Is it cheaper than a new rocket though?

>>132533871
Yes.

>>132533871

Surely someone has proof that it saved SpaceX (and the US Taxpayer) money?

>>132533871
>reuse the most expensive parts (engines)
>more expensive than throwing them away

There are no people on there

>>132533871
Depends on how many times it can be re-used. Once or twice? No. More than five? Yes.

>>132535208
>they can just re-use them 40 times without any tuning or maintenance.

Yeah that's where i call bullshit. All that maintenance is about the same labor as assembling a new engine and the bulk of the cost of an engine is not the materials its made from.

Same thing happened with the SSME's, and they didn't even point into the air stream on the way down like spacex rockets do.

>>132535657

>save 40 times the cost of the materials and assembly
>"is it cheaper tho?"

>>132533871
fuel is the cheapest part of a rocket.

labor of the people who make and service the rocket is the most expensive.

block 5 F9 will be reusable 12 or so times. Block 3-4 can just be reused 4 times or so.

>>132535657
Take a look at hydrolox problems in staged combustion engines and especially the SSME.
Merlin is a very simple design in comparison and also using a different propellant and cycle.
There are no problems from SSMR that Merlin can inherit for reuse but it has to deal with carbon deposits and other issues but these are nothing compared to RS25 nightmare

>>132535120
evidently recently release military expense info revealed substantial savings-- enough to make the satellite itself basically "free"
You have to take it with a grain of salt, but the fact that other companies and the ESA are trying to play catch up at this point does hint that this is the wave of the future.
The survival of Spacex will be the ultimate test, tho

big dumb booster is the answer desu

just economy of scale that bitch problem solved

How long until space warfare.

>>132538063
>>132535120
Each govt launch (excluding ISS resupply) done by SpX saves the taxpayer over 200mil. ULA might only seem to be a "little" more expensive, but they reverse-pad their prices they adv reties to the media since they get one billion dollars for "launch readiness" each year.


Luckily more and more govt payloads are going on F9. Like the x37b, which will go up in August.

>>132537012
Labor ain't free, materials are cheap

>>132533871
>of course I still love you

literally, what did they mean by this?

>>132538063
SpaceX has not launched any military hardware on their reusable F9.

>>132537704
So how many hours of maintenance per hour of use?

>>132537012
Source?

>>132538073
There's not a big enough market for satellites.

>>132538171
Never. Nothing worth fighting for up there.

>inb4 trillion dollar rocks
They take two trillion dollars to acquire.

File: spacex savings.png (64KB, 618x345px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 618x345px

>>132533871
Yes

>>132538521
>Never. Nothing worth fighting for up there.
US begs to disagree.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/congressional-panel-puts-plans-for-a-us-space-corps-in-2018-defense-budget/

>>132535657
>>>they can just re-use them 40 times without any tuning or maintenance.
IIRC they said that after a successful retrieval they need 2 weeks or so to prepare for another launch. I wouldn't call that "without tuning".

>>132538299
Yes and Tesla takes a loss on every car they make. We can't rely on technologies that aren't cost-effective.

>>132538630
>congressional panel
>somehow infalliable reason
Explain that one to me. Those same schmucks went with the PCA, did they not?

>IIRC they said that after a successful retrieval they need 2 weeks or so to prepare for another launch. I wouldn't call that "without tuning".
Well i wouldn't call that "reusable" i don't need to perform maintenance on my car every time i drive it. How much time, manpower, replacement parts does it take? Even if they are saving money it cannot possibly add up to much.

Have you guys forgotten about the space shuttle and why it was decommissioned? Reusability is engineering design is way way below cost efficiency and reliability.

File: spacex naming.png (348KB, 789x651px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 789x651px

>>132538507
From Iain Banks Culture novels.

Which is a bit disturbing since the first one -- the only one I read -- seemed to be about a communist utopia that genocided its traditionalist rivals by obeying an AI.

File: 1475579878979.jpg (837KB, 2274x1506px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 2274x1506px

>>132539180
>i don't need to perform maintenance on my car every time i drive it
Yes, but your car doesn't go up to space and fall from space into the atmosphere.
It's just one small step forward, otherwise we would be still using one-use rockets and expendable, flying Russian dicks.

>>132539202
eesh.

File: 1498423324104.jpg (984KB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 4032x3024px

SpaceX has already reused at least one rocket. The one that blew up on the launchpad a few months ago was also a reused one. I think that would have been the first reused rocket launch. But the 2nd stage blew up according to the reports. So it wasn't even a problem with the reused section if the report is to be believed.

pic is of a rocket coming in for a landing.

>>132538977
>We can't rely on technologies that aren't cost-effective.
Yeah because the first satellites were cost effective for the value they provided, or the first cars were better than horses, or the first guns better than bows.
I could go on but you can't rely only on short term return on investments when it comes to new technology.
It'll pay off in 10-20 years, or maybe it won't at all but you can't stagnate forever just because it's not profitable for now.

File: KPLHqiD.jpg (194KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1024x1024px

>>132539180
I don't see why everybody is so skeptical and hostile to the idea. Obviously if space travel is ever to become routine one of the main requirements is that rockets not be single use. SpaceX is working towards that and people seem very hostile to the idea.

Go to any youtube video of a rocket landing and it has hundreds of people talking shit about how it will never be realistic. Yet here they are reliably landing rockets and even reusing them.

Another thing that annoys me is the idiots saying:
>Why don't they just use parachutes?
Because

I only bring this up because it comes up in every SpaceX thread.

1. They aren't precise, it could land over a wide range instead of pinpoint on a pad.
2. They are greatly effected by crosswinds. There is no way it could land coming straight down unless there was zero wind. The rocket is tall and narrow, if it has any sideways motion when it lands it will tip over.
3. We are talking about a rocket taller than the statue of liberty. The parachutes needed would be massive and very heavy. It's easier to just carry more weight in rocket fuel for the landings instead of more weight for chutes.

>>132538473
It takes labor to build it too

>>132533871
Yes

Though the real question is the savings really due to the technology, or spaceX saying "Fuck this" to Cost plus contracts and bidding low and cutting waste.

>>132533871
Yes! This will finally bankrupt the slavshits and the neocon kikes at Boeing/Lockheed

>>132535657
Even if they are only able to recover 80% of the parts per flight, doing 2 weeks of work to get 80% chance of reusing parts will save a boatload of cash.

>>132540442
the entire shuttle program was based around that philosophy. except it ended up being 100x more expensive and everything had to be rebuilt bolt by bolt

Refurbished & refuelling costs half of a new first stage

>>132539180
that very much reusable anon. If you knew what inspections take place on planes you would be shocked.

SpaceX could do the turn around faster, but there is no need for it.

>>132538521
For full assembly of SSME after flight?
Depends on engine version but a lot would be simplified by modernising to FFSC or the best solution would be to ditch hydrogen.Shuttle was expensive as hell because ot lift 20t of cargo it had to carry 80t of orbiter to orbit and the system was few times bigger than comparable expendable rocket and even worse to high energy orbits without CentaurG ET alone was 180 milion $ so just under Ariane5 price.
Last SSME were able to work for multiple missions with little work done on them.
>>132539854
It was a new rocket.

>>132540925
Space shuttle had some specific costs that drove costs way up.

1. The work was spread out to dozens of companies, so more districts had cash from it.

2. the engines and tiles where not designed to be cheap. For example, the entire engine had to be rebuilt after each flight, and every tile (35,000 of them) had to be checked one by one, and no one tile was the same as the other.

Lastly, it ended up 20% overweight

>>132533871
French Ariane rockets are far more reliable. Tesla's are v. prone to breaking. Russians are ahead of everyone when it comes to rockets. SpaceEx is effectively subsidized by US govt, but anything to gargle Elon Musks balls. man can do no evil....

center of gravity too rubbish

>>132533871
The turbo-pumps that force fuel and oxidiser into the combustion chamber are ridiculously expensive and recovery and re-use of them alone would justify rocket recovery.

>>132540925
>the entire shuttle program was based around that philosophy

No it wasn't. If you know anything about the shuttle you will know it was also a military vehicle. One of the requirements of the shuttle was that it have a huge cross range ability. The ability to launch, put something into orbit in the first time around the earth, and get the fuck back down fast. It was designed to function in a hostile WWIII situation where the russians might try to shot it down, or we might want to keep the launch secret and we need to get the top secret payload in orbit and get the shuttle away from the payload in orbit before it can be observed by the russians.

The large wings on the shuttle gave it the ability to turn in the upper atmosphere and return to the USA from almost any orbit. This would let it return home without having to wait for the orbits to line back up with the USA. It could put anything into practically any orbit and come home.

The military had that requirement for the shuttle which made it total overkill for most of its missions and way more expensive.

The shuttle also did a full re-entry from orbit which is much faster than anything the first stage of the Falcon 9 experiences. Yes, the Falcon 9 is very high, practically in space, but it isn't going at orbital speeds, so the re-entry isn't nearly as high head as anything the shuttle experienced. The expensive thing about the shuttle was manually replacing every single heat shield tile on the bottom by hand. Each tile was unique as well, something I never understood. Apparently it couldn't just be a grid of identical tiles for most of the bottom, every single tile was a unique shape and thickness which was very expensive to make.

Yes, the shuttle was never cost effective, but it had lots of extra capabilities the military forced on it, and it was experiencing a much more harsh and damaging re-entry than what the Falcon 9 experiences.

>>132541469
>>132541469
>French Ariane rockets are far more reliable.
Not really

SpaceX- 95%
Ariane 5 - 95.7%

Falcon 9 is 1/3 the cost.

>>132539427
>>132539202

The society is essentially space communism but it is justified in the books because the culture has the elements needed to make communism work.
No demand for labour.

Post-scarcity.

No meaningful privacy.

Oversight from an entity that is beyond human ego and greed.

So the utopian element of the culture isn't really the communism, its all the other things that make the communism work. Even they face the issues you would imagine they face, trouble with meaning, value and purpose (the culture AI's invent a purpose for the culture wholesale just to give the entire thing a direction).

>>132541949
Arianes have been launched for decades. The sample size is far bigger. The saved cost thing is a good idea but its scaling for a market that mightn't exist for decades. We can barely reach the Moon again much less set up a Mars colony

>>132541949
I think the falcons will also get more reliable as they work the bugs out. Since SpaceX does a lot of 3D printing (sintering as they call it) of the metal parts it allows them to very easily update and change designs on the fly. There isn't a massive inertia to re-designing parts. The 3D printer doesn't care what the changes are, its all the same to manufacture.

>>132539202
Culture books are terrible though. Banks essentially uses AI and advanced technology to perform magic. Its the classic overpowered wizard trope in fantasy but he gets away with it for some reason

>>132542299
>We can barely reach the Moon again much less set up a Mars colony

The Falcon heavy will address that. It will use 3 Falcon 9 first stages instead of 1, so 3X the thrust. Should be able to put some massive stuff in orbit, or send stuff very far. Will be about as powerful as the Saturn V was from the Apollo missions, but far cheaper.

The entire reason for padding contracts with cost plus was to ensure the United States continually maintained a massive advantage in space tech and to prevent our aerospace engineers from defecting to whatever shithole country wanted to build ICBMs. It was always a scientist welfare program. Kikes gut space program, slash NASA budget. Out of work scientists/engineers go work for defense contractors rather than Chinks or Muslims. Kikes see opportunity for short term profit undercutting ULA, further exacerbating the problem.

>>132539854
The Amos-6 launch vehicle wasn't a reused vehicle

interesting so this rocket was flown expendable and almost at it's max throw weight

Bulgaria-1 MECO is at 8,400km/h
Intel 35e MECO is at 9,400km/h

that extra 1,000km/h is yuuuuuuuuuuge

>>132542520
And who will pay for it? Dude a lot of Musk is total hype. Tesla is insanely overvalued. People are buying his bullshit for the time being cause he's "Musk" and he is able to study rocketry in his spare time!! OMG

Its all fake the fucker cant get his cars out of the factory in working order and Im supposed to believe hes zooming out to space every 2 weeks its a complete sham
I cant prove anything so dont ask

>>132538473
> Materials are cheap
Hundreds kilos of tungsten and other valuable materials.

No.

>>132543062
I think this was originally supposed to be a FH launch. They've really made improvements since the early F9 days. The cumulative thrust improvements since the first version are like 20% or something, it's crazy

>>132540240
Holyshit Canada said something intelligent

>>132543379
Falcon 9 FT pretty much is a Falcon 9 heavy when you aren't flying the first stage back for a landing.

SpaceX needs FH if it wants to launch those heavy ass spy satellites.

>>132543215
>And who will pay for it?
SpaceX obviously thinks there is a market for the Falcon Heavy, so they are currently designing it. Yes, the contract for NASA, but they aren't a purely tax funded operation. They have launched stuff for other nations and for telecom companies as well.

They think people will want the capabilities of their heavy rocket, and they have probably spent a long time analyzing the costs and market. given their success so far I can't blame them. Tesla is a totally different company, apples and oranges.

All the people supporting Musk are plebbiters. Talk to anyone with a smidgen of knowledge in the industry. He's a typical industry tycoon who is managing to not get monkeys despite paying peanuts. You buy into the vague humanistic idea of Mankind in space. He's ambitions are formidable but its clouds peoples judgement of what is really going on.

>>132543330
Can you fake an object taller than the statue of liberty falling straight down at supersonic speeds that creates sonic booms that wow spectators miles away?

Skip to 0:50 for this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1maY10r_Bwg

Skip to 0:15 for this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytjIQ_alA1c

>>132535120
>(and the US Taxpayer) money?

Isn't SpaceX privately funded?

>>132543713
Tesla has never made a profit. Real companies like Volvo or BMW/Mercedes will you use their billions to put out a electric version of the Tesla. He's got stones but if it doesn't happen fast in the next 2-3 years its not looking good. He should stick the solar panels that's actually a good line of business

>>132542299
There is nothing that would indicate that SpaceX would suddenly become unreliable. The history of space launcher development is that once a rocket family reaches high reliability it stays there.

>>132543215
SpaceX (unlike Telsa which is a lot more questionable) has contracts ranging from civil to commercial launches. They have ~50 launches already contracted, and about 18 government (NASA, Military) and the rest commerical, as spaceX can launch cargo at 1/3 the cost and with the same reliability as the French, and no one trusts the Chinese to not steal tech.

>>132544135
yes, but the do contracts for nasa, which use tax money, so they are getting funded by tax money. But they also have private clients like telecom companies. I think they have put some satellites in orbit for other nations as well.

>>132544374
Its the same way Walmart get food stamps. A grey area. US govt was probably delighted to see a US company get big. And wanted to give NASA/Boeing a kick up the ass

>>132543713
SpaceX already has contracts for 5 heavy launches - 2 government and 3 commercial.

>>132544025
Look, I worked for years in the space bussiness (First Echostar and now Orbcomm) in maintaining orbital assets. Everyone who is going to launch more birds and isn't locked in a contract is buying SpaceX launches as the launch costs are so much lower.

Yes, SpaceX survived early on on government contracts, but now they proven they get stuff in orbit without issues and you can buy insurance for cheap, commercial launches are flooding spaceX, to the point that some are worried that they need to buy launches to keep a place in line.

>>132544374
2/3rd or so of their contracts are with private companies.

>>132544289
Tesla isn't SpaceX.

You do understand that one guy can own 2 different companies and 1 may prosper and the other fail, right?

File: 100000000.jpg (73KB, 710x737px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 710x737px

>>132535657
maintenance labor vs the labor for the assembly of a rocket engine is not even close to the same.

>>132543215
you know the most expensive part of an electric car is the battery pack right. with the gigafactory 1 going into full production in 2018 it might knockj 30% off the cost.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/23/tesla-aggressive-ev-sales-goals-battery-cost-reductions-charging-capabilities-says-iea/

>>132533871
>he doesn't know Spacejewx rocket landing is a hoax

lmao

>>132545129
Yep, the early shuttle engines had to be totally rebuilt after each flight, while SpaceX only has to inspect each engine and swap out any who do not test out for later rebuilding.

>>132544327
Your forgetting wear and tear which was the space shuttles problem. Thus Space X refurbishes the rockets after every launch which is cheaper. We have yet to see how good Space X rate of launching refurbish rockets and when that point that the rocket is unusable.

I'm also curious to see what Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, and Boeing do to compete with Space X. Grant it Boeing and Sierra Nevada are most likely going to work on deep space projects, leaving Blue Origin competing with Space X. Though Blue Origin is focusing more on taking people to the edge of our atmosphere. They are using a similar system. Grant it they need a new design to go to orbit. Or we will see Space X dominate the orbit supply market for a few decades.

>>132533871
Once Disclosure happens it won't matter, we'll be using anti grav vehicles.

>>132539370
What is the difference? Are you saying we can't make it cheap?

>>132540240
Anecdotes aren't data. Might as well cite the Concorde in there.

>>132540442
>I don't see why everybody is so skeptical and hostile to the idea.
Because musk is a con artist and nothing he does will ever have the benefits he claims they will, so people are holding his feet to the fire.

> Yet here they are reliably landing rockets and even reusing them.
Like the space shuttle. It's nothing new. It only matters if it saves money, and there's no evidence that it does or that the savings are significant enough to bolster the extremely niche market of LEO launches.

>>132540758
Not if the inspection and maintenance of that 80% has costs which meet or exceed the costs of a new rocket.

>>132540999
> If you knew what inspections take place on planes you would be shocked.
I know exactly how long it takes and how much it costs, which is why i don't think they can make it work for a rocket. Most fighters are what, 20 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight? That adds up.

>>132544135
Not entirely.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

>>132545129
It's roughly equivalent. The entire thing needs to be taken apart, unless they're completely half-assing it.

>>132545127
Not really. Steve Jobs had
Apple - crushed it
NeXT - Crushed it
DreamWorks -Crushed it

Its just that Musk is all hype at the moment. Say what you want about the guy but he shat benjamins. Musk has NASA contracts, some Bulgarian probe and wants to destroy unions & underpay engineers and people act like he is hot shit when he hasn't made a dime.

>>132546741
>Are you saying we can't make it cheap?
Not yet.
What SpaceX is doing is just work towards that.
You won't get X-Wings and Millenium Falcons out of nowhere.

>>132546848
The Back to the Future movies said we would have flying cars by now. WTF

>>132545671

Add in that Tesla/SolarCity will position itself as one of the very few companies world wide who can produce the batteries on a scale that satisfies mass production needs.

Volvo is going 100% hybrid/electric by 2019. Who do you think is going to be making those batteries? Who do you think will be making the batteries for Ford and Chevy when they make the switch in 2025?

>>132545840
>trying to force this meme so bad
Off to reddit with you.

>>132546848
>Not yet.

So cars are stuck at 30% efficiency for the last century because what, conspiracies?

Because from where i'm standing, we've hit most physical limits for materials and that is what keeps things expensive or inefficient.

>>132547010
But muh coal. Muh heavily automated jobz

>>132545911
>>132546545
>We have yet to see how good Space X rate of launching refurbish rockets and when that point that the rocket is unusable.
This, they are a private company, but it would be nice to know how much 'refurbishing' each booster needs before relaunch. Even after Richard (((Feyman))) (which is a good jew in my mind) exposed NASA after the 1986 disaster they still claimed the shuttle was a reusable vehicle

>>132546741
>Anecdotes aren't data. Might as well cite the Concorde in there.
>>132540240
>It'll pay off in 10-20 years, or maybe it won't at all but you can't stagnate forever just because it's not profitable for now.
How do you quantify technological progress?
If it were up to private funding a lot of revolutionary technologies would not have been ever used as constantly improving on an existing design is more profitable in the short term.

>>132546807
Bezos didn't make a dime on Amazon for like a decade, maybe more. He spent every cent on explosive expansion and re-invested all earning of the company back into the company. It didn't turn a profit for a long time and people thought he was crazy. Now he is rapidly on pace to be the richest man in the world and dwarfing old success stories like Wal-Mart.

But 5 years ago you could have said the same thing about Bezos, that he hasn't made a cent.

>>132547118
Are you actually comparing cars and spaceships?
And SpaceX is already doing things cheaper.

>>132546545
>>132546545
>We have yet to see how good Space X rate of launching refurbish rockets and when that point that the rocket is unusable.
They started reusing rockets in march. And they have stated that when it being reused it a bit of a Ship of Theseus type situation. By the third or 4th launch a lot of the parts of the rocket would be not flown on the first launch.

the Shuttle expense included that early on, engines had to be rebuilt, and the tile system was hugely expensive.

>>132547010
Its well know the Germans make the most fuel efficient solar cells. Its around 45% for them. Scaling isn't the hard part

>>132546741
I very much doubt they are completely taking it apart. In any case lets say they do, do you know the cost of manufacturing such parts and the labor tied in with that?

>>132547118
Its like CPU's people are convinced the magic of science will advance them. CPU's have been essentially stalled for 10 years. They are trying to become more power efficient. Its like fighter jets, or F1 cars. Technology isn't a magic wand

>>132547304
>And SpaceX is already doing things cheaper
So they say, it's a private company, know one knows what they spend. That said, I'm entirely for the effort, but investors have been jewed before.

>>132546741
>>132545129
From what I hear, they bore-scope the engines and are gradually figuring out how long a rocket can go between detailed analysis for cracks and other wear. The most they need to do for this is detach the engines from the stage to be able to access all parts of its plumbing.

>>132546545
Blue Origin still has to complete their custom 750,000sqft rocket factory. They are kinda limited by that right now.

The New Shepards are great testbeds for avionics, ground systems, and all of the other parts of rocketry. Similar to the falcon 1 - start small, then work up from there. I don't doubt at all that the New Glenn will be a perpetual paper rocket.

>>132547228
SES-10 took 4 months to refurbish. It currently takes a year to build a stage. They're looking to get it down to 2 months in the future, and then 48 hours. Much of what they are doing is just figuring out what needs to be refurbished in the first place. Plus, they aren't even flying block5 yet

>>132547304
>Are you actually comparing cars and spaceships
Didn't you know that you can directly compare two companies simply because they are owned by the same person?

Just like how all of Trumps successful multi million dollar profits can be ignored because he had some flops like Trump Steaks along the way.

If a man fails once all his ventures are therefore failures.

>>132533871
Yes.
A rocket at ULA or a Russian ILS rocket costs:
200-600 million dollars

A falcon 9 costs
92 million or less. And the cost is falling as the technology improves.

Yes it does.

>>132546741
>Not if the inspection and maintenance of that 80% has costs which meet or exceed the costs of a new rocket.
SpaceX can bid 1/3 of what other companies can offer. That alone shows their costs are much less then traditional companies.

>>132546741
>I know exactly how long it takes and how much it costs, which is why i don't think they can make it work for a rocket. Most fighters are what, 20 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight? That adds up.
but it is still much cheaper then building a new jet each time you use it.

A B2 takes over 150 man hours for one hour of flight in maintenance,

>>132547508
They are definitely not taking it entirely apart. The recently reused stage, first on iridium-1 and then for Bulgariasat-1, never even went to McGregor for testing.

>>132547290
In management there's profit centers and cost centers. Amazons was always good. They cornered the book market. It was a moneymaking machine. Investing in rocket ships is a hard way to make money.

>>132535120
>Surely someone has proof that it saved SpaceX (and the US Taxpayer) money?
Oh, it hasn't yet. They've only reflown two of them. The development of reusability certainly cost more than the $30-40 million those two boosters would have cost.

Look at it this way: buying a car doesn't save money over taking a taxi in the first week. It's going to take a few years of regular use before it pays for itself.

>>132546807
>Its just that Musk is all hype at the moment. Say what you want about the guy but he shat benjamins. Musk has NASA contracts
and over 30 commercial launch contracts anon for future launches. The french have 13.

>>132547564
Well we know they are doing it cheaper since they charge 1/3 less then the french or other american launch companies.

We do not know how much cheaper then that 1/3 but we do know they are doing it for less then 33% of other companies.

File: 33844992283346484393.jpg (69KB, 677x409px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 677x409px

>>132538630
>Implying one does not already exist.

>>132547992
Okay anon. SpaceX charges 92 million or less for bulk launches.

If you want the french to launch you rocket you are looking at 200 million, and that the bare bones package.

So of course Space X has been able to be 60% cheaper then other launchers, and that is the bare bones launch cost, let alone if you are doing something fancy.

There is the reason why the french are building a new rocket who main goal is reduce cost, as they only have 13 more launches booked.

>>132548288
>>132548001
>>132547785
>>132547358
Dude no offense but you're the kind of guy Musk likes to sucker in. Smart, into science, wants to believe in something. Then acts like he's doing you a favour he pays you a pittance. If a startup in San Francisco was pulling this shit they would be laughed out of the room. He's playing on his strengths and that's his "Tony Stark" persona that is so carefully cultivated by his PR team

>>132546741
>colonizing Mars is a con and a bad idea

Are you one of those retards who saw the flat earth meme and unirionically believed it?

Wake up nigger. We are one yellowstone away from total extinction and while seeing the Jews and mudslimes btfo would be nice nobody wants to die with the dogs.

If you are so convinced that anybody who does anything to try and leave the planet is a con artist you can fucking stay here and live under the inevitable Islamic caliphates as whites die out. The rest of us are planning to get the fuck out.

>>132548288
>they are doing it cheaper since they charge 1/3 less then the french or other american launch companies.
They could be taking a lost to grab market share, not like that is a bad idea, hopefully they are on the up and up

>>132548288
the important metric isn't exactly the price, but the internal cost. Like, assuming spacex makes about 20mil per launch, the actual cost to -them- is 40-something mil. Other companies might charge 300mil, but the actual cost to them is only 120mil or something.

This is important to keep in mind when other companies say that they are "reducing costs" to stay competitive. They're really just charging less, and not much else (for the most part. ULA has done some layoffs/streamlining)

>>132548574
Funny how one groups of crazies will swear we never landed on the moon and it is impossible to get above the earth due to radiation, firmament etc.

Then you have another group of crazies saying we already have secret bases on the moon.

And then you probably have a special group of really fucking crazy people who believe both depending on what conversation you are having with them.

>>132533871
not at all, they just invented a vertically-landing rocket for fun

>>132548690
Not really, you can't do that with NASA contracts, as they are CPAF (Cost-plus-award-fee ) contracts. those contracts disallow selling below costs for market share.

>>132548809
the REAL truth is that the Apollo astronauts brought a pop-up moon soundstage with them in the LEM in case they accidentally overshot and made it to Mars instead. That way they could ""meet"" Kennedy's goal.

lol

>>132548659
yeah so let's go to this dusty gravity well that maybe had water a billion years ago, miss me with those literal icebergs on the Moon or near-Earth asteroids we can rope into a closer orbit, let's just go to Antarctica but crap

>>132539854
That was Amos 6.

Amos six was not a re used rocket it was a new vehicle that contained a material flaw. The flaw has been corrected.

SpaceX uses densified lox to increase performance. Densified lox is very cold. The helium tanks within the lox tank that pressurize the entire vehicle are made of carbon fiber and the carbon fiber did not behave well with the very cold lox causing it to delaminate and sublimate which led to one of the helium tanks exploding. That blew up the second stage and the rocket blew up from there.

Been fixed by changing how the carbon tanks are made and how they get exposed to the lox.

>>132535208
the Space Shuttle tried that, and it was a fantastic failure.

the engines are the least reusable part of the rocket, and the most expensive to maintain.

>>132548659
I would be onboard if Mars wasn't such a shithole
>average surface temp is colder than antarctica's average temp, only mar's equator is habitable and it still gets fucking cold
>atmosphere is totally toxic at nearly 100% CO2
>no magnetic field means there is no protective layer from harmful radiation, Earth shields us from a lot of nasty particles

The idea of colonizing another planet would be much more attractive if it didn't mean I will never be able to walk outside again and I am going to be breathing recycled farts for the rest of my life.

>>132548288
>we know they are doing it cheaper since they charge 1/3 less
You don't know how much is being invested in them, and how much they're borrowing from banks, so they can be launching at a loss.

They've launched Falcon 9 37 times, charging about $60 million per launch. If they've actually spent about $100 million per launch, that would mean they've lost about $1.5 billion. They've had more than that much in launch prepayments, private investments, and development subsidies from NASA.

>>132549177
fuck, what this guy said >>132535657

What are the comparative cost for $/Kg. put in orbit. You are not just paying for R&D, you are hauling heavy rocket fuel into orbit for the descent

>>132548659
Dude theres no other option. Mars is a hellhole that will never be viable for life. Like ever. Its far harsher than Antarctica. We are all not going to be Matt Damon in space. It yellowstone goes. We're fucked end off. Maybe a few hold outs for a few centuries but we have had it. But there's not much of a chance of human civilization getting out of the solar system unless we become part machine. The human body is too vulnerable.

>>132548966
Come on anon, I've worked for gov defense contracts for the last 8 years, you can't tell me shenanigans don't go on, weather it be here in cuckistain of the jewSA

File: 1384275460713.gif (1MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x250px

>>132549079

Wouldn't it have been easier to just float it down with parachutes into a net or some shit?

>>132549161
carbon fiber is pretty tricky.

Rumor is that SpX is going to sign a billion-dollar+ deal with Toray, a Japanese manufacturer, to provide the carbon fiber for the ITS. Just a rumor.

>>132537280
>>132533871
all that extra fuel the rocket has to save for the descent also reduces the max payload the rocket can deliver.

seems like a gimmick

>>132548750
Not really.

NASA does Cost-plus-award-fee contracts. Now till spaceX came around there was no reason to cut costs, as reducing costs reduced profits, as you got a percent over costs as your profit (so for example, if you are getting a 5% profit launch, and you cut 20 million dollars from the cost, you just lost 1 million in profit)

SpaceX just spends less on everything. they pay less for workers, and do most of their stuff in house. That why ULA is cutting costs as they realized that once SpaceX was able to say "Our costs is 40% of what ULA says there cost is" it raised a lot of questions.

ULA is fine for a while due to the US wanting to keep at least two companies in the launch bussiness and the fact that they have heavier boosters then SpaceX right now. But they are under huge pressure to make there costs more in line with SpaceX, which does stuff for much less then ULA.

>>132535657
if you dont know what youre talking about, why dont you shut the fuck up fagot?

>>132549315
1st stage never reaches orbital speeds. It doesn't have to haul all that weight to orbit and back, it just gets the 2nd stage above the atmosphere and partially to orbit, then comes back down. The 2nd stage then continues on and gets going fast enough to actually orbit.

Just because you are above the atmosphere doesn't mean you are in orbit.

>>132549520
correct, that's for gubermet stuff. I was just talking about commercial payloads.

File: Merlin_1C_Vacuum_engine_at_Hawthorne_factory_(2008).jpg (177KB, 480x802px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 480x802px

>>132547232
>How do you quantify technological progress?
The amount of energy it takes to make it.

>If it were up to private funding... profitable in the short term.
That's not true at all. Look at Bell Labs.

>>132547304
I'm questioning why people think technology improves exponentially when there are far more examples of that not being the case.

>>132547508
>I very much doubt they are completely taking it apart
Then they are allowing unsafe rockets onto the launch pad.

>do you know the cost of manufacturing such parts and the labor tied in with that?
I think that adding refurbishment maintenance to the total cost of the rocket makes it far more expensive than a one-off rocket,.

>>132547520
Yep. It follows a sigmoid curve but all the sci-fi for idiots has brainwashed them into thinking it's infinite forever.

How convenient that the economy would continue forever. Gee, i wonder what group of people would benefit from that idea.

>>132547583
>to be able to access all parts of its plumbing.
That would require almost total disassembly. Go ahead, get your hand in there.

>>132547785
>SpaceX can bid 1/3 of what other companies can offer. That alone shows their costs are much less then traditional companies.
No it shows that they don't care about making a profit, like most of musk's other companies/hobbies.

>>132547992
>Oh, it hasn't yet. They've only reflown two of them.
So you agree that the hype is overblown and too early?

>>132548626
>Okay anon. SpaceX charges 92 million or less for bulk launches.
What payload mass?

>If you want the french to launch you rocket you are looking at 200 million, and that the bare bones package.
For the same payload mass?

>>132548659
Wake up nigger, you're not going to run away to join the circus because you don't want to clean your room. Space is the Bluest pill. It gives you a solution to all our earthly problems so you won't feel like you have to actually do anything about them.

It's escapism.

>>132549157
The asteroids were an Obama plan. They offer absolutely nothing except for space mining applications and you don't need manned missions for that.

The moon has less mass than Mars and cannot be terraformed it is also trapped in the earth's gravity well. Meaning a planetary event like a solar event or an asteroid strike has the potential to effect the moon also.

The moon may prove useful for midrange bases that allow you to refuel and construct large interstellar ships for deep exo solar exploration later on but for the immediate problem (we need a second planet) it serves no fucking purpose.

The only objects more suitable than Mars are the moons of jupiter but our technology is not sufficient to send manned missions there and it would be much easier if you had large scale industry on Mars to then go there from Mars.

Mars is and always has been the obvious choice. With industrial aid it can be made habitable and eventually terraformed permanently especially with the aid of magnetic confinement or toroidal gravity trapping (using an asteroid or four placed in leo to increase mutual gravity well).


Mars has shit loads of minerals and trapped gas in the soil you can use for fuel and also for nuclear reactors especially thorium fuel cycle reactors as thorium is abundant on Mars and so is fluorine.

Mars is also fucking Alot closer to earth than anything else that would come close to the requirements. Mars is the obvious choice. Once we have a foothold there we can start going better places but you absolutely have to get there first.

Its ironic. Its like a ponzi scheme where the smarter you are the easier it is to get suckered in and think everyone else is the sucker. Everything points to Musk being a big talker but not able to back it up. Oh and please link me to PR news writeups and softball questions from interviews or Musk fucking crying about Space or some visionary shite

>>132549500
>ll that extra fuel the rocket has to save for the descent also reduces the max payload the rocket can deliver.

Which is why when putting the heaviest loads in orbit they don't try to recover the rocket. It doesn't even have legs or fins to try to land with. They only recover it when the payload is light enough that it can carry enough spare fuel to land.

There is a version of the falcon 9 that isn't meant to be recovered and is disposable, it can put more weight into orbit than the recoverable version.

>>132549434
>parachute
>net
No

>>132542520
>The Falcon heavy will address that.
>implying the Falcon Heavy won't be delayed till the Big Crunch

>>132548650
I don't work for him. I work for companies who spend a lot of time and money putting stuff in orbit, and keeping that stuff in orbit running.

The simple fact is that We can buy a launch from one company for 92 million, and the other company for 150-200 million or more, and both have the same rates of quality customer service, who are you going with?

With SpaceX reduced prices we can do 3 launches (with all of costs including manufacturing and expected lifetime of the asset) for the price of 2 launches with another company. Which means that we make 33% more money, or increase our customer base by offering products at a lower rate.

33% margin difference is huge.

>>132549825
>Everything points to Musk being a big talker but not able to back it up

Yeah, besides him putting shit in orbit, delivering on contracts, and landing and re0using rockets.

Other than meeting all these goals spaceX is a huge failure. All you have to do is ignore all their successes and all you have is failures.

>>132549842
>>parachute
>>net
>No
make it waterproof then faggot

>>132549794
Bell Labs was probably one of the best engineering innovators and DARPA.

>>132549434
Can't control it. The wind would pull it off course, not to mention that the parachutes would have a significant mass and be a failure point.

>>132549852
>delayed till the Big Crunch
That a long time even by government standards, 10e500 years, that's about a many years until I find a faithful wife

>>132549177
The space shuttle engines where of a completely another design that wasn't reusable (They had to be completely rebuilt after each flight. And the shuttle also had 30,000+ tiles that had to be inspected and sometimes replaced, and each tile was custom.

>>132549985
It's a lot more complex than the space shuttle's solid rocket boosters. When the boosters were expended they were essentially just hollow tubes, like a spent firework. And even then they were damaged in the splashdown and required being rebuild to some extent.

If you cared you would look up the answers to all these things. I've seen musk answer them all several times in press conferences. And yet every time there is still some smug asshole who thinks spaceX is dumb and should use parachutes and land in water. Like SpaceX hadn't thought of that 5 years ago.

>>132549500
smaller payload, but a reusable rocket. How is that a gimmick? This will save millions over the life of the rocket from us not having to keep building them. Plus these are really useful for putting up satellites. We will still have to build larger rockets, but the fact that we got this far shows a good step in the right direction for commercially viable launching.

>>132549960
Who covers the cost should the rocket fail? NASA? SpaceX? SpaceX gets taxpayer money, doesn't it?

Subsidize the risks and privatize the profits is a low down dirty way to run a railroad.

>>132550240
spacex is dumb and a waste of time and money and probably a hoax

>>132549796
>The asteroids were an Obama plan. They offer absolutely nothing except for space mining applications and you don't need manned missions for that.
>nothing except for trillions of dollars worth of minerals
>that could be used to build space colonies

>The moon has less mass than Mars and cannot be terraformed
>we're in danger of extinction so let's worry about building a complete breathable atmosphere somewhere

>The moon may prove useful for midrange bases that allow you to refuel and construct large interstellar ships for deep exo solar exploration later on but for the immediate problem (we need a second planet) it serves no fucking purpose.
Neither does terraforming.

>The only objects more suitable than Mars are the moons of jupiter but our technology is not sufficient to send manned missions there and it would be much easier if you had large scale industry on Mars to then go there from Mars.
It would be much easier to build large-scale industry in Earth orbit then colonize Mars, Jupiter, the Oort, wherever.
>Mars is and always has been the obvious choice. With industrial aid it can be made habitable and eventually terraformed permanently especially with the aid of magnetic confinement or toroidal gravity trapping (using an asteroid or four placed in leo to increase mutual gravity well).
While I agree that's a cool plan it doesn't make colonizing, effectively, Montana before New England any better of an idea.

>Mars has shit loads of minerals and trapped gas in the soil
so does the moon
>thorium is abundant on Mars and so is fluorine.
what if I told you there was a chemical incredibly useful for industry that also supported human life, on a celestial body closer than Mars?

>>132549794
>space is escapism
I don't see you gassing mudslimes and Marxists?

I have said for fucking years we should have got rid of the leftists by force. Nobody fucking did shit nobody does.

If you have a plan to make them do shit then do it. Even with a nationalist society on a global scale and all trash removed Jews included you STILL need the second planet to provide insurance against natural extinction events and to enable exo solar exploration.

You are fucking retarded
>space is the bluest pill
Is that why every nationalist state has always wanted to go there Hitler included? Is that why Jews have consistently sabotaged nation's space programs or otherwise handicapped them?

Do you have any idea how many NASA attempts at BEO were derailed by globalist and Jewish special interests in congress since Apollo ended?

How fucking dumb do you have to be you fucking nigger.

>>132539370
those flying dicks also have an extraordinary safety record because the Russians have been flying them for 50 years and have had multiple redesigns

>>132550318
>spacex is dumb and a waste of time and money and probably a hoax
So are programs that support niggers, but somehow they get funded

>>132540442
>Obviously if space travel is ever to become routine one of the main requirements is that rockets not be single use.
No, we need to build a kilometer-wide orbital loop around the planet

>>132549315
Cost to get to ISS

Space Shuttle - $10,000 lb.
Orbital - $43,000 lb
SpaceX - 9,100 per pound.

>>132549387
You can always push up the costs of a Cost contract, not push it under your costs.

>>132550357
Fuck off kike you haven't refuted a single thing.

All I am hearing is deafitist shilling. Musk is a cuck but the idea itself is a good one.

Fucking don't even know why I bother with these threads. All you fucking an cap shills hate this stuff so bad go start your own fucking rocket company and go where you personally want to with your rockets.

>it's escapism nobody does what I want waaa

I don't see you faggots doing anything at all. Doing something>standing still like a slacktivist cuck. God it's like fucking listen to niGGers sit and bitch about how ethics would supposedly save journalism.

Fuck off already

>>132550544
>we need to build a kilometer-wide orbital loop around the planet
Change that to a 10k mass driver. The billions that go to the 3rd world could easily fund it

>>132550364
>you are fucking retarded

Just because i don't have a solution to the current issues in the world does not mean that the first crazy idea you hear is feasible.

You know who benefits from you thinking that space will solve all your problems? The jews that made the movies that put the idea into your head in the first place and who would most benefit from everyone thinking the economy is always going to increase forever.

>>132549796
I actually prefer if we focused on the moon and building space stations at the Lagrange points, but I can see Musk putting a few hundred people on Mars and keeping them supplied every few years with a fleet of ITS.

terr forming mars will takes centuries, but this got my attention

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

File: venus-airship.jpg (43KB, 844x583px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 844x583px

>>132549796
Why not just colonize Venus with an airship?

For you to actually colonize Mars you'd have to re-ignite the core to get the Magnetic field online, then you need to pump Co2 into the air enough to cause a global warming effect, that heats up the air.

If you don't re-ignite the core you will have to build the colony underground due to the radiation. That's possible, but would make expanding really difficult, especially when it means mining to create more space for the colony.

You'd also need to adjust for long term effects of a difference in gravity, it could mean that the colony will have really adverse effects growth rates and bone/muscle loss. Then you'd need to find out a way to harness enough energy to compensate for an increase in population.

>>132538171
There will be small scale battles for outposts within roughly 50 years.

>>132549222
And how do you think the American west was?

Would it be better if Mexico owned half the country and we all lived in jew York and Los Angeles in African style favellas?

This shit is not suppose to be fucking easy.

File: blue-origins-coat-of-arms-enscribed-with-the-companys-latin-logo.jpg (73KB, 485x461px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 485x461px

>>132550762
>Fuck off kike you haven't refuted a single thing.
you sure convinced me with your hot arguments

>Fucking don't even know why I bother with these threads.
I don't know why you do either, you run out of your Musksucking grab-bag of points and you're stuck.

>All you fucking an cap shills hate this stuff so bad go start your own fucking rocket company and go where you personally want to with your rockets.
maybe I will lol

File: marsSnooper.jpg (134KB, 499x500px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 499x500px

>>132550357
Phosphorus? I thought Deimos was the best hope for that?

But we're never going to have people living and working in space in numbers greater than 500 or so. There's just no point.

Please don't give me your cart-before-the-horse space infrastructure concepts. They don't have a reason to exist. There is nothing people can do in space that covers the costs of doing so, and that's that.

And don't fucking say i want this either. I am here mostly in the vain hope that someone will shed some new insight or information that shows i'm wrong about all of it.

>>132550769
I always though that the laser-ablation method was worth some research. Pournelle wrote about it in High Justice - a p. good book.


Basically, you have like ten nuclear power plants near the launch site, and a simple spacecraft with ablative material for its "fuel"

then you turn on all of the power plants to full production, and funnel all of their energy to a huge precise LASER. Then you point the laser at the bottom of the spacecraft, and it will begin to vaporize the ablative material, which turns into gas and propels the craft spaceward. Would be very cheap per launch.... but it would have a heck of a start up cost

>>132550769
1) Mass driver to get us to moon base
2) Strip mine the moon
3) Use Moon materials to build orbital loop
4) ?????
5) PROFIT (and be able to transport goods between America and Eurasia quicker and cheaper than container ships)

>>132549692
Okay, I work for a company that bid out a launch.

We had 18 small sats we needed to launch.

SpaceX launched the sats for 43 million.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/12/27/orbcomm-spacex-reach-new-agreement-on-og2-satellite-launches/

The french wanted over 100 million (and we were going to be 2nd payloads) , and Orbital wanted right at 100 million.

>>132548809
Fucking this this so damn hard

And the underlying common thread is they all turn out to be ancap shills.

Fucking ancap kikes really getting tired of this meme

>>132550931
How do the stations at the lagrange points pay for their upkeep?

>>132550762
I'm starting to think this is a shill.

>>132538521
>two hundred percent return on investment is not worth it, even considering that the initial investment return will be the worst return, and developments in technologies can also be made to make money
well I'm glad you're not in charge

File: 1498269874026.png (266KB, 980x742px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 980x742px

>>132551119
Didn't I already say he's a fucking cuck?

Stop posting and delete your life ancap kike

>>132551013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86JAU3w9mB8

>>132551212
The efficiency of lasers tells me there's no chance in hell that's cost-effective.

>>132535657
>Same thing happened with the SSME's
The SSMEs were certainly cheaper to refurbish than replace, and they were put through much more shit than the Merlins are.

See, the SSMEs are sustainer engines, which burned for about 8 minutes, while the stage 1 Merlins are booster engines, which burn for about 3 minutes. However, the Merlin is also used as an upper stage engine, which burns for about 7 minutes, so there's clearly lots of life left in them after a booster burn.

On top of that, the SSME had to put up with extremely rough conditions. Between two huge solid boosters is a very hostile place for a liquid-fuelled rocket engine. The vibrations were terrible. The heating and stress during orbital re-entry is also quite severe. The space soak, the time spent in vacuum conditions, orbiting in and out of the sunlight, was also harmful.

Anyway, the shuttle wasn't designed for the main engines to be removed for refurbishment. They were supposed to fly repeatedly before refurbishment was needed, so the back half of the shuttle had to be taken apart to get at them. This greatly increased the cost of servicing them.

On top of that, the shuttle was about five times the size an expendable rocket would have needed to be to carry the same payload. It was almost as big as a Saturn V, while only being capable of carrying about a Titan or Proton payload.

Falcon 9 is only about 50% bigger as a reusable than it would need to be as an expendable with only its reusable payload.

>>132549794
The falcon 9 per pound is much less - the french and ULA still have some markets (the heavy sats) locked in as the Falcon 9 can't launch the heavy loads, that why they are developing the heavy.

>>132551191
>There's just no point.
Sure there is. It's a place you can go where no one will mess with you. Can you really say there's no value in that? That no one could see a market in taking their nation or cult or friendship group out somewhere it takes light days reach, so there's a time gap between them and anyone that wants to oppress them?

"There is no reason I can think of" isn't an argument.

>>132551013
Start a company and do so.

Tick tock it's the sound of your life slowly running out.

Death is not the enemy time is and time is a fucking mean heartless SOB that doesn't give a fuck about anyone's fee fees.

>>132551421
What orifice are you getting your numbers from?

File: 1497801631044.png (72KB, 449x498px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 449x498px

>>132551426
If he's a cuck and you're riding his dick what does that make you?

>>132549794
>>Oh, it hasn't yet. They've only reflown two of them.
>So you agree that the hype is overblown and too early?
No, they've demonstrated it convincingly. There's no reason at this point to expect that it won't provide dramatically lower launch costs.

Anyway, it's not really about saving money, so much as providing a lot more launches for a little more money. (and no, not "a little more money per launch", a little more money for the whole launch program)

>>132551225
This is not a bad idea actually.

But the energy requirements would necessitate building working high efficiency fusion reactors and/or very very high efficiency thermal spectrum fission reactors (which would mean building thorium plants).

And to do this means you must dispose of the green kikes and the menace they pose.

Step one here is to get rid of the greenies otherwise your fucked up a tree trying to build the power plants needed for real mass drivers.

>>132551225
The profit is getting humanity spread among the solar system anon, and eventually the stars. People that bitch about short term gains are niggers
>>132551212
>I always though that the laser-ablation method was worth some research. Pournelle wrote about it in High Justice - a p. good book.
Quite good book, I think Project Orion should be rebooted though

>>132551596
>4 trillion rocks
>2 trillion to acquire
apparently a smelly one that hangs open at all times which belongs to you

>>132550282
>Who covers the cost should the rocket fail? NASA? SpaceX? SpaceX gets taxpayer money, doesn't it?

SpaceX gets government contracts, not government money.

When we launch we pay a insurance company, so if the rocket blows up we get money to build another bird and to launch it.

NASA self-insures.

>>132551416
space tourism of course. you could also park a 100 to 200 meter asteroid nearby and use the space station as an outpost for your workers

>>132551667
Smarter than you for continuing to reply after being btfo by multiple posters

You hate everything anybody does so go do what you want yourself on your own money. If you do ill give you props when you have hardware flying. Until then fuck off cunt

>>>/ancap/

>>>reddit

>>132551555
Do you know how many trillions of dollars, thousands of people, and decades of time you would need to set up a self-sufficient colony on mars? You might as well come up with a scheme to CRISPR all niggers to extinction, it might be the more practical choice.

Let's assume someone did it though, then the question changes to:
Do you know how easy it is to shoot at surface targets from orbit?

Pretty goddamned easy, especially on a planet with only a whisp of an atmosphere. Also if an asteroid ever hits mars you've no ocean to protect you and it will ruin the place.

>>132550318
>spacex is dumb and a waste of time and money and probably a hoax
They launch sats cheaper then anyone else, and there a ton of money for sat based businesses.

>>132552067
Cost of mars depends on mass of mission and how much it costs to get into orbit. Mars one way would only costs tens of billions at the start and a yearly resupply mission for a few things that wouldn't be practical to build on mars.

Just that you don't plan to return to earth.

>>132552067
>Do you know how many trillions of dollars, thousands of people, and decades of time you would need to set up a self-sufficient colony on mars?
Yup, a fucking shitload. Why continuously spend that cash on fucking niggers on this planet though?

>>132551799
>No, they've demonstrated it convincingly.
Nobody doubted that they could land a rocket on its tail.

>Anyway, it's not really about saving money, so much as providing a lot more launches for a little more money. (and no, not "a little more money per launch", a little more money for the whole launch program)
But for what purpose?

>>132551931
Nobody that can afford the ticket is that careless with their safety.

>>132551813
You would need nuclear to build the mass driver, but we could build a space elevator on the moon fairly easily with materials we currently have (like steel) and power it with nuclear, but solar is also much more cost effective without an atmosphere and the orbital loop itself could be run off of solar. With the loop in place, we could be elevators that run up to the loop with materials we currently have, rather than a singular space elevator that would be anchored several thousand miles in orbit and would require materials we aren't able to mass product.

>>132535657
>SSME
May the good lord bless you for knowing what that acronym means. There's probably fewer than a dozen of you on /pol/

tfw you will never be a spacecop in an Outland-esque mining colony rocking a SBS Browning 2000

>>132550811
It's not the fact that we heard it its the fact that the faggot cuck is actually trying to build the damn machine.

More people who are less cucked building hardware and doing shit would be appreciated that is why I get assblasted at people shitting on the literally one fucking dude who is actually trying. He sucks at it but I don't fucking see anybody else except chinks building shit.

And bezos is way way fucking worse if you have any idea the shit Amazon funds you'd never fucking support blue origin.

What we need are more people doing space based companies with real economic development plans and building the hardware not a bunch of kikes bicthing about the existing people not doing it the way they want.
Fucking a.

>>132552366
And they relaunched those rockets that have landed. (Twice IIRC)

>>132552067
I'm not the one pushing Mars, the everyone-that-disagrees-with-me-even-a-little-is-ancap shill is. We've got IDs, you know? I don't want to put humanity, or my descendants, in a gravity well.

>>132552493
>nobody else is building rockets
>don't support the other guy building rockets

>>132552433
But the SSME were not designed to be reused without a rebuilt (at least the early models)

>>132549794
>t. 'doesn't understand how small borescopes are'

plus:

>makes outrageous claims he can't back up
vs
>lands its rockets, has thorough explanations about why they're able to pull it off

>>132549794
>>132548626
It's going to be roughly the same regardless. SpaceX doesn't fly rockets with partial fuel loads.

File: 363fd0573d82e7673e50f43de5111575.jpg (149KB, 736x1002px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 736x1002px

>>132552271
Pretty sure those numbers are unrealistically conservative. They sound like Mars One bullshit.

>>132552302
Because people don't sufficiently understand morality. We can probably fix that for less than a mars colony if we actually tried.

But as i said, space gives folks like you a shiny Utopian alternative, so you won't bother with the dirty and boring alternatives that might actually work.

Good Goy.

Blue Pill
>Fusion is just around the corner!
>We will leave the Earth and colonize Mars
>We can avert climate change
>Humans will colonize the galaxy!
>CRISPR will solve cancer

Red Pill
>We will probably not make it work for a long time. If ever.
>We will be lucky to get a lab on Mars and it will be staffed by robots. It would be a cruel death sentence to put a person on Mars
>Its too late. We much mitigate its effects and reduce global population
>In our current forms will not survive leaving the Solar system. This is it. It will never change.
>CRISPR is incredibly dangerous because we barely understand what our DNA does at a fundamental level.It will cause more cancers

Science is small incremental mini steps done by people who almost never get any credit or money its not whatever pop science crack all you guys are smoking.

>>132550282
The insurance company. All rockets and payloads are insured.

>>132552379
I would support a space elevator project also provided we actually were able to build it and not fuck up.

Anything that fucking helps would be good I am sick of the inaction and the street shitting debates by people who really just want to see everything killed so they can get a lifetime of gibs. I have met welfare kings and queens irl. They are unbelievable fucking cancer and there is way more of them than anybody here grasps. We have got to fucking cut these people off and build shit that matters.

>>132552676
>>132552676
>SpaceX doesn't fly rockets with partial fuel loads.
Fuel is hardly the major cost of a Rocket anon.

>>132552701
the amount of drivel you spew and immediate resort to insults is unbelievable

>>132552366
space travel could be just as safe as flying on a airplane. our ancestors traveled on boats to discover the new world. then our ancestors build airplanes, and next step in space travel.

>>132552634
SSME was an overly complicated engine as it was. Brazed tube nozzle. Four fucking turbo pumps. Independent shafts on every pump. Two preburners.

The testing program was insane they blew up so many times during development its amazing the thing works at all. There are way way better and more efficient designs that have come along since see TRW integrated powerhead for example.

>>132539202
Plus Banks appears to have had a scat fetish.

>>132552747
Sometimes it gets weird. Like for AMOS6, one of the insurance companies involved only insures it after *launch*. Since it kaboomed on the pad before launch, the other insurance co, done by a maritime firm thingy, kicked in. or something like that.


Anyways, the important bit is that according to SpaceX the insurance costs did not go up at all (well maybe a little bit) for the relaunched 1st stages.

>>132552816
So the answer is simple: YOU PAY FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING ROCKET REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU FLY ON IT. The only way you pay less is if it's a group purchase with other people's payloads, or if you're buying a large number of launches.

>>132552764
>I would support a space elevator project also provided we actually were able to build it and not fuck up.
We can't build a space elevator, and wont be able to for decades. We could start on an orbital loop (and elevators running up to it) tomorrow.

>>132552702
>science is small incremental mini steps
Do you even realize how much progress we've made in the past decades compared to the rest of our time on earth? And there's no sign of slowing either. Hell, I can barely remember a time where we weren't all connected to the internet.
We might end up killing each other, but if we don't you can rest assured we'll have a moon base in the next fifty years and a mars base in the next hundred.

>>132552589
No literally do not support blue origin specifically I could care less beyond that who you like.

But mother fuck them. Bezos is a globalist mastermind Amazon and Microsoft worked together on common core and gamified learning and other even nastier subversive shit. The Amazon rabbit hole goes very fucking deep.

>>132552701
Mars one is bullshit.

Mars (Return with NASA) is about 450 Billion
Mars (One way with NASA) is a bout 45 billion.

Thing is, no one wants to sign on to a thing that requires say, a 500 million to 1 billion pricetag for 30 years

>>132552701
>Because people don't sufficiently understand morality
Top kek. Please explain why it is moral to prop up the weak and not ensure the survival of the species? You are suggesting that humans should just give up

>>132552834
Hard to accept reality. Science isn't a religion. Its a ruthless conformity to reality. All the evidence points to Mars terraforming being a pipe dream of all pipe dreams. You would suffer professionally if you seriously put it forward. Carl Sagan was right its just a pale blue dot and htats it. We are not leaving this rock for some sunlight uplands in your Elon Musk heaven. And I'm not being cynical I admire what he is doing.

>>132541800
>you will know it was also a military vehicle. One of the requirements of the shuttle was that it have a huge cross range ability.

Good man. You got that straight. It was the attempt to keep the Air Force happy with bullshit requirements that lead to two shuttles being lost with full compliments of crew.

>>132553038
Exactly, even though the insurance market surrounding rocketry is a little strange it all works out in the end. I don't know if Astronauts get insured though, they used to not be able to get coverage. That's why Apollo-era astronauts would create so much "memorabilia" ahead of their flights: if they died, their families could sell that off and get a good chunk of cash from it.

>>132552702
That is a black pill not a red pill.

Red pill is "how do we actually solve these problems instead of pissing away time and money on kike honeypots and gibs"

Blackpill is
"everything is fucked and never won't be might as well give up hurrr"

Also
>reduce global population

Be very careful because if kikes are in charge of that it will be us they reduce first not the replicating mudslimes

>>132553220
>Bezos is a globalist
>so support Elon Musk

>>132552953
Agreed.

>>132553057
What the hell are you on about. Do you think that when a company or nasa buys a launch they are not paying for the rocket? What the fuck are you on about.

It doesn't matter if you paying for 18 small sats or one large sat, you are going to pay for the same amount for that orbit (Some orbits cost more then others)

>>132541800
All that, and they hardly iterated on the Shuttle's design after it started flying. By now SpaceX is almost to Block 5 on Falcon 9, and convincing NASA/the Air Force to roll with it was like pulling teeth.

>>132553071
If it can work build it. If not figure out how and build it.
2+2=4

The problem is the will power and the amount of shills and gibs shills undercover that rampantly infest these threads is a great example of what I'm talking about.

Every thread is the same. It boils down to
>all existing efforts are shitty and should be abandoned
>who me? Lol I don't have anything to contribute but my idea is better Hurr do it instead

Tldr cancel the existing shit so I can get my neet weaboo bux and then larp for another twenty years about how we must stop the jew without actually stopping the jew.

>>132541800
>>132553700
Yep, though to be fair on one regard.

The shuttle in it later use was a very inexpensive (per Kilo) way to haul stuff to the ISS and have the manpower to put it together.

Just that to justify it you needed tons of stuff to bring up. IIRC per Kilo the Shuttle cost 1/4 of what orbital charges with the Cygnus

>>132553496
Musk is a cuck but at least he didn't dnt rig elections

You really should read who Amazon funded during the last ten years.

>>132543330
>cant get his cars out of the factory in working order

That was years ago. I've had the privilege of owning four Mercedes AMGs but my Model S P85D is by far the best car that I've ever owned. I love that goddamn thing.

File: 54165489415631.jpg (47KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x522px

>>132553840
>If it can work build it. If not figure out how and build it.
I would if I had the capability
>tfw poorfag

>>132553308
Every moral action preserves human life. Of course the end result of a moral society is overpopulation. What should we do? Not be moral?

I don't have an answer for that. All i can say is that space is no solution.

>>132553038
>>132553451
Yep, I know too much about it since I work in the sat side.

There is one contract for once it leaves your facility to the launchpad, there is another contract that covers it up to launch (sometimes you can buy that together).

Then there is another policy for the actual launch.

Then there another policy for the first 30-60 days

then there is policies for long term use.

>>132553983
That, and the Shuttle had all kinds of goodies useful for EVA work.

>>132543330
I literally watch launches happen every few weeks. Come visit Florida, anon

>>132553840
>If it can work build it. If not figure out how and build it.
We don't have the materials to build a space elevator, it is possible we might never have the material, that said orbital rings are quite possible.
>>132554201
>What should we do? Not be moral?
At some point it will come down to this, humans have created nukes etc, and most likely biological weapons

>>132554197
Then figure out how to change that. It's very hard I know but I managed. I am learning to manipulate the corporate world for my own gain once I have the shekels I put the to better use.

Soon as I have enough I plan to invest in a thorium energy startup. Tldr jew some Jews then spend the money on shit that matters.

>>132554091
He also got millions from the CIA to buy WaPo. WaPo is a fierce defender of the right! Oh wait..

>>132554508
Thanks anon, I'll do my damnedest

>>132554507
>At some point it will come down to this, humans have created nukes etc, and most likely biological weapons

Well good luck convincing anyone of that. It'll be about as easy to convince them to part with trillions of their own dollars to fund a mars colony.

>>132541800
Is there a book on this?

>>132554508
Like the powers that control this world will just let you create a molten salt reactor that threatens their empire. There is a reason why they've existed for decades but have never been impleklmented on a large scale. The waste savings are amazing though!

>>132533871
falcon 9 is like 1/10 the cost of delta-iv. reused stage 1 launches are like 75% the cost of new ones.

SLS is another nasa moneypit

>>132554507
otoh, Space colonization isn't meant to be a means to "escape". For some of the early rich fucks, maybe? But long-term it's like any of the colonies in the age of sail. You do it for political or business reasons.

>>132554276
funny little fact - when American intelligence organizations figured out that Salyut 7 was dead, they floated the idea of capturing it with the Shuttle and returning it to earth for study.

>>132553983
Shuttle was $1,000,000,000 per launch. It really wasn't that good $/kg. Pretty horrible, actually. like $36,000/kg to LEO. F9 is around $3,200/kg

>>132554201
Okay jeeves it's pretty cut and dry so I do have the answer

One of two things will happen:

Either
1. Forced population regulation under a totalitarian system of some flavor because the system will HAVE to be totalitarian to enforce it. In which case wrong thinkers will get neutralized

2. Commercial development of space Orbital plains and other heavenly bodies.


There are other outcome but all of them involve industrial collapse and the end of the world via war or related problems and ultimately a second coming of the dark ages. The existing system is unsustainable and this planet is fucking maxed out beyond belief in terms of what it can support. Just look at what the fucking Indians chinks and mudslimes do. They are like locusts they destroy everything around them the move on and take someone else's shit to destroy why do you think China is literally trying to build islands?


You cannot fucking sit here and unirionically post this shit and expect anyone to take you seriously. Time and nature do not give a fuck about your mother fucking feelings wants or needs this is what WILL happen regardless of anybody.

We have a choice to make do something or do nothing and keep spending on gibs. What is it gonna fucking be?

>>132554521
Bezos owns wapo not musk but thanks for proving my point.

>>132555295
yeah, Bezos is the squirrelly fuck. Musk is doing most of his projects because he personally wants to and found a way to sell them, and isn't shy to chase subsidies to get the job done faster. Bezos goes all-out on the corruption angle.

>>132554836
They will if I get them elected.

Or better yet what if you had a large very large group of buddies the type who would die for you and you got them elected on that basis instead knowing they will cooperate.

One way or another I'm going to contribute to getting something done about this shit I refuse to fucking sit here and let them win I will NOT let them win anymore I'm fucking sick of it. My entire fucking life has been the kikes and the scum of the world winning and the good dying young. I will do whatever I can to try and change it.

Call me a fool if you want I don't fucking care.

>>132549796
Just send zeppelin bases to upper Venus Atmosphere, fuck.
I want to go live in Cloud City

>>132555295
That's what I meant mate. It was a reply to your last sentence.

>>132555576
you're pretty bad at telling enemies from friends who don't follow you completely m8

not sure how you're going to build an institution

>>132554975
at 1 billion per launch, it would be 44k per kilo to launch to the ISS.

Cynus is almost 100k per kilo

SpaceX is 59k with usual payloads, but if the Dragon was fully loaded by mass it would be close to 25k per kilo.

>>132554201
>Every moral action preserves human life
Shouldn't you be at a hospital, begging the doctors to kill you so they can harvest your organs and use them to save the lives of a dozen other people?

>>132555576
Even of you get a good guy elected,what can he do? They control:
>congress
>senate
>central banks
>media
>stock market
>entire intel community
>military industrial complex
The elections are an illusion meant to pacify the sheep.
>call me a fool
You aren't a fool,you're an idealist. Life will suck that out of you soon enough.
Goodluck in your endeavors. Hopefully you'll obliterate some of them .

>>132552702
>Science is small incremental mini steps
Get your Ortega hypothesis and stick it up yr bum

>>132551540
Oddly, this time the Leaf is spot on.

>>132549500
>all that extra fuel the rocket has to save for the descent
Yeah, all 5-10% of it. Much cheaper to top it off than to throw the whole rocket away.

>>132533871
Yes, because you don't have to build an entirely new rocket every time you want to launch a payload. You build one rocket and you get several launches out of it before it's too busted to function anymore. Why do you think jets became feasible for constant international travel? I'll tell you a super triple secret, it's because their engines are reusable and don't melt after a day or two of flying time, they get regular maintenance and keep running.

>>132535120
SpaceX is the cheapest launches you can buy. Literally cheaper than the Russians.

>>132549500
>>132557464
This.

Lets say the rocket costs 50 million (It closer to be 60 million.

Being able to get 2 launches per rocket cuts your costs per launch to 25 million.

It is well worth spending a extra 75k-100k of fuel to save 25 million dollars.

>>132538073
We aren't to the big dumb booster yet, but falcon 9 is getting close.

>>132538171
Already have it with blinding lasers and interceptors.

>>132557782
Wouldn't Sea Dragon have qualified? Rocket so large, that you could build it out of steel and still maintain an efficient mass fraction?

>>132535120
>>132557675
Yep.

US is paying Orbital Science 1.9 billion to launch up to 44000 pounds of stuff to the ISS

US is paying SpaceX 1.6 billion to launch up to 90,000 pounds to the ISS (but most likely will be ~60,000 pounds)

Do the math

>>132558084
A big issue for all space travel is initial cost. Nobody wants to pony up the millions or billions of dollars required to come up with a method of mass producing supersized rockets, build a skyhook, build a space elevator, or any of the other definitely possible megastructures to really kick off a space industry.

The hunger for resources like lithium, iridium, gold or platinum isn't desperate enough yet for anybody to risk that much money on a large scale project.

I'd imagine that in a decade or so the standard mid-weight rocket for people moving will be a fully reusable rapor-based F9 with a 2nd gen SNC dreamchaser on top. No fairings to recover, soft landings, and ultra efficient. Plus the dreamchaser is sexy. Wish they won the CCDev contract.

>>132558180
Holy fuck thats a lot of money

LITERALLY FUCKING NOTHING

>>132542324
You wouldn't download a rocket...

>>132558180
SpaceX is also covering downmass, Orbital can only do trash disposal.
>>132558741
>https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:8754
I do what I want

>>132558733
>>132558733
26k a pound vs 43k a pound

Basicly SpaceX is saving the US 1 billion dollars just with that contract.

>>132559146
Yep, if they where just doing trash disposal I am sure the costs would be even less.

File: 1464128065623.jpg (22KB, 400x460px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x460px

>>132558733
>he thought by making space travel cheap, they meant it'd cost a few hundred dollars per payload by 2018

>>132558674
Rockets will probably never really achieve the same standing as passenger jets. I'd wager more along the lines of 10-15k a person without considering luggage. It would be the kind of trip most people could only afford to take once unless we build a skyhook or space elevator first, which might bring it down to 5000+/-k a person.

>>132542454
There's nothing wrong with that. People want to read about overpowered wizard spaceships and banks gives it to them.

>>132559165
yes, but as a taxpayer there probably won't be any change on my end - there will just be more launches for the same launch fund allotment. Not that I particularly care - space is cool, and spending bucks on spy sats and orbiting nat. labs is good in my book.

>>132559461
>5000k
Woops, I mean $5000 a fucking shitton of money.

So much bullshit and wrong info in this thread.

>>132559461
Give it time. airplanes were for the rich for a while too. Then they were for the sorta-rich. Now any shmoe with $400 can go visit grandmama for thanksgiving in a aluminum tube

>>132559863
That's because airplanes take people to places they want to go.

There aren't places people want to go in space.

Also, you still can't afford to own an airplane unless you're pretty well off. It used to be that you could be a lot poorer and own your own airplane. Funny how technology only gets more expensive as it improves.

>>132556593

He didn't say that the moral action is the one that preserves the most life, he just said that moral actions preserve life, they don't destroy it. Your logic fails you.

>>132559461
And you would be charged for every single kilogram you weighed too, because throwing anything up into orbit is expensive.

>>132549452
They listed on the market?

>>132560175
Last I checked, a used C-152 was around $30k, within the reach of the average middle class person. Granted, it's not a practical plane nor does it go very fast and the training is the part that will kill you, but just on money terms, where there's a will, there's a way...

>>132560175
>There aren't places people want to go in space.
There definitely wasn't a Disney World in the 1500s anon. Most space travel will be tied to a work contract or similar, this is a frontier environment we're talking about. If you're going somewhere in space, it's because you're either filthy rich, want to explore, or you're out to make a lot of money.

>>132559863
>>132560175
you realize that plane tickets are so cheap nowdays because all the cargo modern airliners can carry, right?

>>132560175
There aren't places to go because there aren't enough paying people to justify for those places to exist in the first place. You need the pioneers first.

It's like the great western expansion and the railroads. In fact, Elon said he wants to be the "railroad". let other companies figure out what you do when you get there.

>>132559863
I'm extremely doubtful the laws of physics would even allow a non nuclear rocket to be efficient enough to reduce cargo cost to $200/kg (17k+ for a naked person with zero luggage) much less if you wanted to bring anything but your bare ass or if you weighed more than average. Even assuming your rocket runs on pure space magic and can actually achieve that $200 range, you'd be looking at a ticket probably in the 25k+ range.

Would definitely make it easy for governments to send scientists up because 25k is essentially nothing for a government, but most normal people would have to take out a loan to buy that ticket. I'd expect only the superwealthy, governments doing space research, miners who will make a lot more than they spend, or people who aren't planning on coming back to earth to ever use them.

>>132560480
Only on the Tokyo exchange.

>>132559588
Spy satellites are probably some of the most valuable tools the military can have. A sneak attack like pearl harbor in WWII is now impossible. We could see a fleet of ships steaming towards us a week in advance and call up the country and ask them WTF they think they are doing.

We can also keep track of exactly how many airplanes are in each nation's airforce and how often they use them.

>>132560175
>Funny how technology only gets more expensive as it improves.
You mean "funny how as the economy and financial state of the producing business changes, and as competition and demand fluctuate, it can lead to new technologies being more expensive while the older versions that are just as effective start to become cheaper and cheaper"?

>>132560798
This is one of the ways we know that Russia is strong militarily, but has limited endurance and power projection ability.

File: Piper Cub 16802 ZS-PCX Keaton Perkins 01a.jpg (215KB, 800x300px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 800x300px

>>132559863
Just about anybody can afford a piper cub if they really want one. But a nice plane is still very expensive. And jets are millions.

>>132560628
Perhaps. With current numbers, if you only (only!) had to refuel a f9 (so S2 is theoretically reusable), you could get 7 people to the ISS for about 35 thousand apiece. There is probably a huge market for just that price range.

>>132560981
>>132560798
It's also one of the great places where fancy tech trickles down into commercial uses. There is some really advanced optical nonsense going up on modern spysats. Just look at those two telescopes that the NRO donated to nasa - the nasa blokes were ogling at their specs.

>>132560306
That's where I'm getting those numbers, assuming a generous $200/kg, your average human (62kg) will cost $13,640+ to launch into orbit. That doesn't include clothing, personal effects, toiletries, and the environment suit any space travel agency would demand that you bring or buy so you can't sue them for being exposed to hard vacuum, I'd bet that's more along the lines of 80-100kg, which is closer to 22,000 dollarydoos. Plus taxes, plus fuel, air, water, and food.

If we use a space elevator powered by fission or fusion that cost could go down (as the cost of electricity would go down with those superior power sources) but I'd still expect a space elevator ticket to be a significant investment for anyone wanting to leave Earth.

>>132561357
>thinking Muricans weigh only 62kg
>thinking 100kg is extreme

>>132558534
It'll become a thing if space exploitation gets as big as the oil industry is on earth.

That's when you'll see large-scale investments into megastructures so getting into orbit is cheaper. Could happen within the decade if anyone puts the effort into putting a NEO into, say, lunar orbit. Dig it out, send the useful material to earth, or a moon colony, use some of it to turn the hollowed-out asteroid into a habitat.

In one swoop you've got accommodations for a city, mineral wealth to the earth and available for use in space or on a moon colony (even mars), and new research/fabrication opportunities.

I quite imagine a lot of companies are going to jump at the chance to run potentially illegal research on orbital habitats, since technically it's not in any government's jurisdiction. Great place for research and storage of highly lethal microbes and toxic materials too.

And I've personally wondered if something like semiconductor manufacturing couldn't be done better in a weightless environment. CPU's are the kind of high tech, high margin, low mass, manufacturing that would be perfect for being done in space.

>>132560500
So you just keep it in your driveway and fill it up at the arco down the street?

>>132560509
>There definitely wasn't a Disney World in the 1500s anon
There definitely was air and good place to grow crops among other things where Disney World currently stands. It'd idiotic to compare space travel with ocean travel. I'd like to see you make orbit using just materials you'd find on a tropical island.

>>132560530
The cargo also has places it wants to be. There is no self-sufficient economic activity that takes place in space other than various satellites, and those don't need men in them.

>>132560550
>There aren't places to go because there aren't enough paying people to justify for those places to exist in the first place. You need the pioneers first.
Then you shouldn't compare it to anything we've ever done before because we've always gone to places that had air, warmth, pressure, water, AND economically useful resources just lying all over. You didn't need to bring or make your own oxygen to run a sugar plantation. Go make a city at the north or south pole and run it for a few decades and then you can say we've done something remotely similar to space colonization and exploitation.

>It's like the great western expansion and the railroads. In fact, Elon said he wants to be the "railroad". let other companies figure out what you do when you get there.
The difference being that railroads are stone age technology compared to rockets and they cost so little to make and operate that you can easily recoup their cost from the resources they allow access to.

The same does not apply to resources in space. For one thing, you can't bring the resources back for less than they're worth, so you'd have to use them in space, but we don't have anything to fucking do in space, so the whole thing is entirely pointless.

>>132561357
Woops, meant $220/kg. Point still stands, I'd expect even a super efficient rocket ride to cost upwards of 30k with you, your space suit, and all of the air to keep you alive. And the taxes, holy shit imagine how high faggot hippies would want the pollution tax on a commercial rocket to be.

>>132561518
Fat people simply wouldn't be able to afford it, also the acceleration would probably kill them. Or they would shart in suit and choke to death.

>>132560962
So a model T would be more expensive than a Tesla? We only make nicer things when we use more energy than the previous things. and there happens to be a heap of limits on how much energy we can use. So it's not hard to see the ends of technologies.

There are two men in this world I love and adore. My father, and Elon Musk.

>>132561350
>There is probably a huge market for just that price range.
About the same market as people who want to visit the Marianas trench, due to the inherent danger of both activities being a significant limiting factor. Rich people don't get rich by taking stupid risks for minor short term gains.

>>132561520
>It'll become a thing if space exploitation gets as big as the oil industry is on earth.
The oil industry is only big because you get more out of your investment than you initially invest. There is NOTHING in space that has that quality. It all takes more resources to get than the stuff is worth, even before the sudden abundance crashes the market and that is never going to change unless we start launching rockets powered by uranium or fluorine or both.