I've got a simple logistical question. Forget about funding,

Last I had heard they have been working on it for awhile already, and it was test flights in 4 years, full flights within 10.

>>8406105
Red Dragon flights soon, first ITS lift off in 2022.

It's just... there's nothing tangible of the ITS. Literally everything is renderings and blueprints. Like not one sheet of metal from it exists yet.

>>8406108
Don't they already have the fuel tanks? I know I've seen video of them testing the Raptor engine too

File: main-qimg-48d87e07af1ac5c1d183d6639724727d-c.jpg (32KB, 572x409px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 572x409px

>>8406128
Yup. Here's the fuel tank.

Engines almost done, they have demonstrated the capability of building the 12 meter wide carbon composite tank

So i don't see why not
6 years is a pretty long time.

It's more a question of how much manpower & funding can Elon put into it

>>8406097
>The Saturn V took two years of pre-planning and six years of development, the Space Shuttle took three years of pre-planning and nine more years of development, and this is a rocket much larger than the Saturn hauling a ship much larger than the Shuttle.

Yea, but you have to understand that:
>we have better computers
>we have better machines
>we already have infrastructure
AAAAAND!
>we have years of research in the field SATURN ROCKET INCLUDED

They are not only working with better equipment, they are also building on the shoulders of those before them.

I doubt we'll see anything before 2028 if ever. We are all aware about SpaceX's permanently slipping schedules.

>>8406097
>>8406206
This, computer simulations and past mistakes are playing a key role. Still, it's insane. I hope Elon does it, but it's not going to be painless.

>>8406208
Obama pls go

They're going to develop the upper stage first. Use it as a single stage to orbit launch vehicle.

then while they is going. develop the booster stage.

>>8406097
>Is it really possible at all to build the largest rocket AND the largest spaceship ever made and take them from the drawing board to ready for test flight within six years?
>The Saturn V took two years of pre-planning and six years of development
Didn't you answer your own question?

ITS is already years into its development. They've built a demonstrator engine and propellant tank.

What's less probable is that they'll achieve their reliability and reusability goals so quickly and with the money they have.

>>8406467
>underpants

>>8406467
If they can get the booster built. It can lift entire space stations into orbit in a single launch. Even if they can't reuse a lot of them at first. They will make a lot of money in the heavy lift market.

>>8406132
damn, the scale of this thing is just crazy.
The ship on top will be huge, how will that thing ever get of the surface of mars when it finaly gets there?

>>8406495
1/3rd gravity and basically no air resistance.

When you consider that the design will largely be an iteration on the Saturn V, then sure. There really hasn't been much fundamentally new thinking in the basic design of launch vehicles and spacecraft since then.

>>8406485
There's no way a non-reusable ITS makes sense. People will expect test flights before putting a major payload on a 51-engine monstrosity.

The full-size ITS will not be an incrementally-developed expendable-to-reusable design. It will be reusable or nothing.

A stripped-down version of the upper stage alone may be used as an expendable, or as a booster. But that won't perform much better than Falcon Heavy.

>>8406206

Plus we didn't have BUT the Gemini and Mercury space programs to help with engineering questions....not to mention Von Braun and his team.

They were literally creating something new and they, along with the Apollo crews, weren't even certain the Saturn V would work.

FYI, Red Dragon is huge. Rumored to be about as big as the Nova rocket program.

>>8406589
>FYI, Red Dragon is huge. Rumored to be about as big as the Nova rocket program.
Red Dragon is launching a standard-size propulsive-landing Dragon to Mars on a Falcon Heavy.

The big rocket is called ITS, although this name isn't final.

File: IMG_5749.jpg (251KB, 1024x822px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1024x822px

>>8406589

Picture of the Nova rocket next to Saturn V rocket. Some aircraft companies were designing Nova rockets with as many as 24 F-1 boosters (not in this picture).
Don't recall the company but I think it was Convair that designed that particular one. Some of the rocket designs had roots that go back to the Orion Nuclear Pulse Propulsion project from the 1950's. Talk about crazy, but those designs were seriously considered till JFK killed the project.

>>8406598

My apologies I was thinking ITS but wrote Red Dragon. My mistake

>>8406603

Engines...not boosters.

Sorry fellas.....

>>8406603
My god what an absurd amount of staging

>>8406621
Well, staging is good. I guess modern rockets with higher mass ratios don't need as much of it.

>>8406097
possible? Yes, if they don't encounter any problems along the way, which is unlikely.

Anyway, booster design is pretty much the same no matter the size. It's just a matter of scaling it up. Though iirc they're putting it on a much higher pressure than is normal for rockets.

The spaceship is basically a second stage attached to a crew capsule. They got experience building both. It's just in a different shape.

Biggest troublemaker would probable be their new engines.

>cosmic rays
Cosmic rays really aren't an issue. The trip itself would only take 3 months, there are astronauts on the ISS who've gotten more radiation on their stay there without any increase in cancer rate.

Though if you want to live on Mars for an extended period of time you better do get some protection.

Solar flares are much much more dangerous. It could really kill the crew and fry all the electronics.
But 12cm of water is enough to shield yourself from it. We could have some small "bunker" on the ship, you need the water anyway, just put it in the wall.

>>8406603
>It's rockets all the way down.

>>8406097
If SpaceX can't learn from NASA's experience with the Saturn V, I doubt they can build a rocket that can reach Mars within six years.

But, then again, I was wrong about the moonlanding too, so maybe we'll have martians before I die.

>>8406603
Doesn't the one in the middle have an extra stage that wasn't on the Saturn Vs?

>>8406657
SpaceX and NASA learn for each other
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/21/nasa-to-have-limited-role-in-spacexs-planned-mars-campaign/

>Government engineers will give advice to SpaceX on the capsule’s entry, descent and landing at Mars, the design of the spacecraft and its heat shield, and the aerodynamic environment in the rarefied Martian atmosphere.

>“In return, we are receiving most of SpaceX’s EDL (entry, descent and landing) flight data,” McAlister said. “This is a critical, critical technology for us. This is flight data that would not be available for us by any other means.”

>>8406668
No, Saturn V was 3-stage, then the Apollo spacecraft had another 3 stages (CSM, lunar descent, lunar ascent -- arguably the capsule could be counted as a stage, but it only had attitude thrusters, not a main engine).

C-5 there is a 3-stage rocket with two stages visible on the spacecraft. The spacecraft is different, the rocket isn't.

>>8406676
They make it look weird where the LM would be with the fairing or whatever you wanna call it there in that pic

>>8406485
Yeah, I can't tell how intentional this was.

Apparently a booster like the ITS could haul the entire International Space Station into orbit, as-is, in one trip.

I can barely even fathom that. We've had 32 flights over the last 18 years hauling bits and pieces to that thing, one at a time.

Just imagine the things we would of done by now if they kept the NASA budget up during the Apollo program. Lunar outposts were planned, manned flybys of Venus, and all kinds of cool shit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Applications_Program

File: ITS_Tanker_(cropped).jpg (118KB, 584x725px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 584x725px

>>8406132
>>8406703
>>8406485
Excuse me if this is a stupid question but couldn't they just leave an ITS in orbit and use the ship itself as a space station? Like, even much easier than actually landing the thing on Mars?

As far as I can tell the current "Chinese Space Station" is more or less externally identical to a Chinese spaceship that another ship can fly up to and dock with

>>8406495
aerobrake into propulsive landing

>>8406719
The booster? Yeah, they could vent out the remaining fuel and turn that into a workshop.

They would call it a wet workshop, which was one of the plans for Skylab, but they ended up using a stage that was already empty on the ground

>>8406719
>>8406744

My bad, totally skipped over the spaceship part. I guess they could, but Elon doesn't really have any plans for a station of any kind

>>8406719
?
what resources can you access in orbit? none
You go to mars to mine & grow crops & use the atmosphere, etc

Also likely to get out of reach of earth authorities.

File: U47P5029T2D481067F24DT20120628124521.jpg (35KB, 550x435px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 550x435px

>>8406744
>>8406753
>>8406752
I meant in the sense that, here's a pic of a Tiangong Space Station and a Shenzou spaceship and you can see how they more or less are cut from the same cloth, to the extent that you'd have a hard time guessing which was which

And as an ISS replacement a behemoth like the ITS lander would be cheaper, more durable, more spacious, etc.

>>8406703
The ISS is a really oversized and mass-inefficient make-work project.

Don't listen to any of the bullshit about how great and important it is. It took a lot of launches because they wanted an excuse to waste a bunch of money doing a bunch of launches.

Always remember that money is something that doesn't get consumed. When it's being "wasted" it always ends up in someone's pocket.

>>8406097
>terraforming

Humanity does not have that kind of time.

>Is it really possible at all to build the largest rocket AND the largest spaceship ever made and take them from the drawing board to ready for test flight within six years?


Yes.

>>8406097
Just a reminder that that thing has around 3 times the weight of an N1, if it blows up in the pad it's not going to be good

>>8406703
I don't think the ISS is dense enough to fit inside the ITS, that's the problem with launching super heavy payloads, they take too much space if they're not fuel

It would be more interesting to use one of these behemoths to launch bigger probes to the outer solar system, can someone calculate the mass that it could bring to a Jupiter transfer orbit?

>>8407134
some shitter on r/spacex was calculating numbers

>>8407157
just imagine what could we do with 50 tons of equipment on europa's surface

>>8407134
The ISS has 931 cubic meters of total pressurized space

The ITS has at least 1,000 cubic meters of pressurized space for passenger area alone and perhaps more than double that if the whole cargo section is pressurized as well

This is in spite of the fact that the ISS is 109x73x20 meters and the ITS is "only" 49x17x17 meters

I'm thinking ISS must be really unnecessarily... spindly.

>>8407174
modular construction can get you only so far

File: 12705622_616801398470859_1207764579721807212_n.jpg (128KB, 945x851px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 945x851px

>>8407134
>>8406703
>>8406485
You could put 40 (!!) of these fuckers in space in one flight.

An orbital city, ready to go.

>>8406132
jesus christ
well cant fault them for thinking big

>>8407228
not sure why you would want a sports car in space

>>8407228
do they even fit inside the required space?
going by weight the ITS can launch 229 SUV's to orbit in expendable mode

>>8407228
Yea but those things are memes

now take 3 of those cores and make an ITS Heavy

700 tons to LEO reusable
1000 tons to LEO expendable

The real question is can you convince yourself that the model you made on the computer will work IRL?

>>8407330
Making a "heavy" version is kinda pointless for a reusable space craft thats large enough for any practical payload

If you needed a heavier payload to GTO, then you just refuel in orbit.

>>8406097
Not really. The Apollo programm had around ~400k people working for it. SpaceX(plosion) has about 5k. Even if they manage to build something, it will be several years late and still a crude prototype compared to the first Saturn rockets.

>>8407134
PROJECT PLUTO ON JUPITER'S ATMOSPHERE WHEN

File: BEAM_module_expansion_series.jpg (87KB, 698x472px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 698x472px

>>8407234
To run over aliens duh

>>8407309
There was a prototype strapped to the ISS, didn't it work just fine?

>>8407522
the prototype on the ISS is inflated and running. thought the door to it will remain closed for a year. then the experiment will be over. I don't know if they will have a Dragon to bring it back for study.

>>8407532
No they're going to dispose of it but I mean it's already extinguished both "Bigelow is vaporware that will never send up anything" AND "their technology is a death trap that will pop and kill everybody" worries

The thing is weird and it's innovative and it more or less works, the technology is perfectly worthy of further development.

>>8406657
>wrong about the moonlanding
There is a story here i'd like to hear...

>>8407123
Might finally end up pushing Florida back into the sea

>>8406640

The engines and propellants are more efficient.

File: Dragon on Barge 5-31-12.jpg (134KB, 1032x832px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1032x832px

>>8406097
You could build a rocket pretty much immediately, it all boils down into making decisions and just doing it.

Our financial systems provide incentives to spreading out costs over multiple years even if the total cost ends up being higher. Blame banks.

>>8407134

It's not a question of density as it is with portability. But portability isn't the focus with the ITS. It is however with smaller probes. What is the focus IS modularity.

Modularization is the future of spacecraft development. Granted if we cut the number of launches down we could save some money, but those cost savings are going to be realized as soon as reusable 3rd stage systems are commonplace.

Modularization allows for ease of manufacturing of vital components and structures on the surface. And when we make that great leap into manufacturing these systems and components in space, we will very likely carry such engineering solutions with us.

File: All the eggs in one basket.jpg (22KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 350x200px

>>8406097
What is more cost effective? A single rocket that lifts 1000 tons of cargo into orbit or 10 rockets lifting 100 tons of cargo into orbit?

What if 1 out of ten rockets explodes?
What if the single large rocket explodes?

File: FALCON-9.png (11KB, 362x453px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 362x453px

>>8406097
Is this designed to land on the barge?

>>8408292
1 rocket is cheaper, assuming it doesn't explode.

10 rockets don't require 1/10th the labor or facilities, they might require less labor, but it won't be 1/10th. So you've already lost on labor/manning costs.

Second, components are not scaled linearly with larger components often being more efficient per mass.

Square cube does come into play, but that's only if you get really big.

1 big = $1
1 small > $0.1
10 small > $1

>>8406097

>Is it really possible at all to build the largest rocket AND the largest spaceship ever made and take them from the drawing board to ready for test flight within six years?

No. Do you want a job done well and on budget or done quickly?

But I do believe it can be done, just not in six years. Baseline for any rocket is ten years, and given that the first few ITSes will blow up on launch I'd say this is more of a 20 year thing. But not impossible.

>>8408294
Why not land it in the Sahara Desert?

Nobody gives a shit about camelfuckers and its not impossible to use money to keep them away for it to be peaceful enough.

>>8408306
it takes longer because nobody wants to properly fund it so:
>Not enough annual funds because stingy
>No progress so late
>Cost balloons because years of no progress
>program canceled after 15 years, $100bn over budget and zero prototypes built

>>8408183

>You could build a rocket pretty much immediately

no you can't, rockets are made of different components and setting up the assembly line for it takes time

>Our financial systems provide incentives to spreading out costs over multiple years even if the total cost ends up being higher. Blame banks.

no they don't, you have no idea what you're talking about

>>8408307

Because it requires being friendly with muslim countries that control it. Barges are easier anyway and a better demonstration of the technology.

>>8408294
No it lands back on the pad to have another upper stage put on top for the next launch.

>>8408327
land it on the canary islands then. Only need a few tennis courts of flat ground with a safety berm.

>>8408183

Our financial systems do provide such incentives, however they are not realized in the private space flight industry. At least not yet anyway.

Economies of scale have yet to be reached in this business. And as soon as they do....those incentives will be earned.

>>8406097
Why does it matter? You win either way.

It explodes and kills a bunch of people, great.
They make it to wherever they want to go, even better.

My gut says no-- but who knows?

>>8406097
They might do it in 10, but also keep in mind SpaceX doesn't have to go through as much governmental red tape as NASA did in the 60s, also they have a center figurehead to work around. (namely, Elon Musk.)

http://www.popsci.com/chinas-hybrid-spaceplane-could-reset-21st-century-space-race

OH MY FUCKING OGD CHINA IS DOING A SKYLON

THE SPACE RACE IS ON IS ON IS ON

YOU WILL SOON BE LIVING IN A UNIVERSE SO SCI FI YOU WILL FEEL THE PEN OF ROBERT HEINLEIN UP YOUR RECTUM AND LIKE IT

>>8407542
Bigelow is still vaporware. Sure they've sent up a couple test modules and this latest experiment on the ISS, but I don't think their goal of a private space hotel is feasible anytime soon. Their best bet is to score contracts to supply habitat modules for NASA missions. Unfortunately for them, scoring such a contract would require NASA to actually have a plan for future exploration beyond it's current "Develop SLS and hope we come up with a use for it"
Also Bigelow isn't all that innovate. Most of what they're doing is based on work NASA did before Congress passed a law banning them from continuing work on Transhab and forcing them to sell the rights to the technology.

>>8408013
i second this

>>8407162
bring back one of those octopus from europa report and eat it/have sex with it/both at the same time

>>8408386
So the chinks stole the skylon plans from the brits who werent doing anything with it?

>>8408399
skylon already revolutionitized the air intake industry of components. the skylon is about to be ready to fly in 2020 then we see who spreads your lies no more

>>8408403
kek, your obviously a brit who stil doesnt realize that skylon is a meme.

>>8408366
Von Braun was a safety Nazi. Which is why NASA during his reign was slower than the Soviets.

>>8408419

So what slowed the Soviets down after the Gemini program ended?

>>8408439
Having to assemble every component on a steppe in Bumfuckistan, constant fighting, pettyness and political backstabbing among your design teams, and generally having to use the Orc-ish approach since you dont really have a budget big enough?

File: IMG_5759.jpg (17KB, 238x178px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 238x178px

>>8408460

Of course funding ended when Brezhnev came to power.

>>8406097
So there's three passenger decks

Each deck is in that 12m diameter section so let's say they're 113 square meters each.

339 square meters total, for 100 people, for three months.

And where the fuck are the "restaurant and movie theater" gonna go?

>>8408470
>>8408439
>>8408460
Korolev dying was probably their biggest set back.

>>8408460
>>8408439
The real killer for the soviets was the death of korolov. His proposal for a moonshot would have really worked. Assembling the craft in orbit, using the soyuz (which proved to be very good) and the proven proton rockets. The only thing that wasnt proved to work was the moon lander, but htat actually was one of the easiest part of the endeavour

>>8408510
muh nigger


Also, given that the americans had like, infinite budget compared to the soviets, its actually a miracle they won at so many milestones

>>8408510

Korolev not having the right facilities to test his N-1 was his personal set back.

>>8408518
korolev favoured the orbital assembly aproach instead of the big dumb booster, he was forced intot hat

>>8408526

The Soviets didn't have the money nor the time to build it in orbit.

Come to think of it they didn't have much of anything other than talent. Much of the money was diverted to Soviet military projects

>>8408539
>The Soviets didn't have the money nor the time to build it in orbit.
why would it cost more money/time to orbit build?

just grab 3 proton rockets, which are basically a dime a dozen in spaceflight terms and add a seocnd stage to a soyuz and a lunar lander

et voila!

>>8408579
Proton was brand new then. It was all new. People forget how fast it moved.

1957 Sputnik (first orbit), Laika (first animal in orbit)
...
1961 Yuri Gagarin (first man in orbit)
1962 John Glenn (first American in orbit)
1963
1964
1965 Gemini 6+7 (first orbital rendezvous)
1966 Gemini 8 (first orbital docking), Soyuz #1
1967 Proton #1, Kosmos 186+188 (first automated docking), Saturn V
1968
1969 Soyuz 4+5 (first Soviet manned docking), N1 #1, Apollo 11

Note that I left out an awful lot of firsts.

>>8408743
yes, proton and soyuz were brand new, but they later proved to work incredibly good, billions of orders of magnitued above expected.

the only component of the assembly we dont know if it would have worked is the lunar lander, and that was really the easiest part of it

>>8408510
>>8408514
>the guy died of heart and kidney failure because earlier in his life he was arrested for not working fast enough, sentenced to death but never executed, spent 12 years enslaved in the gulag, got scurvy and lost all his teeth
How the fuck does someone continue to be a "patriot" after surviving something like that? Why did he devote his whole life to advancing a country that bent him over and raped his asshole into oblivion for no reason?

>>8408759

The lunar lander would have worked.

Again the issue with the N-1 was the rocket motor assembly. And the lack of any real testing of the assembly

>>8408762

Korolev had one goal and that was rocketry.

But no one thanked Khruschev for getting him out.

>>8408762
Some may consider it working for the betterment of humanity.

>>8408759
>yes, proton and soyuz were brand new, but they later proved to work incredibly good, billions of orders of magnitued above expected.
This is silly. They had plenty of failures early on.

They became reliable because the Soviet Union stuck with them and continued to refine them, like the American Atlas and Delta rockets. Titan was pretty good up until the mid-80s, when they stretched the design too far to increase payload (because they needed an alternative to the failing space shuttle), and didn't pull back to the previous reliable model.

>>8408303
Depends on a whole buncha other things too
If there is a flaw that needs to be launched to test, then that 1000 ton rocket is gonna blow up, while with the 10 rockets you will have 9 succeed.

Obviously the way to cheap orbital flight is both big & reusable.

>>8408762
>How the fuck does someone continue to be a "patriot" after surviving something like that?
when the goal is a world where children dont starve, and not greedy fat capitalist killing children (which was american goal) then you learn the true value of real dedication

>>8408818
Dude

He was sentenced to DEATH

for the crime of "not working fast enough"

>>8408386
why cripple this stuff by making it a SSTO?

What is the point of pretending to go to mars when it clearly is never gonna fucking happen. Did memes go too far?

>>8408824
>He was sentenced to DEATH
>for the crime of "not working fast enough"
millions of children die due to capitalist hunger (in communist cuba say what you want but children dont starve, capitalism -12789213798 communism 192388902319083290321 thats the score)


they die so that people like donald trump (almost confirmed rapist for his sayings and also child exploiter via his companies and racist hater of mankind) can have better shoes


so, again, and stop me if im going to fast for you little american boy. When youre fighting against rapist child exploiters who would kill childs to have a couple of new shoes, then anything is allowed in ways of discipline


oh im sorry, do you not like your shoes? would you like me to kill some childs for you?

>>8408859
because reusability will make much more less money costa so efficiency improves

>>8408818
>>8408921
end yourself you cynical blind faggot

>>8408921
>mass murder, exile, summary execution and slave labor are OK as long as you're doing it to fight the capitalist oppressors
I really hope you're shitposting but it's so hard to tell sometimes

>>8408931
>>8408928
look at me im american and i support child murder for nice capitalist things

learn to life murderors

>>8408931
>mass murder, exile, summary execution and slave labor are OK as long as you're doing it to fight the communist oppressors

history says it swings both ways

>>8408996
Shitposting it is. Thanks.

>>8409004
It sure is hard to tell sometimes.

>>8408403
skylon doesn't real

>>8408921
Do you not know anything about communism because you've just heard of it now, or because you're a brainwashed ruski?

>>8409842
>because you're a brainwashed ruski
This would be unlikely since even Putin publicly says the Soviet Union was a shitheap

>>8407412
400k? Are you sure? That's almost 0.0025% of the American population back in the day...

>>8409893
>At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities.
And you got wayyy too many zeroes in that

But it's not that amazing when you remember NASA was consuming 4% of the GDP during the Apollo years

>>8406768
This will be a general purpose ship.Its just that Musk wants to go to Mars.Most engineers at SpaceX too.

>>8409938
i dont understand why does it take so much people


why are humans so retards

i bet the job distribution goes like this:

1 person bolts the nut, then 5 persons ask him if he bolted the nut correctly, then 50 persons ask those 5 persons if they asked him if he bolted the nut correctly correctly...

then a thousand people ask those 50 persons if they asked the guy who asked the guy...

and so on and so on


if it is a very critical endeavour, cant they just, somehow, educate people who dont do dumb mistakes and be done with it? i bet it will be super duper mega cheaper like this

>>8409975
You gotta think of all the women sewing space suits and parachutes. Not everyone involved was working on the Saturn V.

>>8408476
>square
This ain't a fucking house, dude.

>>8410055
ok, it was the shit times, i grant you taht

but nowadawadays, do we still need all that pointless salaries to go to space?

also, that woman only had to sew 3 suits and 3 parachutes. Fucking lazy bitch

>>8410062
ARE YOU ON A SCIENCE BOARD QUESTIONING THAT A CIRCULAR SECTION CANNOT HAVE SQUARE METERS AS THE UNIT OF ITS AREA BECAUSE IT HAS THE WORD SQUARE

ARE WE REALLY AT THAT POINT YET SCI? I MEAN I KNOW EVERYONE HERE IS FAR FROM BEING A GENIUS, BUT ARE WE AT THE ACTIVELY SEEKING TO BE RETARDED STAGE NOW?

>>8409975
You left out the guys who designed the nut. As well as the guy that made the machine to make the nut, the guy that used the machine to make the nut, the guy that inspected the nut, and the guy who took the nut from the nut factory to the rocket factory in the special nut delivery plane. Supply chains can get very big very fast.

>>8408476
i think a prerequesite for the first trips must be a taste for autistic hobbies or art


how about this, all of the people you send must be super duper high super musics with like real talent, they practice 8 hours a day every day when they arrive on mars they broadcast the most epically epic heavy metal song about kicking the god of war in the balls, and perform some ultra virtuoso techniques only possible in 0g

>>8410062
While volume is a better indicator of the amount of available space inside space ship, the ship is going to sitting straight up while it's on mars so square footage of the "floor" does matter.

That said it's fairly easy to have spaces pull double duty. If you just pull out a screen and projector and suddenly the restaurant is a theater. Go into the restaurant at a different hour and it's the crew mess.

>>8410099
>You left out the guys who designed the nut. As well as the guy that made the machine to make the nut, the guy that used the machine to make the nut, the guy that inspected the nut, and the guy who took the nut from the nut factory to the rocket factory in the special nut delivery plane. Supply chains can get very big very fast.
you need a special nut for your shitty spaceship? cant you use regular nuts, are you gonna tell me that space nuts are different? come on stop wasting taxpayers money

>>8410114
on mars they wont stay on the ship theyll have previously shipped habitats and will posibly start digging underground houses to not die of radiation because the people who go to mars will probably be the kind of people that do not like dying of radiation

File: n1 rocket ass.jpg (582KB, 723x923px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 723x923px

>>8408476
And where did SpaceX say they were going to take 100 people to Mars per trip? The rocket is simply rated for 450 tons to Mars. All SpaceX is doing is building the rocket, they aren't concerning themselves with the life support or how they're gonna build a Mars base. There are bigger issues to be concerned with than movie theaters(just give everyone VR goggles) and restaurants(prepacked MREs)


*I counted 20 people in the video they released though

>>8408514
Korolov designed the glorious N1 rocket, because he died they didn't do QC right and they fucked it up

>>8408476
>So there's three passenger decks
There's clearly five passenger decks: four rows of small windows, plus the big window. So with 100 people onboard, over 5 square meters of floor space per person.

>And where the fuck are the "restaurant and movie theater" gonna go?
They're just going to have a screen up against one wall. In the morning, when they pack the sleeping bags away (at night, I expect most of the space will be used for sleeping, so people have the maximum privacy possible, which would give them each a tiny room twice the size of a "twin XL" bed), they'll probably have each floor partitioned with curtains or segmented walls into activity rooms: machine gym, theater, lecture hall, sports and games room, stargazing deck, and various private spaces. All with lightweight, mostly multipurpose equipment that can be packed away at night.

As for the "restaurant", that's probably just putting a little spin on the fact that prepared food will have to be dispensed, and the passengers can't be trusted to prepare it or expected to live entirely on prepackaged cold meals. "Canteen" or "cafeteria" would probably be a more honest description.

I also think they're probably going to have (light) artificial gravity with a tether system between paired ships, but not rely on it to survive.

>>8410157
>And where did SpaceX say they were going to take 100 people to Mars per trip?
Everywhere. They even say it in OP image.

>>8410195
There will likely be a different vehicle than this one for the 100 person load, one with more pressurized volume.
Obviously they won't be shipping 100 at a time immediately.

>>8410320
i think that for convenience issues the first crews will use the humongous vehicle but with like 5-10 persons.


but i dont think they will make a bigger vehicle for the 100 people, that would defeat the whole purpose of the enterprise, making this thing work and be reliable would be the single most hardest things humanity has ever done by at least 20 orders of magnitude, you can bet your sweet ass that once its working humanity wont invest such potential in research again for at least a couple hundred generations. once the vehicle is done, this is it so you better get it right

>>8410320
>>8410406
The initial plan calls for a first crew of 10 with plenty of cargo (including a bit of pre-positioned Red Dragon cargo) to build the first base.

Then 100 two years later, Two years after that, a couple hundred (multiple ships, including ones with almost no passengers and large cargo loads)

>>8410441
and he expects to get the fundings just from the tickets alone?

>>8410449
Apparently to run the colonists but not to actually build the ship in the first place.

Like 100 colonists at $500k a head will more than cover fueling, supplying and refurbishing the ship for each trip.

I'm also mistaken, there's supposed to be ONE unmanned ITS mission before the first 10 astronauts, which means they'll be dumping 450 tons of hopefully useful cargo on the surface plus whatever four tons of junk Red Dragon drops off.

>>8406108
Actually, they have the fuel tank for the spacecraft, and they've already tested the Raptor engine. (hooray, it didnt explode on the first try)

Lots of optimism in this thread... I respect that though. But I doubt that this is going to be ready within 10 years. I'm not saying it's not possible, but extremely unlikely.

>>8410449
>>8410457
SpaceX is a $12 billion company right now and the ITS project is projected to cost $10 billion.

It's not like they're going to just pay it all out of pocket but I'm just saying they're already on the order of magnitude, they're not like the assholes who go "We just raised $10,000 on Kickstarter and we're ready to go to Mars"

I think the absolute madmen might actually pull it off.

>>8406768
>Tiangong Space Station
They literally stole the fucking Salyut from Russia and wrote chinese on it.

>>8410475
Werrcome to China

The average Chink thinks they invented Shrek and Overwatch too

>>8410475
Sure it wasn't an original design, but it got them into space.

>>8410506
if america keeps fucking up, china may very well just copy the whole saturn 5 deal and go to the moon, stay ahead of everyone without inventing anything

File: orion-apollo-comparison-gra.jpg (51KB, 720x800px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 720x800px

>>8410510
The SLS and Orion are ready for primetime in less than 18 months and they're just a "Apollo but better" program

Like wooooww, we finally have an incremental improvement from 1969 but it's still an improvement.

>>8410516
>not landing on the moon until after 2030

yeah i dont think much improvement is being made

>>8410449
I think the idea of the cheap tickets he's talking about is based on the vehicles already having been used (and fully paid for) on an earlier, more costly, trip.

They're planning to spend $10 billion developing it, including demonstration flights, and I think not to recoup that in the ticket prices, but rather for SpaceX to make $10 billion in other ways.

Bottom line: if they can do it for $10 billion spread over nearly 10 years, the government might just pay for it. For instance, a DoD contract to develop and provide the capability of launching 300 ton satellites. They like big satellites, and have several hundred billion to spend per year. They already provided like $100 million toward Raptor.

Then NASA could buy a moon base and a first-Man-on-Mars landing in the 2020s for just a billion dollars per year for a few years.

Then SpaceX has had their development paid for and doesn't have to amortize it over future launches.

>>8410523
The Chinese don't expect to have a rocket even comparable to Saturn V until 2025, the SLS is making it's maiden fight in 2018

>>8410534
if the chinese start a lunar program in 2020 they might still make it to land in 2030. That year the funding for SLS runs out and it is predicted to (if everything goes perfect with no mistakes) take men into lunar orbit then stop

>>8410545
SpaceX aside, NASA is still looking more closely at landing on Mars or even in the asteroid belt than returning to the moon anyway

Although the ITS would be fucking incredible if it's successful just for how firmly it would SHIT on the "slightly better than Apollo" programs the Chinese and Americans are spending billions and decades developing

isnt the point of darpa to avoid "technological surprise to the us"

why havent they thought of the booster landing thingy yet, those amateurs

>>8410554
>the Chinese and Americans are spending billions and decades developing
DEVELOPING WHAT? FINISH THE FUCKING STORY.

also, chinese dont develop anythin they just reverse engineer as best they can

>>8410561
>the "slightly better than Apollo" programs the Chinese and Americans are spending billions and decades developing
Does that make more sense to you

File: img_901721_24702091_2-425x276.jpg (30KB, 425x276px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 425x276px

>>8410561
You read my sentence backwards. As in "The Chinese and Americans are spending billions and decades developing rockets and spaceships marginally better than the Apollo program"

Of course, SpaceX has it's own "Apollo+" system in service right now: the Falcon 9 + Dragon. Those things have already been successfully flying cargo for two years.

Is it a three way space race, America vs. China vs. SpaceX? Or is SpaceX more or less just a branch of America's space program? And have the Russians basically just given up? Because they still completely dominate "mundane" space travel right now, yet they seem to have nothing exciting in the pipeline at all.

if he really pulls this off, and suppose the first tickets cost 500.000U$S. do you suppose he would have trouble selling the 100 tickets ? or would there be bidding wars to get into the trip?


would the crew consist mostly of crazy people who can barely pay for it selling everything they got or would it imply more ultrabillionares?

>>8410573
The first crews would almost definitely be sponsored astronauts, top of field personnel from various governments - and at a price that relatively low even individual universities.

>>8410582
INDIVIDUAL UNIVERSITIES WILL BE LAUNCHED INTO SPACE?

LIKE THE WHOLE UNIVERSITY? ONLY THE BUILDINGS OR WITH ALL THE STUDENTS INSIDE!!!

WOW THATS INCREDIBLEMAZING

>>8410594
Does anybody on this website speak fucking English or what

Let me try again

At a $500,000 per seat price tag, many prestigious universities could easily afford to send an elite professor for on-site research

>>8410568
SpaceX is quasi-NASA, they get some funding from them but does their own thing. The Russians are plodding along with Angara since I don't think they felt the need to bother with anything else more extravagant than LEO-capability since no one else was bothering.

>>8410573
A "permanent settlement on Mars" doesn't mean it's a one way trip.

It means SOMEBODY will always be on that planet, but every two years there will also be a return flight where people can go home.

When America was founded, some people sailed here from Europe to build a new home and stay for the rest of their lives, some people sailed here to work a potentially lucrative job like prospecting or pelt trapping for a few years then go home with their fortune, and some people made their living by just constantly sailing back and forth between the two locations because there was always so much exchange of goods and people going on.

>>8410614
>>8410573
By the way each ITS is being developed with 10 lifetime trips in mind.

I'm not sure if they're referring to 10 round trips or five Mars flights and five Earth flights.

File: ReliabilityRec.jpg (587KB, 893x1155px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 893x1155px

I will laugh at all of you when time comes from the official Bigelow Commercial Space Station™, brought into orbit by the most reliable launch system provider of all (God bless them), United Launch Alliance®. Stinky Memelon will never succeed with his laughable atrocity he calls the ITS. The tears of you memeing cretins will be most tasty.

>>8410406
You can do things like stretch the front out another few meters

He alluded to this during the presentation about making a bigger version. It does seem a little cramped for 100 people for 4 months, but maybe thats just something you'll have to live with in space/mars.

>>8410622
ULA will always be for satellites only.
>b8

>>8410627
and expand size, and mass and volume and aerodynamic pressure quadrency,

sure little kiddy uneducated boy sure


risk blowing a 10 billion dollar project just because waaaah waaaah uncomfortable

>>8410652
Also we need people on another planet cause this one's fucked.

>>8410622
>pic

lol So much butthurt in that pic. Also, you should never dis your competitors. Because it gives them recognition and makes you look like an ass.

>>8410735
So, you're saying we need to go to an even more fucked planet just because this one is a little bit fucked? It'd be easier just to bunker up on Earth than to colonize another planet.

>>8407230
>well cant fault them for thinking big

Consider that that's the second stage/spaceship liquid oxygen tank.

>>8410622
>Bigelow
>surviving without spaceX

>>8410745
>So, you're saying we need to go to an even more fucked planet just because this one is a little bit fucked?
Earth has 1.7 billion Muslims, 1.2 billion Africans and 23 million Australians. Mars has zero. It's easier to start over than get rid of them.

>>8410652
are you an idiot?
This would be after they've produced several space ships, and done their modelling/design work.

>>8410767
The next Bigelow craft will be launched on an Atlas 5.

>>8410622
ULA launches cost 4 times as much.

>>8410874
And SpaceX launches blow up at more than 4 times the rate of ULA Launches.

>>8410465
Part of me want to be a realist, the rest of me just want to dream and hope

>>8410797
I kek'ed at the Australians-part

>>8406097
ka-fucking-BOOOOOOOM!

>>8406753
interplanetary criminal law soon

File: image.png (3MB, 1863x945px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1863x945px

>Believing this guy can do it

He'll never be able to get the cost of going to Mars down that far simply because the spaceship can only be used for a round trip once every 52 months, assuming it makes every window. 6

>>8412002

Meme on Mars man.

File: 19_1475001709128.jpg (35KB, 962x452px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 962x452px

It's so cool looking holy shit

Every spaceship in existence right now, it's cool what they DO, but they're all kind of "lame" looking, you know? The moon lander was a dorky little bell thing.

>>8412126

Looks like a vibrator or some sort of dildo to me.

So this mars shit might actually happen in my lifetime. Will the first 100 passenger flight end up like Pandorum or Event Horizon?

>>8413164

>getting sucked into an artificial black hole in orbit around Neptune

>consequently getting sucked into a shitty story about going into a hellish dimension

No

>>8410470
The next decade or two is going to be quite a ride, that's for sure.

>>8412050
But they'll be sending multiple per trip (Elon was talking about tens or even hundreds per launch window eventually if the colony really takes off), and each booster + ship can be used for 10 trips, so once one is built you can keep using it for 15-20 years. They're a lot like today's ocean cargo ships.

File: The Undiscovered Country.jpg (979KB, 4087x1713px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 4087x1713px

>>8413145
Every spacefaring vehicle is going to be at least vaguely phallic as long as they have to deal with an atmosphere of some sort because they've gotta be aerodynamic. Only once we're building permanently spaceborne ships (never launching or landing on a planet surface) can we start using cool looking non-phallic designs.

But of course doing that is decades away at best, since it requires massive manufacturing facilities in space or on a low-gravity body.

>>8414493
Nah, in all likelihood ships constructed in space will be built for maximum space efficiency just like everything else. We'll see lots of cones and cylinders with slender arms for repair or construction and protruding solar panels or radiators. Real life isn't Star Trek, there is no magic bullshit structural integrity field to hold grossly stupid and improbable ship hulls in one piece.

>>8412050
>>8414475
There is also a year of downtime once its gone from mars then come back.

So it could do the mars trip, then be used to deliver payloads to orbit or the moon for a year or so until its time to ready for mars again.

If something like suborbital passenger flights takes off, 30 minutes to anywhere in the world, then the whole mars agenda could be a small portion of the SpaceX company.

File: CHODE-ship.png (122KB, 700x438px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 700x438px

>>8414493
No anon, this is what spaceships are going to look like

File: Whale_Probe.jpg (183KB, 1889x812px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1889x812px

>>8415111
So basically the whale probe

File: 1470538885700.png (116KB, 292x276px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 292x276px

>>8410534
>SLS is making it's maiden fight in 2018

>>8406097
>Forget about [...] cosmic rays
Daily reminder that humans will be too brain damaged to be useful by the time they got to Mars. We're stuck here, and will likely have to send machines, or micromachines, to do the work for us.

>>8415132
It's not even the real SLS. It's a cobble-job with an improvised second stage they're never using again, that they just threw together to pretend they're meeting a requirement given in law that they aim for a first launch by the end of 2016.

...then the schedule slipped. And guess what? It ain't gonna be ready in 2018, either.

They've also baked in acceptance of a high risk of failure on the first launch. They're only shooting for 92% confidence of success, and the way they're running things (remember Challenger?), it's probably going to be a lot worse than that.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if the complete ITS went to orbit before SLS.

>>8415148
Are they able to do static fires like SpaceX does?

>>8415200
Sort of. They're using shuttle engines (four, not three like the shuttle), and upgraded shuttle solid boosters (which were actually developed before the end of the shuttle program, and were intended for upgrading shuttle capabilities).

They've still never fired four of the engines together as a set, let alone fired the four of them together with the solid boosters going. They discovered a lot of problems with the shuttle engines before when they first fired three of them together, and had to make design changes before they launched. I don't think there's any guarantee that these surplus original shuttle engines (no, they're not making new ones of the same design for SLS, they're really polishing off the old scrap until they run out of it or the program gets cancelled, whichever happens first) will work in a team of four, since they only barely stopped them shaking each other apart with three.

I'm not sure, but I don't think they will fire them together with the SRBs before the launch. I don't think they did with the shuttle, and that's why the engines came back needing extensive repairs before they could be reused.

>>8415102
>suborbital passenger flights takes off, 30 minutes to anywhere in the world
The 747 was so successful because it was in a sweet spot between amount of time spent traveling and amount of time spent sitting around at an airport waiting for security/luggage/etc.

After 9/11 the Concorde wasn't beating it by much in total flight time anymore because who cares if you can cross an ocean in 3 hours because you're gonna be spending 6 hours taking your shoes off and getting your ass probed

>>8415291
Yea but the Concorde only travelled about twice as fast, wouldn't go super sonic over land, only 20 were ever built, and they were very expensive to operate.

Not sure how jurisdiction would work for suborbital flights. Wouldn't be happening out of airports after all.

>>8406097
in 20 years, ai´s, fission, will and self producing power-farms in space powdered by fission will make space-flight, insanely lucrative, live trillionaires lucrative, space mining will be so lucrative you wont even know. and nordic countries will have all the wealth for fission materials, except whites have fled due to civil wars.

File: children_of_a_dead_earth_11.jpg (62KB, 654x409px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 654x409px

>>8415116
What the fuck is that? I don't see any radiators...

>>8415340
>>self producing power-farms in space powdered by fission
And what are these self producing power-farms powering?

>>8415381
Fission powder factories. It's the circle of life.

>>8415436
Where do the fissionables come from?

>>8415232
sounds like the thing might as well be held together with bubblegum and duct tape

File: 1475006085628.png (211KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 600x451px

>>8412002

File: 1441974040131.jpg (15KB, 360x242px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 360x242px

>>8415132
>falcon heavy is making its maiden flight in 2013

>>8415605
Heavy is low priority right now.
Next year Falcon 9 updates will be finished (1.7 million pound thrust to 1.9 ) and so they can focus on ITS,satellite,dragon and Falcon Heavy.

>>8406206
>>we have years of research in the field SATURN ROCKET INCLUDED
>They are not only working with better equipment, they are also building on the shoulders of those before them.

We pretty much lost all the experience from the Saturn rockets though. The plans are lost/unreadable, and all the people who designed and built it have retired and scattered.

>>8415689
Falcon 9 performance really isn't the problem. Flight rate is what needs to be solved.

>>8415502
Dreams on, mars man

>>8416094
They want it done before the heavy rolls out.

>>8406097
> so many fucking engines

One fails, they all fail.

>>8415689
>>8416133
I'm also doubtful of this claim that they're upgrading the Merlin again. Do you have a source on it?

>>8416150
Except they don't

There have already been successful missions with an engine failure, if anything the increased redundancy can help

File: micro-machines-galoob.jpg (336KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1280x720px

>>8415135
>micromachines

>>8416174
http://spacenews.com/shotwell-says-spacex-homing-in-on-cause-of-falcon-9-pad-explosion/

>>8416279
What, this "half of which have been at about 10 percent additional thrust" is all you're going on?

>>8416292
I dont understand you.
Elaborate pls.

>>8416297
That quote is the only thing I see in that article that could be construed as supporting the elaborate claim that they're holding off on all of these projects until they've upgraded the Merlin engines.

>>8415502
Dream on, mars man!

>>8416306
You asked for a link to engine upgrade...

About holding off falcon heavy...Its what the birds have told me:)

>>8416315
They're not even talking about an engine upgrade. They're talking about running the engines on a recovered stage at a higher thrust than it would need in a launch.

Falcon 9 FT already had more thrust than it needed for a launch. It improves the engine-out capability, and making too many changes to the rocket would invalidate their progress in certification to fly DoD payloads.

>>8416324
Its actually a software tweak to the engine.
The returned boostera re not looking that good from a reusability perspective so they have to make some parts of the F9 stronger.
Its not a finished product yet.
They do make changes and it turns out to be explosive.
The one that blow up at the pad...they changed hownthe propellent was being loaded and got an explosion. If their certificate was going to be revoked that would habe happened already
.So there is no reason not to upgrade the rocket.

File: 1414167168701.png (49KB, 671x609px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 671x609px

>>8415148
>still complaining about challenger 30 years later
>thinking that spacex is superior when they've had two launch failures in a year with the rocket that's supposed to launch humans sooner than SLS
When can we start banning redditors from /sci/?

>>8416370
SLS (originally Ares V) has been in the works longer than the Falcon rocket family, and started with the engines and solid boosters already existing, and with regular production of the shuttle external fuel tank, which the body was supposed to be based on.

In that time, SpaceX started from nothing and has developed, tested, and flown several generations of engines and complete launch vehicles as well as a space capsule. Falcon Heavy will certainly be launching important payloads routinely before SLS flies its first test flight, and with Raptor, they have a straightforward way of putting a bigger, higher-Isp upper stage on it, which would allow it to exceed SLS performance.

So yes, SpaceX is obviously far more competent and effective than MSFC.

File: 1435503194017.webm (2MB, 864x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 864x480px

>>8416508

>>8416508
>Falcon Heavy will certainly be launching important payloads routinely before SLS flies
hahahha

SpaceX will have at least two more launch failures between now and when SLS fist flies

FH will likely never fly.

Spacex is the laughingstock of the industry right now

>>8416537
why do you say that?
They were both 1 off failures, which were/are being fixed and will never happen again.
And even if 10% of their boosters fail at launch, that still leaves 90% flight proven reusable boosters.

File: Cup4zJnXYAAM4Rv.jpg (146KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1200x675px

>>8416546
Boarding a falcon 9 rocket right now is the literal equivalent of playing Russian roulette

If the explosion on the pad doesn't kill you, the second stage will just blow up mid flight putting a swift end to your life, or the capsule landing engines will fail 50 feet off the ground, finishing the job.

NASA should just cancel their commercial crew contract with SpaceX at this point
Only United Launch Alliance can be counted on to get American astronauts safely into space and back.

>>8416537
>SpaceX will have at least two more launch failures between now and when SLS fist flies
Maybe they will. So what? They're having launch failures because they're LAUNCHING. They're making new vehicles with never-before-seen capabilities and cost-efficiency, and they're flying them.

Nobody is cheering for SpaceX as the company that never makes mistakes, but as the company that pushes forward.

SLS is just a poor man's Saturn V. They're trying, and failing, to recreate capabilities from the 1960s.

>FH will likely never fly.
This is one of the most stupid claims...

Wait a minute, I know you. You're that Redditor who got banned there, and then came to 4chan because you think it's all just trolling here.

>>8416559
both failures would have been survived by a manned capsule
RP-1/LOX just doesn't "explode" hard enough to kill passengers.

>>8416567
>So what?
Falcon 9 is the least reliable large launch vehicle in the industry right now, and you really think it's ok to put astronauts on top?

>They're making new vehicles with never-before-seen capabilities
Everything that Falcon 9 does was already done by Blue Origin. Cheap engines, landing, and now reuse.

>They're trying, and failing, to recreate capabilities from the 1960s
SpaceX is trying to recreate the capabilities of Atlas 1 and they can't even get that right.

>This is one of the most stupid claims...
Almost as stupid a claim as:
>falcon heavy will fly in 2013
>falcon heavy will fly in 2014
>falcon heavy will fly in 2015
>falcon heavy will fly in 2016
>falcon heavy will fly in 2017

>Wait a minute, I know you. You're that Redditor who got banned there, and then came to 4chan because you think it's all just trolling here.
Honestly, what?

>>8416569
There is no proof of that. The pad accident that nearly killed three cosmonauts would have killed them if it happened as fast as the pad explosion spacex had last month

>>8416559
Wtf I hate SpaceX now

I'm now a #UnitedLaunchRocket

File: blue3.jpg (474KB, 1125x900px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1125x900px

>>8416577
Why does reddit hate blue origin so much anyways?

After the companies' first landings, multiple "buzzfeed" and "ars technica" reddit articles went out of their way to try to explain how the landings were "not at all similar" even though they really are pretty much the exact same.

Are spacex fanbois really that self-conscious about the fact that Bezos beat Musk to the punch with the landings (and again with the reuse)?

>>8406097
It's possible with the right amount of manpower, and money.
Doubt it will happen in that time frame though, it will be delayed until they either give up, or it takes over twice as long as they want.

>>8416596
If you think they are similar then you don't know orbital energy, guidance systems, reentry heat, fuel margins, slam-dunk landing, and many other things...
Fucking brainlet

>>8416546
It's stupid and unrealistic to aim for zero failures anyway. That's a great way to drive costs way past what they should be and slow everything to a crawl.

SpaceX took hits from their failures, but because they're not aiming for perfection failures are not only less of a setback, they're valuable because they provide data about how to avoid that particular mode of failure in the future. It allows for close to 100% reliability as an eventuality without slowing operations to a near standstill and keeping costs low.

ULA may not fail often, but when they do they're going to look really fucking stupid for having spent all that time and money on being extra-careful trying to prevent failures and then failing anyway. If ULA fails, they're going to take a much more massive hit than SpaceX does in similar circumstances. More lost cash, more lost time, bigger schedule delays.

>>8416596
Blue Origin is cool but their achievements really aren't anything close to those of SpaceX. Their launch tests don't resemble any kind of realistic launch and they haven't even reached LEO yet.

That doesn't make them bad, but they're clearly at a different stage in the development of their rockets. Give them a few years and they'll be a solid competitor or even a cutting edge industry leader, but they've got a long way to go.

>>8416769
Still hurts for SpaceX to miss half the launches they wanted to do for the last 2 years

>>8416673
>falcon 9 stage one goes at orbital speeds
Oh look, another retarded redditor

>>8416829
For sure, but I think growing pains like these are inevitable for a company moving so quickly. They'll get past them sooner than people think as long as they keep rolling. The worst thing they can do at this point is stop or slow down.

File: 6755324634524.png (3MB, 3209x2405px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3209x2405px

>>8416769
It's only SpaceX making fools of themselves m8

Two launch failures in a year?
Announcing "Mars plans" while all their vehicles are grounded due to launch failures?
Promising to "re-fly a first stage" and "fly FH" soon, while the date for doing so continuously slips to 6 months away again and again?

Complete shitasses
One has to wonder what kind of monkeys are providing the "management" over at SpaceX

>>8416835
Their failure rate has gotten worse as time goes on

These are not "new company issues" and they are not "growing pains"

>>8416833
It's not moving at orbital speeds but it's moving faster and it's much larger than New Sheppard.

In addition New Sheppard only ever lands on flat ground. Half the time Falcon 9 first stages are trying to land on a boat.

>>8416855
New Sheppard goes about 70% the speed of F9S1, but actually undergoes more g-forces during re-entry

They've also launched and landed the same one 5 times in a row, and spacex has yet to re-launch once.

Blue will launch humans into space next year, and Spacex won't until 2019 (assuming no launch failures)

New Glenn will operate for a full decade before ITS flies (if it even ever does)

>>8416864
The new shepard is not in any way an orbital vehicle, and does not help them towards producing a different vehicle with different engine, different fuel, different construction, and much larger.

> into space
A suborbital hop is not "into space"

>New Glenn will operate for a full decade before ITS flies
The ITS is ahead of the New Glenn, they've done a test fire of their engine & built a prototype of their LOX tank. SpaceX already has an orbital vehicle thats semi-reusable, already has a capsule that can reenter, etc

They are years ahead of Blue Origin

>>8416888
>The new shepard is not in any way an orbital vehicle
Neither is F9S1

>and does not help them towards producing a different vehicle with different engine, different fuel, different construction, and much larger.
Are you retarded? Building a successful hydrolox rocket is more difficult than anything memeX has done.

>A suborbital hop is not "into space"
So F9S1 doesn't go into space?

>The ITS is ahead of the New Glenn
Fucking kek

>they've done a test fire of their engine
Wrong. It's not even a full scale engine. It had only 1/3 the thrust of what the "actual" Raptor will have.

Blue will be testing their flight-model Be-4 within months. They've also starting building all of New Glenn's facilities.

>SpaceX already has an orbital vehicle thats semi-reusable
Falcon 9 has only proven recoverability, not re-usability.
Only Blue Origin has show the capacity to re-use a rocket.

>They are years ahead of Blue Origin
They won't be if they keep blowing up a rocket every 13 months.

>>8416577
>Falcon 9 is the least reliable large launch vehicle in the industry right now, and you really think it's ok to put astronauts on top?
Falcon 9 has had one "infant mortality" launch failure, and it was one that would easily have been survived by any crew who were riding on it.

The pad explosion was a failure during a test, not a failure during a launch. No one would have considered putting astronauts on top of a rocket during a pre-launch test like that.

Yes, of course it'll be okay to put astronauts on top, in a capsule with a good, proven launch escape system,

>SpaceX is trying to recreate the capabilities of Atlas 1
Spectacularly stupid claim. They surpassed that with their first flight of Falcon 9 1.0. What they're trying to achieve is revolutionary.

>Almost as stupid a claim as:
Falcon Heavy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's not a completely separate vehicle, but the heavy configuration of Falcon 9, which has been upgraded enough over those years that most of the payloads which would originally have needed to go on Heavy can now go on a single-stick Falcon 9.

The rapid upgrade schedule of the base model has pushed Heavy back, but it will almost certainly fly next year (it's planned to fly *early* next year). It could have flown this year, if there was any pressing reason for it, but the Heavy demonstration flight is a considerably lower priority than many of the manifested Falcon 9 launches, and they've been busy refining the reusability.

>>8416942
On the subject of the Heavy, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of need for it once the ITS is flying. Most launches will fit the launch profile of the F9 or the ITS, with precious few needing an FH specifically.

At this point the FH seems to exist mostly as a holdover to do what F9 can't until the ITS becomes available. Looking at it that way it makes sense that the FH has been put on the back burner.

>>8416942
>Falcon 9 has had one "infant mortality" launch failure
A failure on the 19th launch is not an "infant failure"

>and it was one that would easily have been survived by any crew who were riding on it.
There is no proof of that. There has never been a successful in-flight abort with crew.

>The pad explosion was a failure during a test
The failure could have happened while a crewed rocket was being fueled. The explosion happened so fast that the escape system would not have saved them.

>They surpassed that with their first flight of Falcon 9 1.0. What they're trying to achieve is revolutionary.
Elon himself said that falcon 9 is "evolutionary, not revolutionary"
There is nothing new to spaceflight that SpaceX is doing that Blue Origin didn't already do first.

> It's not a completely separate vehicle, but the heavy configuration of Falcon 9, which has been upgraded enough over those years that most of the payloads which would originally have needed to go on Heavy can now go on a single-stick Falcon 9.
The delays are due to the three-core design and problems they've been having with it, not because of "upgrades" to falcon 9. Look at the numerous musk tweets about falcon heavy
You're just making up shit at this point

>It could have flown this year
kek
Falcon 9 won't fly again this year, let alone FH

>but the Heavy demonstration flight is a considerably lower priority than many of the manifested Falcon 9 launches
The demonstration was supposed to be in 2013. Now it will be 2018 at the earliest.

>and they've been busy refining the reusability.
They have yet to reuse Falcon 9 even once. You cannot "refine" something if you're not even doing it.

>>8416981
How are you going to manifest 30+ satellites for a single its launch?

Arianespace already has enough trouble with only 2.

ITS also won't fly until 2035 at the earliest (if ever), if FH is anything to go by
>but they already have hardware built!
Falcon heavy hardware was already built in 2011

>>8416988
>>ITS also won't fly until 2035 at the earliest (if ever), if FH is anything to go by
FH has been delayed for two reasons:

1) It's based on the F9, which has been constantly improving over the years. Naturally these improvements need to be rolled into the FH too, or you have yourself a grossly obsolete and half-useless rocket right out of the gate.

2) Because of said improvements, FH has been dropping in priority as time goes on.

F9 is finally finished and SpaceX themselves now has a date that they absolutely need the FH to be flying by (Mars launch window 2018) so they'll probably hit their current first launch target of early next year.

ITS doesn't suffer these problems. The challenge with it is that it's so ridiculously huge and nobody's successfully engineered a rocket at that scale.

>>8416988
A supplier giving them a bad strut is not a failure of SpaceX, and likely sabotage.

>The failure could have happened while a crewed rocket was being fueled.
In which case the dragon capsule would have taken off & they would have been fine.
6 G's is a lot of acceleration.

If SpaceX had built a bigger Grasshopper vehicle and gone up the arbitrary 100 km, would that have aided them in ANY WAY ? No
So Blue Origin doing it is irrelevant to their developing an orbital vehicle, it was for their suborbital "ambitions" anyways.

>Falcon 9 won't fly again this year,
november, they hope for.

Heavy was not ever a priority, why would they waste 3 cores before reusability when they can't even do enough single core launches?

>They have yet to reuse Falcon 9 even once.
Again, not a priority, not a hurry, they were more interested in data from a used booster than reusing it asap.


>How are you going to manifest 30+ satellites for a single its launch?
With a high payload/high delta-v long duration second stage it can easily put a constellation of satellites up there.

>>8417012
>1) based on the F9, which has been constantly improving over the years. Naturally these improvements need to be rolled into the FH too, or you have yourself a grossly obsolete and half-useless rocket right out of the gate.
Provide a single source to this claim, that FH is "delayed" because of this
You're pulling bullshit out of your ass.

Elon himself has said that the FH is "difficult" because of "all those engines" and because of structural issues with the 3-core design

It's taking "lower priority" because their manifest is 95% Falcon 9. There is not a SINGLE payload that has switched from FH to Falcon 9 however.

>so they'll probably hit their current first launch target of early next year.
They've already said that it won't be until Summer 2017

>ITS doesn't suffer these problems.
Everything about ITS is more difficult, except that it is a single core (trivial really, when compared to everything else it has to do)

>>8417017
>A supplier giving them a bad strut is not a failure of SpaceX
It's a QC failure
>sabotage
haha

>In which case the dragon capsule would have taken off & they would have been fine.
6 G's is a lot of acceleration.
The second stage completely exploded within 80miliseconds, which is shorter than the time it would take for the capsule to register the problem, let alone fire up the engines for escape.

>a bigger Grasshopper vehicle and gone up the arbitrary 100 km, would that have aided them in ANY WAY?
They were literally going to do that at one point.

>So Blue Origin doing it is irrelevant to their developing an orbital vehicle
Do you really think they got 0 experience from successfully developing NS?

>november, they hope for.
It's already "december at the earliest"
Why should I even talk to you when you can't keep up with this news?

>Heavy was not ever a priority
See above.

>more interested in data from a used booster than reusing it asap.
bullshit

>constellation of satellites
nobody will ever risk $5 bil on a single launch

>>8417049
>>A supplier giving them a bad strut is not a failure of SpaceX
>It's a QC failure
Nobody in the aerospace industry tests individual struts, and SpaceX used a reputable supplier and did a normal amount of random testing.

Note that their response to it was both to change suppliers and to start testing individual struts before installing them.

>>sabotage
>haha
Certified aerospace struts failing far under rated load isn't something that "just happens". It's bizarre.

>>8417049
>The second stage completely exploded within 80miliseconds
Bullshit. The payload wasn't hit by anything but some surface warmth in that time.

The initial explosion might have reached its maximum extent within 80 milliseconds, but it didn't "completely explode", and the payload took much longer to fall off and be damaged.

As Musk said, the destruction of the vehicle was more of a fast fire than an explosion. The payload wasn't destroyed by a blast, but by falling from the top of the rocket as it collapsed.

Anyway, this was most likely caused by a new tanking procedure. SpaceX is pushing forward quickly with its vehicle design, but of course it will be conservative with the manned missions, using only well-tested configurations and processes.

>>8416559
wouldnt the dragon escape mechanism (similar to an escape tower, would have saved the crew in both incidents?

File: NASA-Apollo-Moon-Buggy[1].jpg (462KB, 1949x1358px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1949x1358px

>>8407234
bruh.

>>8410470
Personally, I'd like to see SpaceX become another order of magnitude bigger just so the Mars stuff becomes less of a liability compared to the size of the company.

File: tesla-supercharger[1].jpg (10KB, 383x330px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 383x330px

>>8412126
Hmmmm

>>8416988
>Falcon 9 won't fly again this year, let alone FH
Next flight scheduled on Nov 17 using a reused S1.

>>8417493
From Elon's NRO speech:
>"The plan is to get back to launch in early December and that will be from pad 39A at the Cape and we will be launching around the same time from Vandenberg as well. Pad 40 will probably be back in action around March or April next year. Probably around May or so is when we will launch Falcon Heavy."
So definitely not November, and given their track record with keeping schedules, it won't be in December either.

>>8417477
looks like dead space shit to me.

>>8417502
Dirp. That's what I get for trusting wikipedia.

>>8416559
Requesting ULA copypasta

>>8406640
Bell deign got more sophisticated, fuel tanks got lighter. Assuming you can find an engine with a very flexible operational altitude range, ideal really is to go with a single stage

speaking of which, a little disappointed by the lack of Aerospike news recently. any rocket-anons gibe info plz?

>>8414493
>one day we'll be able to build vagina-ships
>Space - the final wave of feminism.

>>8416833
I did not say falcon 9 goes at orbital speeds.
>>8417777
One of the companies that were working on an aerospike engine was bankrupted but which on was that I forgot.Oh yes Firefly.

>>8417748
>le hurrr le durrr, we are personally responsible for the death of 14 astronauts (the highest amount in all history ever) yet somehow we have the balls to criticze others.. huuur huurr durr duurrr

that one?

>>8415502

Dream on, Mars man

File: d4hflights.jpg (311KB, 1667x1223px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1667x1223px

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 transcended 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 might ask? 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.

Hey everyone post your favorite execution methods!, here's mine

File: electrichair.jpg (6KB, 187x269px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 187x269px

>>8418746
sorry forgot pic, lol

File: [email protected] (33KB, 724x543px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 724x543px

>>8418746
challenge accepted

File: shuttle.jpg (46KB, 500x467px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x467px

>>8418746
This is my favorite, it failed a couple of times, but mostly it does it job. Death is instantaneous and there's no possibility of escaping it.

>>8418756
That shit is inhumane, imagine if by some reason someone innocent ended up there. I mean sure, if he's a rapist or something he deserves it, but what if he's only a guy that was at the wrong place at the wrong time and is wrongly charged.

File: gallows.jpg (10KB, 274x184px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 274x184px

>>8418746

File: apollo1.jpg (474KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 800x600px

>>8418756
Another one by the same company, i think this capsule is more efficient, much less expensive, the down side is that theres still a chance to escape.

Did you know that this company also builds space vehicles?

>>8417777
>ideal really is to go with a single stage
Not really
You quadruple your payload or more just by being 2 stages. Going for SSTO is what has RUINED most attempts at reducing launch costs.

>>8418790
>Going for SSTO is what has RUINED most attempts at reducing launch costs.
No, insincerity is what has ruined most attempts at reducing launch costs, since the heart of the plan was still to grab as much government cash as possible. Politics (OTRAG) and insanity (Roton) account for the rest.

>>8418756
KEK

>>8406132
The absolute madmen!

>>8406132
So they plan to build the transporter first and then the booster? are they gonna test them separately?

if they take it easy, couldnt they just build the whole thing by themselves?

also, if it doesnt explode on the first test, couldnt they just reuse that one to go and come from mars?

like, they could just use that one from 2022 to 2030, if its really reusable

>>8415359

What the fuck is he shooting at?

>>8419851
That is a UNITED FEDERATION OF RUSSIA FOR DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM OF CHILDREN SOLAR SYSTEM WIDE capital ship shooting at an EVIL AMERICAN DICTATORSHIP OF THE CORPORATION IN FAVOR OF ALL BAD THINGS battle cruiser

>>8419857

Oh.

For the glory of the revolution, I guess.

>>8419869
https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/

>>8409870
You dont know how bad it gets here sometimes. Recently, sometimes bastards made a monument for Stalin, and the amounts of brainwashed commies and other sorts of leftists is just increadible

*a non-brainwashed russki*

File: IMG_20161015_224349_01.png (750KB, 647x1152px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 647x1152px

>Mars colony takes off
>Maritime lawyers suddenly feel needed, becomes lucrative
>Influx of maritime law majors
>Turns into a circus

>Communistic Martian government formed
>Supreme Court says okay
>Require a passport to travel between planets
>Ironically space travel turns out to be less anal about security due to the barrier of entry weeding out almost all the crazies
>Tsa is shamed

Screen shot this

If the musky musk delivers his memes, i think im gonna sell my house when im older and go to mars...

why the fuck not

imagine taht feeling, like leaving, leaving everything it msut feel so intense, i think i wouldnt pass any psychological screening for that

>>8406097
>Is it really possible at all to build the largest rocket AND the largest spaceship ever made and take them from the drawing board to ready for test flight within six years?

No

Elon is a dishonest fraud, he tries to cover his shitty projects with other shitty projects he makes up every week.

btw: where is the Falcon Heavy ?

SpaceX is a joke.

>>8406152
>6 years is a pretty long time.

Nope not for a project like this.

Engines are not "almost" done my friend.

>>8406485
>heavy lift market

there is no such thing

>>8406652
>The spaceship is basically a second stage attached to a crew capsule. They got experience building both. It's just in a different shape.

Experience building both?

>Crew capsule that never carried a human.

2nd stage
>extremely low tech and horrible isp.

>>8420051
>elon
>fraud

chooooseee chosey choose choosa choos choose one and only one, because both terms are total and mutually exclusively exclusive

how balls it takes to criticizer the man who invented FUCKLING REUSABLE SPACEHIPS

FUCKING EBAY

FUCKING GOD TIER SPORT CARS AND ENERGY CHANGING BATTERIES

all of my hahas to whoever cant see the obvious win of these legendary minds

>>8420051
>btw: where is the Falcon Heavy ?
haha

haHAHAHA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAao
oh
sorry
you
mmmm
youre serious
oh
im sorry little boy
let the adults explain

falcon heavy--->target for bigger payloads

falcon normal---->upgraded until it could carry bigger payloads


so you
you the little uneducated boy

are trying to say to the genius musk, that he wronged because he didnt develop a heavy

WHEN HE ACTUALLY OUTPERFORMED IN A GENIUS MOVE OF ARTISTIC GOD TIER SUPRASUPERINSPIRATION

and actually made A NON HEAVY THAT DELIVERS HEAVY PAYLOADS

sheessh non knower, i knew you liked tot ell lies

but youre basically saying that the sun is the size of a marble and is made of jellybeans tier lies right there

>>8420066

Nice arguments little fanboy, he said it would launch in 2013 but lets ignore how dishonest he is and how horrible SpaceX works.

ps: Whow you are getting pretty emotional, you probably need therapy.

>>8420075
me--->the superior enlightened knowledge haver

you-->the dont haver of all


falcon normal can take heavy payloads


its like saying

HEY INVENT ME A backpack

-there you go backpack

NOW INVENT ME A TRUCK I HAVE TO CARRY MUCH MORE STUFFS

-i invented you a magic backpack that can take as much as a truck


BUT YOU DIDNT MAKE ME A TRUCK LIAR LIARR WAAAAH WAAHHHH IM GONNA WHINE BECAUSE OF MY REPRESED ANGERERS

>>8420066
>FUCKLING REUSABLE SPACEHIPS

Never reused anything just landend.

>FUCKING EBAY

eBay was founded by Pierre Omidyar in 1995

>are trying to say to the genius musk, that he wronged because he didnt develop a heavy

He said he would develop it and they are working on it, they are 3 years over their clamed first flight.

These are the facts son.

>but youre basically saying that the sun is the size of a marble and is made of jellybeans tier lies right there

Are you catually insane ?

>so you
you the little uneducated boy

Engineer what are you doing except visiting reddit/futurology ?

>>8420075
>Whow

>>8420079
>falcon normal can take heavy payloads

No it can not it has a very low payload and is only able to lift 60% of the payloads that are launched.


>
its like saying

HEY INVENT ME A backpack

-there you go backpack

NOW INVENT ME A TRUCK I HAVE TO CARRY MUCH MORE STUFFS

-i invented you a magic backpack that can take as much as a truck


BUT YOU DIDNT MAKE ME A TRUCK LIAR LIARR WAAAAH WAAHHHH IM GONNA WHINE BECAUSE OF MY REPRESED ANGERERS

What is wrong with you, are you on crack or something ?

Demonstration of a SpaceX fanboy, who cares about reality when you can close your eyes and scream lalala right?

>>8420082
>you the little uneducated boy
nopey nope
you

check the facts

burden of proof is on the objectively uneducated
le you (le loser haha)

>>8418756
thats kinda mean

>>8420086
why do you keep replying to him

>>8420087
Well you were wrong with everything you said.

>They have never reused anything

>There is no falcon heavy

>The Falcon 9 has a pretty low payload capacity

>Elon musk has nothing to do with ebay.

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

Educate yourself before you open your mouth.

And work on your attitude you act like 10 year old.

>>8420094
>>They have never reused anything
1)they have reused their engines
2)reusing the engines constitutes a reusing
3)reusing means something has been reusing
4)lies would be saying no reusing has been done
5)you said no reusing has been done
6)you are a lie

>>8420094
>work on your attitude you act like 10 year old
lol, attitude control lesons from a wrong lie

>>8420100
>1)they have reused their engines

source?

>2)reusing the engines constitutes a reusing

Yeah the only part of a rocket is the engine

>lol, attitude control lesons from a wrong lie

ok now I know you are trolling bye son

>>8420103
he seems like a shitty troll, but looks like you fell for it, i would have never replied to that

>>8420103
They could have refueled and launched immediately
But they needed to study these landed stages first

>>8420104
>>8420103
>>8420103
HAHA NON BELIEVERS OF THE HOLY FACT THAT IS MUSK IS REVOLUTION OF TECHNOLOGY OBJECTIVELY LITERALLY FOREVERALY CONFIRMED

>>8420105
You have to check every reusable launch system after it's flight or the failure rate will skyrocket.

That's exactly what increased the cost of the SS and probably will do the same to SpaceX WHEN they will reuse their stages and companies are willing to take that risk for just 10% price reduction.

>>8420109
? That is exactly the thing SpaceX does not want to do, and why they need to exhaustively test these stages to see what needs to be changed to ensure rapid reuse with minimized maintenance/refurbishment

>>8420109
>That's exactly what increased the cost of the SS and probably will do the same to SpaceX WHEN they will reuse their stages and companies are willing to take that risk for just 10% price reduction.

Maybe, maybe not. The space shuttle was way more complex and had a lot of much more critical parts. Like the heatshield for example.

Also, if they get it right the cost will be around 30-40% less not 10%,

But i agree, there's really no way of telling until it reflies. But theres no indication that the refly will fail.

The flown boosters have been static fired tested twice. So we know that the plumbing survives one flight in perfect condition. The only thing that remains to be seen is how does the whole thing reacts to being subject to MAX Q a couple of times.
Maybe they0ve done the math and it checks out but they wont really know until its done.

If theres considerable damage after each launch then its a matter of finding out how much mantainance is needed each fligth to ensure reusability, and maybe thef inal number does not make economic sense

but maybe it does, and if it does we are in for an exciting couple of decades

>>8420115
>Also, if they get it right the cost will be around 30-40% less not 10%,

That's a big if lets work with the actual numbers alright?

>But theres no indication that the refly will fail.

There is no way the stage is going to be more reliable after a flight, even if it doesn't get damaged at all the reliability will go down simple math.

Let's say they have 99% reliability

0.99 first flight

0,99*0,99= 0,9801 2nd flight
0,97 3rd

and so on

And these are the numbers IF the stage doesn't get any negative influence by being launched already.
>If theres considerable damage after each launch then its a matter of finding out how much mantainance is needed each fligth to ensure reusability, and maybe thef inal number does not make economic sense

You imply that you can make the rocket perfectly reusable by design?

Nonsense sorry even if it has extreme reliability and you designed it to be super duper reliable you will still have to check the engines and the structure before every flight or you take the risk of a failure.

There is a good reason why nobody built a reusable rocket yet, it doesn't make much sense.

The rocket itself is the lowest part of the launch cost.

Reliability is way more important than a cost reduction of 10%-30%.

Insurance cost will skyrocket for reusable systems.

You could make even a condom reusable but it would cost insane amounts of money if you want it to be reliable a 2nd time or you don't give a fuck about relability and get a cost reduction and you get increased failure rate.

You can't win .

Rocket engineers and not backwards or dumb they thought about this stuff and decided not do it.

To me this whoe SpaceX reusability thing is nothing but a PR stunt and as you can see it works well.

Btw: SpaceX not a private company, last time I checked 93% of their funds were taxpayer money.

>>8420129
if reusability is a stunt then why are the other companies racing to find reusabiliy solutions of their own?

also, why is it that their rockets are the best price in the market even without reusability


they make some pretty outrageous claim but i think its pretty clear that the musky musk is not a meme

>>8420134
>also, why is it that their rockets are the best price in the market even without reusability

subsidized by tax payer money even elon claimed they don't reflect the real launch costs.

I love how you guys ignore reality and believe everything Elon tweets.

Look at the reality, they are behind on their launches, they are behind on their development of the F9H.

He claims claims claims but alomst never delivers.

What you get is a phantasy project every few months to get some attention and give you guys the impression that he is/does something special.

Reality: The falcon9 and it's engines are pretty low tech, SpaceX's reliability is pretty low.

Let's not talk about the fact that Tesla and SolarCity are having extreme financial issues.

Combine that with the fact that Elon is very dishonest about failures and issues.

ps: Why did you ignore the rest of my post, those are the really important points.

No offense but most musk fanboys have very superficial knowledge regarding rocket science and the industry.

>>8420138
>subsidized by tax payer money
HAHAHHAHA

OH WAIT
AND YOURE TELLING ME
oH HAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAH

AND YOURE TELLING ME THE OTHERS DONT??
THE OTHERS DONT?!?!?!?!?1

HAHAHA ULA IS 1010190378903789031278913270893127890% subsidized by taxpayers money

>>8415111
>children of a dead earth
I love dicking with the orbital mechanics and setting up efficient encounters but boy do I suck at the combat.

>>8416596
If anything there should be even more competition, blue origin deserves credit.