Launch at 9:31 UTC
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Watch_ExoMars_launch
>inb4 "b-but it's not exciting because it's not Elon Memesk"
proton will explode
screencap this post
>>7931360
Elong Mustards PR team usually puts more information in the OP, instead of just putting a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P42i05PEGM8
Not gonna lie, Proton rockets look fucking cool.
>>7931361
get fucked
Well that was fucking nothing. Wasn't a fan of those 70's era cameras, either.
europoors launch their shit in kazahkstan lol
>>7931360
Was that some '60 video clip?
>>7931383
Kazakhstan has parts west of the Ural and therefore in Europe.
Exomars was supposed to be launched by NASA but they bailed out and were replaces by the Russians.
>>7931389
Was supposed to launch by NASA which lanches by Russians
We /breeze/ now
>>7931377
Agreed. Best-looking rocket since Titan-Centaur.
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2016/03/13/why-exomars-ride-to-space-takes-the-time-it-does/
ESA blog on why the escape sequence takes so long (over 10 hours): Blame Proton M.
Nice pird.
>>7931514
I saw that during launch too and thought it was just a piece of debris.
Poor birb
>>7931506
Flight to Marks takes about 7 months.
no shit
>>7931519
Never forget.
>>7931524
;_;7
Fourth stage (named "Breeze M") finished its second burn. Third burn and ExoMars separation in 6 hours.
>>7931539
scratch that, apparently there are two more burns.
Afternoon program begins
>sntstssvity
>>7931527
Fly on, batter! To the moon!
>>7931360
It's not exciting because there's nothing new going on here. It's yet another Proton launch, and yet another Mars probe.
What we're looking at here is extreme inefficiency, carrying on in order to pay salaries of people accomplishing little with their time and funding. It's an example of the pathological bureaucracy of our time, which sells itself as the means to progress while behaving as the obstacle to progress.
Set aside your pious attitude and look at it with a critical eye: why should this be a billion-dollar+ enterprise? Should it really take thousands of people working for years? Shouldn't this be the project of a few university professors and their students?
People have been doing orbital launch since the 1950s, and robotic landers since the 1960s. Shouldn't the launch go up on a cheap reusable vehicle? Shouldn't the lander be as straightforward as building a quadcopter at this point?
Sure, it makes sense that the instruments would cost tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, but hundreds of millions?
These sorts of probes should be going out by the hundreds. It's not more important or exciting just because it's ineffcient.
>>7931814
Sometimes problems are harder than we'd wish them to be. That's not an excuse to retreat into fantasy though.
>>7931814
fanboys coming your way soon
>>7931824
>herp de-derp de-derpity doo
The problem isn't harder than we wish it to be. The task is being performed by organizations for whom the ostensible purpose is not the real goal, by people who see efficiency improvement as threats to their livelihood.
>>7931360
ESA has a very weak brand.
>>7931814
If you care about science, as opposed to business opportunities, then this is still exciting. All Elon Musk is doing is putting more commercial satellites into orbit, woob-de-doo.
The money spent on these launches is not lost. It's directly invested into the contractors who build the engines and instruments for this. It creates jobs, funds important research both in material sciences and the actual research goals of the missions, and compared to other government expenses, is comparably tiny.
If you're a business, then yes, cheap spaceflights are exciting, but as a government, you're just spending money that gets directed back into what is mostly your own economy.
Space flight isn't lacking funding because everyone decided to be inefficient and waste it all, it's lacking funding because no politician wants to suggest spending more money on something that doesn't get them voter approval.
>>7931849
They're like the kid in the back row of the class who everybody forgets exists, and the rare times when kids in class talk about them it's about their choice of shirts.
>>7931814
>and yet another Mars probe.
The last Russian launched Mars probe failed to leave orbit.
For ESA it's the second since Mars Express in 2003.
>>7931850
>All Elon Musk is doing is putting more commercial satellites into orbit, woob-de-doo.
Yeah, man. DSCOVR and Dragon are commercial satellites. Pay no attention to Falcon Heavy being oversized for the commercial market, or development on Crew Dragon that will enable it to land on Mars. Surely their efforts to develop a fully-reusable vehicle are just big talk that will go nowhere, let alone their plan to build a city on Mars. They can't be *serious* about any of that. Reusability can't *save* money, that's been *proven*.
The OldSpace crowd is being dismissive of NewSpace in increasingly absurd ways because their legitimacy depends on maintaining the lie that dramatic efficiency improvements are impossible. If someone comes along and does things for orders of magnitude lower costs, they're revealed as profiteering frauds or the beneficiaries of extraordinarily generous welfare programs.
We should have stayed on the curve of increasing competence and decreasing cost, but it was over by the early 1970s, when costs and capabilities started to wander up and down at random. You can see spaceflight was in the hands of the kneecappers by the fact that the shuttle program proceeded while OTRAG got killed through political pressure.
Is /sci/ really full of people willing to shit on Mars exploration?
>>7931886
This place is full of stormniggers. Is it any surprise?
>>7931886
99% of the posters here think the moon landing was fake. They'll say the same thing about an eventual Mars landing, so it makes sense for them to preemptively shit on it.
>>7931886
What do you expect when people act like Musk is Jesus while nothing ever happens
>>7931896
>99% of the posters here think the moon landing was fake.
it was tho?
>>7931886
>Is /sci/ really full of people willing to shit on Mars exploration?
Yeah, go on pretending that's what this is.
It's the people who care about Mars exploration who hate this the most.
Let me make an analogy, the Pier 80 homeless shelter in San Francisco:
http://sfist.com/2016/02/11/pier_80_homeless_shelter_costs_1_mi.php
A million dollars a month, spent on a 150-bed shelter, where the "beds" are little more than sleeping bags in a big tent.
Are people mad about this because they "shit on helping the homeless"? Or maybe "Sometimes problems are harder than we'd wish them to be." and they're just "retreating into fantasy"?
No, it's because obviously the money meant for helping the homeless is largely being just given to comfortably-well-off civil servants and contractors, with little regard for how much the homeless are actually helped. So of course, it's the people who care about helping the homeless who are mad about this. It's obvious that far more could be done with the money.
If you care about space exploration, you should be offended when you see parasites sucking up $billion+ budgets ostensibly for exploration, and producing mere crumbs of effective effort.
>>7931361
You might expect so given the results of recent SpaceX launches, but I assure you they are statistically independent ;-)
>>7931814
>It's not exciting because there's nothing new going on here.
This.
I don't even give a shit about what the Falcon 9 is carrying. I just want to see that fucker land properly on a barge. Or, you know launch...
>>7931824
>That's not an excuse to retreat into fantasy though.
Didn't sound like fantasy to me.
>>7931814
>It's not exciting because there's nothing new going on here. It's yet another war, and yet another collateral damage free-for-all.
>What we're looking at here is extreme inefficiency, carrying on in order to pay salaries of people accomplishing little with their time and funding. It's an example of the pathological bureaucracy of our time, which sells itself as the means to peace while behaving as the obstacle to peace.
>Set aside your pious attitude and look at it with a critical eye: why should this be a trillion-dollar enterprise? Should it really take thousands of people working for years? Shouldn't this be the project of a few diplomats and the special forces?
>People have been dropping bombs since the 1910s, and ballistic missiles since the 1940s. Shouldn't the peace effort utilise diplomacy with minimal violence? Shouldn't eliminating the target be as straightforward as playing Halo at this point?
>Sure, it makes sense that the instruments would cost tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, but hundreds of millions?
>These sort of bombs should not be going out by the hundreds. It's not more important or exciting just because it's inefficient.
>>7931814
there's more to science than just making reusable vehicles
>>7931978
To do a mission like this, most of what you need is transportation. The rest of it is expensive largely because the transportation is expensive.
For instance, to develop a Mars lander, you'd like to test under realistic conditions, by doing aerobraking in the upper atmosphere of Earth, and propulsive landings on the moon. Maybe even by doing a propulsive landing on a platform in the upper atmosphere of Earth, with a bed of Mars-soil simulant lifted on a hovering rocket. At any rate, you'd certainly want to send stuff to Mars in every window, and develop a standard lander which you could use for many missions.
If you can't do these things, because just the launch for each test costs a hundred million dollars or more... well, can you imagine the unholy shitstorm if you launched a probe on a hundred-million-dollar rocket, and it failed because you skipped a fifty-million-dollar test on the ground?
Stuff that gets launched usually ends up costing several times as much as the launch: almost every payload falls between half the cost of the launch and ten times the cost of the launch. That's not coincidence. You can always find ways to throw money at mission assurance, or pack in the possibility of a little extra value, or you can use testing on actual launches to lower costs. There are strong pressures to not load a hundred-million-dollar rocket with only a million dollars worth of hardware, and to not limit a ten-billion-dollar project to depending on one fifty-million-dollar rocket launch.
When launch costs come down dramatically, so will payload costs. Some people will be scratching their heads over this coincidence, or groping for explanations with technology marching in lockstep so the same factors lower the costs of both, but it will be a simple causal link.
Reuters article says methane in Martain atmosphere could be produced by geological phenomena, such as the oxidation of iron. How could oxidation of iron produce methane?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exomars-idUSKCN0WG0VA
>>7931814
Go fuck yourself faggot nigger do you even know how to build a fucking bottle rocket you fat fucking cocksucker? How dare you come along and shit on the sweat and tears of thousands of our greatest minds just because it doesn't live up to your faggot pop-sci expectations? Fucking gas yourself you piece of shit.
>>7932178
>How could oxidation of iron produce methane?
There's CO2 around, and H2O around, so if something's stealing the oxygen off of those, you get carbon and hydrogen, which can combine into methane. I think the usual way this would happen is for the iron to steal the oxygen off water, leaving hydrogen, then the hydrogen reacts with the CO2 to make H2O and CH4.
I'd be interested to hear about how exactly they think this is happening.
>>7932243
Anything to hush the existence of ayys
>>7932249
And he gets government funding so it's not like he's fighting against "the system" like people would have you believe. He's had so many advantages and he can't do anything with it.
>>7932263
Exactly at the end of the day he's just another government contractor doing their bidding. Fanboys acts like he is some freedom fighter bringing space to all. He wants to lower the cost yeah but a 90% drop on a $100 million launch is still fucking $10 million assuming he can even make that reduction.
I just watched the launch. dat camera doe, I've literally seen 1960's launches in better quality.
>>7932249
>SpaceX fanboys think Musk is the fucking Messiah. Everyone before him was a bumbling retard
Jesus, what's wrong with you?
There's nobody who thinks this is why it's happening. Musk is just one of the first billionaires to jump in with a big investment he didn't need back, after the US government decided to loosen its stranglehold on spaceflight, and SpaceX is the one that's proceeding by snapping up the existing launch market (which, really, only one NewSpace company can do -- the rest have to grow the market to survive).
Musk's contribution to SpaceX has been important, but he's far from the only one who's bringing big resources and sacrificing to make them work. SpaceX has attracted a great deal of technical talent, and those people are taking smaller salaries and working longer hours to make it work. They would have come to any NewSpace company that was going to let them honestly work toward cost-effective launch.
There's also Blue Origin and various smaller players waiting in the wings to take SpaceX's place if it crumbles. But for now, SpaceX seems to be about five years ahead of anybody else.
It's not clear whether SpaceX or some other NewSpace company will be responsible for airliner-like reusability, lowering costs to near that of the propellant, but it is clear that this is what's coming, and that no OldSpace organization is going to do it unless reorganized along NewSpace lines.
>>7932263
>He's had so many advantages and he can't do anything with it.
Didn't you people get enough of sounding like idiots when you said SpaceX couldn't get to orbit, or couldn't go to the ISS, or wouldn't go to GTO, or would never make flyback recovery work?
There have been some delays in getting their launch rates up, but they're already major players in the launch market, and there's no reason to expect them to stop making progress.
>>7932272
>at the end of the day he's just another government contractor doing their bidding.
Yeah man, they're not selling any private launch contracts at all. They're certainly not developing anything that makes major factions of NASA and the DoD uncomfortable. They certainly have just been submissive, compliant contractors who haven't had to fight any legal battles to make the government obey its own rules and let them conduct business.
No government agency contracted them to do flyback reuse, a reusable capsule, a propulsive landing capsule, or a next-generation rocket that will make SLS look small. They decided to develop all of that on their own, with their own money, in the face of opposition from factions within their biggest potential customers.
>a 90% drop on a $100 million launch is still fucking $10 million
If you've been paying any attention, you know that their ambition is to go far beyond a 90% reduction.
>fax
lel
>>7931879
>If someone comes along and does things for orders of magnitude lower costs
>orders
SpaceX aren't even an order of magnitude cheaper than existing comer cal launchers.
>this thread
Pic related seems appropriate:
SpaceX and their LIVE televised barge crash landings are exciting sure, but they are literally riding the initial peak of hype. They are years away from real achievements.
ESA and their EXOMars rover mission is fully developed science. Today's launch might not seem as exciting, but that's a good thing, because the project is well past the initial hype phase and into the actually fucking happening phase.
>>7932458
>major players
yeah when there's like 2 companies of course you'll be a "major player"
b-but it's not exciting because it's not Elon Memesk!
>>7932496
SpaceX's prices aren't permanent. They went with a development/funding strategy of starting with a conventional expendable rocket and evolving it into a reusable one.
They're still expending rockets built to be reusable. The fact that they can sell these for lower than the going rate at all shows how fucked up the industry is.
As they start reusing them, and increasing their flight rate, their prices will start dropping. Their first planned price reduction is a 30% drop for reuse of the first stage. The big reductions won't hit until their fully-reusable version, which is also planned to have higher Isp, lower-cost fuel (methane), and avoid the use of any scarce consumables (self-pressurized methane and oxygen tanks, rather than helium). They're also working on minimalistic and largely automated pad operations, and a consistent track record of landing on target and not dropping anything will mean they don't have to clear a downrange area for launch.
When they get there, the technical conditions will have been met for a drastic reduction in launch price, within a small factor of the cost of the methane consumed (airliners fly for about triple the cost of their fuel).
For them to actually lower the price so far would depend on there being a market to keep their rockets busy, from space tourism, asteroid mining, outmigration, etc.
>>7932514
Your image reminded me of another one.
>>7932519
Succeeding in the commercial launch market is neither easy, nor the expected outcome for a new entrant. Most launch startups never get to orbit.
For instance, ULA is the product of the failure of two major, well-funded US aerospace companies, with the support and encouragement of the US government, to produce a competitive launch service. Both vehicles they produced ended up being completely uneconomical, despite one of them outsourcing engine production to Russia, so Boeing and Lockheed Martin got a bail-out and merged their launch operations into a subsidy-dependent cartel.
ULA has been a non-entity in the commercial launch market. The US government buys their launches for the sole reason that they're American companies (despite their dependence on Russian engines). So before SpaceX, if you were looking at launching a satellite for commercial reasons, or if you had a science payload and you weren't NASA, you'd basically choose between Arianespace or some Russian provider.
American commercial launch competitiveness died when the shuttle program got underway, and was not revived until the rise of SpaceX.
What the fuck is going on in this thread. Yeah, the launch is pretty boring because the Russians are pretty okay at launching protons and it didn't explode.
The landing will be much more exciting. Only USA has successfully landed on Mars before, so it will be a big deal if the ESA does it this time.
>>7932574
>SpaceX's prices aren't permanent.
No but the point being made is that you are counting your chickens before they have hatched.
>>7932514
>They are years away from real achievements.
Already achieved:
>successfully competing in the commercial launch market
>first flyback and powered landing of a first stage on an orbital flight
>transporting cargo to and from the ISS in the first American space capsule since the Apollo Program
>first reusable space capsule
>GTO and BEO launches
Almost certainly less than a year from:
>having the most capable rocket on the market
>routine recovery of first stages
>successful reuse of a recovered first stage
>manned spaceflight with a reusable capsule
>having the launch vehicle with the highest launch rate
>having the highest or second-highest launch rate of any launch service provider
Maybe you mean they are years away from completely blowing OldSpace the fuck out. They've certainly got an impressive list of real achievements already.
>>7932608
>the point being made is that you are counting your chickens before they have hatched.
That was perhaps the point intending to be made. The point actually made was that you can't read.
>>If someone comes along and does things for orders of magnitude lower costs
>SpaceX aren't even an order of magnitude cheaper than existing comer cal launchers.
>>If someone comes along
>SpaceX aren't even
Nobody made the statement that SpaceX had already made anything an order of magnitude cheaper.
>>7932657
>first reusable space capsule
This is literally the only achievement in your entire list. Everything else has been done before or is yet to happen.
There isn't much science behind their goals or future trajectory. That is why organisations like ESA are important - they are pursuing the scientific goals - meanwhile SpaceX can focus on commercialising spaceflight (with substantial help from others)
>>7932665
obvs I meant to post
>landing of a first stage
not the reusable space capsule which the shuttle did previously
>>7932665
>only the first time something is ever done counts as an achievement
>SpaceX hasn't actually landed a flyback booster
Jesus.
>>7932673
>the shuttle was a space capsule
>>7932679
A capsule with wings. That sometimes blew up.
>>7932687
>>The point actually made was that you can't read.
>I am super determined to make that point. Watch, I will prove beyond any doubt that I can't read:
>>If someone comes along and does things for orders of magnitude lower costs
>Present tense.
>not at all describing a hypothetical future situation
>I really believe this
>I can't help it, I was born this way.
>>7932660
That wasn't simply in reference to your original post. For example:
>When they get there, the technical conditions will have been met for a drastic reduction in launch price, within a small factor of the cost of the methane consumed
When, not if.
>>7931360
Here's a funny anecdote.
Few months ago I was talking with my lecturer, an aerospace engineer that was project manager for a sensor that's installed in exomars' lander, about exomars misson; he concluded with a kinda worried face saying "...well, I guess at this point we'll just have to wait and see if the new Alenia's retrockets actually work as intended"
Wait for it /sci/: ESA is gonna crash a lander on Mars.
>>7932793
The point of the lander is to test the landing system for the ESA 2018 rover. It only carries a token scientific payload. There is an alternative system should it fail.
>>7932412
>NewSpace
Can you please stop with these faggot buzzwords? Fucking millenials I swear.
>>7932665
>That is why organisations like ESA are important - they are pursuing the scientific goals - meanwhile SpaceX can focus on commercialising spaceflight (with substantial help from others)
Thank you. This thread shows /sci/ for what it really is; a bunch of fat fucks who couldn't give a shit about actual science they just support whoever promises to get them into space for no reason other than to fulfill their retarded pop-sci fantasies.
>>7931912
I agree. Its the principle. Fuck the homeless shelter. We could build like 690533 of them for the price of one jet. But thats a whooooole different beast
