Space X

>>8993334
Off by one and off your rocker.

>>8993334
>not working properly
>100% success this year
This really fires up the electric worms

Sage for good measure

>>8993336
How many times can that be a problem tho? How many test missions did NASA and CCCP did to each of their rockets before using them for real?

>>8993340
What are you even talking about? They just launched a satellite, today, completely successfully, on a rocket that's already flown before.

>>8993348
Last I heard they were still having issues. Tho that might have been a few months ago.

>>8993350
You heard wrong.

Shoo brainlet.

>>8993334
They've been launching and landing rockets pretty flawlessly for the last half year.
Even started to reuse some.

>>8993350
Things have gotten a lot better over the past few months.
In 2017, they have successfully launched:
>Iridium Next 1-10
>CRS-10
>EchoStar 23
>SES-10 (booster re-flight)
>NROL-76
>Immarsat-5 F4
>CRS-11
>Bulgariasat-1 (booster re-flight)

They're launching Iridium Next 11-20 this Sunday.

>>8993361
>>8993363
6 months or so seems about right for the last time I went and cached up with them. Go figure.
Well, great then, they're finally doing things for real now.

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-24 09-16-27.png (45KB, 1301x746px)

45KB, 1301x746px

>>8993334
?
They have an amazing success rate.

>>8993373
Whoever made this graph should be gassed

>>8993334
>I don't get it.
You're right about that.

File: Blue_Origin_Jeff_Bezos_Pad.0.jpg (4MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x2160px

>>8993334
>I wonder who could be behind this shitty tread

File: OaDf3qx.png (492KB, 2754x1820px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 2754x1820px

>>8993389
Here's a better graph of just launch intervals. Relatively recent.

>>8993334
Because they are testing new designs. They are building larger more efficient rockets.

they have another launch tomorrow.


I can't wait for the first Falcon Heavy launch with all 3 boosters landing. I'll take vacation time to see that in person.

>>8993920
it will be two rtls and one drone ship landing. So you'll only be able to see two boosters land, with the respective six sonic booms between them

>>8993334
>numales in charge of going to space
that's why

>>8993923
its ok, i can only cum so much in the Florida heat before it becomes dangerous

>>8993368
>they're finally doing things for real now.
They put their first commercial satellite in orbit in 2009. They've been "doing things for real" for the better part of a decade.

>>8993373
Their success rate is nearly as bad as Proton's.

>>8993373
>>8993857
>>>/reddit/

>>8993339
>100% success this year
>this year
kek
SpaceX success rate is one of the worst in the industry
Even the Chinese and the Poos are better

>>8994408
Proton has a launch heritage of half a century and 400+ launches. They're not still working out the bugs, they're just sloppy. Falcon 9's done better than Ariane 5 at the same age, despite being an experimental platform for reusable rocketry.

They only look less than stellar if you compare them to Atlas V and Delta IV: two vehicles they haven't even tried to make commercially competitive during their operational phase. If SpaceX spent an extra $100 million checking everything out on each flight, they probably wouldn't have a single launch failure either.

>>8994515
>They're not still working out the bugs
Falcon 9 has had 36 launches and the first 19 were not failures
They are not still "working out the bugs" and if they are, they should not be flying payloads on them.

>They only look less than stellar if you compare them to Atlas V and Delta IV
and Ariane 5, and H-2A, and half of China's launchers and all of India's launchers, and Soyuz...

>If SpaceX spent an extra $100 million checking everything out on each flight, they probably wouldn't have a single launch failure either.
It's not a matter of lack of money, it's a matter of lack of skill at SpaceX to recognize and fix problems.

>>8994538
How do you end up at such number?
Failed landing= failed launch ?

>>8994548
The fuck are you talking about?

File: elonmuskstrangelove.jpg (47KB, 525x584px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 525x584px

Had this done and I had a feeling this thread would have a good laugh at this

>>8994552
Sorry i was retarded.
One of first falcons had a partial failure but so did many other rockets carrying payloads like Ariane5 that failed 4 times in first 14 flights

>>8994538
>They are not still "working out the bugs"
Rocket life cycles are longer than that. There are usually a few problems that come up once in twenty flights, or once in fifty, that they only find out by flying 20 or 50 times.

>and if they are, they should not be flying payloads on them.
A childish attitude. There's always risk in rocket launch. Even Atlas V had a very close call recently when their booster shut down prematurely, and they only reached orbit at all because of the light payload.

>and Ariane 5, and H-2A, and half of China's launchers and all of India's launchers, and Soyuz...
Nope, not at the same age.

You're looking at the percentage of failures of old rockets, rather than the total number of failures, and at what stage of the rocket's life cycle they occurred.

Ariane 5 has had 4 failures, all within the first 14 flights and first 6 years of operation.

India's GSLV had 5 failures out of 11 launches.

China's LM3 had 3 failures out of 13 launches.

H-IIA was a derivative of H-II, which had 2 failures out of 7 launches.

>It's not a matter of lack of money, it's a matter of lack of skill at SpaceX to recognize and fix problems.
A ridiculous claim, entirely ungrounded in reality. They haven't repeated a flaw once.

>>8993892
>efficient
that word doesn't mean what you think it means, brainlet.

>>8994600
>Rocket life cycles are longer than that. There are usually a few problems that come up once in twenty flights, or once in fifty, that they only find out by flying 20 or 50 times.
most rockets never reach 50 flights
by your logic, the only rocket for which its statistical reliability has been established is the R-7

>A childish attitude. There's always risk in rocket launch. Even Atlas V had a very close call recently when their booster shut down prematurely, and they only reached orbit at all because of the light payload.
that mission had enough margin to be successful
SpaceX CRS-1 however, was a failure for a similar reason because it didn't have the margin

>Nope, not at the same age.
>You're looking at the percentage of failures of old rockets, rather than the total number of failures, and at what stage of the rocket's life cycle they occurred.
>Ariane 5 has had 4 failures, all within the first 14 flights and first 6 years of operation.
>India's GSLV had 5 failures out of 11 launches.
>China's LM3 had 3 failures out of 13 launches.
Like I said, Falcon 9 was reliable early on when it was still new, and its reliability has decreased over time. There other launch failures, Ariane V in particular, are due to new rockets/versions.

>H-IIA was a derivative of H-II, which had 2 failures out of 7 launches.
Falcon 9 is a derivative of Falcon 1, which had 3 failures out of 5 launches.

>A ridiculous claim, entirely ungrounded in reality. They haven't repeated a flaw once.
They refused to fix flaws pointed out by NASA after CRS-7, and instead blamed the issue on a faulty supplier, against NASA's findings.

Both CRS-7 and AMOS-6 were COPV failures, meaning they haven't learned to make the things safely.

>>8994610
he's right though

>>8994562
>One of first falcons had a partial failure
Falcon 9 has had only one true launch failure, when a strut from a reputable aerospace supplier failed at far below the rated load. Before that incident, nobody individually tested each strut prior to installation, including ULA, they only do statistical sampling, as SpaceX had done, then they trust the supplier. That was a wake-up call for the whole US aerospace industry, not a failure particularly attributable to SpaceX. Anyone could have got caught out by that, and it was only by chance that it happened to SpaceX and not ULA.

It was about like going for a test drive in a brand new vehicle and getting in a crash because the brakes suddenly totally fail: shocking as hell, and the driver's basically blameless.

The "partial failure" was in fact NASA exercising a contract option which allowed them to choose to ditch the secondary payload. The upper stage still had the propellant necessary to insert it in the correct orbit, and SpaceX was entirely willing to do so, so it's inappropriate to classify this even as a "partial failure".

The explosion on the pad was also not a launch failure, it was a testing mishap. The customer was ultimately responsible for the decision to have the payload on top of the rocket during prelaunch testing, which was done primarily to reduce costs.

You usually don't hear about payload, vehicle, or pad damage due to mishaps on the ground. The uncommonly public fireworks don't change the nature of the incident. This is something more comparable to Blue Origin blowing up the prototype of their new engine for ULA on the test stand than to an actual launch failure, particularly when you take into account the newness of the propellant densification technique.

In short, the real score is at one F9 launch failure, for which SpaceX can't reasonably be held accountable, out of 36 launches. Their reliability is top notch.

File: 1463169618078.jpg (56KB, 406x370px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 406x370px

>>8994655
Unless your criteria for "failure" is "the customer did not consider the effort successful" then you are clinically insane.

>The "partial failure" was in fact NASA exercising a contract option which allowed them to choose to ditch the secondary payload. The upper stage still had the propellant necessary to insert it in the correct orbit, and SpaceX was entirely willing to do so, so it's inappropriate to classify this even as a "partial failure".
SpaceX should never have put the Orbcomm sat on the launch if this was ever an option. It's a failure.

Falcon 9 has had 4 failures:
>DEMO1
uncontrolled roll at the end of second stage flight
>CRS-1
failed to insert Orbcomm satellite into a stable orbit
>CRS-7
exploded on ascent
>AMOS-6
exploded on the pad

>>8994620
>SpaceX CRS-1 however, was a failure for a similar reason because it didn't have the margin
They did, though. Their primary customer exercised an option to dump the secondary payload. If ULA had been attempting to fly a secondary payload of significant mass on their Atlas V near-miss, they likely would have lost not only it, but the primary payload.

>Falcon 9 is a derivative of Falcon 1, which had 3 failures out of 5 launches.
Not remotely in the same sense as H-IIA is derived from H-II, where the relationship is like that between Falcon 9 1.1 and Falcon 9 1.0.

>Both CRS-7 and AMOS-6 were COPV failures, meaning they haven't learned to make the things safely.
Bullshit. CRS-7 was a faulty strut. The COPV was fine until the strut let it go.

>>8994666
>Unless your criteria for "failure" is "the customer did not consider the effort successful" then you are clinically insane.
We're talking about launch failures, not customer fee-fees.

>SpaceX should never have put the Orbcomm sat on the launch if this was ever an option.
Again, a totally childish attitude. A launch service with reduced probability of being completed still has value, and Orbcomm derived useful testing data from having their sat deployed even in the decaying orbit.

>>DEMO1
>uncontrolled roll at the end of second stage flight
Ridiculous reaching. Pretty much any payload would have the attitude control to correct it after deployment. Launches always vary somewhat in the payload propulsion requirements after deployment.

>failed to insert Orbcomm satellite into a stable orbit
The vehicle did not attempt the insertion. Dumped the secondary payload at primary customer's option according to contract when the vehicle was capable of performing the insertion.

>exploded on the pad
A pre-launch testing incident. Not a launch failure. You do pre-launch testing so you don't get launch failures. Customer put the payload at risk in testing at their own option.

seems like the anti musk brigade is still alive and well...

>>8994747
>corrections to lies and propaganda
>"anti musk brigade"

File: 1414609106001.jpg (28KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x600px

>>8994713
They did, though. Their primary customer exercised an option to dump the secondary payload.
Again, they shouldn't have flown the extra payload if this was an option.
>If ULA had been attempting to fly a secondary payload of significant mass on their Atlas V near-miss, they likely would have lost not only it, but the primary payload.
What? You're inventing imaginary ULA failures to make SpaceX look better now?

>Not remotely in the same sense as H-IIA is derived from H-II, where the relationship is like that between Falcon 9 1.1 and Falcon 9 1.0.
different engines, boosters, tanks, insulation, second stage, practically everything
F9 and F1 are more similar

>Bullshit. CRS-7 was a faulty strut.
According to the SpaceX report, which NASA did not agree with.

>We're talking about launch failures, not customer fee-fees.
Moving the goal posts. You were the first person ITT to say "launch" failure

>A launch service with reduced probability of being completed still has value
So you're admitting that it was a legitimate payload and also a failure?

> Pretty much any payload would have the attitude control to correct it after deployment.
lmao you are fucking retarded m8

>Dumped the secondary payload at primary customer's option according to contract when the vehicle was capable of performing the insertion.
Still a failure. They should have chosen another launch provider like ULA.

>A pre-launch testing incident. Not a launch failure.
It destroyed the customer's satellite. Stop being an imbecile.

>Customer put the payload at risk in testing at their own option.
No different than choosing a launch provider. Even SpaceX is less retarded than you; they no longer have this option with their rockets.

>>8994713
AMOS-6 was a launch failure.
It failed to launch.

this reliability meme is annoying

people are latching onto these numbers like god himself chiseled them out of gold in a stupid sans font
look, I can be a ULA-type shill but for spacex as well: So far, reused rockets have a 100% success rate. Everyone else BTFO

File: AP8601281739.jpg (141KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1280x960px

>>8994841
>So far, reused rockets have a 100% success rate.

>>8994847
that was a new production booster. Even so, SpaceX's reused rockerts are 100% so far.

>>8994854
>that was a new production booster.
?
reused SRB casings, reused orbiter and engines

>SpaceX's reused rockerts are 100% so far.
wow 2 out of 2 how amazing

>>8994861
>reused orbitor
>relevant to stage one failure
???

File: π4.png (990KB, 1181x5462px)

990KB, 1181x5462px

>>8993334

>>8994917
...what?

>>8995942
high effort bait I think

>>8994655
>and it was only by chance that it happened to SpaceX and not ULA.

Unless it was sabotage

>>8993334
>If they have the theory worked out why is it so hard to build it in reality?

Let me guess. You're one of those academic types.

>>8994917
its always sad to watch the onset of dementia

>>8994824
There were failures of AtlasV that left payloads short of target orbit but USAF deemed it close enough to sacrifice years of orbit life to get to GTO back in 2007.That would be a failure but according to ULA metric this means success.

Also that is true that NASA had other conclusion on CRS7 and back in 2014 there was a near failure of COPV that delayed 1.1 flights.In general they have problems with COPV in the second stage but this allows for the mass ratio on the second stage vs a more conventional all metal tanks

>>8996094
>There were failures of AtlasV that left payloads short of target orbit but USAF deemed it close enough to sacrifice years of orbit life to get to GTO back in 2007.
And?
This failure was less significant than any SpaceX failure, and even when considering it Atlas V success rate is still 98.6%

>That would be a failure but according to ULA metric this means success.
Actually it was a success according the the customer, NRO.

>Also that is true that NASA had other conclusion on CRS7 and back in 2014 there was a near failure of COPV that delayed 1.1 flights.In general they have problems with COPV in the second stage but this allows for the mass ratio on the second stage vs a more conventional all metal tanks
ok?
lowering mass fractions is inherent to rocketry, not mastering this inherent problem is no excuse for low reliability

>>8993368
Why did you even bother posting this thread without do any research on them in the last 6 months?

Fuck, people are stupid.

Oh hey look, two launches and landings in the same weekend.

next launch is now tentatively set for Sunday

expendable, unfortunately

>>8999117
Falcon 9 has now successfully launched 9 times in the first half of this year.

The most Atlas V has ever launched in a full year was 9 times. This year they've launched 3 times so far.

The most Ariane 5 has ever launched in a full year was 7 times. They've also launched 3 times so far.

The most Proton ever launched in a full year was 14 times, and the most they've launched since Falcon 9 started flying was 9 times. Proton has only launched once this year.

SpaceX is starting to dominate, not just in contracts but in actual performed flights. So far this year, Falcon 9 has outflown its three main competitors put together.

>>9000862
and that's only with two pads. Soon to be 4....

>>9000874
The number of pads isn't really key, except for avoiding interruptions when they do upgrades. There's no reason you can't launch ten times per day from the same pad, you just have to get set up to do it.

Conventionally, pad design and operations are very sloppy in some ways. They simply let each launch break things, because it's cheaper to fix each time than to build it so it doesn't break. They let each payload occupy the pad while the customer's technicians mess with it, because they don't have enough launches to do for it to be a problem.

It's all part of the expendable-rocket mindset. What's really weird is that a generation has done this for their whole careers, so they don't think it can be done any other way.

Reusable-rocket mindset is building a pad that can be used many times before maintenance is required, where the rocket can be set up and launched quickly, and where, when a payload has problems, it can be taken aside and worked on while other payloads are launched ahead of it.

>>9000936

(boca chica)

File: n1.jpg (71KB, 730x573px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 730x573px

>>8993340
The Soviets blew up rockets over and over again. Their Saturn V equivalent, the N1, ended up being literally nothing but a series of explosions over and over again until they trashed it.

>>8993334

Those faggots are in a constant state of aggressive design/process adjustment and improvement of the F9's capabilities.

The final iteration (for now) of the rocket, Block 5, hasn't even flown yet, although its differences from previous blocks are more geared toward reusability rather than further performance upgrades.

With almost no two F9s being the same so far, any assessment of overall reliability is going to be flawed. Jump to whatever conclusions you want after a reasonable number of missions with the 'frozen' Block 5 design.

check this out
spacexstats.xyz/

File: IMG_3650.jpg (151KB, 600x674px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 600x674px

desu elon lost his edgy

> So why can't these faggots get their rockets to work properly
> if all the theory was already more or less figured out

> if the theory was figured out


BECAUSE THEORY DOESNT MEAN JACK SHIT TO ENGINEERS YOU BASEMENT DWELLING AUTIST

>>8994417

Well, there is Russia...

File: elon-1466002403644.jpg (261KB, 1024x703px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1024x703px

posting in a ULA shill thread

>>9001120
so basically it's because engineers are too stupid?

>>9001693
Yes, we should have had rockets to this level in the 1970s.

File: atlaswojak2.png (384KB, 3648x3944px)

384KB, 3648x3944px

>>9001705
engineers, being more practical, are also more easily swayed by the finance side of things

a lot of finance analysts have engineering degrees

>>8994417
huh? They've had two losses in the last 10 years.

Is that Bezos?

static fire tomorrow probably. Then after Intelsat goes up, there will be a long break at the range. They are probably going to get in a huge amount of pad word. maybe slick40 is further along than we though?

>>8994861
>SRB casings
SRBs on Falcon?

>>8993368
You are a certified faggot

>>9002772
Certified faggot here. Minor point of clarification. The guy you're responding to is actually a certified double faggot retard. Important distinction.

>>9000948

And the Nazis blew up heaps of V2s and test beds too before getting it working

File: 123.png (40KB, 1200x660px)

40KB, 1200x660px

>>8997409
>>8997409
>Actually it was a success according the the customer, NRO.
So was the first spacex failure of secondary payload on CRS1.
Atlas is the most reliable rocket by far in operation today there is no question about that.Only nuclear certified in US fleet but for most payloads it is too expensive.

The COPV issue was a fuckup from SpaceX because according to recent documents for commercial crew they pushed the faster prop load while knowing about liner buckling issues and this caused AMOS6 explosion.Currently there is a fix to this and helium should not be a problem anymore but with the amount of stuff that changes in these rockets a new failure might arise from some unknown unknown

idk much about rockets and stuff, but elon musk is a visionary.

I read zero to one, a book written by a founder of paypal, of which musk was also a founder.

shit blew my mind.

for the first time in my life i actually have a role model

>>9003144
you must be a brainlet

>>9003160
im in mensa with an IQ over 130.
im also gonna be a doctor in less than 6 months.

so no, i'm pretty well educated. but the ability to bring something from merely an abstraction to a reality is truly inspiring.
these guys started with nothing but an idea and ended up selling out consecutive multi million dollar businesses.

it takes more than mere intelligence to do that.

>>8994917
don't fucking mathispost here.

>>8995942
>>8996050

You don't want to know. don't google him. it's not dementia, the guy is 30 or 40. he's just an asshole.

>>9003164
there's nothing impressive about paypal you faggot

> the ability to bring something from merely an abstraction to a reality is truly inspiring
yeah, every other inventor and scientist in the world does it. if you want to get inspired, get inspired by someone who really did something important.

>muh IQ, MUH mensa
what an insecure brainlet. I know drug addicts with a higher IQ than that kek

>>9003175
the insecurity you're giving off is immense

>>9003175
right, good for you.
but i did something useful with that intelligence.

scientists and inventors only deal with natural obstacles.
all they have to do is take something they think up and figure out how to bring it into existence.

businesses require that, plus figuring out how to deal with getting funding, investor interests, consumer market problems etc.
you are not only fighting a battle against natural boundries to bring your idea to reality, but also the whole current state of the world. You are literally taking on the world with just an idea, and lever nothing but your inherent traits, experience and adaptability to bring it into existence.
there is nothing i know of that could be harder.

scientists have it easy. once they have an idea, they figure out how to get to it, then they just work on it till they get it. business is not so easy, just because of the sheer number of shifting factors involved.

File: DDfWCOeXUAIbilQ.jpg-orig.jpg (360KB, 2048x1400px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 2048x1400px

she be leaning

>>8993847
Why did they use CGI in the background for that rocket?

File: FALCON-9.png (11KB, 362x453px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 362x453px

>>9003237

>>9003415
One day people will live on dumpsters inside used rocket sections.

File: DDiFHzBXoAA-xkI.jpg-large.jpg (79KB, 1200x669px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1200x669px

static fire successful

9 days, three launches, oh baby

File: 09.jpg (115KB, 914x600px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 914x600px

>>9004196
locals in Kazakistan are doing that right now with Russia stages. They scrap some of them and keep others.

File: 1490913984824.jpg (251KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1200x800px

>>9004323
>>9004326
Bretty gool.
But not from space.

>>9004449
Any purpose other than decorative?

Is SpaceX the Nikola Tesla of space transport?

>>9004566
Rather Elon is Edison.
Tesla was a useles entrepreneur.

>>8993334
>Thinking theory doesn't perfectly predict reality

But it does, leaving room for error. The error / failures that are possible aren't preventable with current tech.

>>9003237
>>9003415
is this alright? or intentional? please explain this

>>9006732
Uneven distribution of load during landing caused differing amounts of crush core crushing
The crush cores are easy to replace. They've had leaning stages in the past, like thiacom

>>9006812
so it is designed to be able to crush like that? sort of like the front end of cars, in order to absorb impact?

File: 84Sn4ev.jpg (213KB, 1021x701px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1021x701px

>>9006816
yep. the same sort of design was on the Apollo LEM.

here's a comparison of two F9 legs.The crush core is at the bottom of the leg piston - the one on the left is more crushed

>>9006831
oh cool i didn't know this thanks

>>8994847

>missing the point that SpaceX has a better track record on successful reusability than NASA and anyone else at this time

>>8994917

>what is the Oberth effect

>>9000964

I'm giving Block 5 14 months until SpaceX unveils that they're going to replace the second stage with a subscale Raptor engine and methalox propellants for all commercial launches, and keep the kerolox stage only to satisfy NASA's requirement of an unchanging launch vehicle design.

>>9002777

>trips confirm

>>9004501

Piece of legit space debris that landed in Australia and someone put on their roof to boost their TV signal

>>9008045
I give it a year or so after that until they unveil a SSTO 1st stage for light stuff. Elon says that the current first stage could get to LEO if it didn't have the 2nd stage or a payload on it - so if you can incrementally boost the 1st stage performance, I'd imagine a specialized fairing design sitting right on top of the 1st stage could allow for small payloads.

File: elon-1435502043074.jpg (53KB, 660x439px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 660x439px

>>9008125
But then how would you get the booster back down for reuse?

File: ares.1.chart.jpg (48KB, 576x430px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 576x430px

>>9008045
How will they switch to a methane upper stage (for which a larger diameter is required in order to be efficient) without changing the first stage?

See this Ares 1 diagram for what I mean.

>>9008017
>SpaceX has a better track record on successful reusability than NASA and anyone else at this time
explain?

>>9008143
the same way they do nowadays.

or, perhaps they do ITS on a mini scale - design a F9 for getting stuff to orbit SSTO, but without the fuel to get back down. Then, launch a dedicated fuel mission to refuel it. After that, both can come back down. Or something like that. It all depends on the margins

I think everyone would agree that having one stage being reused is better than reusing two different stages that need different processing


>>9008153
The soviets reused a capsule. Once.

NASA reused some of the shuttle fuel tanks and the orbiters, of course. LOC: 1 in 90. Cost per launch: 1 billion burger vouchers.
The simple fact that the crew dragon has a LES already makes it 10x safer than the shuttle.

>>9008168
>Then, launch a dedicated fuel mission to refuel it. After that, both can come back down.
So... two launches and two landings to save a stage on launch? Nice math there.

>>9008168
NASA has 128 successful reuses under its belt, and from orbit to boot
SpaceX has... 2

>>9008168
>the same way they do nowadays.

Reentering from orbital velocity is a lot different to what F9 currently does, and there's no way you could bring enough fuel to slow the thing down again. A reusable SSTO has to be a fundamentally different design that incorporates a reentry vehicle.

>>9008184
The shuttle was still ludicrously expensive because it was barely reusable, they pretty much had to rebuild or refurbish and requalify everything.

128 reuses and it never got cheaper or easier, SpaceX is already offering discounts and they haven't even started flying block 5 boosters that are designed with lessons learned to be easily reused.

>>9008253
they "successfully" reused the shuttle
cost was never part of your original assertion

stop being a moron

>>8994808
You mean "blindly repeating your lies and propaganda because you irrationally hate spacex"

Whenever I listen to people whine and cry about spacex I picture liberals whining and crying about trump.

>>9004707
Tesla wasn't an entrepreneur at all. He was an engineer, and a very naive one who was easily scammed by others.

>>9008146

Sub-chilled methane has almost the same density as kerosene, the added performance actually more than makes up for any reductions in fuel mass.

>>9008552

By performance I mean specific impulse and thrust of the subscale Raptor engine as compared with the current Merlin 1D Vac.

>>9008401
>they "successfully" reused the shuttle
>they "successfully" "reused" the shuttle
>they "successfully" "reused" the "shuttle"
There's basically nothing that was recovered from space or from launches that couldn't have been" reused" the way the shuttle was: extensively repaired, refurbished, with many part replacements, until there was no advantage in cost or schedule to the reuse.

Crashed Proton stages in Kazakhstan could have been reused just as well. Any capsule that landed on Earth could have been reused.

That's not successful reuse. It barely, arguably, technically satisfies the definition of "reuse", but to be successful, the purpose in doing it would have to be achieved, and that purpose was to provide a larger number of launches for the same money than an expendable vehicle would have, as well as other advantages that were not achieved.

If you shoot a gun at a target and miss, you don't call it a successful shot. If you shoot a pistol at an enemy tank and the bullet bounces off harmlessly, that's not successfully shooting the tank, you don't report back to your superior officer that your shot was successful.

Also, if your vehicle doesn't travel back and forth frequently over an established route, it's not a shuttle.

>>9008168
>NASA reused some of the shuttle fuel tanks and the orbiters
They didn't reuse the tanks. They always dumped those just short of orbit so they burned up. They recovered the orbiters and the solid rocket boosters.

>>9008552
>Sub-chilled methane has almost the same density as kerosene
As the chilled kerosene they're using? I don't believe that.

However, people have done the math, and (with an appropriately-sized engine) it would get better performance at the same tank volume thanks to the higher specific impulse.

>>9008146
>How will they switch to a methane upper stage (for which a larger diameter is required in order to be efficient) without changing the first stage?
It's not necessary to make a larger diameter stage to use methane. The density difference isn't something like switching to hydrogen fuel, and since they're comparable in boiling point and heat capacity, the methane doesn't need more insulation than liquid oxygen does (i.e. you don't need insulation).

However, putting a larger-diameter stage on the Falcon 9/Heavy series wouldn't be a major problem. They fly a 5.2 m diameter fairing on top of a 3.7 m diameter rocket. They could just as easily fly a 5.2 m diameter upper stage + fairing.

>Be SpaceX
>Have all these upgrade for block 5 rocket.
>Block 3 first stages keep landing ezpz.
>Have to reuse them to show people it's working.
>tfw your agenda keeps getting delayed by your own success.

>>8993334
FYI, in 15 minutes China is launching a huge commsat on their new heavy launcher, the Long March 5

>>9008917
ooh, link?
Also, 12 hours left until the next SpaceX launch

>>9008917
Wouldn't even surprised seeing China launch a Falcon 9 copycat at this point.
I guess they're not that worried about cost.

>>9008920
https://www.youtube.com/embed/80Eziy1PGJ0

>>9008928
the announcer is giving me cancer

>>9008928
>https://www.youtube.com/embed/80Eziy1PGJ0
I wanna fuck that news anchor

>>9008917
oh no! looks like the second stage malfunctioned. Mission failure!

>>9008499
Nobody irrationally hates Space X, but a lot of people do very rationally hate Spacexboos.

>>9008988
>wiki page already updated
>failure

lel

>>9009004
This
But it is quite entertaining to watch the Muskolytes argue with the MuskBTFO-crowd.
Like two packs of autistic kids yelling at each other

>>9009018
>>9008988
I like harping on the Chinese as much as anyone else, but practically every LV has teething problems early in development. This is only the 2nd launch of the LM5.

next lunch tonight guyse

File: shijian-18-graph.png (314KB, 645x315px)

314KB, 645x315px

>>9008988
further analysis points to one of the two YF-77 core motors failing at T+350s. They briefly flashed a graph of actual vs. expected ascent profile on the screen during launch coverage, pinpointing that time.

>>9009130
I'm honestly surprised that they have been open about the failure. Whenever china does something with military tech, they always keep quiet unless its a success, and then its endless fanfare

File: s..png (67KB, 244x242px)

67KB, 244x242px

I like rockets.

Rockets are very cool.

>>8994417
>SpaceX success rate is one of the worst in the industry
>Even the Chinese and the Poos are better
China just lost a rocket today.

>>9009278
that is because this new generation of kerolox launchers is purely for civilian uses and space exploration. The previous generation LM-2,3,4 were only slight modifications of their ICBMs.

>>9009689
Good point. And its kinda hard to hide a launch failure, unless you plan on hiding the launch all together

>>9009696
NASA actually considered postponing Apollo 11 when the CIA figured out that the N1 blew up, to give them a bit more time. This was only a couple days before the Apollo 11 launched

>>9009689
More to the point, LM-5 was designed from the beginning to compete with Ariane 5, the then-dominant commercial satellite launch vehicle.

If they're not seen as open with faults and failures, they won't be trusted by launch customers, and therefore can't sell billions of hard-currency dollars worth of launches.

>>9009722
Sadly for China, by the time LM-5 is flying regularly, they won't be competing with Ariane 5 but with a mature, highly-reusable Falcon 9/Heavy that no conventional expendable can beat on cost.

File: 166iy05s077z.jpg (111KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 667x1000px

launch soooon

>>9009924
This is what you get when you dont put the launchpad on the equator

File: 3WpK47h.jpg (3MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2000px

Today's rocket will explode during first stage flight.

These digits from kek confirm.

>>9008587
>They could just as easily fly a 5.2 m diameter upper stage + fairing.

Not easily, it would require a lot of changes
They don't want to make the rocket wider because then its far more difficult/impossible to road transport it.
Fairings split in half for transport, a 5.2m upper stage can't.

So far all of their launch failures has come from the upper stage, they don't need increased payload, they need higher launch rate + safety + consistency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKmWeATngb4

Launch Thread

>>9010036
>>9010036
>>9010036
>>9010036
>>9010036

Fuck this hater thread

>>9000940
Bit short-sighted of Spacex to only get approvals to launch 12 times a year from there.

>>9008803
They've pretty much said block 3 stages will only be reused once to make room for block 4 and 5 stages.

>>9010338
12 launches a year from 4 launch pads is still pushing 50 launches a year
noone actually lives in boca chica

>>9010034
>They don't want to make the rocket wider because then its far more difficult/impossible to road transport it.
>Fairings split in half for transport, a 5.2m upper stage can't.
It's less of a problem for the upper stage because it's lighter and shorter, making it much easier to transport by air.

Anyway, they went with something that could fit on a truck when they were a small, poor company that would have had difficulty with more complex arrangements. They've already chosen to build much-larger-diameter rockets.

>So far all of their launch failures has come from the upper stage, they don't need increased payload, they need higher launch rate + safety + consistency
They need increased payload and also freedom with the shape to make a reusable upper stage to launch on their reusable booster and still be able to satisfy customers.

A fully, efficiently, usefully reusable vehicle is the goal here, and a reusable Falcon Heavy upper stage is the fastest way to reach that goal. Then they've got a clear path forward of tick-tock upgrades: replace the complex Falcon Heavy triple booster with a simpler, more economical 9-Raptor flyback booster, then build their BFR superbooster to lift a 9-Raptor upper stage.

>>9010387
Rockets aren't lego, etc

They want to be "done" with development on the Falcon family soon, so they can work on the BFR and so they can step up launch rate to fill their backlogs.

They are already the lowest price in the business, customers will pay for the expendable upper stage every time.

They'll be doing reuse tests for the FH upper stage, likely not ever turning it into a finished production vehicle(hell you only need 1 or 2 anyways)

>>9010493
>Rockets aren't lego, etc
Doesn't apply so much to combining lower and upper stages. The upper stage is basically just a payload of the lower stage. They don't have to work together.

>They want to be "done" with development on the Falcon family soon, so they can work on the BFR
That IS working on the BFR, just as building the subscale Raptor was part of Raptor development. A smaller, one-Raptor stage will take less time and money to develop than a full-scale two-stage BFR, and it can ride on top of Falcon Heavy, so they're not waiting on the development of a monster 42-engine booster before they can get any experience with a reusable upper stage.

Anyway, even with the BFR, there will still be a market for a smaller launch vehicle. Once they got the 9-Raptor booster going, they could keep flying that indefinitely. Plus, a smaller version of the BFR spaceship would be useful for their Mars plans.

>They are already the lowest price in the business, customers will pay for the expendable upper stage every time.
Which customers? They want to grow the market and stay well ahead of the competition.

As with the BFR spaceship, don't think of it as just a stage. Since it's coming back to Earth, you can build things into it, like pressurized cargo capacity or passenger space. The BFR is way oversized for shuttling people and supplies to LEO, while Dragon is undersized. A mini-BFR-spaceship could seat 50-100 short-term passengers.