed vehicles for national security payloads and actual human passengers, not rich tourists and cheap satellites for India and Israel.

>>132292821
This is the difference between public/private sector. Public sector proofs, pioneers, and builds such systems. In search of profit, Private sector comes along and makes it more efficient.

Bureaucratic red tape and legacy risk protocols ensured NASA didn't commercialize this tech for the application of rocket stage re-use. Similarly, monied F1 racers replace their engines after a race. They could invest tons of R&D into how to effectively tear down the block and rebuild it within certain risk thresholds. However, given their goals, they ruled it not worth the risk/investment. SpaceX wanted to make money (as do all private) companies. So, they said : f
> Fuck risk .. throw all of that shit in the trash.
> Lets use existing technology to find the cheapest way to get shit into space and get a rocket back in one piece.

The technology used are :
> Micro-thruster vectoring
> Main thruster vectoring
> Dynamic fins
ran by a tightly looped control system

Nothing earth shattering. They had a business goal and did what had to be done engineering wise to make it happen and they had the opportunity to take the risk to see it through. Ask an monied F1 racing team for funding to R&D engine rebuilding, they'll tell you to fuck off as their goal is to win races and its not worth the risk as such. They'll just throw a new block in for the next race.

>>132288247
>They never mention that when they bring a Falcon back they have to totally rebuild it replacing almost every part every time

There's only been one launch using a recovered stage so far, and it worked a charm.

It took a few attempts to get the landing part happening but now just a year or two later it seems like it's no big deal anymore.

It's going to take some more time to full nut out the reusing part of the equation.

But we do know the rocket motors are designed to last for at least 100 uses and they've done that with static firings here on Earth.

>>132294866
*2 launches

Bulgariasat was iridium-1's first stage

>>132294866
Musk wants to try second stage landing as well.

I have a feeling that one won't pan out nearly as well.

>>132284850

>they can't possibly be saving money by reusing these rockets, therefore they must instead be spending even more money! Or spending more money but now quite as much by faking it!

>>132284952
>(((Space X)))
>Capitalism

>>132295122
Musk isn't so bullish about that one. They might try with Heavy, but I think no F9 launches will ever have a reusable second stage.

>>132296293
Perhaps if they start sticking raptors on the falcon they will.

Shotwell said they were looking into that

The motors are expensive, and salt water will trash them.Its a stupid idea.Final velocity proportional to the ratio of mass at launch, and mass with fuel burned. If you carry fuel up to burn on descent that lowers your final velocity, and payload.

>>132296475
guess is heavy will test a raptor second stage. air force needs some special stuff that only methane can pull off.

>>132287023
Space X, like every company musk is involved with, is an investment scam. It isn't meant to be profitable. Just get enough investments to make him filthy rich before the tech bubble pops and all his companies go under. So making false claims and cooking the books is part of this.

>>132290169
the fuck up was when it blew up on re-entry. Which was probably caused by diversity hire BS, NASA really went downhill after it ran out of NAZI scientests

>>132297552
The fuckup was making a space shuttle to begin with.

For that matter the ISS is also kind of a piece of shit.

Space stations with centripetal artificial gravity when

>>132290198
What really gave me the indication that it was fake was how fast everything was moving, INCLUDING THE REENTRY TO SURFACE TIME.

>>132298353
>>>/x/

>>132284850
Musk is a larping nigger. The earth is flat and he keeping the fiction that it's not is beyond retard

>>132297552
actually, it was just a woman who didn't want to give a shit about packings that might fail from temperature variance

>>132289935
>t-minus 10
>sudden jerk from platform
>ABORT

i wanted to see an explosion

>>132298551
[spoiler]fisheye lens[/spoiler]

>>132284850
Not sure who said it couldn't be done, but that must be retards.

The major difference with SpaceX is it was done live. Same thing was done behind closed doors at many major companies. I've seen it myself in 2012 at EADS Astrium/Airbus. Now it didn't land on a moving platform at sea, but it could have because the performance was this good. And then, it took off twice in a row.

>>132299014
I'm guessing it was some demonstration as a proposal for national funding so you guys can rocketship sand people into your country?

>>132293853
Here it is done in the 90s on a cancelled prototype

https://youtu.be/wv9n9Casp1o

>>132299737
Not sure about the relevance of your bantz right now desu senpai baka

>>132284850
I am going to guess that you don't understand rocket science either.

>>132298885
>faggotvision

>current year, still believing in the jewish (((space))) meme

>>132285860
Hello Anzu

>>132293387

Man, you have to fucking kidding us, right?

>>132284850

Recently we have solved old equations that have contributed in particular to ballistics and rocket science. I am not surprised that something that couldn't be done is now being done.

>>132299014
>Not sure who said it couldn't be done, but that must be retards.

JAXA, ESA, NASA, ROSCOSMOS.

>>132287076
Where can I but these things?
Do they have a camera?

>>132293853
Most racing series limit the number of engines that can be used

>>132286193
the water, looks like its reversed..

>>132299014
>The major difference with SpaceX is it was done live. Same thing was done behind closed doors at many major companies. I've seen it myself in 2012 at EADS Astrium/Airbus. Now it didn't land on a moving platform at sea, but it could have because the performance was this good. And then, it took off twice in a row.

Nobody is doubting that they landed a rocket. I'm doubting whether the refurbishment either happened at all or if it did happen exactly how much money did it save?

>>132291603
You'd be surprised what wonders can be worked when you're paying your engineers six figures.

>>132300665
Airbus works on Ariane 5, and on the ATV with the ESA and ROSCOSMOS. Believe me, they know better than that.

Now a lot of retards at those agencies love to talk in their name and act like they're so fucking important. They're usually just shitty contractors. Unless there's some official statement, they haven't said it. Just count all the ones that remained silent on this and you'll have a better idea.

>>132301309
It was like 20 years ago. Give me a moment to find it.

But can you answer my question? How much money exactly did spacex save on their refurbished rocket, and how was that determined and verified?

>>132284850
by underpaying and overworking staff

>>132301563
I don't know that. I was only saying it could be done before.

>>132301309

>Arianespace CEO Stéphane Israel said:

>It is(F9 Reusable) a beautiful technological achievement in the context of a mission in LEO asking little performance from the launcher, freeing the performance required by recovery. But for the economic equation, things are still very uncertain. Performance loss on recovery, lower industrial rate, cost of refurbishment of the first stage, difficulty convincing customers to use a used launcher, uncertainties about the reliability: it would be a mistake to consider reuse is the alpha and omega of disruptive innovation in the field of launchers.

Still looking for the original article.

>>132301793
Well obviously you can land a rocket on its tail. NASA did that decades ago.

The issue is can you refurbish the vehicle for less than the cost of a new one. Maybe just barely, but we still need proof that they have done as such or the whole thing is pretty pointless.

>>132289864
They were within the atmosphere throughout most of the video. Just because the horizon is black doesn't mean it's outer space, look at the Red Bull balloon jump.

>>132284850
That's how NASA landed the Viking probe on Mars last century, It's a piece of cake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggjD3i7efKU

>>132301108
They actually underpay their engineers compared to market rates

And they work harder too.

People work at spacex for the prestige and envelope pushing, not the pay or hours.

>>132284850
I live in Melbourne, FL. I have SEEN the reusable part of the rockets coming back down.

>>132284850
>rock science is hard meme

kys

>>132284850
It's a balloon.

>>132292137
you are the dumbest motherfucker alive

>>132300180
Even longer ago and with less footing.
Thanks for the share anon.

You can really tell a lot about people by whom they blindly and many times ignorantly praise.

>>132300755
Point gone way the fuck over your head.

>>132284850
>everything is FAKE
>everything is a CONSPIRACY
The wonders of the modern age blossom before you, and all you can do is scream and cover your eyes.

>>132284850

every once in a blue moon someone has the confidence and ability to do something and doesn't fuck it up. and the weird timing that musk had, a few years earlier and it wouldn't have worked.

>>132286193
I like how the conspiracy theorists are saying it's fake based on
Hurr speed
or Hurr clouds
or Hurr water
And they don't even notice the film jump where it touches down.

Of course the cause is obvious looking at the normal speed footage, but you guys need to brush up on your conspiracy theories.