So the Falcon9 scheduled to launch later today (16~ hours) will be landing on solid ground instead of a platform in the water approx 10 min after takeoff.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=89910
Place your bets kids. Will he succeed or will it go boom?
![spacex-fails-first-ever-rocket-landing-1102231-TwoByOne[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NiXK6xh.jpg "spacex-fails-first-ever-rocket-landing-1102231-TwoByOne[1].jpg")
well...considering the history of SpaceX...
>>7732639
Pretty much this
Is it launching from Vandenberg?
I predict it'll hit a bullseye where they wanted it, just much too fast, and explode on impact
>>7732751
This. It won't probably take more than ten tries to succeed however.
>>7732627
livestream: spacex com/webcast/
>>7732639
I'm expecting a fireball, but hoping for a perfect landing.
I think there's a very good chance they'll stick the landing this time.
They've tried this twice before. The first time, they ran out of hydraulic fluid for the fins, so they didn't have the fuel to land properly. The second time, the fixed the hydraulic fluid problem, but the throttle on the landing engine was sticky, but they still came very close to achieving a successful landing. They touched down but tipped over due to horizontal velocity.
Now they've had months to work on the sticky throttle problem, the only reason the last one failed, and they're going to have a bigger and more stable landing area to work with.
>>7733248
How did they manage to run out of hydraulic fluid anyway? Is the fuel doing double duty as hydraulic fluid and got used up? Was there some kind of leak?
Does it have a payload or is it just for landing test?
>>7732627
I bet yes. They have refined the software based on the earlier attempts and have convinced the government they have a better than 50/50 chance of success. Will be watching at 01.29.
>>7733321
Open-cycle hydraulics can be lighter, and potentially simpler and more reliable, than closed-cycle ones, when they only have to operate briefly. They don't need a pump that way, you can just drive it with a pressure bottle.
The engines are on a different system. They use the rocket fuel as hydraulic fluid, which can't run out as long as the rocket can still run, in the pistons that point the engines in different directions.
>>7733340
I think he meant how did they miscalculate the amount of hydraulic fluid they'd need so badly.
>>7733331
Payload is ORBCOMM Original Gangsta 2. 11 satellites.
>>7733349
Yeah, that was pretty much what i meant. But i have no experience with anything other than closed hydraulic systems, either connected to the fuel system or with a stand-alone fluid reservoir. Yet like you said, the question still remains on how did they miscalculate the amount that badly. Too low safety margin perhaps?
>>7732627
Considering the three-day static fire attempt, and 60 second launch window, the most probable outcome is SCRUB.
>>7733377
60 seconds?
SpaceX livestream says 2.29 AM-3.00 AM, but that might just be the streaming and not the launch window?
>>7733377
True. Also, nice palindromic dubs.
>>7733383
That's the show. The countdown, all the "Red Leader standing by" checks, the flight, and possibly the landing.
There is only an instantaneous launch window, because of all the holiday air traffic.
Considering the amount of fiddling they needed to do with the thing to test fire the engines, because of all the changes to the vehicle, a scrub is very likely.
>>7733395
And at the second the scrub is announced somebody will start a tread here named "SpaceX BTFO! Watch Musk cry, SpaceCucks on suicidewatch" or something like that.
>>7733414
>mfw
>>7733414
Im going to make that thread
Any word on when the next launch window will be if they have a scrub?
>>7733377
This. The launch will be scrubbed until deep into next week. The rocket will also fail to successfully land. If you want to see the first rocket successfully land, then you will have to wait until 2017. Sorry.
>>7733477
I think they said the 22nd, so Tuesday.
>>7732639
the funniest thing is that it doesn't even matter anymore.
Blue origin beat them to it.
You can say whatever you want about 'muh orbital rocket', but they got rekt.
http://strawpoll.me/6320219
http://strawpoll.me/6320219
http://strawpoll.me/6320219
>>7733516
>Blue origin beat them to it.
Not really. What Blue Origin did is a salami-slicing "first" at best. X-15 and SpaceShipOne both went to space, and were recovered and reused. They even took passengers. The Space Shuttle boosters were recovered and reused, and those were orbital flights. Blue Origin hasn't reused its rocket yet. It remains to be seen whether it's in shape to be reused.
>the funniest thing is that it doesn't even matter anymore.
Now this is REALLY wrong. SpaceX isn't doing it for bragging rights. They want to recover their boosters so they can use them, and they want to develop more complete reuse.
Recovering a booster in good condition is worth tens of millions of dollars and weeks of factory time each time they do it. If their boosters become efficiently reusable, then they only need to make upper stages for each flight. This will dramatically increase their flight rate, without requiring a dramatic expansion of their factories.
Furthermore, they can apply this experience to the development of their next-generation all-reusable rocket, which has the potential to reduce launch costs to near propellant costs.
Damn it.
Launch delayed by 24 hours to increase odds of a good landing. Source: Elon Musk's twitter account.
>>7733583
it_begins.jpg
>>7733560
>X-15 vs Shuttle
This is actually a rather good comparison.
Both are hugely impressive accomplishments, but have a lot of different requirements and goals.
>>7733586
Why does no-one ever talk about the X-15?
>>7733638
I dont know. Shame, really. It was like the definition of a rocket sled.
>>7733638
The X-15 was just a plane that flew high and fast, to explore what it's like for a plane to fly high and fast.
When people aren't all excited about crossing arbitrary altitude numbers, it's just another test plane, of no real practical significance.
SpaceShipOne was totally overblown, and really kind of rotten, the way it won the contest by meeting the letter and not the spirit of the rules.
>>7733583
Has SpayyceX ever launched one payload on time?
>>7733950
I suppose they must have at least once, but half the time it's either the weather or somebody else's fault. Like when an earlier launch is delayed, or like the time when the Chair Force's downrange radar FUCKING CAUGHT FIRE.
Pic not related, SpaceX doesn't launch from there.
>>7733950
"On time" is for mature launch platforms. They demoed Falcon 1, then went directly to Falcon 9 1.0. They demoed Falcon 9 1.0, then went to Falcon 9 1.1. Falcon 9 1.1 flew over a dozen times, but it was different flight by flight, as they kept changing things trying to make it reusable.
Now this "Falcon 9 Full Thrust" upgrade may actually be their first real production-model rocket that they can operate for five or ten years without major hardware changes.
If it works as intended, they should start catching up on their launch backlog.
>>7733991
>half the time it's either the weather
Why don't they make rockets that aren't so susceptible to the weather?
>>7734180
Because by nature rockets are susceptible to weather. Why don't people build boats that aren't susceptible to rough seas?
>>7732627
We need to get something self sustaining, and get off this planet, before we can't. It's a definite possibility we could eventually expend everything and anything that would make achieving escape velocity physically possible.
It's not in the near future, but it is possible. People don't stop to imagine a world with no floating party balloons either.
>>7734182
Yeah but some boats are better in rough seas than others. It seems like all rockets are left weak against weather.
>>7734180
Same reason why there haven't been any good reusable rockets yet: because it would be hard and expensive to develop.
I believe I heard that one of SpaceX's goals for their next-generation rocket, in addition to being fully reusable and running on cheaper consumables, is that it should work in nearly any weather.
Ya know, having set my alarm for 01.15am, I expect a little better info that the launch has been scrubbed than having to come to /sci for details AFTER visiting:-
spacex com/webcast
orbcomm com
americaspace (live launch)
Spacex com homepage.
Lazy fuckers cant keep the public informed except via musks twitter? Thank god for /sci
One more delay and I swear I will fucking go so mad I will spontaneously combust
So why don't they try landing the second stage as well as the first stage.
It'll go boom. I honestly can't fathom the absurdity of their approach.
From what I can find, it seems like the minimum thrust of the Merlin is more than three times the dry mass of the Falcon 9's first stage... can anyone confirm? It would explain their bat-out-of-hell landing approaches. It just seems utterly ludicrous trying to vertical-land a towering rocket (on-end) when you can't even reduce thrust enough to maintain a hover.
>>7734285
Write an email to SpaceX about it. Hundreds of rocket scientists will thank you you just saved them hundreds of thousand hours of work. Maybe you even could get a job there.
>>7734285
They've proven the viability of their "hoverslam" (thrust-to-weight > 1) landing with the F9Rdev test vehicle.
There's not really any reason why it can't be done. It's just that they only get one chance. The computer has to stick the landing.
They've only failed once attempting this, and that was because the throttle was sticking, so they didn't have fine control of thrust.
This is how the classic arcade game Lunar Lander played. Thrust-to-weight was greater than one, and it made the landing challenging, but kids still did it.
>2015
>America trying to figure out how to launch rockets
Jesus you guys need to stop spending on MERUCA military and bailing out banks. You guys forgot the secret to rocket engineering the German taught you in the 50s.
The future of space engineering belong to India and China.
>>7734194
The solution to rough weather conditions for a rocket is to make a really, really, fucking huge rocket. That would mean higher fuel costs, higher maintenance costs, and they'd need to do more R&D beyond what they've already put into the program. Frankly, it's just not economically viable given current rocket technology that's available.
>>7734430
If first stage landing will prove to be effective, Murica will leave humanity behind. By the time the Chinese make their first manned lunar landing, Murica will be mining fucking asteroids.
>>7734443
That's not the only solution. There are a number of things that would increase weather tolerance:
- slow the ascent, accepting more gravity losses but reducing airspeed
- make the skin thicker and tougher, making it more resistant to rain and hail impacts
- increase the structural strength relative to loads under ideal conditions
- make the rocket thicker relative to its length, to reduce bending forces
All of this is expensive. It makes more sense to make that investment on a reusable vehicle.
>>7734452
China already landed on the moon with a drone. A manned mission is useless for the Chinese. They're capable of doing the same thing as the Americans. They're building their own space station for scientific and defense purposes. Also mining asteroids is already possible the problem is the WTO. A lot of countries who are apart of the WTO have to obliged with the anti-dumping clause of the WTO treaty.
>>7734496
>slow the ascent, accepting more gravity losses but reducing airspeed
This in turn means less efficient use of fuel. Which means using more fuel, which means a larger fuel tank, which means a bigger rocket.
>make the skin thicker and tougher, making it more resistant to rain and hail impacts
Using currently developed materials, this means more weight. Which means using more fuel, which means a larger fuel tank, which means a bigger rocket.
>increase the structural strength relative to loads under ideal conditions
To do that means more structural reinforcement, which will mean more weight. Which means using more fuel, which means a larger fuel tank, which means a bigger rocket.
>make the rocket thicker relative to its length, to reduce bending forces
Although this maybe the best solution as you can still have relatively low drag, this would still effect the aerodynamics of the craft. Which means using more fuel, which means a larger fuel tank, which means a bigger rocket.
>All of this is expensive. It makes more sense to make that investment on a reusable vehicle.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but these are solutions for reusable rocket technology that is still under development. You're trying to cover the problems of second or third generation reusable rocket technology when we're still trying to prove that the first generation is a viable system.
Hey guys, femanon here... Serious question, why doesn't this thing just land on sand? It's a lot softer.
>>7734511
>which means a larger fuel tank, which means a bigger rocket.
or a smaller payload. A lot of the stuff that gets launched into space weighs significantly less than their rocket's maximum payload.
>>7734270
They will in due time. The financial gains from doing so aren't as big as the gains from reusing the first stage. Recovering the second stages should be much easier anyway once they master landing the first stages.
>>7734593
Sand generally isn't very friendly to precision low tolerance stuff.
>>7734593
>or a smaller payload
...and as a result you've caused the cost per pound of cargo to increase.
The economic and engineering trade offs have to come from somewhere. There won't be any perfect system any time soon, so until then SpaceX will remain an economical R&D corporation that limps by while giving valuable Aerospace technology to the world.
>>7734180
Even if they magically made more resistant, you'd still have delays because they'd still want to launch in the clearest conditions possible. Why risk tens of millions of dollars when you could wait 2 days?
>>7734315
>Hundreds of rocket scientists will thank you you just saved them hundreds of thousand hours of work.
Developing an engine with a wider throttle range would be a shitload MORE work, but it would also make the landing a hell of a lot more controllable.
>>7734332
>They've proven the viability of their "hoverslam" (thrust-to-weight > 1) landing with the F9Rdev test vehicle.
Yes, but with a much lower acceleration (the Grasshopper is obviously heavy enough to hover; F9's first stage is not) and under controlled testing conditions. They ARE zero for two in real-world conditions.
>There's not really any reason why it can't be done.
I never said it can't be done, I'm just saying that it's a hell of a lot trickier and less forgiving. Especially with something as top-heavy and tippy as the Falcon 9.
>It's just that they only get one chance.
Well... if you had enough fuel you COULD fly off a bit, do a fucking loop like THAAD does to bleed off energy and come back down for another try....
>They've only failed once attempting this
Twice. The second attempt touched down, but not slow and level enough to keep it from falling over seconds later.
>This is how the classic arcade game Lunar Lander played. Thrust-to-weight was greater than one, and it made the landing challenging, but kids still did it.
Hardly. With Lunar Lander (and many pressure-fed, hypergolic thrusters, for that matter), the engine could be fired on a duty-cycle approximating full, 0-100% throttleability. With the Merlin 1, this isn't an option. Also, with a Falcon 9 you don't get to start over again just by inserting another quarter.
>>7734339
I understand that, but if they've paid this much penalty for their flyback and powered landing, propellant for fifteen more seconds of hovering is peanuts in comparison (especially when the alternative is a landing so hairy and unmanageable that the majority of your rockets end up exploding and it's all for naught).
>>7734443
>>7734496
ICBMs are all-weather...
>>7734722
ICBM's don't go to orbit and don't give a shit about efficiency
Couldn't you just do something with the nozzle to allow it to bleed out thrust sideways
>>7734762
>ICBM's don't go to orbit
They get damn close. The most successful rocket still in use was based directly on an ICBM.
>and don't give a shit about efficiency
The hell they don't.
>Couldn't you just do something with the nozzle to allow it to bleed out thrust sideways
Maybe. It'd obviously be inefficient, but hey, if it gets the job done...
>>7734722
>>They've proven the viability of their "hoverslam" (thrust-to-weight > 1) landing with the F9Rdev test vehicle.
>Yes, but with a much lower acceleration (the Grasshopper is obviously heavy enough to hover; F9's first stage is not) and under controlled testing conditions.
The F9Rdev WAS a F9 first stage, except that it had fewer engines. An F9 first stage is heavy enough to hover as long as it has a sufficient load of fuel.
As for "controlled testing conditions", they were actually flying in the real outdoors. The conditions did differ from a real flyback, because the landing engine hadn't just been put through a real launch and flyback, but the actual landing conditions themselves weren't significantly different.
>They ARE zero for two in real-world conditions.
They are zero for one in real-world conditions. In the first attempt, they didn't get a real chance to attempt a real propulsive landing because they were too far off target when they started the landing burn, due to the grid fins failing.
...and in their second attempt, they had a hardware failure in the landing engine. The throttle was sticky. It's a minor miracle they came as close as they did to a safe touchdown under those conditions. It's not clear that having a deeper-throttling engine would have helped.
>if they've paid this much penalty for their flyback and powered landing, propellant for fifteen more seconds of hovering is peanuts in comparison
The penalty for flyback is largely proportional to the mass prior to the landing burn. That's the mass that you have to buy the flyback delta-V for.
A reserve for 15 seconds of hovering adds 150 m/s of delta-V. That, by itself, would increase the flyback cost about 5-10%. Then you have to add the cost of the deep-throttling rocket engine itself. That's not free either. Deep throttling at sea level isn't an easy trick for a rocket.
Once you start adding costs like this, where do you stop?
>>7735182
>Once you start adding costs like this, where do you stop?
To expand on this, SpaceX is clearly aiming for the minimum cost system that enables reliable recovery and rapid reuse.
Because they're evolving from an expendable system, they can shoot directly for maximum efficiency, and tolerate losses along the way.
Blue Origin, on the other hand, planned from the beginning to only make reusable vehicles. Their business case doesn't close for an expendable rocket. You can see that their hardware dedicated to reusability is much more elaborate and costly in terms of mass.
If both SpaceX and Blue Origin achieve rapid reusability, SpaceX's minimalist approach will give them higher efficiency. For instance, SpaceX is about to attempt flyback to launch site, while Blue Origin's plan for their orbital booster is downrange landing. It may be more difficult for Blue Origin to evolve their complex approach toward greater efficiency than for SpaceX to evolve their simple one toward greater reliability.
>>7734780
also thanks to the delay, Russia managed to launch their upgraded Progress-MS cargo vessel on a modernized Soyuz-2.1a. On time and all nominal, of course.
>>7734138
>"Falcon 9 Full Thrust" upgrade
>>7735381
>thanks to the delay
How is that "thanks to the delay"?
>>7733516
apples and oranges. New Shepard is a tiny thing by comparison, 10x less robust, designed for a 10x easier task.
>>7735397
thanks to the delay they got to launch first, that's all.
Musk should play Kerbal Space Program a bit so he can practice without wrecking millions of dollars of hardware.
>>7735409
why play videogames when you have enough money to do it for real?
>>7734585
really not that fun shitposting on /sci/, is it?
>>7734585
Water is a better option and impacting on sand could cause it to morph into glass, making everything more dangerous. I mean that's mybbest guess.
If we want to return on land, we might as well do it softly on a pad or airstrip.
>>7734585
Serious question, why don't you just post tits or gtfo?
They should build a big pool, fill it with heat resistant foam balls and land all the rockets there.
They can cut the engine off 10 meters high and just let it fall down in the pool, then use a big crane to lift it out.
>>7735897
Good idea. Or they could stick 4 of these on it and land horizontally .
Launch when?
I think they can land it, but isn't the bigger problem the reliability of a reused booster?
How many times can a rocket engine be lit, how many times can the stage experience atmospheric turbulence, before it loses its initial structural integrity and just becomes a gamble rocket?
>>7735938
Horizontal landing is difficult, requires a long runway and wings.
With foam ball pool all you need to do is slow down above the pool and cut the engines.
>>7736020
>fly rocket to above pool
>foam balls everywhere
lol
Just a massive pile of old matresses then. They are cigarette burn resistant so wont catch fire
everybody relax its 3hours till launch
>>7736073
"Launch"
Good luck SpaceX! I really hope they will succeed this time
>>7732627
what a waste of tax-payers money. they should dissolve nasa asap.
>>7736128
This is a fully commercial launch, no taxes used. Also, this launch has nothing to do with NASA.
>American education
>>7736128
That's right, we need more welfare :^)
Livestreams here bros:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/12/20/falcon-9-orbcomm-2-mission-status-center/
http://www.spacex.com/webcast/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5bTbVbe4e4
T-90 MIN
LAUNCH AND FIRST-STAGE LANDING
Hour/Min Events
00:01 Max Q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)
00:02:20 1st stage engine shutdown/main engine cutoff (MECO)
00:02:24 1st and 2nd stages separate
00:02:35 2nd stage engine starts
00:03 Fairing deployment 00:04 1st stage boostback burn
00:08 1st stage re-entry burn
00:10 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO)
00:10 1st stage landing
00:15 ORBCOMM satellites begin deployment
00:20 ORBCOMM satellites end deployment
00:26 1st satellite completes antenna & solar array deployment & starts transmitting
00:31 All satellites complete antenna & solar array deployment & start transmitting
>>7736128
>shitposting on sci
please go back to /b/ until you are at least 18
who /peanuts/ here?
So how much would it cost to be buried on the moon?
>24 hours later
I'm back again - Is it happening yet?
So the launch is in 90 minutes?
Lame
One hour boys and girls!
>>7736286
Is that the lucky intern who gets to stand there and guide it in using two paddles and some wild gesturing?
>>7736293
It's Elon, he is ushering a new age.
>>7736295
"Billionaire space enthusiast killed by badly placed rocket" would make one hell of a headline.:p
>>7736296
He will rise 3 days later in Christmas
>>7736293
>>7736305
>dem RCS thrusters
>>7736305
good luck stage 1
>>7735394
saved
how long till kick off
any word on launch probability?
>>7736326
80% go on weather
>>7733377
>pic
a little something extra makes it better
>>7736321
about a half hour
>>7732735
>Vandenberg
It's live
http://www.spacex.com/webcast/
Neil deGrasse Tyson Is Calling Elon Musk’s SpaceX Dreams a “Delusion”.
http://www.profitconfidential.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-calling-elon-musks-spacex-dreams-a-delusion/
What do you say to him?
>>7736305
that's the second stage exhaust being dispersed by the first stage, right?
god that's pretty
>>7736343
That statist cunt
>http://www.spacex.com/webcast/
that funky space music
we live now
>>7736343
Le Black Science guy is just a meme.
inb4 it blows up again and Musk kills himself
X marks the spot
>>7736347
Dafaq? This guy looks like those reporters you see in comedy movies.
spacex or nasa stream?
decisions, decisons...
>>7736354
looks somewhere between Michael Palin and Eric Idle from Python
It begins
>>7736358
No NASA stream, this is a private launch.
Go to Spacex.com, it's the fastest stream.
ha ha the opening card said december 20
>black woman
DROPPED
>anomaly
kekekek
>John Assburgers
>>7736136
literal autism.
>>7736358
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5bTbVbe4e4
So what's the intended orbit for these Orbcomm satellites? I am guessing geosynchronous, or else how is the first stage gonna land back in the same spot, not in the middle of the ocean?
>>7736369
Now its a "mishap"
>>7736379
It boosts back
>>7736379
>he thinks its going to work
Why do they keep saying space sex?
>>7736380
That's what it was called from the beginning and that's the official term the FAA uses.
>>7736379
500 miles LEO (you don't launch 11 satellites at the same time to GEO/GTO, ha ha)
And the first stage just needs to boost back home, it loses a LOT of weight boosting the rest of the rocket. It's only the FH center stage that really needs the barge.
They're also going to test a second stage engine restart in preparation for the next launch, which _is_ to GTO/GEO.
>>7736384
You really think Elon started space x to start a mars colony? Of course not. He started it to get mad green skinned alien space babe pussy.
>>7736377
YEA
RIGHT
YEA
thanks for the commentary
>all these normie faggots presenting the factory
I want them to die tbqh.
>>7736377
Nice palindrome.
>>7736388
Wait, I thought he was going to make anime catgirls real?
>>7736391
I also wish SpaceX was solely run by Elon. These people are not worthy of him.
>>7736347
who is this guy
>TALKING TO VIEWERS AS IF THEY'RE KIDS
>PRETENDING SHE KNOWS WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT
>LITERALLY FAILING AT HER JOB, WHICH IS TO SPEAK PROPERLY
PR is disgusting.
PR of interesting things that's dumbed down for normies is just insufferable.
only fat women allowed at spacex
"secret 10th engine"
Wow SpaceX PR, wow.
>>7736400
that blonde chick was fat in the right places
>Still a go
>>7736402
I know right? Who would have guessed that a rocket's upper stage would have an engine?
I hope they put in enough struts this time!
bit nervous desu
"i dont know why they are cheering"
Fucking normies hosting this shit
Ugh, why can't classy NASA be covering the launch.
These 2 faggots are annoying
Not surprising since their article was so shit
>>7736409
what the actual fuck
If you need that many boosters/fuel, you're doing it wrong m80
2 MINS HYPEEE
>MUH MARS MARS MARS
>DID I MENTION MARS
>>7736415
These are the guys that wrote that "wait, but why" article aren't they?
Where is that comfy nasa launch guy with his smooth voice.
STILL A GO
>>7736415
They didn't know because they were too busy sprouting popsic PR Buzzwords to actually pay attention to the rocket.
>>7736423
Not a NASA launch sorry
30 SECONDS
Godspeed Falcon 9.
Finally we get some raw rocket video footage. THIS IS WHY WE'RE WATCHING ELON. NOT THOSE POPSCI PR BUZZ KIDS.
LIFTOFF
LIFTOFF
Going well so far
Jesus Fucking Christ. Look at Space X career website. They have over 100 engineering opening. All those jobs need a master degree and 5+ years experience.
GOOOOO
Max Q passed
All right, now land this fucking can.
Stage 1 is starting flyback!
AMERICLAPS
>>7736438
it's not like they're doing rocket science
Firecracker technology
Boys love it
now for the important part
hype
Now I just want their lander to crash desu.
MURRICA
>>7736438
I've played Kerbal Space Program for 4 1/2 years. That counts as experience right?
>>7736445
I see what you did there.
>>7736449
At least this time they won't lose it in the ocean.
One way or another they're getting their fucking rocket back.
>>7736452
Counts as like... double experience.
GO SPACEX
FUCK ULA
God damn it not these three fuckers again.
Kek as much as i shit on them i feel great so far
>>7736457
ikr?
I really hope it crashes...
FIRECRACKERS NAWW
holy fuck just put on some nice music why are these fuckers talking
>>7736461
Yeah, seriously. The people watching this don't need this shit explained.
BLOW UP
L
O
W
U
P
ITS HAPPENING
>>7736445
they prefer rocket engineering
paper tigers are in ample supply
Where do they find these people.
>>7736462
This
landing soon
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
o
n
>>7736462
>fucking normies REEEEEEEEEEE get out of my clubhouse
THEY FUCKING DID IT
LANDED!
OH BABY
IT LANDED
T
L
A
N
D
E
D
THEY DID IT, THE ABSOLUTE MADMEN!
THEY FUCKING DID IT
THE MADMEN
And there ya go.
DAT LANDING
ALL YOU CLOSED MINDED NIGGERS LOOK AND WEEP
HOLY
FUCKING
SHIT
THE ABSOLUTE MADMEN
oh my god
mom get the camera
NASA BTFO
HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SHIT
TRUMP DID IT
ELON IS HAPPY MAN
Holy shit they did it
Jeff Bezos & Blue Origin just got BTFO
![A0RkUBrCQAAPltD[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/13kRV9K.jpg "A0RkUBrCQAAPltD[1].jpg")
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP
im deying
USA USA USA
U S A
S A U
A U S
>that guy who yelled HOLY SHIT WE FUCKING DID IT
Hey Blue Origin, wanna try some HORIZONTAL velocity on that trick of yours?
USA USA USA
wow that's it? What the fuck was the point of that?
N A S A
A
S
A
B T F O
T
F
O
>>7736498
>ULA BTFO
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
THEY DID IT THE FALCON HAS LANDED
WOOOOO
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
In Soviet Russia, first stage lands YOU!
I AM SO FUCKING HAPPY
>they managed to land a suborbital rocket
>someone did this last week before them
>they end their event in a nationalistic outburst accompanied with 2 gay men talking shit
never change america.
HOLY FUCK ELON
GOOD SHIT MAN
>>7734285
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING NOW FUCKHEAD
JEFF BEZOS STATUS: BTFO'd
How does Elon win so much?
Oh jesus I'm crying
I'm crying
>>7736397
THEY DID IT! USA USA USA USA
>Tfw you live nearby and watched/heard it live
>>7736508
Stay mad senpai
>>7736508
get the fuck out of here bezos with your shitty suborbital dinky rocket
this is orbital spaceflight, not some fireworks rockety hop
>lions weigh 2000 kgs
wtf
> In general, fully grown male lions weigh in at around 420 pounds
??
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
USA
>USA
OH SHIT SOMETHING JUST FLEW AWAY FROM THE ROCKET SOMETHING IS WRONG
Shieeeee. Spaceflight for everyone soon.
>>7736518
[] Not envious
[X] Envious
