JCSAT-14 launch in T-15 hours 30 min.
Let the shitposting and betting begin
>>8049866
First for there is no such thing as aliens
>>8049866
Putting my cash on the ayy lmaos
>>8049866
Redpill me on ayylmaos /sci/
>>8049974
Math scientist with 300K starting pay say that there are no aliens because the numbers tell them to.
>>8049866
>first scrub in T-15 hours
fixed that for you
(I originally wrote "delay", but then I remembered this launch date has been pushed forward three times already.)
>>8049905
prove it
>>8049984
someone post the drawing plz
>>8049990
The one for every spacex launch ever?
>>8049994
yes
>>8050012
Are they reusing the booster that landed?
>>8050019
thanks anon.
that fucking smile at the end :p
>>8050019
topkek fat american rockets
>>8050032
No. This is a new booster.
Anyway, launch got pushed back to Friday due to weather.
>>8050032
That booster is scheduled to be reused in June if it passes the tests.
>>8050139
What a surprise.
>>8050176
wtf its been moved on a day
>>8049984
>new launch date: May 6
4 delays and counting!
How is this related to aliens? It's a telecommunications satellite for Earth.
Gawd damnit. Is there something special with their launch site and weather? Besides that one fueling-problem they had when they went to super-dense fuels, its always weather weather weather
>>8050371
>Is there something special with their launch site and weather?
It's on the Florida coast. Plus, they want to be able to recover the booster. That's worth millions of dollars to them and imposes additional weather restrictions. It's well worth delaying a few days to get their first stage back.
>>8050172
source on this?
>>8050139
>>8050333
And here I thought I missed I by 6 hours.
>>8050433
Spot on!
>>8050371
>Kept you waitin' huh?
I'd like to remind you all that Orbital ATK, formerly known as Orbital Sciences Corp., has a much better track record than that meme company founded by the marketing guy Elon Musk.
>>8050485
they do?
>>8050485
They havent landed a booster on a barge though so who cares
>>8050412
June would be the earliest use possible, but it will probably be later.
>However, the CRS-8 S1 is hoping to provide the transformed 39A with its first fire and smoke since the final Space Shuttle launch via up to ten static fire tests, per Mr. Musk’s earlier comments.
>It is currently unknown when these tests will take place although the goal is to launch the stage on a future – as yet undetermined – mission, possibly in June. However, following the arrival of the booster at the 39A HIF, Mr. Musk refined that timeline to “3-4 months” until its potential re-flight.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/falcon-9-booster-reuse-testing-ksc/
>>8050525
Wonder what the payload will be. Dont they have a bunch of used Dragons from old CRS-missions laying around somewhere? That would give them a chance to test the heatshield for more than one return as well
>>8050485
I'd like to remind you all that Ariane is the timeliest, reliabliest, sexiest and advancedest of them all, including both Orbital ATK, formerly known as Orbital Sciences Corp., and than that meme company founded by the marketing guy Elon Musk.
>>8050706
>timeliest, reliabliest, sexiest and advancedest
forgot explodiest and made with actual engines that were made in the sovietuinonieest
>>8050371
I dont think they are quite as tolerant of weather as others
Might help get better payloads, and ofc landing the rocket would be tricky in high winds/rain.
>>8050525
>3-4 months
Right so by Space-X time that should be early next year at the soonest.
>>8050732
You're thinking of the Antares, for which the work to switch to Freedom-Land made engines is nearly done. Ariane is aEurofag SpacE Agency launch vehicle. It's a decent launch vehicle and relatively affordable if you want to hitchhike with a richer company's satellite. Of course for roughly the same price as being the secondary on an Ariane V you can be the primary on a Falcon 9.
>>8050732
americans fuck up rocket launch
>fugging soviets
>>8050485
>Orbital ATK, formerly known as Orbital Sciences Corp., has a much better track record
Setting aside the "Minotaur" rockets, which are basically ICBMs built by other companies, with Orbital only responsible for stuff like payload integration...
Orbital:
Pegasus: 42 launches, 3 total failures, 3 partial failures
Taurus: 9 launches, 3 total failures
Antares: 5 launches, 1 total failure with destruction of launchpad
SpaceX:
Falcon 1: 5 launches, 3 total failures
Falcon 9: 23 launches, 1 total failure, 1 partial failure
The majority of SpaceX's failures were in the initial learning process, whereas Orbital's are all over the place.
>>8050752
>You're thinking of the Antares, for which the work to switch to Freedom-Land made engines is nearly done.
So we're calling Russia "Freedom-Land" now? Antares is switching to RD-181, a close relative of the Russian RD-180 engine used on ULA's Atlas V, not to any American engine. The main difference between RD-180 and RD-181 is that RD-180 is basically two RD-181s using a shared turbopump.
>>8050371
Florida Fag (30 mins from Cape Canaveral) here.
Weather has been shit for last 3 days.
>>8050752
>for which the work to switch to Freedom-Land made engines is nearly done. A
Ariane: has to dso a termendously amount of effort that is just nearly nearly nearly done to avoid using failed technology from the most evil empire known to western men
Spacex: effortlesly advances technology to science fiction levels of superiority while having all of americans political force against for the whole deal of proceedings
>>8051218
>Ariane: has to dso a termendously amount of effort that is just nearly nearly nearly done to avoid using failed technology from the most evil empire known to western men
What the fuck are you even talking about?
>>8050985
I thought the plan was to switch to a Blue Origin engine. Looking it up I was mistaken, I was thinking of ULA, who are going to use Blue Origin on their next launch vehicle.
>>8049866
>betting
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa
>>8051920
>there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa
Yes there is, there's just nothing to win in them but disappointment and wasted time.
So...will it launch this time?
>>8052941
fuck knows. probably. If I wake up tomorrow morning and its been bumped forward again im going to chop musks dick off
>>8051485
>I was thinking of ULA, who are going to use Blue Origin on their next launch vehicle.
ULA shouldn't be making a "next launch vehicle" and they actually haven't made any firm commitment to using BE-4 yet.
Frankly, Vulcan is a token effort at pretending to work toward compliance with sanctions against Russia. From ULA management's perspective, it lets them push for more government funding and keep their engineers busy, while continuing to buy unlimited RD-180s for the foreseeable future.
What ULA wants above all else is to discourage development of and integration with AR-1, a straightforward American-made replacement of RD-180. Most of the development money, in that case, would go to Aeroject Rocketdyne, and AR-1 would likely end up being more expensive than RD-180.
>>8050485
lol, same problem twice, $700 million in the trash
>Three of four launches between 2001 and 2011 ended in failure, including the February 24, 2009 launch of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission[3] and the March 4, 2011 launch of the Glory mission.[4] The failure of the two latest launches resulted in losses totalling $700 million for NASA (not including cost of the rockets themselves).
>payload fairing failed to separate
>payload fairing failed to separate
>>8053050
I don't understand how any of that shit works.
Surely the US gov can force US companies that only get work from the US gov to comply with economic sanctions?
Russian-made engines are nice, but they're hardly the only engines in existence. US aerospace companies are easily large enough and ugly enough to build their own motors.
>>8053344
>lol, same problem twice,
It's not that weird or unusual. These things are hard, and shit happens.
>>8053349
Russian engines are the best. They use metallurgical techniques that not even Americans have been able to duplicate. That is one reason they don't want to use the AR-1, it would be too expensive to research those techniques or work around them with a redesign.
>>8053358
>Russian engines are the best.
So? Everyone else's engines still work fine.
Going without might not be ideal, but I struggle to imagine that these companies couldn't manage without them. Particularly given that competition is so light.
>>8053349
>Surely the US gov can force US companies that only get work from the US gov to comply with economic sanctions?
There are different factions in the government. ULA's owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, two extremely large companies which each have a lot of lobbying power.
They've been getting exemptions from the sanctions.
>Russian-made engines are nice, but they're hardly the only engines in existence. US aerospace companies are easily large enough and ugly enough to build their own motors.
As a matter of fact, to be permitted to use RD-180 within the EELV program, Lockheed Martin had to prove that it could be produced domestically, for exactly this sort of situation, so the US wouldn't be dependent on Russia for strategic launch capabilities.
There's an ongoing fight over this. The US government is going ahead with funding AR-1 development, at the same time as they're giving ULA hundreds of millions of dollars to develop Vulcan, which won't use AR-1.
>>8053374
>prove that it could be produced domestically
those jackasses have had the designs and rights to build the RD180s since the fall of the soviet union
>>8053369
Thing is, the Atlas V was designed with the RD-180 performance in mind (overpowered first stage, underpowered second stage). It would need a complete redesign to use less capable engines. Which is exactly what Vulcan is.
>>8053349
>>8053374
Oh, and just to be extra-delightful, a little after the sanction controversy started (and when Elon Musk suggested that America didn't need Atlas V, but that Falcon 9/Heavy and Delta IV were enough), ULA announced that they were discontinuing their Delta IV with made-in-USA engines.
They're continuing Delta IV Heavy, but priced at about $1 billion per launch.
>>8053374
>two extremely large companies which each have a lot of lobbying power.
>They've been getting exemptions from the sanctions.
Yeah, I know. I'm just saying it's stupid.
>The US government is going ahead with funding AR-1 development, at the same time as they're giving ULA hundreds of millions of dollars to develop Vulcan, which won't use AR-1.
Why is it that space travel can simultaneously made me so hopeful for the future and so depressed at how stupid we can be?
>>8053349
fuck economic sanctions of russia
are you a jew? Because they are bombing terrorists? Or assisting the russian minority in ukraine?
>>8053401
>It would need a complete redesign to use less capable engines. Which is exactly what Vulcan is.
Vulcan is a complete redesign (it will use methane fuel rather than kerosene, and will be 5.4m diameter, as opposed to the 3.8m Atlas V), but BE-4 isn't a less capable engine than RD-180. A single BE-4 is less thrust, sure, but RD-180 is basically two engines stuck together, and BE-4 will be used in pairs on Vulcan.
A pair of BE-4s will be more thrust at a higher specific impulse than RD-180. If anything, this is an upgrade.
Vulcan's more of a Delta IV successor than an Atlas V successor, using Delta-IV-based fuselage and tanks, although it will use the Centaur upper stage of the Atlas V rather than the DCSS of Delta IV.
>>8053517
Assuming they won't just altogether cancel the vulcan after SpaceX reuses their first rocket this year, and lands all 3 stages from a Falcon Heavy
>>8053560
Why would they, when they're getting the government to pay for it?
Anyway, even when SpaceX gets up to speed, implements vertical integration, and is generally ready to provide all launches the DoD needs, it's policy to have alternative launch systems, rather than rely on a single commercial provider, and that's a good policy.
ULA's the established option. It makes sense to keep them running as a backup at least until a credible competitor to SpaceX (such as Blue Origin) is operating.
>>8053580
>and that's a good policy.
yes but after elon musk demonstrates that reusability can bring costs down to like 1/10 of what they charge now it would be criminal to keep paying Ula for 100 million price tags
>>8049905
not ones that are visiting us but if you aren't a religious fundamentalist then you have no reason to deny the overwhelming probability that there are other earth like planets with life on them.
>>8053622
Currently, most payloads cost more than the launch service. Until that's improved on, any decrease in launch cost is a modest overall discount at best.
Eventually, cheap launch will help make the payloads cheaper, but that will take time.
>>8053635
the cost of putting heavy things in orbit cheaply is the problem tho. the price of the fancy shit you want in orbit isn't what is slowing us down.
>>8053635
its mostly development cost tho. mass produce those probes and the price goes down fast
>>8053635
yeah, you illiterate fuck what are you talking about, the main economic problem of any space enterprise is the cost of $/kg to LEO
if you really needed it to, you could have god tier colleges around the world design all the payloads you need, then manufacturing them is trivial the real problem is launch costs.
like, the rocket hardware is cots 60 million and only because spacex is objectively superior number one go team musk... but the hardware only of the satellites is no more than 500.000U$S and im being generous
>>8053639
>>8053642
Satellites aren't cheap or easy either, and there's no option for drastically improving their costs like reusing them.
How much do you expect several tons of microchips to cost? Just because it's a reasonably-sized item is no reason to believe it can be cheap with current technology.
Where can I find an up to date version of this /sci/?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems&oldid=590182048
>>8053667
dude just imagine apple building only one iphone.
>>8053667
Liddle bites, Barron. Liddle bites.
http://www.space.com/6839-space-forecast-predicts-satellite-production-boom.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a8401/mass-produced-sats-will-offer-low-cost-access-to-space-14735425/
http://www.cubesat.org/index.php/about-us
>>8053681
What, are you imagining now that there will be customers for millions of copies of the same satellite?
There's only so many satellites that can be usefully or safely put up in Earth orbit. Every new LEO satellite increases the risk of Kessler Syndrome, while crowding GEO space will mean the signals interfere with each other.
No, we're already launching about as many satellites as makes sense, and as long as technology keeps advancing and not everybody shares their technology with everybody else, it makes sense for them to be as unique and cutting-edge as they are (comsats already share common "buses" with stuff like propulsion and power supply). Taking advantage of cheaper launch will mostly mean launching stuff other than satellites.
>>8053688
>http://www.space.com/6839-space-forecast-predicts-satellite-production-boom.html
This was a 2009 article predicting conditions up to 2018.
And what they were talking about was a quite modest increase in launch volume.
>popularmechanics
You've got to be kidding.
>cubesat.org
Launch cost reductions would hardly even matter to cubesats. You could launch thousands of them on one rocket now. Anyway, they are in no way a replacement for big, expensive satellites.
>>8053714
Again, little bites. Problems are soluble, problems are inevitable.
>>8049866
Anyone Else East Orlando cozy :^)
MAKE SPACE GREAT AGAIN
>>8053710
Theres no such thing as kessler syndrome
Large constellations in LEO are necessary for world wide broadband internet from satellites
>>8053667
actually satellites been steadily dropping in price.
and actually, thank you for demonstrating your non knowledge of the subject because microchips drop in price like every month or something, is the reason you have a magic cellphon that allows you to be ignorant over the internet at the speed of ligte
>>8053671
should be quite a bit cheaper than 2,500 $/kg
>>8053730
every fucking time i see this it looks fake. i can't fucking believe we live in the future.
>>8053740
>>8053741
we need this. i want elon to make my dream a reality. I want to be a space marine.
>>8053735
>Theres no such thing as kessler syndrome
Don't be stupid, at least look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
Orbital space around Earth is currently relatively clean, but there's enough mass in different orbits to make a real mess of it if they start breaking up into shrapnel because they're being hit by shrapnel from other breakups.
>>8053737
>thank you for demonstrating your non knowledge of the subject because microchips drop in price like every month or something
What the fuck is wrong with you? Sure, any given model of microchip goes down in price, but that doesn't mean that a ton of cutting-edge microchips hasn't consistently been worth a fortune for decades.
People don't spend $100+ million building a satellite because they're trying to do something basic and straightforward, but are just really inefficient at it. They're trying to pack in as much functionality as possible with the latest technology.
>>8053747
ok sure, in about 200 years you can have a strategic objective off earth
space marines will be nerdy tipes that are worth psending all the money training costs, they will be mostly people who use machines
unless we dont singularity before
>>8053750
If your launch cost is only 10 million, and you can order it with only a month of notice, then you don't need to spend so much on the satellite, plus you can upgrade them every year or two
>>8053735
>Theres no such thing as kessler syndrome
Not yet, but LEO is getting crowded. Debris is manageable for now, but as we see more launches, without proper debris management, we're going to need more and more avoidance maneuvers. Which means your satellites will run out of propellant sooner which reduces their operating lifespan.
>>8053751
when mars starts acting up we gotta have someone to do the shooting on the ground.
>>8053766
why would they act up, theyre a colony of 2000 scientists, which is fuckloadingly HUGE for outer space standards...
also no weapons and no strategic objectives out there, specialist predict that at current rates it will be like 100.000 years before we even need to begin to worry about solar system resources depletition
>>8053772
scientists are a buncha hippies and commies
you guys are aware it looks like a giantic penis, right?
>>8053777
Welcome to every rocket ever.
>>8053777
Have you ever considered the possibility that your penis looks like a rocket?
>>8053777
according to feminazis and doctor freuds everything that even resembles a stick is us checking prividledges
>>8053777
DON'T EVEN
bumping
T-30 until live stream.
Here's hoping for no fireworks.
>>8053837
I forgot that that's the T-minus until launch and not until the stream. Stream just went live. Currently the usual logo+ music
>>8053839
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lYZLxr3L4E
Forgot link
STREAM FOR PATRICIANS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lYZLxr3L4E
STREAM FOR NORMIES:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bMeDj76ig
>this music
>>8053842
>popsci meme stream has nearly 8x the viewers of the actual stream
Why is this allowed?
>>8053844
It's pretty comfy pre-launch music
>>8053849
because science is supposed to be fun, anon xD
According to twitter they started fueling ten minutes ago. Why can't they show us this shit already?
>>8053849
>We want the Reddit audience
T-20 and we finally have the girl on screen.
landing chances at 50:50 acording to musk
>>8053849
>Watching a completely silent unhosted stream 30 minutes before launch.
Are you some kind of retard?
>>8053861
She really launches my rocket
>>8053861
tfw no qt3.14 SpaceX employee gf
>>8053864
No, just somebody who tunes into live stream early.
>>8053869
What gf? I'm talking about the rocket.
>>8053635
How much does insurance for this whole fiasco run? Who writes the policies and for what? I imagine alot of insurers would not like to throw their hat in such a risky game.
>>8053869
you'd have to be successful or attractive to get one of those anon.
T - 10:00
>>8053877
My Name is Earl.
>>8053870
No, just someone who's sperging out over a goddamn webcast stream.
There's nothing wrong with people watching coverage while waiting for a launch to happen. You don't need to flay yourself and watch in complete silence to be a 'true patrician'. Fuck off to another board if you can't keep your shitty le sekrit groups and ridiculous elitism to yourself.
>>8053884
spotted the plebian non-patrician
>>8053887
This is an 18+ board.
do you look as cute as this guy /sci/?
Wooooooo,
I hope it doesn't explode, haha!
>>8053889
what sort of belt do you wear
do you display your buckle to everyone?
>>8053890
Still time for BOAT
You guys, science is happening!
>>8053884
It's not even elitism, it's just plain retardation to not know that other people don't know as much/ enjoys seeing other people's face while they're talking.
>>8053884
I watch both. I usually have the one with "coverage" muted because the level of intelligence that most of the people presenting the segments assume the viewer has feels insulting. I don't need to literally have the presenter point to a video of the launch site and say "This is the rocket". Not to mention that the stream with "coverage" will often show people watching something important happen rather than actually show you what is happening like the technical stream. Only reason I have it open is sometimes they'll only provide more detailed updates on delays and shit on the main stream.
>>8053892
I'll take that as a no. are you going to do the countdown outloud?
10..9..
Anon at post >>8053894 YOU ARE IN THE ROCKET LAUNCH HAZARD AREA
LIFTOFF
HOOOOOOORRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY
so how long until it tries to land?
WE MARTIANS NOW BOIS
>>8053904
A couple minutes
CAPITALISM WINS AGAIN
IN YOUR FACE COMMIE SCUM
STAGE SEPARATION
this thing is accelerating slower than my mustang. can my mustang take me to mars?
>>8053913
Yes. But its not airtight so you'll need to pack oxygen.
ENTRY BURN HAS STARTED
>>8053913
Will the engine run on Mars?
>>8053908
I didn't notice the thing at the bottom thanks
Watched it outside from the Fort Lauderdale area (Broward County)
It was pretty comfy.
WE FUCKING DID IT!!!!
WE DID IT REDDIT
LANDED
AMERICA WINS AGAIN
>YAYYY
>OHHHH
>YAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY
TOP KEK
ITS LANDED!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo
MY HEART STOPPED FOR A SECOND
USA USA USA USA USA
>>8053918
yes, it has a cold air intake.
USA USA USA USA
naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaailed it!!!!
At first I thought it had 'sploded when he said "We lost-"
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
USA USA!!!
THEY DID AGAIN, THE ABSOLUTE MADMEN
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA USA USA USA
YESSSS THE FALCON HAS LANDED!!!!!
ULA BTFO! TORY BRUNO ON SUICIDE WATCH
LANDED
A
N
D
E
D
GOD BLESS AMERICA
USA USA USA
THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BIG MUSKIE DID IT AGAIN!
THE ABSOLUTE MADMEN
Is stage 2 the satellite?
FUCK YEAH
fuck I'm trembling
If they can land in conditions like that, I have no doubt that successful landings will become the norm
>>8053932
that whole room got so upset when it went black
ULA BTFO AGAIN!
What's that burning on the bottom of the booster still?
>>8053952
stage 2 is the second smaller rocket on top
O BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES
FOR AMBER WAVES OF GRAIN
FOR PURPLE MOUNTAINS MAJESTY
ABOVE THE ENAMELED PLAIN
AMERICA! AMERICA!
>>8053957
They're probably burning of excess fuel.
PRESS F TO PAY RESPECTS TO ULA
how long till we see it land (crash)?
That was absolutely amazing. These people are giving me back my faith in humanity.
>>8053960
>not "the rocket's red glare"
>>8053965
?
already landed nerd
lol
>>8053965
It landed safely already
ULA and ESA on suicide watch.
>>8053952
Carrying the satellite, yes. Stage 2 is just the engine. The satellite is in the capsule on top.
>>8053965
too late USA already won
>>8053972
Don't forget Putin.
>>8053977
video?
Russia on suicide watch
>>8053981
http://www.spacex.com/webcast
>now back to based SpaceX pre-launch/intermission music
>>8053981
rewind you nerd
>>8053965
damn commie they made it
>>8053982
Since 1991
Is he going to so it bros? Is Elon Musk going to die on Mars?
[freedoms intensifies]
Holy shit, I hope watching first stage landings never feels mundane.
Got a tear in my eye, anons.
>>8053984
They have no telemetry to display until it's back in range of a station
>>8053989
Yes
>>8053989
With some sexy ass spacesuits too.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/elon-musk-hired-designer-of-suits-for.html
>>8053991
Once the first stage landing is so routine nobody talks about it, is the day SpaceX will have truly been successful.
>>8053995
>memesuits instead of practical equipment
EPIK
>>8053995
NASA used Play-Tex for the Apollo suits.
>>8053996
Can't wait until Falcon Heavy and landing multiple boosters at the same time.
>>8053989
> I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact.
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/elon-musk-and-the-giving-pledge-2012-05-21#quote_-304447912
>>8053999
that's gonna be so fucking sweet
>>8053995
>"Anyone looks better in a tux, no matter what size or shape they are,"
lol
was it autism?
SOCIALISM BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
CAPITALISM WINS AGAIN.
USA USA USA USA USA USA
Way moar difficult landing than last time, and it's dead center.
Too late for competition to catch up. They're gonna get so wrecked. Remember when they were laughing at spaceX just a few years ago.
Annnnd we are green to deploy ebola payload.
USA
>>8053999
I'll probably pop a rod so fast I'll go blind for a full minute.
>>8054006
Just in time for the Trump presidency.
USA
so what did he end up doing to make it land successfully every time now?
what were they fucking up before that it kept crashing?
Putin is probably planning to assassinate Elon Musk,
>>8054014
It changed every time.
>>8054006
maybe they'll start competing and then we can progress at double the rate
>tfw private space race happening
>>8054014
Not enough hydraulic fuel for fins
Not enough control logic to make engine gimbal fast enough
Not enough fuel
Frozen leg
AOS
>>8054014
It didn't have enough FREEDOM
USA USA USA USA USA
IT'S GOING TO CRASH INTO AFRICA
>>8054027
kek
People have been speculating about that for a while actually.
>>8054019
One more and they'll have as many good landings as crashes on solid-surface landing attempts.
>>8054018
Humanity may yet escape this rock.
We very well may become the first intelligent species to not have its fate hopelessly intertwined with its home planet.
What a fucking unbelievably exciting time to be alive.
When they put stuff into lunar orbit, that'll be truly exciting.
Until then, it's fun, but it's not special.
NICE CGI EARTH LMAO
Deployment confirmed.
>>8054039
my nigga
TO MARS!
is this a fish eye lens
DOUBLE SUCCESS
ALL OTHER SPACE AGENCIES BTFO
MUSK CONFIRMED GOAT
did anyone else see the ice forming into a big structure then break off from the engine?
>>8054018
Look to me like the only one who could compete is Jeff Bezos. But he's 5 years late to the party.
FUCKING HELL I FELL ASLEEP
DOES ANYNODY HAVE A WEBM OF THE LANDING??
>>8054054
Has he even started building rockets yet? Is he going to go straight to super heavies? Or is he just years behind?
>>8054053
That was so fucking cool
>>8054055
They didn't show anything, maybe they will post a high quality video later
kek, someone is replicating spacex missions in ksp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TZOXI--Qtc
>>8054056
He's supposed to launch his medium lift rocket next year, but it's very hard to know for sure how far they are into development. Blue Origin is a very secretive company.
>>8054056
he may have to after lockheed & boeing dissolve ULA
>>8054042
The fact they haven't sent anything to the moon yet isn't Space-X's fault. NASA doesn't fly there often (And when they do they fly ULA) and there isn't much in the way of private companies sending lunar probes.
>>8054056
He has a rocket that can reach space and fly again. He does not however have a rocket capable of delivering anything to orbit.
[math]I love you guys.[/math]
GOD BLESS THE USA
>>8054069
>Implying Orbital ATK and Arianespace don't exist.
>>8054072
I know it's not their fault so far, it's capitalism's fault, for not making all rockets open source for everyone to build. If everyone had the schematics, everyone would be building.
Hello friends, brainlet here
Can someone construct a power ranking for rocket engines?
>>8054081
Yes, making rocket schematics available to anyone is an amazing idea. I cannot see anything going wrong with that, in fact I don't understand why ITAR exists at all. Why shouldn't Kim be allowed to know how to build things that can reliably fly over to the states?
Why not just land in africa on land?
>>8054095
It only goes 660Km offshore.
Not even close to this hell on Earth continent.
>>8054095
didnt you watch district 9?
>>8054095
what is Lord of War
