>cont. of
>SpaceX and general space discussion thread since thats what it turned into
Cont. of >>138801286
Luke Morales
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
google.no
youtube.com
eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Nathan Clark
How does one mine asteroids without crashing the very commodities markets that it would depend on to cover its exorbitant costs?
Do you know how much mass we've ever brought back from above the moon? A few fucking grams. The delta v costs and the size of the vehicles you'd need to accomplish what you're talking about are completely unfeasible economically speaking. You'll get a small profit on the first run, and then never again. There is no use for the materials in space, since there's nothing we can do that generates the money needed to keep people alive in space.
Eli Richardson
You can use more of it in research and development projects that are halted due to low concentrations of rare metals on earth. Cheaper materials means you can do more with it. Something will fill the niche.
Cooper Powell
Reminder that there is a SpaceX launch tomorrow at 2:50PM Eastern.
Ryan Brown
Space arc would be needed think of a long bridge going uphill from one continent to the other in an arc fashion with the peak having some sort of low orbit station to offload goods ect. Initial investent i's tremendous however it pays for itself quite quickly if you factor in the price difference from launching goods to railing them.
Chase Cox
>delta v
well theres your problem. the main cost to space is nonreusable rockets, make them reusable and boom, its more affordable. and I believe elon musk had some kind of theory about changing the fuel they use to deep cryo-methalox which can be created on mars with mars resources thats not too difficult soo boom, another major cost is down there to.
as for specific commodities markets crash, it really just depends on the specific commodity/mineral. also shit on the commodities market isnt expensive because its rare, its expensibe because its constantly being used more than it can be produced. ergo supply/demand, but increasing supply will still be profitable. moreso than doing nothing in the first place. but ill agree there is some diminishing gains when supply increases a lot. but itll still be used up cause why wouldnt it.
Julian Ward
>make them reusable and boom, its more affordable.
That's never been demonstrated in practice. It always costs more to refurbish them.
>and I believe elon musk had some kind of theory about changing the fuel they use to deep cryo-methalox which can be created on mars with mars resources thats not too difficult soo boom, another major cost is down there to.
No, that's another major cost added. An extraction and processing facility on fucking phobos? Do you know how much that would cost per year?
It doesn't matter how much of the material you bring back if you can't sell it at a profit. Nobody is ever going to give you the money.
Blake Diaz
>A few fucking grams
Yes... from the moon. Not from asteroids where you can just make a transfer without having to launch a vehicle pod to orbit before going back.
There was also no in-situ refueling for the moon missions. Since you're already mining the resources required to make rocket fuel, you might as well use it to fuel one-way canisters to send back back every transfer window or so. No need to relaunch the entire rig every time.
You'd only need to launch once for it to keep going until it broke.
Eli Davis
>Yes... from the moon. Not from asteroids where you can just make a transfer without having to launch a vehicle pod to orbit before going back.
No, i'm talking about the Stardust Mission, which was the highest altitude we've ever gotten anything from. I specifically said "from above the moon".
>There was also no in-situ refueling for the moon missions. Since you're already mining the resources required to make rocket fuel, you might as well use it to fuel one-way canisters to send back back every transfer window or so. No need to relaunch the entire rig every time.
that only adds to your cost and forces your investors to wait even more years before they see a return, making their investment that much less likely.
>You'd only need to launch once for it to keep going until it broke.
Are you kidding? if it broke during a transfer it'd be gone forever, taking the crew with it.
Blake Howard
Does Sup Forums think REL will deliver on Skylon, or at least SABRE?
Easton Collins
>Be me.
>Understand the deepest mysteries of the universe.
>Can't release tech because it will make war affordable for shitskin countries.
Kayden Taylor
I like this guy's channel
he's some autist that puts out space and futuristic videos once a week
Jace Bell
that's a pretty comfy channel user
Kevin Brooks
>It always costs more to refurbish them.
the space shuttle had boosters that had to be pulled from the ocean and re-manufactured
the main engines were so high-performance that a bunch of parts had to be replaced every flight
SpaceX meanwhile deliberately designed its engines to be cheap and sturdy
it has already reflown one booster, and they're not even making the old versions anymore
they have some block in production that they expect will be able to be flown at least a dozen times before major stuff needs to be replaced
Christian Anderson
>reusable =/= refursbishable
reusable literally means you can reuse it without doing anything. thats what spaceX's rockets are doing.
Cameron Miller
checked
also related video, one of the shuttle's 3 main engines
youtube.com
Parker Morales
Space is fake, nuclear bombs does not exist, vaccines is bad for you, they are killing you with poison in food and toothpaste. And webm related was no missile.
Carter Gonzalez
>click link
>*loud music* LIIIFE ON MAAWUERS *loud music*
Daniel Torres
>Stardust Mission
Again. No refuelling. Obviously you're going to be limited if you have to carry fuel for the return-trip from Earth.
>that only adds to your cost
What part of continuous operation do you not get?
What do you think is cheaper, launching a shuttle loaded with enough fuel to return fully laden every time you want to get anything back, or building a simple canister en site and launching it on a return transfer using a reusable launch system that's refuelled en site?
>if it broke during a transfer it'd be gone forever, taking the crew with it.
Break what during transfer? The inert canister?
What crew? You think you're going to be sending miners out to operate the rig locally? Why the fuck would you do that when you can operate everything remotely?
Henry Parker
What is the X-37b doing?
Dylan Lopez
...
Jacob Howard
Hypnobeam. I know where it came from
Josiah Carter
testing materials and technologies for hypersonic drones and military satellites
Grayson Gonzalez
Dafug is going on there?
Adrian Smith
So you have evidence that shows spacex saved money by refurbishing?
You have evidence of this?
>What part of continuous operation do you not get?
Gas stations aren't free to operate.
>Why the fuck would you do that when you can operate everything remotely?
Half hour latencies.
Luis Torres
>So you have evidence that shows spacex saved money by refurbishing?
no I don't have access to their finances and the only public sources are tweets and comments from Musk and people like Gwynne Shotwell
just look at the numbers though and they have saved money versus using a new booster
another aspect is the massive opportunity costs; it takes SpaceX around a year to build a Falcon 9 so if they can spend 3-6 months merely inspecting and preparing an old rocket then they've effectively increased their rocket production by a massive amount without having to add too many more facilities or personnel
Sebastian Ramirez
It was the 2009 spiral anomaly over northern norway which they said was a rocket, however it came from the very close haarp facility up there
Dylan Parker
Why aren't corporations memeing space harder? Do they realize how much money there is to be made in space?
Ryder Fisher
Think about that.
Mason Diaz
Yeah but again, nobody has any reason to believe that's possible, since it's never been demonstrated.
Ian White
There is a simple answer to this
Henry Howard
you can see his pinky go into his pocket
Isaac Torres
why do they attach wires to the waist? why not the shoulders?
Easton Gomez
how are they going to do backflips with wires at the shoulders?
Jaxon Robinson
what does that matter?they should be able to flip around their shoulders.
what makes the waist special?
Tyler Miller
They are not filming these videos in space so it would be a lot harder to do a backflip if they were connected up at the shoulders. If they can pull of a smooth flip it gives the illusion of being in zero gravity.
Zachary Hill
The official explanation makes perfect sense.
Rockets can make some very odd looking patterns if the lighting and atmospheric conditions are a certain way.
Thomas Young
>They are not filming these videos in space so it would be a lot harder to do a backflip if they were connected up at the shoulders.
so it does not look like that in space? when you flip in space, it goes around your shoulders?
Cooper Sanders
Zachary Myers
ITS CALLED CENTER OF MASS YOU RETARDS
Christopher Russell
shh. i want him to figure it out.
Ayden Thomas
Gathering rust, they will probably scrap it.
John Stewart
Thank you.
Matthew Cox
so your whole argument rests on the fact that they're acting like they're on wires, because wires are hung at the center of mass, and you spin on the center of mass in freefall?
So you have nothing?
Juan Price
Lamest CGI ever.
Joseph White
So they can film superheroes using wire harnesses, but this is the best nasa can do?
Why the great disparity in funding?
Cooper Scott
Landon Brown
That webm and this one is filmed in a zero g plane.
Yes. However I saw it happen back in 2009 and it came exactly from the direction of this location:
Kayden Rodriguez
correct, the actors should have free rotation in any direction from center of mass.
So the fact that all these videos show only vertical rotation, without any subsequent spin, is definite proof that these goons are in space.
Thomas Morris
>That webm and this one is filmed in a zero g plane.
So the apparent gravity is shifting, but her hair is unaffected? How did they do that? CGI? Why bother with the plane then?
Jordan Myers
IF the ISS is real they are keeping an ungodly amount of hair product up there
Matthew Anderson
why? you can see it bounce freely. If it was gelled or had product in it, it would move as a single static object.
That webm shows the weakness of photoreceptors, especially HD ones, to Cosmic Rays. You do know what photons are, right?
Wyatt Clark
They messed up when they made that cgi
Jaxon Phillips
You'd think space travel and expansion would be top priority in the 21st century. Instead, we get people arguing over statues and tranny bathrooms. This whole thing is a shell game, and I have an idea as to what the last shell might be. Pic related.
Bentley Phillips
no showers for months at a time, not surprising their hair isn't silky and flowing
Cameron Lee
The biggest scam in the world has worse QA than a marvel movie?
Owen Jenkins
It's almost like they ran the numbers and realized they wouldn't make a dime in profit in their lifetimes and this isn't communism so they're not required to cater to your sci-fi induced delusions.
Ryan Jones
One would think they would be more careful with water and all that vital electronic equipment. That is a power supply right behind her.
Here is the original photoshopped earth from NASA page: eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov
Michael Martinez
Can we please speak about a space elevator and its metaphorical and theological implications?
Isnt it literally man trying to built the tower of Babel?
Or a spherical ring? Wouldnt we make the earth a litte Saturn aka Satan?
Sebastian Clark
>One would think they would be more careful with water and all that vital electronic equipment.
You think it's less safe than your car? that they just have vital shit unprotected?
I can't pin down your opinion of their competence. They fool the entire world but are bumbling oafs you saw through? are you the only smart person left?
Daniel Johnson
Humanity will never be spacefaring as long as it uses 1950s style chemical based rockets to get to orbit.
I am not kidding, this just won't work as a long term solution. Too much effort, too much cost and too much fuel required to get to orbit.
I am still a firm believer that stratospheric slow electric propulsion of inflatables is an answer to the problem we are facing. But it needs advances in efficient e-propulsion and energy systems to get to orbit.
Isaac Hernandez
>Isnt it literally man trying to built the tower of Babel?
The tower never mattered. It was the fact that everyone spoke different languages that made Babel bad.
No. you cannot make a space elevator. The entire thing has to be a single carbon nanotube, you cannot have any segments or breaks.Millions of single molecules, 40,000km long. With zero defects or it'll snap.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Gabriel Young
>Humanity will never be spacefaring as long as it uses 1950s style chemical based rockets to get to orbit.
That's correct.
>I am not kidding, this just won't work as a long term solution. Too much effort, too much cost and too much fuel required to get to orbit.
Yep. right on the money.
>I am still a firm believer that stratospheric slow electric propulsion of inflatables is an answer to the problem we are facing. But it needs advances in efficient e-propulsion and energy systems to get to orbit.
Getting to orbit is a matter of speed, not height. You still need a rocket that can zip up to 12km/s, no matter how high you set it off.
There is no future for space travel. Satellites were pretty much it.
Levi Ross
They spend millions on projects for business; but none on advertising. Not once have I ever seen a SpaceX commercial. That's sad. Encouraging young people to explore and invent, and teaching them about possible First Contact scenarios is healthy and useful. Maybe the reason they're not gonna turn a profit is because they're not making the tech, we're getting it as a gift.
Ryan Morris
But Comrade, you could build space escalator. You see Ivan, when you put many rocks on rocks made of light rock, you can have room for escalator to go in segment. Get segment up high enough, and get good quality aluminum ladder from Mischa.
Then you not need Elevator. Only Escalator. Amerika has many mall being closed. Perfect for use.
Aiden Flores
NASA gives us unlimited material with their deception.
youtube.com
Never went to the moon. NASA conveniently lost their moon landing data back in the 70's
Camden Edwards
Commercials make promises. Musk knows better than to be held liable for false claims.
We can build the space escalator, you first comrade. You will like it, is like helicopter ride.
So they're incompetent or omniscient?
Jason Perez
Deceptive
Ian Bailey
So they intentionally make it shoddy and easy to tell that it's fake to... trick people into thinking its real?
How long was that lutefisk in the ground before you ate it?
Jordan Johnson
>that webm
how should clothes behave in freefall?
Matthew Nguyen
Find new general uses for once-rare materials. Why settle for copper wiring if gold is better and just as cheap?
Matthew Stewart
>Find new general uses for once-rare materials. Why settle for copper wiring if gold is better and just as cheap?
Are you this desperate for your memes to be real?
Hudson Hill
Don't touch that food.
NASA astronauts can't agree if they can or can not see stars in space:
youtube.com
Astronaut Chris Cassidy accidentally tells the truth:
Wyatt Adams
Eventually, but will that be in time before SpaceX's/Blue Orign's Heinlein approach to reusable rockets becomes preferred?
There's that one company that wants to do a SSTO vehicle using a huge-ass microwave array to do a sort of steam-rocket. I think some of this will also depend on how much it costs exactly to refurbish a very large reusable rocket; planes consume huge amounts of fuel per flight, but fuel and maintenance costs are so spread out that it's economical.
As for methods to assist moving payloads around, I think Skyhooks are the best choice right now if we wanted to get started on something.
Aluminum used to be considered more valuable than platinum. Now, we use it to wrap up takeout food and store beer. Why would the first company to tap into a metal-rich asteroid care if that just means they turn into the bastard child of De Beers and Alcoa?
Connor Reyes
They know people just accept all they are fed, rarely taking a closer look at what they are actually publishing. They also have massive help from Hollywood. Everyone is conditioned to accept space is real through science FICTION.
William Hill
Bump
Blake Thomas
FH is going to blow up.
Sebastian Adams
Why? How long can you keep it up without showing results?
Ryan Miller
alien and space movies, how else?
Star Wars>The Martian