If you haven't heard, DARPA selected their new spacepla

cgi images cannot lift payloads to orbit

>>8950361
they'll give you a real one in a bit
probably soon, since they probably want to get their space shit going ASAP

>>8950910
>a bit
i.e. several years, since it's still just a concept.

File: 1495079117733.jpg (12KB, 235x235px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 235x235px

>>8950988
I'd give it one year tops
this rocket would give DARPA access to space, and would then make them want more space things to do more
If they finish the project fast, they'll get a unending tide of work orders and tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars to do with it

that is what I'm hope they're smart enough to see, at least

I predict it'll never fly because its a CGI image, not a real rocket

This is not what rockets look like for a reason

>>8951106
>This is not what rockets look like for a reason
And what reason is that? The first stage is a suborbital space plane and is designed to glide back to the landing site. From everything they've released it looks exactly like you would expect a space plane to look.

The second stage is an expendable rocket. Not sure why you would argue that it doesn't look like a rocket. Presumably the reason they decided to mount it on the side is to avoid having to design a complex interstage on the nose of the space plane.

It's soooo fuuuucking ugly. Holy shit

>>8951014
>one year
Yeah right. It'll take about two years just for the formal methods team to verify the shit. Even if the engineers had the machine ready by some miracle, the software will take at least 3 years

>>8951349
Honestly, who designed this and can I have their job please...

>>8950305
Why would you carry pounds into space?
How many 0,5l beer bottles can it carry?

>>8950305
Is there any advantage compared to Falcon 9?

>>8950305
>3,000 pounds
not enough for your mom then

>>8951608
It appears to be single stage to orbit, so the launch process may be simpler, and the entire craft seems reusable.

>>8951669
>It appears to be single stage to orbit
Look again. Second stage is a strap-on instead on top.

>The first test launches will begin with Phase 3, which aims to launch the XS-1 between 12 and 15 times in 2020.

I'm getting some combine vibes from the nose

File: TR-3B-565401.jpg (13KB, 371x273px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 371x273px

>>8950305
>2017
>still using rocket engines.

Defence Advanced Retarded Projects Agency.

>>8951669
Did you read the article? It's a booster with wings, the second stage is expendable.

>>8950305
how can it lift anything? It's just a 3d rendering. Also why are they hauling WINGS to orbit?

>>8952383
>Also why are they hauling WINGS to orbit?
They aren't.

>>8951014
>I'd give it one year tops
LOL! And flying cars are right around the corner right?

File: 1476393113012.jpg (118KB, 1100x698px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1100x698px

>>8952403
Flying cars don't have a buyer, let alone clearance from the FAA, whereas there's money in the bank for this plane

Don't underestimate the power of money. Nearly every engineering marvel these days isn't limited by technical knowledge, but by budget

>>8950305
interesting idea. Other flyback booster designs have had fold-out wings to reduce drag on the way up. I'd like to see their calculations on the drag losses compared to a normal stacked cylinder first stage like the Falcon 9.

>>8950361
>it's just cgi/powerpoint unless it's spacex
every single thread

>>8950305
>LOX/hydrogen booster
Hydrogen sucks ass for initial boost. They are only using it because some Space Shuttle main engine prototype parts are available for bodging together a reusable engine.

>>8952419
Flying cars DO have a buyer, millions of fucking people who would gladly buy them
The problem is it'd be illegal to fly them where they would be useful

Also bad weather is more of an issue for flying than for driving

>>8952633
average person can't afford a flying car, there's no market there

>>8950305
They can ask to stratolaunch, at least they have an airplane now not a bunch of cgi´s and powerpoints

>>8951608
its for smaller payloads. the falcon 9 can launch a school bus into space, the space plane something the size of a VW beetle in the nose cone of the rocket it has strapped on its back. also the falcon 9 got the dragon crew capsule for manned flights. the space plane has none of that, its a drone plane, with a launch platform on its back for a small rocket.

>>8952647
No reason why a "flying car" needs to be more expensive than a ground car
You can get a paramotor setup for less than 10,000 bucks
Flies at 25-50 mph

Any urban place with traffic issues will have large amounts of people who would pay money to bypass traffic.

>>8950361
>>8952468
Hahaha humans are finished.

>>8955889
>No reason why a "flying car" needs to be more expensive than a ground car
You out of your fucking mind? Of course it would be more expensive. Also, we already have flying cars. Guess what they're called?