What did he mean by this?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_mission_directorate_fact_sheets.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love),
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Who cares?

Space is a hoax. The earth is flat.

We couldn't get it to work on a small scale, but it works on a big scale
Nice bait

Musk's endgame is making a manned colony on Mars. He thinks humans are going to wipe themselves out someday soon and he wants a backup for humanity. A small lander on Mars would only ever be an intermediary step anyway. He's just moving towards his true goals.

>What did he mean by this?
"We couldn't keep the LOC probability small enough with 8 16kN hot pots working right next to astronauts faces"

> we can't make a small lander, let do an xbox hueg instead

I think your horse has autism bro

(You)
>16000lbf

lol if humans go extinct it's because they are a cancer what would spreading that cancer to the galaxy do to further anything?

They're doing a reusable upper stage for Falcon Heavy, with a payload bay. It should be ready for the 2020 Mars launch window, which would have been the first Red Dragon mission.

Red Dragon could have landed maybe 2 tons, that would have to be crammed into 10 cubic meters, and they'd have to expend an upper stage to launch it anyway and pay for a separate spacecraft.

With the reusable upper stage used as a Mars lander, they'll be able to land like 10 tons of stuff at a lower cost and with basically unconstrained volume to put it in. Because it's a reusable upper stage, they'll get to amortize the cost of developing the propulsive landing hardware over more flights, so it won't cost as much and will have more value.

If they make it in-space refuellable, they can use more flights but avoid expending any boosters to launch it, and land perhaps as much as 80 tons on Mars.

>at a lower cost
Why do people always hang this at the end of every single sentence about ITS?

Absolutely nothing about ITS is "low cost" compared to Falcon 9.

You people are a bunch of retarded faggot morons.

First of all, I was talking about a reusable upper stage for Falcon Heavy, not ITS.

>Absolutely nothing about ITS is "low cost" compared to Falcon 9.
ITS is intended to be fully reusable, you chimp, not just partially reusable. Throwing out an upper stage for each flight is expensive.

Furthermore, it consumes no costly helium, and uses cheap methane rather than RP-1. In consumable fluids, the full-size ITS would cost less to fill than Falcon 9.

On top of that, no ejectable payload fairing, and no downrange landing, so no need for a drone ship.

It's designed from the beginning to be highly reusable, based on experience with Falcon 9, so the construction cost of each unit should be amortized over more launches.

>First of all, I was talking about a reusable upper stage for Falcon Heavy
Which would always be more expensive than a normal upper stage, and would not be reused if landed on Mars (which is what the whole discussion is about in the first place)

>Which would always be more expensive than a normal upper stage
...but not probably more expensive than a normal upper stage plus a propulsive-landing Dragon, you mongoloid.

Seriously, you lack the native intelligence to participate in these discussions. Go play with crayons or something.

Raptor is expensive, carbon fiber is expensive, a RUS would cost the same as a F9 first stage (or more), and Red Dragon was always going to use a reused Dragon.

SpaceX raised a whole generation of armchair rocket science cancer since ~2011, that's for sure.

you can thank reddit for that

Those are just people who can't tell the difference between corporate PR and reality

Musk is an idiot trying to get government gibs. There's no reason to colonize Mars over just having manned orbiting habitats, and there's never going to be a scenario where Mars is more hospitable to life than Earth. Might as well just set up on the Moon where you can actually do something useful.

>Raptor is expensive
No source because made up.

>carbon fiber is expensive
Any kind of high-performance aerospace construction is expensive. We've got no reason to assume carbon fiber construction is more costly than the Al-Li construction of Falcon 9.

>a RUS would cost the same as a F9 first stage (or more)
No source because made up. Also a F9 first stage only costs like $20 million, so who cares? That's peanuts for a Mars mission. Plus, if it's Raptor-based, there's potential to refuel it on Mars and send it back for reuse.

>Red Dragon was always going to use a reused Dragon.
A refurbished Dragon. Dragon's made for possible reuse, but not rapid, low-cost reusability (they expend hardware, drop it hard in the ocean, etc.), and it costs about as much as F9. The one they flew back to the ISS a second time cost as much as building a new one. Red Dragon wouldn't just need refurbishing, it would need extensive modification and special programming. They were planning on using old cargo Dragons, and adding landing rockets to them. It probably wouldn't have saved any money.

Please go to other thread

>

Fuck you. This one was posted first, and that one's a troll thread which should be closed by mods.

I hereby dub thee "Floundorse."

He is not an idiot, and he is very good at getting government gibs.

I've always had an issue with powered landings on earth. This is because of the ubiquity, low cost, and high effectiveness of parachutes, and the ridiculous cost to weight ratio of adding fuel to the rocket. On mars, such a strategy makes WAY more sense, and I totally agree with this decision.

How is that a troll thread?

>Knows is to read Veeky Forums.
>Doesn't know how to read onion-tier bullshittery.

>There's no reason to colonize Mars over just having manned orbiting habitats

Resources.

>Might as well just set up on the Moon where you can actually do something useful.

Moon lacks hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon. I am all for having a moonbase but longterm other solar system bodies are better.

You will never get resources from Mars to Earth cost-effectively.

Resources to supply the space colony. Not resources to supply Earth.

fpbp

that's not a horse, that's nicolas cage you idiot

Space-X is too small.

You need the whole country behind a Mars colony for it to succeed.

We just don't have the funds with our socialism-lite welfare/other programs and massive military expenditure (with most of the .mil stuff being useless for space shit).

SpaceX is small and yet look how much they have accomplished already.

Every dollar spent on SpaceX is roughly 10 times as effective as every dollar spent on NASA.

Now imagine what SpaceX could do if funds that currently go towards NASA spaceflight (around $10 billion dollards per year) went into SpaceX and other private companies instead.

Mars colony could be a realistic scenario under such assumptions.

holy shit thats a creepy pic

>SpaceX is small and yet look how much they have accomplished already.
SpaceX is not small. They are the largest rocket company in the world by a wide margin, with nearly 7000 employees
>Every dollar spent on SpaceX is roughly 10 times as effective as every dollar spent on NASA.
What does this even mean? SpaceX would not exist without NASA. SpaceX also constantly lies about the development cost of Falcon 9 which is well into the billions rather than the oft quoted $400 million
>Now imagine what SpaceX could do if funds that currently go towards NASA spaceflight (around $10 billion dollards per year) went into SpaceX and other private companies instead.
NASA's spaceflight budget is approximately $4 billion per year not $10 billion. It is morally egregious to give taxpayer money to SpaceX for no reason.
>Mars colony could be a realistic scenario under such assumptions.
No it wouldn't, because a Mars colony requires a reliable launch system, something SpaceX is incapable of.

>SpaceX is not small. They are the largest rocket company in the world by a wide margin, with nearly 7000 employees

Small compared to NASA, which has tens of thousands of employees.

>What does this even mean? SpaceX would not exist without NASA. SpaceX also constantly lies about the development cost of Falcon 9 which is well into the billions rather than the oft quoted $400 million

It means exactly what it means. Where SpaceX needs billions, old space needs tens of billions.

>NASA's spaceflight budget is approximately $4 billion per year not $10 billion. It is morally egregious to give taxpayer money to SpaceX for no reason.

Not true, it is over $9 billion dollars per year. This is not debatable, just look it up.

>No it wouldn't, because a Mars colony requires a reliable launch system, something SpaceX is incapable of.

I dont even know how to respond to such concentrated nonsense.. There is zero reason to believe SpaceX rockets wouldnt be reliable enough.

>It is morally egregious to give taxpayer money to SpaceX for no reason.

the argument is that it wouldnt be for no reason but in exchange for rocket launches / other services

haha cuck meme! xD

>inb4 SLS or even China beats them
The capitalist/private sector dumbos' tears and excuses will sustain me for decades.

>SLS beats them
the SLS has been in development for far longer.

>just look it up.
Okay.
>nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_mission_directorate_fact_sheets.pdf

There isn't a "spaceflight" budget, but I'm guessing the other guy was talking about the "human exploration operations" budget, which breaks down as:
>about $1.4 billion for the ISS
>about $2.8 billion for space transportation
Which includes
>Continues NASA’s partnership with U.S. commercial space industry to develop and operate safe, reliable, and affordable systems to transport crew to and from the ISS and low Earth orbit
So that comes to about $4.2 billion. Another sci-fi shitposter talking out their ass. I'm shocked.

>There is zero reason to believe SpaceX rockets wouldnt be reliable enough.

>FH was supposed to fly in 2011
>won't fly until 2018
>SLS was supposed to fly in 2016
>won't fly until 2019
Seems like SpaceX is the slow mover in this situation.

If humans are a cancer I hope we make the whole fucking galaxy terminal

I am a human, every other form of life and xeno can fuck off. Humanity forever, mean and nasty.

>
"There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature'". The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self-hatred. In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural". Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a "despoiling of Nature"." - Time Enough for Love (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love), 1973, Robert A. Heinlein

>There isn't a "spaceflight" budget, but I'm guessing the other guy was talking about the "human exploration operations" budget
...which is certainly not the same thing as what they're spending on spaceflight overall, but let's carry on...

>the "human exploration operations" budget, which breaks down as:
>about $1.4 billion for the ISS
>about $2.8 billion for space transportation
>...
>So that comes to about $4.2 billion.
How are you this bad at reading?

>NASA FY 2017
>Budget Request for Human Exploration Operations
>FY 2017 $8,413M

Why are you arbitrarily cutting this in half? After the $1.4B for ISS and $2.8B for "space transportation", there's $0.9B for "space and flight support", $2.9B for "exploration systems development" (SLS/Orion), and $0.5B for "exploration research and development".

That aside, most of NASA's budget is for spaceflight. There's maybe $1-2B for atmospheric flight and education/outreach. The other $15+B is active spaceflight, spaceflight research, ground support for spaceflight, overhead of all the people working on spaceflight, buildings to do their spaceflight-related work in, etc.

Every dollar spent by NASA is going into private (or foreign) pockets. Giving out taxpayer money is how they get things done. If giving SpaceX $0.5B/year lets them get the same stuff done and not give someone else $2B/year, of course they should do it.

Falcon Heavy is kinda in an awkward place now, gonna take a ton of work to get going, very little room for growth, could easily set them back another 6 months by blowing up/taking out a launch pad, and clearly has very little purpose for existing at this current time....

Just launching twice/3 times with Falcon 9's covers anything the Falcon Heavy might do

And it'll be obsolete anytime they finish a raptor powered booster.

>Just launching twice/3 times with Falcon 9's covers anything the Falcon Heavy might do
stop this meme
distributed launch has only been done a couple times, and its always been more expensive than one large launch (see: ISS costs)

Mir worked fine
ISS cost a lot because they like to spend a lot

>Mir worked fine
no, it didn't

It could have been launched in one Saturn V mission instead of the huge number of soyuz/proton missions it took

Earth is not flat you ignorant dumbass.

It's disc shaped. God.

They didn't have a Saturn V, and by that point neither did the USA
You have to use what you have.

If you had a Saturn V you would still use a modular assembly, just with the Saturn V the modules could be 100+ tons each

They fixed that issue. Also you should look up how often the rockets from NASA or other companies blew up in their early years. You can't just look at a few falcon 9 failures and call the whole system unreliable.

That doesn't mean space is a hoax