Thread replies: 531
Thread images: 99
Thread images: 99
Anonymous
SpaceX Pregame Thread 2017-02-18 08:19:06 Post No. 8683811
[Report] Image search: [Google]
SpaceX Pregame Thread 2017-02-18 08:19:06 Post No. 8683811
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 1450749724400.jpg (115KB, 1324x866px) Image search:
[Google]
115KB, 1324x866px
T - 7 hours
Patrician Streams
>https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8U2KXZzvtA
Plebeian Normalfag (Hosted) Stream:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5bG37hzwqk
>>
File: 31579784413_83aeac560a_o.jpg (2MB, 2887x1925px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 2887x1925px
>>
File: 32945170805_44e5c8199e_k.jpg (1MB, 1365x2048px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1365x2048px
rocket on the pad
>>
File: AxRsK1Q.jpg (375KB, 3107x2330px) Image search:
[Google]
375KB, 3107x2330px
>>
Going by statistics they will manage 10 launches this year before another rocket blows up
>>
So, ive heard a rumor of a leak, but that shit is still "go". Anyone heard anything else?
>>
>>8683935
if that's the case, it's probably on the strongback tubing and not the rocket
>>
>>8683935
a small leak doesn't mean shit
you are always doing some venting of LOX
>>
File: Capture.png (76KB, 587x360px) Image search:
[Google]
76KB, 587x360px
>>8683935
>>
>>8683957
how come all their problems are in the upper stages
>>
File: Jeff_Bezos.jpg (13KB, 560x315px) Image search:
[Google]
13KB, 560x315px
>>8683811
>Blue Origin Reporting in
I came for the catastrophic explosions during launch but I stayed for the memes
>>
>>8683970
I come for rockets, explosions, landings and memes. Anything involving rockets are great
>>
Daily reminder that Mars will get COLONIZED.COM in our life time
>>
>>8683998
TFW Trump may actually be a good thing for Space since he's probably going to cancel the waste of resources that is SLS in favor of contracting with SpaceX to get the ITS done.
>>
>>8684001
Trump has several meetings every day with business, workers, unions, etc. And Musk has been to at least 4 of those. And considering that Trump loves YUGE projects, you can bet he will fund both NASA and give contracts to private companies, even if his only goal is to have a Trump hotel on Mars.
>>
>>8684011
he's already defunded the fuck out of most of NASA's operations though, especially their climatology and polar ice monitoring activities.
>>
>>8684019
That makes sense. Mankind must leave this expendable planet behind
>>
>>8684019
>climatology and polar ice monitoring
Literally worthless money sinks. We need real space exploration, not bullshit liberal pandering.
>>
>>8684001
trump will be a good thing full stop m8
>>
>>8684029
truthfully, I do want to see SLS canceled. It's a pretty big waste when we have several private companies like Spacex, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada corp building orbital capable capsules.
Add that to the still viable designs of the Constellation program which would have provided the deep space reach, but are now up in the air due to ITS proposed capabilities
>>8684044
must be nice to be both this naive and uninformed. While I'm all for deep-space human exploration, I'd at least like to have a planet to come home to that wasn't burning alive.
>>
>>8684048
>sinking billions in worthless climate satellites will somehow force China to stop polluting
wow, you are retarded
>>
>>8684055
those satelites do a shitload more than just climatology, they also monitor the health of key open water fishery zones, the impact of severe weather on crop growth, and the spread of dangerous particulate from forest fires and volcanoes.
the bennifit for the ag industry alone is tremendous, as massive farming operations can use the data gathered for better crop and field management. Firefighters can see the spread of massive wildfires, and the impact of coming weather, as well as monitor the recovery of large swaths of land devastated by fire without needing a helicopter ride all the time.
Marine biologists can track the spread of dangerous algae blooms or oil spills that can seriously fuck with fishery production.
Ships can use the ice sheet data to effectively navigate around the arctic ocean.
And low-lying cities will be able to prepare based on marsland loss data for sea level rise, which in my lifetime alone I've seen add 8 feet to high-tide within the past 20 years in San Diego harbor.
to deny access to these climatology satellites is to also lose access to everything else their data provides.
since you republitards are all about "BUH MUH ECONOMY" This should make sense to you.
>>
>>8684074
sea level has not risen 8 feet..
>>
>>8683998
>tfw I'm studying physics and calculus and all kinds of engineering full time at all time and switching to a polyphasic sleep schedule to facilitate additional study to help reach that goal
But like, what's going on here? What the hell did I miss!? We /space/?
Give me the rundown that I've clearly been ignorant of current events
>>
>>8684080
>8 feet at high tide
>in a harbor
choke points tend to have higher amounts of movement. pic related:
https://i.imgur.com/TTuO6tm.gifv
>>
>>8684074
>bullshit arguments
>calling me a republican
Nigger, I don't care about politics. All the things you listed is not worth shit. I want more space telescopes and robotic probes to planets/moons. Get your hippy bullshit back to plebbit.
>>
>>8684084
Start here http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
If you have specific questions just ask.
>>
>>8684089
it'll be real fun when your house burns down from a forest fire and you starve due to a massive crop frost that could have been seen and prevented
>>
Oh fuck me I live in South Florida will I be able to see liftoff or at least a trail or some shit? I've got a cousin with a telescope I can probably use
>>
>>8684074
How likely is it that one of his advisors will do their job and convince trump to reinvest into tech?
>>
>>8684099
I was able to see the Space shuttle from as far south as Dayton, so maybe
>>
>>8684101
Dade*
fuck this phone
>>
>>8684095
>sinking billions in useless satellites will stop Cletus from starting a fire
>sinking billions in useless satellites will stop China from polluting
>sinking billions in useless satellites will stop retarded politicians from misusing water supplies
again, you are retarded
>>
>>8684106
>being able to call china out on their shit
that alone makes them worth it
add that to how many jobs that building the things provide. Northrop and Lockheed alone employ thousands for assembly, not to mention the fuckloads of other contractors they work with.
>>
>>8684113
>sinking money is good because it allows us to sink money
holy fucking shit
>>
>>8684113
>doesn't understand the concept of wasting money and hides behind "muh job creation"
>what is opportunity cost
>>
>>8684114
all this shit is just peanuts compared to welfare & corruption
who gives a shit
The only problem with a lot of this waste is that it goes to pork programs rather than real space programs.
>>
>>8684105
Oh shit for real I'm in Dade. How visible was it? I won't need a telescope? If I knew about this earlier I would have gotten it yesterday but I don't want to wake anyone up for this even if it is for fucking /SPACE/
>>
>>8684114
>>8684117
and now we've come full circle to SLS and why that's just a jobs program
This, in essence, is a jobs program as well.
Hell, all of Space exploration currently is just a jobs program for the respective nation doing the exploration. there's no money yet being made pulling resources down from asteroids, or building shit for industry.
Private sector stuff like communications aside, there's no money being made yet in deep space, so why do you care either way?
>>
>>8684122
It launches at 10 or later
You probably won't see it if its in the middle of the sun
>>
>>8684126
Damn balls not even with a telescope? Fuck it I'll watch the stream from outside anyways
>>
>>
>>8684125
My argument from the start was that building exploration probes and space telescopes is still going to create jobs, and spending on weather satellites is a waste in comparison.
>pulling resources down from asteroids
That's retarded on many levels. It's not about pulling the stuff down. It's about private companies mining resources in space, to use them in space for fuel and construction of space stations that could be used for tourism and research.
>>
> A United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket, designated AV-068, will launch a classified spacecraft payload for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office. The rocket will fly in the 401 vehicle configuration with a four-meter fairing, no solid rocket boosters and a single-engine Centaur upper stage. Delayed from Dec. 1, Jan. 26 and Feb. 9. [Feb. 13]
>>
>>8684128
IIRC I think it was STS-29 I saw launch, and you could clearly see the contrail from the thing as it climbed to 400k feet, then leveled off and started it's orbital burn
>>
>>8684144
STS-129*
seriously, fuck this phone, goddamn
>>
>>8684144
>>8684146
I'm definitely looking north once it launches.
I'm envy my friend that lives further north in the middle of the fucking woods. Gonna tell that kid to look north.
Fuck I'm inspired to study more these next few hours. I want to learn all kinds of fields so I can cross-pollinate knowledge into hopefully creating new tech. I should learn Python huh? Only learning C++ at this point
>>
>>8684161
>Python
sure, if you want to be like every other shit Indian dev on github
>>
File: Angry Chin 3455.jpg (8KB, 146x105px) Image search:
[Google]
8KB, 146x105px
>>8683811
Shiiiit, almost forgot!
>2:22:00
FUCK!!! I have to pick someone up at the exact time the rocket launches.
>>
File: Chin 3456.jpg (45KB, 282x363px) Image search:
[Google]
45KB, 282x363px
>>8684193
>schedule changed
Okay, now I'm ready.
>>
>>8684166
It seems I should be learning HAL/S instead
>>
File: FALCON-9.png (11KB, 362x453px) Image search:
[Google]
11KB, 362x453px
Every single time I've been able to watch a SpaceX launch Live something went wrong. I've yet to watch the fucker land the 1st stage. Every time I've not been able to watch it Live they have had 100% success.
Should I watch this one?
>>
>>
>>8684210
yes
>>
>>8684214
>>8684210
Explosions incoming.
>>
>>8684221
Noooo
>>
>>8684074
Sane reasonable post in a thread full of people that want to see something go pew pew into space.
>>
>>8684221
"ULA sniper funded by Jewish Illuminati" you mean
>>
File: spacex.jpg (200KB, 855x1201px) Image search:
[Google]
200KB, 855x1201px
>>
File: gallery-webb-telescope_0.jpg (199KB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
199KB, 1280x720px
>>8684222
>>8684225
I'm going to watch the launch of the JWST too.
>>
File: Tellytubbys.jpg (62KB, 600x809px) Image search:
[Google]
62KB, 600x809px
>>8684229
It would be awful and everything, but just imagine if the JWST blew up during launch...
>>
>>8684229
Fucking monster
>>
>>8684213
Actually yeah I'm up for that lifetime challenge. Being currently bilingual I've been learning Italian it's really an extension of Spanish concepts. Learning that will facilitate French which will in turn make Creole a breeze. I've started on learning some reading concepts for Katakana but there's definitely more work to be done there. I really should take advantage of the information superhighway and learn as much as I can. After I've knocked all of that out I should start learning Mandarin and Russian so I may have entry to the major centres of the world. Do Africans have a centralized language?
>>
File: Untitled.png (6KB, 218x335px) Image search:
[Google]
6KB, 218x335px
>>8684246
If and when you have children, remember that children learn languages faster up until they are around 8 years old. So, cram as many root languages into their skulls as possible. After around 8yo the human brain sort of loses that ability which makes learning new languages much more difficult in comparison. This is true for spoken language and programming language. Thus, learn as much as you can so you can teach your children as much as possible as early as possible. Knowing 15 spoken languages and 10 programming languages as a child will make up for any other weaknesses in life. That's a shoe in for government jobs with serious kickbacks and starter Grades.
>Do Africans have a centralized language?
Swahili
>>
File: SpaceX Next Phase - 3mb - no sound.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 640x360px
>>8684246
>>8684253
>>8684213
I learned Latin for the most part and holy fuck, it really allows you to understand a shit load of other languages to a certain point. I'm shit at spoken languages, but when it is written down it all sort of clicks together because of the Latin.
>>
File: dfglqfgljq.png (48KB, 632x406px) Image search:
[Google]
48KB, 632x406px
I'll just leave this here
>>
>>
>>8684146
STS-129 was a perfect launch. I was there too.
Feels weird seeing a Falcon on the same pad now.
>>
File: SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 1-3.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 640x360px
>>8684277
*Hearty chortles*
>>8684278
Space is cool. When launches are counting down the threads usually get fairly exciting.
>>
File: SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 2-3.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 640x360px
>>8684295
>>
File: SpaceX Falcon 9 Development Supercut 3-3.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 640x360px
>>8684299
>>
just go to Mars Elon please reeeee
>>
What a beautiful day.
>>
Nobody cares about space. Fix our problems here on earth instead of wasting money on useless toys that pollute not only ours but other worlds too.
>>
>>8684316
NASA only uses less than 0.5% of the national budget.
Space exploration is an investment to improve our life.
>>
>>8684267
seriously, any european language deepens the understanding of other european languages like latin does.
>>
>>8684316
We all know throwing money at problems solves them.
I mean, we spend 99.5% of it on problem solving. Obviously spending the extra .5% will do the trick.
>>
File: neo nazi skinhead.jpg (103KB, 423x279px) Image search:
[Google]
103KB, 423x279px
>>8684316
>media complains that the mexican border wall will cost slightly more than NASA's budget
>doesn't mention NASAs budget is fuck all
>mfw
>>
>>8684316
There is literally no reason why can't do both,
Also advances in space science and engineering could solve problems on earth.
>>
>>
>>
>>8684364
>palatable
kek
>>
File: Pleased Chin.png (1MB, 893x789px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 893x789px
>>8683811
30 mins music has started!!!!!
>>
>>8684229
What rocket will they use to launch this?
>>
>>8684386
Ariane 5
>>
>>8684386
Soyuz-2
>>
>>8684386
USS Enterprise
>>
>>8683811
>20mins
Footage starting!
>>
File: 1328814340062.jpg (38KB, 387x600px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 387x600px
OH SHI-
IT'S STARTING
THIS IS NOT A DRILL
>>
File: 1485731072656.jpg (20KB, 358x400px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 358x400px
This fucking guy
>>
I think 1/10 chance it has a RUD
>>
Did he just say "repellent loading"?
>>
What's the payload? ISS supplies?
>>
>>8684430
Yes, it helps repel the rocket from earth
>>
>>8684433
Dragon dildos and lube for ISS.
>>
>>8684433
yes, a few mousetronauts and other experiments and probably some food.
>>
it's 2am and this is just making me want to play kerbal space program
>>
>>8684441
Dude, space lmao
>>
>>8684433
SAGE
Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment
http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/sage-3/
And other things
https://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-declared-go-for-historic-debut-launch-from-lc-39a/
>>
Just lit up some Yoda OG kush. Ready for some ayys
>>
File: 1387798054056.gif (2MB, 325x213px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 325x213px
>>8684440
>moustronauts
CUTE!
>>
Is the countdown net audio too quiet for anyone else?
>>
>>8684452
They're gonna die up there.
>>
>>8684452
they'll live for a while, then get killed, frozen to -80 degrees, then brought back to be dissected.
science a CUTE!
>>
>>8684386
Saturn V
>>
File: Advised.png (131KB, 304x304px) Image search:
[Google]
131KB, 304x304px
>Weather is green
>>
>>8684455
Of space cancer?
>>
>>8684455
Hopefully they can eat them then
>fresh meat is back on the menu, boys!
>>
>>8684452
they euthanize them on station
and dissect them to do research
there really important though. especially for reproduction research, seeing how zygotes develop and stuff
>>
>>8684465
Fuck yeah. Space abortion. We're really pushing the boundary of science.
>>
N•O•M•I•N•A•L
>>
File: 1461898692470.jpg (355KB, 994x1498px) Image search:
[Google]
355KB, 994x1498px
I love the sound of the LOX venting
Sounds like a Dragon desu
>>
>>8684450
Thanks
>>
>inb4 boat
>>
File: 1485620976913.jpg (209KB, 1152x864px) Image search:
[Google]
209KB, 1152x864px
It's going
>>
SINK THE WAYWARD BOATS
>>
FUCKING GO YOU PIECE OF SHIT
>>
>>8684466
easier than having the crew smash :^)
>>
File: 1460150269109.jpg (175KB, 1324x866px) Image search:
[Google]
175KB, 1324x866px
Who /boat/ here?
>>
>>8684471
Trump won't be like Obama, he will approve torpedo launches.
>>
S•T•A•R•T•U•P
>>
HOLD HOLD HOLD
???
>>
HOLD HOLD HOLD
>>
FFFUUUUUUCK
>>
HOLD HOLD HOLD
>>
HOLD HOLD HOLD
>>
SOILED
>>
HODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLLHODDDDDDLLLLLLLLL
>>
File: 1351551893088.jpg (37KB, 500x375px) Image search:
[Google]
37KB, 500x375px
HOLD HOLD HOLD
>>
File: 1475006085628.png (211KB, 600x451px) Image search:
[Google]
211KB, 600x451px
Meme.
>>
RIP
>>
ITS OVER
TRUMP IS FINISHED
>>
see you guys tomorrow
>>
File: SpaceX Launch.webm (722KB, 576x432px) Image search:
[Google]
722KB, 576x432px
CLOCK STOPPED
>>
File: 1460234947589.jpg (9KB, 211x246px) Image search:
[Google]
9KB, 211x246px
>HOLD HOLD HOLD
>>
File: hold hold hold.gif (42KB, 600x599px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 600x599px
>>
ABORT
>>
File: 1357627499935.jpg (11KB, 192x245px) Image search:
[Google]
11KB, 192x245px
>-00:00:13
13
>>
BLUE BALLS
>>
File: 1484247471654.png (367KB, 568x454px) Image search:
[Google]
367KB, 568x454px
HOLD
>>
File: spacex-1420531092605.gif (41KB, 600x599px) Image search:
[Google]
41KB, 600x599px
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
>>
A B O R T E D
>>
this is worse than the time the prostitute told me my time was up before I came
>>
Wow It's fucking nothing
>>
>>8684505
FUCKING TVC ISSUE
Tomorrow 9:38EST!!!
>>
Is it expensive to not launch?
>>
What happened?
>>
>>8684515
legalised space abotion
>>
lmao what a joke.
>>
Can someone tell me what this rocket is for?
Are they delivering something? Taking someone?
>>
Elon "Cucky the cuck man" Musk
>>
File: ronfuck.jpg (31KB, 600x406px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 600x406px
>00:13
FUCK
>>
>>8684515
Second stage issue, as always.
>>
File: wake me up inside.webm (643KB, 640x360px) Image search:
[Google]
643KB, 640x360px
>>
>>8684514
Fuel is like 1% of the rocket launch cost. THey will have to replace the fuel tomorrow.
So it's cheaper to abort than blow up a rocket.
>>
File: 1343943244243s.jpg (2KB, 125x93px) Image search:
[Google]
2KB, 125x93px
>No Fap
>No Launch
>No gf
>>
>>8684514
a shitton less than a rocket blowing up
>>
24 HOURS????
FUCK YOU SPACE X
>>
>>8684518
crashing it into soviet satellites
>>
>>8684518
delivering stuff and bringing stuff back from ISS.
>>
How anticlimactic. I was expecting an explosion
>>
YOU HAD ONE JOB THRUST VECTOR CONTROL
>>
>>8684509
So much for keeping it in the family, huh?
>>
File: 1466466467124.png (235KB, 661x716px) Image search:
[Google]
235KB, 661x716px
Greetings from /eog/
>>
File: God Damn It Son Of A Bitch.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 1280x720px
FUUUUCK
>>
this is for those who just had a coitus interruptus today like me. Im out to jerk off on that pic.
fuck you Elon.
>>
File: babymop.jpg (64KB, 450x890px) Image search:
[Google]
64KB, 450x890px
>>
>>8684527
23 actually.
>>
Why are we still letting this clown blow up rockets?
>>
>>8684547
Actually it's 23 and a half.
>>
>>8684514
>Is it expensive to not launch?
It's very expensive. Their main problem for the last few years has been launch rate. If they launch half as often, they get paid half as much, and there can even be additional penalties for non-performance of contracts they signed. If there's a rocket sitting on the pad, they can't get the next one ready, so they reschedule everything to be later.
Putting off one day doesn't cost much, but if they can't launch tomorrow (and frankly, it's unlikely that they will resolve an issue of this type overnight) this could easily turn into a multi-week delay of their whole program.
>>
>>8684525
>saving thumbnails
Brainlet
>>
Standing down to take a closer look at positioning of the second stage engine nozzle. 9:38am ET tomorrow is next earliest launch opportunity
@SpaceX 4:05 AM - 19 Feb 2017
>>
I missed the steam.
WTF happened?
>>
>>8684554
They don't need to resolve the problem, they just need to decide that it's not something that will cause a failure
>>
>>8684554
Tomorrow also has weather issues iirc.
>>
>>8684558
It blew up.
>>
File: tumblr_inline_ntgslfKWCu1sysrze_400.jpg (23KB, 385x385px) Image search:
[Google]
23KB, 385x385px
Elon got me sad
I used to be glad
now I'm gonna get mad
>>
>>8684558
Launch scrubbed. 2nd stage thruster issue.
Try again tomorrow.
>>
>>8684558
Aborted at T-13s due to concerns with the TVC system. Specifically the position of the second stage engine nozel.
>>
>>8684558
it went boom boom
they are assessing the damages right now
>>
>>8684558
RUD
>>
>>8684550
His money you fagget
>>
Why are americans so shitty in space exploration ?
>>
File: CRS10-TBC.jpg (125KB, 1366x768px) Image search:
[Google]
125KB, 1366x768px
>>
>>8684559
That's a resolution. Anyway, I don't think they're going to decide it's not a problem. It's a leak in their upper stage helium system. Problems with the upper stage helium system have been responsible for both losses of payload they'd had.
They can't afford to have more payload losses.
>>
File: 1486330823882.jpg (59KB, 800x513px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 800x513px
/agdg/ reporting in
Space Musk killed my dreams of just making spess game.
>>
File: 1465615725148.jpg (70KB, 500x375px) Image search:
[Google]
70KB, 500x375px
>>8684569
nice try, nigger
>>
>>8684573
Oh, per Elon Musk's tweet, I guess it's not the helium leak they were talking about yesterday, but a new problem with the steering hydraulics on the upper stage.
Still very worrying. I doubt they'll just decide it was nothing and proceed tomorrow.
>>
File: 75109a783050c086da726a7047fe2708d927181cb5f9b26837e1fc20334e0d37.jpg (6KB, 255x191px) Image search:
[Google]
6KB, 255x191px
>>8684569
what country are you from anon?
>>
>>8684576
You may have been good in the past but now even India beats the US
>>
>>8684572
heh, you should make a Roundabout webm timed to previous second stage explosion
>>
>>8684579
Well if they could get some sort of waiver from the government, and not need to stand down the fleet if the 2nd stage fails
Or they could take the rocket down and replace it with the next one to still hopefully launch on schedule
>>
when are they planning to relaunch a first stage? is it months away or weeks away?
>>
This shit makes me wonder how many of our nuke ICBM's would actually fly if we needed em
>>
>>8684591
That's why we have thousands ready to launch. Ensures some will make it.
>>
>>8684591
It was recently revealed that a British one on a test flight went in the wrong direction.
>>
>>8684438
>Dragon dildos and lube
This rocket literally is a giant Dragon dildo, fueled by lube (RP-1)!
>>
>>8684588
March - SES-10 mission.
>>
>>8684591
They are solid fuel rockets, very reliable, but yea probably a large fraction would fail because they are old af
>>
>>8684591
/k/ here
they are a more simple and perfected technology. all of the problems they had with the rocket today were with the second stage. an ICBMs we use have multiple stages but they are less complicated. They constantly check them over and we have a fuck load of them. The US has a posture that relies on us first striking anyone one who starts preparing a launch.
>>
>>8684575
>/agdg/ reporting
Fucking nigger
>>
File: 1428162056507.jpg (52KB, 742x720px) Image search:
[Google]
52KB, 742x720px
>that junk will get us to Mars
>>
>>8684649
>mars
>chemical rockets
>>
>>8684554
>If there's a rocket sitting on the pad, they can't get the next one ready, so they reschedule everything to be later.
At least they will soon have two working launch pads in the KSC area. Boca Chica should be ready next year, but I think they are only allowed to launch one per month from there. And then there's Vandenberg, but that's for polar launches.
>>
>>8684610
solid fuel helps a lot.
SpaceX's problem has always been liquid fuel/oxygen/helium leaks.
>>
>>8684586
>Well if they could get some sort of waiver from the government, and not need to stand down the fleet if the 2nd stage fails
They'd need to anyway. Their customers and insurance providers wouldn't accept this kind of half-assed attitude toward the $100+ million payloads they're launching and $billion+ enterprises they're supporting.
This is a point I like to make: SpaceX doesn't have a "failure rate" in the conventional sense, like an ammunition factory might have one in ten thousand rounds be a dud for year after year. What they have is an ongoing development process. They don't keep doing things in the same way, and shit randomly goes wrong, they're still finding and fixing bugs in a rocket that's flying, but not really done.
It's like Ariane 5 or Atlas V doesn't have a "failure rate", they just had some issues early on. After they worked the initial bugs out, you'd need a much larger sample than they've produced so far to establish what their failure rate is.
Unlike Ariane 5 or Atlas V, Falcon 9 is still undergoing major evolutionary development after initial release, so it's reaching maturity more slowly, and with major new systems and procedures, the potential for "infant morality" bug discoveries is renewed (as in the case of Ariane 5 suffering a failure on the first attempted launch of the ECA variant).
If SpaceX starts pulling this kind of shit with Falcon 9, just crossing their fingers and hoping for the best, not stopping to fix things when they've had a problem, they will have a failure rate, like Proton. They'll have a significant probability of failure per launch that's reliably known and can't be expected to go down sharply after each failure. *On top* of their problem of trying to sell launches of valuable payloads on a constantly-changing development platform.
>>
>>8684731
I gotta imagine that there is a large amount of companies who will gladly accept a 1/10 failure rate if it means years off a waiting list for launching.
Every month their bird isn't in orbit, they are missing out on revenue
I'm not saying just cross their fingers and hope for the best, but when a failure happens for some one-off & never again reason, I don't see why they need to ground the fleet
>>
File: 1443816131090.png (35KB, 537x515px) Image search:
[Google]
35KB, 537x515px
>>8684731
>you'd need a much larger sample than they've produced so far to establish what their failure rate is
kek
>>
>>8684277
kek
>>
>>8685033
>I gotta imagine that there is a large amount of companies who will gladly accept a 1/10 failure rate if it means years off a waiting list for launching.
But will it mean years off a waiting list? ...and because these are new failure modes, they don't know what the probability of reoccurence would be without investigating them first.
SpaceX has spent less than a year grounded to investigate and fix failures. At best, continuing to launch without fixing their issues would have got them another ten launches or so, out of over 40 on their manifest. And after their first failure, they didn't just resume launches, they went to a new model and made their first successful landing.
If you blow up a launchpad, it can take years to get it working again. Today's launch would have been the first from a new launchpad, which was not ready to go for the return to flight. At least for non-polar flights, they've been grounded longer by the loss of a launchpad than by the investigation and fix of the issue.
To really get their rate up and clear their manifest, they need to move to the next model (being referred to as Block 5) and then get experience with it.
>>8685062
Did you understand that was in reference to Atlas V and Ariane 5? They've clearly got their failure rate down to 2% or less, so they'd have to continue operating for hundreds of flights to establish a reliable steady-state probability of failure.
>>
>>8685093
>they'd have to continue operating for hundreds of flights to establish a reliable steady-state probability of failure
there's only two rockets in history with enough flights to meet your absurd criteria
>hurr you can't divide number by number unless number is >2000
>>
>>8685115
Let's say you ride a bicycle regularly. You learned when you were 6 years old, and are now 26.
Should we calculate your fall rate by dividing the number of falls since you first got on a bike at 6 years old by the miles you've traveled until now? Or would a more useful number for your fall rate be calculated after omitting your early period of clumsy learning? And if you haven't fallen at all since then, do you think it would be useful to calculate a fall rate at all? Or do you simply say they haven't fallen and there isn't enough data to produce a metric that's indicative of their probability of future falls.
Let's compare two riders who each have ridden their bicycles 10000 miles in their lifetimes (100 miles before the age of 12, the rest spread roughly equally over every year afterward):
Rider X started riding at 6 years old and fell 100 times before the age of 12, but now is 40 years old and has never fallen once since.
Rider Y started riding at 10 years old and fell 20 times before the age of 12, and now is 40 years old and has fallen once a year since.
Who is currently the safer bicycle rider? What is their total lifetime fall rate? What is their mature rider fall rate? Which metric is worth having? Do we have, in this data, a way to reasonably set the probability per mile or per year of Rider falling?
>>
File: 456985678.png (51KB, 618x418px) Image search:
[Google]
51KB, 618x418px
What's his endgame?
>>
>>8685175
>probability
moving the goal posts
improve your reading comprehension before replying next time
>>
>>8684210
And, as I sat there watching, it was called off. If I miss seeing it tomorrow it will launch/land perfectly.
>>
>>8685176
Company gonna go bankrupt if they fuck up another launch site
>>
>>8685183
You really still don't understand? How about this, then?
You're in your car. Ten minutes ago you were parked, moving at 0 km/h, but you put the car in gear and begin to gain speed. After one minute, you were at 100 km/h, a speed you have consistently maintained for the last nine minutes.
What is your rate of acceleration now? What will your rate of acceleration be after ten more minutes of maintaining the same speed? When estimating either based on the data available, should you factor in the first minute? How about your rate of speed now? Should you factor in the rest of the day the car spent parked?
"Rate" without qualifiers (like "average rate") implies an ongoing condition, something that is currently true, or was continuously true for the relevant period. If you mean "average rate" then say "average rate" and admit that what you're saying doesn't reflect the current reality. For uncommon occurrences (like failures per launch attempt), a rate must be probabilistic: you can't have a realized 10% failure rate in a single launch.
If you say something like, "At the start of 1988, the Space Shuttle had a 4% failure rate, but it went down over time until January 2003 where it reached a minimum of 0.9% before jumping back up to 1.8% and finally settling down to 1.5% in 2011 where it has remained ever since." it's nonsense. The concept of a "failure rate" just doesn't apply usefully when there are just a handful of singular failures, nor can it have a current failure rate since it has stopped launching forever.
On the other hand, it's meaningful to say Proton has a failure rate of about 10%, since there's a large sample and failures have been sprinkled randomly through its flight history, and separating out the early years doesn't change this figure much.
After flight 20 of Ariane 5, it would have been premature to assign it a 20% failure rate, and after 76 consecutive successful launches, there's no sense in claiming a failure rate for it now.
>>
10 hours
>>
>>8683969
Bc the bottom stage is established, tried and tested, but the upper stage is still in dev
>>
>>8686134
No.
>>
>>8685293
rate in this case is just shorthand for rate of incidence
>doesn't know the difference between rate and probability
fucking retarded moron
>>
so how did it go?
>>
File: 1351944476307.jpg (59KB, 450x327px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 450x327px
Another day another disappointment
>>
File: skeltal.jpg (218KB, 700x700px) Image search:
[Google]
218KB, 700x700px
>T minus -03:00:00
>>
>>8684558
It holded.
>>
When is the launch?
>>
>>8686604
~2.5 hours from now
>>
>>8686605
Thx anon
>>
mars when?
>>
>>8686635
2030 probably
>>
File: 1470946132080.png (167KB, 600x513px) Image search:
[Google]
167KB, 600x513px
>T minus -01:00:00
>>
40 minutes to go, one weather rule is red (cumulus clouds)
>>
File: Stalkan.jpg (32KB, 814x294px) Image search:
[Google]
32KB, 814x294px
>>8686670
>weather is red
>>
>>8686670
why does weather matter
why can't they launch in winds or rain or clouds
>>
Stream started.
>>
>>8686683
rain isn't the problem, lightning and high altitude shear winds are. Both conditions have caused failures of early rockets, so they have avoided them ever since.
>>
>>8686683
Turbulence.
>>
>>8686683
SpaceX tweeted saying the Weather is 70% favorable.
>>
File: 17369785125_efca0c32ec_o.jpg (973KB, 3168x4752px) Image search:
[Google]
973KB, 3168x4752px
STREAMS
AMERICANS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdmHHpAsMVw
PATRICIANS ONLY:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPVRRtNxw5Q
NORMIES:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI
>>
>>8686646
thats only 13 years away
>>
>>8686699
Elon claims he can do it by 2026.
>>
>>8686696
NASA stream best stream
>>
Kek those guys look depressed. Scrub incoming.
>>
Can I get a "NOMINAL" /sci/?
>>
>>8686705
well some of them haven't slept much
>>
>>8684493
DREAM ON, MARS MAN
>>
>>8686706
NOMINAL
>>
>hosts on technical stream
what is this heresy?
>>
File: 1475006274133.gif (320KB, 287x713px) Image search:
[Google]
320KB, 287x713px
>>
>>8686713
You got the wrong stream. This is the technical stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPVRRtNxw5Q
>>
>>8686713
kek, looks like they did that by accident since they cancelled the stream.
>>
>>8686718
oh shit, I got it wrong, that was from yesterday.
>>
>>8686718
No I got the right stream, they put the hosted stream on both streams. Doesn't bode well for the launch if they're making fuckups already.
>>
Sorry I cant remember but is this the 1st or 2nd launch since their launchpad "anomaly" that destroyed the facebook satellite?
>>
>>8686724
Second. They launched successfully last month.
>>
>>8686724
Second since their return to flight
>>
>>8686724
There's been one launch already, but it was at Vandenberg. This is the first from KSC/Canaveral since the "vacation".
>>
>>8686715
Good luck Elonchan.
>>
File: 1469763556879.jpg (268KB, 777x578px) Image search:
[Google]
268KB, 777x578px
can i has spaec pls?
>>
t- 6 minutes
>>
File: lyonsandtice.jpg (312KB, 1069x702px) Image search:
[Google]
312KB, 1069x702px
Who's your favorite spacefu, /sci/?
>>
>ITS A YUGE FACILITY
>>
this guy looks like Frank from 'The Man in the High Castle'
>>
File: colors.png (502KB, 1704x470px) Image search:
[Google]
502KB, 1704x470px
Why are the colors so different between streams?
>>
File: spacex-1337416914001.jpg (289KB, 1920x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
289KB, 1920x1080px
>>8686736
Who Ron Burgundy here?
>>
The nasa commentator guy is comfy as fuck.
>>
>>8686741
SpaceX can afford better CGI
>>
File: Russian SpaceX.webm (1MB, 640x360px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 640x360px
>All systems go
>>
HOLD
>>
dubbels for explosion
>>
>>8686749
DELETE THIS
>>
ERE WE GO LADS.
>>
File: 1350245885752.jpg (36KB, 426x341px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 426x341px
>inb4 hold
>>
>>8686741
different cameras, different color correction
>>
File: 1435202727388.jpg (236KB, 800x800px) Image search:
[Google]
236KB, 800x800px
MAKE
SPACE
GREAT
AGAIN!
>>
>>8686752
ROLLING FOR ABORT
>>
IT'S TIME
>>
GO
>>
GO FOR LAUNCH
>>
Godspeed Falcon 9.
>>
RIDE A SHOOTING STAR!
>>
HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD HOLD
>>
>Go for launch
*muffled clapping in the distance*
>>
LD GO FOR LAUNCH
>>
LIFTOFF
>>
AND WE'RE OFF
>>
;_;7
>>
FIRST LAUNCH FROM PAD 39A SINCE SHUTTLE in 2011
>>
can't see shit
>>
NOMINAL
>>
lets go!!!!!
>>
O7
>>
Am I the only one who noticed that it looked like the engine flames were uneven?
>>
Not the best weather for pictures, but lets go into space bois
>>
CAN'T SEE SHIT CAP'N
>>
BOOM BOOM NIGGAS!
>>
MAX Q HERE WE GO
>>
Anyone have a link to the REAL technical live stream? The 5Q one isn't it.
>>
>>8686776
CONFIRMED FAKE
>>
fucking clouds.
>>
where are the rocket cams?
>>
NASA's stream has pretty good tracking
>>
>>8686768
6 YEARS
Y
E
A
R
S
MAX Q BOYS
>>
I thought they had cameras on the rocket itself.
>>
KSP VIEW BUDS
>>
Man fuck clouds
>>
>>8686779
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUDLxFUMC9c
>>
HERE WE GO BOIIIS!!!
>>
SEPARATION!!!
>>
LANDING HYPE
>>
>>8686774
Kerosene looks like that.
>>
Time for nominally
>>
thread theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ziw4yd5R0QI
>>
File: lenny goes hyperdrive.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 500x500px
>THAT FUCKING SPEED
SO FUCKING FAST
HOLY SHIT THAT ENGINE
>>
>>8686794
It still amuses me to no end that we power our high-tech rockets with old lamp fuel.
>>
>>8686774
It's just how the light of the flames lights up the smoke. Not the actual flames.
>>
FLAPPERS CONFIRMED
>>
>>8686798
supersonic accelaration is a hell of a drug
>>
>>8686798
What is the fuel?
>>
>>8686803
RP-1
>>
>>8686803
LO2 and Kerosene
>>
derp_commander (ID: !!SSXdvR3LCoa)
2017-02-19 02:45:49
Post No.8686809
[Report] Image search: [Google]
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 08af22d0-1ee4-478f-b645-68cf449342dc_400.jpg (20KB, 400x400px) Image search:
[Google]
20KB, 400x400px
>>8686803
>>
>>8683811
Man this is the first launch where I used the hosted stream and this is very normie.
It was cool with the background before the launch but from now on I'll probably switch over to the technical at T-1
>>
THAT SPACE JUNK
>>
>>8686799
Is all about energy in the fuel. We don't really have that much better without having an unrealistic cost.
>>
IGNITION TENKAI
>>
DID YOU SEE THOSE UFOS?
>>
>>8686814
THAT BLACK THINGY? YES
>>
What was that shit stage 1 just flew by?
>>
>>8686812
Understood, but it's still funny.
>>
CLOUDS COMING UP TOO FAST
>>
>>8686810
Its pretty cool for people who enjoy science but arent too techy, like me. Yeah, im a normie. :^)
What do they talk about in the technical stream?
>>
>>8686810
Just have both open, with the hosted at lower volume, so you don't miss the status updates.
>>
HERE WE GO
>>
COMING BACK TO EARTH
AHHHHHHHHHH
PLEASE BE SAFE
>>
WE DID IT
>>
WOAHHHHH!!!!!!!!
>>
WE DUD IT GUYSE
>>
THE MADMAN ACTUALLY DID IT
>>
Dayum, the clouds really shows how fast its falling.
>>
YE BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI
>>
not bad kiddo
>>
too easy
>>
File: dragon.jpg (93KB, 736x1226px) Image search:
[Google]
93KB, 736x1226px
THEY FUCKING DID IT
THE DRAGON HAS LANDED SAFELY
>>
Was that the first POV landing stream that was uninterrupted?
>>
File: maga girl.gif (122KB, 451x451px) Image search:
[Google]
122KB, 451x451px
LANDING SUCCESSFUL, AMERICA WINS AGAIN!
>>
CHOKE ME ELON!!!!
>>
File: spherecistsBTFO.png (119KB, 376x285px) Image search:
[Google]
119KB, 376x285px
flatearth confirmed
>>
>>
File: 1458743331099.jpg (59KB, 795x595px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 795x595px
I CAME
>>
Dragon is just dropping off supplies right?
when are they planning on putting people in there?
>>
File: elon-1338032586509.gif (186KB, 400x307px) Image search:
[Google]
186KB, 400x307px
>>
>>8686832
The Falcon*
>>
TRUMP MADE SPACE GREAT AGAIN!
>>
ICE CONFIRMED
>>
Quite happy, actually
>>
File: 1471153087810.jpg (169KB, 600x976px) Image search:
[Google]
169KB, 600x976px
>>
>>8686839
no earlier then 2018
>>
>>8686833
Last month was uninterrupted, but it was a droneship landing.
>>
>>8686832
that's the falcon u tard
>>
>>8686843
You'd think Trump would make a contratulation tweet to cash in on the rah rah made in america propaganda.
>>
File: falcon-chan.jpg (184KB, 800x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
184KB, 800x1200px
>>8686850
>>8686842
woops
WOO THE FALCON LANDED SAFELY
>>
>>8686850
lmao
>>
Thank you based Elon
>>
>>8686847
Thank you based Elon
>>
I will never get bored of this.
>>
File: wVvB4zD.png (195KB, 600x451px) Image search:
[Google]
195KB, 600x451px
>>
Who's this clark kent talking
>>8686847
Thank you based Elon
>>
>>8686847
THANK YOU BASED ELON
>>
Will they ever chant "USA USA USA" again?
>>
>>8686860
If all goes well, we could be seeing this every 2 weeks
>>
>>8686864
He's pretty hot.
No homo
>>
File: SOLAR RAY.jpg (65KB, 537x396px) Image search:
[Google]
65KB, 537x396px
SOLAR RAYS
>>
>>8686863
DREAN ON,
MARS MAN
>>
>>8686847
Thank you based Elon
>>
>>8686863
Dream on, Mars man
>>
File: 1374425564893.png (6KB, 365x276px) Image search:
[Google]
6KB, 365x276px
>take a pause from fapping to barely catch the launch in time
thank fuck
>>
>>8686847
Thank you based Elon
>>
>>8686868
too bad he is
>>
THE UFO'S WERE AT T+ 6:30
IF YOU WANT TO SEE THEM BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT STRIPS THEM FROM THE VIDEO
>>
>Fullstack software engineer
Maybe I should apply.
>>
>>8686874
>Not timing your fap with the launch
>>
>may next year we may see 2 astronauts go to the space station on that thing.
>>
File: 1343931325352.png (193KB, 439x288px) Image search:
[Google]
193KB, 439x288px
>That job advert at the end
Sometimes I wish I was American, I would work for SpaceX in a heartbeat
>>
SOON
https://youtu.be/0qo78R_yYFA
>>
File: 16787988882_3f7c661a96_o.jpg (462KB, 3000x2000px) Image search:
[Google]
462KB, 3000x2000px
>>8686884
This one
They will do an uncrewed test this year.
>>
>>8686883
are you nuts - what if the launch went wrong? that would be the weirdest nutbust ever
>>
>>8686880
Second one. Color correction/grading is a big thing in video production. Varies a lot between camera, conditions, angle to sun. Google color grading.
>>
so everyone on this board is sucking elon's dick now? feels good you mother fuckers. fuck the haters. most important human being of the XXI century. your kids will see it.
>>
Post-launch news conf at 11:30 EST
NASATV
>>
>>8686891
*hope to do
This is SpaceX we're talking about
>>
>>8686868
nice digits
>>
>>8686895
will someone ask about the UFO's at t+ 6:30
>>
>>8686891
>tfw falcon heavy and dragon 2 tests are this year
>>
>>8686741
>pre soviet
>post soviet
>>
>>8686896
>Falcon Heavy launch in 6 months guys, we promise!
>>
launch replays on NASA TV now
>>
>>8686902
the plan to send an unmanned craft to Mars in 2018 has been pushed back to 2020 as well.
>>
>>8686902
tfw 2012 still hasn't ended
At least they seem to finally have some flight hardware in McGregor now
>>
>>8686892
HOLD HOLD HOLD
>>
>>8686907
>edging for 24 hour hold
best nut ever
>>
>>8686907
>Have to hold fapping for 6 months until they fix the rocket
>>
Was this the reused rocket?
>>
>>8686903
and now landing replays!
>>
File: PuppyPC.jpg (83KB, 374x500px) Image search:
[Google]
83KB, 374x500px
>>8686887
are you in Uni or do you have a BS in Eng? I assume you're in the UK, wouldn't be hard for you to apply and get a work Visa. Come to America and help us Make Space Great Again!
>>
>>8686913
No, the reused one will launch next, on the 28th hopefully.
>>
>>8686913
No.
>>
>>8686916
I see. Fingers crossed.
>>
>>8686916
Correction, second next flight in march.
>>
If only MSM would halt political bashing for 5 minutes to play this
>>
File: Kamina.jpg (90KB, 426x590px) Image search:
[Google]
90KB, 426x590px
>There will be a time where you can hop onto a rocket as a tourist to visit a space station within 6 minutes and come back on another rocket 10 minutes later
WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE
>>
>>8686915
Doesn't matter, because of ITAR only americans can work on rockets
>>
>>8686879
SpaceX pay is garbage tier
>>
>>8686922
not if the US is conquered by mexicans/blacks
And Europe is conquered by muslims
Without competition the chinks would destroy their rockets and spend the next 1000 years in stagnation
>>
>>8686922
>16 minute trip for 25k
no thanks
>>
>>8686926
>NOT GETTING YOUR STOCK VESTED
WOO
O
O
>>
Guys, I've decided to convert myself to a Elon Musk shill.
What should a plebeian like I do to receive his forgiveness and enlightenment?
>>
>>8686928
>oh forgot to feed my dog in space
your dog is worth the money
>>
>>8686927
>Without competition the chinks would destroy their rockets and spend the next 1000 years in stagnation
I want to say you're wrong, but historically I know you're right.
>>
>>8686924
Did not know this....
>>
>>8686934
Praise Elon twice a day while facing Mars.
>>
>>8686931
You can't vest it the day you join the company you moron.
Have to wait for some period.
>>
>>8686935
wut?
>>
>>8686924
Marry a murrican fatchick and get a green card.
Then divorce her.
>>
>>8686924
There's still ESA r-right?
>>
>>8686940
>not having the bankroll to go back to space colony V because you forgot to close the windows preventing space bugs from getting in the house
casual
>>
>>8686938
What else?
>>
>>8686945
also pray that he wont get ruined and torn to shreds by amber heart like she did with j depp
>>
File: Nope fuck your money.gif (476KB, 438x325px) Image search:
[Google]
476KB, 438x325px
>>8686939
Serious question, I'm more of a /biz/nesman so no space company is public because of the risks with explosions right? I from houston so i know the industry but Why else would they not file for an IPO? I know that ULA is Co-owned by Boeing and Lockheed so that's out
>>
File: C5CXYlHUoAUPGwX.jpg large.jpg (442KB, 2048x1365px) Image search:
[Google]
442KB, 2048x1365px
>>
>>8686954
Very Kino.
Blow this up and put it across your living room wall
>>
>>8686954
It was just that easy to reuse rockets
And noone did it for decades
s m h
>>
>>8686946
Fucking gold diggers. This man is trying to lead humanity into the space age all bitches can think about is how much money they can steal from him.
>>
Space colonies when?
>Zeon
>>
>>8686950
Maybe because these companies aren't exactly profitable and only win with the help of heavy subsidiaries and gibs from the govt
>>
>>8686957
I'm legit worried. They've been friends for some time but you may never know what happened.
>>
>>8686961
makes sense seeing that ULA raped the taxpayer and SpaceX came in and said piss off with your price gouging
>>
>>8686956
Space is expensive so nobody dared innovate.
Launch corporations were still getting enough contracts because there was no competition. It was in everyones best interest to just shut up about the real price of rockets and just triple charge.
Then Elon came.
>>
Alright /sci/
I want in on the space age.
You've convinced me.
So, should I do?
>>
>>8686961
>win
run*
>>
File: Your moms buttplug.jpg (398KB, 2048x1354px) Image search:
[Google]
398KB, 2048x1354px
>>8686965
Save up money. In 10-20 years you might be able to spend a week in orbit for the sweet price of 100K, or go to Mars for twice that.
>>
>>8686962
there are special spacex/tesla strike teams in place to prevent bad shit from happening
>>
YOUR MOMS DILDO IN FALCON HEAVY CONFIGURATION
2017-02-19 03:29:05
Post No.8686975
[Report] Image search: [Google]
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 16473577_178748475945980_7698739460273352754_n.jpg (95KB, 720x960px) Image search:
[Google]
95KB, 720x960px
>>8686970
appropriate
>>
>>8686975
BBR?
>>
File: balling.gif (981KB, 375x211px) Image search:
[Google]
981KB, 375x211px
>>8686965
Watch/play/consume media about space things. Hard sci or scifi doesn't matter, just have a good time and enjoy what the future can bring us.
>>8686970
>not even lubed
outta here.
>>
>>8686975
BIG
>>
>>8686972
I heard even delta force envies them
>>
Alright back to my fapping session
>>
>>8686965
Go into aerospace eng.
>>
>>8686956
Probably don't even need modern computing power for the autopilot landing. I bet Shuttle-era technology was enough.
>>
>>8686993
I heard engine efficiency was the biggest problem. The amount of fuel needed for boost back meant that the kg payload to orbit was incredibly small.
>>
>>8687000
Rocket efficiency is just a question of physics, it has never really improved. Chasing that last 1-2% of efficiency is a massive waste of time/effort too
Boostback/landing isn't actually that much of a penalty, because the empty first stage only weighs like 10 tons, compared to 100+ tons of the 2nd stage.
>>
FUCK I MISSED IT
>>
>>8686956
>easy
it took a giant leap of faith to design the Falcon 9 right from the start for recovery. You have to design the first stage correctly: robust body plus over 10:1 ratio of launch vs. landing thrust, which required both nine engines and deep throttle on the landing engine. It took many iterations to refine that as well.
And reuse has yet to be proven cost effective, both for the stage body and for the engines.
>>
File: Capture.png (79KB, 807x435px) Image search:
[Google]
79KB, 807x435px
>>8687014
It's not quite true. The Falcon 9 is a lot more efficient than rockets of 10 years ago. Both in the engines and the rocket themselves they have improved
We're nowhere near that 2%
And they're still improving, that rocket that blew up on the launch pad was because they were testing a new material for the tank that allowed them to store it under higher pressures.
>>
>>8687026
What's so important about thrust-to-weight ratio? Isn't the engine's mass just a small fraction of the overall mass of the rocket?
>>
>>8687032
The "weight" part includes the entire rocket and fuel.
>>
I think the future has to be smaller rockets. For that matter, do we NEED rockets? Can't we create another drone style vehicle to slowly (by comparison) lift a ship out of orbit then from there launch off? I guess basically, can I replace the rocket for a drone to break orbit. Why or why not?
Whatever information I receive will be studied towards solution
>>
>>8687038
Really? Wouldn't that mean the Saturn V would be accelerating at 94G's, killing the astronauts?
>>
>>8687043
You're completely wrong though.
The future is bigger rockets. A few days ago India launched at rocket with 104 satellites on it from 6 different countries. They said it makes launching a satellite 20% cheaper for customers.
>Can't we create another drone style vehicle to slowly (by comparison) lift a ship out of orbit then from there launch off
How will you create thrust? You can only get so high up until you run out of atmosphere.
>>
>>8687052
>A few days ago India launched at rocket with 104 satellites on it from 6 different countries.
But that wasn't a bigger rocket, that was smaller satellites.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdmHHpAsMVw
PRESS CONFERENCE
>>
>>8687026
useless chart, you want specific impulse and then you need to take into account the energy density of the fuel and oxidizer which influences how big your rocket has to be
>>
>>8687069
Same thing basically. ONly you can launch even more and heavier satellites.
>>
>8 landings
Damn they are going to run out of room to store these stages.
Better start relaunching soon
>>
>>8686950
Musk has specifically said that an IPO is off the table for SpaceX until there are regular flights to Mars. If they were just trying to be in the space transport business, they'd probably be public already. For ULA, it's constituents Boeing and Lockheed are very much publicly traded.
>>
>>8687077
I'd really like to know the damage report and refurbishment cost of the boosters.
>>
>>8686950
IPO means you have to start caring about investor value and shit and can't do pie in the sky stuff anymore, it's the beginning of the end of innovation
>>
>>8687052
Clearly the drone would be designed in stages. Tow to the edge of the atmosphere then a stage with rockets pushing it the final distance off, potentially at a good angle to avoid direct wind resistance and maneuver it to let one ship go and go get the other for refueling the first. Or design the system so you get as high as you can go then the ship pushes off from low orbit.
The idea is to refuse the fuckhueg costs of a rocket burning fuel all the way from ground to orbit. That seems counterproductive when we can combine different aerial vehicle technologies to reduce the overall costs and improve the system.
What's stopping a similar system from working?
>>
>>8687083
elon said that theoretically they could have launched their first returned stage the next day.
they just want to be through
>>
>>8687032
Every pound cut off the engine & other dead mass is more payload
Engine mass is actually a large fraction, rockets are just giant tubes of aluminum filled with fuel.
>>
>>8687088
Air launches are a thing that some launch providers try to do. I think currently your best bet is following Virgin Galactic if they still planning on developing that.
In the early days of SpaceX, there were concepts for a Falcon 5 Air if I recall correctly, you should be able to read up on that on Wikipedia.
Point is, these concepts definitely exist, although usually they use planes to get the rocket up.
>>
>>8687088
?
Because that shit is stupid and the small amount of speed/altitude of aerial vehicles is NOT at all worth the hangups of dealing with it
Nothing stops you from just adding a yard or two to the diameter of your rocket
Look at the size/weight of big rockets, compared to even large cargo planes, they are MUCH larger
>>
>>8687088
The problem is that we need BOTH height and speed. Sure you can lift the rocket to a higher altitude, but that doesn't change much in terms of fuel saved since you need speed. (the fuel is cheap anyway, hence to focus on re-usability instead of fuel saving)
So if you want to build something that can lift the heavy second stage and give it speed, you essentially arrive at the design of a 1st stage booster.
>>8687089
source?
>>
>>8686959
The earthsphere belongs to the federation, Deikun
>>
>>8687097
Just to top off the concept. How about a plane in two stages that just goes to space? I actually want to combine the three concepts
Fuck I need to study physics and engineering more. I can make this shit. We 20xx in this bih
>>
>>8687101
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425
>>
How long until the USA can compete with China again?
>>
>>8687103
Look up SABRE (or is it SABER?) engines, they can switch from airbreathing to liquid oxidizer in flight, so you can get the best of both worlds.
They haven't actually been built yet though.
>>
>>8687103
look up stratolaunch
>>
>>8687103
>Spessplens
I think the Concorde could technically reach space or at least go pretty high, some fighter jets can too I think. As for current projects, read up on Skylon, they're trying to build a SSTO (single stage to orbit) spaceplane with a new engine concept (new as in not used before)
>>
>>8687103
The problem is the dynamics of engines
Engines that work at sea level and 0 mph lose efficiency fast, and stop working past like mach 3 even if they were designed for it
You get less and less thrust as you go faster because the air you are intaking is still stationary compared to you
Also way worse thrust to weight, no existing super sonic planes carry anything near what payload you want...
Just doesn't make sense because fuel is cheap, the whole system becomes so complicated
Things might change a bit in the future because of engines that can alter their intakes/internals, but that's massive billion dollar projects that likely will not be better than mass produced engines like the Raptor
>>
>>8687100
Everything is worth at least researching for the sake of the future. I want to remove the need for the booster which takes up a big chunk of the weight.
>>8687101
What about power? Say we get to high orbit and for sake of exaggerating examples designed a controlled nuke underneath that gave it that push past orbit. Basically put our bomb tech to use?
If I sound ridiculous good. Furthest advancement are made when some one starts thinking of different solutions. We're using design concepts from the 60s. Let's try to find new solutions from today's design concepts. Better yet, tomorrow's.
>>
>It's a everyone asks more questions about the landing than the mission press conference
>>
>>8687126
nuclear (bomb) rockets are also concepts from the 60's :^)
>>
>>8687113
as soon as you stop beating your wife
>>
>>8687114
SABER looks promising, but Elon went for the low hanging fruit. You might think this is stupid, but it's actually the smart thing to do.
While they're still begging for funds Elon already has a profitable company, and could drastically reduce the price of space access in 5 years or less.
So he has more money to spend on R&D. I can see him experimenting with spaceplanes in the future once he finished ITS and has a stable fleet of light, medium and heavy launch vehicles.
>>8687126
"Controlled" explosion or not, it's not that easy to control the thrust vector and force using bombs I would assume.
And unless you're using nukes it wouldn't be more efficient than normal rocket engines
Also exploding nukes in our atmosphere isn't a very good idea. The USA did this back in the day. Very large EMP radius, very large radiation fallout radius.
And then there is the geopolitical part of putting nukes on what is essentially an ICBM.
>>
>>8687143
I dnno about spaceplanes, but a single stage suborbital passenger rocket could be a thing
There's no reason to ever go smaller, After the ITS is done and they've built dozens of them they will go BIGGER
>>
>>8687143
>While they're still begging for funds Elon already has a profitable company
To be fair, Elon already had quite some money and they got NASA money pretty early on. Skylon has had way less money overall I'm pretty sure, they don't get a lot.
>>
the landing looked like it was right in the center could they ditch the legs and land on some kind of robot arms?
>>
File: IMAG0064.jpg (1MB, 1836x3264px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1836x3264px
Fuck it I went again and quickly (and honestly a bit hastily, I'm going to give the idea another go), drew out a really rough plan concept. The idea is the drone has rockets and as it approaches higher altitudes it turns on thrusters, gets to orbit then separates from the ship
>>
>>8687163
People are just more willing to invest in proven technology.
To me his genius isn't in the actual products he makes, since that's mostly his employees. But his intellect ass a business man the process he uses to arrive at the final product. In a way he's the new Ford imho.
He did a similar thing with Tesla. Google has been driving around their silly little car around in SanFran for years, but as soon as they drive it outside that range it fails completely.
Elon started with normal cars which had the hardware capability to self drive, had them collect data all around the world, and incrementally upgrade the software.
And now currently has the best self driving (i guess it's still driving assist) car on the market.
>>
>>8687170
for what purpose?
>>
>>8687182
A plane will get you more initial speed to build upon.
>>
>>8687182
Look, you don't gain anything from launching from a higher altitude you need SPEEED. You'd probably save more money launching from a ship closer to the equator than from the top of the mount Everest.
>>
>>8687186
a lighter rocket? more payload?
>>
>>
File: IMAG0066.jpg (1MB, 1836x3264px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1836x3264px
>>8687196
What if you launch two separate vehicles, one after the other. One lighter one first can break through the atmosphere and underneath it the rocket can fly without resistance allowing it to be lighter then the drone (for lack of a better word) breaks through orbit and open its hatch to allow the ship into space. Bear with me for the sake of SCIENCE
>>
File: 1487526223943-1721619045.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 3264x1836px
Adding to my concept
>>
>>
>>8687209
Look, a drone simply can't get the speed necessary. You need a jet or rocket engine to make any noticeable difference and you're still left with a staged system. Otherwise you're just adding more complexity and more cost
The only difference would be vertical VS horizontal takeoff. And considering we're landing vertical boosters just fine that has become moot point.
>>
>>8687223
>>8687222
I know when to call it quits and when to persist. Before I do bare with me once more.
The last drone concept. What if we kept it perpetually in earth's high atmosphere which giant propellers ala Helicarrier. Have be dedicated for breaking atmosphere and whenever a launch scheduled the turbines rotate and activate spinning the entire thing on its own axis creating a wind funnel that would push rockets up. Maybe even several at different altitudes working simultaneously spinning to create a fuckhuge wind funnel the rocket could then just glide through, as the varying stages open the hatches. Then, hypothetically you won't need as much speed to lift off because there's no resistance.
That's what I'm trying to achieve, a lack of wind resistance.
>>
>>8686956
>It was just that easy to reuse rockets
>And noone did it for decades
This wasn't easy. They developed it with so few tries by using computer simulations that weren't feasible in the past.
Anyway, they still haven't reused one, because they're not coming back in good shape. There's the turbine blade cracking issue, for instance. They want them back ready to refly without refurbishment. So the development process isn't done. They've got a major revision still coming up.
>>
>>8686936
>Without competition the chinks would destroy their rockets and spend the next 1000 years in stagnation
Seconding this.
>>
>>8684267
>I learned Latin for the most part and holy fuck, it really allows you to understand a shit load of other languages to a certain point.
Romanian too
For some reason, it survived between all those languages that are different from it.
>>
>>8687032
Engine mass is a small fraction of the overall mass of a rocket loaded with fuel and payload. It's a much larger fraction when trying to recover the nearly empty first stage like SpaceX is doing.
A higher thrust to weight ratio also reduces gravity losses at and right after liftoff, allowing more the the engine's energy to go into accelerating the rocket rather than just barely balancing the force of gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_drag
>Over a time t the change in speed of the spacecraft is (a-g)t, whereas the delta-v expended is at. The gravity drag is the difference between these figures, which is gt. As a proportion of delta-v, the gravity drag is g/a.
>A very large thrust over a very short time will achieve a desired speed increase with little gravity drag. On the other hand, if a is only slightly greater than g, the gravity drag is a large proportion of delta-v. Gravity drag can be described as the extra delta-v needed because of not being able to spend all the needed delta-v instantaneously.
This effect can be explained in two equivalent ways:
> The specific energy gained per unit delta-v is equal to the speed, so efficiency is maximized when the delta-v is spent when the craft already has a high speed, due to the Oberth effect.
> Efficiency drops drastically with increasing time spent thrusting against gravity. Therefore, it is advisable to minimize the burn time.
>These effects apply whenever climbing to an orbit with higher specific orbital energy, such as during launch to low Earth orbit (LEO) or from LEO to an escape orbit. This is a worst case calculation - in practice, gravity drag during launch and ascent is less than the maximum value of gt because the launch trajectory does not remain vertical and the vehicle's mass is not constant, due to consumption of propellant and staging.
>>
>>8687238
There was a rocket design with a helicopter-like rotor to aid launch and land once (Rotary Rocket Roton). They ran out of funding. As for your concept, way too complicated and expensive compared to just building a rocket, also you still need to go against gravity so the rocket probably wouldn't save much fuel anyways. Also,
>propeller
>high atmosphere
>>
>>8687222
>I think Virgin's launcher ship even uses their rocket engines. You get much more speed that way which is way more important than height.
No, air launch is almost entirely about altitude (or rather, air pressure), not speed. High speed complicates separation. The White Knight series is all subsonic. It's easier to use conventional jet engines to reach the launch altitude of 15 km (somewhat higher than the typical 12 km altitude of cruising airliners), where the air pressure is under 10% of sea level.
The primary benefit of air launch is that the rocket engines are more efficient in the lower air pressure (theoretical efficiency limit of rocket engines is determined by the relative pressure of the combustion chamber and the atmosphere it's in). It's similar to the difference in efficiency between lower stage engines and upper stage engines. A related secondary benefit is reduction of aerodynamic forces on the rest of the vehicle.
Instead of taking the profit in efficiency, you can also simply use rockets with lower chamber pressure. For instance, there's a lower penalty for using cheap, reliable pressure-fed engines (like the Kestrel on the Falcon 1 upper stage) and the tank pressure can be lower.
>>
>>8687348
The concept is to reduce the size of rockets to reduce development costs. Yes the proposed system would be expensive but I'm thinking about viability. Can't we create a giant wind funnel using my concept with much smaller rockets (the idea here is cost so more companies can afford to get into the market).
Cost of the project aside for a second, is it physically possible to create that. Maybe 3 or more on the same y axis which would spin, create the funnel and a much more cost effective rocket or maybe even rocket plane could fly off a runway (cheaper), position itself underneath then push off. It would essentially be a wind elevator
>>
we did it reddit
>>
>>8687417
Off of this, the device would be large enough to be used for any company's ship. It would be for 'public' use. So the cost is hella reduced all around
>>
>>8687417
>>8687419
I seriously doubt this is viable, there's a lot of space between ground and space, you'd need a load of machines, also I don't even know if this is physically possible.
Also at that point you're adding so much cost with the rotor machines that cheaper rockets barely make a difference. Rockets aren't cheap, but they aren't much more expensive than other aerospace vehicles.
>>
>>8687417
>The concept is to reduce the size of rockets to reduce development costs.
>Can't we create a giant wind funnel
>>
>>8687364
another advantage of air launch has nothing to do with the science of it. Many launch delays are due to weather at the launch site. With air launch, you can fly above the weather so you can launch any time.
Thread posts: 531
Thread images: 99
Thread images: 99