/LLV/

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Let's talk about large launch vehicles!

Attached: llv.png (320 KB, 1000x1000)

All urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Fp0WgodhR7s
spintechllc.com
compositesworld.com/articles/smart-tooling-cuts-time-and-risk-for-complex-unitized-composite-structures-production
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110010005.pdf
compositesworld.com/articles/nasaboeing-composite-launch-vehicle-fuel-tank-scores-firsts
nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/nasa-courts-commercial-options-lunar-landers/#more-55492
russianspaceweb.com/rockets_launchers_2010s.html
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/there-s-a-new-cold-war-brewing-in-space
arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/relativity-space-reveals-its-ambitions-with-big-nasa-deal/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiana_Space_Centre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_social_unrest_in_French_Guiana
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(2010–2019)#2018
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Future_launches
youtube.com/watch?v=WpSEcTgIUiE
youtube.com/watch?v=vi2iFCQTS-s
teslarati.com/spacex-activate-south-texas-launch-site-late-2018/
spacenews.com/musk-offers-more-technical-details-on-bfr-system/
iz.ru/news/619896
iz.ru/680261/dmitrii-strugovetc-anastasiia-sinitckaia/ilonu-masku-otvetiat-soiuzom
spacenews.com/orbital-atk-sees-commercial-satellites-as-top-growth-area/
youtube.com/watch?v=OX2-qEC7P_I

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

Attached: bfr.gif (1.28 MB, 1100x899)

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

youtube.com/watch?v=Fp0WgodhR7s

cum2soon
cum2soon

methane engines are so pretty

Methshot
Methshot

Looks like BFR will use fluted core composite panels for the overall structure. spintechllc.com has received an order for a 30m trapezoidal mandrel for SpaceX.... 30m is the size of the main tank section

compositesworld.com/articles/smart-tooling-cuts-time-and-risk-for-complex-unitized-composite-structures-production

spintechllc.com

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110010005.pdf

Attached: Screen-Shot-2018-03-20-at-10.29.20-PM.png (310 KB, 2164x1094)

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

is the one on the right russian or chinese?
t.brainlet

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

that's BFR, the SpaceX bigg rocket. Methane engines, two stages, 150t to LEO capability, fully reusable (the stages have landing legs and land ass-first)

SniperGod
SniperGod

same guy, another question
does fluted mean air will pass through it and the flute directs air for lift? or something similar?

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

its a rocket u brainilet
no it doesnt have "lift"

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

it does allow for some pathways if a tank leaks, but that's not the main benefit

it can be optimized to efficiently take compressive launch loads and vented to prevent hydrogen buildup.
the skirt is a co-cured, unitized carbon fiber/epoxy laminate construction, so there are no adhesive bondlines that could degrade at -253°C cryogenic test temperatures
Subscale fluted-core components created during the coupon and joint-testing phase were shown to be stronger in shear and end-loaded compression, and were more damage-tolerant than conventional honeycomb designs

the two links there are good info, plus compositesworld.com/articles/nasaboeing-composite-launch-vehicle-fuel-tank-scores-firsts

Attached: 1.jpg (20 KB, 450x375)

TechHater
TechHater

lift, thrust, same difference

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

I like how SpaceX makes their shit look aesthetic. SLS looks like a childs toy, is it too hard to repaint the ugly ass orange on an unlimited taxpayer budget? And all the Blue Origin offerings looks like fucking dildos.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

elon did force the spacesuit team to make it look "badass"

Attached: ixHIWpINCRkcv-29pW-gjC9LgSFcn-fnZDyriykSydE.jpg (99 KB, 768x768)

Soft_member
Soft_member

does fluted mean
"Fluted-core" is a fancy way to say it's built like a cross between corrugated cardboard and an I-beam: flat inner and outer layers, and supports between them.

viagrandad
viagrandad

50 bucks says they don't have that many windows on the final BFS

cum2soon
cum2soon

YOU'RE GOING IN MY COLLAGE BOI

..but you are probably right. Windows a shit, it's not like they're going to be doing manual docking ever.

oh hey, check out this new B5 pic. Fancy unpainted CF interstage

Attached: XEeAhRa.jpg (1.53 MB, 5184x3456)

Bidwell
Bidwell

They need the windows so people will be excited to ride in it. You can't sell people transportation tickets if they hate the ride. Windows are fairly expensive and heavy on aircraft as well, but they put them in so people don't feel like they're sealed in a coffin.

likme
likme

Its funny for Block 5 looks like 1.0 from 2009.

Attached: Falcon-9-fit-check.jpg (170 KB, 400x600)

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

Remember, this is only a (partial?) pressure suit, not a space suit.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

still leagues better than Boeing's

Attached: 2017-boeing-blue-starliner-spacesuit-suit0117-0.jpg (289 KB, 1600x1000)

Methshot
Methshot

It's a flight suit. That means it's there to protect the lives of passengers if the atmosphere of the capsule leaks out or becomes poisonous, rather than being meant for space walks. It'll work in a total vacuum.

TreeEater
TreeEater

All the best parts of hydrogen and kerosene exhaust!

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

he doesn't realize the SpaceX one is a cosmetic outer shell!

Attached: laughing-witch.gif (994 KB, 500x375)

Skullbone
Skullbone

Not EVA suit, i would like to see SpaceX take on that because Mars certainly needs EVA.

Attached: d5290ec45567de8e5b865cebba9e5377.jpg (683 KB, 1111x1024)

Emberburn
Emberburn

methane engines are so pretty
Also it's natural gas, not methane.

Emberfire
Emberfire

it's been tested to vacuum bruh, it's the final design for their suit. SpaceX has hired ex astronauts for feedback and design help with it

SniperGod
SniperGod

it's been tested to vacuum bruh, it's the final design for their suit. SpaceX has hired ex astronauts for feedback and design help with it
It is, indeed, a flight suit. An EVA flight suit will be much bulkier since it will need to carry its own life support systems, not just keep the air where it's needed.

SniperWish
SniperWish

closest thing we have to that is what the artists drew in for the BFR presentation slides. low chance that they're based in reality, but still

Attached: Screen-Shot-2018-03-20-at-11.27.39-PM.png (2.2 MB, 1976x746)

RavySnake
RavySnake

just about anything would be better than exploring mars as pepsi man

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

ah, I thought you were implying it was simply shirtsleeve clothing.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

No one gives a shit about the ride, anyone going to Mars knows they are in for several months of isolation in a metal tube.

The tickets will sell themselves because the destination is fucking Mars.

RumChicken
RumChicken

That's what I said.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

for reference

Attached: paojku4c7umr0j1bcdon.jpg (510 KB, 3188x1046)

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

That doesn't change the fact that the SpaceX suit has a cosmetic outer shell, and that's what you can see in that picture of it. The SpaceX suit looks better because they cover the functional suit with something that has no purpose but to look good.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

You said "this is only a (partial?) pressure suit", like you didn't understand it was designed to keep the wearer alive in full vacuum.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

That was a different user, actually. The outer suit is mostly cosmetic, though. The pressure suit is an under-layer.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

source?

from what I saw orbital outfitters / ILC Dover both had small parts in the suit design. 99% sure it's not a "cosmetic outer shell" lmao

Emberburn
Emberburn

What?
Do you even know what a pressure suit is?

SniperGod
SniperGod

it's not a "cosmetic outer shell" lmao
So why does it looks like normal clothes? Where are the couplings for the air supply?

They wanted it to look good, and a pressure suit either looks like long underwear with big seams and hoses or baggy cover-alls with hoses, so they put another layer on top of the pressure suit, just to look good.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

I know what "partial" means. Stop playing this stupid game.

FastChef
FastChef

BFR
You guys don't actually think this is going to be a thing, do you? Please don't, otherwise this board is an even greater joke than I originally thought.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

is it too hard to repaint the ugly ass orange on an unlimited taxpayer budget?
Enough paint to cover up all the orange would probably weigh a couple hundred pounds. Not painting it increases payload slightly.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

This haha spacex are such a meme lol!
They are going bankrupt next year anyway so who cares about them Musk's best bet is selling to big companies like Boeing.
Feelsgood being European and laughing at amerifats h-haha, r-right?
EU money + Russian tech = america btfo!

Nojokur
Nojokur

Isn't it already orange because they paint it?

Soft_member
Soft_member

Are there any hints anyone else is working on large reusable vehicles? It feels like a lot of people are sleeping or praying.

RavySnake
RavySnake

aesthetic as fuck

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

AESTHETIC

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

But why exactly a vacuum suit shouldn't work in open space?

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

Pressure suits generally don't have environmental controls built in, which means that if you are in the Sun you cook, if you are in the shade you'll start to freeze.

You'll survive a short time, but they're not for EVA work.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

New Glenn, Ariane is developing methane Callisto for next rocket, Energia is studying to make Souyz 5 reusable.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

It is insulating foam not paint look up first shuttle mission it had painted foam over the tank

Emberfire
Emberfire

rocket doesn't create lift

Attached: flat,750x1000,075,t.u1.jpg (35 KB, 750x1000)

Firespawn
Firespawn

I think that aesthetic is lame. Same thing with a lot, not all, of the Tesla design. It is very cheap-90s-sci-fi.

SniperGod
SniperGod

comfy and practical

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

that suit is pure JUST

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

It‘s either going to become a thing or Elon is going to go bankrupt trying to make it one.

DeathDog
DeathDog

Ariane won‘t be reusable. ESA is confident in the fact that EU will still force all kinds of satellites onto their rocket no matter how comically overpriced it becomes in comparrison.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

BRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAPPP

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

Get on my level.

Attached: shuttle-comparison.png (21 KB, 588x1000)

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

Landing a rocket booster ass first
You guys don't actually think this is going to be a thing, do you? Please don't, otherwise this board is an even greater joke than I originally thought.

whereismyname
whereismyname

how to annoy an aerodynamicist

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

Fundamental difference between SLS at left, and the Blue Origin and SpaceX ones at right: reusability. Since the SLS is not reusable, it only makes sense to use it for the huge payloads for which it is designed. But we can only afford to have one of those payloads every one or two years. Thus the whole system's cost is swamped by overhead due to low launch rates.

The New Shepard and BFR when reusable can scale to any size payload, so it can fly more often. That reduces the costs just as much as the ability to reuse the cores.

Techpill
Techpill

"The way God and Robert Heinlein intended."

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

McDonnell Douglas DC-X says hi.

SniperGod
SniperGod

Good grief he’s pretending to be dumb can’t you tell? He’s taking the piss on that BFR denier a few posts up

New Armstrong, but that’s way down the line

WebTool
WebTool

No shit dumbass, I'm just mocking him for being a retarded fanboy.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Let's talk about large launch vehicles!
let's use a picture that doesn't feature any of the HLLVs that have actually succesfully launched!

saged blocked swatted reported to the nsa

DeathDog
DeathDog

future LLV's lad

eGremlin
eGremlin

I didn't know Orbital ATK was making a large launch vehicle

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

heh

Attached: big.png (1.39 MB, 2100x1212)

Nojokur
Nojokur

Where we you few years ago when that comment was everywhere ????

Supergrass
Supergrass

For anyone who doesn't get the joke: those post office trucks are made by Northrop-Grumman which now own Orbital ATK.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

To talk about actual super heavy lift vehicles, NASA has started looking at comerical sources for Lunar landers since Trump wants them to land on the Moon.

nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/nasa-courts-commercial-options-lunar-landers/#more-55492

On the other side, Russian is said to be working on their own Super heavy vehicles with by progressively creating larger and larger rockets until they have a super heavy in the 2030s. Some proposals use the Soyuz 5 as a basis while some others use Angara or Energia as a basis. Neat stuff.

russianspaceweb.com/rockets_launchers_2010s.html

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

Calling those people retarded for thinking a rocking landing on its tail is impossible when it had already been proven to be possible.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

Forgot image.

Attached: lv-strategy-2017-1.jpg (95 KB, 730x548)

MPmaster
MPmaster

russia unfortunately just won't be able to to anything with their tiny space budget. Combine that with the loss of proton commercial launches and the switch of the US to comm. crew, and it's not looking good for the future of the Russian space program.

happy_sad
happy_sad

Yea, sadley. But it's still interesting to read about. Hopefully they can get fly back boosters to work. on Angara.

w8t4u
w8t4u

all of those kazak scrap collectors will go out of business!

Attached: sj9.jpg (85 KB, 600x394)

Inmate
Inmate

I thought they started cleaning up the downrange at Baikonur? Plus aren't they working on a Baikonur replacement in Russia?

TreeEater
TreeEater

Yeah the Russia pad is operational, I think they’re going to gradually phase out baikonur eventually. But the new launch site can only do Soyuz at the moment iirc

RavySnake
RavySnake

At least they aren't crashing rockets into villages like China. Is there any indication that serious work is being done on the Long March 9?

Attached: main-qimg-5cf28a57dfb359bc19f7d4bca569513a.png (209 KB, 602x771)

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

They’ve got to figure out long march 5 first. It’s not like they have anything that has to launch on 9

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

Wouldn't it be easier to just have high-def display panels instead of actual windows?

Illusionz
Illusionz

To look at what? During takeoff and landing you’ll be facing the wrong way

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

China and Russia are building real rockets meanwhile america is buying russian engines and even with that they can't get one to fly...

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

you live under a rock m8? ULA is likely picking a BO engine for Vulcan, and meanwhile SpaceX is churning out over one Merlin per day. Sure, AR-1 is dead in the water, but that was a silly engine anyways

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

Video screens are no substitute for windows. Think of any vacation you've been on with beautiful sights, compared to looking at a youtube video on your computer. Besides, the field of view is far larger through a real window, since you can move up close to it and move around to look at different angles. The screen will always just be a picture on the wall, and will never feel the same as looking at something directly.

AR-1 is dead in the water
ULA is likely picking a BO engine for Vulcan
It's not really up to them. ULA is 100% dependent on the US government for business, and 100% subservient to its parent companies. If ULA had the choice, they've have fully committed to Vulcan and gone with BE-4 long ago. However, their only customer is undecided whether they'll let Jeff Bezos in on the pork and let Aerojet be cut out, and the parent companies are only funding development of the obviously-uncompetitive Vulcan on a quarter-by-quarter basis.

On top of that, unlike Aerojet, Blue Origin is an entirely unproven company. They've never flown hardware on an orbital launch, or brought hardware into routine production or routine use. The BE-4 is an engine of a type and size entirely outside their experience (BE-3 is a tap-off cycle engine, which is a variation on the gas generator), to be produced on a scale outside their experience. The US government does not want to get stuck depending on this, nor do the parent companies want to risk the total humiliation likely if it turns out to be a bad choice, or let ULA be dependent on a competitor (BO's main goal for BE-4 is to make their own rocket, better in every way than Vulcan).

The Atlas V's RD-180 is heavily based on the RD-171 used on the Zenit rockets, where the bugs in the technology were worked out over decades before being reliable enough to be attractive to Lockheed Martin. It's typical for a new engine to have some failures, and unlikely BE-4 will be comparably reliable out the gate.

takes2long
takes2long

And after BO backtracked on their promis to ULA not to bid on nat sec missions, ULA might not want to work with them on anything...

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

ULA
relevant

Firespawn
Firespawn

ESA maybe beginning slow "development" work on reuse

lol
What a buncha clowns
SpaceX landed their first rocket years ago
And hell, those test water "landings"showed that the idea of landing a rocket was perfectly sound.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

monitors are 4k now and increasing fast
It's already well past the point where you can see individual pixels

It may be inferior but it IS a substitute

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

Yeah Falcon is using Russian engines or is not a real rocket.top kek

girlDog
girlDog

ULA fucked up big time by trusting that kike Bezos, he's more likely to hike the engine prices than Russia are, purely to put ULA out of business. I can't believe that Lockheed/Boeing/Rocketdyne cannot make a better rocket engine than a bunch of suborbital nobodies. The guys who built the legendary F-1 and RL-10 beaten by the guy who owns an internet shopping website, is this reality?

cum2soon
cum2soon

quarter by quarter funding a shit

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

ULA is not an independent private company like SpaceX or BO
They can't just "do things"

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

monitors are 4k now
It's still just a picture on the wall, not even close to being the same thing as a window.

Illusionz
Illusionz

oh noooo bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/there-s-a-new-cold-war-brewing-in-space

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

there isn't enough room for my bulge

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

fuck those look good, even if it's a terrible pic

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

desu I think moonsuits will be like the ones in moonbase alpha, where it locks onto an airlock and you climb out through the back. don't want moondust getting in habitats

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

hooooooonk

Attached: 8fdHWJk.jpg (42 KB, 720x960)

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

He hey, I drive there on my way to school

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

and so they deserve to fail

RumChicken
RumChicken

Turns out when you funnel all your gubmint cash into private yachts, 1000 dollar bolts and entertainment expenses there isn't much left to spend on rockets.

idontknow
idontknow

Falcon 9 already lands ass first

Snarelure
Snarelure

arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/relativity-space-reveals-its-ambitions-with-big-nasa-deal/
The Terran booster will hit what the company believes is a sweet spot between smaller rockets under development by Rocket Lab (and others) and the much larger Falcon 9. It has a planned capacity to deliver 1,250kg to low-Earth orbit and a per-launch cost of $10 million.
Terran cost per kilogram 8000 USD
Falcon 9 cost per kilogram 5695 USD with 10,886kg to orbit (structural limit)
Doubt.jpg

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

What they are aiming for, the same with Rocket Lab and other small boosters, is favorable time windows for launch.

Smallish payloads on a Falcon 9 cost a lot, because you're paying near full price of the rocket and wasting a lot of its potential, so the best idea is to rideshare, so you have to wait for a suitable payload to hitch a ride on, which can mean delays and loss of income, or delays in income, before you get your payload into orbit.

Small boosters try to get around this by having booster available for these single small payloads at a reasonable price companies can get their shit into orbit sooner.

It's not all about the cost per kg ratio. A Falcon 9 launching a 1,250kg payload wouldn't give you a 5695USD per kg ratio.

RumChicken
RumChicken

As others have said ULA itself has its hands tied. It's the bastard child of a vary nasty Lockheed-Boeing shotgun marriage.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

AR-1 is not off the cards.
The BE-4 still hasn't been chosen, and there's still questions on if BO can bring it to market in time for Vulcan.
The biggest problem, though, is that the AR-1 is getting built because Aerojet were told to. Not because it was needed for a rocket. If ULA doesn't pick it then it could be completed without a buyer lined up, and that's just plain retarded.

BE-4 still hasn't done long term, full power tests (as far as I know) and ULA wants to recover and reuse the engines from their first stages on the Vulcan and the BE-4 hasn't even done an orbital insertion launch and reentry so they can properly check wear. SpaceX and NASA found wear on the Merlin engine that could just as easily be still to be discovered on the BE-4.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

10,886kg to orbit (structural limit)
Stop posting this idiotic meme. Some moron has jumped on a line in a SpaceX payload guide which describes two standard payload adapters, and then gone around claiming that the limit of the larger of the two is a hard limit on payloads to any orbit for the Falcon 9/Heavy family, even though the same guide specifically says that heavier payloads may be accommodated as a special service.

That's all it came from: one clown who misread a brochure, and then didn't want to admit he was wrong when the error was brought to his attention. Falcon 9 does not have a "structural limit" of 10,886 kg to orbit. I doubt there's ever been a rocket that's been structurally limited to a payload lighter than the rocket's performance can take to orbit. The claim makes no sense from an engineering perspective.

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

BE-4 hasn't even done an orbital insertion launch and reentry
BE-4 hasn't even done an insertion-length burn on the ground.

Soft_member
Soft_member

Spacex will be launching crew dragon tests without life support I wouldn't put it past them to have 10 ton hard limit on their rockets.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

Spacex will be launching crew dragon tests without life support
Posting wrong, stupid shit that dumb people actually believe is the lowest form of trolling, especially on a science board. You think it's, "Ha ha! He thinks I'm an idiot!" when in reality, you're just a different kind of idiot, no better than the kind that believes it sincerely.

Attached: pretending-to-be-retarded.jpg (26 KB, 349x642)

cum2soon
cum2soon

it is a hard limit for reuse, and since spacex is obviously not going to fly many more expendable f9 now that fh is a thing there's no reason to develop bespoke payload adapters and bigger fairings for the nearly nonexistant amount of >10t payloads that exist.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

10 tonnes is about what they can currently do to LEO with flyback to land, downrange is more like 13 tonnes. With Block 5, it may be up to 14 or 15 tonnes.

The price is also going to go down, perhaps dramatically, as reuse matures. So far, reusability has been basically experimental rather than economically significant. They've been landing lots of rockets, but reflying few. Block 5 is intended to be reused after only being inspected, rather than refurbished and requalified. They've talked about launch prices in the neighborhood of $10 million.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

So far maximum launched payload of Atlas V is 7,492 kg (Cygnus), Proton-m is 6,740 kg (Viasat 1), Falcon 9 is 9600 kg (Iridium NEXT).

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

LOL you have no clue what you are talking about. Ariana serves almost exclusively privat customers, while SpaceX is living off overpriced government missions, because there are not that many privat companies who are paying the company that almost always produces at least a partial failure that much money.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

I wasn't pretending I was quitting a high ranking politician with close ties to the aerospace industry.

Supergrass
Supergrass

SpaceX won virtually every contract that could have flown on either Falcon 9 or Ariane 5 until new customers were going to the end of a line that stretched off beyond sight, then ArianeSpace started winning some again.

It's not just the price, it's also the fact that with SpaceX, a satellite can be built in and launched from the USA without crossing any borders or oceans. ArianeSpace launches from a remote French colony overseas from any decent country, surrounded by political instability, and with a troublesome indigenous population.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

iwasjustpretendingtoberetarded.jpg
I wasn't pretending.
No kidding.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

almost always produces at least a partial failure
What universe are you living in bro?

Booteefool
Booteefool

Give me 1 (one) example of there being any issues with korpulu spaceport or french guiana in general as it relates to launches actually being affected.

King_Martha
King_Martha

January: Top secret government satellite gets lost in orbit
Feburary: Core of falcon heavy had to little fuel and exploded, while the payload was left in a wrong orbit

I wonder what failure SpaceX is going to produce next?

farquit
farquit

January: Top secret government satellite gets lost in orbit
Why do you believe military?

Attached: 1453358433880.jpg (14 KB, 640x626)

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

Are you serious?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiana_Space_Centre
On 4 April 2017, the centre was occupied by 30 labour union leaders in the midst of the 2017 social unrest in French Guiana, but was taken back on April 24, 2017.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_social_unrest_in_French_Guiana
On April 3, 2017, as rocket launches from the Guiana Space Centre was suspended, "Europe's first high-power, all-electric satellite", Eutelsat's Eutelsat-172b, was returned to the Airbus factory near Toulouse until further notice.[12] Additionally, the launch of the $625 million ViaSat-2 internet satellite, scheduled for April 25, was postponed.

5mileys
5mileys

SpaceX won virtually every contract

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ariane_launches_(2010–2019)#2018

literally one government contract (James Webb telescope)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Future_launches

more than half of the contracts come from NASA and Air force.

Inmate
Inmate

January: Top secret government satellite gets lost in orbit
The only official word on this matter is that Falcon 9 did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Feburary: Core of falcon heavy had to little fuel and exploded, while the payload was left in a wrong orbit
That was only a failed landing of a prototype core that they had no intention of reusing (the next Falcon Heavy core will be based on Block 5, with more advanced features for reusability). Reminder: other companies don't recover their rockets at all.

The payload wasn't "left in a wrong orbit", it was a test mission with no exact target orbit and they wanted to see how much performance they could squeeze out of it after a six-hour coast. They got more than the minimum goal performance, so they sent it out as far as the asteroid belt rather than only as far out as Mars.

Techpill
Techpill

At this point, the question becomes: are you the kind of idiot who believes stuff this stupid, or are you the kind of idiot who thinks pretending to believe stuff this stupid is in any way clever? Frankly, the latter sort is even more pathetic.

literally one government contract (James Webb telescope)
NASA isn't the world's only government agency that orders launches.

WebTool
WebTool

unironically responding to shill arguments

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

I lived there during those events and the instigators of the movements are not ready to start again, their movements is splited up and people are fed up with how they acted.

Now with how Ariane 6 is going to be it's certain that they are going in the wrong direction.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

Stop. Replying. To. Idiots.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

A legit question not idiot related.
If the BFS is to be used for manned flight before full life support is implemented, are there any issues in just shoving a dragon inside it?
I'm asking for a friend interested in a quick moon fix.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Its simpler to attach Dragon to BFR rather than BFS.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

That would be a bit silly. How it would work is you launch heavy equipment and the lander on BFR, then launch people on FH to get into moon orbit. Then you dock with the lander which was released from BFR in moon orbit and land on the surface. Everything else gets directly brought down on BFR.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

BFS? do you mean BFB?

it’s BFB and BFR, officially

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

Big Falcon Ship, upper stage.

farquit
farquit

The reusable ship not the booster.

viagrandad
viagrandad

Ah. Well, I don’t think the life support system will be too difficult for spacex, after the hell they went through with dragon 2. Life support scales nicely anyways (just look at the design docs for SkyLab for instance)

massdebater
massdebater

If the BFS is to be used for manned flight before full life support is implemented, are there any issues in just shoving a dragon inside it?
Why would it be used before "full life support"? Life support is just about the easiest thing to do on a manned spacecraft.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

It's that precisely the overly complicated architecture that the BFR+BFS is meant to avoid? Separate landers, command modules, etc seems quite the opposite of what its brute forced simplicity is supposed to be.

If what said regarding the life support difficulty then things could be even better. Sacrifice one on the moon and you've got a moonbase with the volume of ISS.

hairygrape
hairygrape

it's that
Isn't that*
Fuck me.

Techpill
Techpill

there is also the situation where NASA astronauts heading to a SpaceX lunar outpost want to fly on a crew rated ship. But yes, I think that the moment crew BFR is flying dragon will be shitcanned

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

I wonder how much it would take for Chinese and Russians to make own BFR copy, Buran was ready three years after Columbia.

Emberburn
Emberburn

China is well behind. Also, even accounting for their underground economy, Russia's economy is the same size of Italy's (also accounting for their rather large underground economy lol). They're not capable of pulling off a big, bold project like this, especially with all of the corruption.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

They all also aim to copy Orion Program with SLS, but if BFR launches successfully they would scrap their plans.

RavySnake
RavySnake

I got to meet the ignoble awardees who calculated the underground GDP of Italy. Funny people.

russia will never do anything beyond fat Proton clones and R7 derivatives until the end of time, unfortunately. China will likely develop an all-liquid ~75% reusable vehicle between FH and BFR, but even then I don't see the flight rate being that high. What the heck are they going to launch with it? There's only so much space hardware you need to put in orbit before you get to the point of needing a big space station or moon base, which are things I don't think China will see as useful uses of money

RumChicken
RumChicken

Chinese want Moon base and manned Mars landing to 2040s.

FastChef
FastChef

China lacks expertise and Russia lacks both expertise and money.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

some news

The American Leadership in Space Technology and Advanced Rocketry Act (ALSTAR or “all-star”) is favorably reported by the science committee on a voice vote.
damnit

FY2018 omnibus gives 20.7b to NASA
p. good, except it includes a SECOND FUCKING MOBILE LAUNCHER FOR SLS, COSTING $350,000,000, EVEN WHEN NASA SAID THEY *DIDN'T NEED IT*. But since it's in the budget, they HAVE TO BUILD IT. Fucking corruption all around, holy shit

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

muhstar act
Shelby and kin are desperate. What's next. Snipers?

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

BTW where Musk is going to get money for Big Fucking Launcher, because this thing is two times heavier than SLS.

Attached: ML-picture.jpg (130 KB, 847x1047)

iluvmen
iluvmen

SpaceX is frugal af, I'm not worried about their money

as for erecting bfr, SpaceX will just use a bigass crane

hairygrape
hairygrape

bigass crane
This fits?

Attached: SSCV-Thialf-in-Rotterdam.jpg (2.59 MB, 3000x4000)

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

probably something like that. the plan is to land BFB on the launchpad and land BFR next to it. then you lift BFR with a crane and plop it on BFB. Fuel both up, and launch again

Methnerd
Methnerd

Closest possible crane is Liebherr LR 13000 which lifts 3000 tons and reaches 144 meters.

Attached: liebherr-lr-13000-working-position-mammoet-usa-motiv1-portrait.jpg (181 KB, 840x1200)

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

this thing is two times heavier than SLS.
Not even close, when it's being transported to the launchpad. SLS uses solid-fuel rockets, so they have to be transported at fully-fueled mass. BFR will be stacked dry on the launchpad, so the crane will never have to carry more than about half of the mass of one SLS solid booster. A launchpad and associated equipment isn't going to cost more than a couple hundred million (comparable to a stage).

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

Lol.

Attached: c1l0Wly.jpg (2.12 MB, 3888x2592)

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

This is several times more weight capacity than is needed, but it does show that a tall enough mobile crane is available off the shelf. More likely they'll use a stationary crane and a purpose-built transporter-erector.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

plus, SpaceX has experience rebuilding three entire launchpads by now. Their GSE team is top-notch

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

We might need an expert commission to study this problem.
How does 400 million starting budget for the barebones analysis on the issue sound to you? I think it's pushing it financially but if work is done very efficiency it could fit with reasonable additional funding.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

built in Huntsville, of course

Illusionz
Illusionz

I struggle to see how this is better than honeycomb, but hey ho.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

Apparently max capacity decreases with max reach, this is probably only crane in world than could get job done.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

no need for a massive autoclave, can just use oven curing
easy to make: the core inner components are assembled into a space frame that becomes the mandrel for the inner face layer—after the inner face layer is spun out, then the trapezoidal mandrels are applied, and then the outer face layer is woven. Once all is finished, the large piece is cured
stronger overall

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

Video shows assembly challenges which is going to face BFR.
youtube.com/watch?v=WpSEcTgIUiE

w8t4u
w8t4u

an empty BFR is still gonna weigh like 100-150 tons

They don't need a mobile crane, I expect them to build a permanent fixed one near the pad, that was what was in their "ISS design" CGI after all

Bidwell
Bidwell

1) It has a 3000 ton capacity, and for BFR they're never going to have to move even 300 tons. BFB will only be moved when empty (filled on the pad, it won't have a higher empty mass than BFS has with payload), BFS will only be moved with empty tanks (max payload is 150 tonnes, empty mass is ~75 tonnes).
2) This is only the tallest self-propelled crane. There are many taller and higher-capacity stationary cranes. Only a stationary crane is needed (to lift BFS on top of BFR). Other than that, they don't need to lift them up from above to high places, they can just be grabbed and held up from below.

iluvmen
iluvmen

spacex does everything horizontal though. still a big challenge, but not nearly as infrastructure intensive

likme
likme

dry mass is 85t per the BFR presentation slides. Quite doable with a large crane

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

They won't for BFR. But anyway, it's not going to be like Saturn V, an expendable rocket from the dawn of spaceflight, half a century ago.

Playboyize
Playboyize

source?

Methshot
Methshot

That they won't for BFR? At least watch the fucking presentation on it, or at least the youtube cartoon of it flying. They show it being integrated vertically.

TreeEater
TreeEater

on the launch pad, sure. That's a feature of the reuse. But it won't be rolled out vertically

RavySnake
RavySnake

Is there any leaked info on how well the raptor development is actually going? And don't quote me Elon, I don't believe a word he says.

WebTool
WebTool

It won't be rolled out integrated.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

Oh i get it, propellant is heaviest part, it will weight about 235 tons with max payload.
Engineering kino

Attached: d191327e52631d81c397a3b4cf8806ed.jpg (917 KB, 1280x1668)

DeathDog
DeathDog

The chief mars development engineer at spacex said at his recent mit presentation that it’s going well

JunkTop
JunkTop

When I said Elon, I also meant any person that is working for him.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

Lol so you just don’t believe anything spacex as a whole says? Talk about delusional.

Bidwell
Bidwell

Have you got a source for that information?

I'm not doubting you, I'm just interested.

DeathDog
DeathDog

the NASA paper explains a lot of it

girlDog
girlDog

Crazy how 1.0 looks so stubby now.

farquit
farquit

youtube.com/watch?v=vi2iFCQTS-s

takes2long
takes2long

Putting NINE engines in the first stage without it shaking apart
You guys don't actually think this is going to be a thing, do you? Please don't, otherwise this board is an even greater joke than I originally thought.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

Thumbnail literally made me think this was a dildo thread.

Evilember
Evilember

What the heck are they going to launch with it?

I'm sure if the SpaceX satellite internet fleet works out, China will want one of their own to extend the Great Firewall.

SniperGod
SniperGod

not if it will just be for china; a handful of GEO birds would be needed rather than 15000 LEO birds

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

GEO satellite internet wouldn't serve the same purpose as SpaceX's Starlink, which is low-latency, high-bandwidth, serving an unlimited number of customers, and also functioning as a backbone with latency advantages over the global fiber network.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

Profit, selling shares, and borrowing. Plus he doesn't need all the money upfront and can just raise yearly installments. Several hundred million a year for several years will add up. Eventually the first orbital BFRs will come online and rack up savings.

viagrandad
viagrandad

Finishing SLS costs more than just giving SpaceX a billion dollars or so to build an expendable upperstage for the BFR booster, resulting in a cheaper more performant launcher.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

BFS is a shell. The inside is a space station module. We've been doing space station modules for decades now, we've got the tech figured out. Take the innards of a Bigelow module, which Bigelow developed for a few hundred million or less and which SpaceX can easily create themselves, and stuff it inside the BFS shell instead of an inflatable and you have a long duration crew transit vessel.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Well, BFS will need innards which can put up with re-entry g-forces and it will need to be suitable for humans to ride out re-entry. There will be a few novel problems to making, for the first time, a large, long-term flight habitat which can also land.

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

It is a small problem, the natives are relatively disorganised right now
Our gendarmes will make short work of them!
We are ready, monsieur, to launch your payload at your pleasure

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

They saw no need to innovate when they were just riding the government pork train

happy_sad
happy_sad

Where is BFR's launch pad?

They either need to stop using 39A so they can rebuild it right away or they need to stop building their Texas site, tear it all down and start from scratch with a larger design if they really want to launch in 2020.

Attached: Untitled2.png (1.47 MB, 1280x1464)

likme
likme

They are testing the spaceship first. It's thrust level is in line with a Falcon 9, so they will probably be building a Falcon 9 sized pad at Texas for it in the next year and half. They won't need a full sized pad for the full BFR rocket until 3-4 years or so.

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

BO is run by old space retards who are building stuff well before their rocket is ready
SpaceX is not

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

Its thrust level is much less than Falcon 9.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

Most of BO's staff are ex-SpaceX/NASA types who were tired of getting ripped of in pay and hours.

Methnerd
Methnerd

That doesn`t contradict his statement.

Snarelure
Snarelure

SpaceX isn't "old space."

SniperWish
SniperWish

Just from taking a single look at their leadership, the president and director of BO started his carrer at and worked a siginificant time for NASA, so exactly what I would call old space.

Supergrass
Supergrass

He took charge in 2017, long after they started working on their pad and factory, and as far as I can tell he was never a NASA employee.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

He was Program Manager at BO before that, and worked for NASA at JSC from `85 to '97.
We are talking about Rob Meyerson, right?

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

I thought you meant Bob Smith but Rob Meyerson isn't exactly "old space" either since he literally ran rocketplane kistler for awhile which was way before SpaceX or Blue Origin's time

WebTool
WebTool

it's in Texas. they are currently waiting for the ground to settle down before pouring any concrete. a SpaceX fan bought a house next-door to their facility there and set up a webcam.... you can track the progress if you want. they brought in some cranes recently and laid down fiber

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

it's in Texas
Source? Last we heard it's still only a f9/fh pad and that bfs "grasshopper tests" might be flown there

TechHater
TechHater

God damn working for SpaceX must be cool as fuck. The woman of my dreams works as a Human Resources manager for SpaceX and she recently married a guy who works as a lead engineer for SpaceX, and they’re both my age.

Man, maybe I could have been working for SpaceX by now if I had finished high school back in 2006 and gone to college. Instead I’m phoneposting on Veeky Forums as a 29-year-old, unemployed, high school drop-out friendless virgin loser.

Maybe SpaceX might hire me as a security officer. Oh, no, wait, SpaceX’s security officers apparently need some experience in the military. Damn. Never mind. I only have one month of experience as a mall cop.

JunkTop
JunkTop

Stop being a cuck, my dude.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

teslarati.com/spacex-activate-south-texas-launch-site-late-2018/

correct, the hop tests will be in Texas. dunno about orbital tests though

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

Wouldn’t I have to be married first and have my wife taken from me to be a cuck?

Flameblow
Flameblow

BFR won't exist so it doesn't need a launchpad.

TreeEater
TreeEater

thanks for padding out my collage lad

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

bfr won't exist
(You)

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

BFR will fly beforw New Glenn
Not sure who is saying that.
Why is it even a competition between BFR and New Glenn? NG was started well before BFR was.

Booteefool
Booteefool

the funny thing is that NG is supposed to compete with FH, not BFR
this is probably a scheme to make BO look ahead of spacex, when they're actually quite far behind

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

NG was started well before BFR was.
BFR will fly first.

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

BO setting up a bunch of basic facilities SpaceX has already had for years
"New Glenn Launch Pad"
only called that because they don't have any other orbital rocket to launch, and none planned before New Glenn
"So where's SpaceX's 'BFR Launch Pad' then, eh?"

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

No, it's the color of the foam. Same reason the Delta IVs are orange.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

my face when it actually does fly before NG

Attached: 4899497.jpg (32 KB, 400x400)

SniperGod
SniperGod

how is that collage coming along now, anyways?

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

new SpaceX facility in LA

Attached: 012bg95hefw01.png (145 KB, 727x400)

Playboyize
Playboyize

Hehe... All the old space blueys in this thread. Sorry, the game is over before you've even begun.

Firespawn
Firespawn

Shit, BO are so fucking slow. I thought the Launchpad was nearly finished but it's still just a hole in the ground. SpaceX only spent $100 million renovating SLC-40 and Blue apparently have already spent over $200 on that hole in the ground. Also nobody ever said that BFR would fly before NG, but with this pace BO are apparently trying to prove them wrong; also building another Launchpad is a bit of an afterthought for a company that already has 3 active pads, they could probably modify 39A to support the BFR but Elon wants to land the booster on the launch mounts because he's obsessed about rapid reusability, which is something the NG will not be capable of.

WebTool
WebTool

Where he is going to land BFS? On drone ship?

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Actually i prefer the sls and i love big orange tanks

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

No BFS would also land at the launch pad next to BFB. Waiting for a drone ship to bring your spaceship back isn't exactly "rapid reusability".

Illusionz
Illusionz

Elon wants to land the booster back on the launch pad so the BFR can achieve airliner level reusability (I'm not completely sold on it personally). On the other hand, the NG will be drone-ship only due to it's low thrust output negatively effecting payload margins.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

it’s pretty great

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

The BFS goes to orbit, the drone ship is for a booster not using a "boost back" burn so it travels in a parabola out 600 miles

Since it goes to orbit, it can deorbit right back where it started(or anywhere else along its orbit)

Spamalot
Spamalot

If NG had a reusable upper stage, it would land back at the pad too, simply due to physics

Bidwell
Bidwell

7 Raptors, 4 vacuum optimized 3 sea level optimized, each with roughly twice the thrust of a Merlin 1D.

That's ~1.5 times the thrust of a Falcon 9 first stage. The older design from 2016 would have the upper stage with a thrust greater than the Saturn V first stage.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

*2 sea level and one medium, plus 4 vacuum

Evilember
Evilember

No, three medium and four vacuum, medium expansion ratios are still capable of firing at sea level on Earth, they're just not optimized for it like the ones on the Booster stage.

3 medium 4 Vacuum.

Flameblow
Flameblow

spacenews.com/musk-offers-more-technical-details-on-bfr-system/

He added that, since the presentation last month, SpaceX has revised the design of the BFR spaceship to add a “medium area ratio” Raptor engine to its original complement of two engines with sea-level nozzles and four with vacuum nozzles. That additional engine helps enable that engine-out capability, he said, and will “allow landings with higher payload mass for the Earth to Earth transport function.”

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

The engine thrust dropped roughly in proportion to the vehicle mass reduction from the first IAC talk. In order to be able to land the BF Ship with an engine failure at the worst possible moment, you have to have multiple engines. The difficulty of deep throttling an engine increases in a non-linear way, so 2:1 is fairly easy, but a deep 5:1 is very hard. Granularity is also a big factor. If you just have two engines that do everything, the engine complexity is much higher and, if one fails, you've lost half your power. Btw, we modified the BFS design since IAC to add a third medium area ratio Raptor engine partly for that reason (lose only 1/3 thrust in engine out) and allow landings with higher payload mass for the Earth to Earth transport function.

This is Elon's original leddit comment, he says they added a third medium area ratio engine, and during the presentation he also said the two landing engines on BFR were medium area ratio. The second stage of BFR never had sea level optimized engines. The author of that article was misinformed.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

$10 says that the next talk of BFR has it get downsized AGAIN to a 70t reusable, 150t expendable variant.

w8t4u
w8t4u

tmyk

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

Mueller is going to speak at the International Space Development Conference, he'll likely give a raptor update there

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

The second stage of BFR never had sea level optimized engines.
I think "medium area ratio" does mean sea-level optimized. The bigger the nozzle, the higher the performance, but overexpanded nozzles at sea level get thrust instability that can cause not only a loss of directional control precision, but destruction of the engine.

Underexpanded nozzles (low area ratio) are an option to reduce mass and cost, and make the engine more compact. Usually reserved for special purposes (though I've seen them in some concepts for extreme low-cost rockets). Example: SuperDraco engines.

MPmaster
MPmaster

i kinda wanna see it

SniperGod
SniperGod

What's asteroid mining?

For some reason nobody likes to acknowledge the fact that the end goal of increasing the accessibility of space is for sovereign nations to colonise asteroids to mine that few miles quintillion dollars worth of rare metals that are in near earth asteroids and that is the lifeblood of the trillion dollar electronics and semiconductor industry. Also, the next world war will take place in Space.

Retards who say there arent much things to put in space or that travelling to space is worthless would have said also said the sand thing about the first exhibitions to the New World.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

Unlike SLS, BFR aims to be highly reusable, so they won't need to build a half a billion dollar rocket everytime they launch something to deep space.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

*entirely reusable

Spamalot
Spamalot

For Elon money is legitimately just a means to an end, the end being Mars obviously. For example, he recently had a bust up with Lori Garver (some ex-NASA bigwig) who caused a shit storm by putting him and that guy named Jeff in the same category by saying they were both in it for the money, he got really angry and sperged about it. But you're right, the exact mindset you described is likely the one the aforementioned bald guy has; you can tell from the way he talks that he knows fuck all about rockets or space but just sees another market ripe for exploitation and monopolisation, even Blue Origin's business practices suggest he's trying to kill competition e.g. patent-trolling and likely bribing government agencies.

Bidwell
Bidwell

Well they'll need to prove it first.

DeathDog
DeathDog

Well we are running out of many rare earth metals that are necessary for the creation of semiconductors, MRI machines, mobile phones, things that run the modern world. Eventually prices will hit certain thresholds which will make it economical for space miners to harvest these metals. I don't believe for a second that Bezos isn't aware of the huge opportunities in asteroid mining and pretty much monopolising Space. He doesn't just throw money at things just because he feels like it. He expects a huge financial return like the cryotokike he is.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

we are running out of many rare earth metals
No we're not. They're abundant, we're just trying to avoid mining them because it's environmentally unfriendly.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

No we're not. They're abundant, we're just trying to avoid mining them because it's environmentally unfriendly.
also we could just mine landfills for a lot of that crap if we really had to, until then

obsolete?!? INTO THE TRASH IT GOES!

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

muh asteroids

we have access just in the crust of the earth, far more resources than the entirety of the asteroid belt
Most of which is fucking ceres too

asteroid mining is almost totally a meme

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

And because China subsidized the shit out of their own rare metal mining
Plus the communists took over Africa to deny rare metals to the west

girlDog
girlDog

Asteroid mining will be good for some very rare elements, like gold and the platinum-group elements. They're hard to get on Earth because they're dense, and therefore mostly sunk to the core. The deposits in the crust are from meteors, and there are more where those came from.

farquit
farquit

it was a mistake to get rid of operation plowshare. large mining operations would be so much easier

viagrandad
viagrandad

Maybe
But most of the mass of the asteroid belt is in a few large "planets", it'll be a long time before anyone is drilling towards the center of them

Methshot
Methshot

Why would it be? The pressure doesn't rise as you go deeper into it. You can dig as far as you want without any supports, and once you've broken it up, you can move huge masses with very little force.

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

Also space solar collectors that give unlimited free energy 24 hours per day.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

SLS won't either and it didn't stop NASA from building the launch tower
....crooked

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

I don't mean to scare you, but literally every building is crooked to some extent.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

The difference between China and western countries is the fact that China doesn't see the thorium by-product of rare-earth metal refining to be a problem, whereas in the west it's regulated as nuclear material and makes essentially any business plan dead on arrival. China doesn't have any reason to treat thorium as anything other than what it actually is, a slightly radioactive heavy metal that cannot undergo fission. They literally pile all the thorium they make in a pit quarry and bury it.

FastChef
FastChef

Shit, my house is crooked too. Had a bowling set when I was little and would set it up in the upstairs hallway. The floor was so sloped that it was basically an automatic ball return.

Supergrass
Supergrass

Step aside manlets.

Attached: Boeing-Space-Freighter.png (293 KB, 1542x960)

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Attached: image49.jpg (105 KB, 1000x773)

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

Attached: image3.gif (77 KB, 1211x885)

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Attached: image1-607x1024.gif (100 KB, 607x1024)

Lunatick
Lunatick

Attached: 89868-900.jpg (122 KB, 900x713)

Snarelure
Snarelure

Attached: 1518317221317.png (435 KB, 1066x600)

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

a man can dream

TechHater
TechHater

Its not orange, the material becomes orange when exposed to oxagen, making it a new material would be making a completely new design

JunkTop
JunkTop

Childhood is praising Apollo.
Youth is liking Soyuz LK.
Adulthood is understanding LK700 makes more sense.

Attached: lk-700.jpg (109 KB, 1065x600)

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Attached: comparison-newx.jpg (108 KB, 935x1400)

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

Why is BFR so aesthetic compared to BO and SLS?

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

No bizarre colors.

Attached: iss-bfr.jpg (414 KB, 1867x1068)

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

UR-700
This looks like something a new player in KSP would attempt to make.

Lunatick
Lunatick

Soviet rockets were most kerbal of all.

Soft_member
Soft_member

They've basically been trying to build a bigger version of the Proton for the last 50 years after the N1 failed.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

Attached: IMG-6046.jpg (283 KB, 2600x1300)

hairygrape
hairygrape

That's because Russian rocket tech is 50 years ahead of the american one.

Playboyize
Playboyize

Sure...

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

Russia: basically no progress since the 70s. Have never reused a rocket.

America: decades of partially-reusable rocket experience. Flying back rockets for reuse, working on fully-reusable, airline-like rocket.

The shuttle may have been a bad performer economically, and dragged out long after its experimental value was exhausted for political reasons, but it was still more ambitious and advanced than anything the Russians or Soviets ever attempted. (and no, Buran was not comparable, mere superficial imitation without comprehension, and it only flew once, unmanned, so no reuse was demonstrated, and the recovered spacecraft was entirely distinct from the launch vehicle)

Bidwell
Bidwell

Energia and Baikal were planned to be reusable but abandoned.

Attached: back-1.jpg (64 KB, 642x480)

hairygrape
hairygrape

The Zambian space program also had plans for reusable rockets which were abandoned.

The Soviets had two tricks: abduct Nazi scientists, and accept stolen technology from American traitors. The Russians have only one: continue Soviet programs poorly.

Methshot
Methshot

Baikal is not completely dead.
iz.ru/news/619896

iz.ru/680261/dmitrii-strugovetc-anastasiia-sinitckaia/ilonu-masku-otvetiat-soiuzom
Also Soyuz 5 is in study for recovery of first stage, but Russia is decades behind USA technically and financially, they still make engines for American Atlas V and Antares.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

paper rockets were planned to be amazing
but...

Emberfire
Emberfire

If SpaceX and Blue Origin fail in producing reusable rockets, we need to leave rocketry and start approaching non-rocket space travel or else the space age will never come. There are completely doable concepts out there like the space fountain or the launch loop that would reduce cost of traveling to space so <5$/kg. Sure the projects would be very, very ambitious and expensive, but so were the railways, and like those these new infrastructures would lay ground to completely new economics (space economy, mining asteroids, etc.)

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

The Antares engines come from the Ukraine, not Russia. They are produced by Yuzhnoye. That's why there's no controversy over their engine supply like there is over Atlas V's.

Atlas V uses Russian (NPO Energomash) engines because the US government pressured US aerospace firms to find ways to give business to post-Soviet aerospace firms, in order to prevent Soviet engineers from going abroad and selling their services to the highest bidder. It was just welfare. Now that priorities have changed, they're in the process of ending it.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

Regardless of SpaceX or Blue Origin failing, reusable rockets will remain the best approach.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

Antares uses RD-181 from Energomash in Russia as well.
spacenews.com/orbital-atk-sees-commercial-satellites-as-top-growth-area/

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

as much as i admire Korolev, this is depressingly true

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

We have spent ~60 years and trillions of dollars on building rockets without producing a real breakthrough, non-rocket concepts deserve a shot.

Lunatick
Lunatick

Sorry, you're right, my mistake. Antares does use Russian engines.

This is nonsense. SpaceX's flyback boosters aren't a breakthrough? The same approach isn't plainly applicable to recovery of upper stages? The problem with rockets isn't fundamentally technical, but that they've been seen primarily as nuclear missile technology, and therefore private enterprise wasn't given free rein until the turn of the century. As soon as the relevant regulatory agencies were given legally-binding direction that their role was to enable, not inhibit, private orbital launch enterprise, the game was completely changed and progress became rapid.

Booteefool
Booteefool

Driving down the cost from ~5000$/kg since our first big rockets to ~3000$/kg really is no breakthrough. Unless they build rockets that can fly 100 times without additional investments, rocketry will never be able to start the space age.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

Spaceplanes are the answer. That or simply wait for antigravity.

Spamalot
Spamalot

The economic benefits of reusability haven't been felt yet. Falcon 9 booster reuse has only been experimental so far. The Block 5 booster (the first of which is currently in the final stages of pre-flight qualification) is the one intended to be reusable without refurbishment.

rockets that can fly 100 times without additional investments
That's the plan for BFR.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

Antigravity powered airplane spaceships running on renewable eco and space-friendly biofuel.

Once in space they deploy solar sails and use the solar wind the travel around the solar system.

happy_sad
happy_sad

There are a lot of plans. The Falcon 9 was planned to be reusable without refurbishment, but it isn't. Now they are planning that for the Block 5 and the BFR. And after those won't be able to either, they will plan it for the next rocket. Question is how much time and money are you going to throw down that hole.

massdebater
massdebater

Is it a hole though?

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

The Falcon 9 was planned to be reusable without refurbishment, but it isn't. Now they are planning that for the Block 5
How fucking stupid can you get? Block 5 is still Falcon 9, which was always going to be an expendable-to-reusable evolving design. It was never planned to be reusable without refurbishment out the gate, it was always going to take revision to get there. First they were going to work out how to recover the stages, then with that established, they were going to learn how to reuse the rockets. They're right on the intended track.

And after those won't be able to either
"SpaceX will never get to orbit."
"SpaceX will never build a medium-lift rocket."
"SpaceX will never build a space capsule."
"SpaceX will never be able to launch GEO comsats and compete on the commericial market."
"SpaceX will never recover a booster intact."
"SpaceX will never build a heavy-lift rocket."
"SpaceX will never make booster recovery reliable."
"SpaceX will never reuse their recovered boosters."
"SpaceX will never build a super-heavy-lift rocket."

SniperGod
SniperGod

Falcon 9 and the failed promises surrounding it are essentially proof that the concept of rocket reusability is dead. No, I'd go further and say it is proof that rocketry itself is the core issue and until we accept that time and money will continue to be wasted for nothing.

Intelligent posters have already realized this. Why can't you?

WebTool
WebTool

The economic benefits of reusability haven't been felt yet.

Because there aren't any, at least for the customer.

. Falcon 9 booster reuse has only been experimental so far. The Block 5 booster (the first of which is currently in the final stages of pre-flight qualification) is the one intended to be reusable without refurbishment.

Block 5 isn't reusable without refurb, there's still going to be at least ~6 weeks between each reuse, which is at least a lot better than the current 6 month refurb period.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

What you think is happening: you're pretending to be an idiot, and therefore are actually clever and funny.

What is actually happening: you are an idiot. Not exactly the same kind as you intend to appear as, but at least as stupid.

TechHater
TechHater

Falcon 9 and the failed promises surrounding it

What failed promises? It is the cheapest launch vehicle on the market and that is even without routine reuse, which is only scheduled to start sometime this year. You are writing complete nonsense.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

Because there aren't any, at least for the customer.

If there are economic benefits for the launch provider (and there definitely are), then it is only a matter of time until there are economic benefits for the customer, too.

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

Block 5 isn't reusable without refurb, there's still going to be at least ~6 weeks between each reuse
Going to need a source on that, chum.

Anyway, they're not going to just land the first one and put it right back on the launchpad. It's a new version, they're going to inspect and test it very thoroughly to see if it's working as intended. Then they'll gradually reduce the amount of inspection and testing between uses. There may still need to be some small changes to achieve reuse multiple times without refurbishment, but Block 5 is meant to be the last major revision of the booster.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Going to need a source on that, chum.

the fact that spacex themselves never claimed to be designing block 5 to be reusable without refurb

If there are economic benefits for the launch provider (and there definitely are),

nope, refurb and storage costs eat pretty much any savings from reusability. right now all we've seen is higher launch cadence, which is great but doesn't get spacex any closer to being competitive on lucrative national security and larger gto payloads.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

the fact that spacex themselves never claimed to be designing block 5 to be reusable without refurb
That would be a delusion, not a fact.

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

that's right; you are delusional, now go back to your r/spacex echo chamber before you get BTFO again kiddo

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

Consider how low you must evaluate the value of your own time, and by extension the value of yourself as a person, to feel like you've accomplished something by mildly annoying random strangers and making them think you're an idiot. It says that you are satisfied with achieving the relevance of an insect. If I ever realized that I had sunk that low, I think I would kill myself. Did you know that it can be done in a simple and totally painless manner with a helium balloon kit?

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

the fact that spacex themselves never claimed to be designing block 5 to be reusable without refurb

That does not mean it will take six weeks. You need to define what you mean by refurb if you want to make that claim, and again, source it. "Refurb" can mean anything from one day to multiple months.

nope, refurb and storage costs eat pretty much any savings from reusability

Bullshit. While the details are not public, it was said by Elon that even the first refurbished rocket was significantly cheaper than building a new one, and the cost will likely fall with the technology maturing. And there is no technical reason at all why refurbishment should be more expensive than building a new stage, quite the contrary. You are making a very strong claim here, so again, better source it.

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

now go back to your r/spacex echo chamber

Ha, you wish. I shall go back to nasaspaceflight.com, but only after you gtfo back among your idiotic commies at /r/enoughmuskspam and cease shitting up this board with your diarrhea

u mad that a billionaire capitalist is pushing spaceflight forward, in complete negation of your moronic ideology? you sure are kiddo

WebTool
WebTool

I don't hate SpaceX or anything. I'm following them since 2008 or so. And I can well remember Elon promising us instant cost cuts in the range of the factor 10 to 100 as soon as they can land a rocket. Here is also a video from 2011 where SpaceX promotes the original Falcon 9 as fully reusable:

youtube.com/watch?v=OX2-qEC7P_I

Plans for the Block 5 etc. only came much later. And I highly doubt that some incremental changes are going to change the number of reuses from 1 to 10 or so.

And now there is also the fact that SpaceX has developed an engine design for over a decade, with which they have years long experience, know all strengths and weaknesses of it, and have perfectionised to a degree that they are by far the cheapest launch company on the market. This engine is called the Merlin engine (and all its iterations), and now they are just throwing it away and are designing a new one from scratch. Why are they doing this? This does not make any sense at all. This can only mean that they are fundamentally convinced that with the Merlin engines a great number of reuses is simply impossible, and they need to design a new engine from scratch, hoping that with this new design the "tear and wear" on the engine is less severe. This new engine is the raptor engine. SpaceX developing it is 100% signaling they don't believe the Falcon 9, or any iteration of it, will ever reach reusability.

I'm not saying that the Raptor engine will not be reusable, maybe it will. AFAIK nobody ever build such an engine. However, you also obviously can't say that it most definetely will be reusable. It remains to be seen. If it fails again though, then how many times are we going to try it before looking for other ways to reach space?

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Why are they doing this?

They are doing this mainly because Merlin is too weak to support a large superheavy launch vehicle, and you need a superheavy if you want to reuse both stages, because it significantly eats into payload mass, more so that reusing only first stage. Larger rockets have both significantly larger payload and more importantly, larger payload fraction. There is a size cutoff below which reusability is not viable. Falcon is big enough for first stage reusability (and again, routine reuse is only planned for this year with block 5), however it is not large enough for complete reusability. Even New Glenn is only going for reusable first stage because of this issue. BFR is the only completely reusable design currently.

Falcon is a mere proof of concept, it definitely benefits from reuse but only moderately. BFR is the rocket designed from the ground up for routine, fast and complete reuse.

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

And I can well remember Elon promising us instant cost cuts in the range of the factor 10 to 100 as soon as they can land a rocket.
Total bullshit. He was always talking about the ultimate potential, not the immediate benefit.

Here is also a video from 2011 where SpaceX promotes the original Falcon 9 as fully reusable:
That is obviously not "the original Falcon 9". That is a concept video for an advanced Falcon 9 derivative. By the way, they're still planning to do F9 upper stage recovery experiments, but they decided that BFR will be here soon enough that it's not going to be worth the investment to fully develop upper-stage reusability for F9/H.

I highly doubt that some incremental changes are going to change the number of reuses from 1 to 10 or so.
Why? They've tested the engines on the stand for the equivalent of over 10 flights. The reason they haven't reflown a stage more than once is that they've only done a few experimental reflights, and wanted to make the Block 5 changes before pushing for more extensive reusability.

now they are just throwing it away and are designing a new one from scratch. Why are they doing this? This does not make any sense at all.
Only because you haven't bothered to listen to the reasons for building BFR and Raptor, but instead decided to make your own ignorant guesses. And yes, improved reusability is part of the reason: they aren't going to be satisfied with 10 reuses before refurbishment, they want hundreds. But they also want higher performance, ease of in-space propellant storage, reduced variety of refillable fluids, reliability that can be counted on years after initial launch from Earth, ease of propellant production on Mars, etc.

Beyond the technical reasons are the organizational reasons: should they just fire their engine development team? Have them go to work for a competitor? Keep them around, but bore them by never letting them do anything new?

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

Payload mass is not so important for cost cutting. The only thing that really matters is reusability. If they had an engine they are 100% confident that it can reach dozens or hundreds of reuses, they would start developing space ships that can be assembled in space and simply fly there a couple of times and build it there. Assembling things in space is not that hard, we already did it with the ISS.

Elon also said numerous times that the priority in the development of the raptor engine is reusability, not payload. Their primary motive behind the raptor is 100% hoping it is more compatible with being reused, heavier payload only comes second.

likme
likme

This can only mean that they are fundamentally convinced that with the Merlin engines a great number of reuses is simply impossible,

it isn't impossible to get lots of reuses out of a merlin engine, but it is impossible to get lots of reuses without rebuilding them after every one or two flights. i doubt raptor will be any better in this regard, there isn't a magic solution to stop turbopumps from being damaged/destroyed by the engine being cycled.

Emberfire
Emberfire

That is obviously not "the original Falcon 9". That is a concept video for an advanced Falcon 9 derivative. By the way, they're still planning to do F9 upper stage recovery experiments, but they decided that BFR will be here soon enough that it's not going to be worth the investment to fully develop upper-stage reusability for F9/H.

The video clearly depicts a fully reusable Falcon 9, which SpaceX failed to deliever. And once the BFR fails to deliever, they will put out a new CGI video repeating their promises.

Flameblow
Flameblow

Payload mass is not so important for cost cutting.
Payload mass has to be adequate for the intended purpose, or reusability is meaningless. On top of that are inherent scale advantages in rocketry: the control systems are fixed mass regardless of rocket size, there are square-cube law advantages for being able to insulate the tanks and have them be tolerant of imperfections, reduced relative interaction with atmosphere, etc.

Assembling things in space is not that hard, we already did it with the ISS.
Skylab was 77t, went up in one launch, had a pressurized volume of over 350 cubic meters, and had enough wide-diameter (~6m) space for group zero-g acrobatics.
ISS is 420t, went up in many launches, required a great deal of astronaut labor to assemble, has a pressurized volume under 1000 cubic meters, and all internal spaces are constrained to narrow diameter (~3m).

This despite decades of progress in material science and experience with manned spaceflight. Modular construction is far less efficient simply launching what you need all in one piece. The ability of the BFR upper stage to serve as propellant depot, passenger launch vehicle, LEO space station, interplanetary transit habitat, Mars/moon lander, and Mars/moon return vehicle is a huge advantage, entirely aside from the ability to launch 8m diameter payloads up to 150t.

SniperWish
SniperWish

I was talking about reuse without or with only very little refurbishment.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

So you're back to aspiring to the relevance of an insect?

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

Elon also said numerous times that the priority in the development of the raptor engine is reusability, not payload. Their primary motive behind the raptor is 100% hoping it is more compatible with being reused, heavier payload only comes second.

Only because BFR is so large that they can afford it. Falcon 9 with reused upper stage would struggle to lift 10 tons to LEO. Falcon 9 is simply too small for complete reusability, that is the main reason why it will not be pursued.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

They've said they can get a good payload with a reusable upper stage on Falcon Heavy. They're not doing it because it's better to invest those resources in BFR.

You've got to consider the organizational factors as well. If they build reusable upper stages, what do they do with their factory workforce? Planning big layoffs isn't how you get a loyal staff who believes in what you're doing and does their best for you.

For BFR they're planning a much bigger vehicle, and also planning to grow the market so they'll want to keep building more and more stages, even though it's fully reusable. BFR's intended to make the leap from the high-value satellite market to the point where human space travel is routine and affordable, comparable to intercontinental flight.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Raptor engines are almost 50% bigger than Merlin engines. On a 7m diameter rocket you could fit probably around 40 merlin engines, instead of 31 raptor engines. So you would end up with a payload to LEO of around 40 tons for the reusable version, instead of 150 tons for the BFR.

takes2long
takes2long

LMFAO just put more engines on there XDDDD

Attached: 1492494081794.png (53 KB, 600x656)

idontknow
idontknow

that's literally what the falcon heavy is.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

Raptor is twice the thrust of a Merlin (900 kN vs. 1900 kN)

you would need 62 merlins to equal 31 raptors

and on top of that people in this thread keep forgetting the main methane advantage - ability to produce it in situ on Mars or elsewhere in space

Merlin based Mars architecture is just not viable, period

cum2soon
cum2soon

They should have went with LH2 engine.

massdebater
massdebater

the main methane advantage - ability to produce it in situ on Mars
That's a significant advantage, but not the main one. The two biggest reasons are low fuel cost and the ability to achieve higher chamber pressure with a full-flow-staged-combustion design, besides that, it's important that it's self-pressurizing (eliminating the helium system), easy to ignite (making spark ignition possible), and that it can be stored without freezing or boiling at the same temperature as liquid oxygen (simplifying thermal management for propellant storage in space).

Merlin based Mars architecture is just not viable, period
No, it could still work. They'd need some other changes to the rocket, like using nitrogen instead of helium to pressurize the fuel and purge the lines, but a kerosene-like fuel can still be synthesized on Mars. If nothing better occurs to them, they can do biodiesel from microbes fed hydrogen and co2.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

nah, LH2 engine is no good because you need very low cryogenic temperatures, and it has lower density and great boil-off

almost all performance you gain with higher specific impulse you lose with heavier stage needed to keep hydrogen happy

methane is in the sweet spot between kerosene and hydrogen, an ideal fuel

Soft_member
Soft_member

A: Merlin engines are clearly good enough for 10+ launches no problems, because they have demonstrated that with static burns. If regulations and range limitations didn't exist, SpaceX would have done far more extensive tests with boosters
B: The Raptor will be better in every way, thrust to weight, reusability, cost of fuel, fluids used, higher Isp & Thrust, etc
C: SpaceX doesn't want to be chained to the problems and limitations of their first try budget vehicle, F9 is not the vehicle that will take Man to the moon.

massdebater
massdebater

F9 is not the vehicle that will take Man to the moon.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a moon landing launched with Falcon Heavy.

JunkTop
JunkTop

Who is going to pay for that ? Every foreign country with a space program worth talking about has their own rockets they want to promote, and NASA is still doing the SLS

BFR will be here within 3 years, which is nowhere near enough time for a government financed moon landing program to occur.

Nojokur
Nojokur

Unlikely unless major changes are done to NASA. Rockets really were never the limiting factor. It was the desire to do things.

viagrandad
viagrandad

BFR will be here within 3 years
Even SpaceX isn't saying "within 3 years".

You know what they could do faster than BFR, that would contribute to the development of BFR? A 5-meter-diameter mini-BFS that launches on top of Falcon Heavy, either as an upper stage or as a payload, and possibly a stretched FH upper stage tanker, with rendezvous and docking capability, to transfer a payload of oxygen or methane to the mini-BFS.

They've already basically got the software and sensors they need for the mini-BFS to land on the moon with a SuperDraco package. Likely, they could instead use the lox/methane thrusters they're building for BFR to land. An orbitally-refuelled 1-Raptor 5-meter stage would have enough delta-V to take a loaded crew Dragon from LEO and land it directly on the moon, and still have enough to launch it directly back to Earth. Or it could land a B330 Bigelow inflatable habitat one-way on the moon surface.

With reuse of all boosters, the cost of a mission could be as low as $200 million, with development costing under $1 billion, and a moon base established before the next presidential election.

5mileys
5mileys

The Raptor will be better in every way, thrust to weight, reusability, cost of fuel, fluids used, higher Isp & Thrust, etc

It also doesn't exist yet and its development might fail or take much, much longer than expected. This is why generally new engines don't get developed that often, it's always risky.

If Merlin was actually suitable for reusability they would be no need for such a risk. The BFR would simply have 50 Merlin engines on its ass instead of 30 raptors and would carry 120 tonnes to LEO instead of 150, but that would not be such a big issue. The issue is that the Merlin engine isn't suitable for reuse and they know it.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

Who is going to fund that, when you already have SpaceX funding and developing a BFS that will be able to do exactly that, fully reusably...

Also SpaceX would simply say no to NASA trying to fund and control their design process, they don't want to get locked up into another commercial crew program.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

but that would not be such a big issue
No.
30 tons less is quite an issues, both for the cost per kg, and further down the line for Musks Mars ambitions.
Also, Merlin uses RP-1 instead of the methane-based fuel that they want to use with Raptor, which brings with it its own kind of issues.
I know you need something to shit on SpaceX, but there are good reasons for developing a new engine.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

If all they had was a Merlin, and for whatever reason no oppurtunity for anything else was possible, then they would be very much able to do Lunar/Martian launches with Merlins

Maybe it would take a redesign, maybe it would take a larger Merlin 2, maybe it would take disposable Aluminum BFS's for travelling to Mars because producing Kerosene there was impossible...

But clearly the Merlins are good for burn after burn without any worry of engine failure.

Booteefool
Booteefool

Who is going to fund that
The Trump administration, if it wants spaceflight results to impress the public before the next election. Keep your eye on what happens after the Falcon Heavy starts flying routinely and SpaceX announces that Raptor is ready to put into production.

Okay, so in your model of the world, where nobody builds a new engine just because they expect it to be better in general rather than because the old one is a failure that won't do what it was supposed to, explain to me why ULA wants to build the Vulcan with the new BE-4 engine, rather than just continue flying the Delta IV with the proven RS-68 engine.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

The Trump administration doesn't dictate budgets and they are not going to die on the hill of significant NASA budget changes
Gotta also remember NASA would not WANT to do this, as it would involve firing thousands of NASA employees and cutting off NASA contractors.

likme
likme

Trump administration doesn't dictate budgets
They have a lot of say over how the budgeted money gets spent, and this is a relatively inexpensive plan. Can probably be slipped through without specific approval, under discretionary programs.

NASA would not WANT to do this, as it would involve firing thousands of NASA employees and cutting off NASA contractors.
You don't have to cancel SLS/Orion or ISS to fund a $2 billion program over 3 years. Anyway, NASA isn't all one group, it's a lot of people with different priorities.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit