Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1430807905072.jpg (949KB, 3168x4752px) Image search:
[Google]
949KB, 3168x4752px
For the time it takes to refurb one rocket stage - they could launch 10-15 expendables. Somebody is not doing the correct math. Man-hours and materials to refurb in my opinion does not cost less than manufacturing to finality a regular one. When that bulk consumption subsides and man-hours explodes exponentially an unsustainable event materializes. Musk is hard-set that flying rockets should be on-par with Boeing airliners. Boeing airliners never leave atmosphere and undergo cryogenic hysteresis. He pushes that envelope that hard the odds of dire consequences explodes. Point in fact the basis of his venture is what is at the root of ..basically...low intelligence being "re-purposed" into higher intelligence? Give me a break. 1940's technology remains 1940's technology.
But Musk is not alone. NASA, Amazon, and all of the others are doing the EXACT SAME THING. They are all competing with each other using the exact same technology....hahahahahahaha. Nothing like using hobby shop drone software to engage the "rocket come home and land over there" commands.....Wonder where the algorithms came from actually......hmmm
There is a way to lift a 500 ton payload into space and move it anywhere it is needed. Deep orbit, next to moon, stationary orbit - anywhere. It is just these so-called scientists cannot see the forest through the trees. Too many like-minds and all focused on one thing: build a tube and attach liquid fuel burning engines to it...YEAH! THAT'S THE TICKET! We at NASA just blew through 20 billion building the next rocket......which is no better than ATLAS......Should have just upgraded ATLAS...would have saved 19 billion and would have already been doing things and going places.......
My tax dollars not a work. I want to pull a "Exorcist" moment and spin my head around 360 degrees and then projectile vomit green pea soup......
Scientists - - -idiots, highly trained and highly specialized non-free-thinking idiots.
>>
>>8770722
What are you saying exactly? You seem to just be chatting beans lad
>>
>>8770722
Hmmm, is it possible Musk, NASA and Amazon (+ all their experts) know what the fuck they're talking about and some random jerk-off on /sci doesn't?
>>
>>8770722
Holy shit dude, take your meds.
>>
>>8770722
You'd be a lot more convincing if you could speak proper English.
>>
Don't worry OP, I know exactly what you are saying. Armchair scifags just don't have a fucking clue.
>>
>>8770722
>For the time it takes to refurb one rocket stage
How much is it exactly? SpaceX has no streamlined process of that just yet. Actually I am still waiting to see if their refurbishment works.
At this moment your critique is similar to "there is no way they will land this on a barge" said a couple of years before.
>>
>>
>>8771336
At a guess he seems to have the impression that rocketry hasn't advanced whatsoever since the 40's (or the 60's by his Atlas mention?), and that the companies chasing reusability aren't aiming for gas-and-go turn around times.
Since there is no alternatives posed to these things I'd argue this is just a troll thread.
>>
What about skylon
>>
>someone makes a shitpost
>its on page 10
>op decides samefag the first 3-4 posts
>>
>>8770722
>Somebody is not doing the correct math.
Correct, and that "somebody" is you.
>>
>>8771862
Skylon is a solution looking for a problem. Airbreathers are shit, period.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1