Anyone else here think this is completely fucking delusional?

>>8548773
All great acts of exploration and conquering were completely fucking delusional in the eyes of many or most.

>>8548773
all of elon's pipe dreams came true up to now

>>8548773
Flying also was considered to be a pipe dream.

>>8548773
Pipes were once considered to be a pipe dream. Now everything is pipes.

>>8548773
Dreams were once considered to be a pipe dream but now dreams are pipes

>>8548773

Absolutely. The explorers would need heavy shielding from Jupiter's magnetosphere, making a manned exploration prohibitively costly.

>>8548804

Except even launching one person into space. RATIONALIZE MODE...ENGAGE!

File: 1480226424699.png (419KB, 1876x2600px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1876x2600px

>>8548773
>we could throw 150 tons into space half a century ago
>throwing 400 tons into space now is completely impossible
?!

>inb4 "crazy ideas have worked before" meme
I feel like this is some sort of fallacy. Like if I say that we can land a man on the sun (and survive), because we've acheived seemingly impossible feet's before. That doesn't make it suddenly feasible.

It's probably feasible after we have a self-sustaining colony on Mars.

File: CtYlBH9WcAE-GED.jpg large.jpg (75KB, 1842x1052px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1842x1052px

>>8548819
ITS isn't a completely insane design. It's the biggest rocket ever built but it doesn't really tower over it's predecessor like comparing the Wright Brothers plane to a 747

>>8548819
Is there any scientific reason to assume it is impossible or "seemingly impossible"?

Or does it just seem impossible because we haven't done something like this before?

>>8548827
I'm not shitting on the idea here, I just don't like this argument. It's basically saying "prove it's impossible", which you can't do because you can't prove a negative. That doesn't mean it's possible though, it's just faulty reasoning that shows up way too often in scientific discussions.

>>8548834
But "I'm gonna build a 12 meter diameter rocket" isn't up there with "I'm gonna fly faster than light" or "I'm gonna perfect perpetual motion"

File: 1480775014004.jpg (18KB, 285x318px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 285x318px

>>8548823
>self-sustaining colony on Mars

This is a meme that needs to die.

A self-sustaining colony on the Moon would be a major step forward in human civilization. Working on a Mars colony is a waste of time and resources...there's nothing there except a passing resemblance to Earth and a shitload of sand. And a gravity well that's surprisingly difficult to get in and out of.

If we're going to adapt to space, we need a foothold that's easy to reach and has plenty of useful resources, not Earth-lite, because MUH PERCIVAL LOWELL AND HIS MARTIAN CIVILIZATION, which is where the whole "romance" of Mars with HG Wells and Edgar Rice Burroughs started.

Based on the original video they posted, I am extremely skeptical. There's just so many things that can go wrong in just an orginary LEO rocket launch. This is not only a LEO rocket launch, it's a fucking interstellar mission to another planet. First off, the booster has to take off and successfully deliver the transport to orbit. Then it has to come back and make a successful landing on the pad, be re-fueled, re-checked to ensure its ready to be launched again (how fucking long could that take? Think about all the things they would have to examine to make sure a second launch won't fail).

I mean even right now they haven't re-launched one of the Falcon 9 boosters yet. They're expecting one to land, be re-fueled and launched again to transfer fuel to the passenger ship. Wouldn't it make more sense to launch the re-fueling ship days / weeks in advance and have that parked in orbit, waiting for the passenger ship to launch? Therefore if shit went wrong, the passenger thing wouldn't be trapped in orbit without fuel.

Then you have to deal with supplies, assuming the ship makes it and lands on Mars. You would have to have supply caches set up and ready in advance of any mission for long-term habitation.

I don't see why he doesn't just build a ship similar to the ISS in space, piece by piece, and then send that to mars loaded with years of supplies, park it in orbit around Mars and have smaller landers deploy from the station in orbit. Most of the crew stays in Orbit and a small amount go down to mars and build the colony. That way if something fucks up, they can leave and go back to the station.

>>8548836
No, but it still does nothing to address the feasibility of the idea. Say why you think it isn't delusional, don't just say "prove it's impossible" in a snarky, round-about way.

Only problem is a question of delta-v
Dnno
Maybe refuel in jupiter orbit before heading to callisto is the way to go?

Or maybe could there be some sort of electromagnetic tethers that can be used to "capture" a craft..

>>8548839
??
If shit doesn't work then there is no going to mars period
If rocketry cannot be made routine, then there is no leaving the earth, period

>>8548845
No shit, I want Musk to succeed, I want the ITS to succeed, I'm just skeptical of how it's actually going to work. Everything has to go right, and there's just so many steps where a minor failure can cause a major setback to the mission.

I really hope he does pull off all the stops and succeeds in his dream though, we need more people like him willing to take major risks like this. Mankind advances when people are willing to take risks.

>>8548850
This isn't the movie, once you are in space nothing is gonna go wrong
Robots aren't going to go rogue and kill people on mars or something.

All their supplies are produced by relatively simple systems that can be proven to work on earth

90% of the challenge is getting to orbit. It's not easier just to launch a smaller rocket more.

EUROPA
HEILIGES LAND

File: space_12.gif (28KB, 598x299px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 598x299px

>>8548850
>>8548839
You know, the actual arrangement of the Apollo mission was kinda crazy/retarded too
>launch massive rocket with multipart spaceship
>ship orbits moon
>half of ship breaks off and lands on moon with two dudes
>after they play golf and drive around and piss in a crater the lander then ignites its own rockets and flies back into orbit where it reconnects with the spaceship
>spaceship flies back to Earth, sheds a bunch of its material except for a small capsule with three dudes that then crashes in the ocean

It seems complicated to an unnecessary level with way too many points of failure

>>8548850
it's really not that big a step up.
materials engineering keeps getting better.
computers keep getting better. sensors keep getting better.

I don't see the technical parts being unfeasible. I see the cost being the problem. He has to raise a lot...

>>8548864
Cost is not an issue provided their rockets stop blowing up and the jews stop delaying their permits to launch.

>>8548863
thus why the Russians would have the cosmonaut do a spacewalk to get to his lander... much simpler. But they couldn't figure out how to make pill shaped fuel canisters... which was actually a huge problem. Look at a cross section of the N1 and the SV; you'll see what I mean. less fuel density on the N1 cause of the empty space

>>8548868
Intuitively it seems like there's no reason for a separate lander at all, why not just land the whole damn thing on the moon and let the weight the lander would've taken up carry extra fuel for the moon takeoff instead

Of course I'm missing something since this WAS the original plan for the landing and at some point NASA went "oh fuuuuck this isn't going to work" and squeezed the lander into the design

>>8548868
>Soyuz rocket
pill shaped canisters
What are you talking about

>>8548872
because they don't have the payload for that
and didn't want to do 2 seperate launches

>>8548816
>>8548809
Where is the maths?
Where is the money?
It's a fucking fantasy
Delusional SpaceX shills

>>8548896
the maths are pretty rudimentary, it's the economics that needs work.

SpaceX is effectively a nationalised company, they couldn't exist without government contracts.

>>8548809
>>8548776
Yeah, but a lot of genuinely retarded ideas were also considered retarded in their day, and rightfully so, so, as Carl Sagan quipped, saying "well they laughed at the wright brothers" proves nothing, because they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

>>8548773

It is. Mostly because any sort of manned mission to Mars hasn't happened yet, and SpaceX itself has no lander or transfer vehicle. These will have to be fixed.

In seriousness SpaceX is a company and they can do whatever they want, but if they were smart they would go with a "lean" human-rated transfer vehicle first then scale it up if only as a proof of concept. And again, no lander.

>>8548827

It seems impossible because SpaceX isn't really providing a set path for this. For starters, they're trying to make a human-rated vehicle before a cargo one (at least, based on their release documents). This is stupid from a business standpoint (especially considering the benefit of scale a huge cargo rocket would enjoy, imagine 10 rovers to Mars in one go all from different countries).

>>8548819
>land a man on the sun
That is nonsensical. Float in the sun's atmosphere, maybe but the amount of insulation and general difficulty of the problem begs the question of why? Because you won't be able to leave the shadow of the spaceship, and to do what?

At least you could say mining gasses on the gas giants. Even then you're not landed, you're either in low orbit or floating in a buoyant craft.

>>8548863
Apollo was chosen for several reasons

>Crew module had to be on top for launch escape to work
>Service module was used for translunar course correction, lunar insertion and return to Earth
>LEM was minimal total mass by minimizing the ascent stage dry mass through staging
>landing the reentry/service module just made for a much bigger lander and bigger overall system

Complicated? You're dumb for not understanding the parts
Points of failure? There was redundancy, and yes spaceflight is risky. Apollo 13 returned the crew alive.

>>8548773
Your Mom was once a Pipe Dream, and now I've laid her pipes.

>>8549020
Damn, you roasted the meat right off his bones with that one.

>>8548976
what magic difference does "human rated" and "cargo rated" vehicles have?

>>8549062
Lots and lots of money.

>>8549020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States

>>8548839
>it's a fucking interstellar mission to another planet
stop posting

>>8548842
Gravity braking using Jovian moons is the way to go.

File: 160912-blue-origin-new-glenn-2.jpg (135KB, 1132x868px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1132x868px

Blue Origin's New Glenn is a far more grounded design than any of this meme spacex shit.
>everything is just upscaled new shepard tech
>staged combustion engines and methalox, but not retardedly insane chamber pressure or 4 dozen engines on one stage
>high-energy upper stage
>2/3 of Saturn V capability, making moon missions viable compared to the falcon "not enough" heavy
>engine full scale tests next year, production facility and pad already being built
>realistic goal of 2020 operational date
I am a #BezosMissile now.
Muskfags have become extremely delusional in the last few months. When I go to space in the near future, it will be on a Blue Origin rocket (i.e. one that doesn't explode).

File: 29343905184_04284af1e2_o.0.0.jpg (227KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1600x900px

>>8548773
Yeah good meme mars man, look how small the people are compared to that rocket. We won't have spaceships that big for at least another 200 years.

Do you losers actually think this will happen in the next 10 years? we can't even get to the moon anymore with all the meme regulations these days.

>>8548943
Which means the clown was succesful!

>>8549393
The only thing stopping is money though. The is absolutely no reason why we could not build a spaceship that size today.

>>8548773
With the right funding, no.

Though I have my doubts. Not just about the rocket but about getting people to Mars in 2025, or even before 2035.

There are so many things we don't know. Even if everyone understands the risks involved even a single death would be a PR disaster canning the whole Mars dream for another 50 years or more. Only 1/3 of the missions to Mars have ever succeed. We still have problems landing fucking drones.

And even if he gets his rocket ready by 2025 there are so many other technologies not ready yet. Musk just said he's gonna build a taxi service to Mars by 2025. But he's not working on how to keep them alive, he's just kinda hoping other people will work on it.

One of them is gonna be energy requirements. We need energy for heat, making oxygen, making fuel, lights, science, growing plants, vehicles, and a hundred other things. The biggest limiting factor will we electricity.

We have no direct access to fossils fuels and solar panels are unreliable due to Mars having sandstorm seasons.

Nuclear would be the best option if we can get the hippies to shut up. Though that would still make us reliant on Earth for fissile materials. Not sure what the current status is on mini sized nuclear reactors.

Then there is space radiation. Musk claims the cosmic radiation received over the trip won't be enough to cause any noticable health risks. But a single solar flare could still insta kill everyone inside and fry onboard controls. We need a solar weather forecast and a bunker on the spacecraft.

If we want to go beyond Mars we need better protection.

Also the radiation on Europa would kill you within 2 hours.

>>8548773
Space dildo

>>8548773
Musk's aim is to fucking prod the public, governments and corporations yo give him money to do the research.

Big statements and shit is all marketing. We may not be able to manage it yet, but drumming up investment is what he is good at.... That's the point.

Get the money in, then buy cocaine for your engineers to work with. Then land on europa.

Duh

>>8549578

This guy gets it.

The biggest hindrance to space exploration right now is that nobody is paying the bill. The private market isn't going to do it, the first investment step is wayyy to big so they'll never be able to afford it.

So, what you have to do is to drum up public interest in space exploration. With public interest comes government interest, because the government wants a happy public. With government interest comes the sort of investment capacity that enables space exploration.

Ya'll know that when the government says "we want to privatize this sector" it actually means "we'll let this sector die, but the negative outlash if we said so will affect us next election so instead we'll pretend there's companies out there that grow money on trees"

>>8548773
>looks like a dildo

Elon...

>>8548809
I fucking love that meme.
The Wright bros were part of a community of people who were all trying to fly. They knew it would happen eventually, the only relevant question was who would get there first.
They weren't engaged in an effort to prove some naysayers wrong, they were part of a technological race where somebody would beat them to it if they didn't run fast enough.

>>8548927
>Fluid dynamics on something that big
>Rudimentary
I've never seen such delusion in my life, all you muskfags ever do is handwave every problem away with "it can be solved"

>>8549631
woaw you close minded academic, don't you know maths are useless and real world problems are always simple :^)

>>8549246
I have never read about Blue Origin before and wow they're so much less tinfoil than this SpaceX bullshit. And none of their rockets have blown up either!

>>8549631
Tbqh senpai, i solved navier stokes when i was 3, but lost it in a house fire.

>>8548773
We haven't been back to the Moon in over 30 years, Anon.

But yeah, next week the stars! lol

>>8548814
>>8548896
Hi thunderf00t.

This isn't "solar roadways" or anything scientifically impossible. It's like going to Mars, but a little longer of a trip. Everyone on the shuttle will stilll be alive by the time they get there, and likely still be alive by the time they get back.

>>8549653
>i-i-t's j-just like going to Mars
Oh, you mean that other pesky lil' thing no one's ever done either?

lol, let me know when that changes! I'll wait.

>>8549660
But we have. Just not humans. The rocket science behind it stays the same.

>>8549667
>But we have.
>Just not humans.
It's cute how you'd make a claim with one sentence and the contradict the same claim in the next sentence.

lol yeah, you're not dumb or anything.

>>8548773

/sci/, tell me you wouldn't put your life at risk, even if the chances of not exploding in the first minute was 40%, just to see as in the picture, and walk out, and look what is under the ice crust. Because I know I would.

>>8549673

If you want to see something dumb and ugly you could always look at a mirror.

>>8549677
Ha ha, jokes on you. I'm currently traveling at the speed of light.

>>8549673
Do you have braindamage?
All technology to send and keep people alive on Mars already exists. All we need to do is manufacture it. And yes it's gonna be expensive and no this wont turn a profit

>>8549673
>You, circa 1967
>Hurr durr Neil Armstrong is impossibru cuz we neva eva eva put men on de moon b4 lol

>You, circa 1781
>Hurr Durr hot air balloons r impossibru cuz man can't fly lol he neva has b4

>You, 4300 BC
Hurr durr boats can't work man's neva stayed above the water's surface b4 lololol

>You, circa 15,000 BC
>Hurr Durr man no can make big red magic flame, man no eva has b4 loooool jus stay in cold cave where safe proven is

File: 1481416239216.jpg (176KB, 854x859px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 854x859px

>ITT: americucks who believes the wright brothers were the first to fly.

They had to use a slingshot to take off, retards. Based Santos Dumont was the first one to REALLY fly, with no need to throw himself in the air.

>>8549697
>You now
>hurr durr memes

>>8549688
>claims sending a man to to Mars is almost the same as sending a robot
>then asks if I have "braindamage" (sic)
Not nearly as much as you, apparently. But do continue to dance for me, monkey. I deserve to be entertained.

File: 70e.jpg (28KB, 567x565px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 567x565px

>>8549700
Are you a woman? Your logic and ability to rationally process information is severely disabled.

>>8549697
you missed one of your meme arrows genius

>>8549712
>Are you a woman?
lol, now you're trying to hit on me? Is being dumb really that lonely?

>>8549708
The sending part is. All that different is that you need to bring a bigger rocket because of all the life support you need to bring.

Ok I'll give you this one. No one has ever done a complete propulsive landing on Mars. But guess who's gonna do just that in 2018.

We have experience keeping people alive in hostile places as well.

The specs are different, the technology isn't.

>>8549600
>rockets are phallic lol
How old are you?

>>8549708
That's like saying since chimps are 98% human, going a little further and having a human is impossible. It's just a 2% difference - the outcome is extraordinarily different, but the blueprint is 98% identical.

Same with putting men on the red planet and Europa.

Have you ever once realized that science is about taking risks and devoting your life to further knowledge? That things have to be tested before they can be proven?

Why does the scientific method irk you so? Why are you against innovation? Do you want humans to die in their cradle, never once thinking of leaving because it's unproven?

If so, your life is completely worthless and you are nothing but a walking hive of mindless bacteria.

>>8549714
I know it's killing me inside since it would have made a nice screencap otherwise

>>8548819
There is nothing that physically prevents OP from happening, it's only a matter of us being able to do get there.

>>8549717
No, I have no interest in women. I'm merely remarking on how similar your brain patterns are to women. Illogical, irrational, unable to create or comprehend the creation of anything scientific.

>>8549720
>>8549722
>All that different is that you need to bring a bigger rocket because of all the life support you need to bring.
Yeah, that's all that different. lmao
>The specs are different, the technology isn't.
Yeah, the technology needed to send a man to Mars isn't any different than the technology need to send a robot. The technology is *literally* exactly the same.

...and that's enough of my time wasted on you.

Enjoy my last reply, dummy.

File: why not bot.png (338KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 600x440px

>>8548837
A colony on the moon was originally going to be built to help with the mars colonization effort but then Obama came along.

>>8549732
>I have no interest in women
captain obvious over here

>>8549733
You keep saying it isn't. But you've never actually provided any examples.

>>8548837
A colony on the moon wouldn't even need to be completely self sustaining.

But if the Earth goes bad you'd ve glad you chose mars and not the moon.

>>8549732

I should share your comment with my researcher wife.

>>8549733
Wow what a fucking retard. You're being willingly blind at this point because you can't handle the fact that actual scientists are far more intelligent than you are. Did you even pass grade school? What was your GPA?


Of course you have to make modifications to the design to meet the specifications, but the technology is already very much existant. It's essentially taking the science behind a car and expanding upon it to create an 18-wheeler. It doesn't violate any scientific laws, it's a natural progression of innovation.

How are you so purposefully stupid?

>>8549238
The other necessary part of travelling in space is going FAST, because you need to reuse your expensive hardware asap.
So getting to Saturn is easy because you can aerobrake on titan
But getting to Jupiter moons is very hard

HAHAHAHA YOU FAGS

You've all been taken on my epic ruse cruise, boldly being trolled where no /sci/fi fag has never been trolled bedorw. Holy fucking shit, did you assholes actually think I was that retarded? You all fell for it, but hey, you're just not as intelligent as me :^^^^^^) Praise Musk, of course.

>>8549578
>land on europa
pls no more refugees

File: DcQJGIu.jpg (19KB, 480x306px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x306px

ITT: OP got spooked by 2010: A Space Odyssey and is scared shitless of what monolith space baby will do to humans if we disobey

Musk is doing all this hoping some new technologies will emerge that he can slap his name brand on and make a ton of money with, and he's hoping to do it on the taxpayers dime. That's his "genius". He has no intention on sending men to Mars or anywhere else. Right now he's trying to elevate his name into some sort of Steve Jobs strata of personality cult with all these bullshit clickbait headlines that all the simpletons eat up like candy.

This guy is the tech equivalent of a slimy used car salesman, nothing more. He'll fail miserably in the next 5-10 years and become the laughing stock he was always destined to be in history.

Sceencap this.

>>8549246
>>2/3 of Saturn V capability
?
no where close, it's maybe 70 tons in expendable
which will turn into 45 in reuse mode

>>8549513
>muh radiation
stfu idiot

>We still have problems landing fucking drones.
Who is "we"? The italians?

>>8549751
>"just scale up bro!"

/sci/ elons right her beside me crying about all the mean and hurtful things that were said about him in this thread. you guys can be real assholes sometimes you know that? not cool

File: 6cc1022131508a79f0b23cf980656ad1[1].png (673B, 46x26px) Image search: [Google]

673B, 46x26px

>>8549782
here u go friend

>>8548837
There's actually a lot of merit to the idea that a Mars colony could actually be self-sustaining. Mars has had a complex geological and hydrological history like Earth, allowing for the (probable) formation of ores that would enable complex civilization to exist, alongside soil composition that would nearly support Earth plants. Additionally, Mars' atmosphere - while not at all Earth-like - does somewhat regulate its climate and radiation flux.

The Moon lacks all of that. Useless regolith, no shielding beyond dirt to block stellar radiation, enormous temperature swings (+123 C to -153 C) - none of these things make long-term habitation pleasant. At the least, any colony would be heavily dependent on Earth for resupply.

You do make a good point that we could recover from disaster on a Moon base faster than a Mars one. That's a hard engineering / logistical challenge for Mars, no doubt.

>>8549917
no bully

>>8549773
Pls now kill yourself.

File: post.png (50KB, 1201x360px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1201x360px

>>8549725

>>8549991
>not recognizing jokes
autist detected

>>8548943
It does however imply that great ideas will often not be recognised as such by the majority.

>>8549917
tell him to dab his tears with some of his hair plugs

>>8550003
No. I recognised the joke. I just think you should kill yourself.

>>8550016
proof?
also i'm not the same guy

File: 100% Ground Kek.jpg (288KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 600x800px

>colony
>Mars

JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES
JELLO BABIES

>>8550008
I recognize a great idea when I see it. This Elon Musk I know not much about, the name alone sounds like a psyop but ejecting humans from the planet has potential. Not a great sign but apparently there would be no shortage of volunteers. Of course they will probably die but no worse than being run over by a bus but much higher entertainment value.

>>8549993
Thanks, senpai

>>8550056
Great ideas come in their own time. Cavemen didn't have cell phones for a reason.

Space travel? Fuck that shit, nigga. We already fought the Borg 'n sheeeit, remember? Darth Vader even chased us in his TIE fighter over the Death Star that time!

Give me something new I haven't seen a million times already.

What's the point in going to mars right now?

>>8550077
dude mars lmao

>>8550077
to sacrifice yourself in the name of scientific "progress" as a warning to everyone else stupid enough to contemplate strapping a rocket to your ass and flying out to the middle of nowhere to die for no reason whatsoever
>remember the fallen heroes on this day

File: regional-population-projections-centered-legend.png (92KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1200x900px

>>8550077

File: t-gravity-assist.gif (8KB, 580x350px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 580x350px

>>8549754
gravity brake =/= aerobrake

>>8549785
still superior to 13 tons reusable for falcon heavy

>>8550125
>13 tons reusable for falcon heavy
>herp dee derpity doo

>>8550071
But we waz space travelers 'n sheet. No sense all that investment into an entertainment sector going to waste. We've got to roll with it now or never.

I say forget Mars, go big or stay home. Full on ejection towards the closest solar system with potential of a habitable planet. Obviously the ship would need to be enormous and with much supplies but it would give people hope and that might be all they need for now. No shortage of volunteers and if they put some hot babes onboard I might consider volunteering myself so that just leaves funding. Can we meme Elon into financing this?

>>8550122
?
theres a big difference to being in jupiter orbit and landing on a jupiter moon

>>8548773
>manned mission to Jupiter moon
That seems asinine, much further out of reach than Mars

That said, an ITS sized payload should be able to launch a bitchin' robotic mission to one of those moons. Drive, fly, dig, orbit, all at once.

>>8549593
Public interest and a big company to lobby for contracts and grants is exactly what space exploration needs.

I think what would really be ideal is another sputnik to spur America's tendency to overreact and do wild above and beyond projects.

We know more about space than the ocean.
Elon Musk should be making colony on sea floor.

>>8550193
That's a meme.

We know fuck all about the oceans of Europa. We don't even know what exoplanets are like or what life they may harbor.

>>8550193
Deep sea travel is MORE hazardous and challenging than 90% of space travel. Reaching the floor of the Pacific Ocean is a lot like reaching the ground on Venus - your ass is getting crushed.

>>8550107
but nuking africa is cheaper than going to mars

>>8550207
Darling it's better down where it's wetter, take it from me.

>>8550207
>Deep sea travel is MORE hazardous and challenging than 90% of space travel.
[citation needed]
Seriously though, I like pulling baseless random figures out my ass too, makes for a more interesting conversation.

>>8550207
Is it because of the sharks?

>>8550225
>>8550227
External pressure doubles with every 10 meters of depth. The longest manned exploration of the deep sea floor has been three hours (Deepsea Challenger), and the longest unmanned approximately 10 hours (Nereus)

>>8550233
>>Deep sea travel is MORE hazardous and challenging than 90% of space travel.
Nope, sorry. Cite your source or admit you just pulled some random figure out your ass because you're a complete fucking retard.

>>8550225
It's kind of bullshit, but I see where he's coming from.

Humans went to the deepest part of the ocean (11 km deep) in 1960 on a modest budget. This was much easier, less dangerous, and less expensive than the first orbital flights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste

However, this took special equipment and most modern submarines can only go about half a kilometer down. When you go deeper, you need a very thick pressure vessel relative to the space enclosed. That's why Trieste had only a small spherical compartment for the men and their instruments.

>>8550240

Anon was trying to tell but but in a too polite matter. Deep underwater pressure is brutal and renders pipedreams for bases there impossible.

>>8550249
People also once said electric sportscars were impossible, but Elon did it.

>>8550249
It is by no means impossible, it's just expensive and not clear why anyone would bother.

>>8550252

You could be the Elon of the sea, anon. Go for it.

I do like the artist's impression of Europa as what appears to be a slush covered parking lot.

>>8550107
>>8550222

>watching this new illuminati movie with tom hanks
>the one were the bad guy wants to make all niggers infertile
>movie is trying so hard to make you feel bad
>tfw i wanted him to succeed

>>8550252
>>8550254
Pitch me a concept for a structure large enough for long-term habitation that can survive indefinitely under 1,086 bars of pressure

Hint: a 7cm thick hollow titanium sphere enclosing less than one cubic meter of breathable air will start crumpling within 12 hours

>>8548773
Sup brahs. Certified brainlet here.

I saw something a few years ago (not sure if this is related to the pic in the OP but seems similar) of a proposal to send a probe to the surface of Europa. The idea being that once there, a fusion reaction will heat a penetrating tip in the craft to burrow down into the ice in search for water and then ideally relay photos, analytical data about compositon, etc.

Why wouldn't this work/why is it a bad idea?

>>8549747
why the fuck would earth "go bad" and how could it possibly get worse than the completely unlivable state of mars?

>>8550268
Why wil it crumple eventually
Steel buildings don't suddenly fall afyer a year.

>>8550284
The ice is 19km thick, the deepest anyone's ever bored ice on Earth is 3.3km and that was with the support of a massive machine digging for weeks with round-the-clock refueling, refurbishment and manual monitoring and adjustment

And this ice was -57 degrees Antarctic crap that's already practically concrete; the stuff wrapping Europa is -160 degrees at the equator and -220 at the poles.

>>8550288
Steel buildings aren't under 17,000 PSI of pressure from every angle at all times

>>8550289

Just melt through.

>>8550291
What's to stop the ice from immediately refreezing in the hole before the digging is even 1% complete?

>>8550268
Use concrete and metal. it doesn't need to float.

>>8550294

Minor engineering challenge. We'll think of something.

>>8550268
>a 7cm thick hollow titanium sphere enclosing less than one cubic meter of breathable air will start crumpling within 12 hours
Don't be an idiot, making ridiculous shit up. The limits have been about energy supply, not structure. This is not how load-bearing structures work. If they're strong enough they last indefinitely.

For a vehicle that returns to the surface, they want to keep the weight down, because adequate pressure vessels aren't neutrally buoyant, so the heavier your passenger compartment, the larger your separate float has to be. Without the weight limit, it's just a matter of using enough of a sufficiently strong material.

It's not even a hard problem, it's just expensive.

>>8550268
>a 7cm thick hollow titanium sphere enclosing less than one cubic meter of breathable air will start crumpling within 12 hours
no it won't

>>8550301
>If they're strong enough they last indefinitely.
Then why does every ROV or submarine ever deployed on a deep sea mission begin to break in numerous terrifying ways within ours of reaching bottom?

>>8548773
Yes, but my plan to create an artificial moon entirely out of bread is not.

>>8550077
Because we still can at this point.

File: hello.jpg (678KB, 3192x2124px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 3192x2124px

>>8550307
>break in numerous terrifying ways

>>8550307
Please stop making up stupid shit and argue like an adult.

>>8548773
The timeframe is delusional, the project is merely extremely difficult

>>8550294
what does it matter if it refreezes?
You have a nuclear reactor melting ice and falling downwards
spools out wire behind it

File: SpaceX ITS timeline.png (53KB, 951x433px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 951x433px

>>8550370
>The timeframe is delusional,
Why? It's been under development for some years already. They have prototypes of the tank and engine.

SpaceX went from having a crude prototype Falcon 1, with an ablatively-cooled version of Merlin, to building Falcon 9 and Dragon in 4 years. In the six years since, they've done the very hard part of scaling their operation from prototyping to production, and also doubled Falcon 9 capacity while making it flyback reusable, something nobody else has ever done. Now that they have a large, reliable workforce and experienced design/development/testing team, they can repurpose all that as Falcon 9 operations mature and require less production thanks to reusability.

They're allowing two more years to complete development of the engine and fuel tank, and build the first atmospheric-flight prototype, another year before starting orbital testing, another year before having a complete vehicle, and two more years before they're ready for an interplanetary unmanned test, for a total of six years.

It's about the same pace as Saturn V development, after half a century of technological advancement.

>>8550394
>some years

this is a several-decades-sized project.

>>8550439
Now THAT is delusional.

Building a big rocket is not inherently more difficult than building a small one. The scaling factors mostly favor a large one. That's why they're going big: it's easier to make a very big rocket with an excellent fuel mass fraction (important for full reusability). As fuel tanks get bigger, they get more rugged and fault-tolerant due to the thicker walls (on smaller rockets, the fuel tank walls are shockingly thin, and can be destroyed by superficial damage), plus you can use thicker surface treatments like anti-corrosion layers and insulation. So put it out of your head that it should take much longer to develop because it's bigger. It just costs more. It's no coincidence that Saturn V flew within 10 years of the first orbital launch ever: big is not hard.

As for flyback reusability, they've already got that working. Full-flow staged combustion, too (not that that hasn't been around for decades). And construction of composite tanks at the required diameter. Plus they should be launching a 27-engine liftoff within a few months, making the 42-engine booster a modest incremental increase.

Their method of orbital re-entry and landing essentially combines their flyback booster landing with a capsule-like entry using an ablative heat shield, with which they also already have experience.

There's nothing here that requires decades of R&D.

>>8550394
>Why?
because falcon heavy was supposed to fly in 2012 and it still isn't flying, 5 years later, and yet it is an incredibly more simple design than ITS

File: 27-14FB45C26904EDCF12F.png (9KB, 54x55px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 54x55px

>>8548773

If you want, you can.

>>8550720
Was no point to fly a Falcon Heavy and use up 3 cores before reuse, and before they can satisfy demand for launches

>>8550753
the burden of proof is on you to show that ITS can be done before 2030, let alone ever

>>8550482
You're only hurting yourself if you keep deluding yourself and find out the hard way that Musk was full of shit. You are never going to Mars, just accept it and hope your children will.

File: 02[1].jpg (633KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1280x720px

Honestly, I think Ocean Colonization would be far more beneficial as the technology we'd develop for it will be beneficial for future space colonization.

>>8550832
Can just use the great Pacific garbage patch as a building foundation. We're half way there lad.

>>8550720
Falcon Heavy is merely a configuration of Falcon 9. It hasn't flown for strategic reasons, not because they made it their priority and just failed for four years.

Falcon Heavy 1.0 was prominent in early SpaceX literature because Falcon 9 1.0 wasn't suitable for GTO comsat launch. Its original performance spec was a mere 25 tons to LEO. Performance upgrades to single-stick Falcon 9 (currently rated at ~23 tons to LEO, with another upgrade coming next year) achieved the goal of serving the GTO market at lower cost.

Falcon Heavy's primary purpose now is performing reusable GTO launches, which Falcon 9 struggles with, with a secondary purpose of being an extremely high-performance rocket for special purposes. It made no sense to finalize until flyback reuse was reasonably reliable.

>>8550756
>the burden of proof is on you
lowest-grade intellect, unfit to participate in reasoned discussion

>>8549471
Underrated post

>>8548837
mars is covered in rusty sand, but the moon is covered completely in what basically amounts to sharp powdered glass that sticks to everything, will get in and destroy all machinery, shreds peoples' lungs like fiberglass, and it stinks to boot.

>>8550832
How about we just reduce the population instead of becoming more and more overcrowded with each passing year.

>>8551214
that would hurt fee fees

File: 5720_large.jpg (137KB, 415x592px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 415x592px

>>8551214
Look, I know that 90% of the world population is useless, but there's no way you could significantly reduce the population without people crying "muh humanity"

>>8551229
"accidentally" mass sterilize certain populations.

>>8551214
Should be easy. As soon as humans become worthless to those endowed with the wealth to live, they are bound to die off leaving the robots to care for anyone able to live off interest and capital gains.

>>8550285
Asteroid impacts mostly.

The design just seems a bit uhh, silly.
For starters there is now way to have a launch abort without roasting the fuck out of the massive fuel tank below. Also why on earth would you waste so much space inside.
In all honesty if this does come to fruition it will look very different.
This is just a publicity stunt.

>>8550122
That illustration is wrong though, you fuckwit

>>8550268
>>8550305
[citation needed]

>>8550806
>just listen and believe
okay SJW

>>8551214
>>8551222
>>8551229
>>8551269
>you must be 18 to post on 4chan

It's totally do-able, no huge technical hurdles, just budgets and the public whining about explosions and deaths.

If the US and USSR hadn't given up after Apollo 11, we could have been on Mars by the early 80s.

>>8549698
flying is sustaining itself on the air using lift or other means

who cares if that faggot dumont only made the plane take off by itself?

>>8550840
that doesn't exist, it's just a part of the ocean with fucktons of plastic micro particles

>>8551404
>For starters there is now way to have a launch abort without roasting the fuck out of the massive fuel tank below
that's the last thing to worry about, since it would be almost blowing up, otherwise, why abort the launch?

>100 man spaceship on Europa
>Not delusional
If you believe in this shit you may as well believe in flying saucers.

>>8552451
Nobody thinks they'd use it to send 100 people to Europa. It's a couple of years one-way, with no settlement at the other end. Even the Mars trips aren't supposed to be 100 people per ship until there's a pretty good base built.

A robotic Europa landing is possible with ITS, but I'm not sure it makes sense. There's a pretty big advantage to using a standard vehicle, like with Red Dragon. The no-heat-shield version should have the delta-V to do it with a light payload, if refuelled at a lagrange point. However, there are obvious weight advantages to making a separate lander.

>>8550255
>electronic sport submarines
I'm in.

>>8551214
practice what you preach, anon. lead by example.

>>8550394
why build the ship before the booster?

>>8551214
How about we start building hive cities instead of living horizontaly like cavemen?

>>8553820
that would be cool as fuck but I still think reducing population growth is best
>each person gets a better quality of life for less impact

>>8548773
Why? Its just a fuckton more of the engines they are already using. Only big engineering problem is the tank but that is far from impossible to solve.

>>8553797
It'd be pretty stupid to have a booster ready to go, and then find out your ship is needs to end up being 15% heavier, not wouldn't it?

>>8553923
Not him and I'd agree but...
>people
>hurr durr muh reproductive rights
>muh family
>muh lineage

>>8553820
dense cities doesn't work in these marxist multi-culti times
The asians could manage it though

Without radical changes the west simply won't exist, so the question is moot

>>8554097
>the end times are coming
same thing every 'older' generation said for at least the last century.... probably even longer
I think we'll live

>>8554106
ur a fucking idiot

>>8554106
The west never had to deal with hordes of muslims.

>>8554115
Sure the west has
But back then we had identities, we had nationalism
We had racialism
And there was the reconquista, there was the crusades

/lit/ here,

wow this board sucks ass.

>>8554112
Shut up nigger

>>8554115
>muslim immigrants
>end western civilization
if you really think this, then
1) you don't have high hopes we will solve it
2) it's true, muslim immigrants bring about the downfall of western civilization proving how weak it is
We'll be fine you idiot
>muh wwi
>muh depression
>muh wwii
>muh rock n roll
>muh kennedy assassination
>muh unelected gerald ford presidency
>muh nixon
>muh j edgar hoover
>muh mafiaa
>muh fbi gestapo
>muh comic books
>muh video games
yeah man we have no chance at all

>>8553797
>why build the ship before the booster?
Because it's smaller and cheaper, it doesn't need as huge and elaborate a launchpad, they need to do testing of the propulsive landing and atmospheric maneuvering with the Raptor engines, and it can be developed as either an expendable SSTO or a reusable first stage. Of course the prototypes that launch from the Earth's surface won't have vacuum-optimized nozzles on any of the engines.

>>8554027
That too. They can scale the booster to fit the "spaceship". They still might need to make some adjustments after they start orbital testing.

>>8554133
are you a fucking idiot
Is turkey a western country? Because 600 years ago it was

The idea that wars or social changes are at all comparable to a MASS DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSFORMATION is insanity

>>8554220
>MASS DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSFORMATION
That's completely normal and so are the conflicts that come with it.
You are for sure a /poltard and therefore racist, but the truth is empires succeeded if they were able to quickly assimilate immigrants and make them one of their own 100%. there actually was not more migration into the roman empire at the end of its days then there were throughout, but at the end of its days roman citizens whos ancestors lived in rome since several generations saw themselves as something different/better than those who are "new" and that is why rome fell apart.

>>8554220

Turkey has always been half western and half arab, as they are the middleground between Europe and Asia. Nowadays, this division can be seen between ethnic Turks and ethnic Kurds.

As for "mass demographic transition", while this is a legitimate point Turkey is a bad example of it. Despite /pol/ bitching, they are mostly the same stock of Mediterranean Anatolians that settled there thousands of years ago. The average Turk is culturally the same as any Spaniard, Italian or Greek. The only difference is their religion, which most Turks don't take seriously as most (even Erdogan) are secular in spirit.

A better example would be the rise of the mestizos creating Mexico, or the growth of black populations in South Africa (due to industrialization) which led to majority rule.

>>8554235
>That's completely normal
?
The people who inhabit Britain or Germany today are the same that inhabited it 1000 years ago
That has dramatically changed in recent years, in ways unprecendented in history

>>8554260
>The average Turk is culturally the same as any Spaniard, Italian or Greek.
A woman could travel the countryside of any of those countries EXCEPT turkey
In turkey you will be raped & murdered by muslims
The idea that Turkey is "culturally the same", and that religion is an afterthought is insanity

>>8554260
>The average Turk is culturally the same as any Spaniard, Italian or Greek.
I'm sure people from those country will strongly resent your comment, amerilard

>>8554268

>A woman could travel the countryside of any of those countries EXCEPT turkey

Rural Turkey is far safer than rural Mexico, mostly because Turkish police are reliable and rarely corrupt while Mexican police will openly demand bribes for things as petty as parking tickets. And thanks to the failed coup and war in Syria, armed attacks are taken seriously so criminals get blown the fuck out whileas in Mexico most cops don't care.

>In turkey you will be raped & murdered by muslims

Turkey is not a durka durka tier state, it's one of the few Muslim countries to modernize. Mostly because with the destruction of the Ottoman empire, the old regime had discredited itself allowing Atatürk to create a true Republic. And again, Turkey itself benefits from it's location so they weren't isolated from European Enlightenment ideas. The result was (among other things) Turkey remaining as an independent country despite colonialism (which had led Europeans to successfully take over most other Muslim countries).

Again, Turkey is a bad example for what you're trying to say.

>>8554272

They eat the same food, live in the same style of homes, and have the same types of government (see Berlusconi). Overall Mediterraneans are a lazy people but they aren't arabs.

>>8554268
>?
The people who inhabit Britain or Germany today are the same that inhabited it 1000 years ago
That has dramatically changed in recent years, in ways unprecendented in history

lol, no. I am german and there was a lot of immigration happening into germany, as well as germans migrating into other countries. im from southern germany and like most people here i have ancestors from southern italy, because there was a big migration wave from southern italians to germany in the 19th century. that is also why you encounter very dark looking southern germans quite often.
there is also a lot of other migration waves, like poles migrating to the Ruhrgebiet, french immigrating into Hessen and Berlin, etc. pp. Europe is a demographic clusterfuck mostly and Germany placed in its centre is the most ethnically diverse country probably.

There are expectations like Portugal, which experienced only very little immigration, but europe largely speaking is a continent where migration always happened in large scales. The difference to today is that neither the immigrants, nor the people already living there made a huge fuzz about it. the immigrants didnt demand special treatment, own churches and all that kind of bullshit and the people already living there werent racist fucks who gave people a hard time for coming here later than they did.

>>8554276
>amerilard telling people how they live

>>8554235
>at the end of its days roman citizens whos ancestors lived in rome since several generations saw themselves as something different/better than those who are "new" and that is why rome fell apart.
For most of the history of the Roman Empire, only the people who actually lived in the city Rome (nearly all of whom descended from Romans) were considered Roman citizens and permitted to vote or hold office.

Declaring all the people who lived in the conquered territory citizens rather than mere subjects was one of the things that happened in the late stages of its decline and disintegration.

I think you have no interest in history, but only like to make up stories to promote your political views.

>>8554290
what complete fucking bullshit. romans being class 1 assimilators is the reason why latin is even today spoken basically everywhere in what used to be the roman empire. speaking latin was the first step towards getting full citizenship and the system worked extremely well. it is basically the only reason why rome, unlike other ancient empires, didnt crumble for such a long time.

Mass migration into the roman empire also started around year 50 ad, and it was an important factor in keeping the roman economy afloat.

>>8554268
>The people who inhabit Britain or Germany today are the same that inhabited it 1000 years ago
>That has dramatically changed in recent years, in ways unprecendented in history

you should probably read up on British history

>A woman could travel the countryside of any of those countries EXCEPT turkey
>In turkey you will be raped & murdered by muslims

falsifiably false.

>>8554290
>For most of the history of the Roman Empire, only the people who actually lived in the city Rome (nearly all of whom descended from Romans) were considered Roman citizens and permitted to vote or hold office.
Roman citizenship had already extended to the to the whole Italy after the social war, and roman citizenship was a part of the auxilia packaged was well as often given to local nobility of conquered territory to secure loyalty.

>>8554305
>>I think you have no interest in history, but only like to make up stories to promote your political views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship
>The Edict of Caracalla (officially the Constitutio Antoniniana (Latin: "Constitution [or Edict] of Antoninus") was an edict issued in AD 212 by the Roman Emperor Caracalla, which declared that all free men in the Roman Empire were to be given full Roman citizenship

Prior to this, the Romans always had a concept of a true Roman citizen and various grades of inferior subject person. Exactly the reverse of the course of history you're describing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana
>goal may have been to increase the number of men able to serve in the legions, as only full citizens could serve as legionaries in the Roman Army.
>the edict came at the cost to the auxiliaries, which primarily consisted of non-citizen men, and led to barbarization of the Roman military

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire
>the Empire split into a Gallic Empire in the West (260–274), a Palmyrene Empire in the East (260–273), and a central Roman rump state.
So the Empire disintegrated within living memory of all free men within its territory being made citizens and eligible to serve as legionairies.

What was reformed was dubiously Roman, and completely fell apart over the next two centuries.
>Irreversible major territorial loss, however, began in 376
>By 476 when Odoacer deposed the Emperor Romulus, the Western Roman Emperor wielded negligible military, political, or financial power and had no effective control over the scattered Western domains that could still be described as Roman.

>>8554355
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana
the edict didnt last very long, and it became necessary because romans already didn't accept the old way of assimilating which caused growing problems with the immigrants, who less and less felt roman. the state through buerautcratic means tried to compensate what culture used to do. this went on for some time. since the third century roman rulers tried old ways (heavily emphasis on assimliation through military) or new ways, but they ultimately failed because you can not change that some people are roman since generations, and some are not. this is a kind of social division that rome finally crumbled on.

>>8548857
Thats not movie so ANYTHING can go wrong even without rogue robots. Some engeneer forgot about something important and small back on Earth, some mistake in code, and BOOM, everything goes to shit and everyone is dead. Space is a cruel place, and people make mistakes very often, on Earth we usually have time to fix shit, in space it wont be that easy or forgiving.

>>8550188
The thing is Nodoby gonna launch another Sputnik couse there is capitalism everywhere now, so all the countires is just a shitty version of America nowdays. Russia not gonna launch shit, couse our economy is falling apart, China launching something, but their capitalist soul will prevent something really special, i think. And thats all the options basically.

File: 15-RadBelts.jpg (476KB, 2528x2056px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 2528x2056px

Everyone on that spaceship died a horrible death by the way.

>>8554278
So because some italians came a while ago, therefore Germany must be totally replaced by africans & muslims today?

The Germans were migrating to other countries too forming german communties.... of course they were all genocided off over the last century, but hey thats progress I guess.

I highly doubt anything you are talking about is significant in terms of overall genetics/ancestry.

>werent racist fucks
Enjoy your assault buses and vast muslim no-go areas, along with turkish organized crime controlling your government

>>8548773
how else is star wars gonna happen???

>>8554445
>it became necessary because romans already didn't accept the old way of assimilating which caused growing problems with the immigrants
How can you spin this hard without getting dizzy and throwing up?

"The old way of assimilating" was conquering by violent force and ruling over: "You are not Roman. You will never be Roman. You will obey Rome and pay tribute. You will be made orderly and productive for the glory of Rome." And that's the people they didn't outright enslave or massacre.

Only a few of the most talented or noble foreigners were offered full Roman citizenship, as a special dispensation.

Rome didn't crumble on "social division" between Romans and non-Roman subjects, that's what it rose to greatness on. It crumbled as they lessened the strictness of this hierarchy and started to believe anyone at all would be truly loyal to, and willing to sacrifice themselves for, a vague, abstract, fluid concept of "Rome" rather than a concrete community of their blood relatives.

>>8548773
Nah nigga. Specially considering how big that thing is supposed to be. I mean it's going to happen eventually but it won't be with that hardware, and it won't even be Musk who does it.

>>8552102
murica: the post

>>8554761
you are fucking retarded if you think highly sophisticated peoples like greeks, egypts and others would have let themselves be surpressed like that. Rome succeeded because it was an incredible inclusive empire and it started crumbling when romans basically become poltards.

File: 1469405812762.gif (1MB, 290x189px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x189px

>>8549471
Underrated

>>8554761
Rome colapsed because of out of control inflation, corruption, and internal power struggles. Citizenship had nothing do with it.

>>8554840
Those who didn't "let themselves be suppressed" were killed or enslaved. Being sophisticated doesn't stop you from losing wars, and the Romans weren't above putting entire communities to the sword when they proved unmanageable. Greek slaves were a major commodity in Rome. Egypt was a very hierarchical society to begin with, so it easily adapted to being Rome's breadbasket.

Rome was "inclusive" like the Mongol hordes were inclusive: they made useful people serve them. They rewarded and honored faithful servants. They did not confuse them with their own people.

>>8554853
You shouldn't even bother talking to assholes like him because you know in the pit of your stomach that 10 years from now he'll tear down all his gay pride posters, convert to Islam then start telling everyone how Islam is REAL progress.

>>8554853
yeah, because the mongol empire lasted so long, right. do you know how many emperors came from the provinces?

>>8554849

A plague and the increasing power of norther barbarians also helped. Oh, not to mention that the Roman economy was partially built around expansion, which caused a problem when the empire started stagnating.

>>8554918
the early roman empire also had vast problems. but they always managed to overcome everything because they were so good at assimilating. through this they achieved uniting the top talents in all fields within their ranks from all parts of the world.

this is also true for the islamic golden age. the kaliphates, like the early roman empire, were extremely inclusive and assimilating. through this objectiveley pretty weak arab tribes were able to build an empire that was the peak of human civilization of its time. they included indian, persian, arab, greek, christian, hindu, chinese scientist, merchants, etc... this way they build a long lasting, very succesful empire that was as formative for the middle east and north africa, as rome was for europe.

once an empire loses its capability to assimilate, it doesnt last very long and falls apart at the first major crisis (economic, militaristic, plague, migration, or whatever).

Friendly reminder that SpaceX has yet to even reuse one rocket engine.

>>8554880
>because the mongol empire lasted so long, right.
There were other differences, you know?

>>8554959
>the early roman empire also had vast problems. but they always managed to overcome everything because they were so good at assimilating
You're pretty much just going to keep repeating that the success of the ancient Rome was based on inclusivity and open borders and egalitarian multiculturalism until I stop talking to you, aren't you? Evidence and reason just aren't going to be factors, are they?

>as formative for the middle east and north africa, as rome was for europe.
[looks at the Middle East and North Africa]
[looks at Europe]
Hmm...

>>8548824
It more like comparing it to a Comet.

>>8548943
I believe you misspelled Bezos.

>>8554278
>The difference to today is that neither the immigrants, nor the people already living there made a huge fuzz about it.
the difference is that the people coming here now subscribe to a set of beliefs that are incompatible with ours and are extremely intolerant (to put it mildly) to any people who doesn't ascribe to them, and the people here refuse to see this reality and rather blame themselves for this fundamental incompatibility.

you maybe think invasions and conquests are a thing of the past relinquished on history books. don't make no mistake about it: invasions in the past came under horses and sharp blades, in this day and age it's not feasible, it'd be naive to think to see hordes of armed invaders at your city walls, now they come in the form of en mass immigration. slowly building big enough numbers to take over your government using the democratic institutions in place to achieve this goal.

if you think people in the past would have let in waves of immigrants who saw them as the enemy until they became the majority, if you think your ancestors would have gleefully given up control over their country after centuries of fighting and spilling blood just have a voice in how it should be run, without putting up a fight, you are wrong

>>8548837


How do we colonize the moon when it has glass dust that corrodes everything at a stupid high rate?

>>8555458
>minor engineering challenge

>>8550188
>I think what would really be ideal is another sputnik to spur America's tendency to overreact and do wild above and beyond projects.

China's experiments with the mEMe drive could be that opportunity.

File: boring.png (93KB, 820x542px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 820x542px

>>8550193
Did you hear about his plans to make a MegaBoring Tunneling company?

>>8555432
>the difference is that the people coming here now subscribe to a set of beliefs that are incompatible with ours and are extremely intolerant (to put it mildly) to any people who doesn't ascribe to them, and the people here refuse to see this reality and rather blame themselves for this fundamental incompatibility.

so how are poles in the uk or hispanics in the US fundamentally not compatible with the system? this statement is true for some muslim immigrants, but even within the islamic groups they are a small minority. the fact that one small group under one specific group of immigrants is supposed to represent all immigrants clearly shows that the west hast lost its ability and willingness to assimilate.

russia, btw, since most poltards love to suck putins cock, is going into a whole other direction. they are very inclusive and even renamed their nation to "russlandian federation" instead of "russian federation" in order to make minority groups feel more belonging. this is why i feel russia will have a great future, while the west is clearly downfalling.

>>8556277
>"russlandian federation" instead of "russian federation"
>this obvious bait
you tried

>>8548773
does Jupiter really appear that large from Mars?

File: 1476055259318.png (5KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 205x246px

>>8549732
>too intelligent to be interested in women

>>8550107
step it up oceana what are you doing

>>8556396
not even close

>>8556325
i have relatives from russia so believe me i know this to be true.

File: goog.png (42KB, 896x574px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 896x574px

>>8556479

>>8548773

Not completly delusional, just... hard, full of potholes in the way and way underfunded.

We could have been a space faring civilization since 1970 but JFK had to say "screw logistic we are going straight to the moon" and while NASA tried to create reusable vehicules(at first it was a complete single stage vehicule) it was like trying to reach the Everest with only what you carry alone, you might can but a lot shit is going to go wrong and is much more expensive than just having hotels along the way.

>>8556512
russian in russian means pyccкий (russkij), while poccийcкий (rossijskij) can be roughly translated as russlandian. the official name of russia is Poccийcкaя Фeдepaция (Rossijskaja Federazija), which can be roughly translated as russlandian federation. the distinguishment is very important and every russian knows it.

>>8556518
Why are you literally the first person on the Internet to ever say this then?

>>8556532

Because it fits some narrative he's trying to push.

Fact of the matter is that it's just a language thing. For instance Russia has also always been "Ryssland" (so russ+land) in Swedish. And this goes back all the way to imperial russia

>>8556479
>>8556518
>pls take my bait pls

>>8556532
unluckily for him i can actually speak russian and i know he's full of shit.
>can be roughly translated as russlandian
no it can't. he's the one lonely faggot in the world who does that.
>they are very inclusive and even renamed their nation to "russlandian federation" instead of "russian federation"
again pure fantasy of a delusional autist. no renaming has ever took place to play up to minorities.
just like earlier he was referring to the people who lived in lands conquered by the romans as "immigrants" and "refugees" to the roman empire

>>8548773
Far from delusional, but needs more fine tuning and shit.
Other sciences also have unsolved questions, abiogenesis, proper earthquake predictions, cures to diseases, I'm still wondering if it's possible to make proper 3d holograms and shit.

>>8556277
Those minority groups will never be "russian"

And Islam has actual beliefs, its not like christianity where people don't give a shit anymore.

How did a "MuskBTFO-lol memelord" tread turn into one about the social and economical downfall of Rome?
At this point i aint even mad, just truly fascinated

>>8549697
>Implying boats are <7000 years old

>>8556438
Can't speak for all of us, but my city will be underwater (or something like Venice on stilts) by then.

>>8556609
not in an ethnic sense, but ethniccism/racialism is fucking retarded and empires that subscribe to such notions are destined to fall. they are russlandian.

>>8556572
ты лжeшь, вce Poccии знaют paзницy мeждy pyccкий и poccийcкий

>>8556716
ethnicism and racialism is the only thing that will ever survive the test of time
It is your people, it is seperate from institutions, or government, or geography
Russia is not a cultural marxist country that pretends everyone within their border is "russian"

>>8556726
russia is a country where ethnicism doesnt mean so much. that is the reason why this huge nation is still existing. Putins closest advisor Vladislav Surkov is a Chechen. If a nation like Russia had an ethnicist idelogoy it would be in a state of constant civil war. My ancestors are Deutschrussen (germans who emigrated to russia) so i know firsthand how well Russia is in assimilating its minorities. My whole family feels much more russian, than German, despite the fact they lived there "only" for three generations. As i said earlier, Russia is a very inclusive nation, and that also includes its muslim minorities.

>>8556760
>Putins closest advisor Vladislav Surkov is a Chechen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov
>His parents, the ethnic Russian Zinaida Antonovna Surkova (born 1935) and Andarbek (Yuriy) Danil'bekovich Dudayev (born 1942)...
>ethnic Russian

When are you going to get tired of being wrong and off-topic and stop pushing your politics in a thread about rockets?

>>8556787
>and Andarbek (Yuriy) Danil'bekovich Dudayev (born 1942)

keep clinching to your ethnicity, poltard, its really sad you have nothing else to be proud of.

>>8556760
Thats more because its only been a few years since the actually multi-culti soviets fell apart

>>8556787
>Vladislav Yuryevich Surkov (Russian: Bлaдиcлaв Юpьeвич Cypкoв́) (born 21 September 1964),[1] born Dudayev (Russian: Дyдaeв), is a Russian businessman and politician of Chechen descent

Nice selective reading.

Also: Historically been major tensions between Russia and Chechnea.

>>8556793
>>8556866
He's a non-muslim half-Chechen/half-Russian ex-Soviet who is officially an adviser on foreign policy. He's not simply "a Chechen", and whether he's "Putin's closest advisor" is deeply questionable. Anyway, to have foreign or semi-foreign advisors on foreign policy is no mark of "assimilation", it's like hiring foreign translators.

>If a nation like Russia had an ethnicist idelogoy it would be in a state of constant civil war.
>Historically been major tensions between Russia and Chechnea.
Recently there has been war between the Russian mainstream and Chechen muslims. Russia practically is in a state of constant civil war. Anyway, groups can be subjugated and pacified without being assimilated, the idea that you have to be inclusive and egalitiarian to impose authority over people is absurd.

Besides Russia is not a success story, it is desperately struggling to rise out of the muddle created by the USSR. Its leadership (commonly described as a kleptocracy) runs on expediency and backroom deals of men wielding power mostly accumulated by taking advantage of positions they had in the Soviet Union during its collapse, not strong principles.

>>8555432
>>8556277
>russia, btw
>red herring, btw
>>8556572
>>8556721
>non sequitur
brainlet german

>>8556277
>>8556760
>russia is very inclusive and ethnicity isn't important
>my example of successful integration
>muslims still take hostages and behead people
>this proves my point somehow

>>8556760
>my german ancestors felt russian after a few decades
>meanwhile muslims who have lived in russia for centuries still feel muslim and not russians
>this proves that pandering to muslims works

>>8557035
trying to 'assimilate' them resulted in a shitty civil war. fact of the matter is is that the grievances held by the Islamic world are entirely legitimate. west's kill count far surpasses terrorist kill count

>>8557218
t. ahmed

>>8557218
Hey Germany I've found your guy.

>>8557218
>non sequitur

>>8557035
15% of the russian population are muslim, and the number is rising. Overall they are pretty well integrated and russians pander to them like crazy. Most of them are Tatars who are very respected.
in germany we had a great debate because the president said Islam belongs to Germany. In Russia, it says even in the constitution that Islam is part of the national heritage equal to christianity. Chechenian terrorists are seen as completely different and are normally referred to as "wahabists", or something similar.

>>8557382
>more delusional ramblings

>>8557382
>15% of the russian population are muslim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Russia
>Islam (6.5%)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Russia
>According to surveys, the percentage of Russians who consider themselves Muslim ranges from 5% to 14%
You took the highest estimate and increased it.

>russians pander to them like crazy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Russia#Islam_in_Moscow
>Moscow has 1 million Muslim residents and up to 1.5 million more Muslim migrant workers. The city has permitted the existence of four mosques.
>The mayor of Moscow claims that four mosques are sufficient for the population.
>There are currently 8,000 mosques in Russia.
About a quarter of Russian's muslims live in Moscow. Only four mosques have been tolerated in Moscow, though there are 8,000 in the rest of Russia.

Sounds to me like they're Russia's Mexicans. They don't really like them, and especially don't like them expanding into Christian areas, but the kleptocrats make too much money from them to drive them off.

File: temp.jpg (114KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 960x600px

There is beauty in this kind of art that is physically impossible. BRING THEM ON!

File: 117897979890.jpg (37KB, 394x479px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 394x479px

>>8555458

Solar mirrors to melt the glass into a useful construction material.

>>8549650
we've had the technology to go to (but not really live on) mars since the apollo program.
Saturn V could have been fitted with Centaur rockets which would have enabled at the very least a suicide mission to mars. The problem of getting to mars was solved decades ago, now we have two more problems:

1) Acquiring the testicular fortitude to actually fucking go through with the plans and not cancel them (Constellation) or go off on a pointless tangent (the space shittle). Honestly I love me some technology, but the shuttle was a stalling tactic. We might not have had a colony be we could at least have had a flag on Mars by now had NASA not chickened out.

2) Giving SpaceX and Musk as much financial support as possible. I get it, Musk seems to rustle your jimmies because he's a bit of a maverick but is also successful, but do you see ANYONE else succeeding to the same degree as him? 13 years after bootstrapping a rocket company, and they achieved a vertical first-stage landing, something NASA wouldn't even consider.

Yes, the ITS is ambitious, and nobody is saying it'll be "next week", but NASA is past it's fucking prime. It had the opportunity, but it didnt have the balls so it spent the next 40 years in LEO. NASA is dead, long live Musk.

>>8549471
5 star post desu

>>8557552
Going to Mars with Apollo-era tech would have been expensive and dangerous as fuck, especially without developing experience from building a moon base first.

It was the correct strategic move to shift to development of a reusable launch vehicle. Too bad it was executed so poorly. The first one they made should have been purely experimental: a pilot-only reusable orbital spaceplane with a splashdown-recoverable booster, and possibly a separate project to build a reusable suborbital spaceplane booster for a tiny expendable upper stage.

>>8557596
They could have managed a reusable booster like the ITS with apollo/70's tech
Second stage landing horizontally
100+ ton fully reusable payload

Instead its hundreds of billions spent on the shuttle..

>>8556396
that ain't mars

>>8557613
>They could have managed a reusable booster like the ITS with apollo/70's tech
No they couldn't have. Not with anything approaching the same value proposition. Certainly not at superheavy scale on their first try. The materials science wasn't nearly as good.

The shuttle failed because they tried to make it do too much with too little experience, instead of starting with a humble, low-budget experimental project.

SpaceX was able to skip some steps thanks to advanced simulation technology, but even then, they did Grasshopper and F9Rdev before attempting flyback, and they're doing Dragon 2 (a reusable crew capsule with a recovery mode similar to the one they want to use for their reusable upper stage) before attempting upper stage reuse. Plus they crashed a bunch of flyback stages learning how to land them, and had two recovery modes fail and be abandoned (parachute splashdown and propulsive ocean landing). All in all, when ITS is working, it will likely have been a 20-year effort from SpaceX's initial decision to make reusable rockets.

It needed to be an incremental effort, and it would have gone slower, cost more, and produced inferior results with the older tech base.

>>8554260
I live in an area with a lot of Turks and they are vastly different to the other Muslims, they all act European, never show any sign of Islam.

>>8557688
I'm sure the shuttle would have been a success if they had an administrator like Elon Musk in total control of it.
Most of the problems were obvious before it was built or flew

Yes, any 70's rocket is not going to be as good as the ITS, but I think they could have worked their way to a reusable super heavy if they had tried.

>>8557759
It wouldn't have made sense to go straight to a superheavy. It still only really makes sense in the context of Elon Musk really wanting to move to Mars before he dies. Otherwise it would be much more reasonable to be developing the ITS "spaceship" as a reusable booster, and a much smaller reusable upper stage on top of that.

What would have made sense were the early shuttle concepts for a pilot, a passenger/copilot, and about 200 lbs of cargo. That would have been just the thing for routine crew rotation at a small space station and launching small satellites. It would have had to be over twice as big as what I consider the ideal first experimental project, but still only one tenth the size of the shuttle, which means they should have been able to get it flying in a couple of years on a modest budget, and could have gone back to the drawing board two or three times if necessary.

On that tech path, with a steady, honest effort at a fraction of the funding NASA actually spent, we could have had what we saw in "2001: A Space Odyssey" in 2001.

>>8557717
so you lie?

>>8550285
niggers

>>8549697
>implying sustained fire isn't over 70,000 years old

>>8557500
>thinks he can debate with a russian about how things are in russia based on outdated wikipedia articles

you are the definition of an armchair-expert

>>8548776
No they weren't you fucking retard
You think Zhang He set sail while a crazy optimist? No, he was given dozens of ships.

>>8548773
not only that but completely useless, waste of effort and resources for a fucking meme

>>8548776
Scale. Fucking SCALE. The moon is really close to Earth and even then the distance is ten times Earth's circumference, in an environment where you cannot stop anywhere to resupply or fix anything because there's nothing except deadly radiation around you. No islands, water, not even air. Nothing. Anything past that is hundreds of times further away, eventually the distances become so absurd that a human will die of old age before reaching the destination, assuming absolutely nothing goes wrong. Space isn't an ocean! A spaceship isn't a wooden boat! You're insane!

>>8550077
TFW you don't have to live on the same planet as SJW's

>>8557832
>It wouldn't have made sense to go straight to a superheavy
Why does it make sense to drag things out?
Reducing cost involves going big as well as reusable

And as you or someone else has talked about, bigger is largely easier than small.

>barely colonize Antarctica
>wants to colonize a Jupiter moon

>>8551214
Go tell the world that niggers in Africa need to stop breeding.
Get crucified for telling the truth.
Meanwhile, the Gates Foundation spends billions curing their diseases and keeping them fed.

We lose. Population hits 12B ibefore 2100, 90% African.

>>8557596
A moon base would have been fucking fantastic! But the important detail to consider here is that after Apollo 11 they lost their nerve. They could have established a base, but they didn't. They could have at least orbited mars, but they didn't. Yes it would have been expensive and dangerous, but so was the moon mission.

>>8558613
Theres no point doing anything in space without reusable vehicles

>>8558461
>Why does it make sense to drag things out?
Why didn't the Wright Brothers just build a 747?

>bigger is largely easier than small.
In a sense yes, but also slower and more expensive. Developing useful reusability is expensive, and requires iteration. To iterate, you need to keep costs low and schedules short.

They went big from the start with the shuttle. It technically worked, but it wasn't worth having. To make it work, to fly it, they had to compromise on the things that would have made it worthwhile. There wasn't money or political capital to go back to the drawing board when it sucked.

Even with ITS, SpaceX has fallbacks. If it doesn't go well, they can make it a Falcon-Heavy-scale flyback booster just with lower operating costs, and they can experiment with smaller reusable upper stages on Falcon Heavy.

>>8558471
No shitty treaties on Europa

The only nuisance will be a bunch of "ethical" fucks crying about "contamination", muh "problems of the third planet first" and "colonialism" from far, far, far away

>>8558785
The shuttle wasn't big, the shuttle was just a clusterfuck of stupidity

Big would have been making a Saturn 15 which flies back and splashes down in some freshwater lake

>>8548804
Except for a profitable car company
Except for being the first company to offer an affordable electric car
Except for the memetube
Except for "hypercapacitor techology"
Except for profitably installing solar panels
Except for making giant wall-batteries whose only advantage is gaming energy pricing schema
Except for gimballing engine mounts on planes cause why the fuck not
Except for creating an online financial service that isn't run by assholes and is the "future of commerce"

>>8548813
Internets were once considered to be a pipe dream but now internets are pipes

>>8548776
Bozo the clown became a world class physicist. His discoveries are still in use today in the field of quantum mechanics.

>>8548816
>Lets throw 400 tons into space at once using a trillion dollar rocket and two multibillion dollar capsules
>Lets not explore how to assemble a 400 ton craft in orbit using existing technologies and fuel mined on the moon, which is a more sustainable long term model
>Lets ignore that orbital assembly is the inevitable future for any craft beyond 400 tons meant to go further than mars in a reasonable timeframe

>>8558832
The shuttle was huge, two-thirds the mass of Saturn V, and its total mass on the pad was kept relatively low by the extensive use of lox/h2.

For comparison:
Saturn V: ~3000 t (stage 2: ~500t, stage 3: ~125t)
N1: ~2750 t
shuttle: ~2000 t (full fuel tank alone: ~750t, orbiter: ~100t with no cargo)
Proton: ~700 t (comparable LEO payload to shuttle)
Saturn IB: ~600 t (used for LEO testing of the Apollo capsule, comparable LEO payload to shuttle)
Titan II GLV: ~150 t (launched the Gemini capsule)
Atlas LV-3B: ~120 t (launched the Mercury capsule)
Falcon 9 1.0: ~333 t
Falcon 9 FT: ~550 t
Falcon 1: ~40 t
Boeing 747: ~400 t (maximum takeoff weight of a very large aircraft)

They were pushing the shuttle very hard for performance, too. They used a drop tank (which cost more than Proton, a complete ELV with a comparable LEO payload to the shuttle), the lightest material that would work for the heat shield, and pushed the engines beyond what was reasonable for useful reusability.

A useful reusable with the technology of the day would have an even poorer ratio of payload mass to fueled vehicle mass. To build a meaningfully all-reusable vehicle with Saturn V payload capacity would probably have required something ten times larger than the shuttle (twice the mass of ITS for one third the payload).

>flies back and splashes down in some freshwater lake
I have trouble imagining a more unreasonable design than implementing flyback just to splash down anyway.

There were proposals for Saturn V booster reuse (splashdown recovery). They predicted an eventual 40-60% savings (refurbishment cost 25% of a new unit).
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000880.html

>>8558864
>throw 400 tons into space at once using a trillion dollar rocket and two multibillion dollar capsules
Innumeracy is a terrible thing. ITS is estimated to cost $10 billion to develop, with the stages costing around $200 million each (the upper stages being smaller but more complicated), then they're meant to be reusable with inexpensive consumables.

The goal is to initially bring the cost of a ~300 ton launch down to the current cost of medium-lift (~15 ton) launch, and then lower it further over time toward the cost of propellant.

>assemble a 400 ton craft in orbit using existing technologies and fuel mined on the moon
Existing technologies are horrifyingly cost-inefficient, and to mine fuel on the moon you first have to bootstrap the industrial base with launches from Earth.

If you want to do moon mining and orbital assembly, you're obvious better off launching your parts 300 tons at a time for $10 million per launch than 15 tons at a time for $100 million per launch.

>>8558906
All this talk of booster reuse when not a single one has ever been reused in the history of man to this day even by MemeX. It can't be done economically and safely, too much stress on the parts but Musk is too scared to admit this.
>SSME
Ship of Theseus.

>>8558924
>ITS is estimated to cost $10 billion
Yeah, estimated. Lol.
>The goal is to initially bring the cost of a ~300 ton launch down to the current cost of medium-lift (~15 ton) launch
Oh yeah because of that huge market for Mars tickets right?
> lower it further over time toward the cost of propellant.
You have got to be joking, maintanance costs will never allow this. You think flying a 747 = only the cost of the jet fuel?
>Existing technologies are horrifyingly cost-inefficient
Because there is no market and there will never be a market.
> mine fuel on the moon
What fuel on the moon? There is no rocket fuel on the moon

>>8558927
>>SSME
>Ship of Theseus.
They required too much maintenance (especially early on), but hardly to the point of every part being replaced.

>not a single one has ever been reused in the history of man to this day
There have been multiple suborbital rockets with demonstrated reuse: X-15, SpaceShipOne, New Shepard. That none has carried an orbital upper stage is mere coincidence: each one could have.

>It can't be done economically and safely, too much stress on the parts but Musk is too scared to admit this.
If it's not too much stress on the parts to be in condition to pull off a propulsive landing and then be fired on the test stand, then it's not too much stress on the parts to launch again.

To claim, at this stage, that the concept is infeasible is absurd. At worst, it'll need a few more years of development.

>>8558935
>Oh yeah because of that huge market for Mars tickets right?
It's not only for launches to Mars, you dunce. The big initial market will likely be to LEO.

>You think flying a 747 = only the cost of the jet fuel?
It's down pretty close to it. Depending on relative price fluctuations, the price of a plane ticket is generally two to four times the cost of the fuel you're burning. The fuel is expensive enough that airlines retire aircraft in good working order just to replace them with more fuel-efficient ones.

>There is no rocket fuel on the moon
There's water and volatile carbon and nitrogen compounds on the moon, whole lakes of it frozen in polar craters. Fuel can be made from it.

Oxygen can also be made from the common rock.

>>8558906
>I have trouble imagining a more unreasonable design than implementing flyback just to splash down anyway.
I am under the assumption that salt water is worse on the vehicle than fresh water, and that propulsive landing wasn't possible with 70/80's tech.
Propulsive return & splashdown in a conveniently placed lake would have been very doable, also simplifies recovery.

Neither the shuttle nor the Saturn V were particularly big, their empty mass was in the few hundred tons range. Doing stuff in space will inevitably involve going much bigger than either the shuttle or the S-V

>would probably have required something ten times larger than the shuttle
Hardly, lets say its something like 5 times the mass, 10,000 ton launch weight.

Even that is a massive improvement over anything currently in existance.

The fact they didn't attempt any cost savings kinda speaks for itself though, look at what SpaceX is doing with fairing recovery, just a sane money saving decision that everyone else ignored.

>>8559069
>>would probably have required something ten times larger than the shuttle
>Hardly, lets say its something like 5 times the mass, 10,000 ton launch weight.
They wouldn't have made something with the same mass-efficiency as the shuttle but also efficiently reusable, with the technology of the day.

Why are SpaceX shills always full of answers and promises? They are like evangelists it's scary, it's becoming a cult.

>>8559069
>>I have trouble imagining a more unreasonable design than implementing flyback just to splash down anyway.
>I am under the assumption that salt water is worse on the vehicle than fresh water, and that propulsive landing wasn't possible with 70/80's tech.
>Propulsive return & splashdown in a conveniently placed lake would have been very doable, also simplifies recovery.
Flyback isn't easy or cheap. You need attitude control thrusters and in-flight relight engines, plus precision navigation capability on the booster. There's a considerable increase in cost together with a considerable reduction in payload. You're also introducing a danger by launching the booster back toward land.

The advantage of splashing down in a freshwater lake rather than the ocean is small compared to the cost of boostback.

Propulsive landing was possible with 1960s tech. They did it on the moon both with automated and manned vehicles, and that's without the possibility of a prepared landing site or ground-based guidance. The engine has to be designed differently to make it possible.

It wasn't necessarily a good idea back then, but it could have been done.

>>8559321
>Why are SpaceX shills always full of answers
>it's scary, it's becoming a cult.
Why do people who think accurate information and reasoned argument are "scary" and "cult-like" end up on the side against SpaceX?

>>8559351
>Propulsive landing was possible with 1960s tech.
Yes but it was far from being a sure thing, and not something you would want to base your billion dollar rocket around.
Looks like most of the moon landings were done manually

Theres a considerable increase in cost & reduction of payload by scrapping the booster after one launch too...

>>8559397
>Theres a considerable increase in cost & reduction of payload by scrapping the booster
Not per-vehicle cost or per-launch payload, which is what I was obviously talking about.

Reusability isn't an automatic win on cost.

The first thing you have to recognize is that engineering is hard and heavily dependent on experience. New things tend to work poorly even if you throw a lot of talent, effort, and money at them.

The second thing is that rockets were initially developed as ammunition, and orbital rockets as ICBMs. So if you want to develop an expendable launch vehicle (and you're a connected government agency or contractor), you can draw on all of the lessons learned from artillery rockets, you're just doing a very high performance one. If you want to develop a cost-effective reusable launch vehicle, you're making a new thing.

The third thing is that, unlike conventional aviation, there isn't an incremental path of increasing value from a simple, low-performance reusable rocket to a reusable orbital launch system. The history of aviation would have been very different if the only customers for air transport demanded nonstop intercontinental flights. It's hard to accumulate experience if you're not producing positive net value while you do so.

So odds were good that the first several attempts to make a reusable rocket were going to suck and not save any money. That's why I've been saying 1970s NASA should have treated the shuttle as an experiment and focused on keeping costs down and schedules brisk so there would be time and money for a second and third try.

>>8548804
>online banking - check
>fancy car company - check
>model rocket fun - check
>traveling to another planet - hmmm