Will Elon Musk lead humanity to never before seen places?
DESIGNATED
NUCLEAR
LOO
No, he is, as we like to say it on this site, secondary.
>>70625612
The real question is, will OP ever be able to POO in the LOO?
>>70625701
Based Borat
>>70625612
>be private company
>still slap the American flag on stuff
So problematic.
>>70625612
POO
He will lead India to a place they've never seen before: the loo.
>>70625701
Jagshemesh!
Why do they land it on water?
>>70625612
Hell no, my asshole sealed airtight.
>>70625612
No people/humanity has already been to space/moon.
>>70625831
haha
>>70625905
Because it's easier
>>70625905
Less chance of a malfunctioning rocket falling on a populated area.
>>70625800
NASA is buying the rockets. They are government property. That's why they have the flag.
If Japan decides to use those rockets, they'll use the Japanese flag.
>>70625936
Musk has his sights set on Mars. He plans to die there.
Space and space travel isn't real.
POO
>>70625800
The US allows the company to prosper, so why is it bad for them to put our flag on their product? By the way, they have government contracts buddy.
>>70625905
Disregard the previous answers.
A rocket going in to orbit is only flying vertically in the beginning. It soon changes its trajectory more sideways. To stay in orbit you don't just need to be very high, you also need to be going sideways very fast.
By the time the first stage seperates, it's already many miles outside the coast. It doesn't have enough fuel in the first stage to fly back to land, therefore it's only possible to land on water.
If the rocket only has to deliver a payload to lower earth orbit, it has a lot more fuel left over and could safely fly back to the starting point and have enough fuel to land.
No, at best he'll get a contract for supplying the ISS.
>>70625701
Who the fuxk are you you never actually say anything you just make something sound deep..you dont even know what your talking about
The only place Elon Musk is leading us is to a world where massive multinational corporations and a massive global governance are two sides of the same coin working to shape society for the exclusive financial and legislative benefit of that corrupt collusion. Elon Musk is just the chosen public face of a design to give elites the power to monitor the travel habits and digital activity of every man, woman, and child on the planet.
>>70625701
Throw the Jew down the well?
>>70625612
like the loo, prajeet?
>>70626033
You're not gonna put anime girls on them?
what's the big deal yeah it's great that the rocket module is still intact and can take off again but what's the point if you can't refuel it instead of researching how to save the actual module we should be researching non fossil fuel propulsion systems that will work in outer space
>>70626685
I just want to build ships in an orbital shipyard, I don`t care who gets sold to the jews to get me there
>>70626661
Secondary.
>>70626832
shekels shall be saved
>>70625612
to a barge?
>>70626832
Because at the moment there is a bigger saving to be made from salvaging the engines and turbo pumps compared to the cost of the fuel.
We also have those propulsion systems in place, the problem is they don't produce enough thrust to escape our planet's gravity, so they are only useful when you are already in space.
>>70625905
>>70626434
Switzerland is correct. Any flight trajectory on a north American launchpad will take the first stage well out over the ocean.
>>70626906
I love you
>>70627008
maybe we should further research space elevators
>>70626661
It comes from another board of this Kyrgyz stick drawing hana.
>>70626434
>If the rocket only has to deliver a payload to lower earth orbit, it has a lot more fuel left over and could safely fly back to the starting point and have enough fuel to land.
Like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3J-jKb75g
>>70625800
space is basically America's nowadays
>>70627099
People are researching those as well, though I have doubts about the them ever becoming a reality.
>>70625800
You'll be happy to know that the US Passport includes photos of America, including the last page which has a photo of the moon.
>>70626832
It uses about 100,000 litres of rocket grade kerosene per launch. Using fossil fuel for cars, planes and heating is a much bigger problem m8
>>70626069
>space isn't real
Are you braindead or something?
Space is irrelevant, there's nothing there, why bother?
>>70627193
Yeah, this video is much easier than what SpaceX does. They flew 100km high and straight up.
However the ISS is 400km high and going 27,000 km/h. It's a totally different thing.
>>70627193
Yeah no. SpaceX does something far harder than that piddly little puddle jumper. For one, it goes much higher and is hypersonic when it does the maneuvers to start slowing down after staging.
>>70627922
Scientific discovery- learning about the past of human race, meeting aliens, finding new elements that might let us create energy without destroying the planet. Saving the human race, since the earth will be destroyed by sun one day. Etc.
>>70627922
Because it's dangerous and difficult to colonize. Conquering difficult things purely because they are difficult is the whitest thing you could possibly do.
There's also asteroid mining and shit too, but it's mainly for the prestige.
>>70627479
kind of what I'm saying
>>70627295
they'd be better for non fossil fuel propulsion systems
>>70628134
>Conquering difficult things purely because they are difficult is the whitest thing you could possibly do
this. whites will have nonstop bragging rights for the rest of existence
>>70626832
Mark zubrin and the mars underground have already planned a system for creating rocket fuel from resources on mars
>>70625612
>program a rocket to land on a pad in the middle of the ocean
>become bastion of technology and savior of humanity
Ok
>>70628129
(I know you can't create energy and I know earth won't be destroyed one day, it will take a longer time)
Also there is the learning how to save the earth from asteroids on impact course, predicting solar flares and other shit.
>>70628186
This only works if it's actually possible to even make a space elevator. Not to mention that were a structure like that ever to collapse for whatever reason it would do infinitely more damage than a rocket could.
Either way just because one solution may be better in the extreme long run doesn't mean that research on other projects that are attainable right now should stop. Plus, if we ever do manage to colonize other planets the reusable rockets will be critical for any colonies as they're just starting out.
>>70625612
I'm of two minds about musk, landing those boosters is really impressive but the dragon spacecraft looks like a pure PR stunt to me.
A space ship controlled by 2 giant i-pads? really? I've viewed anything from muck with extreme skepticism after that.
>>70629882
You actually do not need much computing power to navigate a spacecraft.
So, yeah - an iPad is more than enough to maneuver that thing.
>>70629882
The F35 is also allegedly controlled with basically one giant touchscreen interface. These things are designed to be idiot proof, and I believe in the Dragon's case also designed to accommodate civilians who would only have minimal training down the road.
While it is worrying that if the screen fails you are effectively left blind and without control, the amount of automation in these things makes it questionable how much direct control you really have in the first place.
>>70625612
No you fucking retard. He is the figure head of spacex. He doesn't do shit. He pays people to do shit for him. That's not a leader.
>>70630034
>>70630198
it's not about the processing power it's a fucking space craft not a fashion show. There should be a physical, tactile interface for absolutely everything.
I can't believe anyone would seriously send that thing on a manned mission with those 'controls' it has to be a mockup to appeal to jj abrams star trek fans.
>>70625612
>traditional rockets
No. Way too expensive, way too limited in use and range.
>>70628363
that doesn't take care of the propulsion systems
>>70630446
Have you any idea what it costst to develop special intruments and the instrument panels?
Have you any idea how much r&d has to be invested to make such things reliable?
It is much cheaper to just se off-the-shelf components, especially if they are allready made in mass production and have a proven track record.
For example: Why do you think most armed forces let they soldiers use ordinary game-pads to conroll drones and EOD-bots?
It is because, just as iPads, these components survive the punishing envrionent of a teenager's bedroom and can withstand years of abuse and neglect.
So, yes. It makes perfectly sense to use iPads and such for instruments.
>>70625612
You aresehole, that's the God Emperor's job.
>>70630417
>this is what most liberals believe
>>70626661
you're*
>>70626832
Chemistry, weirdly enough, is a science that can be "done" for a while. At least when you're talking about specific uses for chemicals, like liquid rocket propellants. There aren't any chemicals, theoretical or otherwise, that show promise as rocket fuels which haven't already been extensively tested. Any you've heard of would require new engine designs that don't exist or are simply inferior to RP-1 and liquid oxygen.
"Ignition! An informal history of liquid rocket propellants" is a really good book, btw.
>>70631430
Ok go to space with touch screen controls but don't come crying to me when there's a problem with your oxygen and your gay touch controls aren't working.
That shits important you want to be able to grab the fucking valves with your own hands.
>>70625653
>>70625672
>>70625689
>DESIGNATED NUCLEAR LOO
Sign me up lads, my turds need more than a nuclear reactor to flush correctly.
>>70632461
This guy is right, it doesnt matter how much R&D something costs if its going to be a risk that they cant take. This guys is a fucking joke, just wait for the first time someone dies because of his Ipad idea and he gets blown the fuck out for being responsible.
Elon is a great cross industry innovator, he has managed to figure out how to crash rockets and marriages on a scale never seen before.
>>70625612
Yes, but I am not sure he will turn a profit doing it. This makes me wonder: "What is the difference between a billionaire running unprofitable ventures to innovate for the improvement of humanity and a government?"
>>70633616
I can see the potential for profit. The startup costs of a lot of businesses are within the scope of his target price per launch. By lowering the cost to achieve orbit, he can open space up for a huge number of people, who would be his customers. He's trying to meet an unrealized demand with a pretty complete long-term/near-future vision.
>>70627439
>>70627290
Fuck yeah, feels good man.
>>70633616
you kidding? The government is funneling billions into SpaceX. It started out as a private venture, but they might as well be NASA at this point.
>>70625929
Jej
Stupid question but why has no one thought of developing bonafide mass drivers? Theoretically you could build the rail as big or as long as you want and accelerate them slowly enough that even people can ride comfortably.
Pic related is an example of a circular setup where the vehicle would continue around the track until it reaches a velocity that can enter low orbit unassisted. However there's nothing to say that you couldn't build a very long track or have the track traverse a mountain side or be significantly long enough to hit the acceleration needed to escape Earth's orbit.
Air friction is a thing yes but either the track is fully enclosed in a vacuum(less practical) or the aircraft's skin can be built to survive or negate air friction as much as possible. Yes it would slow down in flight but as long as its initial launch velocity was greater than the loss in velocity to air friction and still greater than escape velocity wouldn't this be a dirt cheap method of putting shit into space?
>>70636488
Centrifugal forces
>>70636557
Which is why I said you could actually build them to be very long (not circular) also no one said it would be accelerating very fast. The climb in velocity would be very slow though.
>>70636753
I imagine it has an inherently shitty launch trajectory. If you build up all that speed on the ground, you are either going to go really really high or you're going to spend a lot of time in the atmosphere.
>>70637039
>trajectory
Eh, launch profile is the word I wanted, rather.
>>70636753
Why wouldn't this work?
combine with scramjet and rocketbooster and you're good to go.
>>70631430
>Have you any idea what it costst to develop special intruments and the instrument panels?
Yes, about 6€.
Seriously, what if one fucking iPad dies? I don't wan't to give my life into the hand of a iPad.
And Touchscreens are horrible in an moving, shaking envrionment.
"uuups, that was the wrong button, sorry!"
>>70637039
>>70637112
A lot of proposals involve using the sides of mountains as the final stretch so that they could leave the tract at a lower air density. Additionally the tract could have a sharper angular change for the last bit.
>>70637142
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/nasa-engineers-propose-combining-rail-gun-and-scramjet-fire-spacecraft-orbit
>2010
I WANT TO BELIEVE
>>70629882
Remember that the space shuttles were controlled with old Commodore computers.
An iPad packs more computing power than those.
>>70625612
Probably not, but he will continue making it easier and cheaper to get to LEO, and once you're there you're halfway to anywhere.
>>70637147
Are you a liberal? Why are you this butt blasted that they use IPads that you'd dismiss everything they do?
This is also remote controlled, why would you risk sending people with millions of dollars in training to be space truck drivers?
>>70637147
You realize that the wiring behind levers and switches gets really complicated, if you have an array of instruments meant to handle a specific task, right?
Okay am I not getting this wrong or isn't Elon Musk just some glorified investor? Is he directly responsible for any of the technology he's getting credited for?
Not that there's anything wrong with being an ambitious investor but the coverage seems a bit skewed.
>>70637147
If one screen does die, you can switch the controls to a different screen. You'll be glad to know commercial airlines now do this exact same thing for their maps and manuals.
Even then, the entire spacecraft can be controlled from the ground anyways. So for it to be a problem, you need to lose communications and three independent computer screens. Sounds more reliable than one mechanical switch.
>>70637556
>why are you this butt blasted that they use IPads
He was pretty clear on why. It's a massive hazard. Massive hazards are something you really don't want in a situation where failure means you die horribly.
>>70637339
>A lot of proposals involve using the sides of mountains as the final stretch so that they could leave the tract at a lower air density. Additionally the tract could have a sharper angular change for the last bit.
It's still less than ideal. Pic related is closer to an optimal profile. The reason nobody does it is because it doesn't offer much improvement over a technology we have almost a century of experience with. Near-future rocket technology innovations are easier to achieve and still offer massive payoffs.
>>70637722
>pic related
>>70637648
He is more of an industrialist like henry ford. He certainly know enough about rockets to make sound decisions though. You need both to become a visionary.
>>70625701
assholes uzbekistan
>>70631842
>Some physics is nuclear physics
>>70637648
He founded the company and takes an active part in guiding what their goals and so on are. He's doing more than a typical investor.
He also have a degree in both physics and economics so he's not without competence.
Buttlanding rockets are cool af.
But i am sceptical about it's usefulness.
Why can't we just slow it down and land it with a parachute? Even if it's not possible with just one parachute, it would take away lots of complexity.
Or why can't it just plummet into the ocean? That thing survives entering in earth orbit... i am sure it would survive a little bit of water without any problems.
Some scientists research on awesome stuff, just because it's easier to get money if it sounds cool.
(like Lockheed Martin with their stealth meme)
Imagine Musk talking about a roket, which is just slowed down after atmospheric entry, plummets into the sea and gets pulled out.
He would NEVER receive that much money.
Because he would just be building some slightly better Soyuz.
Space is such a fucking waste of money.
>>70636488
There was a Canadian artillery engineer, name Gerald Bull, with a lifelong dream of building a space launch gun. Eventually the only funding he could get was from Saddam, and the Mossad shot him.
>>70625701
>>70637648
He is an investor, but he's also an inventor. He did personally invent and program PayPal. The he made Tesla, though here he had several teams.
>>70637668
yeah, right.
Aircraft Cockpits have no switches....
>>70626434
Wow... you took the exact words spoken by Musk on the NASA channel interview and posted them as if you were the author. What a Knob.
>>70627193
That rocket is not designed to,nor will it ever be capable of, delivering a payload to orbit.
Comparing the New Shepard to the Falcon is the same as comparing a carnival bumper car to a self driving Tesla.
Nice try though.
>USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
What sort of lunatic thinks that it's a good idea to put an interface that completely lacks tactile feedback into an aircraft or spacecraft?
>>70638019
>Why can't we just slow it down and land it with a parachute? Even if it's not possible with just one parachute, it would take away lots of complexity.
It's going at orbital velocities and parachutes don't work in space.
>Or why can't it just plummet into the ocean? That thing survives entering in earth orbit... i am sure it would survive a little bit of water without any problems.
Salt water is extremely bad for machinery to come into contact with. Also those orbital velocities. Hitting the sea at that speed would be no different to it hitting concrete.
>>70627099
We are, we've yet to find a material strong enough to build it with
And even if we did, do you not understand how much it would cost to make a 10+ meter thick, 36000 meter long rope into space, along with the big ass counterweight needed for it to stay put
It would be bigger than all man made constructions combined, by several degrees of magnatude
>>70625612
You've made a genuinely good thread with a genuinely good question, so I won't meme you to death Indiabro. Elon Musk himself might not lead humanity to never before seen places, but he'll at least be the spark that ignites this new age of exploration for humanity. The privatisation of space is honestly the best thing that could have ever happened to white people. Not all corporations are unethical and corporations are not inherently evil. Hopefully, space tourism and colonisation of other worlds will occur in our lifetimes and even someday be cheap enough for any white person to participate in. Earth is lost, we need to expand out into the stars. Our salvation as a race lies further afield.
>>70625612
We'll see when 1st stage will be successfully relaunched few times in a row, not being put in a museum after first launch.
Also hello space-relevant country
>>70637722
>>70637820
It should be possible to launch them completely vertical if needed but suppose that you need to match the launch profile there is nothing saying that the launch craft wouldn't be able to change its trajectory mid flight, after all there's nothing to say that the launch vehicle would be without any control surfaces.
>doesn't offer much improvement over a technology we have almost a century of experience with
That is to say that this vehicle would not require a tenth of the fuel needed to reach escape velocity. It would only cost the electricity required to drive that segment of track that's accelerating the vehicle.
>>70638145
Heard of him. Bad investors.
>>70637635
Yes, i know that, because i work in industrial automatization.
We have lots of fancy stuff, even Touchscreen controls if someone is really obsessed with it (or if you need them, like in a very dusty envrionment).
But there is ALWAYS a operating desk without stupid fancy technology shit and with classical switches as a backup. In some special high-risk areas we are even obligated to do that.
I would nevery by a car with touchscreencontrols.
>>70638019
>Why can't we just slow it down and land it with a parachute?
The stage boosts itself above the atmosphere and to significant speed. By the time it have fallen far enough for the air to be dense enough to use a parachute effectively the atmospheric strains will have damaged it.
Also, you can't precision land with a parachute.
> i am sure it would survive a little bit of water without any problems.
They did that with the space shuttle boosters. They had to be almost completely disassembled and rinsed. Which is time consuming and expensive.
The precision landing technique will also be needed to do any lunar or martian touchdown so it would end up being developed sooner or later anyway.
>>70638296
A parachute assembly is heavier than the bit of extra fuel and computer controls the Falcon uses, it would also increase refurbishment time.
>>70638517
*never *buy.... stupid (touchscreen)keyboard
>>70638296
Salt water is heavily corrosive and getting the mechanical/electronics wet will increase the refurbishment time/expense.
They aren't doing this entirely for fun.
>>70638515
I have seen many proposals for this, one of them was a really long barrel which floated in the ocean, half of it would be under water, and it could be moved wherever it was needed.
The plan was to use it to get fuel into space, because humans or anything sensitive moving at such velocities is a terrible idea, it was basically a bullet filled with rocket fuel.
>>70638296
Oh you're answering those questions, my bad homie.
There are reasons I am not a rocket scientist...
>>70637820
Also I wanted to add that the profile your looking at - I believe - is meant to defeat the air density at ground level. Rocket efficiency changes depending on the altitude and therefore most rockets try to escape that altitude as quickly as possible due to the fact that it burns a lot more fuel.
>>70638748
And that's why to get anything else you need to accelerate slowly the way current rockets do. As long as the acceleration is survivable the velocities won't mean much. Force = mass * acceleration. Technically if there was no friction and unlimited energy you could increase velocity infinitely at low acceleration without a large force.
>>70638748
Quicklaunch?
Essentially a gigantic Light Gas Gun. Which I expected to get more (military) interest as it could just as well bombard any place on the surface of earth with ballistic projectiles as it could launch them into orbit.
>>70627193
The payload on this little shit is 100kg
Put that to perspective with the 4 metric tons launched into orbit... I fucking despise every news site that says Blue Origin did that says Blue Origin did it first...
Kinda hard when he hit the dome
>>70638515
You're missing the point. Launch profiles look like that because they only go straight up for a little bit, and mostly just to minimize the time spent in the thickest parts of the atmosphere. Most of the actual energy is not used vertically. Orbits aren't really very high, they are very, very fast, though. That's the problem with speeding something up in the ground, it either needs to make a slow (on the vertical axis), gradual ascent through the atmosphere or it needs to be shot straight up, and then do a massive circularization burn that pretty much necessitates sending a giant rocket up anyways.
>SpaceX
>>70638551
>>70638296
Thats why i said "slow it down". There are lots of possibilities to do that.
You know that Apollo had parachutes too?
Lets say you do that buttlanding thing just for the atomspheric entry and after it is slow enough, launch a parachute.... you would save lots of fuel.
>Salt water is extremely bad for machinery to come into contact with.
You can buttland a fucking rocket, but you are not able to build something which survives salt water?
>Also, you can't precision land with a parachute.
I don't think that this is a big issue. You are traveling between planets, why should you care about +-100m?
I am not butthurt - i think this rocket is amazing!
But i am not sure if it is the cheapest and best way to travel in space.
>>70627290
>he said ironically while astronauts need to take the soyuz to get in to space.
>>70638427
It would be literally the coolest shit ever and our crowning achievement. It might be possible with graphene and carbon nanotubes.
Why do we need to use rockets? why cant we just fly up
>>70636488
>However there's nothing to say that you couldn't build a very long track or have the track traverse a mountain side or be significantly long enough to hit the acceleration needed to escape Earth's orbit.
rockets need a delta V of 10km/s just to establish low earth orbit
it would literally burn up before it reached a high enough velocity for even a sub orbital hop
>>70639578
>You know that Apollo had parachutes too?
And a heat shield and was shaped specifically for atmospheric breaking. It was also not intended to be used more than once.
>You can buttland a fucking rocket, but you are not able to build something which survives salt water?
Salt water corrodes steel. Finely tuned machinery like rocket engines don't survive the ordeal.
>I don't think that this is a big issue. You are traveling between planets, why should you care about +-100m?
The difference between landing up a mountain, or in the ocean, or in a city.
>>70639816
No air to make lift with.
>>70639816
Yeah why not just get a big fucking balloon so we can go mine the moon for cheese? Are you 5?
>>70639865
This. I wonder, though, if it would be possible to dig a mile deep shaft into the ground, and have it propel a projectile with electromagnets. It might even be safe for human use. Pilots can function at 9gs, even more when the force is on the direction of our backs. Lying down, I suppose typical people could stay conscious at up to maybe 15g.
>>70640087
Yeah because i clearly said balloon, retard.
>>70640087
british education does not include science anymore because its offensive against the muslim majority of the country.
>>70640087
Wait-we could pump air into the space between us and the moon, so then a balloon would float all the way up!
>>70640278
You may as well have.
>>70640278
You never implied otherwise. You could have been talking about a giant slingshot as far as anyone could guess.
>>70640278
Are you retarded lad.
>>70639578
>you would save lots of fuel
Probably not all that much. The final landing burn is a pretty short one with an almost empty rocket.
You'd replace this with a parachute system which also would add mass. And then you splash into the ocean and have to rinse the saltwater off.
The fuel is also relatively cheap so a fuel saving at the cost of more maintenance and increased system complexity is probably not a good tradeoff.
And again it's good prep work for a moon/mars lander.
>>70640306
You comment is even more funnier when you consider that i'm from liège living ovefr here haha
>>70639511
Kinda hard when I hit ur mum
>>70640356
>airplanes can fly into space
>oh but we have to use a rocket evertytime guys
yeah eat shit bitch
>>70638186
And the newer planes have computer screens that remove most of the switches. It makes no sense to remove existing switches and installing touch screens if it doesn't save money.
>>70639972
>And a heat shield and was shaped specifically for atmospheric breaking. It was also not intended to be used more than once.
And that was 50 years ago.
So, why do you think that buttlanding is the only possibility to survive atmospheric entry? And why do you think that you have to do that shit all the way down to the ground and waste lots of fuel?
Just the combination of buttlanding + parachute would save lots of money and weight. (but it's not sooo coool)
>Salt water corrodes steel. Finely tuned machinery like rocket engines don't survive the ordeal.
Now i would answer:
>You can buttland a fucking rocket, enter the earth atmosphere without damage, but you are not able to build something which survives salt water?
we are not getting anywhere with that argument, lets agree to disagree.
>The difference between landing up a mountain, or in the ocean, or in a city.
I am sure you will find some nice flat area without a city or mountain 100m away.
>>70640537
luie waal.
>>70626477
Already has that and a launch manifest that grows constantly.
SpaceX could lose the NASA contract, and they'd still be running a profitable but "affordable" rocket launching business.
>>70640716
The only plane that can fly into space is literally ROCKET-POWERED.
>>70639555
I get that:
>>70639274
That"s why
>>70637339
Nasa suggested using a rail gun as a catapult with a scramjet. That is to say you can do a circularization burn but with the assist of a mass driver it would still be a lot less than an actual rocket. The savings would still be enormous.
The biggest issue would be finding a way to get around air friction. Unassisted would be the goal but until then boosters would still be needed.
>>70639865
This is very true. Even with a way to minimize air friction I don't know how you could get around fully enclosing the track and even then launching it at a height that won't cause it to burn out.
>tfw no Torch ship
>>70640796
Lets remember that the cruise missiles the US-military currently uses are a total failure and unreliable as fuck.
SpaceX could just make a contract with the US military and they would swim in money.
>>70640724
>And that was 50 years ago.
The laws of physics have not changed since.
>So, why do you think that buttlanding is the only possibility to survive atmospheric entry?
It's not, but it is the one that adds the least complexity and weight to the rocket and doesn't compromise the rocket's primary function of getting up there in the first place.
>Just the combination of buttlanding + parachute would save lots of money and weight. (but it's not sooo coool)
It wouldn't. Parachutes and all the equipment associated with them are not free or weightless.
Fuel is cheap and lighter.
>we are not getting anywhere with that argument, lets agree to disagree.
You could probably get it to survive the ocean intact, but that gives you a whole host of other challenges to solve in the process when you could just not.
>I am sure you will find some nice flat area without a city or mountain 100m away.
The inaccuracy of a parachute from orbit to surface is a LOT more than 100m. Multiply that number by at least 10.
I think the governments or the world are going to put a stop to Elon Musk because he is going to get too big for his own good and he is going to retreat to south america and build an actual Metal Gear.
>>70640716
You need something that can accelerate in a vacuum in order to stay in space. As far as "flying with no rockets" goes there isn't actually anything that meets that criteria that isn't laughably stupid. Hence you're being laughed at for being stupid.
>>70640724
The real answer is that parachutes are heavy. Remember this rocket is like 100ft tall and still weighs a few tons empty, that requires some big parachutes.
As far as the suicide burn goes, the landing legs double as aerodynamic wings, and obviously the rockets have a reason for being on the rocket other than landing. Suicide burns are also pretty efficient, it really isn't taking that much extra fuel to land on the barge.
>>70640896
flown in 1959
solid chemical propellant
throttable
>>70637648
He is total fake. A figurehead.
A PR operative for a Agency.
http://mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf
Elon Musk is basically this in a different time and configuration.
>>70641731
So he's an average NEET who keeps piss bottles wow big deal.
>>70641016
>Nasa suggested using a rail gun as a catapult with a scramjet.
>The biggest issue would be finding a way to get around air friction.
No, the biggest issue is that your technology that doesn't exist now relies on another technology that doesn't exist. And also some third technology that does exist, but makes the whole thing so expensive it isn't worth it in the first place. Meanwhile Space X actually landed on the barge. Innovation beats invention, because while inventions only kinda work on paper, innovation actually gets shit done.
why the fuck so much hate for elon musk, the guy is bypassing the bullshit redtape of nasa and making space flight dirt cheap.
whats not to like?
really, fuck you guys.
>>70642090
Because Space is the ultimate blue pill you cuck. There is nothing there nor will the limitations of physics allow us to get anywhere.
>>70641908
no hes an innovator with vision and lots of money that keeps piss bottles.
>>70641731
Hughes was more based, didn't pander to sjw's like Musk does.
>>70642219 I think that the biggest advantage is that there is nothing there, a fresh start for whoever manages to get there, especially before everybody is brainwashed or conquered by islamist here on earth
>>70642219
>gravity fag
>>70642090
elon musk is a leftest fucking cuck
he grew up in south africa and fought for the end of apartheid or some shit
literally elon the cuck science guy
>>70642090
sad isnt it.
space exploration being summed up as a blue pill with no value.
just remember the source. a penis envy white power Tibetan scrimshaw cuck simulator.
>>70628219
but we already do
aside from that, I'd live to see some day a big ass magnetic cannon to send small masses un orbit from the pole
It's being researched but it would need like double the world space programs combined during several years
we'll have ww3 before that happens sadly
>>70642219
With current technology, the best we could hope for is satelites and near earth orbit asteroid mining. You are right, anything else is for political or scientific reasons.
>>70642219
The costs to orbit that Musk could achieve with reusable rockets would open up a huge market for low earth orbit projects. Other projects like capturing an asteroid would start to become more viable. The short term isn't about colonizing Mars, there are so many small infrastructure projects that we can do in low earth orbit that would change the space travel game. Reusable rockets are only the first necessary step.
>>70626033
>>70626804
This, why the fuck isn't Japan sending their waifus to space?
>>70625800
Space assets must be flagged with their home nation's identity, just like ships.
>>70626033
>NASA is buying the rockets. They are government property.
No, NASA is buying a commercial service from a private company. They are flagged to show registration. The only NASA property is inside that Dragon capsule.
>>70626832
>what's the big deal ... you can't refuel it
Actual reusability is a very big deal. The first stage can be refueled and will eventually be land, re-stack, gas it up and launch again.
>researching non fossil fuel propulsion systems that will work in outer space
This already exists and is not something SpaceX is focused on. They are focused pretty solidly on Earth to orbit for now, plus the Mars transport.
>>70641998
What the hell are you babbling on about. The navy and darpa have been testing successfully railguns for years. It one of the reasons for the push on new aircraft carriers to test out the powerplant at full scale. Lockheed and nasa have both tested successful scramjets.
>>70642928
>capture asteroid
>union minority woman dumb fuck asteroid worker falls asleep and drops asteroid onto Pittsburgh
Yea I can't wait for that.
>>70643051
Because they've already got anime in real life there: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/radioactive-wild-boars-rampaging-fukushima-nuclear-site-japan-a6972361.html
>>70636488
Getting INTO space isn't hard
STAYING in space is hard.
You need to be traveling at some insane speed horizontally in order to stay in orbit or have a shit ton of fuel to stay in the same spot over the planet.
>>70643301
OK, so the technology exists in some radically different scale for different purposes. And you still can't circularize an orbit with a scramjet.
>>70643362
>drop something from orbit
The moon doesn't fall on our heads for a reason, you know.
>>70632461
>>70632948
The control panel in between the displays has plenty of buttons for running a Dragon on manual if needed. There are a total of four, not two, displays in the mockup. This is plenty for redundancy.
It's also got manual controls behind other panels. You don't need to be able to control internal pressure from the console if the flight controls crash (assuming software bug). Just have someone monitor it from the actual hardware which is sitting to the left or right of a passenger.
My biggest critiques on what can be seen are that there are no cages separating the buttons and no Globus-type instrument, but even Soyuz uses digital tracking now.
>>70643301
You mean those same railguns that need the barrel replaced after every shot?
>>70641998
>technology that doesn't exist
Maglev doesn't exist? Railguns don't exist? Which is fundamentally the main thing behind mass drivers. Scramjets exists too.What doesn't exist is the method of defeating air friction.
>so expensive it isn't worth it in the first place
Of course development is expensive. That's not what this is about, its about beating the operating costs. Which would be cheaper than rocket fuel.
>actually gets shit done
Good for SpaceX. But that's not a reason not to try different ideas. Mass drivers are a very interesting concept that have many practical technologies that could help them see reality. But of course they are not without their hurdles.
People are still chasing after space elevators that's fine. I'm just saying mass drivers could be a thing too.
>>70644233
>>70644133
that thing looks like a literal death trap
>>70644233
>Current technical limitation.
>>70644356
>its about beating the operating costs. Which would be cheaper than rocket fuel.
It only takes like $250,000 in rocket fuel. The total cost of the launch is like 60m+ because they crash the rocket every time.
>>70625612
Musk is some kind of irl Ozymandias
>>70640724
>do that shit all the way down to the ground and waste lots of fuel?
The first stage flies back or lands forward and is shipped back depending on mission. It's flight profile means that it flies sideways for part of the return to landing. It's not burning the whole time, the main push especially for water landings is only at the end.
The first stage also has something better than parachutes. It has deployable air brakes.
>>70644356
>space elevators
probably the only real safe solution for safe and cheap space travel.
They can already make a couple of centimeters of the cable with the required strength to build it.
now they are trying to make a proces where they can make it long enough without losing strenght.
>>70644930
Come back when it's possible to make thousands of kilometers of graphene.
>>70644356
Mass drivers would be excellent for cargo, but not people.
I'd say you have a space elevator for human transit, with a spaceport attached to the top of the elevator. You could have mass drivers firing cargo up all the time. In fact this system could be instrumental in getting all that iron up off of mars for building.
>>70644356
> mass drivers n spess elevators
Not this century.
>>70644521
Details, senpai.
>yfw you will see extra terrestrials in your lifetime
>>70644847
whats the science behind this?
>>70641016
Air friction is a non-issue. What you're thinking of is shock heating.
>>70644356
The technology to construct a railgun large enough to get a decent payload up to orbital velocity does not exist. Also, you're now talking about putting at least two methods of propulsion (air breathing + rocket) onto your payload as well, so you still have a large portion of your mass as fuel.
>>70644476
>>70644673
>when u text bae u home alone
>>70645117
>>70645187
Don't space elevators require geostationary orbits?
>>70645187
Getting off Mars is actually pretty easy, though. We could make a reusable rocket for that.
>>70645246
lots of sharp edges and the seats don't look very restraining.
>>70637648
Elon Musk is a JEW
Who stole the fame of PayPal!
Jews do what Jews do.
>>70645451
>Getting off Mars is actually pretty easy though
It's simple. Just convert that Simple Rockets app into real life. I've gone to Mars and back. I did go to Jupiter and landed safely... But I never left.
>>70625612
They didn't even land it in the fucking middle
>>70644732
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/astp.html_prt.htm
> $10,000 to put a pound of payload in Earth orbit.
Could be outdated but as I understand it that greatest limitation of space development is cost.
>>70638427
It would not need to be 10 meters thick. I could be 1' of carbon fibre cord. Made with nanotubes.
>>70645618
Just spend 5k on McDonald's Monopoly. That amount of burgers and fries should be able to make McDonald's pay for it. Kentucky Avenue would be all they need to put a pound of payload in earth orbit.
>>70626258
THE
>>70645544
Lol, I mean that it doesn't require much fuel because the atmosphere is so thin. A single stage rocket could go up, circularize, dock, and return for refueling. It's nowhere near as hard as basically every other aspect of mining Mars for resources.
>>70645291
It's aerospace engineering, not science. The air brakes are at the top of the first stage, they pop out to 90° during return flights. They provide stability and guidance by twisting as needed. Soyuz uses a similar grid-fin system on their capsule launch abort system.
>>70626258
LOO
>>70625612
The reusable shuttle program turned out to be a huge waste of money, why are they building reusable rockets? The rocket is literally the simplest part of the craft.
>>70645755
My lander had four large fuel tanks. Weighed a couple tons. I made it. I'll do it again with excess weight to emulate the ores on Mars. Probably could use my same multi-billion dollar, one time use, 56 stage rocket.
>>70645505
The walls will be covered in insulation for flight. The acceleration couches are hopefully for demo only, they look like race car seats. Soyuz seats are still the best but it also depends on the spacesuits the crew is wearing.
>>70645618
>Could be outdated but as I understand it that greatest limitation of space development is cost.
Oh for sure. Space X charges something like $4100/lb right now and reusable rockets would lower that to something closer to $500/lb. There are some immediate and significant cost reductions when you stop crashing the rockets after every mission.
>>70645913
Shuttle wasn't reusable and required a 16,000 person Standing Army (ie jobs in important districts) to keep it operational. Falcon is built almost entirely by one company of 1500 employees and is vastly simpler in operations.
>>70646152
>$500/lb
This is the magic number. We can do all the fun stuff in space with that launch price.
>>70636488
>Stupid question but why has no one thought of developing bonafide mass drivers?
Because air resistance
>>70645913
The shuttle was a waste because of government pork barrel inflating the original concept at a tenth the price and half the size, into the monstrosity that it became.
Every last bit had to be checked and dissassembled and rechecked before reassembly.
These rockets?
Don't even go that far out of the atmosphere, don't need heat shields, saves the engines and tanks from any damage from splashing down like with the shuttle tanks, and gets to reduce the cost of each launch, which is some 80million for a disposable flight.
Don't need expensive adaptions to it to make it reusable either.
>>70636488
Enormous capital requirements on a project that'd last as long as it takes to get fusion running.
>>70646343
this, with that price point every western nation can build its own space station.
>>70646368
.... does super cavitation work the same in air as it does water?
>>70646546
No, it doesn't
>>70646502
Launch vehicles and space capsules among other things count as "munitions" to the US for trade purposes, which means that Musk is stuck to USA only - no other countries gets to have Musk's product for themselves unless they get their payloads shipped to him first.
>>70646649
Darn.
>>70646655
Makes sense since all of SpaceX rockets and launch pads are in the USA.
>>70626065
Wish I could join him. Not that I have a death wish, just I'd love to live and die on a new planet
>>70646546
>>70646649
>>70646686
It's simple, make the air become water.
Or build a tube that goes up to the atmosphere, behind the object would be enough force to orbit around Earth. And it's simple. Just steal the water out of the Indian Ocean. The amount of poo in it should prevent any cute animals from living in the death tube, so at least we won't have hippies to worry about.
>>70646795
More than that, it just wouldn't even be legal for SpaceX to go outside of the US
>>70646913
>It's simple, make the air become water.
You've been smoking that shit again, didn't you Alec?
I'll tell auntie about this later
>>70626685
I just want powered armor and blaster rifles. I don't care who gets us there
>>70626685
>Elon Musk is just the chosen public face of a design to give elites the power to monitor the travel habits and digital activity of every man, woman, and child on the planet.
I'm pretty sure that's Mark Zuckerburg
>>70627922
>he doesn't know about the Imperium of Man
>>70636488
if you slowly accelarated around that track to a velocity that could put you in the orbit, redirecting your velocity upwards ( technically acceleration because change direction ) would cause some ridiculous G forces that would probably kill everyone on board. it would possibly be okay for transporting food and equipment maybe.
>>70639751
Your point? Pakis and Indians drive us around in taxis in our cities, doesn't mean they own the roads.
>>70642219
Shortsighted closed mind, the post
>>70647581
What if the change in direction was slow and gradual like the acceleration? If the track was large enough so that both change in vector and speed were gradual enough, would it be feasible to survive?
>>70648158
And what sort of ablative material are you planning to cover the vehicle in while it somehow propels itself to Mach 25 on the ground?
>>70648158
The real issue is that it's not feasible to do an evacuated-tube style mass driver yet. The best suggestions have been to use a mass driver with a sled and rocket. The mass driver gets the sled up to a certain speed and that helps get the rocket off the ground.
The problem is that all mass driver proposals require $10s of billions and simply aren't worth the investment and operational complexity.
>>70628487
You don't see the big picture. At the very least, he is going to make and epic shitload of money.
But this is basically the key technology for getting humanity off this planet permanently. Not just day trips. colonizing space. No more resource limits.
The entire core of a planet is ripped apart and spread out in the asteroid belt. Humans just strip mine the outer shell of a crust here for everything we have ever built.
>>70647643
anon, please, don't embarrass yourself.
and be nice to ivan or they wont give you a ride anymore.
>>70625701
Looks like your country has it's eyes upwards.
http://www.space.com/18838-baikonur-cosmodrome-kazakhstan-jurisdiction.html
>>70648158
of course it would but i mean it would be need to be huge, also somthing i thought of, you could have it in a vacuum but when you reach your desired velocity you could slowly pressurize the ring so there would be no suction of air in once the craft starts to leave, it would prettymuch be a hyperloop slingshot
>>70625701
BAIKONOUR ON SUICIDE WATCH
>>70648641
I don't use taxis
>>70625612
What a broad and annoyingly vague question!
But if it's space travel you mean then as far as i know, the nearest star is almost 4 lightyears away. It'll take around ~ 100,000 years to get there with the kind of speed we have right now. WTF you even smoking, Ramachandran?
>>70648536
Definite limitation, for sure, know idea right now.
>>70648542
New projects will always be expensive because they've never be done or proven before. But I still think if you could get it to work then the payoff would be worth it.
>>70648769
Most proposal involve vacuums because there are no known methods of getting around air friction.
But yeah air friction or heat shock is a definite problem with the idea. Though because its the only main problem I can think of its worth exploring.
>>70645648
Go eat a dick Lambright
>>70636488
Not possible on earth.
Might be possible on the moon.
Then we'd just have to use the moon as a jumping board for the rest of the solar system.
Earth --- Chemical propulsion ---> moon ---- mass driver ----> Mars and beyond.
>>70627772
How would you know Polbro?
You can't even into space
>>70625653
SHITTING
H
I
T
T
I
N
G
>>70642219
>because sky is the ultimate blue pill you cuck. There is nothing there nor will the limitations of physics allow us to fly
>>70649131
Fuck off leaf. Quit spewing shit you know nothing of.
>>70645291
stubby little flippers that pop out near the top of the rocket. Lots of separated flow, lots of drag, very rigid structurally. Only a tiny bit of drag when compared to a parachute.
>>70649127
desu a space elevator is probably more viable than the loop idea. altho the loop could be used with rockets to get it past initial acceleration,
