SpaceX launches X-37b space shuttle

The cost savings. Tens of millions.

>>9153564
Why's it look like it was made by nignogs

Holy kek what am I looking at? Is that duct tape?

>>9153664
Looks like it's wrapped up for some outdoor landing gear tests. The color makes me think they used kapton tape to seal up the seams.

As a reusable re-entry vehicle, it's relatively robust for a spacecraft, but that doesn't mean they're going to tolerate any unnecessary dust or dings.

No fairing recovery this time. The recovery boat was called back in.


Juicy b-roll footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trNsXrJRDHQ

File: DJEpe1ZUwAADQeD.jpg-orig.jpg (1MB, 4096x2730px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4096x2730px

You wonder if the taxpayer doesn't really save anything in the end... Wont the airforce just launch more stuff with the same budget rather than lowering the budget and launching the same amount of stufff? I mean I'm not complaining; more cool spy shit in space is better than power projection in Arabistan

>>9153564
I'm ready for the launch to be scrubbed for weather.

>>9153590
ULA will still get to launch them. The government still wants to keep a second provider alive just in case shit goes south for some reason.

>>9153729
Even if there aren't any savings, it still means that you can do more things because now you have more money freed up. Maybe they can hire some new civilian researchers to create projects for the X-37b, or maybe they can afford a more expensive project that they've always wanted to put on it, but were too short on funds until now.

>>9153729

It saves money in the sense that you can do more with less, like the other Anon said.

Basically this puts the opportunity to lower the budget on the table. Congress are the ones who set the budget, and so they could (in theory) lower it. They won't, but they could.

>>9153729
I'm still waiting for that orbital anti-ICBM laser technology.

>>9154021
It's not coming.

>>9154021
>>9154035
Polyus happened but it was a failed launch.

>>9153664
You can clearly see that the duct tape is used to secure the protective padding to the wings, probably for transportation of whatever, but I'm lmaoing at the idea of Boeing sending up a DIY spacecraft held together by duct tape.

>>9153729
More bang for the same buck is still better for the taxpayer.

>>9153725
Vertical payload integration!

I want video of them putting it on the rocket.

>>9154237

The payload is encapsulated and transported vertically, but then rotated for horizontal mating with the launch vehicle in the hanger.

and it starts

File: they-finished-your-moms-dildo.jpg (39KB, 500x395px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x395px

>>9153725

Stream's live!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M6Zvi-fFv4

>>9154238
This is a military payload. SpaceX had to promise vertical integration capability to compete for EELV launches, so I thought this was an example of that.

You're probably right that this is another horizontal integration, but I want to see how their vertical integration works.

The RSS looks like it's ready to come down.

>sci-fi spaceship noises

Oh wow, they could fly these little robot shuttles a *lot* with falling Falcon 9 launch prices.

Imagine what space tech progress would look like with a testbed launch every week.

heh, no orbital parameters this time

Titanium fins confirmed.

>>9154258
They're finally talking about what X-37b does. That must mean that they're actually launching a preemptive strike on North Korea.

File: 1476929205833.jpg (9KB, 200x311px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x311px

ULA absolutely BTFO.

Like fucking clockwork

>>9153564
First stage just ended.

>>9154261
Not on this flight though. These are still the old aluminum ones. Gotta use up the old stock on lower dV reentries.

>>9154266

>has to maintain delta iv fleet for a few more years
boeing probably wants out of that asap

These landings are now routine. To think a few years ago this was though to be a fantasy

>>9154273
What this the 11th in a row? I don't even get nervous anymore.

>>9154269
I'm pretty sure the host said they were the titanium ones.

There's no point in "using up" disposable aluminum ones, when the titanium ones are good for repeated launches, and just generally better.

35 replies and it's already over. I remember when SpaceX launches were a huge deal on /sci/

Routine is good!

>>9154280
The hype should be back for the Falcon Heavy tests

>>9154276
It's the 12th if you don't count the one that blew up before launch. Ground pad landings have never failed btw, so those were always less exciting.

>>9154281
I can't wait for the heavy launch in november.

>>9154273
It never thought to be a fantasy, toxic fanboys made that strawman. Most just didn't believe the economic effect from this

>>9154285
Does reusing the first stage of the rocket save that much money?

File: its spin gravity.png (69KB, 1800x800px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1800x800px

>>9154288

flight proven rocket launch is around $40 million, down from $62 million for a new one. This number will go further down in the future.

File: Kj3oHVv[1].jpg (41KB, 640x501px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x501px

>>9154279
The titanium ones do weight a bit more, so there is incentive to use the aluminum ones. Anyway, the titanium ones look completely different.

>>9154288
SpaceX PR aside, it's hard to tell until they really start dropping the price.
Right now, price per flight is a bit cheaper, per kg is worse or the same. Even if/when they reduce it, it won't stand up to their promise. Their claim in 2005 was to make a fully reusable launcher (as in, both stages are reusable) in 2 years and drop the launchs costs tenfold. It's 2017, and they still haven't reached that goal, and became just another defence contractor knee-deep in politics, potentially a second boeing or lockmart.

>>9154280
It's pretty early in the morning. People were either going to work/classes or sleeping in.

>>9154281
Fairing recovery. Falcon Heavy. Block 5 debut. Dragon 2 test. ITS design evolution announcement. Possible Falcon Heavy reusable upper stage announcement.

Lots of hype coming up.

>>9154290
>flight proven rocket launch is around $40 million
That was an estimate from before the first relaunch. They decided to only give a small (~5%) discount, and the bigger draw is going to be schedule freedom.

>>9154291
Okay. What the guy says in the video is misleading then. He implies that the grid fins on screen are titanium.
https://youtu.be/9M6Zvi-fFv4?t=1422

It's probably an older booster stage.

I wish they showed the deployment of the x-37.

It isn't like the X-37's external appearance is a secret, or you could glean the ship's orbit from the video.

>>9154309
Amateur observers will be able to glean the orbit anyway, just like with previous NROL missions. Following it with video coverage could make it easier to track though, not that it's a huge difference.

>>9154299
>Their claim in 2005 was to make a fully reusable launcher (as in, both stages are reusable) in 2 years
No it wasn't, you fucking assclown. In 2005, they were still talking about crude splashdown recovery of first stages only.

>became just another defence contractor
Another total assclown claim. Their business is well divided between NASA, military, and private launches. The shameful thing about the orbital launch defense contractors is that they were incapable of competing on the private market, so to be "just another" one of them implies they're also sheltering inefficiency and incompetence under the umbrella of government, which isn't true at all.

You have to be a truly dedicated shitposter, paid shill, or mental patient at this point to still be trying to downplay SpaceX's significance and impact. They're just finishing off development of Falcon 9, transitioning from a flyback testbed to a mature, rapidly-reusable booster.

File: Screenshot (93).png (279KB, 904x795px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 904x795px

>>9154334
>No it wasn't, you fucking assclown. In 2005, they were still talking about crude splashdown recovery of first stages only.
oh look, it's another dumb fanboy who jumped the hype train a couple years ago
how amusing

File: Screenshot (94).png (391KB, 826x608px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 826x608px

>>9154350

>>9154334
> ad hominems, shilling accusations etc
Not a good way to refute something, unless you're on reddit. It's a nice company, with an extremely cancerous fanbase.

>>9154350
>>9154353
lol believes website marketing shit

>>9154334
>to be "just another" one of them implies they're also sheltering inefficiency and incompetence under the umbrella of government
They surely do participate in politics and questionable business/employment practices, that's for sure.

>>9154361
That's their early PR claim and the schedule. Considering their history, and that they didn't drop the price yet, I'll wait until they actually deliver. They made a fine price-competitive EXPENDABLE rocket. They didn't make its REUSABLE version worth the hassle yet, it's still a PR claim from a company known for huge PR claims.

File: 1459269889355.png (411KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 640x640px

>>9154280
I literally missed it and this thread until just now.

Every single launch I've seen happening live has failed. I've never seen a successful one.

>>9154380
Clearly you're the one jinxing them.

File: 1494501016325.png (15KB, 278x510px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 278x510px

>>9154388
The real kicker is I'm saving up money for a ride...

>>9154403
It will be the biggest explosion you will ever experience.

>>9154350
This is just a poorly phrased page on an early version of the website. The upper stages are indeed designed with reusable hardware, which allows them to be thoroughly tested before launch and reusable if recovered in good condition, and they were planning to eventually develop ways to recover both stages for reuse.

They were always pursuing an incremental expendable-to-reusable development plan, with an emphasis on recovering the boosters. The presence of a mention of their reusability aspirations on the same page where they show a manifest of a first F9 launch in 2007 does not mean they were seriously claiming in 2005 that they would have fully mature reusability within 2 years.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050923093830/http://spacex.com:80/

I stand by my accusation of assclownery.

>>9154353
>A LONG TERM reduction in cost by a factor of ten.
>LONG TERM
Assclown.

They're getting there, and thanks to their shift from splashdown recovery to flyback boosters, they should be able to do it even without upper stage recovery. Now they're talking about another order of magnitude improvement with ITS. The only reason they might not do upper stage reuse for the Falcon family (and they're still talking about a reusable upper stage for Falcon Heavy) is that they'd rather shift development focus to a much more ambitious vehicle.

They've certainly had delays, but their initial Falcon 9 flight was only 3 years later than originally planned, and that included major changes such as moving their launch operations to Florida after winning a NASA contract.

>>9154360
Insults aren't ad hominems, assclown. I'm saying I know you're an assclown because your arguments are bad, not that I know your arguments are bad because you're an assclown.

File: 1413294993902.jpg (19KB, 500x311px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x311px

>>9154409
>poorly phrased

File: 1403336312821.png (410KB, 720x800px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 720x800px

>>9154409
Nice damage control.

> a strawmen army
> being offended for a company
Right.
The initial argument wasn't about how SpaceX is "bad". They are perfectly capable of being competitive and iterating fast on the shoulders of giants (expendable Falcon 9 is an intentionally conservative launch vehicle series, after all). The argument was about how their main idea (or rather ideology) of VTVL reusability being economic still doesn't hold up in 2017, as a matter of fact. They still charge a bit less for a flight, and more per kg. Whether their promise will hold true is unknown yet, it's still to be seen.

>>9154431
https://seasia.co/2017/05/01/indonesia-to-use-spacex-to-launch-next-satellite
>up to 40% savings

even so, DYEeconmics bro? Why charge less now when you just need to charge less than your competitors? As their manifest dwindles down in late 2018 the real discounts will come, since block 5 + reusable 2.0 fairings will be in full use; that'll bring more customers in.

File: ycVab1X.jpg (4MB, 2000x2500px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2000x2500px

>>9154430
If you look closely you can even see the moon.

>>9154443
Can you see the flag on it though?

>>9154443
I'm wondering if that parachute is the fairings

>>9154434
>The total investment was worth US$166 million
>which is 40% cheaper than with expendable version
Doesn't compute, 40% is more than the total launch price, regardless of what exactly they meant. Surely SpaceX didn't pay Telcom for the launch?
My bet it's just a distorted or misunderstood quote.

>>9154460
the advertised prices on the spx website do not include some stuff like integration and other services. Perhaps the 40% was just for the launch chunk of the contract

>>9154414
Try not to be utter garbage.

It was just poorly phrased: "designed such that both stages are reusable" was true if narrowly interpreted, conditional on recovery, and recovery was planned to be developed over time. It carries a misleading implication and doesn't reflect their actual plans at the time, or the public claims of their main representatives, such as Elon Musk.

The website is a low priority, so not every line of it can be treated as their official position. There's generally some connection to their true situation and expectations, but not all of it is phrased in a way to clearly express it.

This phrasing persisted until mid-2013, years after Falcon 9 started flying expendably:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130425020246/http://www.spacex.com/company.php
>All the while, SpaceX continues to work toward one of its key goals -- developing reusable rockets
>They are also designed such that all stages are reusable, making them the world's first fully reusable launch vehicles.

>>9154431
>The argument was about how their main idea (or rather ideology) of VTVL reusability being economic still doesn't hold up in 2017, as a matter of fact.
That's a ridiculous argument. SpaceX is using VTVL reusability, offering the best launch prices on the market, charging less for launches that permit recovery of the booster, and both charging less and offering schedule advantages (which are a considerable economic advantage for customers) for customers that accept launches on previously-flown boosters.

>They still charge a bit less for a flight, and more per kg.
No, they don't fucking charge "more per kg". They've had reusability margins in their performance figures for launches at advertised prices since F9 1.1, and expendable launches are a specially negotiated service they don't even advertise a price for. A previously flown booster doesn't have lower performance than a new one of the same model.

>>9154350

nowhere does it say that 2007 launch will be reusable, and obviously you dont know what you are talking about because it is clear that reusability of both stages will not be working at first launch of the fucking rocket

learn to read

One wonders how much of the market SpaceX is gonna gobble up over the next year. They already have over 50% of the GLOBAL launches per year. And for launches where you can bid on the mission, they have like 80%....

>>9154483
>SpaceX is using VTVL reusability, offering the best launch prices on the market
Except they did that long before reusability, with an expendable version of Falcon 9, that's the point. It also allowed them to quickly iterate and experiment with reusability, which doesn't drive the price down itself yet.

>No, they don't fucking charge "more per kg".
Expendable Falcon 9 FT is $62M per 8300kg to GTO.
Reusable Falcon 9 FT must not cost more than $41M per 5500kg for the price to be at least the same as the expendable version.
Expendable Falcon-5 FT or Falcon-7 FT based on the same rocket would probably have been better than Falcon-9 FT with the reusable first stage.

File: 1500085127646.jpg (191KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 960x720px

>>9154495
pretty sure all musk cares about is nuking the russian commercial launch market

>>9154513
>Expendable Falcon 9 FT is $62M per 8300kg to GTO.
No it isn't. Look:
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
$62 million is for up to 5500 kg to GTO. It's right under the $62M. The $90 million Falcon Heavy price is limited to 8000 kg to GTO.

An expendable launch is a special service that there's no advertised price for. They sure as fuck aren't going to give you a launch over 8000 kg for under $90 million.

>Expendable Falcon-5 FT or Falcon-7 FT based on the same rocket would probably have been better than Falcon-9 FT with the reusable first stage.
This is idiotic. Even if they only get a single reflight out of the recovered stages, they're a better deal than Falcon 5, and Block 5 gas-and-go reusability should be working within a year or two.

>>9154542
India is still the leader in low cost launches.

>>9154542
What? Khrunichev successfully nuked itself and has not been a serious competitor for a long time. Not sure what's here to care about.

File: 1489331923897.png (590KB, 573x1495px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 573x1495px

>>9154557

>>9154554
India's not the leader in anything. Their prices, costs, and cost claims have no relation to one another.

ISRO's a government agency. It's not supposed to make money, they're motivated to make lowball estimates of the costs of high-profile programs, and it's very easy to hide costs from one program in another. Nearly all of their launches are for their own payloads. When they launch a foreign payload, it's more about the prestige of doing so than the payment they receive, so they have little reason to worry about charging enough to cover the true costs.

All you can really say about ISRO is that they're launching a few times per year, and a few non-cubesat foreign payloads per decade. In the international market, they're a non-entity, and pretty much guaranteed to remain such.

FH soon lads. Six sonic booms at the cape... wonder how close the two landings will be

>>9154695
Isn't it just four? How do you count six sonic booms?

File: 37087809715_08a6d9904d_o.jpg (913KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 3000x2000px

>>9154701
three per booster. The first two are close together so most people hear it as one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojzENJhkm30

>>9154704
Ah, thanks. It's simply because of the length and shape of the vehicle.
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/double-triple-landing-falcon-9-creates-three-sonic-booms/

File: thatsnomoon.jpg (2MB, 2000x2500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2500px

>>9154443
I don't see it

>>9154542
>>9154555

Musk cares because they supposedly dissed him when he wanted to buy a missile on the cheap from them.

>>9154870
They literally laughed at him. It was to launch a small green plant to the surface of mars to raise awareness for mars exploration. Then he said fuck it I'll do it myself

>>9154870
>>9154882
source?

>>9154883
biography. Also mentioned in some older articles

>>9153564
anyone know how much free money musk has?

I have an Idea he would probably legitimately like, but have no idea if he would be interested in doing it since contacting him is nearly impossible due to toxic fanboys.


Short and simple I want to get an LLTV flying but with upgraded systems that way it can simulate Mars gravity and simulate lunar gravity

>but anon that's dangerous and retarded
Nobody ever died from the LLTV everyone ejected, out of every landing on the moon done Every single damn one of them was done manually, I can guarantee you Apollo 11 would not have happened had it not been for that vehicle

>>9154912
lots. But he can't use it exactly. his own net worth has gone up by, oh around 10 billion? with the recent tesla stock increases. But he says he'll never ever sell the stock. it's to have a majority in the company and nothing else

As for your idea, I'm sorry to say that it is useless in this day and age. Humans won't be piloting the ITS down to the surface of mars We have the technology now.

>>9154918
we had the technology in 1969 but thats not the point, If you were going to land on mars wouldnt you want some sort of training should anything go wrong?

you are going to be 7 light minutes away from earth at best and if something goes wrong with the computer (Murphys law) you are going to want to be able to fix it or you and the crew are going to be in deep shit.

you cant just yell out to NASA over the radio >hey I got a 1202 alarm here, whats that mean?
once you enter the martian atmosphere you are on you're own.

>>9154870
That's a myth told by a different guy and multiplied by media. Besides, Khrunichev is not the entire russian space industry, just their direct competitor (at least was, before they managed to fuck themselves spectacularly without any outside help)

File: bob page.png (256KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 480x360px

SPACE EXPLORATION IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN NORTH KOREA

BE CAREFUL REDDIT

bumping thread

>>9154933
>if something goes wrong with the computer (Murphys law) you are going to want to be able to fix it or you and the crew are going to be in deep shit.
You're absolutely not going to do the job of the flight control computer if it goes down, and if it starts doing the wrong thing, there's no way a human pilot is going to correct it fast enough. There's no point in training people to futilely attempt the impossible.

A vehicle capable of manually-piloted landing *without* the computer would need to be radically redesigned (to be much less cost-effective). I don't think the engines can even run without computers.

Face it: the computer's just one of the things you have to depend on for a safe landing, certainly in anything SpaceX is planning to build.

>>9154980
Eh fair point, computers are here to stay

Would still be nice to get one flying though as a tribute to Apollo astronauts and test pilots out there.

Would definitely be a nice tribute to Neil Armstrong and everyone that worked on the program.

>>9154309

Yep, I'd love to see it deploy in space.

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/index.html

when the sat hunters figure out where x37b is at it'll be posted here

>>9154280
Now that they are reliable we look like idiots saying that it will fail and thus go find other things to bitch about.

File: robocop2.gif (2MB, 403x297px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 403x297px

>>9154909
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a16681/elon-musk-interview-1212/

>The problem with the Americans is that they were like Russians. No, they weren't gangsters, and they didn't make a business model of drinking you into a stupor. But the guys in American aerospace acted like they had you, and when you showed up with the money, they asked for more. Musk didn't like that. He didn't like getting screwed. He particularly didn't like getting screwed by people who also laughed at him. One time, for instance, he needed a valve—"The one we had was too small, and we needed a bigger one," Tom Mueller says. "We called a vendor and they said it would cost a quarter million dollars and it would take a year to make. We said, 'We need it this summer.' They laughed and told us to go away. So we decided to make it ourselves. They called us back in the summer. They were like, 'Hey, how is it going with that valve?' We said, 'We made it, we finished it, we qualified it, and we're going to fly it.'"

>Another time, Musk had an issue with a vendor that makes the big aluminum domes that top off the fuel tanks. The issue was that they were going Russian on him. "We got a big increase from the vendor after the first units were delivered," says Mark Juncosa, SpaceX's lead structural engineer.

>SpaceX now makes its own domes — as Juncosa puts it, "We have our own dome-manufacturing facility in the back of the factory." This is a big deal: Elon Musk is not just assembling rockets in Hawthorne, California; he's manufacturing 70 percent of them, piece by piece. It doesn't mean that vendors have stopped trying to screw him, though, and on the evening that Musk sits eating his medieval turkey leg at his desk, Juncosa walks in to tell him that Alcoa is going Russian on him.

>>9154935
Hence the supposedly.

>>9154350
See this interesting thing happened around 2007 to do with the economy. The estimates did not account for an economic recession in 2005.

File: 21373768_1916210985308243_8524661976842895360_n.jpg (78KB, 749x749px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 749x749px

new suit photo

>>9156002

Musk is just a meat puppet for big players in US space industry, he got his job only cuz some old farts didn't want to spend money on NASA