Big rockets can never be the answer to spaceflight

And you know what we learned in 60 years of spaceflight? Yes, we learned that 90 percent of costs are in-space mission tech and operations, max 10 percent is launch costs. Investing in launch capabilities will only reduce costs from 100 percent to max. 90.1 percent of currenr missions.

No. Big rockets are unsustainable and should be scraped. Max 50mt to LEO is what we need... absolutely max. And let’s forget direct Mars transferorbit insertion -it is dangerous and idiotic given electric in-space propulsion techniques we already have.

>search for "in-space assembly infrastructure" leads only to NASA

because it's english term written in english and not some Russian shit written in cyrillic
meanwhile your astronauts keep using Russian rockets to get to the ISS
quora.com/Why-does-the-Atlas-V-rockets-use-Russian-engines-even-though-the-U-S-has-decades-worth-of-experience-in-advance-rocket-engine-designs-Does-any-other-nation-besides-the-U-S-use-American-designed-rocket-engines-on-non
nbcnews.com/mach/space/why-does-u-s-use-russian-rockets-launch-its-satellites-n588526
spacenews.com/energomash-raises-alarm-over-u-s-ban-on-russian-rocket-engines/
fool.com/investing/2018/01/05/nasa-buys-3-more-russian-rocket-rides-75-million.aspx

So whats the alternative

>simple because 100mt payloads don’t exist.
They dont exist because "we" dont want to build real orbital infrastructure. The gov only want to toy around in leo with women and niggers going nowhere.
The day we want to build moonbases and system transports, the sea dragon will come into play. And we will build hundred of thousands of them

One word: Skyhook
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_(structure)
The sweet-spot of space elevators and electromechanical spaceflight.

Attached: skyhook.jpg (662x350, 42K)

You use the giant rocket to build them, and then to cheaply dock bulk cargo with them in the upper atmosphere without requiring multiple refueling launches.

Yes, you're so smart. That's why he is up there, launching rockets, owning companies.
And you're here, shitposting on Jow Forums.
Wow. Much smart, you are.

>yeeting a probe with a floating space trebuchet
i've seen it all

Why d'you think that shit's so expensive?

Because launch costs.

If I don't need to care how much it costs to launch another one, I don't need to spend 10,000% more making one that's not allowed to fail.

The Yeeting satellites are all equipped with big ion or plasma engines and either yuge solar arrays or small nuclear reactors to boost back to the right orbit to be ready for the next flight up. They can also get some energy back by yeeing durable cargo or trash down into the Earth's atmosphere.

You use the Skyhook to build a Orbital ring
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring

Attached: earthring_1024[1].jpg (1024x594, 107K)

Maybe, but the material science is much more certain for Skyhooks.

>Big rockets
Big rockets are actually cheaper than smaller ones. It's where the concept of a "Big Dumb Booster" comes from

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dumb_booster

Though the BFR isn't a big dumb booster.

Noup nothing special needed just tons and tons of cables

Because we totally don't need cheap access to space in the first place to even built it.

Please think a bit before posting.

>space travel
>real life

Choose one

No you dont. You can start small and use that to go big.

>Need cheap access to space first
How does less than 10 million USD ($) sound to put over 100 tons into LEO? That's what BFR can do.

It strikes me that for useful payloads, it might make more sense to build large parts of an orbital ring in space. Capturing and mining asteroids for this purpose might be the way to go, using Skyhooks to defray what would otherwise be an extreme cost.

I said it here too, dumb technology is often cheaper than high tech.

New exotic technology requires too much risk an upfront investment so nobody is gonna throw millions at it if the old technology hasn't been maximally optimized yet.

And that's what musk is doing. Optimizing the old technology to the max, while progressively applying new technologies.

>>Capturing and mining asteroids
That is a great idea but even if you find a good candidate with low delta-v requirement and metals you still need infrastructure to refine and build form it. As the first Skyhook you start small. The first ring will be thin and you can use it to lift the cables for a a heavy one next to it.
As I see it:
Reusable rockets => Small Skyhook => Big Skyhook => Thin Orbital ring => THICK Orbital ring => Whatever the fuck you need in orbit...

A usable low-mass lunar space elevator can be launched today on a Falcon Heavy.
>youtube.com/watch?v=MktwUqAOboQ
Why do you think skyhooks are an expensive technology? Exotic, yes, because we don't use them at all right now, but expensive? Hardly.

This is the most brilliant thing I've ever read. I wonder if it could be done small just to get things into leo.

We should find a way to start mining Asteroids and getting those resources back to Earth.and also find a new propulsion system that doesn't constantly require us to deliver heavy fuel from Earth to orbit

As long as it can reboost before burning up, sure. But why go that small when you can do it in a more useful scale for cheap?

Attached: stop_penis_erect_archer.gif (500x281, 901K)

Put a Maglev train on the ring powerd by solar panels and you can launch to any point in the solar system just with electricity. You still need propellant to slow down.

That's the dream for all of these. I'm still skeptical of Orbital Rings, but if someone wants to pay to build one I'm not going to stand in their way.

>expensive
Because it's untested and not yet developed. These require very expensive engineers, not just to design a concept, which clearly already exists, but to design it in fine fine detail. Then to actually build it, test it, fix the flaws, test it again, ect...

The point is. People invest in things to make money. Musk didn't built a rocket that could go to Mars. He built a rocket that was commercially viable and then progressively worked towards a rocket that could go to Mars.

You won't find investors for this. Not while we haven't seen the limit of old boosters yet.
And NASA cares more about doing actual science experiments with its limited budget.
And the DoD cares more about getting things to space NOW rather than cost.

>lunar space elevator
Ah yes, because of all the human lunar activity the last decades.

True. Initial investment cost is soooo high but a man can still dream...

What matters is reusability, not how big the rocket is. The size of the rocket has one impact only - the final size of the payload.

You are probably confusing the 50 year old and ongoing NASA strategy of trying to take every last bit of deltaV from a rocket, to which the countersolution is to accept the deltaV loss from reusability. That doesn't make a rocket bigger or smaller, it only changes the size of the payload.

Fundamentally the limit is in cost per kilogram, not total cost. We'd be at the exact same spot even if whatever you're thinking was 'learned' by the major space players was applied. Expensive, single use rockets, like they are still doing. Nothing would be different because the breakthrough was not in the size of the rocket.

Ironically the lunar space elevator would probably be the proof of concept both for the technology behind more capable elevators (lunar only, we don't have the materials for earth) and earth-based skyhooks. A space elevator satellite like that mission's animation gets you a huge amount of payload lofted from the lunar surface, far more than a chemical rocket system can return. Some could be sent to earth immediately, but a much larger quantity could be stockpiled in containers that could be accessed directly from lunar orbit.

Ya in a rather sweet book 7 Eve's one of the characters using advanced future materials hang glides up the air drafts and eventually skydives into space on a skyhook swooping down through the clouds the future can be so amazing if we win.

The IRL version of that glider (but it's not a fold-out wearable model from the 6th Millennium):
>nbcnews.com/mach/science/experimental-glider-smashes-record-high-altitude-flight-ncna907586

We already have companies offering "space tug" services, although currently using chemical rockets. It seems like we're right at the cusp of implementing a lot technology that could get things into space significantly cheaper.

Ion engine space tugs going from LEO to GEO.
And Skyhooks gettings things from suborbital(still above the atmosphere) into LEO.
Hell, through in Equatorial launch and electromagnetic launchers in there too if you want.
They all add up cumulatively to bringing down the cost of launch.

My point is a skyhook works just fine if you put a big one up capable of lofting GEO satellites and use it most of the time to loft bitty cubesat clusters or other LEO sats. It's a lesser momentum draw, and the skyhook could easily handle it.

The plan was to have an aircraft carrier follow it and use its nuclear reactor to electrolyze seawater into LOX and LH2 for fuel prior to launch.

Why have they never tried a nuke powered rocket?

It rains down radiation.

>rockets that land on their tailsection is something only true in 1950's sci fi films...
Oh wait...

So? Theres been 5000 nuke explosions in thw world already

This is some KSP level shit.

Wtf kinda boat is that if that's a Saturn v

It is. But it's within our engineering knowledge and skill, and it would WORK.

What he said If we wanted to move into the space age we would have done so earlier. Right now we are too busy with niggers and feminism.

Project Orion

Some kind of accelerator that can throw hundreds of cheap replaceable payloads per day into orbit, then assemble there.

BFR is supposed to be cheaper to launch than Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy and is fully reusable.

Spinlaunch is building a catapult to fling giant darts into space.

techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/spinlaunch-2/

It can't be only 10%, whole launch preparing cost a lot with build, testing or refurbish parts.

Russia already has nuclear fission powered rockets and China is developing them as well, NASA is a backwards boomer hub where people cash in a fat government pay check for little effort. They have done practically nothing for space flight in the last 30 years.

>german shitposter again with someting he read in Focus and now claiming to be expert on anything

Fuck off dude.
The biggest factor what makes SpaceX better than the european version is that the SpaceX rocket can be REUSED.
There is curretnly noway to get mass into orbit without rockets.

And no a space elevator is not possible today

The energy needed to put that spinning thing back to its orbit and initial speed of rotation after throw, would be the same as putting satellite to its orbit.

What? Got to ask Scott Manley if this is even remotely possible.

holy shit youre retarded

>muh free DeltaV

as soon as you toss something the teather de-orbits you MONG

ooohhhhh nooooo
What is a boost back ?
What is a boost back with more efficient engine ?
What is a Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster ?

Attached: basic-orbital-mechanics-n[1].jpg (720x540, 35K)

the japanse will taker over mars

Attached: 39884-lexus-sk_xlarge.jpg (627x417, 40K)

no point in going to space if you're just going to export feminism, communism, third-world behavior, Canadians etc.

imagine the social ills that we have now, but in a place where one wrong move kills you and everyone else around you.

Attached: 1463684500001.png (426x408, 77K)

Good luck trying to dock with that in ksp when you're going 800 m/s and it's going 1800 m/s.

SpaceX makes small rockets too. They developed their own small rocket engine that they use in everything and just bunch it together for the bigger ones. And they are making bigger ones because there is demand for it.

>in-space assembly infrastructure
Wow, OP. What an eureka moment. Sounds easy.

>Big rockets are expensive and errorprone. What you want is constant deliveries to space and an in-space assembly infrastructure and spaceships which go from orbit to orbit.
Yeah so let's continue with the 100 billion dollar scam aka the ISS. No, thank you, you're a loser OP you'll be out of work before you know it.

thats not a saturn v

>And we will build hundred of thousands of them
And the Chinese will build...

ftfy

>What you want is constant deliveries to space and an in-space assembly infrastructure and spaceships which go from orbit to orbit.
Do you have any concept of cost, logistics, or maintaining a labor force? You're talking about something that would simply cost too much, not to mention borderline impossible.
>If we hadn’t followed the big fat spacerocket strategy since 2004, we could have a Mars orbital mission, a Venus orbital mission, astronaut missions and even Moon surface missions on the way already - because instead of wasting billions on big rockets, we would have spent these billions on tech and operations needed in space going from orbit to orbit and back.
>stop wasting billions on big rockets and spend trillions on my scifi fantasy now!!!

>Big rockets are expensive and errorprone

Not to mention there is an upper limit to the size of a rocket that is capable of making it into orbit, most of the time spent during launch is the rocket struggling to burn fuel fast enough to accelerate it's own weight in fuel.

And it doesn't matter the altitude from which you launch from either. Big rockets are redundant, a slingshot/catapult system to accelerate a rocket before main propulsion would make it significantly cheaper and make rockets lighter, much like how an F/18 can take off from a short runway on an aircraft carrier, it has initial velocity from the catapult and needs far less time accelerating from it's jet propulsion before reaching a reasonable airspeed