/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11727514

80KiB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 28 May 20:38:46 2020 No.11727514 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11727543 >>11727545 >>11727594 >>11727605 >>11727659 >>11727902 >>11728022 >>11728036 >>11728408 >>11728715 >>11728721 >>11728821 >>11729585 >>11729656

>use extra fuel to land, instead of using it all achieve higher payload, adding more cost-weight-size-complexity
>good knows how many millions of microfractures caused by structural stress and rocket wash to investigate and repair
>somehow cheaper than building simply designed expendable rockets in large tranches to bring production costs down

What was epic reddit spaceman chungus thinking?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 20:41:43 No.11727519 Report

Quoted By: >>11727528 >>11727540 >>11727847

>anonymous internet commentator offers critique of highly advanced and complex technology

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1564578774597.jpg, 79KiB, 708x800

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 20:44:44 No.11727528 Report

Quoted By: >>11727540 >>11731808

>>11727519
>anonymous internet commentator offers critique of highly advanced and complex technology

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Pepe Chin.jpg, 30KiB, 600x600

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 20:46:52 No.11727539 Report

Quoted By: >>11727554

You are not supposed to reply to the comment. Dumb fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 20:47:28 No.11727540 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727519
>>11727528
>implying anonymous internet commentator offers critique of highly advanced and complex technology

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 20:48:17 No.11727543 Report

Quoted By: >>11729651

>>11727514
They're not really reusable. They're only pretending that they are. They're trying to make their competitors do the same to bankrupt them.
Why do you think they have to pretend to recover them at sea where there's no witness?
And the only time they pretended to do it on land they didn't even bother to animate both of them separately and it clearly shows.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Falcon9_landing.webm, 3MiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 20:48:29 No.11727545 Report

Quoted By: >>11727551 >>11729695

>>11727514
>use extra fuel to land, instead of using it all achieve higher payload, adding more cost-weight-size-complexity
In return, recovering a rocket that can be used again thus saving money and resources from not having to make a new rocket.

>good knows how many millions of microfractures caused by structural stress and rocket wash to investigate and repair
Apparently not that much considering the most amount of reuses for the Falcon 9 is five.

>somehow cheaper than building simply designed expendable rockets in large tranches to bring production costs down
In the short term, assuming all else is equal, reusable rockets are more expensive than expendable ones. However, in the long term, resuable is cheaper, because not only are you saving money from not having to make more rockets but also having more rockets available for a fixed amount of production thus allowing for more launches (which in turn drives down costs due to a multitude of reasons).

Reusable rockets is the future of space flight. This has been recognized since the time of Goddard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 20:51:29 No.11727551 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727545
>Apparently not that much considering the most amount of reuses for the Falcon 9 is five.
SpaceX has never disclosed the time and money needed to check for them

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO download.jpg, 9KiB, 199x253

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 20:52:33 No.11727554 Report

Quoted By: >>11727596

>>11727539
>You are not supposed to reply to the comment. Dumb fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 20:53:06 No.11727557 Report

Quoted By:

>wasting money to buy fuel to launch payloads
>not just giving it away to those in need like me
yikes just yikes

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 21:08:45 No.11727594 Report

Quoted By: >>11727887

>>11727514
It cost them $15M to build rocket. $30M to launch them. They charge $50M-$60M to customers. Refurbishment cost them $1M.

Seems like a good way to do business.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 21:10:30 No.11727596 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727554
yes, that's what he said? You ARE dumb aren't you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 21:12:48 No.11727605 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727514
americans are low iq and high arrogance, give them some leeway fren

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 21:15:45 No.11727612 Report

Quoted By:

> use extra fuel to land, instead of using it all achieve higher payload, adding more cost-weight-size-complexity
Wtf are you talking about. The reusable rockets achieve lower costs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 21:33:40 No.11727659 Report

Quoted By: >>11727873 >>11727942

>>11727514
>use extra fuel to land, instead of using it all achieve higher payload, adding more cost-weight-size-complexity
The Falcon 9 can already carry a perfectly adequate payload to orbit, not to mention that carrying extra heavy payloads on the Falcon 9 is possible, and is more expensive since the booster is wasted.
>good knows how many millions of microfractures caused by structural stress and rocket wash to investigate and repair
Aparrently not enough to effect SpaceX's bottom line
>somehow cheaper than building simply designed expendable rockets in large tranches to bring production costs down
Rocket fuel is only like 1/4th the cost of the rocket, building them is much more expensive. While I agree that economy of scale would drive down rocket costs even more than re-usability, no one really has the capital to manufacture such a large volume of rockets as to make it more economical to do so. Not to mention there is a limit on how many launch complexes, support staff, etc, that there are for each launch. At the moment reusable rockets are a much better option.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 22:27:43 No.11727847 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727519
OP is a highly advanced and complex anon. You are just too retarded to understand his critique.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 22:34:20 No.11727873 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727659
Rocketfuel is basically free, it's like 200k out of the 50M of the launch

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 22:36:17 No.11727887 Report

Quoted By: >>11727970

>>11727594
$15 million to launch rocket again once it's on the drone ship
less than $1 million of that is cleaning the engines off

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 22:40:54 No.11727902 Report

Quoted By: >>11727942

>>11727514
>building simply designed expendable rockets in large tranches to bring production costs down
The number of launches per year isn't even 100. The opportunities for economies of scale and lowered costs aren't there, particularly if you are structured like an oldspace company.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 22:53:28 No.11727942 Report

Quoted By: >>11727951

>>11727902
Not defending OP but the demand is low because the price is high. We've already seen with SpaceX a huge jump in demand because suddenly every University or Corporation can afford to send their own small satellite up. If one were to hypothetically build so many rockets that the price went even lower than the demand would rise. The real problem as I pointed out in >>11727659 is that no one has the capital to scale their production up that much and there are not enough secondary/support personnel to do more than a few hundred launches a year. If we were to start launching a rocket every day hundreds of new launch complexes and thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of new aerospace operations personnel would need to enter the industry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 22:55:27 No.11727951 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727942
>launching a rocket every day
you'd need to launch more than once per day, because most days have bad weather in Florida

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 23:00:37 No.11727970 Report

Quoted By: >>11727979

>>11727887
Exactly. They're making quite a profit on used vehicles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 23:02:18 No.11727979 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727970
with amortization and stuff it's $33 million cost per launch
they charge between $50 and $100 million price (depending on how much autism the customer has)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 23:14:25 No.11728021 Report

Quoted By:

We can do it with planes, cars, and copters so why not try with rockets?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1589147166182.png, 533KiB, 586x514

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 23:14:31 No.11728022 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727514
blunderfoot pls

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 23:17:13 No.11728036 Report

Quoted By: >>11728133

>>11727514
>What was epic reddit spaceman chungus thinking?
Business, not science. This is the thing hardcore space nerds always fail at. Reusable, tail-landing rockets complete certain aspects of the business case for cheap access to space at the right scales.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 23:24:49 No.11728069 Report

Quoted By:

sneething

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 23:45:19 No.11728133 Report

Quoted By: >>11728140 >>11728182 >>11728378 >>11728416

>>11728036
you're a dumbass. reusable rockets have been a concept for decades. musk didn't invent them, he was just the first to pour billions into developing them

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 28 May 2020 23:46:53 No.11728140 Report

Quoted By:

>>11728133
>billions
millions

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 00:01:28 No.11728182 Report

Quoted By:

>>11728133
And? So what? That's what the job of an entrepreneur is.
Even if his company would have invented reusable rockets that still wouldn't be his *technical* achievement, so it's largely irrelevant. He's making them fly in a commercially viable way, so nicely done elon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 01:00:57 No.11728378 Report

Quoted By: >>11728398 >>11728655

>>11728133
Nice ad hominem, you piece of shit. Try arguing ideas next time.
SpaceX has spent several hundreds of millions of dollars developing a range of rockets from Falcon 1 through Heavy and the two models of Dragon. The innovation is in vertical integration, certain manufacturing processes and most importantly using the concept of reusability in ways that make business sense. This is the single most judicious use of personal investment capital ever performed regarding space, and one of the best overall investments in space development.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 01:05:47 No.11728398 Report

Quoted By: >>11728648

>>11728378
>Falcon 1 through Heavy and two models of dragon
that brings it up into the single digit billions, I think

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 01:08:45 No.11728408 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727514
I'm pretty sure a multi billion dollar company like spacex checks its numbers before it gets into a venture like this. If reusable rockets were a financial dead end they'd have figured it out before you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 01:10:07 No.11728416 Report

Quoted By:

>>11728133
No one said that Elon invented reusable rockets, you idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 02:41:26 No.11728648 Report

Quoted By:

>>11728398
>single digit billions
My understanding was that the entire Falcon line had cost SpaceX around $5-600,000,000 to develop, plus the capsules. That also depends on what 'cost' means, as some of that was NASA grants for Dragon, and some of that was redeveloping existing infrastructure like LC39. Whatever it is, it's not Billions and Billions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 02:45:41 No.11728655 Report

Quoted By: >>11731874

>>11728378
go suck a latin dick you filthy roman

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 03:15:31 No.11728715 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727514
Did you type this on your single use phone while stuck in traffic in your single use car?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 03:17:33 No.11728721 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727514
Yea nah, post IQ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 03:37:11 No.11728759 Report

Quoted By: >>11728855 >>11729565 >>11729576

Guys, what if we just built the rockets out of rocket fuel? This would obtain the most efficient ratio.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 03:48:31 No.11728804 Report

Quoted By:

Guys, what if we just built the rockets out of moon? Moon has less gravity so we can get it off Earth easier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 03:55:55 No.11728821 Report

Quoted By: >>11728827

>>11727514
Do you realize that not every time you need maximum payload of your rocket? Falcon 9 is overkill for most of payload today.
Dumbass!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 04:00:05 No.11728827 Report

Quoted By:

>>11728821
why waste a trip?
you could bring extra stocks of cheetos & tendies if you got the room.
learn2logistics

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4.73x33_Caseless-crop.jpg, 359KiB, 950x405

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 04:12:44 No.11728855 Report

Quoted By:

>>11728759

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 10:10:20 No.11729565 Report

Quoted By:

>>11728759
Why waste any weight on rocket fuel? Just build a giant slingshot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 10:14:20 No.11729576 Report

Quoted By:

>>11728759
look up autophagic engine

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 10:18:24 No.11729585 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727514
>t. seething boeing

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 10:47:14 No.11729651 Report

Quoted By: >>11729895

>>11727543
dude people were literally there to see the two rockets land

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 10:51:28 No.11729656 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727514
>somehow cheaper than building simply designed expendable rockets in large tranches to bring production costs down
yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 10:54:54 No.11729662 Report

Quoted By: >>11729671

Guys, its time to admit the only way forward is using the sub-relativistic-nuke-launch-water-tube to send people to orbit

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 11:01:50 No.11729671 Report

Quoted By:

>>11729662
what about
S P I N L A U N C H
P
I
N

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 11:18:32 No.11729695 Report

Quoted By: >>11732103

>>11727545
>Reusable rockets is the future of space flight.
Wrong. While reusable rockets are certainly a good step towards allowing space and orbit to become more accessible to the common man, the future of space flight is in the production of a fixed mass driver to launch construction materials to the moon for larger scale construction of a space port and ships.
Modern day capsule ships will only be used in a similar fashion to an airport tram, to get between the parking lot and the port.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 12:52:38 No.11729895 Report

Quoted By:

>>11729651
And I bet they're all driving Teslas now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 22:52:50 No.11731808 Report

Quoted By:

>>11727528
pleb tier logician seeks refuge in attachment to authority

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 23:03:41 No.11731874 Report

Quoted By:

>>11728655
take your meds schizo

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 30 May 2020 00:01:58 No.11732103 Report

Quoted By:

>>11729695
Talk about technological determinism. From an economic standpoint, the only thing that matters is flight frequency.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches