The madman is actually going to do it

I know I'm objectively shit for enjoying that movie, but it was great.

I don't know what you're talking about.

user, I'll take you to Mars in a few decades. All you have to do is wire me a few grand.

Why movie and why you would be shit for liking one?

Scene referenced by previous poster: youtube.com/watch?v=wbAF1EExpek

...

NASA is capable of going to Mars but right now the goal of reaching mars "someday" is the only thing funding NASA. If they actually did succeeded they'd become a victim of their own success. They'd be shut down, or at least this is the rational of the talking heads in NASA.

your self esteem is showing
it was a good movie

lol the rocket is burping

To be honest no one would be stupid enough to literally die for nothing by going to mars... until Musk came along.

I'm sure that because of his cult of personality there is a billion fucking edgelords fedorafags who would easily die for their god and savior Elon Musk.

Good on him, only by having a sizeable population of absolute morons can we actually get anything done when it comes to space. A billion people will die because of space exploration before commercial trips to mars so we better start now.

>die trying to go to Mars
>die in the basement watching TV
I mean...

>He thinks that a basement dwelling autist will have the courage to spend literal years in space without killing himself.

>He thinks that a basement dwelling autist would even have the dedication of going through NASA's space training.

This is why Elon Musk succeeded. You think that any autist will do, but he knew that what we needed were not just autists. Me need highly motivated autists, so he gave them a cult to subscribe to and now we have them in huge chunks.

At this point I must also acknowledge reddit's contribution. The autists would not keep their determination if they did not have an autist-only zone to hang out and share their Elon Musk glorification shit.

>To be honest no one would be stupid enough to literally die for nothing by going to mars... until Musk came along.
You're young.

the only reason governments thought nuclear power was necessary, was because they were fundamentally incapable of bringing down cost to orbit

Musk will have fully reusable rockets soon enough
These first stages will start building up, his launch rate will increase rapidly.
The reusable upper stage will happen sooner than you would think too

Still 2024 is likely too optimistic.
It's not that he couldn't do it, but that he is running a for profit company and I think he'll need/want to do other side stuff first, for the money.

That's not how government organisations work. They receive funding proportional to public interest. Mars would create enormous public attention

>legitimately believes were are in a sims game

Think about how exciting it would be to be the first human ever on Mars

>Think about how exciting it would be to be the first human ever on Mars

This statement is equivalent to
>Think about how exciting it would be to be the first human who uses a broken rusty razor to extract his own testicles from his ballsack

Being first does not imply achievement.

Damn son, that was a bit of a jump desu

Better than waiting for NASA to do it, they'll probably take 30 years just to build the module, and then 20 more years to launch it.

NASA would literally never be able to do it unless they suddenly got like triple the current funding

Even then, it would just be a one off thing, like apollo, followed by promptly destroying all the infrastructure that achieved it

The thing with nasa is they are hampered by their own government and beauceacy. Spreading out money to various states snd other countries just inflates costs. The shuttle program also was a mistake and continues to cause problems with the porkbarrel sls rocket.

Don't forget the part where they destroy vital parts of the engineering data, so that people have to use laser scanners on surviving museum pieces in order to try to regain the lost technology decades later.

The fact that they are trying to remake rockets from 60 years ago shows the whole issue

stupid question here why not colonize the moon?

I'll colonise your moon allright ;^)

>why not spend several billion dollars on a project that doesn't actually benefit anyone?

I rephrased your question into its true stupid form so that you can hopefully answer it yourself.

SpaceX is as much "NASA" as JPL is: lots of NASA money, lots of access to NASA experts and facilities, working to accomplish NASA's goals.

The "NASA" they're competing with is MSFC: the Marshall Space Flight Center, which really means Boeing, Lockheed, and ATK working on cost-plus contracts, and hasn't done a lick of decent work since Von Braun left and Nixon turned it into pork.

SpaceX as we know it is the most successful product of a government initiative in the early 2000s to cultivate some actually cost-effective NASA launch contractors.

The people they launch in 2024 to land on Mars in 2025 will probably be NASA astronauts.

this

dude can't even fucking get cheap ass rockets into space half the time

He needs to keep his focus on the hyperloop instead

Jesus fucking Christ, people; calm your tits. By 2025 we will have hopefully established the careful processes by which we will test potential astronauts who will possibly be on a theoretical space vehicle that may some day reach a target as unfamiliar and inhospitable as Mars. Assuming initial tests go smoothly we may have primitive prototype modules ready for careful examination in preliminary practice scenarios for an eventual Mars landing test with an unmanned probe that, if all goes well, will provide valuable insight necessary to develop guaranteed systems to ensure the viability of a manned expedition that can with any luck validate the results obtained from multiple unmanned test missions and generate a tentative go-ahead from government officials in charge of budgeting space affairs.

This is, of course, assuming that electric cars and hyperloop transit are business successes because otherwise it's a waste of money when you could be investing in a guaranteed moneymaker like petroleum fuels.

Except JPL is a part of NASA. Spacex is a private contractor that NASA buys rockets from. I doubt Spacex gets NASA help.

It is our species wide duty to :

1. Only support political candidates who support the human spaceflight program.
2. Buy Tesla cars

>dude can't even fucking get cheap ass rockets into space half the time
neither could NASA

I dont know if his plans about mars are legit or not, but the hyperloop is super exciting, and way more realisticlly possible at the moment...

than again 2024 is a few years from now so who knows? maybe they will be ready by than...

Jesus, have you heard of commas?

Wont hurt trying though...progress is never linear

Is he the most based human alive right now?

Say what you want about communism and human rights, but the Soviets got science done.

Because of national pride, the point was to show they were better than burgers. The new strain of communism that have infected the left is globalist communist, wich promote destruction of culture, race, nation, languages, genders, families etc...
This particular strain is not competent at all in any technical field where lying through your teeth to protect muh fee fee won't let you go anywhere.

>Believing anyone for a provisional 8 years

I think it had more to do with the soviet union's military industrial leviathan requiring an army of amoral scientists and engineers.

I'm not doubting their importance, but there is a more structural explanation for the USSR's technological achievements.

>the only reason governments thought nuclear power was necessary, was because they were fundamentally incapable of bringing down cost to orbit
You and all the other musky cock suckers are retards. governments thought nuclear power was necessary because nuclear power is fucking necessary. Even the Saturn V could only send 36 tons to Mars, that's nowhere near enough equipment for a two year return journey because that's what it will take because chemical rockets are fucking slow. With a nuclear upgrade the Carrot V can send a proper 100 ton spaceship there in less than six months. Musk has zero nuclear rocket technology and therefore zero chance of ever getting to Mars.

>culture
Western culture is stronger than ever. The autists who say culture is being destroyed are the ones who think culture is dumb nationalist shit like national dress.
>race
Racemixing does absolutely nothing to global race populations
>nation
Nationalism is dumb.
>languages
This is the only valid one you've made a couple languages are getting fucked up but that is nothing to do with Marxism or whatever it's simply the longstanding fact that English is taking over the world leaving the French butthurt.
>families
I was reading an article about family values they have been destroyed but again it isn't communism it's actually Western culture. Americans have this culture of kicking their kids out when they're 18 and then wondering how they ended up in a home 30 years later. Italians etc stay close forever.

Anyway fuck off to /pol/

youtube.com/watch?v=nX6N2tgLmaQ

>SpaceX going to Mars by 2025
>their entire profit margin is about 20x smaller than NASA's annual budget (if even that, considering they lose money more often than not)
>they don't have the technology for it, nor the means to develop it (NASA says even the late 2030's would be very difficult, even in the framework on a international mission, cause technology simply isn't there -- launchers is just one part of a much bigger problem); the best they can hope is that NASA includes them in their plans
>Musk's grandest achievements include: investing in an online paying company coded by others, using a electric motor design from the 19th century and laptop batteries on a car, asking NASA for help to develop a midsize kerozene rocket with a similar level of complexity than the Soyuz-2 and a non-automated pressurised capulse 2x smaller than the ATV.
>many were surpised at how many trials it took them to achieve F9 recovery (which is supposed to be the easiest part of his reusability programme), a relatively simple manoeuvre compared to what's done in space nowadays
>reusability has saved a grand total of $0, and even if it works, the profit made by SpaceX (or even Musk's entire fortune) will still be orders of magnitude smaller than the money required for a manned mars mission
>the FH has been delayed so often than experts start to wonder if there isn't a fundamental design flaw in their plans
>overall, Musk's Mars plans have about as much substance as NASA's, which is close to none
but somehow
>Muskfags will STILL gloat at his announcements whole while scoffing at NASA, Europe, China or Russia when they make similar announcements
>"something something BFR something something MCT hurr durr governement agencies can't do shit only he can"
>"i want to beliiiiiiiiiiiieve, that man makes me dreaaaam"

as a PR man, he is fabulous though.

Well said. The entire thing is "I want to believe" tier. Falcon Heavy, a rocket that barely even makes the super-heavy class, it's maiden flight has been canceled four times already. And they still haven't re-flown any rocket that they've landed which is like their entire shtick. He's done well in the LEO market but when it comes to "Mars for $500,000" or even "Mars" full-stop he's a fantasist.

No, he's not.

>Falcon Heavy, a rocket that barely even makes the super-heavy class

Why does SpaceX need to reach this arbitrary defined class? If they wanted to, they could develop crossfeed and have a rocket more powerful than SLS but there is no commercial reason for it.

Rocket economics should be driving payload designs, not the other way around.

>Except JPL is a part of NASA.
NASA pays the bills, but JPL is managed by the California Institute of Technology. It was started by CalTech, then "officially" became an Army facility "managed by" CalTech so it was allowed to do things with sensitive rocket technology. It was transferred from the Army to NASA along with the rest of the peaceful-application rocket stuff the Army had been doing.

>I doubt Spacex gets NASA help.
SpaceX and NASA have a very close relationship. Look up PICA and FASTRAC: the NASA technologies which became SpaceX's PICA-X and Merlin, their key devices for getting into and out of orbit.

They get loads of NASA help, and most of their money comes from NASA as well. SpaceX gets paid twice as much for Dragon flights (half of their flights so far) as commercial flights, plus NASA's just straight up handing them money for developing vehicles (Falcon 9, Dragon, Crew Dragon) which SpaceX then owns and can use for whatever they like.

>Racemixing does absolutely nothing to global race populations
Not sure how you can say that
Race mixing is the SOLE REASON that south america is a shit hole
A whole continent of hundreds of millions is SHIT because the spaniards race mixed

>Western culture is stronger than ever.
>Nationalism is dumb.
Spotted the marxist

He's going to build a fully reusable rocket twice(or larger) the size of the Saturn V
If the Saturn V was reusable, then it easily could have done a mars mission, just would take many launches

You obviously miss the point thinking it needs to all be done in one shot.

>Falcon Heavy, a rocket that barely even makes the super-heavy class, it's maiden flight has been canceled four times already.
Falcon Heavy wasn't particularly intended to be a super-heavy. Its purpose was to meet the needs of the GTO commercial launch market, but that has largely been made unnecessary due to the performance upgrades of Falcon 9.

The delays in launching Falcon Heavy have been part of general delays in getting up their Falcon 9 launch rate, which are completely typical of a new rocket. In fact, SpaceX has ramped up the Falcon 9 launch rate much faster than most new rockets.

This is more weaksauce SpaceX criticism that they're not quite as much better than everybody else as one might hope them to be: sure, they're building the most powerful launcher on the market and selling it for less than any but the cheapest medium-lift rockets, but it's coming out a few years later than originally scheduled, in an industry full of such delays. They're not perfect, they're not magic, therefore they suck. It's stupid.

My point is that even this borderline babby-tier rocket SpaceX can't get right.
South America is shit because the Spaniards didn't develop the place but milked it instead. Argentina is mostly white, it's GDP per capita is worse than Equatorial Guinea.
>Spotted the marxist
Explain why nationalism makes any sense
>He's going to build a fully reusable rocket twice(or larger) the size of the Saturn V
Ayy lmao
>You obviously miss the point thinking it needs to all be done in one shot.
If you stretch missions out too long there becomes the likelihood that you run out of money or have to attend to other priorities.

>"the delays are part of the plan!"
Delusional.

>they're building the most powerful launcher on the market and selling it for less than any but the cheapest medium-lift rockets

That's just not true. Most medium launchers are less than 90M.

I don't visit this board often but wow even you guys have tripfaggots? I always wondered why people try to establish identities here. Are their lives that boring and pathetic that they need attention from anonymous strangers?

Yeah, you're really stepping up the quality of your criticism with a strawman fake quote both greentexted and in quotes.

The delays aren't part of the plan, but they're less than are typical of the industry, and the particular delay of Falcon Heavy has been largely irrelevant due to the performance upgrades of Falcon 9.

It doesn't make any business sense for SpaceX to fly Falcon Heavy, consuming triple the hardware of a Falcon 9 launch, before they get their Falcon 9 launch rate up high enough to meet the demand for the smaller vehicle.

>He's going to build a fully reusable rocket twice(or larger) the size of the Saturn V
This is literally never going to happen

>>they're building the most powerful launcher on the market and selling it for less than any but the cheapest medium-lift rockets
>That's just not true. Most medium launchers are less than 90M.
1) What's your source?
2) There aren't many medium-lift rockets on the market.
3) So you're acknowledging that, in this very limited field of only a few medium-lift rockets currently available on the market, some cost more than the price of Falcon Heavy, but you still want to object to my statement?

>Listening to the incarnation of DUDE SCIENCE LMAO

This asshole went on record saying life is a computer simulation two days ago. When will this autism end?

Argentina isn't close to being white

>Ayy lmao
It will be done, Musk has the money and the company to do it
>If you stretch missions out too long
If both the first and second stage are fully reusable, and back at the launch pad within a day
Why are you stretching anything out?

Methane is a better fuel than RP-1 so he'll have better payloads

Don't bully autistic ppl

>What's your source?
My source is combined fucking knowledge. So you made the claim that it was cheaper than all but a few but have no idea where to find that information? How regularly do you talk out your ass like that?

The only medium lift launchers which are more expensive than that are Delta and Atlas but those aren't market prices because they aren't really on the market.

> some cost more than the price of Falcon Heavy

You said "any but the cheapest". Most is not "any but the cheapest". Please don't pretend to be retarded just because you said something wrong. You're getting upset about fucking nothing, a claim you didn't research.

>My source is combined fucking knowledge.
In other words, your source is your ass. You "just know".

>So you made the claim that it was cheaper than all but a few but have no idea where to find that information?
Yeah, that's not in general why someone asks for a source, and when you're unable to produce one, this kind of bluster is just embarassing yourself.

Launch contracts are individually negotiated. Most launch providers don't advertise a price, even as a starting-point for negotiation or ballpark figure. SpaceX is an uncommon exception. The information we, the public, gets on launch costs and prices are often third-hand, of questionable veracity, out-of-date, and hard to compare due to fluctuating exchange rates.

This is a typical example:
sci.esa.int/cosmic-vision/55017-questions-and-answers/
"Q3: What is the cost for VEGA launcher?"
"A3: The current cost estimates to be considered for the European launchers are:
• For Soyuz: 75 million Euro
• For VEGA: 45 million Euro"
We can conclude that a VEGA launch is likely priced well under a Falcon Heavy launch, but Soyuz through ESA is similar and possibly higher. 75 MEUR is only about 85 MUSD with today's exchange rates, but this estimate was given in 2014, and describes the "cost estimate", not the price to the customer.

>The only medium lift launchers which are more expensive than that are Delta and Atlas but those aren't market prices because they aren't really on the market.
>they aren't really on the market.
Talking out your ass confirmed.

>You said "any but the cheapest". Most is not "any but the cheapest"
That's a matter of interpretation, you haven't produced any support for your claim of "most", and it's beside the point. You're just splitting hairs.

The point is that it's the world's biggest rocket at a price that would be competitive for medium-lift, especially one launching from the USA.

Those russian rocket prices might be lower now after their imploding currency

Tiny payloads tho

>Yeah, that's not in general why someone asks for a source
Ah, so you were just being a dick then. That explains that.

>Launch contracts are individually negotiated.
Everyone knows that, well done.

ESA doesn't operate Soyuz, ArianeSpace do and we also know what they payed for Soyuz which is as low as 30-60 M USD. Soyuz from FG is a premium service.

russianspaceweb.com/soyuz2_lv.html

>Talking out your ass confirmed.
False. You ignored every other piece of information about Soyuz to come to this conclusion.

> you haven't produced any support for your claim of "most"
And what have you produced to back the original claim? Fucking nothing. Use your brain, look at the list. Souyz, Vega, Zenit, Long March, PSLV, GSLV, Antares, Dnepr are all cheaper. Only Delta and Atlas are more expensive. H-IIA has a wide range. That's most.

You will see that I am the only trip on Veeky Forums. i am a trip because I am currently defending some theory I posted. I agree with you tripping is stupid unless you have to.
It's whiter than Equatorial Guinea
>It will be done, Musk has the money and the company to do it
You're an actual tinfoil if you think a private company can build a rocket twice the size of Saturn V. Hell, I seriously doubt if even NASA could pull off such a thing. Pretty sure such a huge rocket would never even get off of the ground.
So you've said it yourself. SpaceX has gotten comfy with their Falcon 9 market why the fuck is a profiting private company going to divert funds from that towards some fantasy projects that's a) way out of their technical league and b) will not make them any profit? You are all tools, Musk hyped you all up with promises of a journey to Mars in order to gain public funds for his actual plan of being another boring LEO launcher. The reuseable rockets, it's just a little side idea, they haven't really gone anywhere with it for years

>• For Soyuz: 75 million Euro
>• For VEGA: 45 million Euro"
This is for governement launches. A commercial Vega costs about 30 million €, according to wiki linking to spacenews.

>>Yeah, that's not in general why someone asks for a source
>Ah, so you were just being a dick then.
Do you really need me to spell it out? I was asking for sources so I could see where you were getting your information, if you weren't just making stuff up.

>ESA doesn't operate Soyuz, ArianeSpace do
Right. My mistake. But also more of your hair-splitting.

>and we also know what they payed for Soyuz which is as low as 30-60 M USD. Soyuz from FG is a premium service.
>russianspaceweb.com/soyuz2_lv.html
So where do you suppose this "75 million euro" figure comes from?

There is Soyuz as launched by the Russians, paying Eastern-European salaries, and Soyuz as launched by ArianeSpace, paying Western-European salaries, and Soyuz as a dry empty rocket sitting in a warehouse. We're talking about the market price of launch services.

This "30-60 M USD" from your link seems to be the price for Russia to supply ArianeSpace with a manufactured Soyuz rocket, not the price ArianeSpace charges for a launch on Soyuz. Launch operations are also expensive. Falcon 9 is only supposed to cost around $20 million to manufacture.

>>>The only medium lift launchers which are more expensive than that are Delta and Atlas but those aren't market prices because they aren't really on the market.
>>>they aren't really on the market.
>>Talking out your ass confirmed.
>False. You ignored every other piece of information about Soyuz to come to this conclusion.
I ignored every other piece of information about Soyuz to come to the conclusion that you were talking out your ass when you said that Delta and Atlas "aren't really on the market"?

>Only Delta and Atlas are more expensive.
Again, you haven't supported that. So far, you've tried to claim that Delta and Atlas aren't really on the market and that the purchase price of a dry Soyuz rocket in a warehouse is the same as the price of a launch on a Soyuz rocket.

>The reuseable rockets, it's just a little side idea, they haven't really gone anywhere with it for years
Troll harder, faggot.

What timescales do people think major technology development projects happen on?

What is the most feasible method of space travel that humanity can even get to?

methane based chemical rockets

>I was asking for sources so I could see where you were getting your information
Google. The same place you use.

>So where do you suppose this "75 million euro" figure comes from?
As you literally just said "Launch contracts are individually negotiated".

>We're talking about the market price of launch services.
And why would you assume that's the same with different launch service providers? ArianeSpace will not charge the same as the typical cost of Souyz in Russia.

>This "30-60 M USD" from your link seems to be the price for Russia to supply ArianeSpace with a manufactured Soyuz rocket
Russia provides more than just rockets, there is staff to for assembly. I did not claim my figure was the end user cost, it was to show there is a wide range in cost, it will be more representative of the kinds of costs that can be achieved with big contracts.

>Falcon 9 is only supposed to cost around $20 million to manufacture.
Do you have a source for that?

>Delta and Atlas "aren't really on the market"
Everyone knows that. Delta doesn't launch commercial payloads and Atlas has flown one since 2010. They aren't part of the market.

>the purchase price of a dry Soyuz rocket in a warehouse is the same as the price of a launch on a Soyuz rocket.
I never said that. Don't confuse your misunderstanding with things I've said.

>Again, you haven't supported that.
I gave you all the information you need. I'm not going to spoon feed you sources you can find just as quickly yourself. You thought you knew enough to make the claim in the first place and now suddenly you don't know how to work the internet. If you care to disprove my classifications of the cost vs FH then do so.

>Delta doesn't launch commercial payloads and Atlas has flown two* since 2010.

Musk just claimed the first stage of the Falcon 9 is worth 30 million
So a 20 million assembly cost seems reasonable

>>• For VEGA: 45 million Euro
>This is for governement launches.
No, that's the 2014 cost estimate, after two years actual launch experience.

>A commercial Vega costs about 30 million €, according to wiki linking to spacenews.
That's the 2012 cost projection, after 9 years of development but prior to its first launch, assuming two launches per year.

Vega has launched a grand total of 6 times, and the ESA has spent over 1.1 billion euros on it.

And the upper stage costs nothing?

Vega was very expensive and had a lot of politics going into it's creation but some of that will pay off with Ariane 6 which can use the composite solid casings and maybe even the same motors as Vega.

Upper stage is made on the same assembly line, has only 1 engine, and is a lot smaller

Comparing prices to russia is kinda misleading because Russian workers are making peanuts

But relative to it's size it's more complex. You can't just guess.

>Comparing prices to russia is kinda misleading because Russian workers are making peanuts
I didn't make this comparison.

>Musk says he's going to do something
"that's fucking impossible retards, all human progress is a popsci meme it just can't be done"
>the madman does it again
Okay let's ignore that and decide that the next task is impossible instead.

>but some of that will pay off with Ariane 6
What sort of market do you think will exist for a 100 million dollar expendable rocket after 2020?

The Falcon 9 upper stage is a lot cheaper to produce than the lower stage. The engines are the most expensive parts, and the upper stage engine is basically the same as the lower stage one, but there's only one on an upper stage.

I've heard claims from $16 million to manufacture the whole Falcon 9 to $18 million for just the lower stage. If you think about it, for there to be any hope of making money within a reasonable amount of time, the manufacturing cost of the rocket has to be far below the launch price. You also have to pay for development, facilities, overhead, etc.

This is why people say reuse doesn't make sense as a way to greatly lower launch prices: they're thinking of it as just saving the cost of manufacturing the vehicle. However, the high cost of manufacturing the vehicle is used to justify accepting many other high costs. If you're spending $22 million to build the vehicle, then there's little point in investing in streamlining the qualification, payload integration, or launch processes that cost a few millions of dollars per flight, and you can't amortize your development or facilities over a much larger number of flights unless you get the prices down low enough to grow the market.

A6 is not going to be that expensive and I don't think expendable rockets are going anywhere for a while.

Relative to its size, it's less complex. Most of the complexity is in the engines. The upper stage is maybe a quarter or a fifth of the size of the booster, but it has one ninth as many engines.

>I've heard claims from $16 million to manufacture the whole Falcon 9 to $18 million for just the lower stage.
Do you have sources on that?

>the manufacturing cost of the rocket has to be far below the launch price.
That depends on who is paying your development and facilities costs. In the case of Falcon 9 we know spaceX get a lot of extra cash in NASA contracts. We can't speculate what the margins are because their fiances aren't public.

SpaceX will be landing all their stage 1's for here on out
All of them so far are capable of being relaunched

Expendable rockets are a thing of the past

They also make other strange assumptions of costs involved. Then they bring up the history of space launch to "prove" that we will never increases launch rates....

But it has it's own computer, communications, pressurant tanks, plumbing, adapters, interfaces, RCS... And it needs to be capable of more relights.

Why wouldn't the first stage have all that stuff too?