SpaceX Thaicom 8 May 26, 2016 launch

>>8096537
Maybe it will. Maybe it wont.

The cost of waiting a couple weeks is a lot less than the cost of fucking up.

What time will it launch?

Sorry, i'm at uni

>>8096662
21:40 UTC

>>8096537
Nobody really knows.

>>8096537
There is a 50% chance of it launching on schedule.

Either it happens or it doesn't.

File: SpaceX Launch.webm (722KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 576x432px

>>8096537
>tfw missing the successful barge landing

>>8096936
They will try to land a new one?

File: Piasecki VZ-8 Airgeep.webm (3MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 450x360px

>>8097231
No clue. I hope so. Maybe they will make a hoverbike and land on that next time.

>>8096936
Did they even have a proper video of it? Or were they so sure it would fail that they didn't have a chopper or w/e video taping?

File: 20160506_101620.jpg (903KB, 1066x1600px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 1066x1600px

Will it launch, /sci/? Is the stream up yet?

File: 1460157564197.webm (306KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 640x360px

>>8097468

>>8097672
thats not the most recent landing

File: the_falcon_has_landed.webm (761KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 853x480px

bump

>>8099014
Would be better with stage 1 telemetry. Or at least kerbal UI

>>8097725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHqLz9ni0Bo

File: Zhou Youguang.jpg (54KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x450px

>>8096537
>>8096662
>>8096671
>>8096675
>>8097641

Launch time: 2140-2340 GMT (5:40-740 p.m. EDT)
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida

Hosted webcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBYC4f79iXc

Technical webcast (no annoying commentary):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPYOtCFSLKw

>>8099014
how is its speed and altitude increasing..?

>>8100893
because those numbers are for the second stage, not the one landing

>>8096562
such contribution

File: image.jpg (64KB, 470x500px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 470x500px

Can't wait

>>8100988
i tried my best

Will launch.
Unless troll boat does it again.

hypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehypehype

>These massive bellend fairings

Why do they do this? Surely it would be more aerodynamically efficient/stable to make the boosters wider and shorter?

File: 1453157259952.jpg (28KB, 300x336px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 300x336px

>>8101548

>>8101548
Well, not really.

One hour to broadcast. Live streams here:

>>8100885

>>8101816
Some man just want to watch the world burn.

>>8096537
no, it has already been delayed

>>8101548
yes, wider and shorter is more efficient. Falcon 9 dimensions are set not by engineering concerns, but by overpass height! That sets the max diameter, and they stretch it from there to fit the right amount of fuel in.

The fatter rocket Delta IV only gets away with it because stages are shipped by sea instead of by highway. And the widest rocket Saturn V was built on site. If the SpaceX BFR becomes reality, it will also be built at a new factory near the launch pad.

>>8101548
This is the biggest diameter rocket they can ship on the interstate, due to the clearance under overpasses.

Some bulky payloads require this big 5-meter fairing, so instead of complicating their production line with multiple fairings, they just make this one standard model.

>>8101842
>>8101851
So it was a bad idea for me to mimic F9 rockets in KSP? (with FAR, no less)

>>8101834
Long window so there's still a good chance it will launch today.

has it been delayed until tomorrow?

>>8101859
Not according to Twitter 20 minutes ago.

>>8101851
Funny fact, the 747 is the size it is since a larger plane fuselage wouldn't fit through the train tunnel which the Boeing factory uses to transport stuff

God damn it! I'm here!!! Am I late?

>>8101874
The livestream hasn't started yet

>>8101874
No, they are late.

>>8101873
Seriously?
Isnt Boeing just a mega-factory on a plain somewhere?

File: 1.png (2KB, 141x77px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 141x77px

>>8101874
>>8101881
>>8101880
Not promising.

>>8101883
>15 minutes ago
>not started yet


REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>8096581
How many more times can they scrub a launch before they have to declare bankruptcy?

I seem to remember that when they fucked up (the one after the "Orbital Cygnus" explosion last year) they said they had like two more shots before they were dead.

>>8101882
Everett, Washington. Yes, largest building in the world by continuous floor space.

>>8101874
SpaceX waited just for you!

>>8101467
hi

>>8101882
http://www.b737.org.uk/production.htm

>>8101887
You do realise that delays are the fucking bread and butter of all launch systems? Ariane, ULA, everyone had delays and scrubs. 90% of that SpaceLaunch-site is just news of a launch being delayd over and over again

File: Capture.png (81KB, 1435x284px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1435x284px

Oh bloody well done, Wendy.

File: 2.jpg (67KB, 630x399px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 630x399px

Hosted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBYC4f79iXc

Technical (best channel)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPYOtCFSLKw

File: 1437029693514.gif (253KB, 447x415px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 447x415px

>>8101902

File: Screen Shot 2016-05-27 at 00.01.24.png (726KB, 1166x772px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 1166x772px

what the fuck where is the stream

File: 1584467.png (88KB, 298x306px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 298x306px

>>8101902
FUCKING BOATS EVERY TIME

File: image-999362-galleryV9-voap-999362.jpg (73KB, 850x573px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 850x573px

>>8101902

>>8101909
see
>>8101905

File: 213321.png (3KB, 171x131px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 171x131px

>>8101902
REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

File: Capture.png (17KB, 388x370px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 388x370px

Yotube stream delayed

>>8101902
Not a problem. Coastguard hailed them and told them they're fine if they maintain speed and heading.

File: pe.jpg (38KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 320x320px

>>8101902

>>8101901
>Scrub/Abort

I meant failed launches that result in the LTS being engaged.

I know full well that they often postpone.

>the tension when RSO declared launch abort when the cygnus was postponed before it blew up because some fishing vessel didn't fucking move.

File: waiting for launch.jpg (50KB, 504x336px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 504x336px

>>8101905

File: xo.jpg (71KB, 700x504px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 700x504px

T- 1h : 30min

>>8096537
>Thaicom

So like communications satellite for Thailand?

>>8101929
Yes.

>Manufactured by Orbital ATK, the 3,100-kilogram (6,800 lb) Thaicom 8 communications satellite will serve Thailand, India and Africa from the 78.5° East geostationary location.[120] It is equipped with 24 active Ku-band transponders.

File: 1429702570804.gif (16KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 125x125px

>>8101929

File: 987654373563263.png (2MB, 1002x1425px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1002x1425px

>scrub
KEK

Should have gone with the reliable option Thaicom

File: fuckyouwendy.png (4KB, 289x153px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 289x153px

shit

File: 120629-F-NQ666-001.jpg (946KB, 3200x4000px) Image search: [Google]

946KB, 3200x4000px

>>8102027
Why do I love ULA so much? It's pretty simple when I think about it. ULA isn't just the best launch provider in the country; they might just be the greatest launch provider of all time. Just imaging the Altas V riding through the skies of Earth, the wind on its fairing, the mighty RD-180 below it. As she rides through the red sky, NASA swoons at her very scent. They know how she smells; the essence of burning RP-1 smell is sold in Orlando under the name of "Space Orgasm." The very nature of ULA is mystery. Could they be playing a deeper game than even Tory Bruno realizes? The answer is yes, ULA has passed such boundaries as the physical world, and has free will to do whatever they sees fit. However, ULA is filled with such guile, such arcane craft that they does not even use these powers. Why? You will never know, for the mind of the ULA is not one that is easily penetrated. ULA rockets are such a force of nature in this realm that nothing can truly touch them, the only thing keeping them bound to this world at all is their will to exist within the preordained boundaries understood physics. ULA is not only beyond the comprehension of us, it exists within a plane of true focus and beauty. Observe the plume of exhaust gasses from this Delta IV, the gorgeous and rippling flames, the gallant fairing, and most importantly, its engines. Her engines, like cauldrons straight from hell, provide the only glimpse into the true machinations of ULA. Do not stare into them. Many good men have gone mad in the attempt. ULA is not just a launch provider, a formless collection of engineers and rockets; they are themselves the binding that holds the word together. Without ULA, Musk the Menace takes over and the entire space industry as we know it crumbles. The Mississippi would stop flowing without ULA, Kessler syndrome would take over in orbit, and the space station would fall without their fiery gaze. These are just of a few of the reasons why I like ULA so much.

haha classic

>>8102029
>@elonmusk
>There was a tiny glitch in the motion of an upper stage engine actuator.
>Probably not a flight risk, but still worth investigating.

See you tomorrow, space cowboys.

>>8102037
nice pasta

>>8102096
>@elonmusk
>There was a tiny glitch in the motion of an upper stage engine actuator.
>Probably not a flight risk, but still worth investigating.

Nice try Wendy.

>The approximately two-hour launch window opens on May 26 at 5:40 pm ET, 9:40 pm UTC.

Cutting it close to that window?

>>8101548
I think they have something to do with the fact that it can't go supersonic unless they are bell-ended. Choke points. Fluid dynamics. Venturi effect.

>>8102236
disregard this post.

>>8102247
>click the little checkbox next to your post

>go down to the bottom right and click "delete"

Problem solved!

>>8101842

Why don't they move it by train?

>>8103257
>Western USA
>Trains
good meme

>>8103404
Oh wait, nvm. The launch is in Florida.

Two hours, people.
Technical (no talk):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPYOtCFSLKw
Hosted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBYC4f79iXc

>>8103404
Maybe they could move it with the [spoiler]Hyperloop[/spoiler]

File: image.jpg (129KB, 720x572px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 720x572px

Bumping with Apollo program info


May 26, 1969....Apollo 10 returns from the Moon after a successful lunar landing dress rehearsal. The test flight gives NASA the information to refine procedures and confidently commit Apollo 11 for a lunar landing. Apollo 10 cost approximately $350 million US in 1969 ($2.3 billion US in 2016).

it's happening

Here we go. Stream commencing.

>meters
>kilometers
cucked

T -15 minutes

File: 1426365342926.png (66KB, 289x290px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 289x290px

post yfw it explodes on launch

T-5

Also, it seems like they've upped their black presenters ratio.

>that autist looking in camera

>>8104431
>Not watching the technical webcast with no annoying casters.

>>8104436
>not watching both

Looks like the last problem with S2 engine gimbal was fixed.

I'm having a bad feeling about this. Pls abort!!!

File: smug.jpg (24KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 499x499px

plane

SPACE BUGS!

>a wasp

Fucking wasps

T-1

BUG!!!!

SPACE WASP WILL DESTROY US ALL

ALIENS

dat based wasp

Was that a fucking alien?

that wasp keeps freaking me the fuck out

T MINUS 10

LIFTOFF

IT TOOK OFF

FLY BABY BIRD FLY

This shit never gets old.

I love rockets.

Somehow I don't feel good about this.

>>8104462
itll be fine

>>8104461
Agreed.

>All this popsci in the regular webcast

>SpaceX weighs their rocket in "cars"

fucking americans...

No way they'll hit OCISLY

>that S2 pitch
what the fuck

Nice stage 1 footage they had on the side by side

>stage 1 flip footage
muh dick

>>8104468
that's why patricians watch the technical webcast

>>8104475
yeah wtf was that about?

Oh come on! Who cares about S2 right now?

>>8104478
Indeed

>>8104471
>He watches the pleb cast

This stage 1 footage is awesome

muh dick muh dick muh dick

Thank you SpaceX!!

THAT IS FUCKING COOL

Dat entry burn tho

Love the Stage 1 footage.

>Those cute little rcs thrusters firing

>grid fins on fire

is that normal?

rip stage 1 camera too based to live

Wtf is that thing on OCISLY

FUGGGGG
NIOIIICE

MUH DICK IS HARD

They did it again
Dank

HE DID IT

THE MADMAN

ABSOLUTE MADMEN

LANDED

SPACEX YET AGAIN CONFIRMED FOR BASED

USA USA USA

File: 1452486732460.jpg (7KB, 250x239px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x239px

fucking hell. this shit is getting real.

like clockwork

>too bad it's not re-usbale

>>8104502
good question! debris? the fire suppression system?

>clapping burgers

>>8104517
Has there been any word on the condition of the landed stages?

>>8104524
none so far i think.

It's official.
ULA, Roscosmos, and Arianespace on suicide watch.
ISRO on looicide watch.
Blue Origin confirmed for trying to bioengineer a unicorn to dance in a flame duct.

gg

>>8104524
The previous high altitude entry fugged up the first stage pretty bad, even though it landed ok. Lower altitudes are no problem.

>EASE I STILL LOVE YOU
?

>>8104524
They aren't in any hurry to be "first one to relaunch a rocket", but they probably could refill the rockets and relaunch them right away

They need to be in working condition to land after all.

Though I did notice that they lost a camera on their reentry so maybe other damage like that happens

THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN

>>8104533
Of Course I Still Love You

and cool cyberpunk/retrowave music for the break
why is elon musk the only based ceo that ever lived

>>8104533
Pretty sure it says Elise

>>8104533
"Of Course I Still Love You" The name of the landing platform drone ship. Elon is a fan of the Culture series by Ian Banks where all the ships have name like "Anticipation of a new lovers arrival"

>>8104524
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2016/05/spacex-falcon-9-sustained-max-damage-during-barge-landing

http://spacenews.com/spacex-reports-no-damage-to-falcon-9-first-stage-after-landing/

>>8104517
this is literally all experimental, the current rocket was designed before they landed anything.

we will probably see a new version of the rocket.

but yeah, elon is misleading with his "it can refly" stuff. He's not wrong, it probably CAN refly, but if they refly one without being absolutely sure it won't blow up, and it does, it's goodbye to their hype and press

>>8104536
>Though I did notice that they lost a camera on their reentry
they just forgot to fill the windshield washer fluid before launch. Probably hit a wasp.

>>8104536
i think that was condensation or soot blocking the lense

>>8104539
>the only based ceo that ever lived
I wonder how working conditions are inside spacex

>>8104540
>>8104544
Ah... Well then, I'm an idiot.

>>8104536
>>8104532
>>8104524

in a previous interview musk said they were aiming to relaunch a stage some time in june or july, and the next scheduled launch is june 16 so maybe then?

>>8104544
>"Anticipation of a new lovers arrival"
honestly, that would have been a far more appropriate name!

File: _83938229_44aef1ae-4c6c-47ab-8ac7-6ffc3c67f483.jpg (26KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 624x351px

HYPE

>>8104557
>Of course I still love you
>Anticipation of a new lover's arrival
6 syllables verus 13 syllables.

>>8104556
Eutelsat is not going on a refly. Refly customer hasn't been announced yet.

>>8104556
I'm not so sure the buyers are confident enough to put their million dollar satellite on a second hand rocket.

>>8104536

don't they have a 3 year backlog? those contracts probably all say 'new vehicles' with some opening for spacex to negotiate use of a refurbished rocket

>>8104556
I think the relaunch is without payload as a test. No company would allow their satellite to be launched on the guinea pig reused rocket.

>>8104567
Stages are getting re-qualed before flight, retard. Plus, insurance and a lower price. Elon says there is a lot of interest already. That will grow as they land more and more cores, and of course when they refly a core successfully for the first time.

Imagine how it'll be once those stages start getting stockpiled and suddenly he has 30 stage 1's in his garage
Take over the whole world wide launch market by 2020?

>>8104567
Spacex will offer first reflights at rock bottom prices I bet, to sweeten the deal. If they nail a few reflights with no problems they will have every satcom operator lining up on their door.

>>8104570
>No company would allow their satellite to be launched on the guinea pig reused rocket.
Wrong

All rockets are "reused" (qual tests and hot fires). If a refly core holds structurally through those the only unknown is Max Q, and even then, the rocket is built with lots of margin with this very thing in mind.

>>8104554
Depends if you're a lazy 40 hour work weeker or a true believer

>>8104582
>a true believer
>mfw spacex is now a religion
>mfw the only way to endure inside it is to have faith and believe
I have no face

why is it snowing in space?

Heh, no more "zillion" km in altitude.

>SEPARATION CONFIRMED

>>8104600
it's cold

>>8104608
>fly, you fools!

>>8104554
Working conditions must be pretty great, as they have no trouble attracting and retaining great engineers.

>subscribe to my twitch and follow my twitter!
>Don't forget to bring a tie

SpaceX needs to drop this redditor meme shit

>>8104614
Revenge is a dish best served cold. It is very cold... iiinnnnn SPPPPPPAACCCEEEEEE

>>8104589
that's not what true believer means you illiterate fuck

>>8104616
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Reviews-E40371.htm

>>8104624
>Hours: Long hours in the office, on call while at home. Work constantly on mind as a result.
>Career Growth: Even with great reviews, was completely shut out of promotions. Gotta be buddy-buddy with the right people.

Space Cucks

>>8104624
>96% approve of the CEO

>>8104616
Attracting, yes. SpaceX is the cool place to work for any young aerospace engineer or technician

Retaining, maybe. They are run like an internet startup, which only rewards the workaholic. Turnover and burnout are reported problems.

>>8104624
Christ, its like Yelp, only for rockets

>>8104635
'Workaholic' is a term that people who don't really care about their work use to disparage people who do.

if some teeny tiny stress is applied on a car part or a plane part, you have to throw the whole part and put a new one

no chance in hell this reusable rocket will make it financially

a brand new rocket is cheaper than a rocket reused 5 times and rechecked 5 times to pass all safety tests

>>8104645
Even if they got their rocket down on the ground in perfect condition 100% of the time, reuse is still not profitable!
See our models from 20 years ago based on our cost structure and assume zero changes in the launch market!

WE DID IT RERDDITT!!!

Lots more launches coming up:

29th - Soyuz - Glonass-M milsat
30th - Long March 4B - chinese milsat
31st - Antares-200 - first hotfire of replacement engines, ahead of July 6 return to flight
1st - Safir - Iranian launch? maybe?
4th - Delta Heavy - NROL-37 spysat
4th - Rokot - Russian earth observation sat
8th - Ariane 5 - dual comsat
8th - Proton - comsat
10th - PSLV - Indian earth observation sat

>>8104671
>Delta Heavy
My dick can't get any harder

>>8104645
>>8104656
No chance in hell a reusable airplane will ever make it financially.

A brand new airplane is cheaper than a plane that is reused five times and rechecked five times to pass all safety tests.

>>8104656

it's not

SpaceX is a ponzi scheme

they're not producing a new technology, they're using an existing technology which has been proven to not work

battery powered cars will never be as powerful as oil powered cars : Thermodynamics 101

reusable rockets will never be as profitable as single use one : Capitalism 101

>>8104624
>Cons
>Long hours are expected from everyone and it is the norm to work at least 60.
>60h/week
>10 hours a day, 6 days out of 7
Enjoy your burnout syndrome, you young engineers

>>8104699
this is bait, everyone stop responding.

It's over
BLUE ORIGIN ON SUICIDE WATCH!

>>8104551
>probably hit a wasp
kek

So, should Musk mail Branson and Bezos Martian rocks, or sell them seats on the first manned Dragon flight?

File: 2016-05-27-234802.png (851KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 1920x1080px

>>8104528
>Blue Origin confirmed for trying to bioengineer a unicorn to dance in a flame duct
underrated post

>>8104565
>>8104567
>>8104569
>>8104570
Based SES actually said last year already that they'd be interested in being the first customer for a reused first stage, and have reaffirmed that desire this year. Their next satellite, SES-10, could be that launch later this year (for the right price reduction).

>>8104671
what? xx century rockets? thats boring

do you have any ones of reusable technologies that are objectively cutting down the costs by ten and efffectively creating a wider good of all?

>>8104744
Blue Origin doesn't exactly announce flights

File: image-918446-galleryV9-tftt-918446.jpg (131KB, 850x564px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 850x564px

fuck this gay earth

>>8104762
or put anything into orbit.

They should just give up and work on Amazon Drone Shipping.

>>8104768
They are working on a bigger rocket that is planned to get to orbit. And even their current rocket is "objectively cutting down the costs and effectively creating a wider good for all", albeit for a smaller, less useful market (Tourism could make them millions though)

>>8104762
>Blue Origin
we are talking about space, not objectively inferiors.

im also a sapce company, i just havent put shit in orbit yet but you just wait and see

>>8104779
They should aim for the suborbital parajump extreme sports market
THAT would be billions

Not sure how relevant suborbital tourism will be

But if you could jump at 90 km altitude for similar price to 20,000 ft or w/e

Lots of people would do it

>>8104744
> that are objectively cutting down the costs by ten
>objectively
Reusable F9 won't be a 10th of the cost. Fantasy is not objective.

>>8104848
Their next reusable rocket designed from the experience they get on falcon 9 will exactly reduce costs down 1/10th(or more)

>>8104859
As I said, fantasy is not objective.

>>8104859
>>8104863
>>>>>no it wont
>>>>yes it will
>>>no it wont
>>yes it will
>no it wont
Both of you should be ashamed of your stupidity.

>>8104863
SpaceX has the best rockets in the world, which are already almost an order of magnitude cheaper than competition, while developing ground breaking reusable technology.

What do you think is going to happen to their launch rate once they start having dozens of used Stage 1s?
Do you really believe these stages are unlaunchable?

>>8104871
>which are already almost an order of magnitude cheaper than competition
That isn't true either.

It doesn't matter what I think, that's not objective. I don't know how thick you can be to not understand that.

>>8104869
At no point did I claim to know it won't happen.

>>8104884
>At no point did I claim to know it won't happen.
Oh I'm sorry, that completely changes my assessment of how poor of a debate both of you are putting up. Cite sources, BTFO, wow debate is so hard.

>>8104871
>already almost an order of magnitude cheaper than competition,
thats not true

an order of magnitud would imply at least 1/10 the costs, its less but not that much less

an average provider charges 100 million, spacex charges 60 million without reusability, not 1/10 but still pretty impressive

once they get reusability down the others will be in real trouble

nowadays spacex doesnt win all of the market of spacelaunch because it wouldnt have the industrial capabilities to cope with all of the launches in the world, but once they get reusability down all bets are of

all of the other space program would inmediately become pet science projects of their goverments kept only for the interests of national research

>>8104891
>Cite sources
You can't cite a source to prove a random prediction isn't objective. I could cite the dictionary definition of objective but that would be just as pointless and retarded as your criticism of this exchange. If you feel something is lacking, fucking contribute.

File: AllTheseCores.jpg (190KB, 458x612px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 458x612px

>>8104575

>>8104901
>all of the other space program would immediately become pet science projects
No, for the same reason Soyuz and Proton didn't put Atlas and Delta out of business and why Falcon 9 was funded over purchasing Soyuz seats. Protectionism. If SpaceX really did start to affect the market more subsidies would be the next step, not a collapse of the market.

File: 1462242154886.gif (1MB, 322x242px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 322x242px

God damn it, I missed a successful barge landing again!

>>8104931
but this would be a quantiatiative change

like
seriously
think your brain for oncer

its one thing to pay 40% less

but

if space x is 7 million against 100 million for the competition, then tis boned

they are gonna get one or two launch per year totally subdivisised-funded at a looss and it will be mostly aimed at developing reusable chuaracteristas of their own

>>8104948
typical earhter


SErious question here: ive heard that satellites are a multai belleon doller piece of hardware

and that the rocket is cost only a very little

if cost of rocket is so little important

1) why even bother bringing that cost down and not going down on the cost of real

2)why if its not expensive to travel to space not do it every of the particular days

>>8104953
>>8104955
wat

>>8104656
>>8104645

A reusable car will never make it financially. If you have to constantly repair it both mechanically and structurally, it's just as profitable to buy a new car every time you need to switch a brake line or change the clutch.

>besides, everybody knows there's no such thing as a used car market, or enthusiasts who'd do anything to get their hands on a couple of 1st stage boosters

I MEAN CORVETTE STINGRAYS!!
<.<
>.>

>>8104975
i read that the satellite cost is a lot of lots
and rthe rocket launch cost is littlest of lvery little

why all the fuzz in reducintg launch cost

reduce satellite cost


also, if launch costs are low, why is it expensive to got o space, do you have to carry a satellite with you each time you go?

>>8104955
>>8104983
>assuming conventional rocket launch to LEO, no reuse or reentry
>>also no fancy satellites, just the rocket itself.
Okay, so the main cost is relative to the main effort, and the hardest part is getting into orbit, meaning the beginning of the flight.

This means that the hardest part and the part that requires the most energy, and therefore the most money, is the first stage of the rocket. It has to be powerful enough to send payloads into orbit, and cheap enough not to constitute the entirety of the budget.

The satellites are expensive because they're made to never fail, and that costs a lot of time and effort. It's expensive to manufacture equipment to such a strict standard, because the facility where they make the satellite has to be very clean and very controlled. No dust allowed, for instance.

>But going back to the rocket itself

The rocket either has to be powerful enough to push itself two places.
>1 into the right speed and height
>2 to make the orbit round, so it doesnt fall down so fast

Or we can make rockets that have more parts. That's a lot easier, because then you don't need to carry the empty turtle shell of the used rocket around.

Previously, that empty shell was thrown away, because it was too hard to save it. It was still cheaper than making a bigger rocket, using even more fuel and making even more powerful engines.

This is changing now, and the cost of the first stage NOT having to be reconstructed each time, will mean net cheaper launches. The stages are produced to the same standard, if it's reused or forged for the first time. Its just like how it's 1% of the energy to recycle aluminium cans, compared to mining and forging new aluminium.

>>8104998
>The satellites are expensive because they're made to never fail, and that costs a lot of time and effort. It's expensive to manufacture equipment to such a strict standard, because the facility where they make the satellite has to be very clean and very controlled. No dust allowed, for instance.
so it will be cheaper to have failing satellites and space crews servicing them if launch costs are low enought, lets say 7-10 million?

>>8105015
No, because you have to remember the launch is very expensive too, so if you have ten satellites for the price of one, you still have ten launches.

Your example makes sense if the launches decrease in price simultaneously. As it is now, they cannot.

>>8105015
Sorry, no, the problem is also that astronauts are very expensive, and that orbital service operations are extremely risky. We don't like doing them because they are also very very hard. It's only done if the satellite is extremely expensive, like the Hubble Space Telescope.

>>8105023
how about a space repair bot, just make the repair bot ultra unbreakable and you can half ass the rest

>>8105030
Yes, that would work. But then we'd have solved so many problems we wouldn't need to have a discussion around them.

It's the "mythbusters" approach to a problem. Obviously, if you have the perfect machine for the job, you can do the job better. But we don't, and we can't.

File: CiiE3O_UgAA0m_9[1].jpg (58KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x400px

>>8104575
>>8104913

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/728459808270000128

>May need to increase size of rocket storage hangar

File: 1459386903853.png (11KB, 362x453px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 362x453px

Elon is saying that the stage landed hard and may not be stable enough to return to port.

>>8104536
turns out they didn't lose that camera at all!
check out this first person view of the first stage holy shit
on facebook-
/SpaceX/videos/10157486010400131/

Sped up video of 1st stage onboard camera descent/landing

http://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc

File: 1321138532062.jpg (80KB, 331x319px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 331x319px

>>8104528

>looicide watch

>>8105185
What does the platform say?

of course I will love you??

well grats to the boys over at SpaceX

>>8105229
see >>8104544

File: chong.jpg (68KB, 585x381px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 585x381px

>>8105234
>>8104544
That's beautiful, man.

File: cosmicfrog.jpg (16KB, 433x700px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 433x700px

>>8104671
>tfw space race 2.0 is on

My dick is diamonds gentlemen

Mars by 2024?

>>8104544
it's "Anticipation Of A New Lovers Arrival, The" to be precise

>>8104953
>>8104955
>>8104983
....its like reading a Trump-speech

>>8105681
not enough CHINAS for that to be accurate

>>8105684
>CHINAS
educate me, anon. Not talking about the country, right?

File: 1463810550188.jpg (81KB, 940x810px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 940x810px

>>8105696

We don't win anymore.
I mean, look at China, they're beating the hell out of us when it comes to space trade.

I have a lot of respect for the Chinese, they're smart people.
They're doing great things for their country.
It's just that the people we have making these deals are so stupid.

I promise you folks, we're gonna win and we're gonna win BIG.
The American people are sick and tired of being taken advantage of like this.

>>8105711
>>8105696
Somewhat relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs

>>8105185
I got a 1st stage in my pants right now!

>>8105336
nah, all that is pretty standard activity, mostly military, couple comsats. The launch schedule just happens to be clumped up right now, after a pretty dry month.

File: Falconporn.jpg (153KB, 1009x1069px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1009x1069px

Noteworthy upcoming launches:

>June 4 Delta 4-Heavy • NROL-37 (rocket with heaviest payload capacity currently in operation)
Launch period: 1800-2300 GMT (2:00-7:00 p.m. EDT)
Launch site: SLC-37B, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida

>June 16 Falcon 9 • Eutelsat 117 West B & ABS 2A
Launch time: Approx. 1430 GMT (10:30 a.m. EDT)
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida

>June 26 Long March 7 • Maiden Flight (new rocket for manned space flight & moon mission)
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: Wenchang, China

SpaceX currently also has 4 launches planned for July, though it's very unlikely they will all take place within that time frame.

>>8105838
>SpaceX currently also has 4 launches planned for July, though it's very unlikely they will all take place within that time frame.

this one came in wrapped yesterday for the june 16 launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajpsfxdvP34

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPYOtCFSLKw
anyone have any idea what the Stage 2 pitch was all about at 24:20? looked pretty brutal

>>8105890
>meco
>main engine cutoff

>stage separation confirmed
Stage 2 is just rebalancing to find the right thrusting vector before igniting the Merlin 1D. It's 80km up, so very thin atmosphere, not a glitch, just not a lot of resistance.

>it says right there, dude.

>>8105947
I know all of the
>greentext-stuff
Its just the first time i've seen them pitch up that hard, so was wondering if there might have been a sudden need to correct

>>8105963
Satellites sit much higher than the ISS, so it's natural that even if they use a similar glideslope for stage 1, they use a much sharper and slower one for stage 2. Otherwise S1 would probably come in too hot, and they can't really spare any fuel for the reentry burn.

>>8105975
>note:
Talking about acceleration, not velocity. S2 is less powerful, since the 1D engine doesn't need to counteract air resistance and gravity as much. So the thrust vector looks kinda drastic, but it's more like a scandinavian flick than a powerslide.

File: flick.gif (1MB, 260x146px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 260x146px

>>8105983
Like this

>>8105983
>>8106001
As a Scandinavian, I approve this message

I will start ME next year on april at a top 30 uni, what are my chances of working in SPACEX?

Has anyone noticed that rockets don't blow up anymore?

>>8105838
Is three engines per core not unstable?

File: Space Shuttle SRB seperation.jpg (10KB, 411x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 411x360px

>>8107156
Eh?