Which of these is your favourite rocket manufacturer, and why?

More spaceships is better than fewer spaceships. I hope they are all successful.

Looking at it though, I reckon ULA are fucked, it's run by boomers who have no idea what they're doing - they're claiming they can get to $100m per launch, but SpaceX already is achieving $90m per launch TODAY with vehicles they've already BUILT and which are OPERATIONAL.

ULA will only get to that figure once they've started building the new vehicle they're currently working on, but they haven't got funding for it yet so it will probably never happen, and they're probably only claiming that figure anyway because they HAVE to. Because if they said "actually it will be $150m per launch" then nobody is going to fucking listen to them because SpaceX will do it for less.

So yeah, ULA are terminally fucked, I reckon. Why should anybody fund their new project when SpaceX can do the same thing for much less.

Apparently Ars Technica calculated that ULA's launches in the near future will actually cost about $420m per launch, lol. They're totally fucked.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance#Controversy

If BO starts competing ULA will be fucked.

BO are already competing, and apparently ULA even want to use their engines.

>In fact, the United Launch Alliance has reportedly been considering Blue Origin’s BE-4 engine to power its new rocket known as Vulcan.
futurism.com/blue-origins-space-x/

And from the same link, apparently BO's engine is more powerful than SpaceX's:
>The BE-4 is also potentially more powerful than SpaceX’s new Raptor engine. The former boasts 250,000 kilograms-force (550,000 pounds) of thrust, while the latter has a sea-level thrust of 170,000 kilograms-force (380,000 pounds).

So yes I reckon ULA are completely fucked. SpaceX and Blue Origin will fight amongst themselves.

Also I just realised there's a fourth player, NASA, who are designing and pursuing the Space Launch System (pictured) - but it's incredibly expensive and may never get built. But if it is built, it will be by ULA and other government contractors.

>But they still haven't built a proper launch vehicle yet because they're fucking inept and fucking stupid
well they have just tested the BE-4 engine, which is more powerful that SpaceX's Raptor engine. So there's that :/

But no orbital vehicle. Sad!

Blue Origin and ULA are scams. Only SpaceX is legit.

/pol/ btfo

Is Bezos scamming himself with BO?

*inhales*

Apollo-style Lunar missions could be done with just one (1) Falcon Heavy and one (1) Vulcan launch working together. ULA is fully onboard with the moon meme already. It seems like the only stopgap here is "stubborn SpaceX."

The first SLS is already 90% built.

>the whole reason it was founded was so they could build their rockets in a single facility and save money
No, there's little commonality between Atlas V and Delta IV. ULA was founded:
1) to prevent a litigation apocalypse after Boeing was caught cheating in the bidding process but had its own legal ammunition against LM, and
2) to create a rocket cartel that could charge monopoly prices to the US government, since both companies had invested their own money in the EELVs but neither had produced a commercially competitive design.

Basically, the formation of ULA was a bail-out.

Wrong.

Boeing couldn't afford to fly delta IV because it couldn't compete.
The consolidation under one roof was so the Feds could keep two launch providers solvent.

Ironically the same thing will happen because of SpaceX within 3 years, but this time it's worse because the Falcon 9 has joke reliability compared to Atlas.

Cool thread and everything but you are only discussing American space companies - A bit shortsighted given the scope of human space travel

Why not discuss Ariane, Airbus, Thales and the Soyuz crafts? Indian and Chinese rockets?

>Boeing and Lockheed Martin have had a monopoly on building stuff for NASA for a very long time
>They both built the Space Shuttle
A misleading claim. "Boeing" and "Lockheed Martin" are each products of many corporate mergers, which have simply gone by the name they consider the best brand.

The shuttle was mainly by North American. The Delta rockets were Douglas. Atlas/Centaur was Convair. Titan was Martin. All gobbled up.

Those companies are all gone, consumed by mergers driven by tax and finance law, and the desire to reduce competition for government contracts, rather than considerations of real efficiency. Even Boeing and LM aren't really the Boeing that built the 747 or the Lockheed that built the Blackbird, but too-big-to-fail contracting megacorps that are practically government agencies.

>More spaceships is better than fewer spaceships. I hope they are all successful.
What you have to take into account are the political factors that allow projects building bad spaceships to strangle projects building good ones.

For that reason, it's better for SLS to be cancelled, and ULA to go out of business as soon as possible, so companies that are serious about making progress like SpaceX and Blue Origin won't be impeded.

because right now the foreign options are shit

How are SLS and ULA impeding SpaceX and Blue Origin

fyi SpaceX won a $40 million contract the other day to build an engine that's already been built

Blue Origin has only been "strangled" thanks to SpaceX ironically

By all means tell us about them

Your image only shows US rockets though

But you could argue that SpaceX / Blue Origin would get lazy without the competition from ULA (I guess it's unlikely, because they have competition from each other)

That's what happens - humans are lazy. If they're in a dominant position, they'll sit back and enjoy it. And protect it. That's exactly what a big megacorp like ULA is trying to do right now.

>Blue Origin has only been "strangled" thanks to SpaceX ironically
How?

>How?
SpaceX and Orbital Sciences moved forward in the COTS program while Blue Origin wasn't selected.

>How are SLS and ULA impeding SpaceX and Blue Origin
For one thing, they're sucking up huge amounts of government money that could be going to the new players.

In SpaceX's early days, they were blocked with things like the pre-ULA companies keeping a payload on top of their rocket for long periods of time, and getting the range authorities to prevent SpaceX from launching, on the grounds that the attempt might endanger their important, costly payload. They had to move way the hell out into the ocean to be allowed to launch.

SpaceX had quite a legal battle to be allowed to bid on government launches, and just as they were winning, ULA and their allies in government rushed through a huge block-buy contract that guaranteed them years of non-competitive launch revenue.

There are multiple US senators who would like nothing better than to find an excuse to put SpaceX out of business. They'll keep trying.

>Blue Origin has only been "strangled" thanks to SpaceX ironically
I mention Blue Origin, but they're not very serious competition for SpaceX. They've been around longer than SpaceX, but still haven't put anything in orbit. Their New Glenn is scheduled to come out around the same time as BFR, but is only designed to credibly compete with Falcon 9/H, which will become obsolete around the same time, and their work so far is no strong evidence that New Glenn will function properly.

That's the difference between a boss who understands the work, and a boss that doesn't. Bezos has money, but not the ability to dig in for himself and figure out which plausible-sounding experts are bullshitting him.

>you could argue that SpaceX / Blue Origin would get lazy without the competition from ULA
ULA isn't competition. Once Falcon Heavy is proven and F9 is mainly a used-booster vehicle, they will never compete on price, or do anything else well enough to make the higher price worth paying. They have no plan to ever produce a competitive vehicle.

Compared to RKK Energia (Soyuz manufacturer) all of those are just little children toying around with billions of US government subsidies, with little to show for it

Maybe that's because BO don't have a working vehicle capable of doing such a thing yet

>I mention Blue Origin, but they're not very serious competition for SpaceX. They've been around longer than SpaceX, but still haven't put anything in orbit. Their New Glenn is scheduled to come out around the same time as BFR, but is only designed to credibly compete with Falcon 9/H, which will become obsolete around the same time, and their work so far is no strong evidence that New Glenn will function properly.
>That's the difference between a boss who understands the work, and a boss that doesn't. Bezos has money, but not the ability to dig in for himself and figure out which plausible-sounding experts are bullshitting him.
Everything I have read about the firing of Blue Origin's BE-4 the other day is saying how they're now providing actual competition to SpaceX. One reason is that the BE-4 is apparently more powerful than the Raptor which will be on SpaceX's BFR.

So I wouldn't discount Blue Origin, no way. They're clearly working on stuff. Also apparently they were only focused on suborbital flight for almost their entire existence, they only announced plans for an orbital launch vehicle in 2015: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin

>ULA isn't competition. Once Falcon Heavy is proven and F9 is mainly a used-booster vehicle, they will never compete on price, or do anything else well enough to make the higher price worth paying. They have no plan to ever produce a competitive vehicle.
I guess you're right, and I guess this is a great lesson in why the free market solves fucking everything. Well maybe not everything but it shows that a bit of competition produces the most innovative and economical solutions.

>For one thing, they're sucking up huge amounts of government money that could be going to the new players.
Government funding isn't a zero-sum game. If SLS was cancelled the funding would just disappear. Nasa's budget would be $15 bil instead of $18 bil again.

>In SpaceX's early days, they were blocked with things like the pre-ULA companies keeping a payload on top of their rocket for long periods of time, and getting the range authorities to prevent SpaceX from launching, on the grounds that the attempt might endanger their important, costly payload. They had to move way the hell out into the ocean to be allowed to launch.
lolwut
They could have launched from Wallops Island or some other inland site. They picked that island because it was near the equator and falcon 1 was fucking tiny so it needed the boost.

>SpaceX had quite a legal battle to be allowed to bid on government launches, and just as they were winning, ULA and their allies in government rushed through a huge block-buy contract that guaranteed them years of non-competitive launch revenue.
meanwhile in reality, SpaceX gets awarded multiple DOD payloads free of competition and nobody bats an eye (see: OTV-5, Zuma)

>There are multiple US senators who would like nothing better than to find an excuse to put SpaceX out of business. They'll keep trying.
Like who? SpaceX has more lobbyists in congress today than ULA.

>but still haven't put anything in orbit.
They've never tried.
>HURR Spacex hasn't landed anyone on Mars even though FH could do it

>Their New Glenn is scheduled to come out around the same time as BFR
New Glenn is based on proven technology. Its engine is built. Its factory is built. Its launchpad is under construction. BFR is like 5% complete. They don't even have an engine size or number finalized yet.

>and their work so far is no strong evidence that New Glenn will function properly.
They've been more successful with landing and reuse than SpaceX has ever been.

>Maybe that's because BO don't have a working vehicle capable of doing such a thing yet
nobody in the COTS competition had a vehicle at the time
SpaceX won because they had more funding

>brand-loyalty wars

Greetings Vladimir, welcome to the thread.

So creating the world's first reusable first stage isn't an achievement? Wow, okay.

It isn't.

Here you go ivan

Let me lay down some shit for you OP from something I realized over the years.

ULA is industry leaders forming an alliance to insure they are relevant and hype of their idea to build an economy between earth and the moon.

Blue Origin is a new guy trying to get noticed but gets overshadowed by its main competititor.

Space X is for people who don't know science and think its cool. Has a dude who seems to be always in the limelight because he is a hypeman with money. Only the pathetic engineers and scientist want to work for Space X because they don't have the ability too.

>One reason is that the BE-4 is apparently more powerful than the Raptor which will be on SpaceX's BFR.
That's no argument. You don't measure the quality of the engine by its thrust. The Saturn V's F-1 was about three times as powerful as either of them, and it was basically 1950s tech. SpaceX isn't building the biggest engine they can, they're trying to build one at just the right size for their purposes.

Raptor's definitely the more sophisticated design: full-flow staged combustion, no-contact fluid bearings. It'll have close to double the combustion chamber pressure of BE-4, so it should have better specific impulse and thrust-to-weight, yet thanks to the contactless bearings, it should last through many more firings before needing major maintenance or replacement. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were also cheaper, per unit of thrust.

>apparently they were only focused on suborbital flight for almost their entire existence
...and they've only managed a handful of test flights. They focused on suborbital because it's easier. All the utility and profit is in orbital spaceflight.

>this is what americans actually believe

Blue Origin aren't even in the list of competitors mate
Making me think they never applied
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services

No mate. Nothing to do with loyalty. It's just about which rockets look the best, which ones are doing the coolest stuff.

Raptor has never been built or tested. It's a paper engine.

What they've tested is a miniature prototype in the same weight-class as Merlin, which is a pea-shooter engine.

Musk is also dumb enough to believe that they can make it as reliable as a commercial jet engine. Hilarious.

As for BE-4, it has been called a "low performance version of a high performance architecture." It's in the same place as Merlin A was. It'll be upgraded to much higher capacities and capabilities in the future.

>putting a fucking dog into space, who dies of overheating within a couple of hours, is more significant than putting men onto the moon - MULTIPLE TIMES
I will give you a B+ in shitposting effort though.

>ULA is industry leaders
Do you work for them by any chance?

>Blue Origin is a new guy trying to get noticed but gets overshadowed by its main competititor.
They only decided to enter the orbital flight game two years ago. And they only decided to make an orbital engine (for ULA) three years ago (in 2014). So they've got lots of catching up to do with SpaceX, but their firing of the BE-4 engine shows they are a SERIOUS competitor.

>Space X is for people who don't know science and think its cool. Has a dude who seems to be always in the limelight because he is a hypeman with money.
You're literally a fucking idiot. If you work for ULA, your business is about to get blown to pieces. Enjoy it.

>Work for them
Nope.
>BE-4 engine shows they are a SERIOUS competitor.
Exactly too back SpaceX is the meme company.
>You're literally a fucking idiot.
How much does Musk pay you user?

He's not wrong though. The average spacex fan is a braindead redditor who knows nothing about the industry and thinks "the landings are cool n stuff"

They play kerbal space program in their free time, and their favorite movie is "Star Wars."

These are the kinds of people that would ask elon musk for an autograph, or who buy t-shirts and hats to "support" the company. Complete morons.

You omitted the Venera program for Venus:
• first launch from orbit to another planet
• first to reach the surface
• first to return atmospheric measurements
• first to successfully land and send data
• first artificial satellite of Venus
• first pictures from the surface
• first analysis of the soil
• first to float balloons in its atmosphere
Lotta first there, boys.

>sattelitte array
Obviously written by a 'Murikan.

The absolute state of vatniks recently gets more desperate.

First mission to reach Venus was Mariner 2 because all soviet probes and Mariner 1 have failed on the way to Venus.Most of what we know about Venus is due to radars on late Venera and Magellan probes and not thanks to landers.

>>For one thing, they're sucking up huge amounts of government money that could be going to the new players.
>Government funding isn't a zero-sum game. If SLS was cancelled the funding would just disappear. Nasa's budget would be $15 bil instead of $18 bil again.
That's a completely fucking ridiculous claim.

>They picked that island because it was near the equator and falcon 1 was fucking tiny so it needed the boost.
Do some basic background reading before you try to argue about a subject.

>meanwhile in reality, SpaceX gets awarded multiple DOD payloads free of competition and nobody bats an eye (see: OTV-5, Zuma)
OTV-5 was to prove an alternative launch option, and ULA couldn't bid because they had already announced the retirement of Delta IV. As for Zuma, it's not public knowledge what that is or how the contract was bid. Anyway, that doesn't bear on the fact of ULA and their government allies ramming through a block buy just before competitive contracting was supposed to begin.

>New Glenn is based on proven technology. Its engine is built. Its factory is built.
The engine isn't "built", it's about at the stage Raptor was a year and a half ago: they've got a non-flight-weight prototype that they've managed to burn at 50% thrust for 3 seconds. The factory's also only under construction. SpaceX has a factory already, and only needs to build a secondary assembly facility to avoid transport complications. For Blue Origin, it's their first: so far, they've been working out of a development facility. They're going to go through all the growing pains of hiring, training, and organizing production staff, just like SpaceX did, that delayed them for years.

>BFR is like 5% complete.
BFR is further along than New Glenn. Raptor's at least a year ahead in its development, and it's in the hands of a much more mature, experienced company. Blue Origin will be spending Amazon money for another decade before they can hope to compete.

They have over 20 minutes of firing time on engine running beyond 130t thrust that is nothing even close to peashooter they go to 20MPa on that engine and BR4 now runs at 13 but over the years they will propably exceed 25 that RD191 operates at and they have plenty of margin to pump up the power of this engine.

BE4 is a full size engine and very close to flight worthy engine further ahead than Raptor that is development subscale and now they are building the version that will be full 170t version but this is nowhere close to their original 300t insanity they presented a year ago they also reduced the target for chamber pressure because gox side will be a nightmare to solve at such temperature and pressure as they wanted to do it in 2016 plan.

BE-4 has margins for 300tons of thrust which is part of the reason why it's so monstrously huge

>Raptor has never been built or tested. It's a paper engine.
What an idiotic thing to say. It's very far along in its development. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had their first flight-ready prototype some time next year.

>What they've tested is a miniature prototype in the same weight-class as Merlin, which is a pea-shooter engine.
For the latest BFR designs, the final Raptor would be pretty much the size of the prototype. Anyway, with modern computerized simulation and design, the scaling is relatively simple. They aren't idiots: they designed it to be scaled. They didn't use anything on the subscale prototype that would break on the largest full-size production model they were considering building.

They made a deliberate decision to go with numerous small engines, for efficiency, economy, commonality, and reliability. Just like on Falcon 9, the rocket that has made them the world leader in orbital launch services.

I don't even play video games

The original Star Wars was good (and so's Episode I because I was a kid when it came out and I loved it) but I don't really care about it that much - also VI was total dogshit

People don't always match your stereotypes, anons - try making arguments instead

Yes it has these margins and we will probably see that version of it flying in New Armstrong around 2025-30 because unlike Musk Bezos has all the money to build his rockets as big as he wants

>Raptor has never been built or tested.
Uh, yes it has, they first fired it over a year ago you fucking stupid twat

youtube.com/watch?v=e7kqFt3nID4

>That's a completely fucking ridiculous claim.
Not an argument.

>Do some basic background reading before you try to argue about a subject.
Not an argument.

>OTV-5 was to prove an alternative launch option, and ULA couldn't bid because they had already announced the retirement of Delta IV. As for Zuma, it's not public knowledge what that is or how the contract was bid.
Doesn't matter. They were not competitively bid.

>Anyway, that doesn't bear on the fact of ULA and their government allies ramming through a block buy just before competitive contracting was supposed to begin.
The paperwork for the block buy began before SpaceX sued the Air Force to be able to compete.

>The engine isn't "built"
What's it like to have mental illness?
>it's about at the stage Raptor was a year and a half ago
Raptor hasn't been built yet. They don't have a final design for it even.
> The factory's also only under construction.
BO's factory is targeting completion in November. They're already shipping NG tooling there. SpaceX doesn't even have finalized plans for the one it needs to build.

>BFR is further along than New Glenn.
How so? Like I said, they don't have a design yet for the flight engine. Nothing else is even close to being complete.

>doesn't know what a sub-scale prototype is
>calls others twats

>For the latest BFR designs, the final Raptor would be pretty much the size of the prototype.
Nope.

>Anyway, with modern computerized simulation and design, the scaling is relatively simple.
Nope.

>they designed it to be scaled.
Nope.

>Just like on Falcon 9, the rocket that has made them the world leader in orbital launch services.
Ariane V still wins more yearly contracts despite being twice the price lmao

SpaceX is under a mountain of old contracts and until they clear the backlog no one wants to wait unknown period for them to launch their costumers because another explosion and their plans go into limbo for next 6 months.

rip my ears

>Not an argument.
...he says about the dismissal of his unsupported, and frankly idiotic, assertions.

>What's it like to have mental illness?
This from the guy responding with "Not an argument."

>
>Ariane V still wins more yearly contracts
Ariane 5: 5 launches so far in 2017, 1 more scheduled.
Falcon 9: 15 launches so far in 2017, 5 more scheduled (plus Falcon Heavy).

They don't "still win more yearly contracts". SpaceX passed them years ago, and now that their backlog is so long, customers are starting to opt for the shorter line.

You just don't know what you're talking about. You're just a tedious contrarian, who desperately tries to mischaracterize things as evidence against SpaceX, and when that fails, just makes shit up. I hope you remember this well enough to be properly embarassed over the next few years.

Does Elon Musk actually have autism?

It looks like he has autism

Also here's another poll

strawpoll.me/14218851
strawpoll.me/14218851
strawpoll.me/14218851

Ariane V satisfies multiple contracts per launch.

...

Ariane is not going to increase their launch rate
SpaceX are spending money/doing work/taking risks to increase their rate.

So its not going to be 20 Falcon 9 launches vs 5-6 Ariane 5 launches
It'll be 100+ Falcon 9 launches vs 3-4 Ariane 5 launches

ULA
>no innovation, charges 4 times as much, cries to congress when spacex steals their lunch money.

SpaceX
>innovation. gets people excited about space travel. low cost leader while still being profitable. Big Fucking Rocket.

Blue Origin.
>suborbital dildos.

If you're paying any attention at all, you know that it's not more than the equivalent of two F9 launches. Ariane 5 normally carries a ~6 tonne main payload and a ~4 tonne secondary to GTO. Falcon 9 has 5.5 tonnes to GTO with stage recovery, and 8.5 tonnes expendable.

15-20 major payloads in a year is more than 10-12. Even if you throw in flights of Arianespace's much-less-capable Vega (3) and Soyuz (2) as if they were equivalent, they only pull even

SpaceX has won more contracts over the past several years than Arianespace, and now it's also launching more. And they're still just getting up to speed.

ULA
>doesn't blow up the customer's payloads

SpaceX
>blows up the customer's payloads

Blue Origin
>no customers

SpaceX. They've got the best vision, they're working hardest to achieve it, they're the most interesting and Musk is a pretty cool dude.
Blue Origin is a meme and will never actually do anything, and there is nothing I want more that to see ULA fail and fail miserably.

What is this and which rocket is it?

Falcon 9.

Blew up with a payload during fueling. SpaceX was trying something different.

most likely a strut/helium tank failure.

SpaceX only did that once

Everything I have read is saying that Blue Origin's recent engine test shows that they could become a serious competitor - picture related

Remember that Blue Origin started work on an orbital launch vehicle much later than SpaceX. BO originally just wanted to do suborbital flight, for tourists I think. SpaceX first achieved orbit with one of their rockets all the way back in 2008, whereas BO only started designing their first orbital launch vehicle in 2012.

To elaborate on this
>SpaceX was trying something different.
They decided to test out doing pre-flight checks and static fires with the payload already mounted to avoid having to do a rollback as is the current standard. In addition to this they also decided to test a new tanking procedure. Said tanking procedure led to a failure in the Helium tanks and a "really fast fire"

>spacex isn't a meme compan-

...

How about you judge them by what they make and achieve, rather than some stupid shit made by a social media manager?

>SpaceX only did that once
Twice actually. 2.5 if you count the failure to deliver the secondary payload into the correct orbit during CRS-1

FUCK YOU

ANYWAY YOU HAVE TO SPECULATE TO ACCUMULATE SO FUCK OFF

I wish they would bring back the technical streams.

Not the strut. They weren't under special load. That was the mid-air explosion that was the strut, near peak acceleration. When it broke, it released a helium tank to float violently upward, tearing its lines and releasing its helium rapidly, causing the LOX tank to burst.

The explosion during pre-flight testing was the helium tank carbon composite overwrap. They think it had flaws and oxygen seeped in between the fibers and froze, making an extremely sensitive fuel-oxygen primary explosive that could have been set off by vibration, or friction as the tank was pressurized.

I hope this happens to the Webb telescope.

If Blue Origin counts as a rocket manufacturer, then I do too, since I too can use photoshop to draw pretty pictures.

First satellite -- genuine achievement, beat the US by a month or so.

First man in space -- genuine achievement, beat the US by a month or so. More importantly with much more powerful boosters, they were able to put a man into orbit while the US struggled with getting Atlas man-rated to put a smaller capsule into orbit.

First robot on the moon -- well done, but if that is significant than first Mars rover is as well.

First woman in space -- not an achievement, there was no technological advancement associated with this PR stunt.

First man in open space -- Fair enough, again beat the US by a month or so, but they did it in such a shoe-string way that the achievement gained them very little. Leonov is a hero, though.

First space station -- Real achievement, well done.

NASA rides Soyuz into space now -- OK.

Columbia and challenger exploded -- Both sides lost lives in-flight twice. Th Soviets lost fewer men since their craft could never carry as large a crew as the shuttles.

First man on the moon -- Real achievement, and while the US matched all the USSR achievements you list, the soviets never flew their lunar, and their successor state has never tried.

Ignoring your list of US achievements to denigrate, since there is little point in arguing with a troll, I'll point out to anybody reading the thread that the list is cherry-picked as fuck. Left off are first rendezvous, first docking, first piloted flight (Gagarin never touched controls, he was along as a passenger and relief pilot, Carpenter took manual control of Friendship 7 and took it through the attitude changes that were the only maneuvers available to both Mercury and Vostok), first truly maneuverable spacecraft (Gemini, able to make changes in orbital parameters that Mercury, Vostok and Voskhod could not), etc.

Also, if you are counting N-1 as a bigger rocket than Saturn V, I think you can't really count a rocket unless it flies at least once without exploding.

Yeah, monopolies are always the most efficient, cost effective ways to do things.

Legend too small to read -- I recognize 12 of them.

The subsidies was, of course, the whole point.

>So creating the world's first reusable first stage isn't an achievement?

It's a technical achievement. Whether it is an important one or a meme stunt remains to be proven.

>It'll be upgraded to much higher capacities and capabilities in the future.

Or it won't. Difficult to predict is the future. Always in motion it is.

All sides on rocket fanboi threads here seem to want to cite what their favorite company hopes to do in the future as an achievement.

First space station was little more than 2 docked crafts and Gemini mastered docking on orbit and Lunar stack was 3x the weight of Salyut post TLI.

Most of Russian firsts were the result of R7 capabilities and USSR never really developed beyond that because by the time Proton got acceptable reliability we are talking about 1970s and N1 was larger by thrust and mass but had 1/2 the capability of SaturnV that used hydrogen thus was much more mass efficient but a rocket even better and the best one ever designed untill mature Falcon 9FT was Energia in the 80s that was the real moment when Russians had greater capabilities than the US since for the first time since early 60s.

Russia had a head start due to R7 being needed for ICBM role instead of US systems that just had to travel from Turkey to Moscow.But once Saturn1 was operational in the 60s USSR had no way to compete

You sort of count the same thing a lot of times there.

It would be like an Apollo enthusiast listing First manned landing, first man to step onto the moon, first mission to have two men on the moon at the same time, first use of manned instruments to take measurements on the moon, first deployment of laser reflectors on the moon, first launch of a spacecraft from the moon, first rendezvous in orbit around the moon, first docking in orbit around the moon, first successful return from the surface of the moon, first samples of lunar material returned to Earth and first bags of poop left on the moon as achievements of Apollo 11.

They all sort of go into the metric of First Manned Landing on the Moon.

That said, the Venera program was a great achievement for the Ruskies. Though is right about the achievements of Mariner and Magellan being more significant in terms of knowledge gained.

>It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had their first flight-ready prototype some time next year.

So, in fact, it has not yet been built?

I don't buy rockets

>First space station was little more than 2 docked crafts

But the reusability of the station was an important step towards larger stations and habitats. Of course the first one of something is not going to be as advanced as later versions -- that does not detract from the achievement of doing it first, if "firsts" is a metric you are going to use.

Gemini did indeed pioneer and master rendezvous and docking, but Gemini dockings were all with unmanned target vehicles. In the case of Agena, these increased the spacecraft's capabilities, but did not provide a habitat for astronauts to make more long-termed observations and experiments.

Citing the Apollo stack as if its size made it a space-station counterpart is farcical -- the Apollo program was not in any sense a space-station or habitat program, it was a lunar landing and exploration program. (The use of legacy hardware for Skylab was ingenious, though, and gets you some connection from Apollo to space stations, if you really want one. The sheer ROOMINESS of Skylab has never been matched.)

gtfo, casual.

Every time I see this I remember there is a God and He loves us.

Stop being contrarian faglords

I'd much rather normies masturbate all over Elon and his Spacememes than wank over some shitty reality TV stars

SpaceX are the best thing to happen to aerospace since the Cold War, and they are having fun with it