Jeff Bezos shot himself in the foot

Regarding that matter (which wasn't what I was discussing btw) the thing is we still don't know if spacex is making any profit or even launching at a loss. Ariane 6 was designed by ESA and CNES engineers after thoroughly exploring the case of reusability, and it was deemed non viable in terms of profits, and would have costed much more in R&D and would have taken much longer to get to the launch pad. What counts is the launch price tag, and Ariane 6 (as projected) makes it very competitive even next to spacex with the added reliability of the twice record holding launcher family in terms of flaweless launches in a row. Ariane6 is also meant to be more flexible, which is harder to acheive if you build experimental rocket concepts. Ariane is trying to build on what has made it's success so far, and has more long term plans regarding reusability that will come in as Ariane 6 upgrades (Prometheus, Adeline and maybe Ariane Next. Do note that although it may seem as though Ariane 5 is getting less launches than Falcon 9, but she hauls over twice the former's payload to GTO, and remains dominant on the market even before Ariane 6's drastic cost reduction. The conclusion is, although Ariane 6 may look less sexy than a reusable monster rocket, it is in fact competitive (at least on paper) since bringing back first stages is expensive in terms of added fuel requirements (payload reduction) and refurbishing costs and tests, as well as possible performance loss. Spacex has a good plan going for them, but they are in fact making a gamble, and Musk ins't the messiah. Bottom line is a lot is influenced by image, and this brings us back to spacex great PR. ESA and Ariane could (and should) take notes, as PR is mart of what makes a company, and without it space exploration is just science jerk offs.

the problem with blue origin is that jeff bezos doesn't know dick about aerospace engineering
Musk knows plenty, and has been involved in all aspects of the rocket design.

So blue origin wasted years dicking around on stupid stuff

Oh and Ariane actually gets less government contracts than U.S, India or China launchers as it is not mandatory for E.U nations to launch on european rockets. Furthermore your taxes are safe, as Ariane is making profit each year, and Ariane 1-4 had I believe (deserves to be checked) generated a 4x return on investment for european countries.

Let's be clear. Ariane 6 was decided before SpaceX even landed a first stage.
I honestly believe they didn't take it seriously.
The thing is, Ariane 6 customers can't take into account ariane 5's launch history as granted. That's a risk for them, being a new launcher.
Falcon Heavy will most likely seal the deal on GTO launches.
What bothers me is that, they see these milestones being accomplished, and keep saying to themselves they're competitive.

Have you considered that Jeff Bezos might not care how hyped Redditors are, given that they're not the target market for expensive space hardware, and that everyone who is in the business of spending that kind of money isn't going to make decisions based on hype?

Also, in what sense would the IT'S and New Glenn even be competing? An orbital launch vehicle and a ludicrously huge Mars vehicle are not really targeting the same application. Hype about one is completely irrelevant to the other.

It's not a gamble, Musk has already said most of the rockets have landed in good enough condition to relaunch immediately.

Before Ariane 6 launches once, Musk will have 4 launch sites launching continuously. Plus you can't assume that the Ariane 6 will not have years of growing pains either.

I don't understand where this thinking that reuse will not be profitable comes from...

It comes mainly from the fact that SpaceX's prices are not particularly connected to their costs. They may actually lose money on private launches, making up the difference on government contracts.

Ariane 6 will be a new launcher but unlike the 4 to 5 transition it will make extensive use of existing Ariane 5 elements, especially Vulcain and the P120s which will be common with Vega C. Besides, reliability is also due to launch history (it's not merely coincidence that Ariane 4 and 5 were the most reliable commercial vehicles ever flown despite being different launch vehicles). But you are right. They did not take it seriously (ESA and Arianespace actually publicly admitted it in interviews), and It's entirely true that Falcon Heavy will probably change quite a few things on the GTO market, but the truth is right now Ariane 5 still has a solid list of customers for upcoming launches, despite it being more expensive than Spacex, which by my best guess means the launcher is competitive even though it is, let say "old space". Nothing is either black or white, and stating Falcon Heavy will "seal the deal" is a bit over-confident in my opinion. As I said previously, Spacex keeps delaying it's launches, and has yet to achieve the godlike market share you imagine when hearing what people say about their reusable rockets. I do agree that Arianespace should be a little more daring, but it's first and foremost mission is Europe's independent access to space, which requires commercial stability: they sadly can't afford to bet all on experimental technology and lack the flexibility and freedom of a company funded by the pocket of it's multi-billionaire owner (they almost had to beg Germany to get the 3 billion for Ariane 6). I know I sound redundant but Musk isn't a magician. A lot of his fans make a point of dismissing all other vehicles, especially Ariane, but I think the "old space" people's passed arrogance in not taking Spacex ventures seriously also shows that competition, albeit employing different strategies than your favorite, should not be underestimated...

If Bezos ca get his craft human-rated and start doing space tourism, that'll generate plenty of hype and raise attention.

I'm a non-partisan when it comes to space, I wish everyone luck and think it's great that there are so many options for rocket launches right now, competition breeds innovation.

Read my post once again user, never have I stated reuse in general will not be profitable. What I have said I we still do not know how profitable it will in fact be, if at all, which is precisely why other launch companies and not only Arianespace, are still watching Musk's ventures, because they really want to know. I have also said that the projections made by european engineers on making a reusable rocket have shown that it is an entirely new project which would require giving up most existing Ariane 5 technology, thus being in fact non profitable for this specific company.

They literally just tested one of the fuel tank designs. They've already designed and tested several engines for the ITS. You're a moron.

Yes he is you autistic

Just because he is a nerd who speaks in front of an audience. That's endearing.

Sauce? I'm curious

You mean, the one that blew up.
Nice test.

I've made an effort to try and make this a constructed discussion, unlike most /sci threads, so please try to refrain from making 2 sentence posts that sound like you have it all figured out. If you think you can both discuss rocket science like it's a youtube argument we ain't getting nowhere.

Says who? They have a cheap rocket, why would they be launching at a loss?
They are now landing first stage cores almost all the time. They will be reusing their fairings later this year.

How do you think they could fund hundreds of millions of dollars of constant development/expansion if they were losing money on launches?

>they sadly can't afford to bet all on experimental technology
They have 3 billion+ dollars developing an Ariane 6
SpaceX spent less than 500 million to develop the Falcon 9

I think you set the bar a bit high, using more than 7 words in a sentence and all that

Indeed, SpaceX developped Falcon 9 + Dragon for a little under 1 Billion, not counting the extra funds from the resupply contracts signed in 2008. They did benifit from the help of Nasa engineers, but the same could be said of Ariane on a smaller scale since it's Airbus + ESA/CNES. Nevertheless, the 3 billion cost covers new launch and assembly facilities to be built, whereas SpaceX can use Nasa's existing facilities (like 39A...), and Ariane 6 is twice as heavy as Falcon 9, so should be more expensive to make. But I do concede that I was hasty on the funds part and should have done more research on SpaceX's R&D spendings.

Let's sum up my thoughts then.
In the near future, SpaceX will eat up the whole commercial and Dod market.
Then, they will face the fact that it's just not enough money to fund the ITS.

Let me sum up whats going to happen in the next 12 months
Donald Trump will announce a new space program, cancel the SLS, and offer a 10+ billion dollar contract to Musk for manned missions to Luna, Mars, Venus, and nearby asteroids

If you want to just sum up thoughts here are mine:
SpaceX have and will continue to make drastic changes to the space industry and forcing it to evolve.
However their not the only fish in the pond and competitors will soon react, and as with every other industry in history they will be other relevant companies that will either rise or catch up (Apple started out almost alone on the smartphone market, don't dare say they still "eat up the whole market").
Regarding manned interplanetary travel I am, as you are, unconvinced by the capability of a private company to send humans to Mars, or anywhere beyond LEO for that matter. My personal belief is that a successful Mars exploration and perhaps (I like dreaming) settelments will require something else than Apollo style space nationalism. My dream of space conquest beyond LEO requires not only better U.S/Europe cooperation as equals but also accepting countries such as China and India who are relevant in space. There is no reason for humans born from an asian vag to have less right to take part in space exploration, even if they have a strong armed government, and especially when they are a fifth of the world's population

>Donald Trump will announce a new space program, cancel the SLS, and offer a 10+ billion dollar contract to Musk for manned missions to Luna, Mars, Venus, and nearby asteroids

thats a fucking pipe dream

I see. You're one of those multiculturalist fucking idiot.
This is not gonna work. The politics of managing everyone's expectations is gonna cost much more than actually building the ship.

It's guarrenteed
Musk has met with him several times
He's talked about conquering space

So it's pretty much a given that it'll happen.

If that happens I'm putting a big portrait of his in faux golden frame above my desk and I'll also vote republican until death.

inb4 Trump shills for ULA and bans spaceX from commercial crew because it's not 'safe'.

>china is ebil and they are oppressive
>lets invest everything there!
>oh, and help them into space!
>becausewe're friends

Wow, you sound like someone who can have reasonable conversations. If you had properly read this multiculturalist fucking idiot's post without applying your obvious hate for whatever a multiculturalist is, you'd notice I started my sentence with MY DREAM OF SPACE. I am perfectly aware, especially considering the current political mood in the west, that it probably won't ever happen. But it would be in fact easyer to do with chinese cooperation because of their industrial and scientifical weight (like it or not they are building and have built gigantic scientific instruments, with international engineer's cooperation). Hell, the president of ESA said it himself, and actually tried suggesting the idea of Chinese on the ISS when Nasa asked him what new stuff could be done in the current space program. Didn't have a lot of impact as you might expect.

I thought I was talking with people who had in interest in fucking rocket science, but it seems that all that you want from these threads is a chance to insert your /poll shit.

Well we all dream of muh peaceful world, #alltogether we can do it.
The truth is, it will take 10 years to decide how much Chinese representative there are on the ship, even if it's all funded and ready to go.

>#notmypolitics

>divisional propaganda
>fanboi banter

Typical divisional social propaganda. You try to make a side to be on so you can hate others that are not on your side as well as bring others to your side to prevent your own cognitive dissonance. The truth of the matter is that you are using "divide and conquer" tactics you learned from entertainment propaganda meant to keep the masses off balance and disorganized.

There are no "sides" to be on. Stop making up problems where none exist.

>Kerbal
>check it
>it really is named after the game.

Huh.

Well, thanks for making it all about two sentences I said about internationalism instantly making me a fucking communist hippy, even though I was discussing science and space market. If anyone is still interested in that stuff, I'll repost without the multiculturalist fucking idiot content.

If you want to just sum up thoughts here are mine:
SpaceX have and will continue to make drastic changes to the space industry and forcing it to evolve.
However their not the only fish in the pond and competitors will soon react, and as with every other industry in history they will be other relevant companies that will either rise or catch up (Apple started out almost alone on the smartphone market, don't dare say they still "eat up the whole market").

Doesn't take years to design and build a new smart phone

If they are losing money in 2020 due to a lack of reusability, they will just leave the launch market rather than throw billions at new engine designs & new rocket designs

>Well, thanks for making it all about two sentences I said about internationalism instantly making me a fucking communist hippy, even though I was discussing science and space market. If anyone is still interested in that stuff, I'll repost without the multiculturalist fucking idiot content.
Heh, i feel your pain. Just watched a tread in /k/ turn from "US vs China radar tech" into a "not my president/muslimban/killallshitskins".

Yup, it takes years to design and build rockets, but SpaceX did it amidst a well-established market. Therefore, others will be capable of doing the same in the future. Also, nobody talked about it yet but there are a lot of small launcher projects for nano-satellites, which will be other actors in the space industry.

Man, it's not that I don't wish for it to happen.
Just that it won't.
It's the same argument people make about solving problems on Earth before exploring the solar system.
There will always be problems.

For the last time I said I am well aware of it not happening, but it's just not the point in this commercial launcher thread (or at least I hope it isn't).

SpaceX did it into a market where prices are way higher than they needed to be
A startup isn't going to be able to compete with SpaceX plus other subsidized government launchers

Small launchers are a meme, they aren't cheap and can't be made reusable, the small satellite market is tiny.

The Musk part is a pipe dream, bu do you really find it that unlikely that Trump will send NASA back to the drawing board so they can make the biggerer and betterer and bestest TRUMP Brand moon rocket instead of the SAD Obama nowhere rocket?

He means the one they intentionally blew up. Testing till failure is a thing.

Oh OK, so you're saying it's not happening because mankind won't cooperate on a plan?
I personally think it's even more straightforward than this.
SpaceX can't get enough margins on their launch contracts to fund the ITS, even with reusablity.
We're talking billions $ for the hardware, when a F9 reusable launch gets them maybe a few millions $.

There's actually no indication that was intentional.
Hell if it wasn't for some third party photographer, we wouldn't even know about it.

>SpaceX can't get enough margins on their launch contracts to fund the ITS

You are underestimating Musk's autism. He specifically created Tesla, so he could use the profits to fund his space dreams.

What??? Musk run a business that is unprofitable were it not for government subsidy??? Shocked, SHOCKED I am to learn of this.

>doing a test
>tests have 2 outcomes, success and failure
>test must continue until it fails
>failure happened
>extremely important data acquired
>are results within projected specifications?
>if yes then proceed onto next test
>if no then redesign

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_assurance#Failure_testing

Here's a picture of the cryogenic tank they built and had been testing, recently they tested it to failure and will likely have an improved prototype ready for testing soon.

And here's a link to the engine they've been developing that will power the ITS. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)

Ariane 6 is twice as heavy because it uses very heavy solid boosters instead of an all-liquid design. Solid boosters tend to be cheaper than liquid boosters in most cases.

>The politics of managing everyone's expectations is gonna cost much more than actually building the ship.

Exactly what happened to Space Shuttle.

The only hope for small launchers is the relatively tiny market of small sats that want to be placed in orbits that big launchers never go, otherwise they could just hitch a ride on a Falcon 9 or an Atlas V as a secondary cargo, probably for cheaper.

Of all the small launch vehicle companies only RocketLab seems to be on its way to launching in 2017, with the next runner up being Firefly Space which has seen shaky financial support and has yet to assemble and test their aerospike first stage engine.

I think that if he was smart and also wanted to replace SLS he'd push for liquid boosters on SLS rather than go for an entirely new rocket. The Pyrios booster design uses essentially a new and improved F-1 engine design, two per booster, and would actually substantially increase the payload capacity of the rocket, as well as make it safer.

He'd never be able to get that past Congress. Te congressman whose home districts built parts for the Solid Rocket Boosters will no doubt swoop in to insure that the worst possible option is selected once again because they'd rather we lose more astronauts over their district losing a few jobs.

Agreed. which is why we should abandon SLS as a manned rocket concept and use it strictly for heavy lift capability, just use the upcoming CRS 2 capsules to launch astronauts.

I don't think NASA should focus on rockets, when there are already private companies that offer that service. I think NASA should use their money for more scientific probes to other moons and planets, and also space telescopes. But that's just my opinion.

I'd think that competition is a better motivator than cooperation. Let China start a strong move towards the moon, and watch the rest of the world get off their asses.

Do you get to call it "testing to failure" if you didn't really plan to make it fail?

If NASA is not capable of making a cost efficient decent rocket, and evolving it, and turning it into a partially reusable vehicle like SpaceX

Why do you think they are capable of doing ANYTHING at a proper price?
SpaceX sure as shit would not spend billions on some shitty mars rover

What makes you think they didn't plan to test it to failure? What makes you think every trip out to the range to test the tank equaled one test?

They could have easily performed multiple tests per trip, which makes sense considering the pace that SpaceX usually tries to do things.

SpaceX has also not really been releasing constant updates on their testing schedule, they simply gave us a few images in late September of last year, a video of the engine firing, and pretty much everything else has been candid photos.

why why WHY did they give Curiosity those shitty thin aluminum wheels and not expect them to fall apart rapidly?

No private company should be expected to spend money on exploration and science. The way I imagine it should be done is NASA collaborating with universities to make robotic probes, and launching them on private rockets.

>on exploration
There is ZERO reason to explore before we have fully reusable rockets whose cost of flight is dictated mostly by fuel

>science
Is a meme word

That's a lot of rocket fuel

for (You)

My dream of space is Americans landing on Mars and claiming it, relegating all the navel gazers to being stuck on the shitty rock that is earth.

Who gives a shit? As long as they make getting stuff into orbit cheaper who cares? With two billionares competing to build the largest spacedick, we all win.

My basic point was that since a start up company generally wants to get good PR, it was probably a mistake to release information about your future plans at a time when it could be interpreted as direct competition.

The future of space is going to be damn interesting, assuming we get our shit together and get off Earth.

There's a finite amount of resources in the solar system, if in the future different governments still exist and compete with each other on Earth, it's going to be very interesting seeing different countries / companies claiming mining rights for asteroids / comets, etc.

>(it's not merely coincidence that Ariane 4 and 5 were the most reliable commercial vehicles ever flown despite being different launch vehicles)

And yet the Ariane 5 had a disastrous start. So anyone launching on Ariane 6 knows that the reliability record starts from scratch.

PR isn't Veeky Forums. Why should anyone who doesn't work at these companies care about PR?

>Apple started out almost alone on the smartphone market, don't dare say they still "eat up the whole market"

They make 90% of the profit in the smartphone market.

>Therefore, others will be capable of doing the same in the future.

How? Startups will be too far behind, the established players (ULA and Ariane) won't be able to adapt because of the way they run. SpaceX saves money by making stuff in-house instead of being ripped off by suppliers. Ariane's suppliers are its shareholders, they can't bring stuff in house because the shareholders wouldn't allow it. Boeing/Lockheed would probably just shut down ULA and concentrate on civilian/military aerospace.

The problem with that is that it would require NASA to commit to programs that require a heavy lifter. As of now the only cargo it's slated to ever carry is a probe which was originally meant to be launched with an Atlas-V.

Why is "its a meme" always the answer delivered by mentally handicapped when they want to shitpost?

New Glenn
>flying by 2020
>engine will be ready this year (2017)
>competitor to f9, fh, and better than both
>hydrolox upper stage
>built to be perfect size for large LEO and small Lunar tourism
>direct competition for SLS

"""""ITS"""""
>"""""ready""""" by 2021, but more likely 2035
>engine design goals are complete insanity, likely never achievable
>composite tanks are failing to produce results
>all mars plans are being delayed at least 2 years because reliability issues
>needs $10 billion or more to develop (chump change for Bezos)

New Glenn is a rocket for current year while ITS is a reddit fantasy.

Failure testing isn't done on the third test of $20 million hardware, idiot.

You mean the Europa mission?

The lander is slated to be 13,000 kg
Only SLS or New Glenn are capable of launching this to Jupiter

released a few days after their competitor blew up their only launch pad

I'd argue that it was the perfect time to reveal the info

>WHEN (not IF)
lol

I wish poltards would fuck off forever.

because its a meme

>engine design goals are complete insanity, likely never achievable

They already had a working 1/3rd scale engine back in September of 2016 dude

>1/3 design thrust
>given the above, by definition not design chamber pressure
>sub-scale
>probably two dozen shortcuts just to make the meme presentation last september

>5 successful launches and landings in a row with the same booster
Based.
When is spacex supposed to be trying their first reuse again?

They were supposed to do it for echostar 23 i believe, which keeps getting delayed. It should launch on the 12th, unless it gets delayed once again.

That is literally how you do R&D, kid.

Still works
Show me the clip of Bezo's working methane engine

subscale has zero properties in common with a full size engine

the only reason they built the "prototype" was for an air force contract

later this year
show me proof of raptor meeting even one (1) of its design criteria