Will it work? Or is it a big Musk scam?

"A big white dildo, how did this get here? Jesus! :D"

It's not a dildo, it's the true form of Musk's dick

If it was that easy to build such huge rocket it would have been done by now.

And it is actually not the rockets that are bottleneck in space exploration - but the payloads and the related technical and cost difficulties.

So while I wouldn't call it exactly a scam, its pretty close.

It's not a scam because SpaceX is actually trying to build it and have already produced/tested some of it's components (engines, fuel tanks.etc) It could be a failure but Musk's got a good record of delivering so far; but on the other hand it will definitely be delayed (just like literally every other rocket ever created) and miss the aspirational dates Elon stated at IAC 2017.

post pics amber

>we cannot have inventions because if they worked they would have been done by now

I think you underestimate the progress space tech has come since the 60s you cunt

Actually he's right. Read it as "if something sounds too good to be true it usually isn't true".

Dude just make a big rocket it'll surely work

>responding to it
they've been shitposting furiously about everything ever since Veeky Forums came into existence

Yes, the sentence is actually ambiguous and has both readings.

Got to love the English language

Are you suggesting ambiguous sentences only exist in English?

Native english speakers usually don't know other languages exist.

It will work, not as cheaply or efficiently as he says it will, but it will work. Elon musk has one real scam going right now and it's the hyper loop. The train he's having people dump money into that hole is to advance his boring company.

IMAGINE not knowing at least 3 languages, the true mark of a brainlet

They have same levels of produ tion, yes, that doesn't mean it's not a scam. Your comment implies that you think it's only a scam if they are only pocketing money and lying. A good scam isn't thatt obvious .

But that's not what he said. He left the sentence unfinished leaving us to assume wether he meant that it was too good to be true or that it was true.

It is a very big dildo

It still works as a sentence

The N1 could have worked if it had gotten more development. The main problem was just the sheer complexity of lighting 30 engines simultaneously, which is something modern computers make a whole lot easier.

If they can get Falcon Heavy with it's 27 engines working, then I don't see any reason BFR won't fly. The real question is whether it can meet it's cost/re-usability goals.

Musk is really good at selling bullshit to naive and overly optimistic retards.

I dropped my magnum condom

>musk says he will do thing
>Veeky Forums brainlets shitpost furiously about how it's impossible
>he succeeds
>Veeky Forums brainlets pretend it never happened
>musk says he will do another thing
>Veeky Forums brainlets shitpost furiously about how it's impossible
like clockwork

What have people said is impossible that he has succeeded with?

If you leave a sentence unfinished you would assume that its reflecting on something said earlier in the sentence. If we can finish the sentence however we like what stops me from interpreting it as "if something sounds too good to be true it usually isn't a flying elephant."

He's succeeded in fooling the public.

How? He's delivered on a fair amount of his promises and will likely produce multiple profitable ventures. Some of his businesses won't work, he doesn't pretend to be a riskless investment.

What is this supposed to show?

It is always cool watching for the ice formations.

do not respond with flat earth posters

SpaceX has an 'X' in its name for a reason. Ain't no one going there.

Watch the "ice" closely, it's actually an animation of someone jumping/diving off.

...

> it's actually an animation of someone jumping/diving off.

I'm getting baited so hard here, but what is that supposed to prove? I'm really not following you here.

No it doesn't really, it faoils to communicate the thoughts of the writer to to the reader, so it does not "work as a sentence"

>Sea Dragon is just like BFR

lol

Sea Dragon was the concept of a 'Big Dumb Booster' taken to the extreme. It was going to be made of sheet steel, its only moving parts would be a set of valves, and it would use highly pressurized nitrogen to blow liquid fuels into the combustion chambers of both the first and second stage engines. It would be cheap per kilogram of payload but cost over 500 million dollars to launch every time.
BFR on the other hand is going to use highly advanced staged combustion engines, will have hundreds of thousands of moving parts, will be made of carbon composites, it will be rapidly reusable due to its recovery system, and it will be cheap per launch as well as per kilogram payload.
Sea Dragon could only get as far as low Earth orbit, it's just a launch vehicle.
BFR can launch payloads to LEO or any Earth orbit in the single-launch cargo configuration, and payloads to the Moon or Mars with on-orbit refueling. It can also come back from these places and be reused. Only going to Mars requires ISRU since the spaceship can carry enough fuel to the Moon to come back to Earth.

Sea Dragon got as far as a few much smaller proof-of-concept rocket stages that tested submerged engine firing, as well as the basic design elements. We don't know however if such huge engine bells as the full sized Sea Dragon would require are even possible, even the F-1 engines on the Saturn V were tearing themselves apart for a while until people got that figured out.
BFR's proof-of-concept prototype is essentially the Falcon 9, which has developed stage recovery and related technologies already. BFR's engines are already far into development, as are all the other technologies it will use.

If payload mass were the only aspect to rockets then there'd be no difference between the space shuttle and a Falcon 9.

>And it is actually not the rockets that are bottleneck in space exploration - but the payloads and the related technical and cost difficulties.

Payloads are literally only expensive because the companies building payloads are constrained by current launch vehicle capability and cost.

A company builds a $500 million dollar satellite because that's what it takes to build a satellite that will last for 15 years in space and weighs less than 5000 kg. Any heavier and current launch vehicles can't put it into the correct orbit, but any less than 15 years and the money they spend on launching payloads would go through the roof.

With BFR that changes. Now, they can build 50 ton satellites and buy a flight to geostationary orbit for $10 million. Not only does the difficulty in designing and building the payload drop dramatically due to the much more relaxed weight restrictions, it also drops because the company can afford to launch a satellite every 3 or 4 years and the spacecraft doesn't need to be as ultra reliable/long lived anymore. The effect of cheap launch vehicles is both a reduction in the cost of business for companies building payloads, as well as an increase in flight rate

To be fair the Boring company is potentially a cash cow if governments all over the world are creaming themselves to establish underground hyperloop transport. Doing hyperloop above ground with all those thermal cycles and vulnerability to punctures is much harder form a technical standpoint than building a hyperloop tube a few dozen meters underground, where there are no thermal cycles to worry about and even if a hole was punched in the tube somehow it wouldn't lead to catastrophic failure.

>Watch the "ice" closely, it's actually an animation of someone jumping/diving off.

It literally is not, you're overusing the pattern recognition bit of your brain dude

Piece of sooty ice breaking off of the bottom of the stage?

hyperloop is a fucking meme, boring company is not going to get anywhere.
no democrat run city is going to give them contracts, they want people to high ball bids, not try to underbid
construction projects are immense money making scams

Same as any other large bureaucrat filled industry.

Still, just watching any construction equipment work leaves you with a big impression that LOTS could be optimized, and ofc automating things so it works over night more than doubles your output.

>boring company is not going to get anywhere

I don't see why not, their biggest goal is just to speed up tunneling, because if they can tunnel ten times faster with the same operating cost per hour they still blow the competition away. Of course most of that improvement comes from going for a smaller tunnel diameter, but lots of things can fit into a smaller tunnel, subways for example.

Idk, the Boring company is clearly not as big a deal as SpaceX, which is really the only Musk thing I care about other than Tesla, and I really only like Telsa because of the batteries. The cars are cool too tho.

Sure but if you go to some government contract bidding, and bid half the price of your competitors, the government will just ignore you

Sure they can "prove" their stuff works, that its all practical, I dnno, it'll be slow going for them.

In the end the only point of this is that they will need to mine on mars, so they want their own automated equipment.

yea

commie fag. sea dragon is bad ass rocket. take your hate elsewhere

>Sure but if you go to some government contract bidding, and bid half the price of your competitors, the government will just ignore you

So bid the same price but say it'll get done ten times faster and they can make a network three times bigger, too.

So we'll be filling space with cheap junk.

Great.

>bid half the price of your competitors, the government will just ignore you
How is that not illegal? Is the US even more corrupt than I think?

so how much will i cost in the end

>muh space pollution

fuck off kessler syndrome isn't real

that doesn't even matter

Space pollution is very, very real, and in no way more acceptable than any other kind of pollution we are all familiar with.

And in light of the latest talks about putting people back on the Moon or even Mars, I think it's very important to think about environmental protection of the environments beyond the Earth.

We won't have a second chance to do things right, so lets do our best, okay?

>Space pollution is very, very real

You have tested this yourself?

>Sea Dragon was the concept of a 'Big Dumb Booster' taken to the extreme. It was going to be made of sheet steel
The wikipedia article says this, but turns out to be wrong, if you read the original documents. The main tanks/body were going to be built of aluminum.
neverworld.net/truax/Sea_Dragon_Concept_Volume_1.pdf
page 84
>the tank materials were assumed to be 1024-T6 aluminum for conservatism and all weights are for this material
The 1*** series of aluminum alloys are essentially pure aluminum, with under 1% of other metals. I don't know the exact specifications "1024-T6" mean, but it's safe to assume that this is cheap stuff. Aluminum is the main structural material, with stainless steel used for the engines and some structural parts where aluminum would be unsuitable.

>its only moving parts would be a set of valves
You're thinking of OTRAG, the cluster rocket which would have used differential throttling. Sea Dragon would have had conventional gimballed engines for thrust vectoring: the first stage main engine would be gimballed (using open-loop hydraulics fed by the kerosene tank - it would be dumping oil every time it changed orientation, about 20 tons per launch), while the upper stage would have four gimballed vernier engines (electrically actuated) which would fire for the whole flight (providing roll-control to the lower stage), and a fixed-position main engine (which would have simplified the task of deploying its collapsible nozzle extension).

>it would use highly pressurized nitrogen to blow liquid fuels into the combustion chambers
Not quite. Again, this seems confused with OTRAG, which simply left the top third of each tank for high-pressure nitrogen. Sea Dragon would have pressurized the kerosene tank from methane tanks. The vernier engines would have used pressurized oxygen tanks. The main H2/O2 tanks would boil their own contents.

The distinctive features of Sea Dragon are sheer size, pressure-feeding, and sea launch.

BFR is cheap enough that companies can pay for a flight that goes out and picks up dead satellites for return to Earth without much financial impact.

In fact I could see a government sponsored program for BFR that would have it go up to the dozens of already dead satellites in orbit and start bringing them down.

Big musk sounds like a derogatory term for the the beauty/hygiene corporation monolith

why bring them down
put a space station up and bring dead sats to that station to be recycled for materials

lol

They'll call you a quack, until you do it, and then you will discover the real reason digging in cities costs money(ass loads of regulation & government oversight)

A near-GEO janitor station for that purpose would be interesting.

With its low cost, an expendable BFS makes a pretty attractive space station. That's one of the things that makes BFR plausible to me. They can even fly an expendable, near-empty BFS to LEO without the BFB, as an SSTO. Near-empty is good enough to be a station, which astronauts can visit in Dragon.

what materials...
there isn't anything worth recycling in these old sat's
They are max like 2 tons of material.

the materials would be that 2 tons of material you just said
It's important that they are gotten rid of to clean up space junk, why not just scoop up a bunch and make them useful instead of burning them up in the atmosphere

If it's cheap enough to do, the materials they use in them tend to be fairly valuable. Lots of stuff like gold and beryllium, because any material costs were trifling compared to the expense of launch.

Anyway, they can be studied for the effects of their time in space on their materials and mechanisms, and put in museums. At the same time, by being captured, they're removed as hazards and prevented from breaking up into tons of shrapnel whizzing around at km/s speeds that make bullets look sluggish.

Gonna be a long time before it makes any such economic sense to do it
unless the government subsidizes it

If we can put up 150 tons per launch, we'll be able to make massive industrial stations for dirt cheap prices, the ISS in it's entirety is only about 200 tons
once you have space based construction, spacecraft become cheap and easy to build, making space vacuum cleaners viable for cleaning up junk

I got a boner

Economics are going to change rapidly if BFR works as claimed, and there are synergies to consider. The old-GEO-sat junking station could also be a station for constructing, deploying, testing, modifying, and maintaining new GEO sats (which might be updated every year), and the process of capturing the old ones could be used to develop and demonstrate methods of capturing malfunctioning satellites which are more suited to maintenance and upgrades.

Governments would likely pay to have their old GEO sats removed, since they want to project an image of being responsible and considerate members of the global community.

The data from studying materials that have spent lots of time in deep space could also be very valuable.

>the ISS in it's entirety is only about 200 tons
460 tons (420 tonnes). But its construction is primitive and it uses mass inefficiently.

Two BFSes together, each fitted with a pressurized cabin (like the passenger version) would have the same pressurized volume as the ISS, and with its 5 meter diameter, also be able to have much more spacious rooms. That's before you put any payload in it, and they could launch with substantial payloads. Cost of a pressurized ITS spaceship (the earlier, larger, presumably more expensive version of BFR) was estimated around $200 million, with the cost of launching it being negligible by comparison.

I think an excellent station concept is a pressurized BFS which launches loaded with (among other things) the materials for a tether and counterweight system, so it can be set up with artificial partial gravity, and test the effects on the human body of living under Martian or lunar gravity.

>seadragonfag

>virgin prometheus-b

>I want to deafen a continent and destroy a city with earthquakes every launch

>Implying you dont stuff every single human on earth in the rocket

>wanting the dregs of humanity with you
I didn't say it was a bad thing friendo

Come on now. Why are you posting some idiot child drawings from Reddit?

That's the nose cone of the Dragon spacecraft, it is jettisoned once the vehicle reaches a certain altitude.

>REEEEE NO FUN ALLOWED
>EVERYTHING I DON'T LIKE IS REDDIT

>5 meter diameter

BFS is 9 meters in diameter

There's no way to control it. Engineers and science-thinkers always get furious over this kind of thing, but show me a process that can actually combat systemic cronyism, which is as old as human history.

Technically they're drawings of rockets someone's built in Ksp realism overhaul.

It is Reddit. That's where it comes from. That's the only place you find it if you search for it.

>REEEEE NO FUN ALLOWED
You post extremely obscure garbage, which contains text suggesting it was a real concept, in the middle of a discussion about real rockets, with no explanation that it's just someone's stupid fantasy. Fuck you.

I know what it's supposed to be, it's just it's fake as fuck. It's far too small and its trajectory away from the rocket doesn't make any sense when you look at the direction the (2D graphic) rocket nozzle is facing.

Good point, my mistake.

I get a little mixed up sometimes, because I suspect they're going to make a 5-meter single-Raptor mini-BFS that launches first on Falcon Heavy, and later on a mini-BFB. It would be much easier and faster than the full BFR, useful as an incremental development step toward the full BFR, and would enable a near-term moon program (if fully-refuelled in LEO, it could carry a Dragon 2 all the way to the moon surface and launch it on a return course to Earth, or carry a whole B330 station, for example, one-way).

>because I suspect they're going to make a 5-meter single-Raptor mini-BFS that launches first on Falcon Heavy
Highly doubtful, rockets aren't lego and the Falcon is about as big as it gets for that diameter, you can't just mount an upper stage twice the size on top.

Hide flat earth threads
Ignore flat earth posts
Do not reply to flat earth posters

report them too, so they can fuck off and stay fucked off

I would if I knew what rule they are breaking

>you can't just mount an upper stage twice the size on top.
...yet somehow they mount a 5-meter fairing.

SpaceX committed to offering the US government the option of building a Raptor-powered upper stage for Falcon Heavy when they took the DOD money for Raptor development. They've almost certainly designed for the possibility of putting a 5-meter upper stage on top of it. The BFR Raptor thrust numbers they've put out fit it neatly, and the large ch4/o2 thrusters they've been developing for BFR are functionally similar to SuperDraco and would serve as landing thrusters for a reusable 5-meter stage.

Anyway, even without reusability, due to being the same size as the fairing, it could fly purely as a payload, and be fuelled in orbit by a sister spacecraft which also flies as a payload, bringing up ~30 tonnes of propellant per conventional, reusable-booster FH launch, taking 6 or 7 launches to be fully fuelled for a moon landing, or 3 launches of the expendable FH. Using this method, I estimate they could do 4 moon landings per year with a $2 billion/year program.

Not very scientific is it? What are you so scared of?

Flat earth shit doesn't belong in Veeky Forums. It goes in /b/ or /x/.

9414290
>fear is the only reason one could not like several years worth of daily spamming and shitposting
no amount of evidence makes you leave, since your purpose here is just to smear shit on the walls 24/7, not discuss science