The madman is actually going to do it

>>8117199
Nah.

>listening to a what a company says
Lel. As much as Muskfags hate to admit it NASA is the best and only shot.

first it was 2004, then 2008, then 2015, then 2017, then 2018, now 2025.

>no nuclear propulsion
>sending people to other planets
lmao

>>8117235
if we convince ourselves that we can only go to mars once technology x, just on the horizon, has been developed, we will never get there.

there will always be the capacity to make the journey safer, faster and more payload efficient. Columbus didn't want for cruise ships to be invented before he crossed the Atlantic.

>>8117296
Technology was developed 60 years ago and various space agencies are currently developing it again.

>>8117335
Russians want to test prototype in 2018.

>>8117335
>'developed'

Will the person going to Mars eat beans?

>>8117411
I know I'm objectively shit for enjoying that movie, but it was great.

>>8117416
I don't know what you're talking about.

>>8117230
Anon, I'll take you to Mars in a few decades. All you have to do is wire me a few grand.

>>8117416

Why movie and why you would be shit for liking one?

File: p19994_d_v8_aa.jpg (180KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 960x1440px

>>8117500
Scene referenced by previous poster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbAF1EExpek

>>8117228
NASA is capable of going to Mars but right now the goal of reaching mars "someday" is the only thing funding NASA. If they actually did succeeded they'd become a victim of their own success. They'd be shut down, or at least this is the rational of the talking heads in NASA.

>>8117416
your self esteem is showing
it was a good movie

File: 12552198_1509286319374059_996526273_n.jpg (183KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1080x1350px

>>8117946
lol the rocket is burping

>>8117199
To be honest no one would be stupid enough to literally die for nothing by going to mars... until Musk came along.

I'm sure that because of his cult of personality there is a billion fucking edgelords fedorafags who would easily die for their god and savior Elon Musk.

Good on him, only by having a sizeable population of absolute morons can we actually get anything done when it comes to space. A billion people will die because of space exploration before commercial trips to mars so we better start now.

>>8118328
>die trying to go to Mars
>die in the basement watching TV
I mean...

>>8118345
>He thinks that a basement dwelling autist will have the courage to spend literal years in space without killing himself.

>He thinks that a basement dwelling autist would even have the dedication of going through NASA's space training.

This is why Elon Musk succeeded. You think that any autist will do, but he knew that what we needed were not just autists. Me need highly motivated autists, so he gave them a cult to subscribe to and now we have them in huge chunks.

At this point I must also acknowledge reddit's contribution. The autists would not keep their determination if they did not have an autist-only zone to hang out and share their Elon Musk glorification shit.

>>8118328
>To be honest no one would be stupid enough to literally die for nothing by going to mars... until Musk came along.
You're young.

>>8117235
the only reason governments thought nuclear power was necessary, was because they were fundamentally incapable of bringing down cost to orbit

Musk will have fully reusable rockets soon enough
These first stages will start building up, his launch rate will increase rapidly.
The reusable upper stage will happen sooner than you would think too

Still 2024 is likely too optimistic.
It's not that he couldn't do it, but that he is running a for profit company and I think he'll need/want to do other side stuff first, for the money.

>>8117957
That's not how government organisations work. They receive funding proportional to public interest. Mars would create enormous public attention

File: HASASASASASASASASASGA.jpg (98KB, 958x1061px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 958x1061px

>>8117199
>legitimately believes were are in a sims game

>>8118328
>>8118354
Think about how exciting it would be to be the first human ever on Mars

>>8118451
>Think about how exciting it would be to be the first human ever on Mars

This statement is equivalent to
>Think about how exciting it would be to be the first human who uses a broken rusty razor to extract his own testicles from his ballsack

Being first does not imply achievement.

>>8118458
Damn son, that was a bit of a jump desu

Better than waiting for NASA to do it, they'll probably take 30 years just to build the module, and then 20 more years to launch it.

>>8118463
NASA would literally never be able to do it unless they suddenly got like triple the current funding

Even then, it would just be a one off thing, like apollo, followed by promptly destroying all the infrastructure that achieved it

>>8118466

The thing with nasa is they are hampered by their own government and beauceacy. Spreading out money to various states snd other countries just inflates costs. The shuttle program also was a mistake and continues to cause problems with the porkbarrel sls rocket.

>>8118466
Don't forget the part where they destroy vital parts of the engineering data, so that people have to use laser scanners on surviving museum pieces in order to try to regain the lost technology decades later.

>>8118485
The fact that they are trying to remake rockets from 60 years ago shows the whole issue

File: 1464784497267.jpg (157KB, 1200x838px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1200x838px

stupid question here why not colonize the moon?

>>8118520
I'll colonise your moon allright ;^)

>>8118520
>why not spend several billion dollars on a project that doesn't actually benefit anyone?

I rephrased your question into its true stupid form so that you can hopefully answer it yourself.

>>8117228
SpaceX is as much "NASA" as JPL is: lots of NASA money, lots of access to NASA experts and facilities, working to accomplish NASA's goals.

The "NASA" they're competing with is MSFC: the Marshall Space Flight Center, which really means Boeing, Lockheed, and ATK working on cost-plus contracts, and hasn't done a lick of decent work since Von Braun left and Nixon turned it into pork.

SpaceX as we know it is the most successful product of a government initiative in the early 2000s to cultivate some actually cost-effective NASA launch contractors.

The people they launch in 2024 to land on Mars in 2025 will probably be NASA astronauts.

>>8117228
this

dude can't even fucking get cheap ass rockets into space half the time

>>8117199
He needs to keep his focus on the hyperloop instead

Jesus fucking Christ, people; calm your tits. By 2025 we will have hopefully established the careful processes by which we will test potential astronauts who will possibly be on a theoretical space vehicle that may some day reach a target as unfamiliar and inhospitable as Mars. Assuming initial tests go smoothly we may have primitive prototype modules ready for careful examination in preliminary practice scenarios for an eventual Mars landing test with an unmanned probe that, if all goes well, will provide valuable insight necessary to develop guaranteed systems to ensure the viability of a manned expedition that can with any luck validate the results obtained from multiple unmanned test missions and generate a tentative go-ahead from government officials in charge of budgeting space affairs.

This is, of course, assuming that electric cars and hyperloop transit are business successes because otherwise it's a waste of money when you could be investing in a guaranteed moneymaker like petroleum fuels.

>>8118616
Except JPL is a part of NASA. Spacex is a private contractor that NASA buys rockets from. I doubt Spacex gets NASA help.

>>8119085
It is our species wide duty to :

1. Only support political candidates who support the human spaceflight program.
2. Buy Tesla cars

File: 1463787332213.jpg (20KB, 255x247px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 255x247px

>>8119054
>dude can't even fucking get cheap ass rockets into space half the time
neither could NASA

>>8119066
I dont know if his plans about mars are legit or not, but the hyperloop is super exciting, and way more realisticlly possible at the moment...

than again 2024 is a few years from now so who knows? maybe they will be ready by than...

>>8119085
Jesus, have you heard of commas?

>>8117228
Wont hurt trying though...progress is never linear

File: image.jpg (149KB, 640x981px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 640x981px

Is he the most based human alive right now?

File: lh4a46c.jpg (88KB, 998x500px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 998x500px

>>8119330
Say what you want about communism and human rights, but the Soviets got science done.

>>8119414
Because of national pride, the point was to show they were better than burgers. The new strain of communism that have infected the left is globalist communist, wich promote destruction of culture, race, nation, languages, genders, families etc...
This particular strain is not competent at all in any technical field where lying through your teeth to protect muh fee fee won't let you go anywhere.

>>8117199
>Believing anyone for a provisional 8 years

>>8119442
I think it had more to do with the soviet union's military industrial leviathan requiring an army of amoral scientists and engineers.

I'm not doubting their importance, but there is a more structural explanation for the USSR's technological achievements.

>>8118399
>the only reason governments thought nuclear power was necessary, was because they were fundamentally incapable of bringing down cost to orbit
You and all the other musky cock suckers are retards. governments thought nuclear power was necessary because nuclear power is fucking necessary. Even the Saturn V could only send 36 tons to Mars, that's nowhere near enough equipment for a two year return journey because that's what it will take because chemical rockets are fucking slow. With a nuclear upgrade the Carrot V can send a proper 100 ton spaceship there in less than six months. Musk has zero nuclear rocket technology and therefore zero chance of ever getting to Mars.

>>8119442
>culture
Western culture is stronger than ever. The autists who say culture is being destroyed are the ones who think culture is dumb nationalist shit like national dress.
>race
Racemixing does absolutely nothing to global race populations
>nation
Nationalism is dumb.
>languages
This is the only valid one you've made a couple languages are getting fucked up but that is nothing to do with Marxism or whatever it's simply the longstanding fact that English is taking over the world leaving the French butthurt.
>families
I was reading an article about family values they have been destroyed but again it isn't communism it's actually Western culture. Americans have this culture of kicking their kids out when they're 18 and then wondering how they ended up in a home 30 years later. Italians etc stay close forever.

Anyway fuck off to /pol/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6N2tgLmaQ

File: uwotcomrade.jpg (177KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1920x1440px

>>8117199
>SpaceX going to Mars by 2025
>their entire profit margin is about 20x smaller than NASA's annual budget (if even that, considering they lose money more often than not)
>they don't have the technology for it, nor the means to develop it (NASA says even the late 2030's would be very difficult, even in the framework on a international mission, cause technology simply isn't there -- launchers is just one part of a much bigger problem); the best they can hope is that NASA includes them in their plans
>Musk's grandest achievements include: investing in an online paying company coded by others, using a electric motor design from the 19th century and laptop batteries on a car, asking NASA for help to develop a midsize kerozene rocket with a similar level of complexity than the Soyuz-2 and a non-automated pressurised capulse 2x smaller than the ATV.
>many were surpised at how many trials it took them to achieve F9 recovery (which is supposed to be the easiest part of his reusability programme), a relatively simple manoeuvre compared to what's done in space nowadays
>reusability has saved a grand total of $0, and even if it works, the profit made by SpaceX (or even Musk's entire fortune) will still be orders of magnitude smaller than the money required for a manned mars mission
>the FH has been delayed so often than experts start to wonder if there isn't a fundamental design flaw in their plans
>overall, Musk's Mars plans have about as much substance as NASA's, which is close to none
but somehow
>Muskfags will STILL gloat at his announcements whole while scoffing at NASA, Europe, China or Russia when they make similar announcements
>"something something BFR something something MCT hurr durr governement agencies can't do shit only he can"
>"i want to beliiiiiiiiiiiieve, that man makes me dreaaaam"

as a PR man, he is fabulous though.

>>8119737
Well said. The entire thing is "I want to believe" tier. Falcon Heavy, a rocket that barely even makes the super-heavy class, it's maiden flight has been canceled four times already. And they still haven't re-flown any rocket that they've landed which is like their entire shtick. He's done well in the LEO market but when it comes to "Mars for $500,000" or even "Mars" full-stop he's a fantasist.

File: wew.png (13KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1000x1500px

>>8117199
No, he's not.

>>8120063

>Falcon Heavy, a rocket that barely even makes the super-heavy class

Why does SpaceX need to reach this arbitrary defined class? If they wanted to, they could develop crossfeed and have a rocket more powerful than SLS but there is no commercial reason for it.

Rocket economics should be driving payload designs, not the other way around.

>>8119169
>Except JPL is a part of NASA.
NASA pays the bills, but JPL is managed by the California Institute of Technology. It was started by CalTech, then "officially" became an Army facility "managed by" CalTech so it was allowed to do things with sensitive rocket technology. It was transferred from the Army to NASA along with the rest of the peaceful-application rocket stuff the Army had been doing.

>I doubt Spacex gets NASA help.
SpaceX and NASA have a very close relationship. Look up PICA and FASTRAC: the NASA technologies which became SpaceX's PICA-X and Merlin, their key devices for getting into and out of orbit.

They get loads of NASA help, and most of their money comes from NASA as well. SpaceX gets paid twice as much for Dragon flights (half of their flights so far) as commercial flights, plus NASA's just straight up handing them money for developing vehicles (Falcon 9, Dragon, Crew Dragon) which SpaceX then owns and can use for whatever they like.

>>8119654
>Racemixing does absolutely nothing to global race populations
Not sure how you can say that
Race mixing is the SOLE REASON that south america is a shit hole
A whole continent of hundreds of millions is SHIT because the spaniards race mixed

>Western culture is stronger than ever.
>Nationalism is dumb.
Spotted the marxist

>>8119645
He's going to build a fully reusable rocket twice(or larger) the size of the Saturn V
If the Saturn V was reusable, then it easily could have done a mars mission, just would take many launches

You obviously miss the point thinking it needs to all be done in one shot.

>>8120063
>Falcon Heavy, a rocket that barely even makes the super-heavy class, it's maiden flight has been canceled four times already.
Falcon Heavy wasn't particularly intended to be a super-heavy. Its purpose was to meet the needs of the GTO commercial launch market, but that has largely been made unnecessary due to the performance upgrades of Falcon 9.

The delays in launching Falcon Heavy have been part of general delays in getting up their Falcon 9 launch rate, which are completely typical of a new rocket. In fact, SpaceX has ramped up the Falcon 9 launch rate much faster than most new rockets.

This is more weaksauce SpaceX criticism that they're not quite as much better than everybody else as one might hope them to be: sure, they're building the most powerful launcher on the market and selling it for less than any but the cheapest medium-lift rockets, but it's coming out a few years later than originally scheduled, in an industry full of such delays. They're not perfect, they're not magic, therefore they suck. It's stupid.

>>8120255
My point is that even this borderline babby-tier rocket SpaceX can't get right.
>>8120273
South America is shit because the Spaniards didn't develop the place but milked it instead. Argentina is mostly white, it's GDP per capita is worse than Equatorial Guinea.
>Spotted the marxist
Explain why nationalism makes any sense
>>8120288
>He's going to build a fully reusable rocket twice(or larger) the size of the Saturn V
Ayy lmao
>You obviously miss the point thinking it needs to all be done in one shot.
If you stretch missions out too long there becomes the likelihood that you run out of money or have to attend to other priorities.

>>8120296
>"the delays are part of the plan!"
Delusional.

>>8120296
>they're building the most powerful launcher on the market and selling it for less than any but the cheapest medium-lift rockets

That's just not true. Most medium launchers are less than 90M.

>>8120303
>>8120300
>>8120063
I don't visit this board often but wow even you guys have tripfaggots? I always wondered why people try to establish identities here. Are their lives that boring and pathetic that they need attention from anonymous strangers?

>>8120303
Yeah, you're really stepping up the quality of your criticism with a strawman fake quote both greentexted and in quotes.

The delays aren't part of the plan, but they're less than are typical of the industry, and the particular delay of Falcon Heavy has been largely irrelevant due to the performance upgrades of Falcon 9.

It doesn't make any business sense for SpaceX to fly Falcon Heavy, consuming triple the hardware of a Falcon 9 launch, before they get their Falcon 9 launch rate up high enough to meet the demand for the smaller vehicle.

>>8120288
>He's going to build a fully reusable rocket twice(or larger) the size of the Saturn V
This is literally never going to happen

>>8120309
>>they're building the most powerful launcher on the market and selling it for less than any but the cheapest medium-lift rockets
>That's just not true. Most medium launchers are less than 90M.
1) What's your source?
2) There aren't many medium-lift rockets on the market.
3) So you're acknowledging that, in this very limited field of only a few medium-lift rockets currently available on the market, some cost more than the price of Falcon Heavy, but you still want to object to my statement?

>Listening to the incarnation of DUDE SCIENCE LMAO

This asshole went on record saying life is a computer simulation two days ago. When will this autism end?

>>8120300
Argentina isn't close to being white

>Ayy lmao
It will be done, Musk has the money and the company to do it
>If you stretch missions out too long
If both the first and second stage are fully reusable, and back at the launch pad within a day
Why are you stretching anything out?

Methane is a better fuel than RP-1 so he'll have better payloads

>>8120342
Don't bully autistic ppl

>>8120338
>What's your source?
My source is combined fucking knowledge. So you made the claim that it was cheaper than all but a few but have no idea where to find that information? How regularly do you talk out your ass like that?

The only medium lift launchers which are more expensive than that are Delta and Atlas but those aren't market prices because they aren't really on the market.

> some cost more than the price of Falcon Heavy

You said "any but the cheapest". Most is not "any but the cheapest". Please don't pretend to be retarded just because you said something wrong. You're getting upset about fucking nothing, a claim you didn't research.

>>8120389
>My source is combined fucking knowledge.
In other words, your source is your ass. You "just know".

>So you made the claim that it was cheaper than all but a few but have no idea where to find that information?
Yeah, that's not in general why someone asks for a source, and when you're unable to produce one, this kind of bluster is just embarassing yourself.

Launch contracts are individually negotiated. Most launch providers don't advertise a price, even as a starting-point for negotiation or ballpark figure. SpaceX is an uncommon exception. The information we, the public, gets on launch costs and prices are often third-hand, of questionable veracity, out-of-date, and hard to compare due to fluctuating exchange rates.

This is a typical example:
http://sci.esa.int/cosmic-vision/55017-questions-and-answers/
"Q3: What is the cost for VEGA launcher?"
"A3: The current cost estimates to be considered for the European launchers are:
• For Soyuz: 75 million Euro
• For VEGA: 45 million Euro"
We can conclude that a VEGA launch is likely priced well under a Falcon Heavy launch, but Soyuz through ESA is similar and possibly higher. 75 MEUR is only about 85 MUSD with today's exchange rates, but this estimate was given in 2014, and describes the "cost estimate", not the price to the customer.

>The only medium lift launchers which are more expensive than that are Delta and Atlas but those aren't market prices because they aren't really on the market.
>they aren't really on the market.
Talking out your ass confirmed.

>You said "any but the cheapest". Most is not "any but the cheapest"
That's a matter of interpretation, you haven't produced any support for your claim of "most", and it's beside the point. You're just splitting hairs.

The point is that it's the world's biggest rocket at a price that would be competitive for medium-lift, especially one launching from the USA.

>>8120449
Those russian rocket prices might be lower now after their imploding currency

Tiny payloads tho

>>8120449
>Yeah, that's not in general why someone asks for a source
Ah, so you were just being a dick then. That explains that.

>Launch contracts are individually negotiated.
Everyone knows that, well done.

ESA doesn't operate Soyuz, ArianeSpace do and we also know what they payed for Soyuz which is as low as 30-60 M USD. Soyuz from FG is a premium service.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz2_lv.html

>Talking out your ass confirmed.
False. You ignored every other piece of information about Soyuz to come to this conclusion.

> you haven't produced any support for your claim of "most"
And what have you produced to back the original claim? Fucking nothing. Use your brain, look at the list. Souyz, Vega, Zenit, Long March, PSLV, GSLV, Antares, Dnepr are all cheaper. Only Delta and Atlas are more expensive. H-IIA has a wide range. That's most.

>>8120322
You will see that I am the only trip on /sci/. i am a trip because I am currently defending some theory I posted. I agree with you tripping is stupid unless you have to.
>>8120350
It's whiter than Equatorial Guinea
>It will be done, Musk has the money and the company to do it
You're an actual tinfoil if you think a private company can build a rocket twice the size of Saturn V. Hell, I seriously doubt if even NASA could pull off such a thing. Pretty sure such a huge rocket would never even get off of the ground.
>>8120323
So you've said it yourself. SpaceX has gotten comfy with their Falcon 9 market why the fuck is a profiting private company going to divert funds from that towards some fantasy projects that's a) way out of their technical league and b) will not make them any profit? You are all tools, Musk hyped you all up with promises of a journey to Mars in order to gain public funds for his actual plan of being another boring LEO launcher. The reuseable rockets, it's just a little side idea, they haven't really gone anywhere with it for years

>>8120449
>• For Soyuz: 75 million Euro
>• For VEGA: 45 million Euro"
This is for governement launches. A commercial Vega costs about 30 million €, according to wiki linking to spacenews.

>>8120486
>>Yeah, that's not in general why someone asks for a source
>Ah, so you were just being a dick then.
Do you really need me to spell it out? I was asking for sources so I could see where you were getting your information, if you weren't just making stuff up.

>ESA doesn't operate Soyuz, ArianeSpace do
Right. My mistake. But also more of your hair-splitting.

>and we also know what they payed for Soyuz which is as low as 30-60 M USD. Soyuz from FG is a premium service.
>http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz2_lv.html
So where do you suppose this "75 million euro" figure comes from?

There is Soyuz as launched by the Russians, paying Eastern-European salaries, and Soyuz as launched by ArianeSpace, paying Western-European salaries, and Soyuz as a dry empty rocket sitting in a warehouse. We're talking about the market price of launch services.

This "30-60 M USD" from your link seems to be the price for Russia to supply ArianeSpace with a manufactured Soyuz rocket, not the price ArianeSpace charges for a launch on Soyuz. Launch operations are also expensive. Falcon 9 is only supposed to cost around $20 million to manufacture.

>>>The only medium lift launchers which are more expensive than that are Delta and Atlas but those aren't market prices because they aren't really on the market.
>>>they aren't really on the market.
>>Talking out your ass confirmed.
>False. You ignored every other piece of information about Soyuz to come to this conclusion.
I ignored every other piece of information about Soyuz to come to the conclusion that you were talking out your ass when you said that Delta and Atlas "aren't really on the market"?

>Only Delta and Atlas are more expensive.
Again, you haven't supported that. So far, you've tried to claim that Delta and Atlas aren't really on the market and that the purchase price of a dry Soyuz rocket in a warehouse is the same as the price of a launch on a Soyuz rocket.

>>8120489
>The reuseable rockets, it's just a little side idea, they haven't really gone anywhere with it for years
Troll harder, faggot.

What timescales do people think major technology development projects happen on?

What is the most feasible method of space travel that humanity can even get to?

>>8120538
methane based chemical rockets

>>8120532
>I was asking for sources so I could see where you were getting your information
Google. The same place you use.

>So where do you suppose this "75 million euro" figure comes from?
As you literally just said "Launch contracts are individually negotiated".

>We're talking about the market price of launch services.
And why would you assume that's the same with different launch service providers? ArianeSpace will not charge the same as the typical cost of Souyz in Russia.

>This "30-60 M USD" from your link seems to be the price for Russia to supply ArianeSpace with a manufactured Soyuz rocket
Russia provides more than just rockets, there is staff to for assembly. I did not claim my figure was the end user cost, it was to show there is a wide range in cost, it will be more representative of the kinds of costs that can be achieved with big contracts.

>Falcon 9 is only supposed to cost around $20 million to manufacture.
Do you have a source for that?

>Delta and Atlas "aren't really on the market"
Everyone knows that. Delta doesn't launch commercial payloads and Atlas has flown one since 2010. They aren't part of the market.

>the purchase price of a dry Soyuz rocket in a warehouse is the same as the price of a launch on a Soyuz rocket.
I never said that. Don't confuse your misunderstanding with things I've said.

>Again, you haven't supported that.
I gave you all the information you need. I'm not going to spoon feed you sources you can find just as quickly yourself. You thought you knew enough to make the claim in the first place and now suddenly you don't know how to work the internet. If you care to disprove my classifications of the cost vs FH then do so.

>>8120591
>Delta doesn't launch commercial payloads and Atlas has flown two* since 2010.

>>8120591
Musk just claimed the first stage of the Falcon 9 is worth 30 million
So a 20 million assembly cost seems reasonable

>>8120498
>>• For VEGA: 45 million Euro
>This is for governement launches.
No, that's the 2014 cost estimate, after two years actual launch experience.

>A commercial Vega costs about 30 million €, according to wiki linking to spacenews.
That's the 2012 cost projection, after 9 years of development but prior to its first launch, assuming two launches per year.

Vega has launched a grand total of 6 times, and the ESA has spent over 1.1 billion euros on it.

>>8120623
And the upper stage costs nothing?

>>8120625
Vega was very expensive and had a lot of politics going into it's creation but some of that will pay off with Ariane 6 which can use the composite solid casings and maybe even the same motors as Vega.

>>8120631
Upper stage is made on the same assembly line, has only 1 engine, and is a lot smaller

Comparing prices to russia is kinda misleading because Russian workers are making peanuts

>>8120647
But relative to it's size it's more complex. You can't just guess.

>Comparing prices to russia is kinda misleading because Russian workers are making peanuts
I didn't make this comparison.

>Musk says he's going to do something
"that's fucking impossible retards, all human progress is a popsci meme it just can't be done"
>the madman does it again
Okay let's ignore that and decide that the next task is impossible instead.

>>8120637
>but some of that will pay off with Ariane 6
What sort of market do you think will exist for a 100 million dollar expendable rocket after 2020?

>>8120631
The Falcon 9 upper stage is a lot cheaper to produce than the lower stage. The engines are the most expensive parts, and the upper stage engine is basically the same as the lower stage one, but there's only one on an upper stage.

I've heard claims from $16 million to manufacture the whole Falcon 9 to $18 million for just the lower stage. If you think about it, for there to be any hope of making money within a reasonable amount of time, the manufacturing cost of the rocket has to be far below the launch price. You also have to pay for development, facilities, overhead, etc.

This is why people say reuse doesn't make sense as a way to greatly lower launch prices: they're thinking of it as just saving the cost of manufacturing the vehicle. However, the high cost of manufacturing the vehicle is used to justify accepting many other high costs. If you're spending $22 million to build the vehicle, then there's little point in investing in streamlining the qualification, payload integration, or launch processes that cost a few millions of dollars per flight, and you can't amortize your development or facilities over a much larger number of flights unless you get the prices down low enough to grow the market.

>>8120657
A6 is not going to be that expensive and I don't think expendable rockets are going anywhere for a while.

>>8120649
Relative to its size, it's less complex. Most of the complexity is in the engines. The upper stage is maybe a quarter or a fifth of the size of the booster, but it has one ninth as many engines.

>>8120667
>I've heard claims from $16 million to manufacture the whole Falcon 9 to $18 million for just the lower stage.
Do you have sources on that?

>the manufacturing cost of the rocket has to be far below the launch price.
That depends on who is paying your development and facilities costs. In the case of Falcon 9 we know spaceX get a lot of extra cash in NASA contracts. We can't speculate what the margins are because their fiances aren't public.

>>8120670
SpaceX will be landing all their stage 1's for here on out
All of them so far are capable of being relaunched

Expendable rockets are a thing of the past

>>8120667
They also make other strange assumptions of costs involved. Then they bring up the history of space launch to "prove" that we will never increases launch rates....

>>8120672
But it has it's own computer, communications, pressurant tanks, plumbing, adapters, interfaces, RCS... And it needs to be capable of more relights.

>>8120694
Why wouldn't the first stage have all that stuff too?

>>8120685
>All of them so far are capable of being relaunched
But we don't know what the economics of that will be. How useful reuse will be is strongly dependent on things like flight rate and refurbishment cost. We don't know what those are.

>Expendable rockets are a thing of the past
People have said that before. I won't hold by breath. There's a lot of protectionism in the space market and if SpaceX do ever threaten the market share of Russia, China or India politics will kick in and they will either subside (Europe and others do this) or restrict the use of foreign launchers (the US has does this sometimes). Ariane was established not to open up the commercial market but to grantee European access to space, that will still be it's duty even if it failed in the commercial sector.

>>8120694
>But it has it's own computer, communications, pressurant tanks, plumbing, adapters, interfaces, RCS...
All of this stuff is simple compared to the engines.

The RCS used to be a significant additional cost on the upper stage, but they switched from Dracos to the same cold-gas thrusters used on the lower stage.

>And it needs to be capable of more relights.
What it needs to be capable of and what it is capable of are different. The booster engines are capable of just as many relights, because once you can light the thing up twice without a maintenance team getting at it, more is just a matter of having more shots of hypergolic ignition fluid. Little reason not to just have enough for pre-launch hot fires, recycle after abort, etc.

>>8120704
>Relative to its size

>>8120680
>>I've heard claims from $16 million to manufacture the whole Falcon 9 to $18 million for just the lower stage.
>Do you have sources on that?
I'm trying to find a reference, but it's a bitch to google. Mostly this stuff comes up in interviews and presentations, from Elon Musk and Gwynn Shotwell.

>>8120722
>All of this stuff is simple compared to the engines.
But is it more complicated than 0.8 engines. I think so. And no, I don't agree it's simple.

>>8120737
>But is it more complicated than 0.8 engines
Why would 0.8 engines be a relevant figure?

>>8120720
Well yes, increasing flight rate is the single biggest issue facing SpaceX right now

But what do you think it'll look like when in a month or two he has relaunched one of the landed boosters
And by next year he'll have 15 of them sitting in the garage

Sure they will continue to subsidize and keep a space sector in those countries, but the entire commercial sector will soon be flying on Falcon's

>>8120737
> And no, I don't agree it's simple.
It's not really up to your opinion. On an objective level, the mechanical complexity of any number of components you can enumerate won't match up.

>>8118445
But he never said that.

>>8120743
Because we were talking about "relative to it's size". It was said earlier it's about a fifth the size, a fifth of 9 engines is 1.8. The upper stage has an engine of it's own so that leaves you with 0.8.

>>8120747
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Big govt space programs don't give two shits about launch vehicles, they will use whatever works best. But the commercial sector will be (is?) scrambling to compete with their own takes on reusability.

>>8120747
>Sure they will continue to subsidize and keep a space sector in those countries, but the entire commercial sector will soon be flying on Falcon's
That doesn't follow. If they subsidise they can make them cost competitive, there would be no reason for the commercial sector to flock when there is a lot to be gained by diversifying as they do now.

>>8120765
Big govt space programs don't have unlimited budgets
If Musk is there with a faster launch date, at a fraction of the cost, they will be going with Musk.

>But the commercial sector will be (is?) scrambling to compete with their own takes on reusability.
Not really, maybe blue origin is, though they don't have anything approaching a rocket yet, but noone else is even attempting reusability.

>>8120754
>the mechanical complexity
But we're talking about complexity in terms of cost. We don't know those numbers. So yes, all we have is opinion.

>>8120770
Doesn't magically reduce their launch costs
The subsidies are just flat funding to keep the lights on.

>>8120773
>But we're talking about complexity in terms of cost.
One begets the other. Unless your premise is that most of the cost is in communications equipment and cold-gas thrusters.

>>8120784
>Doesn't magically reduce their launch costs
Customers don't pay the cost they pay the price.

>The subsidies are just flat funding to keep the lights on.
But that covers fixed costs which brings down the price. And not all subsidies are fixed.

>>8120757
Hmm... you've got a point there, but you also have to count in one fifth of the complexity of the non-engine parts on the lower stage.

>>8120810
Governments aren't subsidizing companies so they can give cheap launches(which they lose money on) to other customers

>>8120792
>One begets the other.
No it doesn't. Mass production and external suppliers are why this isn't true in general.

>Unless your premise is that most of the cost is in communications equipment and cold-gas thrusters.
Nowhere did I claim that.

Without knowing the costs all we have is opinion. It's pointless to argue this any longer.

>>8120822
They don't loose jobs and ultimately it's a net gain for the country, money flows in not out. Of course they would do this. ArianeSpace receives direct subsidy and yet it chases the commercial market.

>>8120820
I don't claim otherwise but I think that's then negligible.

>>8117199

If anything, it'll be a flyby. He does have a reasonably good chance of putting someone on the moon though if he can make a lander.

>>8117228
NASA isn't doing jack shit until they're no longer forced to launch their missions with $900 quintillion dollar rockets while being given lunch money for a budget, and even getting rid of that isn't going to help much until congress can stop poking its ignorant fingers in NASA's business. Congress should just throw at least 2-3% of annual GDP at NASA and let NASA figure out the rest, but we all know that isn't happening any time soon.

The soonest NASA will be colonizing *anything* beyond earth orbit is in the 2080s at this rate.

>>8120840
Arianespace doesn't make or operate their rockets, all they do is marketing/selling

Appears they get a small amount of subsidies to keep themselves in the black
They get launches because they ARE currently competitive, and SpaceX has a large backlog still.

>>8118520
Aside from distance, the moon is far less attractive than Mars is as a colonization target in every single way.

- Mars has a much larger variety and quantity of raw material to work with
-- Most importantly, Mars has vastly more water than the moon does
- Mars doesn't have clouds of sharp, electrically charged dust circling around its surface (the moon does and it caused problems in the apollo missions)
- Radiation on the surface of Mars is much more mild than on the moon
- Mars has an appreciable level of gravity that is far less detrimental to human physiology than the Moon's is (perhaps even within human adaptability)
- Mars is an amazing launch point for missions further out in the solar system. Missions to the asteroid belt, gas giants, and beyond would be dramatically easier
- Mars gives us a second set of independent launch windows (the moon's would be identical to earth's)

I can go on for ages. Yes, it's harder, but the payoff for that extra push is enormous.

>>8120876
Venus however is more attractive than Mars, and mining on asteroids is probably better mining on martian surface

>>8120063
>Well said. The entire thing is "I want to believe" tier. Falcon Heavy, a rocket that barely even makes the super-heavy class, it's maiden flight has been canceled four times already.
Because unlike ULA, SpaceX is a small, nimble company and can easily do things like apply the huge amount of data they've been accruing from booster landings to new designs. If they held themselves tightly to deadlines, the Falcon Heavy would be significantly obsoleted by Falcon 9 minor revisions on its maiden flight.

>>8120880
I disagree. Venus has near zero value as a second launch point (deeper in the solar system, same gravity as earth) and even if you got past the engineering problems of cloud cities, surface access would be a huge problem.

In fact given the volume of equipment needed to successfully colonize Venus with anything larger than a 2-man science outpost, I'd say it'd make way more sense to spin up manufacturing on Mars or in the asteroid belt prior to attempting to colonize mars.

>>8120843
Well, the interstage is part of the lower stage, some stuff like the pressurization system is modular and has simply-scaling complexity (more helium tanks of fixed size in the booster tanks than in the upper stage tanks), and there's other stuff on the lower stage like the grid fins and legs that's not present on the upper stage at all.

The computer, of course, is far more complex than all the rest of it put together, in a certain sense, but it's not going to be mechanically complex or terribly expensive.

NASA should be tasked with doing experimental helium3 mining on the moon and returning it to earth.

>>8120914
>prior to attempting to colonize mars.
*prior to attempting to colonize venus

>>8120876
The moon is key, because we can build a catapult on it and throw millions of tons of stuff, including stuff that can be used as propellant, to Earth orbit.

Also, you're exaggerating many of the problems with the moon. Don't think that the whole moon is just undifferentiated regolith. There will be ores to mine.

>>8120935
there is enough water ice on the moon to launch dozens of rockets into deep space, per day, for a hundred years.

>>8117475
sent ;)

>>8120914
>Venus has near zero value as a second launch point
Why would we be doing second launch points? Any deep space mission is coming from earth anyways

The engineering issue of cloud cities is no less difficult than the engineering issues of dealing with low gravity/low atmosphere/endless dust storms on mars.

Surface access on venus is like deep water access on earth, with the added complication of temperature. Nothing technically impossible about it, just has to be done remotely.

>>8119054

> 'half the time'

Falcon 9 has only failed once out of 25 launches

>>8118616

> lots of NASA money

NASA contributes only 25% of SpaceX revenue

>>8120880

Why Venus over Mars?

It's closer to Earth in terms of gravity, but the environment is terrible. Wouldn't our only realistic option on Venus be 'cloud city' type structures high in the atmosphere?

>>8120972

Also, how many people do you see wanting to actually live on Venus in these cloud cities?

Given the alternatives (Earth, Mars, orbital bases etc) it seems like a pretty poor choice. Certainly I'd sooner choose Mars than Venus.

>>8120654
Someone should keep track of everything him and his teams have accomplished that was thought to be impossible by analogy reasoning pessim- I mean ''realists'' just to make that joke have more substance.

>>8117509
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teufz17PqoY

>>8120993
>NASA contributes only 25% of SpaceX revenue
Explain how that works when half of their launches have been Dragons, NASA's the only customer for Dragons, and Dragons cost about as much as the Falcon 9 they ride on.

Even if you don't count the free NASA money for SpaceX to develop and own the Dragon and Crew Dragon designs, which is probably already more than all of their non-NASA launch revenue, SpaceX has clearly been getting two thirds of payments for completed launches from NASA.

>>8119169

SpaceX gets lots of NASA help and expertise and even access to test facilities in exchange with sharing information. This is a program where zero dollars cross hands. For instance nasa really wanted to know what happens with super sonic retro propulsion but they've been too risk averse and chicken shit to do it themselves, SpaceX did it for them, nasa sent up a telescope airplane to record it in infra red and shared the videos of that with SpaceX. NASA also shared with spacex the tech to do shit like make heat shields and shit.

SpaceX has access to just about any NASA information they want and access to NASA expertise any time they want it for free.

>>8120680
>because their fiances aren't public.

If she hasn't said 'I do' then there's still time to win her over, if only she where public.

>>8121000
>but the environment is terrible.
The environment at high atmosphere is pretty similar to earth. Minus the breathable air.
Will it be possible to live at 38% of normal gravity on mars? Hard to say

But certainly Venus is more friendly to human habitation than Mars is
Don't need a space suit to walk around

all this mars babble is bogus and they know it. its just not worth it, there´s nothing of interest and the astronauts will get huge radiation doses..
just another money generating process.
and musk is the grandmaster of getting money for nothing.
much more important are robotic and surveying satellites. all these rockets are shitty oldtech compared to them.

>>8117957
>Implying Nasa isn't gonna turn their attention to Uranus.

>>8117228
>NASA
>not shit tier

shiggy diggy. they were last on the DARPA robotic challenge, and companies with less funding make better rockets than them

they're retarded government welfare-queens

>>8121119
Holy fuck, Tesla could be shipping millions of cars each year and SpaceX launching hundreds of missions each year and some people would still be accusing musk of swindling. Talk about a hateboner.

>>8118458
what a retard comparison

>>8121042
ULA charges several times more than SpaceX to launch things on soviet surplus rockets.

>>8121600
ULA uses newly manufactured Russian rocket engines based on a 1970's design.

Orbital Sciences Corporation used surplus Russian rockets from the 1960's and they have had a mission failure and a test stand failure due to those engines. They are now buying new engines from Russia. Also most of there first stage is made in Russia this may as well be called a Russian rocket assembled in America which I see as contrary to the spirit of the NASA COTS goals. Additinally they are very chummy with ULA and have launced at least one of there COTS missions on ULA rockets because they where unable to launch.


First stage
The first stage of Antares burns RP-1 (kerosene) and liquid oxygen (LOX). As Orbital had little experience with large liquid stages and LOX propellant, the first stage core was designed and is manufactured in Ukraine by Yuzhnoye SDO[13] and includes propellant tanks, pressurization tanks, valves, sensors, feed lines, tubing, wiring and other associated hardware.[21] Like the Zenit—also manufactured by Yuzhnoye—the Antares vehicle has a diameter of 3.9 m (150 in) with a matching 3.9 m payload fairing.[3]

Antares 100
The Antares 100-series first stage was powered by two Aerojet AJ26 engines. These began as Kuznetsov NK-33 engines built in the Soviet Union in the late 1960s and early 1970s, 43 of which were purchased by Aerojet in the 1990s. 20 of these were refurbished into AJ26 engines for Antares.[22] Modifications included equipping the engines for gimballing, adding US electronics, and qualifying the engines to fire for twice as long as designed and to operate at 108% of their original thrust.[2][20] Together they produced 3,265 kilonewtons (734,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level and 3,630 kN (816,100 lbf) in vacuum.[8]

Following the catastrophic failure of an AJ26 during testing at Stennis Space Center in May 2014 and the Orb-3 launch failure in October 2014, likely caused by an engine turbopump,[23] the Antares 100-series was retired.

>>8121667
>>8121600
these 1970s soviet rockets are still better than anything SpaceX has. The RD-180 is so good that Americans still can't replicate it even in 2016.

>>8121121
We need more Uranus missions.

>>8118458
retarded comparison

>>8118520
the moon is already taken

>>8119330
>>8119414
Musk's statement is true imo. Russia got to venus but only to try and prove they could keep up with the American space program. They saw a scorpion on venus too.

>>8121769
How to be unprepared for change 101

>>8121769
>these 1970s soviet rockets are still better than anything SpaceX has.
Yeah, man. RD-180 is so much better than Merlin 1D that Atlas V needs solid boosters and a liquid-hydrogen upper stage to reach Falcon 9 performance at triple the price.

Boy, those non-landing, non-reusable rockets sure are a lot better.

>The RD-180 is so good that Americans still can't replicate it even in 2016.
LM (who developed Atlas V before transferring it to ULA) had to prove that they could produce RD-180 in the USA before they were permitted to use it for their entrant in the EELV program.

RD-180 is used according to the general logic of offshoring: skilled Russian workers command far lower salaries than Americans, therefore the cost can be much lower for any labor-intensive task.

>>8121835
>Boy, those non-landing, non-reusable rockets sure are a lot better.
They sure are when you are comparing one RD-180 to nine Merlin 1Ds
>RD-180 is used according to the general logic of offshoring: skilled Russian workers command far lower salaries than Americans, therefore the cost can be much lower for any labor-intensive task.
Excuses excuses, the Americans have been desperate for a home-grown version due to geopolitics but they have failed miserably due to being unable to replicate the metallurgy. They are still trying but they say it won't be ready until 2019.

SpaceX BTFO

Americans BTFO

>>8121817
We don't need new chemical engines we need nuclear engines. Once these nuclear spaceships get a base set up on the Moon or Mars then we can look into reuseable chemical rockets to get people into orbit for cheap. Right now even if Musk could get a human into space for a penny where are they gonna go?

File: image_156_5.jpg (50KB, 640x133px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x133px

>>8121813
>scorpion on venus

All I see is increasing degradation of image quality. Not a scorpion.

>>8121881
Irrelevant. If someone were actually seriously working on nuclear rockets, you would have an argument with this, but unfortunately they aren't. You can't outcompete Space X with tech that you aren't actually developing yourself.

Also, if anything, reusable launches may be the boon nuclear needs. From there you have a better path to orbital construction which gets around most normie concerns about nuclear launches.

>>8121884
>he doesn't believe in the venusian scorpion civilization

SHEEEPLE

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you stupid fucking retards.

>grown men
>still beleiving in this shit

>>8121868
>I have 1 you have 9 so neener neener
When 9 does the job better, who cares?
That's like saying an underperforming v6 is better than a competent v8 on the basis of performance per cylinder.

>>8121892
Exactly. It doesn't matter how ideal a technology might be if nobody is making a serious attempt at productionizing it. There's a lot of R&D going on in the world of chemical rockets, and said R&D has produced viable products that has seen active use, therefore we use chemical rockets.

Waiting for X technology to do something is never, ever a good plan.

>>8121892
Russia is.
>Also, if anything, reusable launches may be the boon nuclear needs
You need a demand for reuseable rockets to be worth it, you can't create the supply before the demand.

>>8121904
>you can't create the supply before the demand
You can't have demand if nothing is being produced.

>>8121904
Reusability isn't driven directly by demand, it's a cost cutting measure. Hence previous to Space X the industry being complacent and unwilling to put in the investment up front.

>Russia is.
I'd be glad for them. Have you proofs, comrade?

>>8121868
I hate trip fags and I have no clue why your shilling so hard for ULA and slandering SpaceX. They objectively have demonstrated a lower cost to orbit and a mission success rate that is good enough for most if not all missions.

When the heavy and subsequently the FalconX comes online you'r company and it's fat pay checks to you will dry up.

>>8121904
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_satellite_development_facility

They are going to launch a constellation of leo comm sats. The demand will be self generating.

There is no real reason a competent satellite cant cost $100k to manufacture instead of the millions they cost now.

Also the market is clearly elastic to some extent. If he drops the cost to orbit by 1/10th or less you will see satellites being developed that would not have been developed before. Instead of spending a hundred million dollars on a satellite they will spend a fraction of that and accept satellites that wont last as long. You know there is still a satellite launched in 1974 still in operation.

Space tourism is a highly elastic market. If the price where low enough even I would buy a ticket.

Space based solar for terrestrial power could be a huge market.

ULA abused its monopoly position to drive the cost up because it knew the market had to bare the burden, we had no other choice but to pay. They would have continued this indefinitely, increasing the price over time and raking in fat margins. I don't like Zurban but I think it was he that had a great story about working for Lockheed and offering an alteration that would increase payload ability significantly and was told by his bosses that if the air force wanted a better rocket they would pay them to design a better rocket. This is the attitude of a company who cant survive in the competitive market they now find themselves in. They will die and our nation will be better for it.

File: 1280px-Nuclear_Rocket_Engine_Being_Transported_to_Test_Stand_-_GPN-2002-000143.jpg (246KB, 1280x1018px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1280x1018px

>>8121904
>Russia is.
[sauce needed]

BTW we actually test fired a nuclear rocket in the 60's with with flight design components that could have flown.

>>8121931
To reinforce your point, I have zero doubt that universities and research groups would take full advantage of being able to cheaply design and launch satellites. Today such a thing is infeasible for anybody that's not a giant company. Bring down the cost even to the hundreds of thousands mark and it opens things up a LOT (within mid-wealthy individual's reach) and if it can be driven down to tens of thousands, damn near anybody could do it (building and launching a satellite would be like buying a luxury car).

The key really is bringing costs any way possible as quickly as possible. As long as everything sits in the millions and billions spectrum, progress will be suffocatingly slow.

>>8121904
>Russia is.
Russia was. Like just about everything funding has been slashed given their budget problems. There is no money to develop a prototype.

>>8121868
>the Americans have been desperate for a home-grown version due to geopolitics but they have failed miserably due to being unable to replicate the metallurgy.
Holy shit, this is a stupid claim. Half the reason the use of the RD-180 was accepted is that in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, the American government was finding ways to funnel money to ex-Soviet rocket workers so they wouldn't go build ICBMs for third-world assholes.

That situation just turned around in the last couple of years, and it's still far more complicated than the surface appearances. Large rocket engines take more than a couple of years to develop.

How wrong in the head would you have to be to honestly think modern American high-tech industry is unable to replicate 70s-era Soviet metallurgy?

Why are you such fucking garbage? Is this some kind of game, trying to get people to believe the stupidest shit you can come up with?

>>8121884
>>8121884
thats an optically camoflaged scorpion

>>8122003
And these "third world assholes" built ICBMs anyway.
>>8121922
>>8121940
>>8121982
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_propulsion#Russian_Federal_Space_Agency_development
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_wants_to_builds_atomic_engine_for_exploring_deep_space_999.html
http://www.techinsider.io/russia-developing-nuclear-power-engine-2016-1
http://sputniknews.com/business/20160321/1036691748/russia-rosatom-fuel.html
>>8121982
Putin turned the economy around. Russia will crush USA and conquer Mars.

>>8122130
>these "third world assholes" built ICBMs anyway.
Which ones?

Anyway, that's not the kind of effort that would completely prevent proliferation of strategic technology anyway.

>Putin turned the economy around. Russia will crush USA and conquer Mars.
Russia's economy is a trainwreck.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_propulsion#Russian_Federal_Space_Agency_development
>The nuclear propulsion would have mega-watt class,[7][8] provided necessary funding, Roscosmos Head stated.
Nuclear *electric* rocket. This isn't ambitious work at all. This is tweaking a submarine reactor so it runs in space. The way they're talking about it, you can be sure that the real purpose of this project is to embezzle the funding.

>>8122130
>Putin turned the economy around.
360 degrees.
>Russia will crush USA and conquer Mars.
Kek.
>“Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has been left red-faced after telling reporters that “Russia will never catch up to the United States in the space race,” the Interfax news agency reported.

>“Our space industry has fallen behind the Americans ninefold. All of our ambitious projects require us to up productivity 150 percent – and even if we manage that, we will still never catch up with them,” Rogozin originally said to Interfax Friday.

> “We will be following the news about NASA and [Elon] Musk and licking our lips while trying to explain ourselves why we don’t need what they are doing,” Rogozin said, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

As for their nuclear tech... the fact that they've given themselves a 9 year leash to develop 60 year old tech kind of says everything.

Russia has no money to be doing anything, they never did actually.

>>8122165
>Which ones?
India, China and North Korea.
>Nuclear *electric* rocket. This isn't ambitious work at all.
Keep hating, six weeks to Mars.
>As for their nuclear tech... the fact that they've given themselves a 9 year leash to develop 60 year old tech kind of says everything
This coming from the country that can't replace RD-180 until 2020

File: 250px-Pol_logo.png (437KB, 1500x937px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1500x937px

>>8119442

>>8117509

As long as it's not fucking BRAVO NOLAN it's OK

>>8122227
>six weeks to Mars.
9 years to "re-allocate" the funds and divert public attention.
I know which of those numbers I'd put money on.

>>8122239
"They see me on Mars, they hatin'"

>>8117235
Try saying anything about "nuclear propulsion" near the UN.

>>8117340
>russian space program
It ended in the late 80's when they ruined their whole state budget.

>>8120066
You again? Try your shitposting on /pol/.

>>8122227
>India, China and North Korea.
China and North Korea aren't third-world. They're second-world.

India's had nukes and a ballistic missile program since before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

>six weeks to Mars.
Yeah, that claim comes right after a statement that the reactor would be a "mega-watt class" electrical generator. Apparently I have to explain this to you, because you're an idiot: that's not enough anywhere near enough power for an electric propulsion system to take you to Mars in six weeks.

Nuclear-electric propulsion is pretty worthless in the inner solar system. You can only really use a source of low-grade heat in the outer solar system, where sunlight is scarce. In the inner solar system, the mass of reactor+radiators isn't going to be less than a set of solar panels to produce the same energy.

>>8122311
>China and North Korea aren't third-world. They're second-world.
Pedantics, these were the sort of countries that USA was trying to stop from getting ICBMs
>Yeah, that claim comes right after a statement that the reactor would be a "mega-watt class" electrical generator. Apparently I have to explain this to you, because you're an idiot: that's not enough anywhere near enough power for an electric propulsion system to take you to Mars in six weeks.
t. Armchair rocket scientist

>>8122324
>>China and North Korea aren't third-world. They're second-world.
>Pedantics, these were the sort of countries that USA was trying to stop from getting ICBMs
Jesus, no. China and India were basically already there. North Korea was China's little pet.

At the time of the EELV program, they were worried about countries like Iraq and Iran recruiting ex-Soviet rocket experts, not countries like China and India.

>t. Armchair rocket scientist
You might as well have said, "I don't know anything about this, but I have strong opinions and immediately reject anyone who seems to know more."

>>8122311
>the mass of reactor+radiators isn't going to be less than a set of solar panels to produce the same energy.

Hard to say that before anyone has produced a working nuke reactor for space usage
And before anyone has produced large solar array for SEP

How fast will solar panels degrade outside of earth orbit? Who knows

>>8118514
redesigning the wheel is even more stupid

>>8122339
>How fast will solar panels degrade outside of earth orbit? Who knows
We've been sending solar panels out on our probes for over 40 years now, many of which are still functional (Voyager). There's no mystery, we know exactly how solar panels behave beyond earth's orbit.

There's no good reason for solar panels to degrade in the absence of planetary gravity anyway.

>>8122339
>Hard to say that before anyone has produced a working nuke reactor for space usage
Are you kidding? This was one of the first things that was tried. SNAP-10A was launched in 1965.

They haven't seen much use because they're not very good. The only real reason you'd want them in space is if you can't get enough sunlight. On a planet surface, it can be different because you might have a more effective way of cooling than vacuum radiators.

>>8122347
Voyager's powered by RTGs, not solar panels.

The outer solar system isn't good for solar panels. You want RTGs or fission reactors.

>>8122130
>Putin turned the economy around.
I was talking about the last year, not post soviet russia. The program has been shelved because of the oil price which is sinking the Russian economic.

The space program budget in Russia has been slashed. Their Moon ambitions are dead.

>>8122348
Yea so the US did it once, on a tiny reactor, producing 500 watts of electricity

I doubt solar power will ever be comparable to nuclear in terms of energy density. Then it just gets worse the further out from the sun you go

>>8122688
So you think the first reactor in space was the only reactor in space? Come on, man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_space
>Russia has sent about 40 reactors into space

>Then it just gets worse the further out from the sun you go
This is the only real reason to consider nuclear reactors in space: when you're far enough from the sun that PV gets bad. Enriched uranium is a lot cheaper than Pu-238, and you can put out a lot more power with it.

>I doubt solar power will ever be comparable to nuclear in terms of energy density.
Well, think harder about it. TOPAZ-II puts out 10 kilowatts, and it weighs a ton. Typical satellite solar arrays get 300 watts per kilogram at Earth's distance from the sun. 30 times better, with none of the radiation problems or worries about things like coolant leakage or mechanical failure.

The lifespan has also been shorter for nuclear reactors than solar panels. Designing the system to deal with fuel-burnup on longer missions would add mass and complexity.

If you're thinking that a nuclear reactor is at least going to be a lot more compact, bear in mind that the only way to get rid of waste heat and run a heat engine is radiating to space. This isn't Earth where you can have a cooling tower or draw water off a river. Vacuum's an excellent insulator. A thing in space is essentially in a dewar. The good news is that, when you're in deep space, the outer wall of that dewar is very cold. The bad news is that you're still in a fucking dewar. Black body radiation is a miserable way to reject waste heat. If you want a powerful heat engine, you need a big set of radiators.

Is this tripcunt another russian shill?

>>8122655
I am from Russia, can confirm our space program as dead as a God. Only thing that lets it survive is the fact, that we can cheaply send shit to the orbit. With Elon Mask (couse he will probably send shit to space with lower prices) this part of our space program will probably die too.

>>8118458
>the first human who uses a broken rusty razor to extract his own testicles from his ballsack
You're to late for that bro.

>>8122348
>1965
Pretty sure nuclear tech has advanced since then
>>8122655
>>8122817
Noooooo they were so good. Sad that lack of money has killed off a once great spacefaring nation.
>>8122793
Foreign space success is good for your own domestic programmes because it encourages competition

>>8121089

> don't need a space suit to walk around

We won't need space suits on mars inside geodesic biodomes

I would disregard it if it didn't come from the guy that just landed a 40 m tall rocket stage on a fucking barge 3 times in a row.
On the other end, when NASA says they're going to Mars in the 2030s, I really hear it as 2060.

>>8118328
Sorry to break it to you, sir.
But we all die for nothing, regardless.

>>8121089
>Don't need a space suit to walk around
sulfuric acid

>>8119442
>The new strain of communism that have infected the left is globalist communist, wich promote destruction of culture, race, nation, languages, genders, families etc...
>the topic
>
>
>
>
>you

>>8123639
Basically my take as well.
The old ways are broken and busted. NASA lost its ambition a long time ago, even before the space shuttle which was a worthless populist appeal, not a scientific endeavor.

>>8117228
NASA is an affirmative action hellhole full of women and niggers.
Even the europeans are more competent than NASA at this point.

>>8123639
wow what has that got to do with travelling 50 million miles?
>>8123690
Space shuttle saved the Hubble telescope and built the ISS. ISS microgravity experiments have been useful. How can you say a spaceplane isn't a scientific endeavour? It broke so many engineering barriers
>>8123697
Have you even got any sources on the proportion of women and blacks in NASA? And AFAIK the president of SpaceX is a woman

SpaceX BTFO

>>8123728
>wow what has that got to do with travelling 50 million miles?
Just about everything, really.
Let's get real, the most hazardous parts of a flight to Mars are liftoff and landing.
The rest of the equation is really how much stuff you need for the trip.
In Mars's case, landing is especially tricky.
SpaceX proved they could accurately land a multiple tons payload using retro-propulsion.
This on a planet that has 3 times the gravity of Mars.
They also validated supersonic retro-populsion regimes in the upper athmosphere, at similar athmospheric pressure that you'd get on Mars.
Next up they're gonna do the exact same thing with their crew vehicle.
When SpaceX lands its dragon 2 spacecraft on Mars, it will be, by far, the heaviest thing to ever land there.
From there, it's all speculation how the man plans on having people there so soon.
I bet the madman still has a lot to prove us wrong about.

>>8123764
What? No, the 8 month journey is the main problem. It's great that Musk has solved the landing issue but without nuclear propulsion a manned journey isn't feasible. Anyway we will see in 2025.

>>8123853
Yes it is.
Btw any serious Mars journey is going to be a 6 month trip, because it allows for a free return to Earth in 26 months if you were to choose to abort.
Going faster quickly becomes unrealistic, as what you gain in supply mass is overtaken by the added fuel you need to accelerate and slow down.

>>8123887
It's not about supply mass it's about surviving radiation. The less time spent in it the better.
>26 months
Ayy lmao you would starve to death

>>8123902
That's the best you can do, as a backup plan.
Nuclear thermal propulsion is no magic bullet.
The radiation myth is total bs. Astronauts in the ISS get about half what Curiosity measured during its trip. And it's simply because the Earth is between them and the Sun half of the time.

>>8123924
But you are on the Mars mission for longer so you will max out your lifetime Sievert dose on just one trip

>>8123927
Guess what? the same applies when you're at Mars.
With NTR, you may cut the trip by a month to get the same payload to Mars. You'd get there earlier, but would have to wait there longer for your transfer window back. Also, if propulsion goes to shit, you have no way of getting home.
You're basically gonna take the same dose. And with the added nuclear fuel right next to you, I wouldn't be surprised if you actually took more.

>>8123940
A Saturn V with a nuclear upper stage (NERVA) could have got to Mars in 4 months so I assume the same for SLS. Despite Musk's bluster an all chemical setup would take 8 months minimum.
>You'd get there earlier, but would have to wait there longer for your transfer window back
Once on Mars you can hide underground until the window comes
> if propulsion goes to shit, you have no way of getting home.
You can say that about any space mission.
You can't do it with chemical engines, payload too small, speed too low. Every Mars mission study since the 1960's has used a nuclear engine.

>>8123984
That wasn't saturn V, that was Nova. Basically a Saturn VII.It was a retarded opposition type mission that would have required 3 launches with in orbit assembly.
It relied on what's nowaday refered as a Venus fry-by to get there faster. Because getting closer to the radiation source is the best way to avoid radiation.
Most of the advantage of NTR was then wasted on slowing down at Mars because of the ridiculous incoming speed.
Then it was Apollo on Mars. Land, spend a few hours and get back to ship.
Total trip time was 1.5 years, with 15 days at Mars and a few hours on the surface.

>>8124006
That was the 1962 mission, i'm talking about the 1980 mission. That was a good mission plan, 4 month trip, NASA approved. It only got canned because Nixon needed more money to shoot brown people.

>>8124020
never heard of it.
Would you kindly indicate to me which canned plan it is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_manned_Mars_mission_plans_in_the_20th_century

>>8123984
>underage idiot with no science or engineering education talking like he knows shit about highly technical things

amazing example of why this kind of thread is the absolute worst

>>8124065
This. Even the SpaceX anon posting in the other thread says he doesn't post in these threads cause they're so cancerous.

>>8124020
Von Braun Mars 1969
Here it says 4 months
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-5N
But here it says 8
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonn1969.htm
I dunno what's going on. Reading that list you posted is just sad over 30 plans and not one even got into orbit. Maybe Mars is cursed? Maybe man will never go there

>>8124294
maybe you should stop talking about things you don't know shit about

>>8124065
>implying muskfags are any different

>>8124314
What are your credentials?

>>8124416
Not failing out of university.

JAXA will do it.

>>8124416
>>8124418
underage tripfag BTFO

>>8124416
>asking for credentials
>on an anonymous board
We don't argue from authority here. We use facts and logic.

>>8117205

This.

You Elon fags love his dick so much.

>>8124479
And we get to suck his dick again in a week on the 14th.

File: kennedy.jpg (141KB, 627x476px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 627x476px

What went wrong?

File: Calvin Coolidge.jpg (2MB, 2539x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2539x3000px

>>8127257

>>8117199
MADMAN
ABSOLUTE
D
M
A
N

they haven't even tested the falcon heavy yet

>man arrives on mars
>well this is a big absolutely nothing
>dies

Why do we want this again?

>>8129941 M
BECAUSE OF ABSOLUTE MADMEN
D
M
E
N

>>8119330
Is this for real?

>>8119330

I don't know what it is, but as I get older I see these pro-american sentiments and get hyped as fuck. When I was younger, I actually despised the fact that there were nations at all, and was irritated that we couldn't all live under one flag.

On the flipside, comments against America drive me up the fucking wall. I definitely have a sense of pride for my country, and seeing this (if even relatively true) gave me a bit of a boner.

File: gll.jpg (129KB, 1600x1179px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1600x1179px

Pic related is how Musk will get to Mars cheaply and easily. All he need BFR for is to launch the EPPP vehicle out of lower atmosphere. A true two stage to mars vehicle.

>>8129941
>men arrive on moon
>well this is a big absolutely nothing

Why did we want this again? Oh, that's right, because it's fucking awesome.

>>8117199
He probably wont actually do it mars is a long way away. Like some people dont know how far it really is. Its a long way to mars. No one even bothers to go to the moon anymore and thats way closer. So now they say their going to mars and think i will believe them. yeh whatever fag.

>>8131501
My guess is that the MCT itself is also the second stage. The first stage and fairings will be reusable. Thus the entire rocket will be reusable.

The MCT will be SSTO when on Mars where it will be refueled while planetside. To allow for transport within 1-3 months will require MCTs capable of being refueled by fuel depots and refueling ships (like tanker aircraft or resupply ships) during transit.

>>8132394
>No one even bothers to go to the moon anymore
That's almost exclusively because it's so expensive that it's only a consideration for rich governments. Yes, we went to the moon, but we did so in probably the most expensive way possible because that was the only way it could be possible at the time. After that, the technology that made it possible just sat and stagnated like marshwater because nobody would take the risks necessary to make it cheap, reliable, and efficient.

If we make an analogy to airplanes, rocketry is just barely past the early biplane stage at best. Can you imagine trying to use said biplanes for all the things we use planes for today? Of course not, because they're small, weak, and dangerous. Rocketry must see the same level of development, iteration, trial + error, and service in the field as airplanes have if mankind is to make spacefaring a common thing.

>>8119645
>Even the Saturn V could only send 36 tons to Mars
>dat single-launch mission may may
With reduced launch-to-LEO costs from reuse, multi-launch missions will be no big thing.

>>8120922
>muh helium3
>literally only useful for party balloons until 2nd-generation fusion is a thing
I hope you don't mind waiting fifty years for that.

>>8121931
>You know there is still a satellite launched in 1974 still in operation.
OSCAR 7? The amateur satellite? Hahahahahaaa, that one is only operating now because 20 years after it stopped working, its failed batteries eventually reached an open-circuit condition which kept them from shorting out the ample solar cells. If by "still in operation" you mean "hams can play with it when its orbit isn't in the Earth's shadow" (which is a good chunk of the year because of its orbit), then sure, it's still in operation. If Sputnik had solar cells and a high enough orbit, it would probably still be beeping, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMSAT-OSCAR_7

What if when they get to mars they find martian bacteria that starts getting inside their ship/suit/etc
Would we let them back to earth carrying unknown martian germs?

>>8117228
I believe in the Mars One meme desu.

>>8117228
If we followed your advice the data would have us flying in wooden planes at thousands per ticket

>>8117957
>>8118437
>nasa won't just spend more money placating Arabic nations

>>8132458
There will probably be many different upper stages
the MCT has to be fueled/loaded in orbit, then sent to mars, aerobrake on mars + land + keep cryogenic fuel cold + have solar panels + get refueled then single stage back to earth + aerobrake & land on earth

Then you have a cargo upper stage, and a passenger upper, and a fuel upper stage.
All likely launched on the same first stage.