How comes NASA is so much more successful than ESA? As an European,

>>8620974
You'd think with the eu doing so we-

>>8620974
it was only founded in 1975, long after the space race began

>>8620976
The combined GDP for the EU is still greater than that of the US.

>>8620974
Because it's a bad acronym. Soft, childish sounds. You say it, you sound like Jar Jar Binks. Commands no respect.

>>8620980
a-are you trump?

>>8620982
Yes. I say chop it up into fiefdoms, give it to Roscosmos and make one good one.

>>8620982
Of course I am. Love the 4chan. Terrific site. Browse it every day. Full of good people. Noble people. Not afraid to say true things. Because it is the jews, make no mistake. We'll get 'em, believe me. Trump out.

>>8620991
pretty sure trump loves jews, family

>>8620979
>Muh GDP
The EU has a population of about 500 million people the US of about 300 million. It would be truly damming if, given an additional 200 million people the EU has a smaller GDP. Now GDP per capita, that puts it closer to the Italy than the US.

And this isn't looking at its gross problems in the Eurozone (youth unemployment, stagnation, possible implosion of a few more banking systems). The idea that all is well in the EU is a comforting lie told by europhiles.

File: bugs.jpg (26KB, 698x672px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 698x672px

>>8620991
h.. hello mister president

i.. i'm your biggest fan

i swear

>>8620974
>as an european
false flagging again, Chaim?

>>8620991

I'm convinced. Welcome President Trump! So sorry you had to visit the 4chan.

>>8621011
You're right. But then we have many of the richest people and biggest corporations in the world in the states. I wonder if these massive fortunes aren't skewing things a bit.

I know not all is well over there. They keep coming out with more bad news about Deutsche Bank on a weekly basis. The collapse of Deutsche would make Lehman look like a financial crisis for ants.

>>8620974
NASA still has cred from the moon landing. Also they show up in all near-future science fiction movies because of hollywood.

any sort of "joint" program turns into disasters
NASA has coasted on shit it did in the 70's while doing almost nothing since

You look at probes, if something goes wrong because you have the italians doing shit or the spainiards, then the whole thing fails

Also Eurosocialists will inflate costs above even Americans, while having a lower budget.

>>8621196
>You look at probes, if something goes wrong because you have the italians doing shit or the spainiards, then the whole thing fails

It's funny because NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter because Lockheed used Imperial and NASA uses Metric.

>>8620974
trump will fix this

ESA's budget is like 5 billion €, the spaceport is in South America and the the offices are scattered all over western europe.

Brain drain post-ww2.

They did their most significant work in the 60's.

>>8620977
You think that matters? The first orbital flight by anyone was in 1957, NASA put men on the moon in 1969 and put up a space station, did a Mars landing with pictures and surface samples, and launched probes that would visit every planet but Pluto all in the first two decades of orbital spaceflight.

Even if they didn't have huge technological advances and access to much of the scientific results produced by NASA and the Soviet space program, if the ESA had put out an effort of comparable scale and competence, they'd have done comparable things by 1999 (20 years after their first orbital launch in 1979). But here we are in 2017, and the ESA hasn't put a man in space, hasn't successfully landed a Mars probe, has done little that would sound out of place in the first half of the 1960s (except for riding along on NASA, Soviet, or post-Soviet Russian vehicles and missions).

>>8620974
ESA's recent track record is way more impressive.

NASA had only that Cold War nonsense running.

>>8621202
>It's funny because NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter because NASA uses Metric.
They put men on the moon using Standard units. Then they started doing stupid shit like metrication.

I'm worried for SpaceX. Falcon 9 was built with Standard units, but for ITS they're going Metric.

>>8620980
kek
>'nasa'
>sounds cool
>'ehsah'
>sound like a faggot

>>8621196
>NASA has coasted on shit it did in the 70's while doing almost nothing since

>what is hubble
>what is space shuttle
>what is ISS
>what is webb
>what is going to pluto

>>8620974
Money.
The amount of money available to NASA, especially in its first years, was enormous, relative to ESA.
That translates into people and materials.

>>8621609
Nobody on this anime forum going to point out how many times they've heard "esa" used to mean "food (for an animal)"?

Esa is basically dogfood.

>>8621624
>"food (for an animal)"?
You seem to be missing "fodder."

>>8621633
"Fodder" isn't such a common word that you can count on people knowing it, and it doesn't mean "food (for an animal)" it means "feed provided to livestock" with a strong implication of purpose-harvested plant matter.

Cut hay is fodder. Growing grass a cow eats is not fodder. Dog food is not fodder. Table scraps given to pigs or chickens are not fodder. A mouse devoured by an owl is not fodder. All of these things are "esa".

>>8621665
>"Fodder" isn't such a common word that you can count on people knowing it,
>All of these things are "esa".
>Fodder
>esa
>count on people knowing it
Seriously?
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/esa?s=t

>>8621952
Come on, Einstein, "esa" is a Japanese word. Hence the "anime forum" comment. And when you explain a word from a foreign language, you should use common words people understand well, rather than searching through obscure ones trying to find the closest equivalent.

>>8620974
NASA has a better kickstarter video.

>>8620974
Europeens are brainlets

>>8621624
hmm. I actually haven't heard 'esa' in my chinese cartoons, but I also haven't watched any in which an animal was being fed

>>8620974
ESA is only in it for the science. NASA is in it for the glory.
>>8621600
>implying the its will be built
Also, source on the imperial units claim?

>>8621202
Yet Europe can't put anything on Mars in one piece even with a consistent set of units.

>>8620974

NASA piggybacks off the larger American military-industrial complex.

>>8621196

>NASA has coasted on shit it did in the 70's while doing almost nothing since

Wrong, see the ISS. It may not be the masterpiece it was in 2000 but it's legitimately a new thing they did. Right now it only seems as if NASA is shit because they're between programs.

>>8622081

>ESA is only in it for the science. NASA is in it for the glory.

This is completely wrong, and demonstrates that you don't know anything about either NASA or the ESA.

>How comes NASA is so much more successful than ESA?

The agencies are completely different scales and only recently has ESA's budget risen to ~1/3 that of NASA. When you integrate the difference in funds over decades it's not hard to see why one has done more.

But today's ESA is still very successful. ESA's science program has now risen in quality to the point where it is comparable only to NASA. Mammoth successes like Herschel, Planck, XMM and now GAIA have set the tone that ESA can think big and produce results. With ESA focusing most of it's effort on medium sized missions this nicely compliments NASA current over-emphasis on slow large missions in astrophysics. Unfortunately the way NASA astrophysics seems to be going (with WFIRST nearly doubling in cost right after JWST) ESA will be critical. Euclid will be amazing and so will Athena and eventually LISA.

ESA definitely has some problems to work out but unfortunately so does NASA, and JAXA, and IKI RAN...

>>8622312
>ESA definitely has some problems to work out but unfortunately so does NASA, and JAXA, and IKI RAN...

ESA's problems are unfixable. Whenever they want to get something done, it becomes an exercise of cronyism and earmarking. Each member wants the maximum share of work and contracts regardless of how unfeasible it may be.

Vega launch vehicle is a disaster for example, because Italy got to lead the project.

>>8622312

I've never head much about jaxa. Are they good (considering it's japan alone)?


What about the chinese?

>>8622312
>LISA

Been canceled.

>>8622363
>Are they good (considering it's japan alone)?

Launch vehicles are too expensive. They used American cryogenic engines for most of their program. New medium-class LV will be out by 2020. H3. Japan is too far north be a good country to do space launches.

>What about the chinese?

Rapidly advancing, but they are banned from cooperation from any US companies due to IPR and security concerns. This makes them an untenable nation for international launch contracts, as most satellites use US components. Their CNSA structure is modeled after the Soviet-style. So heavily subsidized and little competition to make competitive launch vehicles. Nothing to compete with SpaceX or Blue Origin. Their SLS-class LV won't be ready until post 2030.

>>8621614
>what is hubble
>what is space shuttle
both started in the 70's

>what is ISS
A disastrous makework enterprise meant solely to justify the space shuttles existance

>what is webb
shit that doesn't exist yet, and them spending decades producing a telescope is insanity

>>8622176
ISS was no different from earlier space stations...

Funding. Decades of experience. Better scientists / researchers and engineers.

>>8622394
>Japan is too far north be a good country to do space launches.

????
Ryuku islands are further south than the Cape...
But shipping stuff that far from your industrial/population base is not even worth the effort to save like what, 400 mph starting speed?

>>8622394
Will musk actually bring humans to Mars by 2024?

>>8622362
>Each member wants the maximum share of work and contracts regardless of how unfeasible it may be.
ESA practices economic return which means countries can expect roughly what they put in, not what-ever they want. It will drive up cost but at the same time it means countries don't get nothing to show for it when they put money into non-core programs.

>Vega launch vehicle is a disaster for example, because Italy got to lead the project.
I don't think you understand how ESA works. Italy got to lead the project because they put the money in, it wouldn't have happened otherwise. Launchers is not a core program.

ESA's problems aren't unfixable and this isn't even on the radar in my opinion. Many large programs, NASA included, are forced to spread there money for political reasons.

>>8622363
JAXA is ambitious but their biggest problem is reliability. Astro-H a major x-ray observatory failed, one of the instruments on-board had already flown twice and failed twice. Akatsuki missed Venus. Hayabusa barely made it back from asteroid Itokawa as a sample return but it's collection mechanism failed, it got specks of dust. They're still planning big but they really need to fix their quality control.

>>8622368
No, only on the NASA side. ESA is still going with it and launched LISA Pathfinder to demonstrate the tech, it was a wild success. LISA may be even more ambitious in light of this and NASA are signalling they want to rejoin.

>>8622443
they're* money

>>8620974
more money. Not having to deal with politics of a bunch of different countries

>>8622176
NASA's just a bigger Mir, and it's way oversized for what they're doing with it.

It's not that size for any good reason, but because they wanted an excuse to fly a lot of shuttle flights, since there wasn't much else to use that piece of shit for, but everyone working on it wanted to keep getting paid.

>>8622456
>NASA's just a bigger Mir
(I meant ISS is just a bigger Mir)

>>8622450
their* money

>>8622498
And Mir was a bigger SkyLab, ...

>>8622650
No, Mir and Skylab were different sorts of achievements.

Skylab was a single-launch space station, using the power of Saturn V. It was a single relatively spacious room, allowing play like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_p7LiyOUx0

Mir was a modular space station, using the economy of Proton. It could be expanded without limit by adding rooms, but each room was relatively cramped:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBONpY3TxN8

Notably, Mir was the end of a series of developments. It came after 6 Salyut space stations, each single-launch stations. Some were essentially manned surveillance satellites (a practical idea for the USSR, which lagged in electronics technology and aviation), while others were for research purposes.

Including failures, the Salyut program used 9 Proton launches at a rate of about one per year, plus the separate crew launches (and supply launches, for Salyut 6 and 7, which used the Progress resupply vehicle still in use for ISS). Mir used six affordable Proton launches for its assembly over ten years, plus crew and supply launches. Even including the crew and supply launches, this all probably cost about as much as two or three shuttle flights.

ISS is just another Mir expanded to triple the size. It was worthwhile to build a Mir successor, since Mir was both loaded with obsolete technology and worn out to the point of being unsafe, but ISS is oversized and unnecessarily used the expensive shuttle for a mind-boggling 36 flights ($50 billion right there, even without the payloads). Plus it is now approaching the status that Mir was in: obsolete and worn out.

ISS shows the limitations of this approach plainly. While you can make an arbitarily large volume from modules, you can't ever have even one spacious room. Nor can you add artificial gravity. Plus as you make it larger, it grows more fragile and less tolerant of any shaking or jolts from doing anything interesting in any part of it.

ISS is Mir taken to madness.

>>8622769
Interesting post, thanks.

>>8621600
>Standard units
There is nothing "standard" about the 'Murikan
system of units, LeeRoy.

>>8620974
The most obvious is the difference in funding. NASA gets almost four times as much money as ESA. The second thing is, since ESA is a multilateral organization, it has to satisfy its constituents, which leads to many inefficiencies when e.g. a spacecraft involves two dozen manufacturers because every funding nation wants a share of the manufacturing jobs according to their share of the funding. Another thing is that, since often people work at the edge of science and technology and many thing are dual purpose, information sharing isn't as open as it would be in a purely national organization for reasons of security.

Nazi superscience gave us a jumpstart

>>8621970
Get fucked, weeb shitter.

Fodder is far more common than esa.

They have more money to sink into a blackhole.

>>8623275
That's the US name. Inside the US, they distinguish between Standard and Metric units. Outside of the US, it's referred to as the "US customary system".

Metric isn't a good system, let alone a better system. The Standard system derives from the English system (later diverged into the Imperial system), which was the first sufficiently sophisticated standard to allow long-range industrial cooperation and the Industrial Revolution. It was thoughtfully evolved from natural and convenient units until they were in exact ratio to one another.

The Metric system was a continental invention driven by jealousy of England. They could have adopted the English system, but they wanted something incompatible, to exclude England from trade or impose on them the cost of converting to the new system. It was thrown together in a rush based on simple-minded reasoning, creating a vast proliferation of arbitrary, inconvenient, overlapping, similar-sounding units.

I repeat: the motivation for the Metric system was incompatibility with an established, superior system. The point of it was to create these problems.

This is why the English said "fuck that" to Metric until after their Empire fell, and why the world's most advanced industrial economy still isn't based on Metric.

>>8623637
So this is the thing where you say something really stupid, then because you don't want to face that, you carry on with it hoping people will believe you were trolling.

It's an anonymous board, chum. There's no point.

>>8623655
If metric is so bad how come you don't see anyone converting to imperial?
thought so

>>8623655
Metric system (1700's) predates the Imperial system (1800's) which replaced the Winchester measures (1500's)

>>8623655
We use metric for everything apart from miles and speed and that's only because changing the entire road system signs is to impracticable although it is being planned to happen at some point...eventually. Everywhere else is metric. You have some old codgers still measuring inches at home but any official purpose or young person uses metric. All of our STEM industry uses metric. Our screws, bolts, girders and bricks are metric. Our building regulations are metric. Our money changed from imperial money to metric money with the abandoning of the half pence, shilling etc.

I only know the imperial systems because I work with legacy systems. Which we are slowly replacing ... to metric.

Stop fighting the change, it's happened. If I go pull up an an engineering table of values it'll be metric. Stop spreading misinformation. How is metric a worst system? It's standardise and easy to scale.

>>8623757
the new road signs they have to give duel units to slowly replace them instead of one huge payment its now a slow proccess

>>8623673
Converting is expensive, you stupid monkey, and the original spirit of Metric, to sabotage the leader, is still alive.

>>8623677
>Metric system (1700's) predates the Imperial system (1800's) which replaced the Winchester measures (1500's)
US customary isn't Imperial, this was never about Imperial. Imperial and US customary come from the same root of standard weights and measures that were well established before Metric. Metric is, of course, also based on the ideas behind the English system, but it was done in a way to be deliberately incompatible to hurt the English position in industry and trade.

>>8623757
>We use metric for everything apart from miles and speed
Who is "we"? You're someone who has never been to the US pretending to be American, aren't you?

The US customary system will survive. England failed, lost its place in the world, and is currently being overrun with Islam, Metric, and other bad ideas.

>>8623811
>Who is "we"? You're someone who has never been to the US pretending to be American, aren't you?
He was obviously speaking about the UK, you inbred cretin. There is a world beyond your no-name town and your sister/wife.

>The US customary system will survive.
Only because most of the units are defined in terms of metric quantities and have been for over a century. It's just a shitty metric re-skin.

>>8623811
>Converting is expensive, you stupid monkey, and the original spirit of Metric, to sabotage the leader, is still alive.

What?

>>8623828
>He was obviously speaking about the UK
Then he was changing the subject.

>the units are defined in terms of metric quantities
It's older than metric, you chimp. They specified conversion factors that didn't change the size of the units.

>>8623991
If you're not going to read the thread, don't jump in.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (274KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1920x1080px

>>8620974
Did the Nasa land on a fucking comet ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcYo-qQ5HbA&index=11&list=PLbyvawxScNbui_Ncl9uQ_fXLOjS4sNSd8

>>8624038
>Then he was changing the subject.
No he wasn't.
>This is why the English said "fuck that" to Metric until after their Empire fell

>It's older than metric, you chimp.
Completely irrelevant. It is defined in terms of metric units, it's just a facade. There's a reason science is done in SI, because there's no point in pretending, it will only waste time.

>>8623828

We really need a system of logarithmicly scaled units.

A size 2 bold would be 13% larger than a size 1 or some shit like that. Both us customary and metric don't scale ideally. At what point do you go from 1mm increase from size to size to 2 or 5, I had to find a 7mm allan wrench a while back, no one carried it was a bitch to find, most sets went 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 but apparently this was not an agreed upon standard because size 7 also existed and I fucking needed it to change my breaks. You would want a uniform increase in strength or size from one size to the next. We really need to get this shit sorted out before we go to the stars, the space shuttle carried both a metric and standard set of tools, costing $8,000 per lb to orbit and increasing mission complexity.

>>8624232
>We really need a system of logarithmicly scaled units.
Which is what SI prefixes are for. Having lots of base units for the same quantity is a waste of time.

>>8624232
WTF
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000

Add in SI prefix's then metric scales ideally.

Log scales only work in certain places like apparent magnitude or pH

>>8620974
Why does it take decades for anyone to build cool telescopes? Why can't we get our OLT?

File: MetricThreadSyncSpreadsheet.jpg (78KB, 624x639px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 624x639px

>>8624253

See change ratio. Metric is shit. 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 8.

And then some ass hat throws in a 7 to fuck everyone up.

I want a constant change ratio scale similar to db, but for tools and shit. Each increasing number would be more gradual than what is the case in db.

>>8624272
With OWL then E-ELT a lot of time was spend trying to get the money together, it's still not all there. Planning takes time to, you can't afford to get things wrong the first time anymore. OWL may never have worked but E-ELT will be very cool indeed.

>>8624314
You really have no idea what your talking about do you.
Also that's why the nice simple metric mm is given on the right hand side.

Also that shit isn't used outside of eastern europe and russia..

>>8624329
Why can't we have nice things? What Jew is hogging all the money?

File: hqdefault.jpg (7KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 480x360px

>>8620980
>Sound like jar jar Binks

Fuck, can't hear it any other way now

>>8624346
>can't afford telescopes
>can afford millions of rapefugees

>>8624366
More like nobody wants to spend the small amount of money to home them so massive jungles are forming in the first few places they can get to and then many more problems are forming long term.


Like insulation. Sure you can have a house without insulation but you'll spend more long term in extra heating bills. If Europe had properly spaced them out so you get a few per town. The effect would have been negligible and would have helped the current population crisis with not enough young workers.

Instead they let them group together, form massive hive shantey towns and became a breeding ground for all sorts of political issues instead of just dealing with the problem at first.

>>8621587
>Why are they using their budget for science and actual advancements in the field when they could just do wasteful prestige projects so I feel less insecure about my small penis

>>8623670
So why do you keep going?

>>8621587
The soviets landed on venus multiple times, put the first space station up, put the first man up, put the first to orbit up, made the first eva, made the first two person eva, put the first women up, built part of the ISS, put the first probes on the moon, would have had a soil sample from the moon back just before apollo 11 returned (but it crashed sadly) and now NASA relies on them to put it's astronauts on the ISS with technology they developed in the 50's.

>>8621600
Actually only the engineering side of NASA (or rather the outsourced components) used american standard.
The calculations, number crunching even the Apollo guidance computer used metric. (although it displayed in custom units)

The science experiments both on the moon and ground where metric apart from when metric didn't have units.

The entire recovery and communication operation used metric and the custom units used by the navy at the time.

File: img_headerV2.jpg (18KB, 710x150px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 710x150px

>>8624568

Russians were true bad asses, especially when you factor in the GDP to achievement ratios. But this is not a Russia vs US thread, its a thread mocking how pitiful Europe is. The EU has a gdp 10x that of Russia and they cant even land a stationary platform on mars.

>>8624864
Oh look another idiot who doesn't know anything.
The ESA get's less than a third of NASA's budget.

The ESA is not a European Union organisation but is a space organisation set up by a number of European countries so it shares the same geological/political name of the area.

The Schiaparelli EDM lander that you refer to is part of a joint program called ExoMars by the ESA and Roscosmos (the russian space agency)

The EDM was designed to land as a bonus. It's was to demonstrate the ability to get to mar, enter, descend and then landing. Hence the name.

Remember Roskosmos have failures to such as Fobos-Grunt (which I helped track when a signal was received) and Mars 96. Most spacecraft that try to get to Mars die. It's very hard to do.

And the last thing to remember is we don't focus on Mars. We have had operations ranging from Huygens to Integral.

Then you have the fact that the ESA isn't the only "space" agency in Europe. You have different operations ranging from the ESO to the ISA. All these would come under the same title for NASA but for Europe it doesn't.

>>8625769
SpaceX is demonstrating that a proper rocket program doesn't need to cost tons, and you could have incrementally worked towards a fully reusable rocket on a budget of like 1 billion a year

>>8624462
>If Europe had properly spaced them out so you get a few per town.
kill yourself traitor
How many rapefugees live in your house ? Fucking piece of shit
Slit your throat or I'll do it for you

>>8620974
Remember how Republicans made a big stink a few years ago when Obama suggested making shit like diversity quotas and Muslim outreach a part of NASA's mission goal and the suggestions all got shot down?

Well the ESA actually does devote a sizable chunk of its time, money, and effort to shit like that.

>>8620974
>identifies himself as an european
>not his country of origin's nationality
kys

>>8625919
There is a refugee centre down the street from my work. It houses 100-300 people. They are some of the nicest people I have met all fleeing horrors.

But no you American inbred fuck tell me about what your altright fantasy circlejerk has told you.

My country killed millions before and the only reason it did that was people like you.

>>8625908
Why would we spend money doing that though? SpaceX is only good at what it does. We have rockets that are good at what they do (from putting probes on a comet to probes on Titan or satellites in orbit.)

The spaceX rocket currently is only looking at travelling to the ISS. Granted it may eventually go beyond that but that's a long way off. When we need to do that we use the Soyuz and perhaps one day SpaceX.

Why throw money at something we don't need when we can throw money at other stuff. No need to invent the wheel twice.

>>8625958
False. Afirmitive Action isn't legal in most of Europe.

>the ESA
ESA is an acronym not an initialism.

>>8625769
Technically ESO doesn't fall under NASA. NASA isn't invested in much ground based astronomy which causes tension because NSF believe it should fall under NASA, not them. The US ground based program is a mess, particularly so in the optical. ESO is a shining example of what can be done with a bit of organisation.

>>8627247
Because when SpaceX is doing 100+ launches a year by 2020 you'll be going out of business

>>8627262
>Afirmitive Action isn't legal in most of Europe.
They don't call it that, but it's there.

Plenty of business sectors are required to meet specific "diversity quotas"

>>8625769
>The EDM was designed to land as a bonus. It's was to demonstrate the ability to get to mar, enter, descend and then landing.
>Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM)
>It's was to demonstrate ... landing.
Landing wasn't a "bonus" of EDM. It was the main point.

They were demonstrating the capability of landing a scientific payload on Mars, to justify funding for future missions. Instead, they demonstrated the lack of a capability, putting the future of ESA's Mars program in doubt.

It wasn't even something they could attribute to bad luck. It was stupid programming, just like what caused the first flight of Ariane 5 to fail.

>The ESA get's less than a third of NASA's budget.
That's a huge amount of money and much more than the Soviets had to work with.

File: brainletsBTFO.png (366KB, 890x343px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 890x343px

>>8620974
USA MASTER RACE CHECKING IN

>>8628439
>Proof: Think.
ok m8

>>8627272
No we'll be doing the same as we are now. SpaceX are not sending probes to the outer solar system nor are they designing satellites. Cars still exist even though we have planes and you still walk even though we have submarines. The correct piece of tech is needed for the correct use.

If they do indeed get to that level (which considering it's Elon I'm very good at getting money Musk it's not very likely) we would just pay them for launches. Which doesn't look likely because putting a satellite in orbit is cheaper with single use rockets which we excel at.

>>8627402
>>8627402
Oh look another idiot who doesn't know what his talking about.

The Entry descent and landing demonstration module is a success. It's mission objectives were to carry out...

Separation, check
Earth to Mars hibernation, check
Survive entry of martian atmosphere at hypersonic speed, check
Ignite and control retrorocket. check (but to soon)
Control shutdown of retrorocket, check (but to soon)
Deploy parachute, check
Eject entry heat shield, check
Eject parachute, check (but to soon)
Deploy DREAMS, failed
Deploy DECA, check

It was caused by saturation of the IMU. Ariane 5 crash... really? I can only think of two crashes the one being engine failure which I don't know much about and the first Ariane 5 which had issues with the computer processing data from the INS. Although related to a IMU the nature of the problem was very different and on a different piece of kit.

There is no doubt about the ExoMars. I would like a source. Granted I work in a different department but I am yet to hear of any doubt about the ExoMars. In fact we are in scheduling time to plan for telemetry tracking for the proton launch for it.

>>8628641
>SpaceX are not sending probes to the outer solar system
...yet.

>nor are they designing satellites.
Yes they are. That's what SpaceX Seattle does.

>>8627247
>The spaceX rocket currently is only looking at travelling to the ISS
Do you mean their capsule? Because their rocket commonly launches to GTO and has launched beyond Earth orbit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory

They're also planning to launch a capsule to land on Mars next year.

>Why would we spend money doing that though?
The Ariane rockets are part of ESA's work. Airbus and Arianespace are ESA contractors for the Ariane series. They have "spent money doing that", much more of it for longer.

>>8628684
>The Entry descent and landing demonstration module is a success. It's mission objectives were to carry out...
>Eject parachute, check (but to soon)
>Deploy DREAMS, failed
Its mission objective was to demonstrate the capability of soft-landing a payload on Mars before doing something more expensive. Instead, the lander went full-retard mid-air, cut its parachute two miles in the air, set off a 3-second rocket fart with no concept of where the ground was, turned on its ground systems as if it had landed, and finally made a hundred-million Euro crater.

>It was caused by saturation of the IMU.
...and the grossly incompetent software handling of this predictable transient input, ignoring all other information available to the system which made it obvious that the vehicle was still miles above the surface.

This was just shit-quality software, like the Ariane 5 bug. Not tested properly.

>There is no doubt about the ExoMars.
Except it was supposed to launch in 2018 and be preceded by a successful demonstration of Mars landing capability. It's still three and a half years off, having previously slipped two years in the last three years.

The ESA bureaucracy went into full denial mode at this failure, and is marching forward as if nothing has gone wrong, but it's likely to slip past another window and quietly be cancelled, especially after SpaceX lands its far superior and much more affordable and repeatable lander.

>>8628743

Nor do they plan to anytime in the near future. We already can do that. So what is the threat there?

Their satellites are completely different to what we need. And they are yet to have a design anywhere near complete and the the microsat have had their launch date set back and back and backagain.

What they do and what the ESA do are not the same.

So the ESA already have satellites in orbit at lagrangian points. Herschel, Gaia and Planck are out there. We already have that capacity.

Exactly the Ariane rockets are already in our capacity. Why would we spend money doing what spaceX is doing when we can already do anything they are doing.

They are currently mostly looking at ISS resupply missions. We already have that capacity with the ATV. Which can take humans to. The Orion capsule is basically a modified ATV.

The original comment was
>SpaceX is demonstrating that a proper rocket program doesn't need to cost tons, and you could have incrementally worked towards a fully reusable rocket on a budget of like 1 billion a year

and

>Because when SpaceX is doing 100+ launches a year by 2020 you'll be going out of business

SpaceX is currently doing anything we don't already do nor do they plan to be any time soon. If people could stop licking Elon Musk balls and start investing in us for a change it would be really really nice.

oh, don't worry. It really won't be after a year with trump in charge.

>>8628794
Everything did as it designed to. Not piece of landing equipment failed. The IMU getting to maximum measurement for about a second was not predicted.

The error has since been corrected and since everything else worked fine with no problem as in if it wasn't for this unpredictable event it would have landed safely and everything from heatshield, parachutes opening and retro's kicking in and everything surviving to mars. Means it's a success.

Not ignoring everything else You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The IMU measures rotation of the spacecraft. The false reading when combined with every other piece of data available to the craft put it at negative altitude. This started the rest of landing procedure, parachute release, breaking thrusters ignition and then starting ground based operations.

You mean that hugely successful rocket which is still flying multiple times per year with our any issues at all since 2003.

You mean a demonstration and testing module did everything it was suppose to demonstrate perfectly. Then we found a bug we didn't predict and have now reproduced and fixed... such a failure except it wasn't.

It was suppose to launch in 2018. It's getting held back due to problems with the science payload. The next viable launch date is in July 2020 so the decision was made to move it to July 2020.

>>8627272
>Because when SpaceX is doing 100+ launches a year by 2020 you'll be going out of business

Is that in Elon time? In real time that's about 2040.

>>8628886
?
So you are saying that a sensor giving a bad reading was not something that was at all predicted?

The mission failed and it crashed. Don't think thats what was designed to happen.

>>8628843
>We already have that capacity with the ATV. Which can take humans to. The Orion capsule is basically a modified ATV.
No, you unbelievable chimp, the Orion *service module* is basically a modified ATV, not the Orion capsule. There's nothing on the ATV even close to being able to return humans to Earth safely.

>They are currently mostly looking at ISS resupply missions.
With their reusable rockets they mostly looking at:
1) crushing ArianeSpace out of the competition for anything but national security launches by member states,
2) destroying the value proposition of the current ESA, which is based on launches being extremely expensive, and therefore lots of bureaucratic overhead and absurdly expensive one-off probes should be tolerated.

>What they do and what the ESA do are not the same.
...except where they are. I'll point out again that the Ariane series is ESA.

>Why would we spend money doing what spaceX is doing when we can already do anything they are doing.
You can't:
1) put people in orbit, you can only go begging to the country of Putin or the country of Trump,
2) launch 50+ tonne payloads to LEO,
3) launch 50+ times per year,
4) launch large payloads for under $50 million,
5) land stuff on Mars.

SpaceX's current capabilities are nothing special. But what they're working on will destroy OldSpace.

>If people could stop licking Elon Musk balls and start investing in us for a change it would be really really nice.
You get more money than SpaceX, and you contribute basically nothing to progress by comparison. Just a "me too" agency, badly copying American and Soviet space programs.

>>8628902
In Elon time, they were already doing it last year. 2020 is accounting for Elon time.

>>8620974
false premise

Russia, however, is currently experiencing an utter collapse of their aerospace industry. Proton launches were just halted when they found cheaper, substandard alloys in critical parts of manufactured engines. Probably due to slashed budgets under Putin. Doesn't help that the other half of their fleet is grounded because no more Ukraine.

>>8629018
Trump will end sanctions

>>8627339
No it's not. They call it positive discrimination and it's illegal in most cases. Boardroom quotas are one of the few allowed ones but they have nothing to do with ESA.

>>8629025
That isn't going to fix the oil price.

>>8628909
The landing system which it was to demonstrate worked. The incorrect reading from the IMU caused the landing systems to trigger to soon. However they functioned as they should.

The IMU saturation was not predicted. We didn't think that would occur at that point. It meant the IMU was unable to give correct information for about 1 second.

>>8628932
Again to reiterate my point. Our needs are not spaceX's needs. We can get our stuff where it needs to be..

1. Neither can SpaceX or NASA. We currently use the Soyuz like NASA.
2 The Falcon 9 can't do that.
3 SpaceX can't do that. The only current launch system I know that has even flown that many times is the ariane 5 and soyuz.
4 Falcon 9 launch cost is above that, besides the Ariane 6 will be a lot better.
5, spaceX can't land on Mars. They are yet to put something into orbit around mars. We already have done that and if not for one component failure EDM would have done so. They have has possible mission planned for 2018 with tests sometime this year.

We have put a probe on Titan, landed on a comet, help operate the ISS, operate telescopes both on the planet and in space, do tons of ground based research on materials and human spaceflight, train our own astronauts, help pay for the upkeep of soyuz, develop vega and ariane 6, maintain and launch the ariane 5, are designing and implementing the Galileo navigation system, helped developed spacelab, developed artemis, cluster, ERS, PROBA, Venus express, Ulysses, Giotto.

Has spaceX done any of that. No, No it hasn't. So no it's not equal or better than us. It does it's own thing, it's own thing which we have no interest in because everything it can do that we want/need to do we can do.

>>8629025
But the EU won't end sanctions. The EU are the single biggest collective economy in the world and a large amount of it remembers being under soviet rule. I'm from Western Europe so I don't have that resentment but it's certainly there for Eastern Europe.

File: gdp.png (37KB, 1076x301px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1076x301px

>>8629098
>>8620979
False. EUROKEKS BTFO

>>8629105
Oh shit I stand corrected. Sorry.

We are close to 1st but still second. Catching up though.

Either way it's irreverent to my point. Russia is 12 on that list. Individually it loses against France (6) Italy (8) and the UK (5). It's trying to argue when it's got no room to argue. The EU put's sanctions on it and it's going to suffer.

>>8629092
>>You can't:
>> 1) put people in orbit, you can only go begging to the country of Putin or the country of Trump,
>1. Neither can SpaceX or NASA. We currently use the Soyuz like NASA.
You're not working on it, they are, and are near success. NASA has two contracted programs to produce this capability, one of which is SpaceX's.

>> 2) launch 50+ tonne payloads to LEO,
>2 The Falcon 9 can't do that.
You're not working on it, they are, and are near success. Falcon Heavy will do it, and should launch this year.

>> 3) launch 50+ times per year,
>3 SpaceX can't do that. The only current launch system I know that has even flown that many times is the ariane 5 and soyuz.
You're not working on it, they are, and are near success. Ariane 5 has accumulated lots of launches because it's two decades old, not because it has a high flight rate; it has never flown more than 7 times in a year. Last year Falcon 9 flew 8 times *without* reuse even though it spent a third of the year grounded. This year, they'll be demonstrating reflight, next year, they'll be using it seriously.

>> 4) launch large payloads for under $50 million,
>4 Falcon 9 launch cost is above that, besides the Ariane 6 will be a lot better.
You're not working on it, they are, and are near success. Falcon 9 *price* (not cost) is above that, and they'll lower prices as their reusability matures.

>> 5) land stuff on Mars.
>5, spaceX can't land on Mars. They are yet to put something into orbit around mars. We already have done that and if not for one component failure EDM would have done so. They have has possible mission planned for 2018 with tests sometime this year.
They're closer to doing it, are aiming for a greater capability, and have a more reasonable plan for it (using standard Earth-proven technology). In fact, they've already done more impressive things (propulsive landing under far more challenging conditions), so it won't be even slightly surprising when they succeed.

>>8629151
dnno if the Falcon Heavy will be structurally capable of large LEO payloads
The Falcon 9 certainly can't handle its "rated" LEO number

Space race with the Soviet Union forced competition and advancement. It's pretty much stagnated since their fall.

/thread

>>8629165
>The Falcon 9 certainly can't handle its "rated" LEO number
Yeah. And they'll definitely never land a rocket. It's all a big scam.

>>8629165
The fully-fueled upper stage is about 120 tonnes. The structure is designed for hypersonic flight while pushing a 5-meter-diameter fairing at about the same time as they're hitting 6g acceleration. You think it'll crumble if they put another ten tonnes on? Even if this were an issue, all they'd need to do is reprogram it to throttle down a bit sooner to limit maximum dynamic pressure and acceleration, lose a bit of efficiency.

>>8629175
Eh.

So much bullshit in this thread. NASA and ESA are two very different organisations with partially very different goals. ESA has practically no deep-space ambitions apart from a few prestige projects like Rosetta, JUICE and whatnot. The vast majority of ESA-related projects are about Earth observation or commercial applications / communications. Obviously you're going to see very different results you mongs.

>>8620974
Space race was started by Nazis, taken over by US and USSR, won by US.
/thread

File: 74855-004-A45A2C8F.jpg (41KB, 570x307px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 570x307px

>American engineering

>>8629366
>themoreyouknow.jpg

>>8629323
>ESA has practically no deep-space ambitions apart from a few prestige projects like Rosetta, JUICE and whatnot.
And Giotto, and Mars Express and Venus Express and TGO and Huygens and SMART-1 and BepiColombo and Solar Orbiter.

No Deep Space ambitions at all. Bullshit. Rosetta and JUICE were not selected as prestige projects, they competed for those slots on the basis of the science. ESA's science division is bigger than it's telecom and applications division.

>>8629151
ha ha you've lost this.

>>8629277
go back to playing kerbal.

>>8629151
Except as the other guy said they don't need that.

And we have no proof the falcon can do any of that other than a long string of press conferences and musk getting more investment from his cuck cult.

>>8629366
beautiful shooting star

>>8629366
And don't forget

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE

>>8629779
That was more of a management error. The engineers continually brought up that it shouldn't be launched and in fact the chief engineer of the firm that built the defective rocket refused to sign the launch release so a manager did it instead

>>8629670
>they don't need that
Sure, like someone playing around with replicas of WWI biplanes doesn't need a modern jet. As long as it's just a hobby, and they're not expecting government funding or anything.

>we have no proof the falcon can do any of that
We have no proof that the ESA will ever be able to land on Mars, even in twenty or fifty years at ten times their current funding level. But it would be pretty stupid to think they don't need at most a few more tries, if they're allowed to take them.

Falcon 9 first stage reuse will work, and will save money and increase launch rates (it would accomplish this even if all they were doing was pulling the engines off to refurbish and put on new rockets -- that's what ULA's reuse plan is and they say it'll save 60% of the first stage cost). Falcon Heavy will work. Crew Dragon will work. Red Dragon will work (not necessarily on the first try).

How do we know this? Because these are all modest steps forward from a company that has demonstrated competence on a similar level in the recent past. A single decade ago, they had never put anything in orbit. Half a decade ago, they had demonstrated a small-lift vehicle, a medium-lift vehicle, and a capsule which docked at the ISS, safely returned cargo to the surface, and, in principle, could carry crew to and from LEO. Since then, they've launched comsats to GTO, launched to polar orbits, launched beyond Earth orbit, upgraded their medium-lift vehicle to the low end of heavy-lift, become one of the world's most active launch services, and started routinely landing their first stages after launch.

The people who did these things largely still work there. Their best people aren't leaving, they're not running out of money. There's no reason to doubt in the next five years they'll start routinely reflying propulsively landed stages, flying the triple-core configuration of their rocket, carrying passengers, and doing propulsive landing on Mars.

>>8630067
brainlet detected.

>>8623655
I can't even decide if you're a very good troll or a real idiot.

File: ESA_budget_2017_by_domain_node_full_image_2.jpg (90KB, 700x526px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 700x526px

>>8629503
These are still just a small fraction of the total budget. It's not a priority, simply due to the rather small return of investment. Very few people give a shit about whether we can detect a certain type of rock on Mars.

>>8622362
>Vega launch vehicle is a disaster
A disaster with a full record of successful launches.

>>8623655
The metric system was create by french to unite their country and destroy the nobility power(every city had their own system at the time). Next time you will say that the climat change is a chinese hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system#Features

>>8622014
Thank god for great Americans like Wernher Von Braun. Wait...

>>8620974
EU is like a babby USSR at this point.
ESA is like the Soviet space program, only with about 1/1000th the funding and slave labour.

File: 1472815395448.png (23KB, 1644x189px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1644x189px

>>8629105
Stay butttriggered americuck

Soon Paplo won`t be able to fuck your wife anymore

>>8633229
Do you not understand that "continental" means "mainland European", especially "French"? A "continental breakfast" is the English idea of a French breakfast.

>The metric system was create by french to unite their country and destroy the nobility power
"The metric system was designed to be universal—in the words of the French philosopher Marquis de Condorcet it was to be "for all people for all time""

As you say, and as I pointed out, the French didn't have a standard. However, they didn't come up with the idea in a vaccuum. The English, right next door and in constant contact and frequent conflict, DID have a standard, and that was a major factor in their industrial and technological superiority.

They wanted what the English had, but they wanted their version to be different and incompatible and they wanted to spread it across Europe and around the world, isolating England and its holdings and putting pressure on it to accept the expense and confusion of re-standardizing. So where the English system grew out of experience and along with the developing science, Metric was invented all in a rush of half-baked ideas.

File: 1460075232910.jpg (71KB, 740x657px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 740x657px

>>8633615
>the English system grew out of experience and along with the developing science
lel

>>8620974
>nasa
>successful

They make good fake movies senpai, although sloppy cgi at times.

>>8633626
This

Americans are to stupid to land on the moon

>>8633624
50%
thats what we call "progress"
eventually there will be no white people at all
notice how the number of really old whites declines, no doubt thats non-white care givers murdering them

File: soyuz_family.gif (32KB, 387x506px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 387x506px

Everyone ready for ESA's first launch of the year in five minutes?

File: soyuz-rocketcam.webm (1MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x360px

>>8634510
thank you ESA for finally putting a rocketcam on a Soyuz to capture a closeup of the booster jettison

>>8634513
webcast here:

http://www.arianespace.com/mission/ariane-flight-vs16/

Go ESA

>>8634518
2nd stage sep OK.

This is the first time ESA has used a Soyuz for a GTO satellite.

why do they have such long upper stage burns

>>8634573
because it is using relatively low-ISP storable propellants (UDMA) instead of high-energy hydrolox like Centaur or Ariane 5.

>>8634550
satellite separation, mission successful