How has life changed post the Falcon Heavy launch?

This was a worldwide phenomenon. Massive tweets and coverage. How has the launch changed global politics?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls
thespacereview.com/article/3414/1
spaceflight101.com/2017-space-launch-statistics/#ZgJ2888zMZck63W4.99
youtube.com/watch?v=AI8_bM1VMv4
youtube.com/watch?v=nS0VN056d68
youtu.be/wbSwFU6tY1c?t=29m2s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Why is it shaped like a dick?

Because if it was shaped like your mom, it would never launch

Gave people more hope in space research.

BIG

You're right, this is unacceptable, sexist and an insult to peoplekind. Down with the patriarchy and their fascination for phallic-shaped objects!

I feel like half life 3 is just one step closer to reality

checked.

best leaf post I've seen in a week.

Not yet but he plans to use it for global travel. 30 minute intercontinental flights. Muh dick.

Nobody cares. And why should anyone care? This is all utterly irrelevant and serves no purpose at all, it's just a false vision of meaningless progress while everything around us is burning to ashes.

Simply put it's entertainment. Bread and circuses for the plebs.

Launching cars into space is a fucking acievement. Lock him up for polluting space with shit products. And they have the moral to bas on based kim for launching tubes. Btw this all is dwarfed by the huge prop about syria again.. killing and gassing children. Ur being fukt in the ass.

>Gave people more hope in space research.
Ok, why?

Something is actually happening? New successful rockets are being made?

>pls clap

Aerodynamics.

Everyone still clapping lie trained seals over the Elon Musk commercial?

daily reminder that the moon is not real.

It's flying to mars

>implying that won't trip every fucking ICBM alarm there is

It's got people excited about space again. Not much else yet, but we'll see.

I think Musk did something terrible.
Instead of a tesla, should be a trueno AE86 there.

Unfortunately nobody remembers this
youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

They launched a rocket? Big whoop!
Aren't we supposed to have been to the moon like 50 years ago?

With this launch Elon just told every single government that they are shit. They are incompetent, stagnant and wasteful.
"Just get of my lawn."

Stop asking us to spoon-feed you and watch the interviews, you lazy piece of shit.

Answers to +90% of the criticizing questions asked about Elon and his endeavors on Sup Forums are directly answered in the interviews. If you can't figure out why the Falcon Heavy launch and/or the fact that the rocket now exists makes any difference, it means you know fuck all about SpaceX, rocket R&D, space travel and exploration, and/or what Elon is trying to achieve in those regards.

This isn't some sikrit sosieti bullshit, the fucking interviews are available on youtube.

I dont know that it changes politics, what it does is lower cost to orbit by ~1/2 so long as you have the payload to fill it.

so long as you continue to drive down launch costs you also drive down costs of satelites, because you can use looser engineering standards (if it fails, its cheaper to replace), you get new costumers that couldn't afford space assets, which drives economies of scale, standardization etc...

Falcon Heavy is the turning point.

tl;dr - as you drive down cost of launches you get an exponential decrease in cost for the end customer.

>Something is actually happening? New successful rockets are being made?
Ah, ok. I thought you meant that there is hope for Congress to fund a Moon or Mars human spaceflight program in the short run based on the Falcon Heavy.

thespacereview.com/article/3414/1

Haven't been back, or had the capability to go back, since.

...

Well they still have to figure out the radiation problem.
I don't know how easily that thing will take off with lead walls.

Well, I got a job, my back pain is gone so I have started exercising again and I have a date this weekend.

Thanks Falcon Heavy.

Good bantz

>With this launch Elon just told every single government that they are shit. They are incompetent, stagnant and wasteful.

Did he, how? Most rocket launches are still not done by SpaceX

The year 2017 saw a total of 90 known orbital launch attempts from seven nations and space ports in eight different countries. 2017 had the second most orbital launch attempts of any year in the current century, short of 92 launches in 2014 and showing a slight increase from 2016 that had 85 known launch attempts.

Read more at spaceflight101.com/2017-space-launch-statistics/#ZgJ2888zMZck63W4.99

That's what a solar storm shelter is for.

t.basedleaf

its the second largest rocket ever after the saturn v (about half the payload), and less than 10% of the cost for a launch.

Scheduled launches rarely trip any alarms. It's not like Musk is going to fire BFRs without coordinating with flight control.

>what it does is lower cost to orbit by ~1/2 so long as you have the payload to fill it.

But it has no payloads that require its capacity on the manifest. So I do not understand your point. It has a price tag of 90 billion dollar for up to 8mt tons to GTO which is rather comparable to the 110-120bn dollars for an Arianespace single launch which is up to 11mt tons to GTO.

na, icbm's are way smaller.

the fact that a single private company performed just as many launches as any government did really says something.

Heavy life rockets are 1960's technology. Why would it have any impact on anything?

We're one step closer to definitively disproving Christianity.

>had the capability to go back, since.
did we just forget how to build the Saturn V or something? We stopped going because we have to pay for niggers.

What is FFA clearance

It's now cheap enough that people other than a spare-no-expense-for-a-singular-goal government programme can make use of it.

It is 2017 F9 flights. They want to double that in 2018 with several FH launches too. Almost all reusable and maybe some BFR tests.
The Chinese are launching something like one rocket per week since the beginning of the year. Good for the US that SpaceX exists...

The Saturn V is eye wateringly expensive, and single use.

We will unironically have a privately owned Orbiting space colony before HL3 comes out. Valve ISNT EVEN FUCKING WORKING ON FREEDMAN AT ALL. WHERES OUR VR HALF LIFE 3 GOD DAMNIT FUCK FUCK GABE FGUCK GUCISPDOIJFLSKJDHNRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>Max altitude of less than 2 miles
Ok

It's also the single most powerful machine that human beings have ever created. And it gives me a hardon. Don't talk bad about her.

They launched a 3 stage reusable rocket with two times the cargo ability of any other rocket in existence making supplying missions necessary for something like a prolonged Moon or Mars mission possible.

Valve tried communism as a form of game development.

I didn't. It's an impressive machine, but not suitable for commercial applications.

>he can't pay $1.2 billion per launch
poor desu
she's too good for you anyway

The re-usable stage failed and the payload is off course. SUCCESS!!!

This benefits me personally how?

>rocket in space means Christianity is disproved
Buzz Aldrin literally ate Holy Communion on the moon.

>its the second largest rocket ever after the saturn v (about half the payload), and less than 10% of the cost for a launch.
Is this true?

The Saturn V has a price tag per launch of around 1.1bn in today's dollars and it could lift 120mt to space and 42mt to the Moon.

The Space Shuttle System had a price tag per launch of around 400 to 600million in today's dollars and it could lift 95mt to LEO (which include 65mt for the orbiter).

Now, the Falcon Heavy is advertised as costing 90 million, but only in the expandable version - which results in up to 8mt GTO capacity, which translates to around 25mt to LEO.

Or in other words, the 10% of cost comparison is wrong. the price per kg is lower than the state launchers (Saturn V and the Space sHuttle system) but it is not 10%, but probably more like 30-50%.

Either way, no matter what you look at in history, launch costs have always been a small part of the overall mission costs. For Apollo, it was around 20%, for comsats it is around 5%, for the JWST it is just 2%.

NO THEY DIDNT. ITS A 100% FREE ASSOCIATION MOVE YOUR FAGGOT DESK WHEREVER YOU WANT TO WORK. NO ONE WANTS TO WORK ON THE PINNACLE OF FPS CAUSE THEYRE FUCKING COWARDS.

>solar storm shelter
what's that?
also, I was talking more about the van allen belt

I still don't see what the big deal is
it's not the largest rocket ever and
it makes sense it would be cheaper 50 years later and being produced by private company

>the Saturn V rocket project cost $6.417 billion in the late 60s
>that's the equivalent of over $35 trillion today

...

its weird, they say "8 mt" for 90 mil
but they also advertise they can take 26.7 mt to GTO (maybe its scaled (~270 mil to take 26.7))

Why would they show bogus camera footage of both rockets landing on the same pad?

I wouldn't be surprised if NASA, ESA, etc. went more into a model of paying companies like SpaceX to put something in entirety into space instead of paying companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. to build a bunch of parts for a rocket then assemble it themselves.

You should compare the Falcon to Ariane and russian rockets, that's the only competition.

>the fact that a single private company performed just as many launches as any government did really says something.

But that has always been the case. Arianespace has been the comsat leader for 25yrs (and still is, by the way, even in 2017 it was before SpaceX in terms of comsats launched). And it is a private company owned by the manufacturers of the Ariane 5 such as EADS/Airbus.

The two large government launchers are Long March (commie Chinese) and Soyuz (joint venture between private business and the Russian state). Long March practically exclusively serves the Chinese state and Chinese companies.

Soyuz is doing all kinds of stuff.

What SpaceX has done is use a lot of money and take a significant share of the US launch market which was previously in the hands of Boeing/ULA as well as a few comsats from Russia and Arianespace. I do not see that as exceptional. Arianespace has done this in the 1990s.

>It's now cheap enough that people other than a spare-no-expense-for-a-singular-goal government programme can make use of it.
Ok, how? How many people have 20, 10 or 5 million dollars for a few days (or hours?) joy ride to space?

The Falcon Heavy is not cheap, it costs 90 million dollars in its expandable config. And that is without any payload/spacecraft.

looks CGI to me

That cost is for the upper slot and you have to factor around $60 million for the lower slot. You also have to do dual payload launches which means waiting.

It is still good, but it is not the cheapest anymore.

...

>They want to double that in 2018 with several FH launches too.

There is one commercial FH launch in 2018, Arabsat 6A. All other flights are F9.

SpaceX has said that the FH will launch in 2013. SpaceX has said in 2008 that it will have 20 F9 flights in 2011. SpaceX in 2007 says it will launch astronauts by 2010.

Why should I believe they will launch over 30 rockets in 2018? I think they will have a good year if they launch one more FH and get the same F9 launch rate as 2017 or maybe 3-5 more this year.

And again, how does this change anything for space exploration or space flight or space anything?

We'll get a new Duke Nukem before we get HL3 and that's hilarious to me

at least it's not black

>You should compare the Falcon to Ariane and russian rockets, that's the only competition.
Yes, but then I would have to compare 90 million for 8mt to GTO for Falcon 9 Heavy to 120 million for 11mt to GTO for Arianespace and would be bashed by people here saying this is not a true comparison for price.

Get clearance
Lunch ICBM

Profit

The landing pads were only some 100m apart, you can see the boosters landing synchronously from a side angle on the youtube live feed. This camera angle looks like it's taken from a good 5km distance, so the video feed looks almost identical for both of the boosters.

youtube.com/watch?v=AI8_bM1VMv4
not as good as the saturn v desu :/

rockets, lol

No, it looks like they did accidentally mirror the same vid twice. Watch the landing part, they both land on the same pad, even though you can see two pads.

The third stage failed the landing but succeeded in killing itself in the ocean rather than taking the barge out with it. A success. Especially since the other two landed perfectly.

>its weird, they say "8 mt" for 90 mil
The expandable nature (the spent cores landing) reduces capabilities to LEO and GTO massively

>but they also advertise they can take 26.7 mt to GTO (maybe its scaled (~270 mil to take 26.7))
That is when you do not land the expanded stages, but let them crash and burn. Then they can get to 26 tons.

It went so well they are working on the sequel in Hollyweird as we speak.

youtube.com/watch?v=nS0VN056d68

>even though you can see two pads
you can also see the other booster landing in the feed

Nah they showed the same video in the live coverage, probably by accident.
In their youtube upload they showed 2 different videos.
youtu.be/wbSwFU6tY1c?t=29m2s

I got laid. With an escort....but still

Consequences were never the same again. Im a changed man.

Freemasonic/Luciferian obsession with phallic shaped things(Osiris etc. blah etc. blah...) and it wasn't difficult seeing as it is a rocket.

Is she ok?

HL isnt even that good.

we were never there, deal with it

I gained 10lbs of muscle and my large penis has been comfortably erect ever since.

Dead

How do you figure?
Oh wait nevermind I forgot about Luke 57:98: "98: Payloads sent into space shall never exceed 140,000lbs.. If this were ever to occur then consider the rest of the text compiled in this book and the other 65 compilations of books/letters to be null and void!"

I am obviously being TIC.
However, w/that said, I am fascinated that this would be the first thought someone would have about a religion they believe is a fabrication(or w/e adj. one might prefer). It really comes across as someone who is(for lack of a better word) "butthurt" as opposed to merely being a skeptic which is usually the claim those of your ilk tend to make more often than not, FWIW.

>worldwide
Imagine being from Europe and pretending American achievements are also yours? Fuck off kraut.

The Soviets had that concept already 30 years ago with the Energija 2.
No one cares about that idiot Musk, he'll be bankrupt soon anyway

>>its weird, they say "8 mt" for 90 mil
>The expandable nature (the spent cores landing) reduces capabilities to LEO and GTO massively
It's not that much difference. 8 tonnes is the maximum size of conventional GTO comsats that people might launch on other vehicles, therefore it's a "standard service" that they have an advertised price for. Non-standard services are specially negotiated.

SpaceX is a business. They want to maximize their profits. They also want to protect their reputation. Falcon Heavy is a new vehicle, and still isn't flying routinely. Before it had even flown, they weren't eager to sign up for contracts where they have to push it to its limits. Rather, they only want contracts they could move to an expendable Falcon 9 if necessary.

When you look at their advertised prices, what you're really looking at are the prices for a recoverable ($62 million) and an expendable ($90 million) new Falcon 9. It's worth $28 million to them to have a chance at recovering the booster, and they'd rather fly Falcon Heavy and try to recover all its boosters. By extension, you should expect a fully-expendable Falcon Heavy launch to go for about $150 million.

>>but they also advertise they can take 26.7 mt to GTO (maybe its scaled (~270 mil to take 26.7))
>That is when you do not land the expanded stages, but let them crash and burn. Then they can get to 26 tons.
True, but you've got your terminology a bit messed up. It's "expendable" vs. "reusable" or "recoverable" stages, not "expanded" stages.

The production Falcon Heavy will be the Block 5 version, which should get another 10-15% performance boost. So you should expect when they're flying routinely, for them to update their maximum, expendable performance to over 70 tonnes to LEO.

The reusability penalty is not nearly as severe as losing over half of the payload. They should be able to put at least 40 tonnes, maybe 50, to LEO with recovery of the core and both side booster.

>literaly a pyramid
>Musk copied a kangz spaceship

HOW CAN CRACKERS RECOVER ?

It was a small step for men, but a huge leap for the world of CGI

False, the soviet N1 had max thrust of 45 MN while the Saturn V only had 35. But the N1 was unreliable and didn't successfuly pass the tests, this proved Korolyov was the heart and the mind of the soviet space program, his death killed all progress

>It's an user doesn't understand screen tearing and digital media episode