Why is america so much better at technology than you Eurofags?
https://twitter.com/NASA?lang=en
nasa.gov/nasatv
>>51723643
>america so much better
>need soyuz just to get people to the ISS
k
eurofags btfo
>>51723742
/thread
>>51723643
>NASA
>uses hardware the company I work for make
Feels good man
>>51723780
Congratulations on the job at the toilet paper factory, Sanjeet! You'll be spreading this new technology to the homeland in no time.
>>51723780
do you make anti-gravity onaholes?
>>51723814
>toilet paper
Try PCIe-based interconnects
>>51723832
Congratulations on the job at the PCIe-based interconnects factory, Sanjeet! You'll be spreading this new technology to the homeland in no time.
>>51723643
I thought NASA wasn't able to send anything to space for 5 or so years.
>>51723742
Not for much longer.
It was the right decision to retire the shuttle program and focus on building the SLS and developing commercial vehicles for ISS missions.
>>51724292
Orbital and SpaceX have been launching unmanned resupply missions all along. They're just not rated for human flight, so we've been paying for Soyuz rides.
Boeing and SpaceX got the contracts for manned ISS missions, but it will be a while before they're ready to actually launch.
Meanwhile NASA is working on SLS+Orion for deep-space missions.
>>51723841
Kek
>>51724512
SLS is fucking cringe, I don't understand why nasa would be so stupid to do that
Do they just want to waste money?
>>51724572
It's better than the space shuttle, that hunk of junk killed more people than any other spacecraft, and trapped us in low-orbit for 40 years.
>>51724572
Yeah! What do those engineers and scientists with years of experience, data, and related information of spacetravel know about spacetravel!
Im'ma trust random-anonymous-guy on 4chan for REAL knowledge about how spacetravel should be done.
>>51724679
Dude hes played Star Citizen and that other rocket simulation game, he's a total pro.
>>51724640
>>51724679
Why can't those people at NASA just wait for Space X to land the fucking rocket?!?!?
It will be so much cheaper it unbelievable. Instead they are just throwing money away at 60s technology with a non reusable rocket that will just end up landing in the ocean.
Space X is too close, they need to just wait. Once they land the first stage and can refuel in a couple days, space travel will be revolutionized.
I mean who gets on a 747 and crashes it after they use it once? What kind of madness is that?
>>51724915
SO CLOSE!
>>51724915
>>51724915
>>51725074
>landing it successfully once is going to prove anything after N failed attempts
I wish /g/ would into statistics
Also
>implying NASA hasn't toyed with the idea many years ago but dismissed it as unrealistic
>>51725095
What about /sci/
>>51724915
Gonna be a long while before SpaceX gets the whole re-usable thing perfected.
Also SpaceX can't into deep space, and they already have a bunch of RS-25 engines lying around from the shuttle program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQu8EbCQeS4
>>51723643
>Why is america so much better at technology than you Eurofags?
>>51724362
>Not for much longer.
so, is america much better, or it isn't?
>>51725148
/sci/ is just arrogant /g/ that likes math slightly more.
It's just a contaiment board to protect /g/ from dumbasses that want others to help them with homework.
>>51725095
>dismissed it unrealistic
Well they ended up being very wrong.
Space X will have landed it successfully many times successfully in 2016.
Screen cap this post
>>51725148
Statistics isn't science.
>>51725186
You're very wrong.
Space X is gonna have a launch in about 10 days.
I will make thread
>supporting the money pit that is nasa
Only you dorks care.
>sending rocket to the orbit
you mean 1960 technology?
>>51725223
And I bet it's going to be another explosion, as per their plan >>51725093
Screen cap this post
And post it when you make the thread.
>>51725223
Also they plan on doing the boost back landing on a landing pad, not a boat.
>>51725300
The rocket engines of today are quite a bit more advanced than 1960s rockets. We do it for a lot cheaper these days, even without re usability.
>there are people ITT who unironically think the SpaceX re-usable rocket is anything but a PR gimmick to boost public interest for privatly funded space travel
>>51724915
Maybe the metal used to make the rockets is cheaper than the fuel so its more feasible for them that way.
IDK, I don't have the data, but they do, so they must know what they're doing at least more than I.
>>51725352
>it stills lands in the ocean at the end
Top kek
>>51725373
They've made it back to the pad, what three times now?
Blue Origin managed to do it last week.
https://youtu.be/igEWYbnoHc4
>>51723643
>Why is america so much better at technology than you Eurofags?
Because we are too busy being better at infrastructure.
>>51725387
Nah, those boats were quite a bit smaller than the land based landing pads. Getting back has never been an issue - one time they had a computer guidance failure for the RCS engines, and another time a landing leg broke.
>>51725401
>Because we are too busy being better at receiving refugees
Fixed
>>51725314
Will do.
Space X had a 100% success rate until that launch.
>>51725321
That is why it will work this time. Bezos just landed his in the middle of the desert and it worked.
http://youtu.be/9pillaOxGCo
>>51725401
Amerifag here, pretty true
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ0SgAU9LXI
>amerishits
>>51725423
>That is why it will work this time. Bezos just landed his in the middle of the desert and it worked.
That has nothing to do with why SpaceX hasn't been succesful so far.
Read
>>51725405
>>51725389
It's still a PR gimmick. The cost of a rocket is nothing compared to the total cost of a mission to e.g. Mars.
>>51725373
>rocket touches water
>all the electronics and many other parts instantly ruined, millions of dollars wasted
Yes, great idea, let's continue this.
>>51725438
>OMG OMG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ8jT3KIBIQ
>>51725405
I was talking about SLS and other non reusable rockets
>>51725462
That's not true.
The rocket engines are the most expensive part of the launch cost, by far.
Sure, payloads are really expensive when it comes to probes, but getting to LEO doesn't require really expensive stuff. The rocket engines, however, really are.
Do more reading, I'm sorry but you're really ignorant about the cost savings behind re-using first stage rocket engines.
>>51725470
See >>51725462
Reusable rockets only have a practical implication for short flights, i.e. launching a pod full of tourists into orbit for a few hours.
>>51725520
>Do more reading, I'm sorry but you're really ignorant about the cost savings behind re-using first stage rocket engines.
You've shilled into exaggerating the actual cost. See >>51725521
>>51725423
What image will you use for the OP of the thread?
I want to be able to find your thread when/if you make it.
Also, SLS still uses a solid rocket booster which is literally 1,000 year old technology
It's sad really
>>51725521
Reusable rockets have practical implications for every kind of launch.
If you can reduce launch costs to even 25% of what they were, that drops the price to orbit significantly per pound.
Once we get down to 100-200 dollars a pound, instead of 10000, then things really begin to change.
ULA is working on an upper stage that could be re-used as well.
>>51725539
No, you're just an ignorant fool.
>>51723766
>implying that it wasn't german scientists who dominated NASA at the time anyways
>>51725547
Yeah because they had precisely made ammonium percholorate that literally can melt metamorphic rocks 1000 years ago
>>51725563
This
>>51725545
Maybe this
>>51725520
Everything was going fine until after the UK.
>>51725563
>implying Wernher Von Braun didn't get all of his info from Robert Goddard
>>51725581
Thing is usually we have threads on /sci/ about it
But I think it's a good idea to post them here, more people on /g/ to educated
>>51725554
>If you can reduce launch costs to even 25% of what they were, that drops the price to orbit significantly per pound.
>Once we get down to 100-200 dollars a pound, instead of 10000, then things really begin to change.
Reusable first stage is nowhere near going to reduce the price to that level. The biggest factor isn't the cost of the rocket, but the cost of power (as in the rocket fuel).
>No, you're just an ignorant fool.
Your lack of any real argument demonstrates perfectly what's wrong with this board.
>>51725577
>2015
>still using solid rocket boosters waste of money scam
RIP euro space program Ariane 5
>>51725609
The two never met nor spoke, but everyone learned from Robert Goddard
>>51725619
>The biggest factor isn't the cost of the rocket, but the cost of power (as in the rocket fuel).
No. Fuel is fucking cheap.
See this official chart from United Launch Alliance.
>>51725635
Sold rocket boosters are cheaper and more reliable than liquid.
However, when they do fail, it's far more destructive.
>>51725595
>Everything was going fine until after the UK.
They introduced SJWs to spaceflight by sending a giant lipstick into orbit.
>>51725619
>cost of liquid fuel plentiful on earth
>liquid nitrogen and oxygen literally used in tons of industrial factories
is more expensive than,
>a fucking complicated really rocket engine?
Are you retarded my nigga, do you know how many man hours it takes to build that shit, and you think some liquid nitrogen is more expensive?
>>51725696
>>51725664
And they land in the water every time
>>51725713
>there is plenty nitrogen on earth
>there is plenty oxygen on earth
>therefore nitrogen + oxygen is cheap
Yeah, never mind the process of making the right mix is expensive and energy consuming as fuck, and has something like 30-40% of the energy being wasted
>>51725762
Still doesn't make it more expensive than a fucking Merlin rocket engine, not even close actually
>>51725762
That doesn't matter, the fuel is the cheapest component of the launch.
Matter of fact, because using re-usable stages increase fuel needs, they can use ever larger rockets for not much more money because you save 90% of the cost of the booster itself
>>51725812
>implying
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-NASA-pay-per-kg-for-hydrogen-and-oxygen-in-rocket-fuel
>>51725873
A few hundred thousand dollars versus literally millions for the rocket engines alone
>>51725893
/thread
>>51725893
>literally millions
Still wanna see source for those numbers
>>51725927
See above for the proportion of launch vehicle cost
The marginal cost of an Atlas V mission is like $160 million USD without the payload
That's not including launch pad costs, infrastructure costs, and other costs
nasaspaceflight.com
Start perusing, this isn't light reading
>>51725223
No it won't
>>51723643
Yurop invented rockets and America you just copy us all the time losers
>>51725977
No, you're right, the launch is scheduled for December 19th
>>51724362
The Shuttle was a piece of shit that should've been aborted years ago
SLS should have been ready to take over soon after the Shuttle retirement. Instead, there is a MINIMUM 7 year period without any space launch capability whatsoever
>>51725999
It's a little unfair to say the shuttle was a piece of shit. Sure it killed like 14 astronauts, but it was worth it. Probably.
>who is Von Braun
>>51725999
Some incorrect facts here
Shuttle yes should have been retired
The original plan was to use the Ares I and Ares V
It was never funded enough, and NASA has been corrupted by the reps and senators in the districts where the original NASA centers were to keep using those facilities
What happens is a terrible plan to force the use of shuttle derived tech where it doesn't make sense, and where it doesn't make sense is a simple rocket to LEO
They got behind schedule due to lack of funds/bad designs forced by politics, and it got shelved when Obama took office.
Obama let the Ares V live on as the SLS, they're almost identical in design. The SLS makes sense, and its marginal cost won't be too bad but NASA receives funding in a weird way. If they could get all the funding for the SLS program at once, they could have built it/designed a lot faster. However, they aren't allowed to go over budgets each year, so shit gets delayed when they run out of money or unanticipated things come up.
In comes commercial crew program, which will use Space and ULA/Boeing to send astronauts to LEO. Congress keeps fucking the funding for CCP and gives more to SLS, but not enough to make a different to SLS, whereas that money would have allowed us to launch CCP flights in 2015.
Instead, we'll be lucky to see them by 2019.
>>51726052
No it wasn't, and I"ll explain why in another post.
>>51725927
http://aviationweek.com/defense/aerojet-rocketdyne-targets-25-million-pair-ar-1-engines
>USA
>has sent men to the moon
>hasn't found cure for obesity and stupidity
>>51726118
>implying one can resist McDonald's
>>51726148
it tastes so fake though, how do americans actually eat that shit.
>>51726085
Sorry, I wasn't implying SLS was actually scheduled to take over earlier, just saying it should've been planned earlier
>>51725976
to bad it will probably never go above 5% again. We need a new space race, russia, get your shit together
>>51726052
Ok the shuttle was a piece of shit for these reasons:
I. NASA was facing immense budget cuts because of the vietnam war, and partly because Nixon hated JFK's space program.
II. NASA wanted to make sure they had a system that would let them keep as many of their centers as possible, and a system that would force congress to fund it for decades in order to keep costs down.
III. They came up with "reusability" as a way to get political power, but they lied about everything the shuttle could do, including how reusable it could become. Making it actually save money would have required 20+ flights a year under optimal circumstances. Those never even came close to happening.
IV. Part of the reason it also was shit was because NASA wanted to get the air force on board, and make all national security launches, satellite launches, and commercial launches took place on it, so NASA was able to convince the AIr Force to drop developmental funding in other launcher systems, at least until Challenger happened.
V. They lied about it's payload to orbit, it's estimated cost, how many flights a year it would need, and many other things. This is well documented in the Congressional commission after the program ended.
VI. Because it caused development for other rocket launch vehicles to slow or halt altogether, the US fell behind in Kerosene rocket technology by an entire generation compared to the Russians. We still haven't caught up, but it almost doesn't matter because our methane rockets we're going to start using soon are superior.
VII. Because it soaked up so much money - each shuttle launch could have been a mission to the moon, not even taking into account how cheap the Saturn V system would have been had we continued to use the Apollo Applications project - we are decades behind where we should be in space accomplishments.
tl;dr the space shuttle was shit.
>>51726199
Worst part is so much of NASA's budget goes to lining the pockets of Boeing, Aerojet, and ATK through cost plus contracts, and also keeping NASA centers that were made obsolete through technological advancements.
>>51726222
i'm not into the whole financing shit since i'm not from the US, but its just sad how far we could be if governments funded the right programs. Same shit for the EU, instead of dumping shit tons of money into ridiculous crap they should get their space program working...
Daily reminder that Buran was technologically and practically superior to the Shuttle, could run fully automated flights, and generated Energia, the most flexible launch system ever produced
Thanks USSR
>>51726211
So objectively the better choice between advancing the shuttle program or continuing using the Saturn V, was the Saturn V, and continue kerosene engine development?
And if that happened we'd have an SLS equivalent flying already I assume
>>51725352
Are they really? I read about the F1s being rebuilt and retested as they might use them on later SLS blocks.
>>51726318
>i'm not into the whole financing shit since i'm not from the US, but its just sad how far we could be if governments funded the right programs. Same shit for the EU, instead of dumping shit tons of money into ridiculous crap they should get their space program working...
The US total spendings on the war in Iraq could have funded something like 5 times the entire Apollo program (adjusted for 2015 inflation).
>>51726170
Fast food is as addictive as cocaine, but without the high.
>>51726375
The SLS is playing catchup to what the Saturn V could do with its first launch.
By now, we'd have brought launch costs down significantly, and likely integrated reusability at least with first stage engines using methane.
Look up Apollo Applications project for some things that almost happened in the 70s.
We would have used the Saturn IB, and it would have evolved as well to send astronauts to successively larger Skylab space stations, and likely even a skylab style complex at the L2 point.
>>51726392
Not going to happen because of lobbying and excessive acceleration for humans
>>51726344
to bad that except for the boosters and their engines (Zenit, RD170/RD171) nothing of that is in use today. i still hope that they restart the program, but i can't see that happening...
>>51726396
>The US total spendings on the war in Iraq could have funded something like 5 times the entire Apollo program (adjusted for 2015 inflation).
spaceflight has no lobby, roasting kebab has
>>51723643
But we all know that Russia is the only country that can launch people into space right now.
>>51726170
Salt, sugar, saturated fats and fast carbs
It's basically like crack cocaine for the brain. Your body is honed to go for days without food and having to starve through winter, which is why you crave this kind of high energy food. And that is also why the human brain sucks at determining when enough is enough, because it has evolved into optimising for "I may not get to eat in a long while"
>>51726462
Will do, nice insight
>>51726462
>Not going to happen because of [...]excessive acceleration for humans
I don't understand that. Why excessive acceleration? You could just shut one engine down once your tanks are empty enough or dump some R&D into them so they throttle lower
>>51726464
They aren't going to re-start it, Russia is investing into the Angara launchers.
Do you guys not realize how poor Russia is now compared to the USSR? They lost like 40% of their population to the soviet republics spinning off, are dirt poor because Putin and other crooks are stealing money, and their economy is in shambles.
>>51726490
Funny thing is if the US wasn't paying them, the Russians might not be able to afford to have a manned program right now.
>that feel when you put a ship in stable orbit but have no fuel left to bring it back
Our space programs could be way worse.
>>51726533
>tfw you deliberately underfuel the rocket so you're forced to run rescue missions
30% success rate kek
>>51726512
Even with deep throttling, as they get close to being empty the acceleration is just too much to be deemed safe.
It's highly likely we will never see the advanced Black Knight boosters ATK has planned either, just due to political bullshit causing the SLS price to skyrocket (hehe)
>>51726533
I don't have that problem
>>51724572
>>51724679
SLS was basically 'designed' by congress. Congress said "you have to make this rocket or fuck you."
>>Do they just want to waste money?
Congress wants to keep the shuttle job money flowing.
Now the biggest problem with SLS is not the design, but that the launch rate is so fucking low. Oh and as an additional fuck you, congress hasn't provided enough money to develop payloads for it.
>>51726518
they are investing into angara because they are cheaper.
>They lost like 40% of their population to the soviet republics spinning off
They still have most of the institutions/companys that gathered the enormous knowledge the soviets had though. A large population of mainly self sufficient farmers isnt worth much.
>are dirt poor because Putin and other crooks are stealing money, and their economy is in shambles.
I honestly don't know how they'll end up, but thats not entierly true. The fall of the CCCP fucked them up, but in the last decade or so they recovered. They are sitting on a shit ton of ressources and still have quite competitive scientific institutions.
>>51723766
>mars one, a dutch private project to be on mars by 2024
>nasa thinking about mars in the 2030s probably
american't btfo
>>51726575
>Even with deep throttling, as they get close to being empty the acceleration is just too much to be deemed safe.
Why did it work with saturn V then?
>>51726575
oi m8, what mods are you running?
>>51726574
git gud. Do you even do your delta V calculations?
>>51726600
What matters is tax revenue, and there was a fair amount of rocketry that came from Ukraine.
In terms of crooks, check this out:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/25/technology/russia-space-corruption/
>$1.8 billion disappears in Russian space program
>>51726624
>mars one
two kekzillions
Mars One is a meme, anon.
>>51726630
>Do you even do your delta V calculations?
Mechjeb does that, calculating all that shit by hand is just annoying...
not that guy, but i can really recommend the complete RSS pack
>>51726626
Because the Saturn V was staged differently, you only had 5 F1s, not 4 F1s + 4 RS-25s and lighter materials overall
>>51726630
USI
Near Future
SpaceY
Engineering Redux
KSP Timer
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement
Taurus HCV
AtomicAge
>>51726636
>and there was a fair amount of rocketry that came from Ukraine.
Well, they got the important parts of ukraine back now ;^)
>>51726650
i'd still do it, my life here is shitty anyways
>>51726650
if it gets there before you-ess-ayylmao, it'll be the greatest meme in history.
and it will, theyre fucking thinking about it now, in the present. sure, the astronauts are underqualified as shit, but ground control can just operate that shit remotely. all a stoner amsterdammer has to do is stick a flag on that bitch and america is done
>>51723643
Because of WWII and everyone agreeing that Germany shouldn't be allowed to build rockets.
>>51726671
no real scale solar system? and are you using ckan?
>>51726680
>>51726680
No, they really didn't when it comes to Rocketry.
Crimea literally was just a navy base
>>51726798
RSS was too buggy for me to bother fucking with, I actually don't play anymore.
I didn't use CKAN
>>51726805
that's why they got the donbass too...
Also what company from ukraine except Yuzhnoye is even still of importance?
>>51726824
it works quite well in the last version of the game, including all the other shit that usually comes with it like real fuels. stock game is to easy for my taste, all the rockets look like toys
>>51726850
These days? Right, but initially things were different.
>>51726866
I don't use stock parts at all basically, as you can tell. I did some advanced shit.
This >>51726671 was my orbital shipyard in Minmus orbit, and here >>51726575 is where I made parts and fuel. I used ships like these >>51726805 to go places.
It took so many hours to set things up, just got burned out after awhile.
>>51726898
still all the stuff feels too "small". 70km atmosphere, low velocitys... Also i really like the depth stuff like real fuels and RP0 add to the game
>>51726970
Yeah, that started bothering me as well. Thing is, the kerbals are small and you gotta keep that in mind.
RSS is fine for normal launchers and basic missions, but that bored me when I did RSS when it came out.
I've had KSP since the first demo.
Why is FINLAND so much better at technology than you ANYONE else?
>>51727056
why is that table so fucked up?
>>51725520
The UK rocket looks like lipstick.
>>51727178
>>51726170
Using give a fuck, it tastes fucking amazing you vegan homosex
America = burgers
I would eat two McDonald's cheeseburgers a day if I lived near it
>>51726636
>CNN
>Doesn't respect Vladimir
It all makes sense.
>>51726518
>>51726636
>They lost like 40% of their population to the soviet republics spinning off, are dirt poor because Putin and other crooks are stealing money, and their economy is in shambles.
you don't know shit about history. when the USSR fell, some people bought public companies for really cheap. THE SAME THING HAPPENED in the 90's, in MANY other countries. all of this promoted by the US, UK, and european powers.
putin even recovered some of those companies and jailed some of the fucks that became rich by stealing from the russian people.
>>51727337
You can go back to sucking billionaire cock now
>>51727196
I did like McDonalds when I ate unhealthy. I do not deny it may taste good, but now since my taste has improved it would taste not as good as the food I consume now.
The quality I have now is much better than fast food.
I also boycott all fast food chains on ethical principle.
>>51726636
also this >>51727286
>CNN in charge of "informing"
top cu-ck
>>51727365
He is right. It must feel bad knowing Russia makes the US look like shit.
>twf no big strong american to spurt freedom all over you
>>51727365
you know who are the ones sucking billionaire cocks? YOU
do you even know where those billionaires live, fucking retard? IN THE UK. do you know why? because that's where their business partners live and do businesses. go read a history book or just shut the FUCK up, you fucking retarded children
the US and the UK are the biggest exporters of poverty, corruption, terrorism, destruction and malice in the world.
>>51727415
>>51727415
>do you even know where those billionaires live, fucking retard? IN THE UK
forgot to mention: some of them will be jailed as soon as they touch russian soil.
>>51727445
>>>/a/ is your place, fucking manchildren.
do you learn history from your cartoons?
>>51727466
>>51727484
>Locutus !!dAbXwkVVtpz
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dAbXwkVVtpz%22
do you want me to dox you, retarded manchildren?
>>51727523
No need, come over to my Smartphone General threads
I don't care if you see where I shitposted on /ck/ and on /g/ as ResidentMacfag in the past at all
>>51727484
I wanna fuck her so bad.
