File: 2000px-Tevenphage.svg.png (318 KB, 2000x1429) Image search: [Google]

318 KB, 2000x1429

>>8160692
He should go with this virus design.
It can land on most surfaces if the wires strong enough...
Even better.
Put dirt on the boat for a softer landing
put spikes on the ship.
Just one long spike. Or lotsa little ones.
Dart the ship into the boat like a spike.

last rocket ran out of liquid Oxygen a few feet above the deck.

He still has 2 used rockets to sell at a discount. 1 rocket to go in front of SpaceX HQ. 1 rocket to be studied.

>>8160692
like NASA or the USSR? the ones who blew up hundreds of rockets when trying to do something never attempted in human history?

>>8162284
>USSR

They use a private company that was once government run. So, he must be talking about NASA.

>>8162284
You forgot to add "with much less complex technology". NASA could care less about reusability, they only need to get there probes up there every so often, and for everything else they can buyout the relatively cheap Soyuz

>>8160692
>eave space to the professionals.
You mean the ones that haven't even attempted re usability

>>8160692
>Falcon 9
$90M
LEO = 22 tons
>Falcon Heavy
$135M
LEO = 54 tons
>Delta IV heavy (Most powerful rocket thats operational)
$375M
LEO = 24 tons
FH Doubles that amount
>GTFO shit bait

>>8163040
28 tons* sorry

>>8162394
>NASA could care less about reusability
Yeah, it was only the primary focus of their operations for about 40 years, during which they spent hundreds of billions of dollars on it but still failed to produce a meaningfully reusable vehicle.

First decade of NASA's manned program: first American in space, first American rendezvous and crew transfer, first American space walk, first man on the moon, first American space station.

Second decade of NASA's manned program: developing a partially-reusable launch vehicle intended to reduce launch costs and increase flexibility and safety.

Third decade of NASA's manned program: demonstrating that the shuttle actually increased launch costs and reduced flexibility and safety.

Fourth decade of NASA's manned program: continuing to operate the shuttle anyway, doing more "me too" missions, insisting that it was all worthwhile... somehow.

Fifth decade of NASA's manned program: finally admitting the shuttle sucked, demonstrating convincingly that after decades of accumulating careerists willing to work on a ridiculous sham of a program, they no longer have the competence even to contract out the development of a new expendable rocket which could adequately replace 1960s technology they abandoned.

>>8160692
Despite the string of successful landings up until this last failure, propulsive landing is still very much an experimental thing that at best is in its initial stages. Much remains to be learned.

And while the F9 is indeed reusable, it's not as reusable as it could be. F9 was designed to balance cost as a disposable with reusability BECAUSE reusable rockets are still nascent and reusability isn't something that can be relied on by itself (yet).

While reusability is one of the goals of the F9, its much greater goal is to quickly rack up enormous volumes of propulsive landing data without bankruptcy-inducing research programs. It allows SpaceX to gather its data while turning a profit, and that data is directly shaping the design of future rockets. It shows them exactly where they need to focus their engineering, manufacturing, and costs in order to manufacture reliable, cheap, high-capacity rockets.

>>8163550
This approach is iterative and highly practical. It delivers results quickly and more consistently and allows for frequent "course corrections" in rocket development, releasing minor revisions every year or two and major revisions every 5 years or so. It's designed to fail fast -> learn from failures -> apply learnings at a rapid pace.

Compare this to the old space approach, which is to dump decades and billions of dollars into a research program dedicated to the development of a single rocket. After completion, any major fixes or new advancements must wait another decade or two to see integration via another billion-dollar program. Outright failure is not an option, so risky (but high return) experiments are out of the question, slowing development even further.

It's not hard to see which model will end up dominating.

>>8163550
>Despite the string of successful landings up until this last failure, propulsive landing is still very much an experimental thing that at best is in its initial stages.
In its initial stages of maturity or practical use, perhaps. If you want to see "an experimental thing in its initial stages", look at the first Grasshopper flights.

This is an awkward time, a time of transition. SpaceX isn't yet prepared to take advantage of recovered stages. They're still working through a backlog of launches negotiated when stage recovery was over the horizon, with a vehicle that was designed to not be grossly oversized as an expendable rocket, which makes it seriously undersized as a reusable one to serve the same market.

In addition, their launchpads, the range they launch from, and the payload integration facilities are not set up for a rapid launch schedule. Therefore, there are no immediate savings or increased revenue opportunities from reusing first stages. Construction projects and training programs have to be designed and completed before stage recovery can become profitable.

The proper conditions for stage recovery are to launch a payload small enough that flyback is possible with sufficient propellant reserves for a landing which maximizes the probability of recovery. This is their plan for their fully reusable vehicle: to build it large enough, with a sufficiently powerful upper stage, that downrange landings are unnecessary.

I think their technology for propulsive landing is quite mature and ready for practical use, but what they're doing now is mostly desperate landing attempts under conditions that will never be consistent with reliable recovery, due to a business situation where they need to launch larger payloads than their reusable booster is suited for.

>>8163040
Isn't falcon 9 $60M right now?

>>8163672
Doesn't even matter, it's already cheaper AND has greater future potential than any competitor. I'm not a musk fanboy but facts are facts and it's time for people to face them. Maybe slavemaster bezos will push something economical in the future but right now this is all we've got.

Is Falcon 9 human-rated?

>>8163672
$62 million is their advertised price, for a new rocket flying a payload that allows a landing attempt. This is just for the most basic launch itself. Most customers order additional services and use of facilities, the cost of which is rarely discussed in public.

They're negotiating contracts at around $45 million for a used rocket flying a payload that allows a landing attempt. They've talked about this figure going down to around $12-$15 million as they establish the technology, processes, and market.

$90 million is a reasonable estimate for a launch on a new rocket flying a payload which doesn't allow a landing attempt.

>>8163717
BTW, 22 tons are in expendable mode, or with landing? Their advert doesn't show it.

>>8163712
lolno

>>8163672
thats the reusable price
The payload is its expended capability

Reuse is like 20% less or something

>>8163712
It's been designed to carry passengers from the start.

Whether it's currently "human-rated" is a fairly meaningless question about arbitrary regulatory processes.

>>8163727
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
>* Performance represents max capability on fully expendable vehicle

Price:
>$62M Up to 5.5 mT to GTO

Performance*:
>8.3 mT to GTO

Wonder when we'll see our first multi-launch BEO mission

>>8163756
>milli Teslas

>>8162360
>>USSR
>>private company
KEK