Watch out young African boy, the SpaceX killers are here

Nice counterargument.

The Falcon Heavy still beats it in reusable numbers thanks to the new drone-ship currently being built which will let it land both side boosters at sea allowing it to lift around 50 tons reusable. But this discussion is kinda pointless as both rockets will likely never carry that much into orbit. But the real problem with the NG is it's inability to chuck heavy payloads (military satellites) into high-energy orbits or a long way out (probes) which is what both the Falcon Heavy and Delta 4 Heavy are ideal for, as for example, the FH can launch 3.5 tons directly to Pluto which makes it great for long-distance probe missions as it can send them there without multiple gravity assists (in turn saving loads of energy and propellant) which these missions often require. Honestly I can't see the niche in the market it covers, nobody is going to pay for a super-heavy rocket to lift a satellite to LEO when there are plenty of smaller more cost effective options like the base Falcon 9 or Soyuz to do it. I could see it being useful for LEO constellations of microsats due to it's large fairing, but that's a small market to base a launch vehicle around. As I've previously stated the entire industry for super-heavy rockets is built around putting heavy satellites and probes in high-energy orbits which the NG is less than ideal for due to it's poor thrust to weight ratio, despite the first-stage re-usability the NG will be a big rocket that means it will cost a decently sized fee too build; who's going to pay for an expensive LEO barge when there's plenty of cheaper options to choose from?

> But the real problem with the NG is it's inability to chuck heavy payloads (military satellites) into high-energy orbits or a long way out (probes)
I'm sorry, why can't NG (2 or 3 stage) do this?

>Honestly I can't see the niche in the market it covers, nobody is going to pay for a super-heavy rocket to lift a satellite to LEO when there are plenty of smaller more cost effective options like the base Falcon 9 or Soyuz to do it.
People said the same about Falcon Heavy. Both are now reasonably well sized to compete with A5 in the GTO market with dual launch. Whether or not that market is large enough to sustain 3 LVs is another matter.

>who's going to pay for an expensive LEO barge
It's not restricted to LEO.

Musk is a redditor extraordinaire, Bezos is an user

He probably shitposts on Veeky Forums.

>I could see it being useful for LEO constellations of microsats due to it's large fairing, but that's a small market to base a launch vehicle around.
Are you kidding me? It's hundreds of launches just getting OneWeb and others like it up

bezos is a glow in the dark cia nigger & probably an SJW goon

>I'm sorry, why can't NG (2 or 3 stage) do this?

Because the if the NG can only send 13,000 kg to GTO and therefore is outclassed by both the FH and Delta 4 Heavy, so why would the US government or NASA fly a payload on it when they have a cheap and high-performance option in the Falcon Heavy and an extremely reliable and proven option in the Delta 4? It's an extremely small but lucrative market and nobody's going to send such an important payload on the 3rd best rocket for the job. A NG could probably send a payload a decent distance with a 3rd stage but this would significantly lower its payload capacity, which is counter-initiative as the whole point of the FH is that it allows NASA to create larger and more advanced probes that only an FH is powerful enough to throw to its target orbit, they might as well launch the probe on an Atlas 5 instead.

>It's not restricted to LEO

That's were it will spend most of it's time, launching the OneWeb constellation and Bigelow modules. Anything else can be done better with another rocket.

He literally is, he pays for Illegal immigrant scholarships.

(Good)

He owns wapo. Definitely not sjw.

?
Are you joking? They publish fake libelous bullshit against Trump every day

>They publish fake libelous bullshit against Trump every day

go back to /pol/ and dont come back

>Because the if the NG can only send 13,000 kg to GTO and therefore is outclassed by both the FH and Delta 4 Heavy,
Wait, you said "But the real problem with the NG is it's inability...". You said it was unable, not that it was "outclassed". Not only that you've shifted to talking about GTO. Stop making shit up and hoping no one calls you on it.

>A NG could probably send a payload a decent distance with a 3rd stage but this would significantly lower its payload capacity
You're talking out of your ass. A 3rd hydrolox stage will increase the payload to an escape trajectory, because despite the increased mass it can just stage sooner. "Distance" is not a thing, you have a payload to a given trajectory. If you have real numbers to prove otherwise then post them but otherwise I'll assume you're making shit up again.

>the whole point of the FH is that it allows NASA to create larger and more advanced probes that only an FH is powerful enough to throw to its target orbit
No. NASA are unlikely to build a science payload which can only fit on one commercial vehicle, because if it becomes unavailable the mission is dead.

>That's were it will spend most of it's time
But it wont, the GTO market is much larger. SpaceX have a massive backlog, there is room for a second launcher in the US.

That was the point.

>but this would significantly lower its payload capacity
I'd like to see your source for that because every estimate I can find estimates the TMI payload as higher than even expendable FH.

spacelaunchreport.com/newglenn.html

The math they've is obviously wrong, they have falsely listed that a NG with a third stage would weigh the same as a two-stage version, left many blanks which indicates that official performance statistics have yet to be released and they can't even spell payload properly so I don't think anyone should trust these guys to do accurate calculations. it's painfully simple why a third stage would decrease the size of the payload. A third-stage is only ignited once the rocket has reached orbit, so until it reaches a certain point it's basically more dead weight for the first and second stages to carry into orbit which in turn decreases the amount of weight the rocket can put in orbit due to the extra mass.

*done

>The math they've is obviously wrong
Why? Because it disagrees with your baseless assertion. Then provide a better estimate.
They have made assumptions, that is necessary at this point.

>so I don't think anyone should trust these guys to do accurate calculations
Lol. That is the most idiotic ad hom I have ever heard. You made assertions about these numbers, clearly without even attempting to do the estimate yourself and now you're shittalking the people who bothered to do it properly.

>A third-stage is only ignited once the rocket has reached orbit
Says who? S-IVB was ignited before reaching the parking orbit with Saturn V lunar missions. You're just making shit up.

>which in turn decreases the amount of weight the rocket can put in orbit due to the extra mass.
Are you really that retarded? The payload to orbit is the payload to the final orbit. If the 3rd stage hasn't fired before getting to LEO then LEO isn't the final orbit, it must be some higher energy trajectory. If this was being done with a 2 stage system then the 2nd stage would have to carry the propellant to make that burn, this would be the "dead weight". This point is utterly idotic, and you're trying to criticise people actually doing the calculation.

Obviously they can't add an EXTRA STAGE that weighs 55 TONS and INCREASES PAYLOAD DRAMATICALLY while keeping the total weight of the rocket the same

It just doesn't work like that

But those numbers are just guesses anyways because its a paper fucking rocket

Who said the total weight is the same? You keep changing your argument, you said nothing about the total mass previously.

Secondly there are circumstances under which having an additional stage, with the same total mass will increase the payload. Simply because it's wasteful to drag a mostly empty tank and huge engines that are throttled right back.

>But those numbers are just guesses anyways
What a fucking hypocrite you are. You pulled claims directly out of your ass, even claiming NG was "unable" to launch to high energy trajectory, then rowing back to it having lower performance than DIV and FH. But now someone has actually done an estimation it's just guesswork.

>What a fucking hypocrite you are. You pulled claims directly out of your ass, even claiming NG was "unable" to launch to high energy trajectory, then rowing back to it having lower performance than DIV and FH. But now someone has actually done an estimation it's just guesswork.

Lol that wasn't him, it was me. I'm the author of all your pain user... But seriously it's hard not to pull shit out of your ass when your talking about what is in most senses a paper rocket at the moment, this is also reinforced by the incomplete statistics (you) posted which are inaccurate as they do not contain any legitimate (e.g. thrust, ISP etc) statistics about the 2nd or 3rd stages (likely because the BE-3U and BE-4U engines haven't even reached the development phase yet) But the whole inability to put payloads into high energy orbits is poorly worded, I apologise. All we can deduce at the moment with the statistics provided is that the NG is relatively shit at putting payloads into GTO and beyond because it loses nearly 3/4 of its payload capacity transitioning from LEO to GTO which I've suggested is because of it's poor thrust to weight ratio. This is important as it basically reduces the NG's performance (without a 55 ton heavy 3rd stage) outside of LEO to slightly lower than a Delta 4 Heavy which is supposedly 1.5x less powerful, a Delta 4 Heavy can send more to the moon than a base New Glenn...pretty pathetic.

>Lol that wasn't him, it was me.
Sure. He disappeared and you came back at the same time, and you just happen to make the same stupid arguments.

> it's hard not to pull shit out of your ass when your talking about what is in most senses a paper rocket at the moment
No it's quite simple actually. Instead of trying to pretend you know what the numbers are, you say "I don't know but...". A revolutionary concept of being honest.

>this is also reinforced by the incomplete statistics (you) posted which are inaccurate as they do not contain any legitimate
They're estimates. I said that when I posted them. The webpage has "(est)" next to every number. And yet you think it's new information that this is an estimate?

>All we can deduce at the moment with the statistics provided is that the NG is relatively shit
Those numbers are for the 2 stage version. Try reading.

Let me tell you who the real SpaceX killer is: Northrup Grumman. SpaceX might be able to make the worlds largest rocket, but Northrup Grumman can shoot it down.

,000kg less payload capacity than a Falcon Heavy despite being twice the size.

Falcon Heavy can't even fly with a 20 ton payload, are you trying to claim New Glenn won't be able to take ANY payload to orbit? Put down the crack pipe.

it's funny how bezos has more than enough money to bankroll blue origin into a spacex destroyer within years
but he doesn't bother. blue origin is tiny by comparison and is moving at a GLACIAL development pace

not to mention all the good talent is at spacex because they do all the flashy stuff to attract talent

spacex offers job benefits like... a future slot on a mars transporter. They keep it on the dl though. Bezos can't give that sort of guarantee to BO employees.

Why the fuck did Boeing use hydrolox as a first stage?

spacex would be in the same position if they didn't win the development subsidies and subsequent launch contracts for resupply and crew

SpaceX probably would've been bought out by Bezos if they hadn't gotten those subsidies and launch contracts.

SpaceX were desperate at that point. They needed some cash to finish up their rocket and start making money.

They made the big orange tank for the space shuttle and are making it for the SLS. Also the RS-68 engines used by the Delta 4 are basically Boeing's attempt to make a more economical version of the space shuttle main engine by making a cheap knockoff of it. They used hydrolox for the first stage because it meant they didn't have hire more engineers or re-train those left over from the space shuttle program, they just had to repurpose their hydrolox expertise to develop a vehicle relatively similar to the shuttle they had been working on. It's easy to see a common pattern in most the decision making of big contractors like Boeing: everything revolves around creating jobs and keeping people employed in them for as long as possible.

Then why does Japan use hydrolox?

A 50 year old rocket engineer with 20 years job experience doesn't care about memes. Fresh out of college guys aren't the top minds. Blue Origin isn't developing slowly. SpaceX only has a scaled Methlox-engine, while Blue Origin has already supply contracts with ULA for theirs.

This.
Based mr. Bezos is not rich enough to compete with the gubment gibs that are being poured into soyboyX. The other day I met one those specimens driving by with their stupid rockets and I stopped them right there and there to tell them my tax money aren't meant to be wasted on shit like this they were utterly shocked an speechless and I was satisfied and left. I hate spacex so goddam much.

>The other day I met one those specimens driving by with their stupid rockets and I stopped them right there and there to tell them my tax money aren't meant to be wasted on shit like this they were utterly shocked an speechless and I was satisfied and left.
This is a fantasy.

Also the money that SpaceX got from the government probably would have gone to ULA anyway for a lesser number of launches, but it's okay if ULA gets the money, right?

>SpaceX would be worse off than Blue Origin if they weren't massively successful and because of that the government saw value in the services they provide.

One of these companies has flown over 50 flights (also landing it over 20 times) of their orbital class rocket which has involved sending top-secret military payloads into orbit. The other is still barely testing their engines, with their orbital rocket due to debut in 2020 although it will probably slip as they haven't even finished building the factory to build said rocket. One of these companies is slow, guess which one... Also Blue Origin is 2 years older than SpaceX as a company, what do they have to show for it in comparison?

Yeah, SpaceX needed cash so they had to produce a rocket first that generates some money. Blue Origin has Bezos so they don't need to do that. They are developing the BE-4 since 2011.

the COTS cash injection did nor exactly "save" spacex, that a slight myth. Same with the Falcon 1 launch 4 myth where spacex would have gone under if it failed.

The truth is that Elon did have enough of his own cash and investor support to develop falcon 5 successfully if there was no govt backing. What is true is that SpaceX would be years behind their current state if they never got the contract.

>the COTS cash injection did nor exactly "save" spacex, that a slight myth.

he had the money for SpaceX or Tesla, i think he said he would have put the money into SpaceX had NASA not called with the contract

yeah, iirc that's how it went down.

And Europe.

>Washington Post
>not SJW
What did he mean by this?

>I judge newspapers based off of what certain writers post about on their twitter accounts, separate from the actual content of the articles

wew

>bezos is a glow in the dark cia nigger & probably an SJW goon
Bezos is at least red-pilled about space colonization.
I read an interview where he laughs about settling Mars and states he wants to see humanity spread across Solar System in O'Neil type habitats and asteroid mines.

spacex didn't provide any services at the time, NASA paid for them to develop F9 and Dragon through COTS.

So blue origin just didn't "need" to be a functioning launch company with billions of dollars of annual revenue and 10,000 employees, and attracting all the motivated skilled workers through meming on reddit ?

New Glenn will be more powerful than Falcon Heavy.

All of its published payload numbers are for its two-stage configuration, with first stage reuse. Its three-stage version and its expendable version far-exceed the capability of Falcon Heavy

>bfr
Won't be ready until 2025 at the earliest.

There's no need to "kill" SpaceX when they are already one of the most dishonest companies in the history of private space travel. Seriously each launch following the Falcon family as they “revolutionize the launch industry” has been indistinguishable from the rest. Aside from the meme landings, the company’s only party trick has been to overwork and underpay its employees to reduce launch costs, all to make the mythical “full and rapid reuse” seem effective.

Perhaps the die was cast when Musk vetoed the idea of ambitious yet realistic missions like Red and Grey Dragon; he made sure the company would never be mistaken for an innovative force to anything or anybody, just ridiculously questionable government contracts for his companies. SpaceX might be profitable (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-NASA in its refusal of wonder, science and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the landings are cool though
"No!"
The camerawork is dreadful; the landings of the charred boosters are boring. As I watch, I noticed that every time a Falcon 9 lands, Musk said either “self-sustaining civilization on Mars” or “imagine if you had a 747 and you threw it away after one flight.”

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time one of those phrases was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Musk's mind is so governed by clichés that he has no other style of thinking. Later I read a poorly-written news story on SpaceX by some fat web blogger. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are watching these launches now, surely they will work for SpaceX in the future and they too can have paychecks based off of government handouts." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you are a SpaceX fan, you are, in fact, trained to be a mindless supporter of government-funded billionaires.

this pasta is already stale

>The camerawork is dreadful; the landings of the charred boosters are boring. As I watch, I noticed that every time a Falcon 9 lands, Musk said either “self-sustaining civilization on Mars” or “imagine if you had a 747 and you threw it away after one flight.”

They also pretended that the feed cut out when the FH center core failed to land instead of admitting it during the feed.

youtube.com/watch?v=gpBPiindEeY

It's annoying to see them get away with so much bullshit - spacex does enough right that they shouldn't need to mask their failures, but they do it anyway because elon musk is an egomaniac.

asteroid mining is a giant shitty meme
These low grav planets with cold cores can be mined super deep, there is vastly more material easily accessed on the moon or mars or Jovian moons than in the entire asteroid belt

They also said that they had cameras on both boosters when in reality it was just one booster camera shown on both screens

They actually petitioned youtube to get the video changed because of this lmao

They did have cameras on both boosters and the video of the launch on YouTube now shows both. Not sure why they showed only one during the live broadcast but I imagine it was some miscommunication.

>Not sure why they showed only one during the live broadcast but I imagine it was some miscommunication.
Someone fat fingered the scene selection in OBS probably.

Just like when it shifted to the orbital map instead of the payload adapter cameras for the fairing release.

SpaceX are not professional broadcasters, their commentary team are just engineers in other roles and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they literally use OBS.

The point is they explicitly lied about having both camera views even when it was extremely obvious that it was the same view shown twice.

>spaceX is only succeeding because they're successful
o i am laffin. thanks for this user

Or the presenters during the launch weren't told that only one camera feed would be shown (possibly explained by ) and were too focused on their act and what to say next to notice that what they were saying wasn't accurate.

Blue origin does not even mention that they crashed first New Shepard airframe and blew up the powerhead of BE4.

It would be as if SpaceX informed about landings after few successful recoveries in secrecy first.They are not as open as they were in pre 2012 but still leaps beyond any other space company bigger than Armadillo or other hobby groups

If a layman can recognize that they were the same camera view then certainly a SpaceX engineer can recognize it.

SpaceX are pathological liars.

>Blue origin does not even mention that they crashed first New Shepard airframe and blew up the powerhead of BE4.
They announced both. Are you retarded?

>The point is they explicitly lied about having both camera views even when it was extremely obvious that it was the same view shown twice.
If you were expecting there to be two different views and you saw two very similar views, would you just go "oh they're actually the same view" or would you try to reassure people it's actually two different views?

The problem is something you cannot determine. If he knew, it was deception. If he didn't, then it was a mistake. Your assumption is that he knew, but you cannot know that.

see

see

Remember, he also said it before the landing burn started, that was when it was completely obvious that it was the same stream.

But what's the problem? There's plenty of videos by third parties of the two boosters coming back and landing. Including a live stream from a third party.

It doesn't change anything.

Remember that time a few years ago when a gunman shot and killed a reporter during a live interview and recorded it on his phone? Everyone was wondering why neither the reporter nor the woman being interviewed noticed the creepy dude recording them and pointing a gun at them from only a few feet away.
It's perfectly understandable that someone providing live, on camera commentary during a very important launch, near a very loud and excited crowd, would fail to notice a seemingly obvious detail because it wasn't something they were expecting to see.
As said, your claim that they were explicitly attempting to decieve people is baseless since you have no idea what they were thinking.

>your claim that they were explicitly attempting to decieve people is baseless
see

Not telling people your rocket crashed live is pretty common.
The feed likely did cut anyway due to the impact, the barge it self was damaged too.

You're just speculating.

it was an uppity nigger gunman who was shooting people because he was fired for being a typical nig
prolly just typical white blindness to the plight of the black man

And what does that prove? I'm talking about your claim that they were lying about the duplicated booster video feed, not about the loss of the center core.
Evidence of dishonesty in one case is not evidence of dishonesty in others. But given your claim that SpaceX are pathological liars, I can see why you would interpret every dubious statement from them as proof that your unfounded belief is correct, rather than evaluating each one on it's own as you should.

What does Veeky Forums think about OneWeb and Starlink?

oneweb is a meme. Starlink will be great.

we had a thread about it the other day

Onewebb will actually exist because it has real investors to pay for it.

Starlink is a meme.

Starlink seems more capable, but OneWeb is more focused on internet. I'd give the edge to OneWeb since they have the experience with satellites. However, the guy running it has a beef with Elon and won't use SpaceX rockets. This puts them at an enormous cost disadvantage compared to Starlink which will utilize SpaceX reusable rockets to cut costs.

>This puts them at an enormous cost disadvantage
SpaceX needs to have literally 10x the number of launches as OneWeb to complete their constellation.

different constellations dude. Full spacex (14k sats with LLEO and LEO) vs full oneweb are quite different. Plus, spacex can start charging customers with even 400 or less active satellites.

Meanwhile, in oneweb land arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/theres-something-strange-going-on-amid-the-satellite-internet-rush/

>arstechnica.com

Can you fuck off? The article has good sources and makes a point, regardless of how much Berger likes SpaceX personally.

The article doesn't make a "point" at all, and as is typical the assclown writer is already getting called out in the comments for posting incorrect information.

Take a hint and stop reading that rag.

Exactly. Also, Blue Origin is actually going to generate Cash through selling engines.

And as I said, older people don't really care about memes. You can check on linkedin by simply searching for "propulsion engineer blue origin" and "propulsion engineer spaceX". All the people who show up for Blue are generally older, have worked previously for other rocket builders, e.g. are more experienced and qualified. The rule of the business atm is that SpaceX gets the guys fresh out of college, and after a couple of years of experience at SpaceX, they are good enough for Blue Origin, ULA, etc. and switch.

They also leave SpaceX because the finally grow up and realize they don't want to be wageslaves working 80 hours per week with no time for family life.

That explains why SpaceX is the one innovating by utilising cutting edge technology and best in class performance for the Raptor engine, while Blue Origin is using a very conservative design for the BE-4. Blue Origin isn't really a 'new space' company, just more up to date on current trends than ULA etc

Arsetechnica is well respected scientific journal and the only reason you dislike it is because the owner is Jewish and you are anti-semitic.

You do realize though SpaceX is only testing with miniature versions of the Raptor so far, right?

That's only if they get the BE-4 ready for ULA in time.
Mind you Rocketdyne has the worse position.

You realize that it is miniature only by old 3MN standard and pretty close to current design?
Blue has less engine time than SpaceX on lower throttle range so far BE4 and Raptor have been tested to similar thrust but Raptor runs at nearly 2x the cp.

We don't know that, it's been 2 years since then and their probably testing a full-scale prototype at the moment. I'll bet you my left nut that Elon will reveal footage of a full-scale test firing at IAC 2018 which is where all the BFR information has come from so far. But this still doesn't change the fact that the Raptor is a much more ambitious and innovative engine than the BE-4 which isn't any more advanced than anything that's currently being used minus it's methane fuel source. That's why ULA want it, it's a relatively safe choice because it's a conservative design and it performs similar to the Russian RD-180 they currently use.

Why no one used methane before? Because its need to be cooled like oxygen?

>Why no one used methane before?

it has all the hassle of hydrolox (high cost, cryogenic) without any of the upsides (high performance). it makes sense for reusable rockets because it can be produced in situ and doesn't damage the engines nearly as much as rp-1 does.

nothing spacex has done so far is cutting edge, falcon 9 is pretty much a clone of zenit with 500x more complex plumbing for the engines