Just once I want to see a government agency say “yes, we are good, no more money needed”

>not an argument
That's not how inflation works. It's how lazy government entities have been for the past couple decades and why nobody should give a shit when they cut NASA funding by 100%. SpaceX exists because of inefficient government spending.

Cost isn't everything considering they can literally recycle the material and production is literally the hardest aspect of building rockets.

I would feel safer in the old rocket considering the fact that now I have to trust chang and pajeet who were only brought here to undercut our wages and increase profit

Attached: Wernher Von Braun.jpg (640x823, 106K)

It doesn't work that way, retard.

They can't refurbish the first stage for less than the cost of making a new one. Or at least there's zero evidence that they have. iirc they've only recently started to fly their "reusable" first stages a second time. All the others were just scrapped after a single flight.

>30 billion
How go fuck yourself, Inefficient dickhead.

Attached: 1559494389237.jpg (552x471, 19K)

It took around 112 billon of todays dollars to go to the moon the first time
doing it again for a quarter of the price IS low cost

REMINDER We had a higher resolution live recording on tape that was lost and possibly recorded over.

He didn’t say he needs 30bn in total, he wants 30 billion over 7-10yrs in addition to the yearly 21bn they already get. Of those 21bn right now around half go to human spaceflight related causes (ISS, Orion, SLS, exploration precursors etc.). So we are well above 112bn inflation adjusted over a 10yr program... mostly because of NASA’s insistence to poor around 40bn into the SLS and Orion programs already, despite none of these two programs yielding ready to fly results.

That money is allocated for Israeli welfare and killing sandniggers sorry, not possible.

All of NASA's missions are optimized to gather usable science data from the scores of scientific instruments provided to them by foreign space agencies, the american aerospace industry, private researchers, universities, and commercial vendors. NASA really just provides the rockets, spacecraft subsystems, project management and data recovery for all parties involved with missions.

There wasn't any actionable data, from any kind of scientific investigation, to be gained from sending humans back to the moon that a probe or orbiter could do. And if a probe or orbiter could do it, why not send that spacecraft to another object in our solar system? Or to investigate a less understood phenomena in somewhere else in deep space?

NASA literally had to make up reasons to go back because of trump and the mars normie meme, which is the exact opposite of what taxpayers should be expecting from NASA and their scientific abilities.

Oddly enough, this hammering on nasa and taxpayers coincides neatly with Israel's desire for another attempt at the moon.

What kind of moron doesn't understand this?

A moon or israel welfare
What a choice

This is one of the most suspicious things about the Moon landing.

>Have priceless recording of one of the greatest achievements of mankind.
>Ideally it should be kept in a safe somewhere where no one can touch it.
>Oops, we accidentally recorded over the original tape.
>But do not worry, we have this totally way better digitally remastered version so who cares about the original.

Look it up. This is literally the official story from NASA.

My guess is that they destroyed the original version because it would not hold up to the scrutiny of modern technology anymore.

>30billion? But I need that money for Israel!!!

Attached: braaaap.png (444x466, 443K)

Because nobody cared about shit quality TV stream when they had better things.
See pic related.

Attached: Screenshot_2019-06-15 pol - Politically Incorrect » Searching for posts that contain ‘spacecraft (1855x186, 38K)

>30 billion
yet we give israel 38 billion a year..

Oh shut the fuck up. That's still less than 1% of the annual budget this country has. Space exploration is based and you're just an uneducated nigger. Read a book for once.

>jews are preventing the white man from colonizing the stars
reeeeee

Attached: 1556241894359.jpg (650x500, 53K)

They have to pay for the three million diversity hires, blue haired feminists, and illegal migrants they fund. Duh.

Like most companies it's been stacked and taken over by the SJW's. Just look at the transition in Christmas party photos of ANY company over the last ten years, you'll understand why everything costs a thousand times as much and is utterly underwhelming, especially entertainment and video games and shit.

>free market moon mission
Those astronauts are going to fucking die dude.

>Why can’t NASA just sit down on their asses and come up with a low cost Moon program utilizing the free market industry rockets, spacecraft and landers already developed or being developed?

Don't need NASA to do that. I've already come up with a moon program that would be cheaper than NASA's proposal and be finished sooner:

1. Use current launch rockets on the market instead of SLS, get rid of SLS entirely
2. Launch the parts necessary to build a lunar transit shuttle in low orbit
3. Construct the lunar transit shuttle in orbit
4. Launch crew to the transit shuttle
5. Fly crew to moon and back

This is cheaper because 95% of the expense is in getting to orbit in the first place. Once there everything else is a cakewalk. The above process does not need 25 billion spent on a new shitty rocket, it uses currently available rockets. The lunar shuttle can be built at the international space station where we already have a bunch of astronauts with nothing to do all day.

So for example, instead of 2-5 billion per launch for the SLS which will fly everything directly to the moon and back without even being re-usable, we would have 4-5 launches on a falcon 9 heavy for 500 million, and build a re-usable lunar shuttle, and then after that the only cost involved is hauling up fuel and more crew/experiements - you already have the transit and landers in orbit, and they stay in orbit.

I can tell you right now why NASA is fucking around like this.
They are actually nothing but a bunch of fuckwit mouthpieces for boeing. NASA's administration is basically run by ULA and their design decisions and goals are essentially: Do whatever gives billions upon billions of dollars to boeing.

NASA does not care about space.
NASA does not care about space exploration.
NASA does not care about space colonization.

NASA only cares about giving billions of dollars to boeing or similar contractors.

Fuck NASA desu

Nigga they been re-using their rockets for fucking years now. Some of their first stages are now on their third launch.

Attached: 1410855776871.jpg (800x764, 17K)

Contractors? Like all the small machine shops?

Yes, why would you smash your supply chain across the entire US for single pieces to be manufactured by different companies for any reason other than political support? It's grossly inefficient.

the same elon musk that happily takes government subsides?
>muh free market

>Spacex provides the same services that the ULA does but it takes a bigger loss

Citation needed

>Re-using the first stage has no cost reduction for spacex

Citation needed

Fuck off ULA shill, the days of billion dollar throwaway rockets are disappearing.

(((grossly inefficient))) my ass, they all use an RFQ system and get bids from suppliers

>Nigga they been re-using their rockets for fucking years now.
>Some of their first stages are now on their third launch.
The fanatics at reddit keep track of all the launches. They just recently started using the first stage more than once.

>Citation needed
It takes 5 seconds on google.

>Citation needed
They've never had anyone go in and check the books to see if there was any savings.

>Fuck off ULA shill, the days of billion dollar throwaway rockets are disappearing.
Sadly true, space flight is at its end.

>takes 5 seconds on google

Sure you won't mind providing a link then?

>They've never had anyone go in and check the books to see if there was any savings.

Not an argument.

>Sure you won't mind providing a link then?
You're not here to have your mind changed. You'll just shit on the source. Waste someone else's time.

>Not an argument.
We should just believe what they say without any independent investigation? Quite the double standard you have there. Again, go bother someone else.

>Literally no arguments

Lmao ok bro I'm sure they are just taking massive losses and going through the expensive recovery process for no savings, just the lulz. Go FUD elsewhere.

all photo and video material from the "moon" is fake, consequently it is very likely that no man has even been on the moon.

learn more here: aulis.com , man-on-the-moon.info

it is one of the biggest and most successful lies ever, for example, it makes normal people believe in invisible rocket fuel

Attached: AscendingFirstPhase.gif (318x240, 3.24M)

Kinda hard when your agency was defunded for gibs and re-taksed with the "mission" of spreading fear on global warming.

Right because taking massive losses isn't how tesla has been ran for its entire existence? You think spacex is different somehow?

Nice try schlomo
popsci.com/proof-moon-landing-not-fake/

Are you joking?
$30 billion for a sustained moon base is dirt fucking cheap.

You need to provide proof and not accusations

To be fair, Happy Days was on.

You don't ask spacex for proof. Why me? Argument from authority?

They operate on a shoestring budget compared to other aerospace companies, where is the money to lose? They have no publically traded stock and Elons money is tied up in stocks.

>where is the money to lose?
They get it from the government. They make less money than the ULA because they undercut the prices. It's not like they're doing anything radically different.

space is fake and gay

Attached: the-horizon-is-always-at-eye-level-because-of-the-22761200.png (500x740, 164K)

How quickly would we return to the moon if we got the libs to realize the only people who have walked on it were white men?

the russians think they are fake and gay, along with 1/3rd of americas at the time

it would be easy to prove that the broadcast was relayed from earth if it was.

it was. russians and america were in on the space hoax

But money comes with interest. Don't you know anything!!

>it's not like they're doing anything radically different.

They're literally landing the first fucking stage back at the launch site you moron. How is that not different? Not to mention, the rocket (block 5 especially) is designed with ease of re-usability in mind making it vastly cheaper to simply go through a 2-3 week refurbishment The fastest refurbishment was only 19 days and they're looking to eventually cut that down to ~24 hours. We're still early on in all of this.

That's going to be one hell of a view.

Attached: astronautbeer.png (640x400, 433K)

>They're literally landing the first fucking stage back at the launch site you moron. How is that not different?
It's a parlor trick that lowers the payload capacity. I guess i should have said they're not doing anything beneficially different.

>Not to mention, the rocket (block 5 especially) is designed with ease of re-usability in mind making it vastly cheaper to simply go through a 2-3 week refurbishment The fastest refurbishment was only 19 days and they're looking to eventually cut that down to ~24 hours. We're still early on in all of this.
Okay. Just be honest that you're not approaching this rationally.

Attached: 1560417532976.jpg (1530x1169, 368K)

Never going to happen. The very definition of a government is to spend more than it makes.

>It's a parlor trick that lowers the payload capacity. I guess I should have said they're not doing anything beneficially different.

Yeah nah. Literally just not true. Rocket engines are extremely complicated, difficult to manufacture, and above all: expensive. Not to mention the avionics required for first stage propulsion, the ungodly amounts of plumbing required to make the whole thing function, etc.
All of this makes it absurdly expensive to build a rocket, and is why the Delta IV Heavy costs ~400M a launch and the SLS will cost over a billion. By being able to reuse all 9 of those Merlin 1Ds, all the avionics, the structure, etc. and only needing minor refurbishment (the block 5 Falcon 9 is intended to fly 10 times without refurbishment when they're done with the preliminary round of flights and evaluations) makes it faaaar cheaper.

>Okay. Just be honest that you're not approaching this rationally.
I'm sorry I didn't see a refutation there in that cognitive dissonance.

>Just like area 51.
If there were aliens and if we didn't land on the moon, someone would have talked. A book deal, pillow talk, whatever.
You can't expect thousands of people to never say anything.

>Yeah nah. Literally just not true. Rocket engines are extremely complicated, difficult to manufacture, and above all: expensive.
>But they're also simple enough that refurbishing them is cheaper than making new ones despite new ones not needing to have far more rigorous testing to ensure that they're okay after the first trip.
No idea how you reconcile the two.

> Not to mention the avionics required for first stage propulsion, the ungodly amounts of plumbing required to make the whole thing function, etc
Yeah i said it lowers the payload capacity.

>and only needing minor refurbishment
This is the part where you're not thinking about the aforementioned complexity. Yeah, you can refurbish them. You cannot make it so you don't have to refurbish 60-70% of the rocket and somehow have all the extra time and manpower not cost more than just refurbishing it by 100% by making a new one. Practically speaking they'll be lucky if the refurbishment saves the customer any more money than their undercutting the price already does. maybe 5%, and that's not "faaaar" cheaper.

>I'm sorry I didn't see a refutation there in that cognitive dissonance.
You want to believe its true because it enables the future you want. You will have a very hard time approaching the subject rationally with that frame of reference.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZmlQsgRNJn0

NASA will NEVER return to the Moon. Mark my words. There is always some (((obstacle))).
>we were already there, why do it again
>we lost the original plans
>it's too expensive
>it's just a dead rock, why fly there at all
etc....

We only ever went there to weaponize the orbit. Once we got nuclear weapons we lost every good reason to go.

We went to the moon.
Since then we have had a massive drop in IQ and can no longer maintain or create technology to go there.
Same thing happened with Concorde.
It went down as we simply weren't smart enough to keep it running, let alone produce it.

>No idea how you reconcile the two
You do realize the fact that just because something is complex that it doesn't mean it won't work a second time right? Look at aircraft, they cost millions of dollars a piece and they're insanely complex, yet we've mastered re-use and as such you can hop on an A320 in Europe for like 20 Euro. The same is true of engines. If using engines made with re-use in mind (Raptor and Merlin engines for example) especially, then the only reason why you wouldn't be able to reuse them is if the rocket that they're on doesn't come back. The Delta IV's engine was actually designed to be a less complicated SSME (RS-25) so in theory if you could land a Delta IV first stage, you'd be able to relatively easily re-furbish it. However, the fact that it's made of an ablative material means you'd have to coat the inside of it with a new layer of (iirc) graphite. This is made worse by the fact that the DIV-H uses hydralox for fuel which burns a lot hotter than RP1+LOX like the Merlin uses. This all just makes the Merlin a lot easier to refurbish, and just because other rockets don't re-use their engines doesn't mean they couldn't if they would land the 1st stage. It's like crashing a plane after every use but then saying "w-well if they're expensive enough to cost that much when we crash them, how can you reconcile that with them being simple enough to re-use if we were to land them? clearly a parlour trick"

>Yeah i said it lowers the payload capacity
Wym? I'm not sure what you're talking about there, I was stating that the avionics required for first stage propulsion, the plumbing required to make the first stage work, etc. are really quite complicated and expensive so manufacturing them after every launch raises launch prices by an awful lot.

>This is where... etc.
You don't have to refurbish 60-70% of the rocket lol,,. (1/2)

your link has 7 weak, cherry-picked and superficial counterclaims.

- moon rocks: authentics compared to what? also, supposed moon rocks were found in antarctica

- if faking 5000 pictures 50 years ago is a thing a few more pictures from 2011 from the same agency cannot count as independet confimation

- reflection, the nvidia video uses to high reflectivity, and addresses not even the most obious scene that exposes the use of backlight

- stars: strawman argument. that stars are not on the pictures is indeed expected, the actual claim is that the apollo 11 crew claimed they saw no stars with their naked eyes, even Collins who allegedly stayed in moon orbit said so

- the "moon" sets was modelled after authentic pictures of the landingsites, parallax analysis from overlapping images revelas that the true distance in the "appollo" photos is mostly under 100 meters what should be several kilometers

all sources on man-on-the-moon.info

(2/2)
...they only have to refurbish the octoweb (which is designed to be easily removable and serviceable) and a few internal electronic components which need to be checked for damage (which block 5 made even easier to access). Other than that, they simply have to re-fill the tanks, re-mount a second stage by resetting the seperation mechanism (which unlike most rockets which use explosive bolts, the falcon 9 uses hydropneumatic latches for it's operation) and whabam. It's a little more complicated than that, yes, but that's essentially it.

>You don't want to believe it's true because it enables the future you want. You will have a very hard time approaching the subject rationally with that frame of reference
What future do you think I want? I don't want a future dominated by worshipping autistic faggots like Elon musk who do nothing but talk shit and milk their engineers for every ounce of mental capability they have, and then fall months if not years behind deadlines in their efforts. I'm impartial either way, I simply dislike the spread of misinformation. Sure, it'd be cool to have space colonization, but we have more pressing issues.

>And the Earth is still flat.
Neck yourself.
Your country isn't smart enough to go to the moon.

Rocket engines are not jet engines. 39,800 feet is not the same as 97 miles. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Let me guess, the only reason that military jets have such a high turnaround is because of government bloat? They simply don't want their vital military hardware to be usable again quickly? Or maybe, just maybe, there are limits to technology and we don't live in some storybook universe where absolutely everything we'd like to be possible is possible?

It's a parlor trick. It gets investors. It looks cool. That's it.

>I'm not sure what you're talking about there, I was stating that the avionics required for first stage propulsion, the plumbing required to make the first stage work, etc. are really quite complicated and expensive so manufacturing them after every launch raises launch prices by an awful lot.
You're right, it does. That's why the company is still deep in debt because of it.

>You don't have to refurbish 60-70% of the rocket lol,,
How the fuck do you know?

Bet there's still a shit ton of whities who not only believe it but would get others to support it too

>...they only have to refurbish the octoweb (which is designed to be easily removable and serviceable) and a few internal electronic components which need to be checked for damage (which block 5 made even easier to access). Other than that, they simply have to re-fill the tanks, re-mount a second stage by resetting the seperation mechanism (which unlike most rockets which use explosive bolts, the falcon 9 uses hydropneumatic latches for it's operation) and whabam. It's a little more complicated than that, yes, but that's essentially it.

You said they're extremely complex. They cannot be easy to inspect and service and be extremely complex at the same time, unless they're cutting so many corners that their failure rate is going to ironically skyrocket.

>What future do you think I want?
One where cheap spaceflight allows many other things to be possible.

>I simply dislike the spread of misinformation.
Me too. Which is why i'd love it if they were more transparent about their refurbishment process.

I can't believe there are people who think that humans landed on the moon in this fucking thing

Attached: lol it's made of tinfoil.jpg (1280x720, 189K)

Actually liquid fuelled rocket engines and turbojet engines are surprisingly similar. They both rely on the same concept (mix fuel and oxidizer and chemicals go boom) and the rocket merely is designed to provide more thrust and carries it's own oxidizer, as well as using a delavel nozzle to channel the exhaust. They're really not apples and oranges, it's more oranges and tangerines if you're into those comparisons.

Also, no government jet turnarounds actually are due to government bloat lol. Something like 40% of the US Navy's air wing is combat ready, and that's due to using a 40 year old airframe and running out of spare parts as well as skyrocketing maintenance expenses.

Do you have any proof that the refurbishment of a rocket built from the ground up for refurbishment using a new technology (RTLS re-capture) in order to further this emphasis on reusability doesn't make the process cheaper?

>You're right, it does. That's why the company is still in deep debt because of it
Uh, again, not sure what you're talking about. Literally every rocket requires avionics for the first stage, plumbing to make the first stage engines work, and more lol. I was using this to say that throwing it all away is a complete waste when they're still perfectly usable for more than one go with a small amount of refurbishment in most cases. Just because a pipe had rocket fuel flow through it doesn't mean the pipe is magically useless.

>How the fuck do you know?
Because of knowing basic aerospace engineering principles? Why would you need to refurbish 60-70% of a rocket? How could more than half of essentially some complicated plumbing, a couple tanks, and some computers for guidance need more than half of itself to be completely refurbished after each launch? That's just nonsense, maybe 15-20% of the actual components would need checking over and probably somewhere from 7-12% of them would even need restorative maintenance.

>You said they're extremely complex. They cannot be easy to inspect and service...
Yes, they are extremely complex. It just so happens that just because something is complex does not mean it isn't sturdy. Combustion engines are extremely complex, so are aircraft engines. They need minimal check-ups after use however due to the fact that they're built to last, and they're built to ensure that the components which may actually take significant wear and tear are easily accessible and serviceable so that the maintenance process is as streamlined as can be. Again, it's like how a jet would be rather expensive to throw away after every use but if you bring it back and do the routine maintenance on it, it becomes far cheaper to operate. It's really not hard my friend.

>One hwere cheap spaceflight allows many other things to be possible
No lol, I personally advocate for accelerationism and the complete destruction of "western civilization" (or whatever it's desecrated jew-possessed corpse is called). Sure, again, "cheap" space travel would be cool, but it's not feasible with modern tech. This simply brings the price down to where we can start doing things without having to sink absurd amounts of money into each program.

>Me too...
Yeah I wish so too, however they're a private company due to Elon wanting total control (we all know how shareholders like to fuck up things, and that ULA would pretty much instantly do a hostile takeover of SpaceX if they went public), and they don't reveal their refurbishment practices in depth because the Chinese government would view it as basically a manual.

You are the quintessential dumbfuck

>Moon program
Without Kubrick?
Are they bringing in Pixar?

>filename
dude it's a titanium (iirc) structure that has gold foil covering it to help reflect radiation and keep internal temps down so the hypergolic fuels don't boil off too fast lol

>Actually liquid fuelled rocket engines and turbojet engines are surprisingly similar.
Yes, like a prius engine and an F1 engine are similar. However, just because someone can affordably purchase a prius does not mean they can purchase an F1 car.

>Also, no government jet turnarounds actually ... expenses.
An F-35 takes up to 50 hours of maintenance per flight hour. If what you're saying is true, it would be 5 hours per flight hour or less.

>Do you have any proof that ... reusability doesn't make the process cheaper?
Because the new rocket doesn't have to have every single part inspected after a full dissasembly. It's as if you took a brand new rocket with all the costs of manufacturing and assembling it and took it all apart again and inspected it and then put it back together again. That is going to be cheaper than just manufacturing and assembling it?

>with a small amount of refurbishment in most cases.
But you don't have anything to base that on. You have no idea how much they have to actually refurbish or how much that costs. You assume its cheap, because they said it is.

>Why would you need to refurbish 60-70% of a rocket?
Because of the fucking stresses on the parts and the importance of getting the payload into orbit. If they want to lose all their gains to insurance costs they can be my guest.

>Yes, they are extremely complex. It just so happens that just because something is complex does not mean it isn't sturdy
Again, F-35 has 50 hours of maintenance per hour of flight time. Complexity does have a cost.

>but it's not feasible with modern tech.
It is extremely likely it is not possible with the laws of thermodynamics being as they are.

>Yeah I wish so too, however they're a p...Chinese government would view it as basically a manual.
I bet they wouldn't bother with it, because i'm pretty damned sure it just doesn't work.

Nice try Ivan. Maybe not in your commieland but in most of the world its free. You do realize space X sends rocket to space at a fraction of the cost of NASA. You do realize that space x literally operates in the free market while NASA is a commie led program and literally relies on free handouts with zero repercussions.

I would rather have a Europe-Russia-China space programs go to the moon and Mars than bother with NASA

Looks like a hobo shack down by the landfill. Sturdy canvas and plastic tarps were cutting edge spacecraft tech in the early 1970s.

nasa doesn't make rockets and never has, you pot smoking fool.

38 billion over 10 years, front loaded at the beginning of the year, and given as a loan that we forgive so they can also collect interest on it. sounds a lot like extortion from international finance to me, but let's not talk about that. yes, it is actually cheaper to go to the fucking moon than it is to pay off usurors.

An internal combustion engine and a turbojet engine are very different lol. A turbojet engine and a rocket engine are similar. Unless you're talking about a Formula 1 engine and not the Aerojet Rocketdyne F-1 engine used on the Saturn V rocket (in which case, that's a funny coincidence lol). And yes, I'm aware not everyone can afford Formula 1 cars. However, if you were to just throw away the formula 1 engine after every lap it would be a hell of a lot pricier than it already is.

>An F-35 takes up to 50 hours of maitenence... less
Uh, I'm not really sure what you mean by that, my apologies.

>Because the new rocket doesn't have... assembling it?
Yeah the Falcon 9 doesn't have to have every single part inspected either lol. I think your view of refurbishable rockets are too influenced by the space shuttle, where that was actually the case. The Space shuttle was a hideously complex and ungodly priced behemoth of a congress shitshow that pulled a gimmick out of it's ass (landing and re-use) to just show off to the taxpayer while hiding it's astronomical per-launch price. That's because it actually did have to have every part stripped and inspected and literally every tile of the heat shield inspected after every launch and landing. The Falcon-9 is built basically completely differently and is specifically designed to minimize this problem. Yes some parts have to be inspected, but the majority of the rocket does not need to be stripped down. I'm not sure why that's something you're not getting but if you can tell me then please do since I'd like to make it clearer.

>But you don't have anything to base that on... You assume its cheap, because they said it is.
I have the 19 day turnaround to base it on? The fastest a booster has been turned around is in 19 days. Not to mention, again, basic engineering knowledge to where the leftmost structural panel on the internal liquid oxygen tank would have no reason to be refurbished.

>$30 billion
So a few days' worth of entitlement spending?

Ivan go home. You have had enough too drink. Your potato of a wife Olga is getting spitroasted by Mohammed and Ahmed.

He's right, NASA doesn't make the rockets. Companies like Thiokal do.

...whereas the aluminum grid fins which mostly disintegrated after every launch would need to be refurbished. That's something they replaced by the way, with titanium grid fins so they literally have to do zero maintenance on them between launches. The 60M per launch and 19 day turnarounds speak for themselves. Sure, maybe spacex is hideously unprofitable, but then you're assuming the investors who poured a billion dollars into starlink are purely naive idiots won over by a neat trick.

>Again, F-35 has 50 hours of maintenance per hour of flight time... cost.
Ah I see what you're saying. Well yes complexity does have its cost, but it's an awful lot cheaper to re-use that complex thing than to toss it away after each use. Even the horribly expensive and difficult to refurbish space shuttle was cheaper to refurbish than to re-build.

>It is extremely likely it is not possible with... as they are.
Eh, not necessarily. If solid hydrogen pans out and we get down carbon nanotubes we could reasonably produce extremely powerful and efficient engines which can withstand the exhaust temps needed for those high specific impulses. Though it's difficult without a doubt. Like I said, even in the most optimistic view, this isn't making it cheap. It's just making it not horribly unbelievably expensive.

>I bet they wouldn't bother with it... it just doesn't work.
I mean, I guess I can't refute conjecture but I disagree. Basically every company is looking towards re-use, since everyone knows tossing away extremely complex machinery after every use is inefficient.

Sure bud and I totally believe some boomers were somehow thrusting through a vacuum using some pvc pipe and Reynolds wrap. Sounds completely legit.

Oh and Nixon making a telephone call to the moon? That definitely real as well.

Attached: Article 13 Compliant.jpg (960x895, 65K)

Please tell me this is a joke lol. It hasn't made many, sure, but the Space Shuttle and Saturn V are NASA thoroughbreds.

>thrusting through a vacuum using some pvc pipe and reynolds wrap
what are you talking about lmfao?

>nixon making a telephone call to the moon
Gosh it's almost as if the signal was sent to the relay station, where it was sent to the moon using the communications gear that NASA uses to communicate with stuff at the moon? Crazy right?

Another mutt who has the attention span of a shrimp and can't follow a conversation that goes beyond one reply. I never said they did. My entire point, exactly that, is that they are made by the free market because they can do them much cheaper. NASA knows this and has outsourced these skills today. This was not the case during the Cold War when it was cutting edge technology. Throughout history, governments been funding cutting edge technology. When it gets affordable enough, meaning investments are reaching a risk level that is not a pure gamble, private industries will invest. This is what should be and always has been the classical role of a capitalistic government.

They didn't lose it. They auctioned Apollo off to various private buyers and museums. They made several DSKY alone.

>Gosh it's almost as if the signal was sent to the relay station, where it was sent to the moon using the communications gear that NASA uses to communicate with stuff at the moon? Crazy right?
Yeah man, totally. That's definitely what they were doing in the 70's.

Attached: 1538839176228.jpg (1008x709, 374K)