The team responsible for China's Long March 7 launch has an average age of 25 y.o

22, a year from finishing my BS in physics

I already work in geospatial intelligence, id like to go to grad school

also drink too much and take too many drugs

What is your job working there?

lmao @ you all proving OPs point that you're all babby student losers compared to others your age who are actually achieving things

OP should probably answer this post

Maybe because after fail they will invited to a stadium...

funny part about this launch is that there were no livestreams anywhere. I didn't know the CCP was so paranoid about fucking up.

incredibly off-topic post incoming:
It is not like one exploding rocket will be the final straw to wake up the chinese to the fact that the communist party is an oligarch party.

(OP)
I'm too busy getting a degree to make a sub-par rocket. Let me know when the Chinese get to the 21st century. Long March 7 is a meme.

>achieving

>>The team responsible for China's Long March 7 launch has an average age of 25 y.o
A ten-man software engineering team, not the rocket design team, or the people in charge of the launch. They're not even very clear about what the team does. It seems like they're doing the software responsible for displaying the data from the rocket.

it shows that their space program is totally new and hasn't matured yet

Sour grapes.

LM7 is pretty irrelevant. Arguably a step up from relying on hypergols, but basically like rolling out a new model of propeller biplane in the 1950s.

I read it as life expectancy of 25 years

why would they produce a new rocket that is only 2 meters across and needs 4 boosters

Then spacex comes along and produces a nice big & cheap rocket... showing everyone the practical way to do things..

Civil Engineering.

The Chinese space program, like most of the rest of the orbital launch industry, has been proceeding under the assumption that SpaceX would fail and the status quo would continue for several more decades. As launch providers, they were catching up quickly with the Russians.

However, regardless of their expectations, competing with near-future reusable vehicles is likely beyond their reach. China's still a relatively backwards country. Their involvement in production of high-tech products is fairly low-level and unsophisticated, mostly providing labor to run foreign-designed processes and assemble foreign-designed goods. Highly-talented Chinese tend to move to first-world countries where the profit from their skills won't be snatched away by corrupt officials.

LM7, for instance, is based on Soviet engine technology, apparently purchased from the Russians in a shady deal in the 90s.

...

that's also true

i wonder what percent of that design was stolen from USA/USSR

You guys just can't accept it whenever a non-white race achieves something can you? I posted on /g/ the other day that China built the world's most powerful supercomputer and got the same butthurt response
>"we could ahve done it too if we wanted to!"
>"it's useless!"
It's extra funny that you are dismissing the Chinese space programme because if I recall correctly they have manned capability while NASA no longer does.

Falcon 9 is smaller and can deliver a larger payload into LEO while carrying a landing system that adds considerable weight to the rocket. In terms of heavy lifting Long March 7 is inferior to Atlas V and H-IIB as well.

> Same butthurt response
The Chinese have this annoying tendency of stealing technology, lying about funding/capabilities (see supercomputer), refusing to cooperate, and being flat out being incompetent.

>It's extra funny that you are dismissing the Chinese space programme because if I recall correctly they have manned capability while NASA no longer does.
Putting people into orbit isn't hard my heat CCTV enthusiast. After the disaster that was the Space Shuttle we had the Russians do it for us at a low cost :^)

tl; dr Land on the moon you scrubs, its 2016.

Falcon 9 is smaller and can deliver a larger payload into LEO while carrying a landing system that adds considerably more weight to the rocket. In terms of heavy lifting Long March 7 is inferior to Atlas V and H-IIB as well.

> Same butthurt response
The Chinese have this annoying tendency of stealing technology, lying about funding/capabilities (see supercomputer), refusing to cooperate, and flat out being incompetent.

>It's extra funny that you are dismissing the Chinese space programme because if I recall correctly they have manned capability while NASA no longer does.
Putting people into orbit isn't hard my heated CCTV enthusiast. After the disaster that was the Space Shuttle we had the Russians do it for us at a low cost :^)

tl;dr Land on the moon you scrubs, its 2016.

>i wonder what percent of that design was stolen from USA/USSR
b-but muh intellectual property!!! americans should be profiting off of that work!!! SUE CHINA!

This is why Shenzhen is kicking our ass.

>Falcon 9 is smaller and can deliver a larger payload into LEO while carrying a landing system that adds considerably more weight to the rocket.

SpaceX has this annoying tendency of stealing technology, lying about funding/capabilities (see SpaceX, Tesla), refusing to cooperate, and flat out being incompetent.

>Land on the moon you scrubs, its 2016.
Actually they did it back in 2013.
inb4 no Neil Armstrong.
It's the 1960's. Cheaper to use robots, rather than kill 3 astronauts getting spam on the moon.

putting a rover on the moon is a whole different thing from actually putting some men in a working vehicle
then returning them

Sounds like you flunked English comprehension, so I'll just repeat it:

>It's the 1960's. Cheaper to use robots, rather than kill 3 astronauts getting spam on the moon.

cheaper to just use CGI
whats your point?

>[] has this annoying tendency of stealing technology, lying about funding/capabilities (see []), refusing to cooperate, and flat out being incompetent.
You must be Chinese because you stole half my comment and created an inferior product.

LM7 is still a weak rocket compared to Atlas V or H-IIB.

>Cheaper to use robots
If the Communist party was worried about cost then they wouldn't be building their own space station. Like an autistic child China is refusing help with the ISS.

>Use robots
Yutu lasted for only 3 months on the moon while Opportunity still exploring Mars after 12.4 years. That landing wasn't impressive and I hope JAXA decides to crash its next moon prob into Chang'e 3.

Putting a person on the moon is a measure of a nation's industrial/economic/scientific capabilities.

Is alcoholism really that fun? Or do I just have a shit social life?

22 years old, just finished my bachelor's degree in physics and have enough certification to be a nuclear reactor operator

starting Nuclear Engineering master's program in the fall

still feel unaccomplished and underachieving because my older brother went to MIT

>still feel unaccomplished and underachieving because my older brother went to MIT
Do you feel unaccomplished because child prodigies exist? Get over yourself, you take the cards you are given and make the best you can of them. Sounds to me like you're doing fine.

You're right.

I guess what really got me was today I went on some tours with the other interns and they're all from berkeley and other amazing schools and have publications and other accomplishments.

Guess I'm realizing how much time I'm wasting shitposting and playing vidya instead of trying to prepare for the real world like these other kids are.

Don't compare yourself to those robots. Shitposting gives your life meaning.

Holy shit, what certifications did you need and how can I get them?

>official chinese data

lol

>faggets in damage control

Obligatory Onion news, topic related: youtube.com/watch?v=NPQH60bhFdA

>working 80 hours a week for a popsci entrepreneur who's going to take all the credit for it

You'd at least get recognition in China. And chinks probably pay top dollar for engineers.

Plus commies really fund science hard. They just go all in with no regard for failures.

At first it was called customer service, but now its napkins, ketchup, and my receipt cant you do anything where is your manager i can not belive this shit. But i was only 18 the ripe age where a cop feels like he can pull his service pistol is it? Out.

You need a GED or better and be very good at math. They take care of the rest, my uneducated guess is because the DOE doesnt have the need for PHDs just yet which is good because i was never the best at math so i can do with the anchor.

But this is from a 5 year old article i can be wrong

And your point is?

Dont follow your dreams. And if they are put them on hold and become a teacher.

>if I recall correctly they have manned capability while NASA no longer does.

>primary operator of ISS
>regular pressurized resupply flights to it
>astronauts in space pretty much constantly
>no manned capability

What NASA has is far higher standards for crew safety and a decades-old political mess where the manned program became a boondoggle, so it was simpler to use a partner's crew vehicle for a few years while domestic shuttle alternatives were developed.

You could stick guys in flight suits in a cargo Dragon, and it would be about as safe as what China's doing. Even the Falcon/Dragon that blew up wouldn't have been a crew loss: the Dragon capsule was intact, and they just had the parachutes turned off for regulatory reasons.

However, using Soyuz while they develop really good, really safe new capsules makes more sense by NASA's standards than accepting any additional risk to human life by insisting on domestic crew launch.

It doesn't really "make sense" its just that for political reasons NASA is incapable of making their own launch vehicles

NASA landed a robotic probe on the moon in 1966, years before landing men. It was launched on an Atlas-Centaur.

Later, they landed a manned mission right next to a Surveyor probe, to show off the accuracy of their landing capability and the potential for landing assets together to build a base.

>You guys just can't accept it whenever a non-white race achieves something can you? I posted on /g/ the other day that China built the world's most powerful supercomputer and got the same butthurt response
This isn't about dismissing "a non-white race". Hell, one of the posts you're replying to points out how part of the problem is that talented Chinese tend to move out of China. This is about being honest about the limitations and deceptions of a post-communist kleptocracy desperate to present itself as a world leader to its benighted subjects.

China's advancing economically quickly, but they started from a truly miserable condition and they're getting ahead mostly by hiring out cheap labor performing basic tasks. They're basically catching up to Russia, another large-yet-backwards post-communist kleptocracy, which still has a per-capita PPP GDP 60% higher than China.

As for China "building the world's most powerful supercomputer", these days, that's like having the world's biggest pile of sand: nobody's really competing at it, and it's just a matter of spending the most money. It's not like China's designing and fabricating the most advanced main components, they just purchased them from abroad and assembled them into networks.

>NASA is incapable of making their own launch vehicles
NASA has always, and I mean always, had private contractors make their launch vehicles and manned spacecraft.

Falcon 9 / Dragon was only contracted by a little different rules than in the past. They were absolutely products of a NASA development contract. NASA waved a big wad of cash and said, "Who wants to build this thing?" and SpaceX said, "We do!" and when NASA chose them, they got the cash and a bunch of technical help from NASA. Even the Falcon 1 was based on the FASTRAC engine, developed by NASA.

The main difference from, for instance, the shuttle program or Saturn V, is that SpaceX runs the launch pad.

See also: Antares / Cygnus, and the Crew Dragon and CST-100 manned capsules.

Rockets built to fulfill an open to anyone contract, designed & build entirely by a private entity
Is a lot different from some defense contractor building a rocket designed by NASA using a cost plus contract.

>Rockets built to fulfill an open to anyone contract
When NASA wanted a manned reusable launch system, they put out a call for proposals, and NASA picked the one they liked, and the result was the space shuttle.

It didn't come out off a NASA drawing board, it came off a North American Rockwell drawing board.

When NASA wanted commercial cargo options with potential for development into crew vehicles, they put out a call for proposals, and NASA picked the ones they liked, and the results were Falcon 9 / Dragon and Antares / Cygnus.

>designed & build entirely by a private entity
Not really... there was a lot of NASA information, advice, and design review. NASA let SpaceX fly Dragon to the ISS because they had NASA employees who were intimately familiar with the workings of Dragon and Falcon 9, and were therefore confident that neither the Dragon nor the F9 upper stage would end up crashing into the ISS, and that the Dragon would function properly while attached to the ISS, etc.

>cost plus contract
This is one of the main differences... and yet, being *ostensibly* non-cost-plus doesn't mean it can't turn into cost-plus in practice. That's what happened with the EELV program, which was very similar to the deal between NASA and SpaceX/Orbital, except it was between the US military and Boeing/LM.

When Boeing and LM couldn't recover their costs under the terms of the EELV program, they basically told the government to give them more money or they'd stop launching the rockets they got government money to develop. The result was ULA and its "capability maintenance" payments from the government, negotiated and renegotiated on the basis of... cost.

So what happens with SpaceX if the development funds plus the firm fixed-price launch contract isn't enough to cover their costs, and they stop selling commercial launches? If they stop launching, NASA loses upwards of a billion dollars invested with no capability to show for it... so they renegotiate.

Seeing my "inferior" product got you running away like a little bitch from this:

>Falcon 9 is smaller and can deliver a larger payload into LEO while carrying a landing system that adds considerably more weight to the rocket.

to this sheepish retraction with SpaceX implicit and explicitly missing:

>LM7 is still a weak rocket compared to Atlas V or H-IIB.

I'm sure you understand that can hardly be bothered to whip out my superior product.
Seeing my "inferior" product got you running away like a little bitch from this:

>Falcon 9 is smaller and can deliver a larger payload into LEO while carrying a landing system that adds considerably more weight to the rocket.

to this sheepish retraction with SpaceX implicit and explicitly missing:

>LM7 is still a weak rocket compared to Atlas V or H-IIB.

I'm sure you understand that can hardly be bothered to whip out my superior product.i
Seeing my "inferior" product got you running away like a little bitch from this:

>Falcon 9 is smaller and can deliver a larger payload into LEO while carrying a landing system that adds considerably more weight to the rocket.

to this sheepish retraction with SpaceX implicit and explicitly missing:

>LM7 is still a weak rocket compared to Atlas V or H-IIB.

I'm sure you understand that can hardly be bothered to whip out my superior product.

tl:dr Elon Musk is a lying sack of shit.

sorry about the 3X chief

Not even sure what side of the argument you're on.

This is seriously incoherent.