Why is Elon Musk not revolutionizing space fligjt?

>He says he wants to drop the cost of a kg to space below 1 dollar. How will this work with a rocket which costs 60 million per launch?

Simple, you just launch a 60,000tonne payload.It's not rocket science.

The fuel is probably the cheapest part of the whole thing. The high cost to orbit right now is almost entirely down to you having to spend millions upon millions on building a brand new rocket every time you want to put something up there.

Musk got cucked by his dad with the stepsister he always wanted to fuck, he's broken.

>Hey elon musk, why aren't you spending your millions on my hare brained scheme instead of you own shit?

Also, business loans. Start ups don't start out rolling in cash, they borrow it against their future success.

If you think you can really do it and make a profit, then you *could* raise the money.

Musk said he will revolutionize space flight. I want him to deliver now. Or are you saying Musk is a
liar... or worse, an overpromiser?

Attached: 8483D1FC-90BD-4EA6-A44B-D5AF22CE5BDF.jpg (1600x1218, 262K)

see

The majority of a rocket's cost is the engine.
Specifically, the turbopumps of the engine.

Fuel is cheap.

In fact, there is a second, smaller rocket engine internally, and it fires on that turbopump which has to withstand the pain and turn really fast to move the fuel to the main engines.

Attached: Saturn V.webm (1280x720, 2.38M)

>Simple, you just launch a 60,000tonne payload.It's not rocket science.

mhmmm,.. a 60,000 ton payload...

Attached: 2B9B2694-E484-41A6-95F6-DDF5A0EE3B6E.jpg (600x450, 51K)

>How will this work with a rocket which costs 60 million per launch?

The same for every other way he does. Puts us American taxpayers on the hook. Every project gets subsidized by us.

he's busy doing damage control because one of his SUVs killed someone

>looks like a cock
>post dick head space shit

uncut turtle dick fag detected, sensors are off the charts

because it is all being faked, grow up user.

Actually, the biggest cost of an orbital rocket... is its fucked up complexity.

That was my ship.

Attached: JFK Morning.jpg (600x450, 35K)

>large airships are a viable option
Kek. Bouyancy can't be SSTO because the density of rarefied gas at GEO is on the order of milligrams per cubic meter. You still need to accelerate to orbital velocity through some atmosphere off of a derigible with a rocket. Launching from a high atmospheric height offers little material benefit, reducing total delta-v from something on the order of 11 km/s to perhaps 9 km/s to get to LEO. It isn't cost effective.

I always thought it was cool the way the flames suck back like that, whatever that's called.

>he's busy doing damage control because one of his SUVs killed someone

m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro

Once ze SUVs are out what matterzzz where they break down, dizz izz not mein departmentz.

>Why is Elon Musk not revolutionizing space fligjt?
he's too busy destroying Tesla

Well someone needs to invent something because I can't get off this gay earth soon enough. I just want to live in an orbiting apartment in space with my android waifu

Attached: um_7_1.jpg (1200x877, 408K)

enjoy all the muscle lose from lack of gravity

A magnetic ramp type setup would most definitely cut costs. Especially if unmanned, the manned flights would be redesigned as well since supplies and equipment would be separate. IE smaller rockets or even a high altitude space plane for astronauts.

I have always wandered why everyone makes rocket to ascend into orbit but no one tries to create fully operational space ship capable of space flight and come back by itself without using any boosters

>Bouyancy can't be SSTO because the density of rarefied gas at GEO is on the order of milligrams per cubic meter. You still need to accelerate to orbital velocity through some atmosphere off of a derigible with a rocket

science20.com/robert_walker/can_jp_aerospaces_future_giant_airships_slowly_accelerate_to_orbit_looking_at_the_numbers-225651

It would just give me a forced reason to exercise and improve myself, plus I would have a rotating module to provide faux gravity.

we need a new propulsion system.

>rotating module to provide faux gravity
now we're talking

Attached: elysium-elysium-on-the-curve.jpg (1680x924, 603K)

P.S. nobody said this should be a SSTO system, but an airship to 40km height and then after transfering the cargo to the orbital ship (which never lands and is made from extremely lightweigh material) that makes it up to orbit.

this. space isn't real

Because Elon knows that in order to gain legitimacy he has to achieve things, and that in order to achieve things he has to be realistic.

>thinking any 4channer has any muscle mass

plvs vltra

>he doesn't browse Jow Forums

Attached: 1500698509840.jpg (550x1084, 101K)

So it's almost two decades after 2001, and we still haven't built one of these. Why?

Attached: Space_station_v.jpg (720x342, 43K)

>projection

A Lofstrom loop could put payloads in orbit for $1/kg.
A Lofstrom loop is feasible with current materials technology.
A Lofstrom loop is feasible with current energy technology.
A Lofstrom loop would litterally be the gateway to the solar system.

Attached: tmp_3547-15087841625441546934040.jpg (400x400, 24K)

it's coming

Attached: OurGuys.jpg (1651x1020, 829K)

>two decades since 1968
It’s the Soviets, the Soviets prevent us to go to space.

>I want him to deliver now
He already has you stupid fuck, what do you think landing the rocket boosters was? It was a huge cut to the expenses and time consumption of space travel.

A 1 micron thick skin won't last at those speeds that high in the atmosphere, especially when it is meant to be several kilometers in length. Meteoroids will poke holes in it. Additionally, making a 2000 Isp engine that also can put out several tons of force while weighing less than a ton itself would cost similar amounts to designing a rocket engine, if not more. There is a lot of wishful thinking in the assumptions they make about materials and efficiencies

we'll be lucky if manned flybys happen this century, the only shekels for it are from space tourists.
Landing on moon is almost impossible and has zero economic drive. Landings on Mars are impossible.

It only helps if you can accelerate it to a decent speed in the dirigible. If you detach from the dirigible at 40km, and aren't going fast enough, you have to waste a lot of fuel fighting gravity.

You are mistaken, sir. It takes about half as much fuel to LEO from 150,000 feet.

Further, the balloon can be filled with hydrogen which fuels an engine. The higher the balloon goes, the less drag it has, the faster and higher it can go, and on and on. It is a great theory and is an excellent, safe, low cost stepping stone between reusable rockets and space elevator.

Attached: download.jpg (284x177, 5K)

Because we are paying kike usury and nigger welfare instead

>It takes about half as much fuel to LEO from 150,000 feet.
Source? You need roughly 8 km/s delta-v as a base to get to LEO, and drag adds far less than that.

...why DON'T we use massive airships?

I am so high right now...you guys make no sense at all

Fuck sake its not hard.
It just needs 4 propellers like in avengers. Powered by nuclear reactor it becomes free.= per kg.
Aircraft carriers all have this technology the government just doesnt want you to know about it

For a man with as much wealth and influence as him, you'd think that he'd be able to find a woman with eyes that are a normal distance apart and on the same level as each other. Fuck.

/thread

Attached: endgame.jpg (650x718, 215K)

Lighter than air gases could feasibly be used to lift vehicles to the edge of space, where they can then be launched without atmospheric drag. Also, you are (slightly) further from the earths surface, so gravity will be less. It may not seem much, but remember the inverse square law!
Plus, if the object of the launch is to fire the vehicle out into space, rather than put it into orbit, reaching orbital velocity isn't a requirement. Once the spaceship gets far enough from earth, the gravity will be negligible.
I'm thinking 3 stages here.
1. Very large lifting body with launch ramp on top.
2. Rocket engine to boost vehicle away from high gravity zone
3. Ion engine or similar to travel through space.

>An airship

Attached: tmp_3547-dims227701770.gif (400x266, 1.87M)

Because at some point there stops being air in the fucking sky you illiterate kangaroo.

Yeah but you wouldn't. I am sure you can think of any number of 'forced' reasons to exercise and improve yourself now, but you still don't do it, clearly.

High profile disasters like the hindenberg and this one en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101 where everyone died.

I was wondering why we don't lift out of the dense atmosphere and then launch from there, you turd.

I realised the answer is because just lifting the rocket means you can't get it up to horizontal speed, meaning you'll fall most of the way back into the atmosphere anyway while you build up orbital velocity to the point where it might even be net more expensive, and lifting some kind of launch gun platform to impart horizontal velocity would require some kind of massive floating facility which, while cool, would be hilariously impractical.

T H I S
H
I
S

Attached: 10628388.jpg (640x610, 49K)

Attached: decisions decisions.jpg (720x692, 49K)

>tfw in the near future private livable space stations will be a thing

But the g at the karman line is (6317 km)^2/(6317km +100km)^2 percent of standard g, or ~97%. So about 9.5 m/s^2

>and lifting some kind of launch gun platform to impart horizontal velocity would require some kind of massive floating facility which, while cool, would be hilariously impractical.
See A Lofstrom loop is effectively a hundred-mile long railgun that is is hoisted up above the denser envelope of Earth's atmosphere using the internal forces of a dynamic structure (essentially a thousand miles long, flexible flywheel). Such a launch loop would be constructed at the equator, preferably at sea, with floating power stations and tethers anchored in the sea floor.

Attached: tmp_3547-lofstrom969307486.png (831x573, 828K)

All listen to OP, OP is a German. And they have some actual EXPERIENCE with hydrogen filled airships

what is that

This is *the only* practical way to move large amounts of mass into orbit. You might not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.

Isn't most of the fuel in a rocket used to get most of the weight (more fuel mostly) up to speed in a gravity dense, atmosphere dense environment? I'm not a mathhead. Just chucking stuff out there.
Also, Is it possible to build a giant mag-lev track up the side of a mountain (Everest, say), and then fire rocket shaped trains into space using nuclear reactors for power?
Kind of like a giant rail gun, but long enough to build up velocity slowly without killing the passengers, while keeping most of the "fuel" on earth, so to speak.

"Qaudriceps" a cross section of some upper thighs showing muscle mass.

Do you need any crazy materials to make it?

this is gay
we should just use magnets and fling shit into orbit

>Kind of like a giant rail gun
Certainly possible, but the lengths to achieve such low acceleration are gigantic. Freight launching may prove better suited. Ram accelerators may be an interesting thing for you to look up.

No. But if you have a blackout, whole thing falls down.

No. launchloop.com/

Thanks, I will. I was definitely thinking a ground level rail gun as feasible for launching shit from the moon. No atmosphere, so gradual buildup of velocity to interplanetary speeds, plus plenty of free sunlight for energy. It's just how to get there to begin with.
On a side note, I fucking hate the way they portray the belters as low-lifes in the TV show "Expanse". Are they not at the top of a fucking huge gravity well? Do they not have millions of rocks? Can they not hide inside any one of hundreds of thousands of those rocks? Could they not drop space missiles on Earth and Mars all fucking day long with nothing more sophisticated than a well timed nudge?
In reality, they would rule the system.
These people should read some Heinlein.

Care to elaborate you unintelligible fuck?

Redundant power stations would be a safeguard against that, but yes, as a dynamic structure, it would need to be constantly "on".

this is how it will actually look if that ever got built

Attached: shhheeeit space.jpg (831x573, 365K)

Go clean your room and let the adults talk user.

Musk is a hack, anyone with his fortune could do what he does by hiring engeneers and paying for everything, he is just a big check that takes credit for others people work.

Doubt he will appear in public again after one of his self-driving cars killed someone and after the space launch failed and he will miss the target (mars) with his car (if it were a crew theyd all be dead).

> It was a huge cut to the expenses and time consumption of space travel.

Costs are now just 20 percent above the per kg costs of the Soyuz rocket... at 10,000 USD per lbs.

WOW, we are soooo close to 1 USD per kg!

There is no air in space, therefore there is no bouyancy in space.
The higher you want to go with an airship the larger it would need to be.

Humans already are space trash.

why not just do this?

Attached: 1024px-Nasa_blue_marble.jpg (1024x1050, 381K)

FUSION REACTOR M8

Tesla is still putting batteries into cars, they're no way near as futuristic as most people make out. Their space missions are a long way away yet.

>Build giant kite shaped spaceship
>Attach end of cable to earth
>Earth is rotating at 1000 miles per hour
>This will drag kite into space
Simple, really!

Why are the dogs eating the astronaut?

oh so if we had magic then? i guess you are technically right

I'm sure with your engineering degree you could demonstrate to investors that Musk is a poopy head.

It would also require servosystems to stabilize the loop in sections where it is rediricted to prevent a containment breach. A very small error or temporary hangup would result in a ridiculous amount of energy being released at the ground stations that loading would occur near. The construction and maintenance costs of a megastructure are also prohibitive, even compared to rocket-based space programs. Launch costs at a low level mean little if it can get enough launches off before failure or expensive maintenence. I'm willing to bet the cost of maintaining this per annum over the mass sent to orbit per annum is far greater than a dollar per kg.

They caught him breaking into Neil Armstrong's house and stealing his suit.

>If you detach from the dirigible at 40km, and aren't going fast enough, you have to waste a lot of fuel fighting gravity.

You are just transfering the payload to the second airship which then accelerates to orbit. This orbit airship is very large and because it never lands and never leaves the high stratosphere doesn’t have to endure any winds... thus can be extremely light.

Indeed, this seems like the main reason not to build it. This one is interesting, still relies on power to levitate, but seems it would fail more gracefully if power went out since you wouldn't have all these extreme speed masses traveling through the supports.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram#Generation_2_System