Can anyone explain why people are going crazy over this landing? Is this rocket really good?

Can anyone explain why people are going crazy over this landing? Is this rocket really good?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ
youtube.com/watch?v=pg52EWeH4Ps
youtube.com/watch?v=q_NTQ6xfAT4
youtube.com/watch?v=UsTIeZ03Hk8
youtube.com/watch?v=2ifMPiPpxKo
youtu.be/2ifMPiPpxKo?t=467
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Planetes soon

Reusable rocket with huge payload support.
It's much cheaper than anything we had before.

Children are going crazy

Business men knjow it's fake

The rocket literally lands itself

It's cool.

much much cheaper way to get things into space and maybe even land and on other planets and return one day

Because up until lately those 50s scifi movie depictions of rockets landing vertically was seen as silly, but it turns out we can actually do it that way and it's the cheapest way to do things.

3 things

first, Tesla Rockets are much more mechanically simple than already existing rockets, which reduces rocket costs and

second, as you can see the rocket stages can safely land back on earth to be redeployed, this alone saves a

third, this new rocket can get to orbit/space as much as twice the amount of weight of existing rockets, at around 1/3 of the price due to previously mentioned point

and that's very important because it reduces the cost per KG of sending shit to space to only 20% of what it was


previously to launch cheap satellite, the lift itself used to cost many times the amount of the satellite itself, with these new rockets, there will be more satellite launches to provide things like weather forecasting, gps, internet, photography, etc

We once again have a heavy launch rocket, only this time it's massively cheaper. So a lot of projects, e.g. launching space stations to Lagrange points, are not only feasible but pretty much inevitable.

>and that's very important because it reduces the cost per KG of sending shit to space to only 20% of what it was
This has not happened yet

I am old, I saw this claim happen for the space shuttle and it wound up actually being more expensive per kg, and it was totally reusable except for the main tank, all engines were reusable

i need to see the price per kg actually go down not go down in theory maybe

So yeah, reusable is possible, but the extra cost vs. a one shot rocket comes from the number of times it can be used + rebuild cost also extra weight so higher take of costs, the first cm is by far the most expensive, so weight saving overall was the driving design consideration so far, so we need to see if re usability can offset the extra cost, I am not holding my breath yet, scram jet to space is the future, take off and land on a landing strip.

It's the biggest rocket in existence and it lands itself.

>all engines were reusable
>engine literary burn into a crust together with the main tank
Your wikipedia skills fail you, Mr.Oldfag. Oh sorry, I mean kiddo.

Only the shuttle part was reusable and was highly inefficient and needed onboard personnel to deploy things like satellites.

The shuttle was inefficient because it was primarily a military vehicle. If you want to get objects into orbit cheaply, packing them into a huge and heavy orbiter is inefficient than just packing them in a fairing. What the shuttle let's you do is retrieve objects from orbit and bring them back to earth.

>Aliens are Real
>Trump is a russian puppet
>Mind Control satellites are real
>Government is reptilians
>HARP makes earthquakes/tsunamies
>Earth is flat
>Vaccines used for 50+ year cause autism
>Monsanto is killing the bees because they're aliens transforming the earth.

But rockets landing is totally fake.

You're old enough to read news.

>For example, about 14 months ago, the Air Force awarded SpaceX an $83 million contract to launch a GPS 3 satellite. And in March 2017, SpaceX won a contract to launch another GPS 3 satellite for $96.5 million. These represent "all-in, fully burdened costs" to the government, and so they seem to be roughly comparable to the $422 million "unit cost" in the Air Force budget for 2020.

The Air Force recently released budget estimates for fiscal year 2018, and these include a run out into the early 2020s. For these years, the budget combines the fixed price rocket and ELC contract costs into a single budget line. (See page 109 of this document). They are strikingly high. According to the Air Force estimate, the "unit cost" of a single rocket launch in fiscal year 2020 is $422 million, and $424 million for a year later.

Sp yes it's 5 times cheaper for the US government to launch via SpaceX then via Delta Rockets.

Costs. They can launch another one in 5 months

Wouldn't it be cheaper to give them rockets retractable wings, so they can glide back? I know Soviets planned to do something like this.

...

...

the money didn't go to waste.

How are they going to catch fairing? Is that the claw thing I saw somewhere?

go and build one and tell me how it works out

...

I don't get how it's cheaper to have fuel just for landing which increases initial payload which takes more fuel to burn than having a fucking parachute or some shit.

...

Look how big it is. Also, parachutes are unreliable and shitty. A tiny bit of fuel used for landing versus the huge amount needed to get to orbital speeds is obviously feasible.

Retractable wings would be a hell of a lot more complicated/expensive than just reusing the main engines. Spacecraft with non-retractable wings are either still theoretical (Skylon, Avatar) or require boosters (Space Shuttle, pic related). You have to design the whole shape of the craft around the aerodynamics of flight, while simultaneously designing it around the aerodynamics of rocketry.

Honestly if you werent impressed by yesterday you don't deserve to live to see the resurgence of human space travel.

WE BEYOND EARTH NOW

Fuel for the Falcon 9 heavy(3 boosters) is ~$900,000 USD total. About $250,000-300,000 for a normal Falcon 9 (single booster)

The actual boosters cost around $22,000,000 a pop. Refurbing for $2-3M per launch and refueling is a hell of a lot cheaper than ANOTHER $22,000,000 booster, AND more fuel.

Kino
Makes me think we are already living the cyber-dystopia era
>Space Travel made by Corporations and not goverments

We have been for the last 6 decades

But,
was the Tesla thing real of just a joke?
How is The Stig going?

Can't wait for videos from SpaceX, I'm sure they have high quality videos including core booster fireworks.

...

Tesla is in space.

Don't post that shit here man

It does NOT cost $2B per launch of the SLS, that's fucking retarded.

You're almost certainly including some development costs or other shit in there.

>There are no NASA estimates for the SLS program recurring yearly costs once operational, for a certain flight rate per year, or for the resulting average costs per flight.

From what i've heard, they're aiming for around $500M per launch. Which is still absurdly expensive, but not $2B per launch expensive.

Some say, he doesnt know how to parallel park...in space

...

See you, space cowboy...

And more footage of the upper stage crash

>$500M per launch. Which is still absurdly expensive
For a government agency? For that price I'd be surprised if the rocket picture is not to scale.

Saturn V were under $200M per launch. (though that's something like $1.2B in current dollar value)

>Fulton recovery system is going to be a real

It is actually real and has been tested and used.

...

Because it werks. We did it reddit.

It's literally just a balloon in a canister with a hook on top, so a helo can come swoop in and drag it away.

Awwwwwwwwwww YISSSSSSSSS I'd sign up in a heartbeat

Only soys are going crazy over fake video made to sucker in your tax dollars.

#DEFUNDSPACEXFRAUD

>Is this rocket really good?
yes.
it is cheaper.
but also importantly, it is faster.
it means we can shoot down chinese satelites faster rthan they can put them up.
and launch our satelites faster than they can shoot them down

>uuuuuuh space is fake guys
>#flatearth
>I dont pay taxes but I play the CIA's disinfo mindgame a-hyup!

>landing
that's your answer
landing a rocket is a big deal, and especially so for a new design

there's so much that can go wrong, it's extremely difficult to land a rocket both safe and cost efficient
youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

>>engine literary burn into a crust together with the main tank
>Your wikipedia skills fail you, Mr.Oldfag. Oh sorry, I mean kiddo.
untrue

the space shuttle was a huge disaster comparing what it promised to what it delivered

The same has been true for nearly every space venture. By the time Musk has killed a few people and realizes the cost involved in making a craft "human certified" and the true risks involved become apparent. ... the cost will go up and the price for putting a human in orbit and bringing him back safely will remain close to what it is now or at least several million dollars per ride

>A tiny bit of fuel used for landing
You have to spend fuel to get that cargo landing fuel to space and then bring it back, everyone forgets this

More space trash

>It does NOT cost $2B per launch of the SLS, that's fucking retarded.
just you wait, it will be over 1B for sure

>The actual boosters cost around $22,000,000 a pop. Refurbing for $2-3M per launch and refueling is a hell of a lot cheaper than ANOTHER $22,000,000 booster, AND more fuel.
this is literally exactly what was said about the space shuttle

40 years ago

>landing a rocket is a big deal, and especially so for a new design

I too welcome musk to 1981

youtube.com/watch?v=pg52EWeH4Ps

>landing a glorified plane is the same thing as landing actual fucking rockets

>Tesla Rockets are much more mechanically simple than already existing rockets

Do I really need to point out that this is not a rocket, it's a glider that has discarded its rocket (powered main engine only in space)?

>>landing a glorified plane is the same thing as landing actual fucking rockets
?

the glorified plane can bring humans back, by the way the liquid rockets were reusable and attached to the glorified plane

>needs someone to manually land it
blyat
youtube.com/watch?v=q_NTQ6xfAT4

>Do I really need to point out that this is not a rocket, it's a glider that has discarded its rocket (powered main engine only in space)?
All engines on the space shuttle were retained and reused, the solid boosters drop off in the atmosphere before orbit and are reused

none are discarded

you have no idea what you are talking about

Its literally been real for decades

youtube.com/watch?v=UsTIeZ03Hk8

>only flew once, never carried a human or satellite into orbit
k

yes, they've replaced alot of old mechanical parts with simple electrical ones.

Mid air retrieval has been a thing for awhile. The first spy satellites used film that was ejected and then retrieved by a plane.

>thinking the space shuttle is a glorified plane
>this is the absolute state of elon's cocksucker fanboys
The space shuttle is an absolute fuck you
A space vehicle isn't supposed to have wings, the shuttle has
The shuttle allow brand new missions to exist, spacex technology brings nothing new
So fuck you, doesn't your hero has space junk to carry to leo?

why would it carry anything, it was built to retrieve objects and bring them back down not to put them in orbit

wat

>solid boosters drop off in the atmosphere before orbit and are reused

No, they refurb them, which meant completely disassembling them and using whatever parts were still good. The cost of refurb was almost as much as building a completely new one, which gives you an idea of how reusable they were.

same will be true for any liquid engine musk takes to space, brings back, and wants to certify for human space launch

Every single external tank was jettisoned and burned up, and while the solid rocket boosters could have been reused - did that actually happen even a handful of times? I'm pretty sure they dropped the whole idea for the next iteration.

And yes, the space shuttle is just a glider while in atmosphere, it's not even a plane.

Pic related would probably have been a plane if the USSR didn't collapse.

>same will be true for any liquid engine musk takes to space, brings back, and wants to certify for human space launch

No, a liquid is not going to have to be rebuilt after every launch like a solid. Especially when you are landing on land rather than in salt water.

>No, a liquid is not going to have to be rebuilt after every launch like a solid. Especially when you are landing on land rather than in salt water.
wrong

The shuttles had to be basically rebuilt after every launch, the temps and pressures are too high for you just be be able to look at it and be totes like "looks ok, fuel it back up for the next guy"

they will have to be taken apart and inspected and have parts replaced every single fucking mission

maybe not for satellites, but after musk kills a few men he will not be allowed to fly more humans without doing a rebuild every time

>It's ok that we just killed 3 people, from now on we are going to keep not rebuilding the engines and just visually looking them over between flights to solve the problem

let me know how that works out for you

It is fake

>Pic related would probably have been a plane if the USSR didn't collapse.
it already was
youtube.com/watch?v=2ifMPiPpxKo

all teh rocket engines were reused, you are wrong

Musks rockets are designed to destroy the final rocket motor on every flight, the shuttle did not do this

you are simply wrong

Do you really not understand how a solid needs to be completely dismantled to be used again vs liquid fuel?

No, if he lands them like this, the stresses they experience should be far more predictable, and it's very possible that you can then just do an actually cheap routine fixing before the next launch.

Plus in general the idea is very good, it allows for more corrections and so on than, say, parachutes.

Exactly this, they haven't reused a single rocket so it is literally impossible to know how much rebuilding any of them cost.

this

>Buran would probably have been a plane if the USSR didn't collapse
How?
It's literally the space shuttle a little bigger, with an excellent autopilot and a few years too late
It has the same fundamental design issues that would cause reliability issues, higher costs and longer preparation time between missions
I think a lifting body design could solve the issues the space shuttle had

Didn't the Russians built the Buran as a nuclear weapons from orbit delivery vehicle to counter act the shuttle?

I fully understand.

I also understand that by the time musk spends the fuel to carry the cargo landing fuel to space and slow it back down to land the cost savings will not be much different than keeping the rocket in space and gliding back down with it at the end of the mission

His rockets are new tech, sort of, they might be 20% or 30% cheaper in the long run but not more than that. When was the last time you heard someone say "I would like to go to space if only it cost $8,000,000 for a ride and not $10,000,000"

desu thats a cool idea for a ringworld-esque scifi world

>Get in the car, loser, we're going orbiting

>How?
youtu.be/2ifMPiPpxKo?t=467

It's more about the precise landing. The idea is that in the future you'd have launches once a week or even once a day and you need a precise landing as you don't want to close the airspace, roads, etc in that particular region all the time. Parachutes can work just fine, but the landing area can be quite unpredictable.

>the cost savings will not be much different than keeping the rocket in space and gliding back down with it at the end of the mission

And what do you do with the first stage? Or are you just going to try ssto?

> they might be 20% or 30% cheaper in the long run but not more than that.

Which is a substantial reduction in launcher cost, larger than anything seen since the dawn of commercial launches

Yeah no, sweetie.

>>(You)
Musk said future launches will use a newer version of that stage, so they won't be re-using these anyway.
Just a test.

>Which is a substantial reduction in launcher cost, larger than anything seen since the dawn of commercial launches
it's a reduction, in theory, for commercial launches.

I am talking about human spaceflight. The idea of putting a man in a car and throwing that shit into space implies he's saying "fuck everything we are all going to space now, i figured it out"

no, it will still cost multiple millions of dollars to put a man into orbit for 2 weeks and bring him back alive

the implication is not a reduction from a 100m dollar cost of cargo to orbit down to 80m, but that he is going to be able to put regular people into orbit frequently and cheaply, and no, even $4,000,000 for a week long trip for one person is not "cheaply"