SPACE X ON SUICIDE WATCH

SPACE X ON SUICIDE WATCH

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=S_p7LiyOUx0
politico.com/story/2016/05/elon-musk-rocket-defense-223161
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

your mom has a good variety of dildos.

Why don't they just build rockets similar to what NASA's looked/look like

Why rebuild the wheel when there's perfectly good templates already?

>bigger = better
murgga

What the fuck are you talking about?

These are designed with the idea of the rocket body being reusable instead of discarded. Intact recovery of the rocket body can save $50-100 million per launch. Them numbers add up quickly.

Yes, let's patch an old design instead of making a newer, more efficient design. Sixty years of advancement in materials technology? Pffft, who needs that! If it ain't broke don't fix it, amiright?

why do they have usa flags on them?

>all have usa flags

there is literally no reason for a european engineer to work on such a project for someone's nationalist fantasies. enjoy making exploding rockets with ameritards.

You are retarded.

>your understanding of space travel = 0
whatevershitholeyoucamefrom

>there is literally no reason for a european engineer to work on such a project
There is literally one reason, the reason everyone does their job, money.

I'm always amazed how big the Saturn V really was.

Also, comfy Skylab vid for you. ISS looks pretty cramped in comparison:
youtube.com/watch?v=S_p7LiyOUx0

Man, fuck this, first reusable toilet paper, then reusable rockets, everything reusable, these days everything is being designed with the express goal of fucking the consumer thinkpads, operaring systems, tge new iPhone, what next? Reusable condoms?

Awesome vid. Looks like so much fun.

>He doesn't reuse his condoms

It's like you want to give money to the birth control Jew

Those designs ARE similar. Rocket design is incredibly complex and prone to error so it's a slow iterative process. Most advancement are in building materials and flight control. The concepts are practically the same as de '50ies ICBMs.

but user what about the soyuz, i can't imagine them putting a usa flag on that very soon

Ariana 5 is international. It's developed/funded by the ESA.

Efficiency is what we want most from current launch vehicles.

Small payloads (with small, power-efficient computers) are increasingly useful, but we want to launch them cheaply.

All Lenovo Thinkpads have featured recycled plastic. Yes, you X220 has been spoiled by the "reusable" meme.

I hope you're just trying to be funny.

All of these rockets, except for the Soyuz and Ariane 5, are American designs.

Don't worry, I played Kerbal Space Program too! I'm a certified space engineer

United Launch Alliance on suicide watch.
politico.com/story/2016/05/elon-musk-rocket-defense-223161

Because the image features mostly the rockets US companies use.

Russia / India / Japan / ... have more rockets.

North Korea, Iran, Israel, Brazil also kinda can into low earth orbit.

> on suicide watch
You mean under 20% chance that anything more than a slap on the wrist will happen?

USA is the home of billions in corrupt contracts and "woops, I must have deleted everything" - tier accounting

>Boeing
>Lockheed
>on suicide watch
rofl

ESA is far more economically successful than NASA.

I like to pretend that's tax dollars being secretly diverted to the top secret warp drive project.

>why do we need NASA the free market will fix it

>rockets explode if you breathe on them

I feel you, but no.

If anything it gets diverted to some people killing machine. Which is then either used carelessly because "lel, it werks!", or just a pile of extremely can't-believe-this-costs-so-much - tier expensive junk.

>de '50ies

Honestly, I bet SpaceX could have an incident with twice the kill count of the Apollo disaster, and the media would just brush it off.

Europeans can't work for SpaceX or Blue Origin because of ITAR

>X220
>1366x768
lmao

hello pahjeet
this is not wordpress
thanks

Ariane 5s keep exploding every year. They're shit.

No, we'll go to Mars, OP. Don't break our dreams.

> Total launches 87
> Successes 83 (G: 13, G+: 3, GS: 6, ECA: 56, ES: 5)
> Failures 2 (G: 1, ECA: 1)
> Partial failures 2 (G)

So who is doing better with any significant number of launches...?

RRRREEEEKT

>On 24 August 2016, Ariane 5 performed its 73rd consecutive successful mission since 2003

Two failures of which were the first two rockets.

Last 72 missions of Ariane 5: Success without a single failure.

And for the general family:
> Rockets from the Ariane family have accumulated 230 launches since 1979, 219 of which were successful, yielding a 95.2% success rate.

Europe can into space.

This is great and all, but SpaceX's next-gen, all-reusable rocket should be coming out around the same time, built on very similar lines.

I've been saying for a while now that Blue Origin and SpaceX are likely to get to fully-reusable launch around the same time.

IIRC one of the two failures was due to a simple integer overflow, which caused the flight computer to reboot during launch.

What's more they knew the software bug existed, but they decided not to fix it because they feared it would do more harm than good. (they did not know the computer would reboot).

Irrelevant to the discussion, but kind a interesting.

Right, 73. I stand corrected.

Either way, this is a very good performance by the actually fairly modest ESA (funded at ~$4bn/year vs ~$19.3bn for NASA or ~$20bn for Roscosmos - of course, JAXA has only half of that, but yea).

It's an american image, meant to compare commercial rockets used in america.

There are shittons of rockets in current use internationally which are not on that image.

yes, the '50ies

>schadenfreude over one of these companies failing

Competitors in this space is a really fucking good thing. I hope they all develop successful reusable spacecraft.

they will never success

kek

you will never english