How did they make a reusable rocket that costs less than a new one when every space agency said it couldn't be done?
I have searched high and low and i cannot find any evidence of outside groups that don't benefit from spaceX investigating their operations and observing the refurbishment process and accounting for the costs compared to a new rocket.
They must be lying. It's not like anything else Musk does stands up under scrutiny.
maybe capitalism works sometimes
>every space agency said it couldn't be done
Everyone always says that, until someone does it.
Musk hired a German engineer to design it
Rocketry is too mature a technology to produce monumental gains anymore.
I'll need to see an independent assay of their finances to see where the reusable rocket saved them money.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to note that reusability reduces cost of manufacturing new parts.
Also NASA fiddled with the idea a while back in the 70's or so, but dropped it due to gps inaccuracies that wouldn't guarantee it would land on a defined portion of a ship.
>saved them money
They are in all probability cooking the shit out of their books
>Everyone always says that, until someone does it.
>Times this has happened: Zero.
They can't even manage to copy the russian RD-180 from the 1970's.
>You don't need to be a rocket scientist to note that reusability reduces cost of manufacturing new parts.
Not when the stresses placed on the vehicle make it impossible to recover the components without significant wear and tear. If they have to replace most of the components and pay people to do it, it won't be a reduction of cost.
I've no doubt that is exactly what they are doing.
Not outside parts faggot, instruments and the probe core and such like, although much of the engine can be salvaged also.
>How did they make a reusable rocket that costs less than a new one when every space agency said it couldn't be done?
They said it was pointless because there isnt that many rocket launches to make reusability worthwhile. Elon said we will launch hundreds so it will be worthwhile.
>I have searched high and low and i cannot find any evidence of outside groups that don't benefit from spaceX investigating their operations and observing the refurbishment process and accounting for the costs compared to a new rocket.
Nobody knows yet. It might even be more expensive. But making a rocket also costs time. If you get the rocket back at least you dont need to make a new one.
>They must be lying. It's not like anything else Musk does stands up under scrutiny.
They might be. Why is this on /pol btw?
>Times this has happened: Zero.
>You can't transmit information wirelessly!
>You can't split the atom!
>You can't become president by bullying people and verbally shitposting!
Maybe it was powered by Elon Musk's hubris?
>American does not understand the military industrial complex
They literally paid the media off to edit testimonials from Niel Armstrong and Eugene Cernan to discredit Spacex and continue burning taxpayer money.
Are you really asking why it's more expensive to build a whole new rocket every time you put something in orbit?
Fake af
What are you, a flat earther?
Let me guess, you have a BA in Baroque Chamber Music.
This.
I know it seems counter intuitive but yes that is exactly the case.
Over the course of its life, the Russian Soyuz rocket system has been more reliable, delivered more people and a larger payload to space for less money than the Shuttle program.
Maintenance costs exceed construction costs.
Op, I have to say you are quite silly.
Are you familiar with the concept of capitalism and the free market?
If there are costs are not actually reduced due to reuse, then they will either
a) not be able to win bids if their prices are too high,
or,
b) will go bankrupt due to costs being greater than income.
Either way they would cease to function.
can fly up, balance, land 100$
how can they do it on a larger scale for hundreds of millions of $ with the best scientists and engineers in the world ?
must be magic
Not an argument.
Digits.....
No expert in those fields made those claims.
But you forgot one: "The Concorde is the future of air travel!"
Also, other space agencies and companies are now developing reusable rockets. See for example Blue Origin.
Go to reddit.com/r/spacex to get educated.
SpaceX doesn't operate in a free market.
Sup Forums is the only place with level headed people.
Plenty of experts in those field made those claims. We have many political expect claim that Trump would lose. Those same experts claim that he will be impeached.
No expert in atomic theory said we couldn't split the atom.
All you're doing is showing how anecdote is not evidence.
It's true that gov subsidies distort the market. But in the long run I expect it to get more free.
Explosions/failures, limited re-use cycles, cost of recovery and rebuilding..
Musk doesn't have to prove profitability to float his scam indefinitely.
It would have been if fucking pussies didn't bitch and moan about sonic booms.
remember when flying was impossible? when computers where tought to be bigger in the future?
Why thank you!
Thats the only good thing I heard on Sup Forums today.
Elon is a 3d sensory appendage of a higher dimensional being, currently local in Hilbert space. You gotta know it by his record boys.
So wait you are saying that since if all three of those thing aren't met it must not be true. Also Atomic theory didn't always exist and these was a reason why the manhatten project was a big deal. You are pretending like every atomic scientist at the time knew how to split an atom.
Wew lad. Remember when people said we would never fly?
Also regardless of what you believe, the reason other space agencies didn't make much headway is because of, shocker, politics. NASA and similar organizations were hilariously politicized.
And I don't know if its actually "reusable" yet. It's merely refurbishable. They haven't quite gotten it down to reusable yet and have to at least take it apart for maintenance before every launch.
Every space agency never said it could not be done. They were doing it for quite a while, just in a different way. Space Shuttle was reusable, as were the SFBs. The only thing they threw away was the main fuel tank. The public just shit themselves the moment a shuttle explosion happened, and then quit on the entire thing when the second one went. Musk is doing great things, but his cost is very high still. They never mention that when they bring a Falcon back they have to totally rebuild it replacing almost every part every time. And just wait until one full of people explodes. It will be the shuttle program all over again.
Not entirely. Raptor is the powerful and efficient chemical rocket ever devised, but it's because of small improvements to technology over time.
en.wikipedia.org
The F-1 engines built for the Saturn V were giant monstrosities covered in welds, where the F-1B redesign a couple years ago of the exact same engine is incredibly elegant because of better manufacturing techniques (pic related).
i spel n thinc gud: Raptor is the best mix of thrust and efficiency chemical rocket ever devised
>said it couldn't be done
It's called engineering progress.
It's called learning from your mistakes.
It's called evolution.
You have a unique and very special type of stupid in your life.
>sometimes
100% of the time
uhhhhh why is that rocket so fucking big? pic related is the boat it is on next to men for comparison
>Muh German engineering
t. Fag
>People actually accomplishing things with their lives
>IT'S FAKE
Some people would attribute your paranoia to being schizophrenic, but I attribute it to your inferiority complex. I'll give it to you, though. You can believe whatever you want to believe in order to give you the idea that you are "better" than others because you're not like all those other sheep and have acquired knowledge others could not. It's a great way to build up your ego without actually having to do anything. You probably need it, too. It's a huge world full of people doing all sorts of things, and boy do you need something.
because small rockets don't have enough dV.
big rocket hold more fuel. more fuel mean more potential for change in velocity. change in velocity needed to move things far. some things that need be move far are big. big things that need be move far need more change in velocity because heavy. more potential change in velocity need more fuel.
Escape velocity is relatively high and the things they shoot up into space are massive.
The scale doesn't look off at all. Put those guys at the cockpit of shuttle (one they are going to live in for a while, mind you) attached to the rocket and I'd say that's pretty on point.
easy
Just another CIA front
mileswmathis.com
>why is a rocket meant to shoot huge payloads into outer space big
God damn public school education
>They can't even manage to copy the russian RD-180 from the 1970's.
That's united launch alliance with gibsmedats from congress, not spacex
And spacex wouldn't want to copy the RD-180 - their own engines are better.
...
Damn, that's a great quote to use against conspiracy theorists.
In the 90's I touched with my own hand a rocket that could launch and land at McDonald Douglas. Cutbacks to space and the incoming merger sidetracked it by companies seeking higher profits with the Delta and ULA.
There's literally already 2 companies with functional reusable rockets. This isn't some musk conspiracy. Science advances, what couldn't be done yesterday can be done today.
The space shuttle also had to be taken apart and reassembled/refurbished after every single flight with mountains of checks.
The maintenance costs exceeded the construction costs because they were essentially taking the damn thing apart and reassembling it every launch.
magnets
I wasn't going to say this was fake until I saw how quickly it went from entering the atmosphere to reaching the ocean floor
SpaceX ITS. The name of the first ship for a full test run: Heart of Gold.
launch in a few min btw
rocket science was hard when you didn't have the math and engineering needed to build one.
NASA has shared all of this info with spacex so they don't need to develop any one it, just reapply. I know alot of the guys that work there, and they are not rocket scientists. They're just engineers, many with only BS degrees.
The years of developtment cost much more than the cost of building a rocket, but thats not to take anything away from spacex. They were able to do much of the work without using union labor, which was dragging NASA projects with all the dead weight the extra cost, red tape, strikes, ect.
And, Launch Time
youtube.com
>They never mention that when they bring a Falcon back they have to totally rebuild it replacing almost every part every time.
No they don't
So I'm assuming you've never even operated a VCR and have no concept of the idea of fast forwarding footage?
NASAs space shuttle is reuseable.
Turns out we can do really cool shit if we don't have to purely rely on slide rules and analogous system analysis.
what is a sped up video
Not rapidly reusable. Their fuckup was design by committee and not iterating on the design.
nowhere in the video did it say it was fast forwarded
>SpaceX will not attempt to land Falcon 9’s first stage after launch due to mission requirements.
BUILD THE FUCKING HEAVY ALREADY YOU CHEAP FUCKS.
Watching the rocket land back on the dot does look pretty cool user, have you included that in your costs vs benefits?
Kek
>the last 5 seconds
>every space agency
The only one worth even talking about is NASA, and they're not exactly in a position to be perfectly unbias are they champ
ABORT LUL
wow imagine that, an out of context webm doesn't have a whole minute dedicated to the specifics of the video
MENSA candidate right here
>many with only BS degrees
Frankly if you're a top player in your STEM industry and you wasted 4-6 years in college getting a masters, you made a mistake. Oh and if you are that smart, doors are automatically opened for you. I was in my field at 18.
>100% of the time
What a dingus
even if it was fast forward the amount of time it took to descend once it entered the atmosphere was disproportionately short
some of them are probably rocket scientists. the actual term for that is "aerospace engineer." if any of the guys you know hold a degree in that discipline, they are rocket scientists.
This fake rocket shit is a special kind of stupid. You know you can drive your ass down to Florida and fucking watch launches with your own two eyes, right? You used to even be able to drive right up to the launch complex before the sandniggers ruined it for everyone. Night launches of the space shuttle were fucking amazing.
yeah, its funny, SpaceX does things very "fly by your seat" compared to NASA. NASA was all about going by the book on everything, even when it was obvious you shouldn't. My bud said that NASA engineers spent a lot of time at their facility and there was lots of heated moments between them because NASA guys kept telling them they were doing things wrong, or too moving too fast on tests, ect.
>Heavy government subsidies & investment
>Selling the dream to venture capitalists without showing profits (yet)
>Free market memes
Come on user, muh free market doesn't mean it's immune from bankruptcy or fraud or unrealisable business models.
Pretty sick huh? At least it didn't come down terminal top down. We only got one launch. Musk had many failures on landing. Thing about rockets, you have to blow them up to get it right.
Computers
Also Blue Origin is making a reusable powered descent landing rocket too.
no, it wasn't.
No. that's the RD-180.
this little nigga right here tends to help once you get inside the atmosphere
Remember when people said you couldn't have an investment fund that made gains each & every year for decades on end, and then (((Bernie Madoff))) proved them wrong?
Yes it was. It took a fraction of a second and then all of a sudden - oh look, the ocean and the landing pad. Bullshit. You would have seen much more of a descent. There was none, it was instantaneous.
Agreed, I only have a BS, and work on really cool projects, and make over 140k/yr and would never think about going back for my masters in engineering. Maybe I might go bakc for an executive MBA so I can lead my company at a high level. but the math and engineering needed in the early space program couldn't have been done with just smart engineers with BS's, it can be done now because the groundwork has been done.
We stand on the shoulders of giants.
Why would it be short? It only reaches an altitude of 100-150km and it's traveling 1.5km/s
Have you ever considered the possibility that you're too much of a brainlet to grasp basic physics, rather than assuming spacex is faking everything?
>many with only BS degrees
in non-trash majors a BS is enough
>They said I couldn't dump radioactive waste in the lake! Suckers!
>5 years later everyone in your city has cancer
yeah some real pioneering you did right there
i agree with you but you picked a stupid analogy
Specs-wise, wasn't the delta clipper roughly equivalent to what Bezos is flying now?
Gravity doesn't make heavier objects fall faster. That's gravity 101. Go look at the Redbull jump that guy did from the stratosphere, it took him forever to reach earth's surface. It was a process, even if you sped up the video he didn't just exit the capsule and then all of a sudden "lol look the earth's surface". Get the fuck out of here.
>how did a private company beat out a bloated bureaucratic government agency that hemorrhages money?
So is ULA
SpaceX innovated and now everyone else in the market is playing catch-up.