What the fuck did they mean by this

what the fuck did they mean by this

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GFdVZyGUwI8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

(((they))) are trying to undermine /ourrocket/

>/ourrocket/
>payload is off course
>3rd stage crashed into the ocean at 300mph

>incredible sound
>sounds like me when I'm shitting
Such a huge letdown.

its a first test senpai , the fact that it didnt blow up on the pad is already amazing . im still kinda disappointed they didnt go for asparagus staging .

Oh fuck you you fucking half nigger, if it was 10/10 test you'd be here saying it was a conspiracy. So who the fuck gives a damn what you think?

KSPfag here, muh jew.

Whoa finbro take it down a notch

>10/10
>failed to perform
>b-b-but the pics bro
so gay

the incredible sound of capitalism

lol

Weird, I was expecting you to question if the rocket was white.

if it wasnt for communism we'd have much better reusable rockets 20 years ago .

>no video of the falcon heavy replaced with noises of hand rubbing, shekel jingling, hava nagila, and oy vey screeching, ending a loud SHUT IT DOWN before the stream dies

typical , lazy goy dosnt wanna do the work .

It means they've hijacked big government national projects for their greedy private corporations in the same way Bezos uses $1.40 of tax payer money to help pay for every package he ships for Amazon profits. They are literally a human parasite that puts themselves on top of the foodchain. Our university engineering students have had a focused learning in inverted pendulums for decades now. Landing a rocket is not as spectacular as it sounds in 2018 when NASA had an entire fucking spaceship that could reenter and land and landed people on the moon. This is just a kike stroking his cock in front of all his ex wives and using the hype to boost his company's FEDERAL GRANT funding.

I mean I could it just would take some time.

>it's amazing that it didn't fail.
FYI Delta IV has had 1 failure in 33-34 launches (the first Delta IV heavy launch).
Falcon 9 is already less reliable than that, not including the landings obviously.
People are out fellating each other over a trivial rocket launch that means nothing. And then they try to convince themselves that SpaceX is this magical unicorn company when in reality it is hardly any better than the military-industrial complex of the ULA or NASA.
Wake up, the only extraordinary thing on display here in the marketing genius of überbugman Elon Musk.

Time to demand shekels, as reparations.

>Using the sonicjew.

You know that after the 1940s the stratosphere is home to one of the world's largest Jewish populations, right?
Maybe they are just visiting.

Better?
Are you implying a booster that has to carry its swing wings, tailfins and a landing gear is less heavy and complex that a booster that only needs a landing gear?

(((It))) also costs only 10x the price of a Falcon9

I saw it yesterday as well and keked
Sage because I don't support israel or judaism

>believing everything Bugman supremo Musk tells you
Even if that figure is correct, it's only true if their first stage lands. The core did not land in this case.

It's because the tip of the rocket gets cut off from the rest of it

>it's only true if their first stage lands
No, the price drops to less than half of the original if the first stage lands making it more than 20x cheaper.

>Implying sperging out and crashing something important, in public, at tremendous speed isn't 100% our modus operandi

>not symmetrical
>not a perfect shape
>crooked (just like them)

rejected. expelled from resubmittion.

Dude, Musk said for months that he was fully expecting the rocket to blow up before it left the atmosphere.

under rated.

Too complicated.
Asparagus staging or fuel crossfeed is easy in Kerbal Space, but in reality it is the plumbing which is the hardest part of cunstructing a rocket.

Hahahahaha
That's not good

It means that a national public asset (NASA), paid for by the Little American Voter and Taxpayer has been pawned-off to private Jew interests for cents to the Shekel.

Yes, because it's a glider.

It means the shills with their slide threads on pol would complain if they were hung by a new rope.

No, an expendable F9 costs around 60mil USD.
And as the (((airforce))) had to admit recentently, they are paying close to 400mil USD for a ride on a Delta.
That is because when looking ad Lockheed and Boeing you have to go down like 10 leves from top management before you finaly find someone standing in a workshop bending metal.
All because of cost-plus-contracting by the government
As Robert Zubrin put it when he was at Martin-Marietta: "Overhead is our most important product"

flying , starting and running a rocket engine while going supersonically backwards seriously fucks your shit up , in addition to needing really big fuel margins to ensure being able to come back (which failed in the central stage in the latest launch).
any design that dosnt add too much weight and still allows the boosters to fully burn their fuel is much better . russkies had plans to parachute boosters and have them land sideways in some tundra on landing legs+parachute+small solid retro rockets.

What?
Are you retarded? Wings weigh a lot. And swing wings cost a lot.
And you have to build the thing that it can take loads while vertical and while horizontal.
That makes it much heavier that a simple upright landing booster.

But it doesn't need fuel for the return flight, Abdul.

>any design that dosnt add too much weight
Any rocket with wings is not such a design.
That is the reason why no spaceplane ever made it off the runway.

Elon said that the center piece wasnt going to be reused anyways. But these two automated rockets landing themselves was fucking epic.

why did you crash the center core, shlomo?

It almost landed.

I had no idea this footage was released, awesome

the fuck happened at the end? It was correctly aligned but then it had to jerk out like a retard. It was going to fast and this was the computer way of ''fixing'' it?

You seem to misjudge how little fuel these new reusable boosters need to maneuver and land.
When say a Falcon booster makes its Landing burn it only weighs some 30t, compared to 550t at lanuch.
You cannot build an aircraft with such mass ratios at the current time.
And make no mistake, a booster with fully funcional wings, tailfins, landing gear and rugged fuselage that can take the horizontal landing without breaking appart, IS a fully funcional aircraft!

Honestly you hate the USA if you are against Elon. Not only was the team that accomplished the 2/3 landing 90%+ male, but he believes ONLY in merits. That is why its 90% male.

You really have to do some incredible olympic level mental gymnastics to look at the NASA women's photo and tell yourself that is better.

Look at it. Now realize the only reason NASA ever got a tin can in space is because they could suckle on the taxpayers infinitely and not worry about profitability or time.

Disregard that I suck cocks
This isn't the footage from two days ago
>quick rundown

>The center core obviously didn't land on the droneship, or we would have shown that... It ran out of propellant to relight the engines... It was the center one [that ignited], I believe, and the outer two did not, and that was not enough to slow it down. [something I can't make out] hit the water at three hundred miles an hour and took out two of the engines on the droneship...

...

Absolutely amazing stuff!

wait, are they saying only two engines got fucked? as in, the rest of it is fine? What the fuck are these made out of adamantium?

We're talking about the droneship engines, not the Merlin rocket engines. I guess the other engines were on the opposite side of the ship

yeah but still the ship is still in one piece, that is insane in itself!

From what we know the engines were fine, the rocket just ran out of the hypergolic stuff they use to ignite and reignite the engines.

Now I don't know why they ran out of it since they shouldn't have use more of it than usual?

I thought you were talking about the rocket (which failed the landing because only 1 engine out of 3 could reignite).

when it reaches space, the fuel contracted burning more than it should have, upon re-entering it went back to its normal volume. bad isolation on the core's tank.

totally pulling this out of my ass tho.

or the same effect could've happened while fueling the tank on the ground.

Any jew hating theories why the centre core "ran out of fuel"? It's laughable that such a thing can happen unless there's a massive fuel leak.

seek medical help

well, I just gave you mine, the fuel was more condensed because of ambient temperature. It's something that even happens at your local gas station. If you want to refuel for your money, avoid blazing hot days.

You need fuel to lift fuel for reentry. More than half of the total fuel is used to take the booster up and bring it down.

>seek medical help
>t. shitlet
I'm amazed that's coming from a poo. I was expecting you guys have more respect for a good dump.

Elon Musk is a crypto.

Do you feel the Bern Sup Forums?

its far more doable with modern lightweight materials . also you can make it burn fuel much harder and faster , detaching much earlier then falcon and gliding back to the airstrip and not requiring the fuckloads of repairs and part replacements that a falcon landing requires . you could literally inspect,refuel and fly these things again the next day like a regular plane .

The central stage failed because they couldn't restart the 3 engines needed.
Sure it's hard, which is why it hasn't been attempted until now, but it's already proven and working

IIRC the guy who runs smartereveryday channel used to work for NASA, has some good ones up about the physics behind helicopter flight, retreating blade stalls all the good stuff

He's a rocket engineer but he works for the military afaik.

It's possible, the center core probably went higher than first stages usually do. But I'm not sure that would make much difference. It was a special kind of core, a unique one, so they may just have made some mistake.

also, as I said, the same problem can occur at refueling on the ground depending on the temperature that morning.

igniting engines with supersonic wind pressure going into the combustion chamber is bound to cause fuckups .

i thought the same thing when i saw that thumbnail, i think destin is /ourguy/

All the videos on his sound traveler channel have those around it. He uses it to indicate that the video has 3d sound.
I watched some of them, they were neat. Did not subscribe though.

And how much unspent fuel to you have to keep in?
A fuckton, I bet.

Shlomo, are we allies now?

it's like less than 5%, the cost savings compared to non-reusable are immense

The boosters without a payload with most of it's fuel spent are like giant tin cans, not much fuel is needed when most of your weight is just the engines and earth's atmosphere does most of the work in slowing you down

there was simpler design for recovery of zenith boosters
energia could put 100t into leo, energia vulcan potentially 175t
we could have mars colony for 10 years already if russia didn't cancel it

This turbopumps for pumping rocket fuel are already insanely complicated, with 27 engines I'm impressed the thing didn't blow up on the pad at the t-0 mark

(((This)))

While the energia may have a simpler recovery system the whole point of SpaceX doing powered landing is for quicker turn around time.
When the rocket lands on it's own power you don't have to do much more than fuel it back up and it's launching off the pad again, no repacking cutes or anything of the sort, Musk wants rockets to land and launch again in a few hours with most of that time being refueling

space shuttle was supposed to work like that but it failed

it fucks with fuel efficiency having to keep a fuckton of fuel for the reverse burn (and some for the actual landing) ,forces you to make heavier less efficient engines that are designed for supersonic reverse booster flight\sonic boom and makes you build a complicated system to feed the fuel when you could be using the rockets own thrust to push the fuel into the pumps. i guess i'd be more in favor of it if all the boosters landed on barges (no reverse burn) but still an unpowered descent and landing design is the best option IMO .

for something able to refuel and launch again i think a glider landing on a runway is ideal . have the booster land in some airfield downrange from the pad , then have those huge cargo helicopters carry it back to baikonur , inspect,refuel and launch again. i feel like the stresses and conditions of a falcon booster return mean you gotta replace and repair fuckloads of shit compared to a glider landing on an airfield.

>fucks with fuel efficiency
Read my other post >heavier less efficient engines
The SpaceX Merlin engines have some of the best thrust to weight ratios of ~150 up to ~180 for the full thrust version and are just as efficient as any other RP1/LOX fueled engine

>earth's atmosphere does most of the work in slowing you down
yes , which is why lightweight winged \ paraglider designs make sense instead of powered rocket descent . it greatly reduces stress on your engine which means they dont have to rebuild a fuckton of it after each launch .
they could probably push for higher ISP\TTW if they didnt need to design the engine to survive and be able to ignite when the booster is flying supersonically backwards and experiencing sonic booms .

SSTOs are not doable with chemical rockets but glider first stage\glider boosters are which could be the next best thing . i think gliding first stage\boosters and possibly partial asparagus staging with modern lightweight materials could be the cheapest possible fully recoverable chemical rocket launch system to LEO without fancy scifi shit like skyhooks .

>dont have to rebuild a fuckton of it after each launch
SpaceX doesn't do that now nor would they be able to do any rebuilding of engines if they want there 24 hour turnaround.
>able to ignite when the booster is flying supersonically backwards and experiencing sonic booms
You act like rocket engines are stupidly dedicate that they can't handle some air pressure after pushing out millions of pounds of trust and even then there are only 2 engine re ignitions one of the being very high in the atmosphere and the other while in a slow decent near sea level

Is Elon Musk /ourguy/?

>thanked Donald Trump on twitter to the bane of his redditfriends
>is a white south african
>left south africa just as de klerk came into power and only 2 years before apartheid ended
>is clearly a fucking genius

UNDERRATED COMMENT HOLY SHIT

>yes , which is why lightweight winged \ paraglider designs make sense instead of powered rocket descent . it greatly reduces stress on your engine which means they dont have to rebuild a fuckton of it after each launch .
This is objectively wrong. Why would you waste mass on wings and control surfaces when powered decent works with no apparent ill effects. I think you don’t understand the tyranny of the rocket equation.

like you didn't know we are their bitches

what did mossad send into space shlomo?
youtube.com/watch?v=GFdVZyGUwI8

Boohoo, some guys are smarter and better than me. It's not fair waaaaa

Zubrin has always been based.

wings and especially a paraglider could be much lighter then the systems required to reignite the engines and the fuel for the reverse and the landing burns (if you want the boosters to return to the launch site) . if you didnt need reignition and especially reignition in the harsh conditions the falcon reignites in you could build much cheaper ,more reliable and more efficient engines .

most of the fuel savings can still be done by landing all 3 boosters on barges but if you want to save fuel AND have cheaper,simpler,more reliable engines with less work and refurbishing required between launches you'd build some paraschute\glider\winged system . you can use the air both to slow you and to guide the booster back instead of having to make rockets burns.

in addition the more data and experience you have on building the gliding boosters the more you can use later on making a reusable upper stage (maybe inflatable heatshield + inflatable glider) . the final goal being full reusability to LEO .

They all said that and no one ever delivered.

>wings and especially a paraglider could be much lighter then the systems required to reignite the engines and the fuel for the reverse the landing burns
Wrong. This is simply not true.

Already tried telling him spacex's Merlin engies are already the lightest rocket engines for the thrust they put out. Even with this magical hardware that allows them to re-ignite but makes the oh so heavy, To make them any lighter would sacrifice reuseablity.

Imagine the weight of the (switchblade)wings the necessary hydralics to power mechanism that mechanism...
Not to mention that such a fuselage has to be much, much sturdier than a regular booster.