STREAMS
HOSTED: youtube.com
TECHNICAL: youtube.com
>What happened?
SpaceX, a commercial space launch company, just managed to re-launch and re-land a reused first stage rocket booster.
>How does this involve politics?
Space travel is becoming cheaper, meaning Space will likely become a bigger playing chip in political environments. Also, moon/mars colonies sound awesome.
Other urls found in this thread:
space.com
twitter.com
dashcam POV
West Coast elites to build a new libertarian society off-planet. Trump voters and other types of obsoletes left behind.
BORN TOO LATE TO EXPLORE THE AMERICAS
BORN TOO EARLY TO EXPLORE THE GALAXY
BORN JUST IN TIME TO SEE ROCKETS LANDING THEMSELVES
that was an old launch
Space-X is fucking worthless. GTFO with this shit.
...
>BORN JUST IN TIME TO SEE ROCKETS LANDING THEMSELVES
That was 47 years ago, user. Ever hear of the Eagle Spacecraft?
Explain how this is so?
>spacex
>worthless
Holy shit you're the dumbest nigger I've seen. You're supposedly this intelligent college educated master of all yet you fucking pull shit a dumb ass high schooler would do.
If you're so well fucking connected you'd have SOMETHING to show for it you fuck. Not the first low hanging search result you find off google.
They're just a subcontractor for nasa. They do not have the capital to go to mars, or even to the moon.
Elon Musk is a con artist.
WIKIPEDIA QUOTES MUSK WANTS TO BRING THE COST OF TAKING SHIT TO SPACE TO $500 A POUND, DOWN FROM $10,000 A POUND.
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE/WHERE IS MUSK WRONG/EXPLAIN THE MATH TO ME NOT THE SCIENCE
I ONLY CARE ABOUT COSTS CAUSE SCIENCE MEANS NOTHING WITHOUT AFFORDABILITY
are you the cunt who was going on about how the falcon 9 somehow couldn't be reused even though it literally was just reused in the last thread?
>tfw abortion and homosexuality will be legal in the Martian free cities
Why, in your total ignorance of how the world works, do you think i would possess a document on the space shuttle SRBs just because i have a master's degree? Do you think they just hand them out at graduation?
I saw several ET space craft flying below the returning rocket as it came back to Earth. It did not appear to be debris or ice crystals. Several can be seen at 34:15 minutes into the replay video.
You should be able to do so much better than babbies first report. You know exactly what everyone has been asking for but CONTINUOUSLY beat around the bush.
>they named the robotic barges after fictional spaceships from novels of LEFTWING LIBERTARIAN IAIN M. BANKS
>praise of Putin nowhere to be found in official SpaceX marketing materials
>still no landing footage
What is your experience in engineering? College level, layman, what?
I may not be able to sufficiently explain it to you if you lack a basic understanding.
What evidence can you provide that this is a refurbished rocket, what evidence can you provide that the costs of refurbishment were much lower than the cost of a new first stage?
Those are the claims i am addressing. That is the evidence that SpaceX will never provide.
The old way was to build a new rocket each time. Now they just refuel it.
You haven't made any claims, just baseless accusations.
What do you expect me to provide? Be absolutely specific.
Once Falcon Heavy is released, they'll have all the power they need to go to the moon and send small payloads to Mars.
They're currently in the final stages of testing for their manned capsule, so by late this year or early 2018 they'll be able to send humans to space. From there, they'll continue to make profits from their ultra low cost space launches from companies due to their launch prices now being able to be far lower than any competitor.
They will rack up a large amount of cash from contracts with NASA/USAF as well as from commercial sales of their rocket flights.
Personally as it stands I too can't quite see yet how they'll get the funding to make their proposed 42-engine booster and massive transport ship, but I've got a feeling Musk has it all planned out.
friendly reminder that pepe will most likely be going to space.
Reusable rockets mean you don't have to build new shit every time. Rockets are expensive, man.
>what evidence
Musk has investors, and the rocket market is a competitive environment especially with the Russian Soyuz system. Do you realize how quickly his competition would jump on this fucking opportunity and crash his company if it really wasnt the same rocket.
this is just simple logic retard
>inb4 every rocket maker is in global cahoots
You sound like those moon conspiracy fucking nuts if you say this
>60 million to purchase launch
>1st stage is something like half of that
>reuse 1st stage over and over
>rocket now costs less per launch
ice and shit always breaks off during launches, the falcon 9 doesn't have a 1st stage long term storage cryo tank. you can see the ice breaking off on launch.
>What evidence can you provide that this is a refurbished rocket
cunt they literally did 10 full duration test fires on the JCSAT-14 core. why the fuck do you need proof for this core being "refurbished"? what, did they just pull another core out of their ass, smear some graphite on it and call it used?
>what evidence can you provide that the costs of refurbishment were much lower than the cost of a new first stage?
the engines cost something like 10 million dollars all together, they were all reused, the rest of the rocket including the tanks was reused. even if they gutted the thing to take out the engines and put new ones in, they would still be saving money. and if not money, they would be saving time.
why are you being deliberately obtuse?
It will be a signal to the ancient Egyptians to come back to earth in their pyramid spaceships.
>Once Falcon Heavy is released, they'll have all the power they need to go to the moon and send small payloads to Mars.
But no payloads. They don't have the money to do their own missions.
>They're currently in the final stages of testing for their manned capsule, so by late this year or early 2018 they'll be able to send humans to space. From there, they'll continue to make profits from their ultra low cost space launches from companies due to their launch prices now being able to be far lower than any competitor.
We don't send many people to space per year. How would that be economical? Why would a company risk their satellite on a spacex rocket with a poor track record? Yes the ULA is more expensive, but they get what they pay for.
>They will rack up a large amount of cash from contracts with NASA/USAF as well as from commercial sales of their rocket flights.
Not really.
>Personally as it stands I too can't quite see yet how they'll get the funding to make their proposed 42-engine booster and massive transport ship, but I've got a feeling Musk has it all planned out.
The guy who thinks he's in a computer?
If they can re-use the boosters of the rockets, and bring refurbishment costs way down, then they will be able to launch their rockets to space for far lower prices than they do now, with the current generation I'd say up to 40-50% decrease in launch prices, but when and if they release a new version of Falcon 9, that number may be higher.
You see, the cost of the rocket itself is $50-$65 million, but the cost of fuel is only a few hundred thousand dollars, with refurbishment costs being anywhere from a couple million to $40 million.
>But they tried re using the SRBs on the Shuttle to cut costs and it didn't work!
The problem with the shuttle is the SRBs were landed in the ocean, so salt water and the force of impact caused a ton of damage. It took months to refurbish each SRB and hundreds of millions of dollars. Not to mention that the fuel tank was burned up in the atmosphere after every launch and they had to replace the heatshield on the bottom of the shuttle after every launch.
I don't think we'll hit $500/lb but we'll definitely drive the price down WAY lower than it is right now.
is that sped up?
>Don't have the money to do their own missions.
How do you know? Sauce?
checked
Yes. [spoiler]I don't know[/spoiler]
Elon Musk is a fucking idiot and this shit is all taxpayer funded. Fuck this shill thread and all of you faggots.
Is this a good thing?
>Musk has investors, and the rocket market is a competitive environment especially with the Russian Soyuz system. Do you realize how quickly his competition would jump on this fucking opportunity and crash his company if it really wasn't the same rocket.
How would they prove it? Also, the russians aren't competition. The ULA is the only good rocket maker on earth.
>cunt they literally did 10 full duration test fires on the JCSAT-14 core. why the fuck do you need proof for this core being "refurbished"? what, did they just pull another core out of their ass, smear some graphite on it and call it used?
Would that not benefit their bottom line? Do they explicitly delineate what they mean by "refurbished"? is it 99% new parts or 1% new parts?
>the engines cost something like 10 million dollars all together, they were all reused, the rest of the rocket including the tanks was reused. even if they gutted the thing to take out the engines and put new ones in, they would still be saving money. and if not money, they would be saving time.
What are you basing that on, data that has not been made public?
I think it's a sad testament to how far western nations have fallen that a fucking company is making faster progress into space than a superpower nation the USA
What the fuck happened to America?
>west coast
>libertarian
1. They have no purpose in doing their own missions yet aside from working on the manned capsule. As they are a commercial company they mostly provide launch services to communications companies and NASA/USAF.
2. I think I structured that badly. What I meant is that they'll be able to send people to space soon using the capsule. But on a tangent, their flight costs will keep decreasing, thus anyone who wants to send a satellite or two to space will choose SpaceX instead of the competitors due to how much lower cost it would be. Therefore, SpaceX will make much larger profits than they are now.
3. See above, also, forgot to mention that they plan to start selling stocks soon, which will bring in more capital.
4. Yes that guy.
I refuse to believe this isn't bait at this point.
here have this picture because I bit
What evidence can you provide to the contrary you fuck?
>with the current generation I'd say up to 40-50% decrease in launch prices, but when and if they release a new version of Falcon 9, that number may be higher.
SpaceX itself said the difference is a 30% cost savings. Not fucking much at all.
>so salt water
Painted to resist it.
>the force of impact caused a ton of damage
Not really, it only hits going about 50mph and most of that is absorbed by the replaceable nozzle.
>I don't think we'll hit $500/lb but we'll definitely drive the price down WAY lower than it is right now.
Rocketry is too mature a field of engineering to make those claims. There are no new materials, no new fuels to be invented. Sleight of hand and cleverness can only gain you so much.
after having watched it 20 times im pretty sure it is sped up.
thats pretty cool man im very impressed. space travel is the future our specied neds to spread beyond this damned rock
>30% of a million is not fucking much at all.
You're a retard.
Flat Earthers blown the fuck out for all time
species needs*
>What are you basing that on, data that has not been made public?
the merlin engines on the first stage have been known to cost around a million dollars each for a long time, the other equipment to support the merlins on the first stage total up to about a million dollars as well. as for everything else, it's common knowledge. even just reusing the COPVs and the fuselage of the rocket saves money and time.
>Would that not benefit their bottom line?
you can bet your ass that ULA would have a VERY VERY VERY LARGE LAWSUIT ON THE WAY, and why would they even bother to fake the reuse? they've landed so many rockets now people are starting to lose count of them. people in florida and texas regularly post photos of the cores being trucked around for fucks sake.
>is it 99% new parts or 1% new parts?
best guess? 5-10% new parts, 90% reused. most of the new parts being the landing legs and the grid fins. it is known that the engines are reused, same with the COPVs.
>They have no purpose in doing their own missions yet aside from working on the manned capsule.
check their leaked financials and their job postings; they're planning on financing most of the ITS mars colonization with a private satellite network.
>SpaceX itself said the difference is a 30% cost savings. Not fucking much at all.
...and the ability to not have to spend a year or more building an entirely new rocket from scratch. and the ability to cut internal costs. and the ability to further R&D on the ITS.
I did find it funny and odd at the 'because the Earf is a sphere' comment.
Flat Earthers are religious fundamentalist.
>1. They have no purpose in doing their own missions yet aside from working on the manned capsule. As they are a commercial company they mostly provide launch services to communications companies and NASA/USAF.
Agreed.
>their flight costs will keep decreasing
This i think is in error. Diminishing returns are very much a thing in something as mature as rocketry. The Apollo Program just discovered too much. There's literally nothing left to innovate on.
>thus anyone who wants to send a satellite or two to space will choose SpaceX instead of the competitors due to how much lower cost it would be.
The cost is lower, and the risk is higher. Poor, desperate companies will do it. Good ones will not want to risk losing all that time and labor to save a few million dollars.
>4. Yes that guy.
How does that not color your opinion of him? He doesn't believe in reality, you cannot have cogent thoughts with that axiom.
I'm just a russian bot, like everyone on Sup Forums
Nothing you'd be able to understand. Do you think you could fix a military helicopter as you are now? How then do you feel equipped to understand Rocket Science?
No you little shit you're not getting away that easily. Go ahead, I got all day to learn about this. Enlighten me if you know so much.
>Peter Thiel will ban women on Mars
gotta be, impact probably would've done some serious damage otherwise
these things are fucking huge, looks way slower than it is
musk afterlaunch comments:
>still working on upper stage reuse
>hope to provide update to ITS soon, number of design refinements [maybe not landing on launch mount?], update on website in next month or so, first ITS uncrewed.
>roomba used in next few months
>refurb at launch site
>"Confidence? I had about two boxes of xanax. I was oddly calmer than I should have been."
>New design coming for Grid Fin. Will be largest titanium forging in the world.
>Agreed.
you don't even know about the californian satellite facility and you feel like you can make comments about spacex?
Have their been serious talks about having male only or female only colonies? This seems like a big issue. That instinctual drive to breed might fuck up intersex missions. (might, I have no idea the impact of being isolated with the same people for months on end would do.)
ANOTHER WIN FOR WHITE PEOPLE
>implying space/pol/ won't go full SIEG ZEON
How do flat earthers recover now that we have live stream footage of the Earth's curvature
>I had about two boxes of xanax.
Idc lol
It would be hard to have sex in zero G
NASA has been trying several psychology experiments for long space/mars missions. Odds are first mission will have a one gender group that can work with one another in high stress environments.
Flat earthers are in full denial. We cannot help them. They're lost.
>We don't send many people to space per year. How would that be economical?
We don't send many people to space per year BECAUSE it costs so much. Lower the cost and more use cases become affordable.
>homogay
it would be really easy dumbass, you'd just have to adjust
Musk says 100x reduction in cost possible
Because SpaceX does not have access to materials that are immune to physical stresses, and those stresses will cause microfractures and weaken the materials, necessitating their replacement.
Without any concrete definition of what SpaceX means by "Refurbished", we can only assume that the rockets are 99% new parts and 1% previous rocket. Technically it is the same rocket, unless you dissect it like the ship of theseus thought experiment.
If i replace all of the parts in a rocket, is it the same rocket? I bet spacex would say it is.
Does it really matter where the money comes from?
if a sphere was 25,000 miles around you wouldnt see curvature for a very long time
the lens is doing that
>We don't send many people to space per year BECAUSE it costs so much. Lower the cost and more use cases become affordable.
No we don't send them because humans serve no purpose in space and haven't since the invention of the integrated circuit.
The ISS is a boondoggle. A complete and utter waste of money.
>Assumptions are facts now.
Ebin, simply fucking ebin.
>>Without any concrete definition of what SpaceX means by "Refurbished", we can only assume that the rockets are 99% new parts and 1% previous rocket.
except the COPVs are the same, the engines are the same, the fuselage is the same, and it JUST FUCKING LANDED
seriously do you have brain damage or what, you dumb cunt?
>All this retarded pseudo intellectual babble about something he clearly has no deep understanding of
Jesus christ, why even bother posting at all?
Stick to regurgitating things you read on that other site and stop fucking ruining this thread with utter drivel
>except the COPVs are the same, the engines are the same, the fuselage is the same, and it JUST FUCKING LANDED
What independant group determined that, or are you just believing the used car salesman's claims that it "runs like a dream" on face value?
You cannot take a position in this argument without assumptions, as spacex is not being forthcoming with their financial data.
Neither of us have any objective way of knowing.
Soon, this summer 2017, they will launch a VR satellite into orbit and we'll be able to put on our VR goggles and view Earth from Space.
Dunning Kruger to you too.
can't prove that. wide angle lenses cause that kind of distortion
>post-modern desires
>independent group
cunt if you don't even go to NSF don't bother talking, shove your "masters degree" up your ass
Then why put it all in a negativity ball and not just state what you think in a neutral attitude? Your appeal to authority shit isn't going to work here.
If you can't possibly know, I can't possibly know, then why are you right?
Why and how did it renter back end (landing end) first.
IMO space exploration will save the white race, we can leave these fucking kikes and subhumans for good
>doesn't read pop science
>isn't educated
Wew lad. What did they say? Got a link?
Except you can see the curvature slowly moving towards a straight line in the video.
>He doesn't realize that's exactly what he is doing.
Were you trying to be ironic here?
>independant
>used car salesman's
...
>it's another fat virgin larping episode
You know fuck all so quiet down boy
>Misusing Dunning Kruger effect
It's like you're trying to prove you're not a dribbling mess of a man
Wow, what a fucking stupid waste of time.
>NSF
>pop science
stop LARPing.
Technophiles for the 2654th time are hyped and announce success
Reality poses barriers to the speed of scientific development
Until the 19 century Humanity has been travelling with about the same speed as Alexander the Great. Just try to achieve something like that in contemporary times
SpaceX is a hoax funded by govt money. Once China's real estate bubble pops then all that artificial and shitty economy including shitty firms will collapse
Mars colonization isn't going to be a reality until we can hit around 1/8th to 1/4 light speed. I hope to god I'm around to see it.
As it stands now we can, right now, take a manned mission to mars - it'll just take 6 months to get there
>Then why put it all in a negativity ball and not just state what you think in a neutral attitude?
The adversarial system is the only check keeping science honest. We shit on each others ideas constantly, it's the only way of sorting the wheat from the chaff.
>If you can't possibly know, I can't possibly know, then why are you right?
Because science is predictive. Everything i know tells me that this isn't viable. Until i see hard evidence to the contrary, i am not going to accept it.
Do you believe in ghosts? I do not. But can either of us really conclusively prove that they don't exist? No, because there is no such thing as 100% certainty.
For the record, i would love to be wrong. I love space so much i went to college for it. What have you done?
>He unironically believes this while posting on the internet that has only been mainstream for 20-23 years max
You're a pleb
>curvature moving towards a straight line
even if that is the case, that would further validate the wide lens distortion. wide lenses distort the most around the edges. also there is no curve moving towards a straight line either ways. you'd have to be dumb to even think that as a round-earther
Except i have an education.
Go suck some more black dick.
Why should i care about the NSF's opinion? They're a grant writing company. Everyone and their brother lies to them.
We could very likely be able to manage supplies for a 6 month journey. It'd be very tight, but I believe it's possible.
You're only attitude was flooded with the whole 'hurr I have a degree I'm right' bullshit.
And you STILL HAVE YET to actually fucking explain why in ANY detail this isn't feasible.
>1/8th to 1/4 light speed.
So you want to get to mars in 5 to 10 seconds? Gods above and below, this place.
>Appeal to authority.
You're still a giant faggot here.