Invited: Space-fairing (civilized) countries
Not Invited: Earth-bound second class shitholes
How about that fucking landing? Also, Congrats to the Russians for yet another successful Progress launch with the MS-1 docking tomorrow. In other news, the Russian Engine ban was lifted, which is good news for ULA, and Blue Origin thinks they are tough shit.
>>52490669
Do you guys think Mass Effect 4 will be good?
>>52490704
Well since 2 and 3 are shit and it's still ea and bioware
No
>>52490704
They should have just let it die.
>>52490704
2 made me cum a lot so I hope so
>>52490758
>2
>shit
End self.
Congrats with falcon9 successful landing.
btw
>Russian Engine ban was lifted
What a point of buying RD-180 if Space-X's own engine get success? ("Merlin-1D" I believe)
>>52490669
WE
>>52491604
The RD-180 has higher thrust and better specific impulse. They would need multiple Merlin's if they wanted the same thrust as the RD-180. Also, SpaceX is ULA's rival. Why would you buy engines from your rival?
>>52491696
POO
>>52491696
>100% success rate of 10 fucking launches
Wake me when it's had 100s of launches with a 0 failures.
>>52492137
What, the PSLV-XL? Let me read up...
>3.25 Metric tons to LEO
>1.75 Metric tons to SSO
>144 feet tall
My fucking sides
>>52492137
it's more like 30 successful out of a total 32 launches
>>52492393
Well, the 22 prior launches were from the PSLV and PSLV-CA variants.
is staged combustion cycle the one thing the US has never been able to figure out from the Russkies?
>>52492689
Well, the SSME was a closed cycle. But yeah, it seems that most american engines are gas-generator cycle engines.
>>52491604
NASA and SpaceX will continue to develop thier own engines, but groups like ULA will buy Russian engines because they are more cost effective.
>just watch Interstellar yesterday on HBO
>wish we could just stop fighting with each other and invest our time exploring and sending people to space
:(
>>52490669
>australia literally does NOT have a space agency
why do you have stars on your flag if your country cant into space?
>>52493623
you can beat a country that have moons and stars
WE
WUZ
SPACE
m9
Quick update: New video from the Falcon 9 landing from a helicopter in the landing. Really shows how hairy that suicide burn was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBE8ocOkAQ&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
>>52490669
>fairing
Tyrone detected
>>52493795
Doesn't change the fact that you have never launched your own rocket.
>>52493795
Is that a picture of the first monkey into space?
>>52493839
It was actually a really shitty pun.
>>52493821
BUTIFEL
can same technology be applied to their heavy rockets?
>>52494074
That's the plan
>>52493874
no, first canadian into space
We need to get this muslim and ukraine problem straightened out.
So we can all work together to move man into space permanently.
>>52494746
>So we can all work together to move man into space permanently
enjoy getting killed in 1 punch when you walk on a planet for the first time in 30 years
>>52493623
We can see the stars, anon.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JbkyhFR.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>52494800
we make O'neil cylinder colonies.
>tfw Swedens greatest boast about space travel is Fuglesang
feels bad man, I want to join in on space travel too
>>52495001
at the rate of development in the private sector, maybe we can all into space within our lifetimes...
>>52495001
Isn't the European Space Agency doing something? I think it would be very difficult for a singular European country to do it on its own, though I guess we're doing it now with small private companies.
>>52490758
2 was the best of the series.
>>52495039
>we're doing it with small private companies
>Boeing
>ULA
"Small". Not a word I would use to describe these two. Private perhaps, may work.
>SpaceX
Small, OK. They are small. But proped up by NASA to the point that they are sort of an arm of NASA. If NASA left at this point they would, well, die, probably.
I would generally agree with your statement if it were not for one word:
>now.
The US space agency has, basically since it started, largley depended on contractors, generally companies, to do its work. That Saturn V was in large measure built by companies. The Apollo spacecraft, by companies. The Lunar Rover, built and designed by Boeing. You get the idea.
The difference is now we are making like it is a big deal that is somehow going to revolutionize space travel. Certainly today is somewhat different, and I am happy to see the progress that some of these entities are making. The plans for upcomming manned launches seem promising, as have the previous commercial cargo launches.
But, there is a way that space is sort of bashed around by the US government. I would not at all be surprised to see this program slashed very soon and happily by a different president or congress.
If that were to happen, many of these comapnies would die, or move on. It would not be the first time that a program was cut and killed. The Apollo Program itself essentially had this happen to pay for the Vietnam war. The shuttle had huge plans and then was sort of crushed. The US seems to be planning a major Mars Program all the time, starting just about the day Apollo XI touched down on the Moon, but, it tends to get pushed back. And pushed back. Mars SSR, anyone? Even in this century, the Ares project can illustrate this point.
Basically, there is a lot that can go wrong. The reason that companies see profit in space travel is that NASA puts it there. If that profit were taken away, it would be a different story. And NASA can very easily be made to take it away.
>>52495348
That's why I'm not voting for Sanders, he's consistently voted to cut funding for NASA
There's plenty of other companies though, Armadillo, "Virgin Galactic", etc.
Kazakhstan can into space
>>52495575
I shed a tear when blowing up Baikonur in Black Ops, didn't want to mess up the Kazakhs like that
>>52495382
Yeah.
Other companies certainly are different, I was mostly talking about just a couple because they are big or well known.
However, to address a few more, Virgin Galactic, while in some ways pioneering a new type of spacecraft, is very limited in its aspirations. That makes them more acheivable, but rather less practical for things other than their basic goal: Space Turism.
That seems a fine goal, overall. It is not something that I personally really would go for, but it seems somewhat interesting. However, I am concerned, if they do succeed and make this happen in any way regularly, what happens when someone gets killed? This goes for basically all companies that do launches, and it seems like sooner or later it will happen.
If they kill, say, a dozen billionaires, they are going to have probably some serious legal trouble, not just from the FAA.
The same sort of goes for otherr companies like SpaceX. If flying on their ship, people are killed by an accident, there will be a serious investigation, suspension of a lot of their work, and huge potential consequences. Even if they are found not to be at fault, for a company like SpaceX which depends on this one means of buisness, and just a couple of very closley related spacecraft and parts, basically their entire buisness would be held up. That could do some big damage.
I do not know enough about Armadillo to talk about it at length, but it seems like, if it gets to the point where it is really doing good work, it will be working in a team, probably as a contractor to a space agency, and thus will be subject to the whims of government funding.
The problem, is, space is really expensive. Getting there is hard, and when you do get there, there is not a lot of profit to be seen. Sure, there is a lot of valuble material, but getting it back is so expensive as to be in most cases impractical.
>>52495900
The primary draw, thus, is not profit, but science and exploration. NASA can do this, when it has money it can get others to do it too. But a company independantly is not going to easily get profit from flying rockets out of unless someone, usually a government, pays for them (excepting the commerical satellite industry, for communications and such). NASA makes space profitable for these companies, but NASA is sadly too fickle in some ways to make it a stable bisness. We shall see. I wish luck to anyone who sincerly wants to explore space, but I cannot honestly convince myself to trust most of the promises that are being made by those companies.
>>52495900
>>52495925
It's hard to tell if Elon Musk is actually really and truthfully trying to do all this stuff or if he's just some massive fraudster
What are the odds that some of these space startups start coming up in like Europe funded by Euro Space Agency? Seems like they're only coming up in the USA, but perhaps there are some in Europe I just don't know about?
>>52495965
It does not seem to be as big of a thing. There is not, for example, a parallel CCdev program in the ESA.
They do also work with companies, the most well known ESA rockets are from the company Arianespace.
Of course that company was founded by the ESA.
There are some others, Copenhagen Suborbitals seems well known, but their aspirations are not so grand as some, they do manned spaceflights, but, as the name implies, not to orbit.
Another I recently found is called zero2infinity, which is trying to make launchers from ballons.
Additionally, there is Skylon, which could be really big, if it works. But I am not sure that it will get going. I beleive that project received funding from the ESA. In either case they are doing some very interesting work with engines, and it probably can be applied elsewhere.
I hope that answers some of your questions. Overall it seems that private spaceflight as a big sort of point to pursue, is pretty much a big US interest. Of course, ESA also uses contracts.
>you will live long enough to see a Mars colony fail
>>52496466
>You have already seen a Mars colony fail
RIP Mars One
So what do you guys think of deep sea colonisation as a practice round?
>>52496514
It was a scam anyway.
post spacethings now
>>52496542
Indeed.
>>52496529
>practice round
What? I do not know what you mean.
Deep sea colonization might be interesting. I tend to see the main point of space colonization as protecting humanity from accidents or disasters. Dep Sea colonization would be interesting, but it would not do this so well.
>>52496656
www.uahirise.org
>>52496718
>>52496656
>>52496718
>deep sea colonisation
imagine how many countries would come out from the 70% part of the earth
Guys why everybody is talking about space?
>>52490669
The engine ban was lifted? Noice, haven't heared of it yet.
>>52496980
Better than talking about race.
>>52497057
Yeah I agree but what happened?
USA laubched a rocket resently or what?
What space stuff has Sweden done besides having a launch platform and astronauts
t. uninformed
>>52497183
SpaceX launched, but also landed their first stage back on land. They plan to reuse their first stages, making spaceflight significantly cheaper.
>>52497183
I do not know what the motivation for the thread was. But I am always up for a space thread.
>>52497259
Literally nothing.
>>52497259
Sweden has contributed first gay in space.
Very progressive achievment tбh you should proud.
Just read about spacex
God bless Musk! Our lord and savior.
>>52491887
because the commercial space industry in america is a monopsony. gotta get them NASA contracts
>>52490704
I hope so
![lem2[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/j46hER7.png "lem2[1].png")
>>52490669
We are into space.
We have 3 satellites :D
Our satellites are small so you have more space for you.
