Elon musk

Exploding rockets is business as usual in the space industry desu.

It's quite normal.

To add. My dad often hires out engineers to work on rockets. I also got to attend a launch a while ago. And that rocket also exploded. And everyone just raised their shoulders.

So working in airbus and supposedly (you didn't say with what) knowing this stuff: how much can be saved realistically?
The materials themselves aren't what cost much in a rocket however, before reusing a part they have to be controlled and if those controls aren't thorough enough micro-cracks etc. can accumulate. So there are savings but what level of savings?

most cringe inducing thing ive read in a while

>Exploding rockets is business as usual in the space industry desu.
This is what millennials actual believe.

NASA did not have them in decades and the ones that are shown are extremely rare (space shuttle exploded 1 time after ~20 years of service)

>His Mr. Burns levels of exploding rockets:
Pls don't insult mr. burns. He is a good guy. Really.
youtube.com/watch?v=H1T5uMeYv9Q

Attached: cool-me.png (403x347, 109K)

>can accumulate. So there are savings but what level of savings?
OP here.
What makes Elon an LOL cow is that he cuts corners and parades like he is the king of the universe however what he does not understand is that the extra costs in NASA rockets prevent them from exploding. And is surprised after his explode.

this thread is making me like elon musk

You can't even spell parachute correctly, you Mongoloid. All your opinions are wrong

youtu.be/lZ5PermDs0I

>name one thing
That one time he fooled Israel into entrusting him with their satelite and then he blew it up. That was pretty impressive shit.

>correctly, you Mongoloid. All your opinions are wrong

Nice job on turning yourself into a joke.
Pff English is a dumb language it will be replaced with Spanish after the Reconquista from La Raza.

Attached: you.jpg (735x541, 35K)

>Listen to Elon talk about dangers of AI.
>Facebook satellite "accidentally" blows up.
It all makes sense now.

Attached: 1536757534964.jpg (456x456, 35K)

>Israel into
Is Israel nuked? No? Then he failed miserably.

He's the Dark Knight.

It really is astounding that not only did you get this many replies with an obvious bait thread, but that people still reply to you after making it more and more obvious and dropping more and more hints

lmao you beaners can barely speak your own language

>more and more hints
That you and all Elon fanboys are retarded?

I asked you why its not using parachutes (thanks for the correction I don't even pay attention how to write things in your retardation of a language, it will be obsolete in the next 20 years anyway) instead of his MEME landing that blows his rockets up. Still no answer.

le definition of a shitpost

>Heh I was almost forced to face the fact that my argument was bad but i see here that you made a typo hahaha tough luck pal
>lets talk about Spanish
You can't make this shit up.

>MEME landing MEME landing MEME landing MEME landing MEME landing MEME
cringe

Attached: 1468219454028.jpg (542x474, 27K)

I hate Elon, he is trying to get ahead of anyone else by using the state and then tries to act like some high and mighty free market capitalist
That was also my first post on the threa, so you didn't ask me shit
That being said, stop trying to meme Spain into the new India, it's not gonna happen

>I work in airbus and something like the rocket parts re-entry and retrieval is just science fiction with the current civil rocket technology
youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

Parachute landings aren't exacly smooth and it's hard to controll where it lands. Once you master meme landings, they are just more convenient than having to fish potentially damaged rockets from sea.

>YEY capitalism much progress
musk made his fortune from government grants.

Is it worth having the fuckers explode on landing or start for this?

people from spain dont speak english like that. he's probably a wetback

>musk made his fortune from government grants.
I know the line was ironic.
Also all free enterprise/capitalism is nothing more then doing the same thing the government did only more expensively/worse and extracting more money from the government into crony hands.

>only more expensively/worse
I know for a fact this is bait

>fact
Then you have no facts.
Look into it you colossal idiot.
Example Uber literally makes their "workers" earn less then minimal wage or even negative profits (this is a extremely bad thing). Turn your "workers" into something worse and payed less then slaves.

If you are to indoctrinated into bullshit to realize this and its a simple calculation then you are unable to think or calculate because of your crippling ideological indoctrination.

You forget that Uber gave everyone a much cheaper service than taxis, and taxis were infamously bad for overcharging so much that OBVIOUSLY a good alternative means they'd stop jewing people out of their money
If you want to make calculations, try the following mental consideration:
>1 store sets the prices (it is called the government but it's still a store)
>100 different stores of varying sizes and with varying priorities compete for the biggest piece of the pie
If your idea is that "muh workers get paid less", consider that the US has been using a mostly free market system and it's wages are higher than most government controlled markets

It's called teething problems. Russians who are always looking to skimp on something are they revisiting this type of landing instead of parachutes, so that tells you something...

Nobody ever said flying rockets is easy, NASA lost 2 out of 5 space shuttles and eventually had to scrap the program due to inefficiencies, russia has had massive issues with their Proton-M etc, and spacex was founded in 2002, fucking 2002.
Reading this stuff by people otherwise prone to debating pros/cons of getting a college degree in CS or some sysadmin certificate from cisco is painful.
Get an engineering degree, get some experience building your own rockets and then share your results.
I'm done with this amateur site

Attached: 1955 ...Werner ponders.jpg (1329x1000, 178K)

Unironically

why tf did you even @ me?
all i said is that i like elon now

>Pro uber
Go work for uber you fucker.

>much cheaper service than taxis,
Yes and you know how they did it? By tricking idiots into working for them and using legalistic loopholes to not classify their "workers" to be workers. You get payed pennies or nothing if you work for them.

>overcharging
Don't get me wrong I also think you are overpaid since you make more then zero. I only hope you get payed less then zero because whatever you are doing you are obviously overcharging everyone.

You are mentally crippled by your ideology.
People like you don't deserve to have any power or property.

>much cheaper service than taxis,
You realize this is similar to the overexploitation problem (in like farmland)? And systemic to all pro business thinking? You can overexploit a farmland and get 20 more food units out of it however the next year you will get nothing. Wow 20 is bigger then 10 (everyone is making 10 units ) only you fucken starve the next year you retarded fuck!

Now back to Uber, its so cheap everyone will get into it no more taxis, only one problem you need to hope you will have a stream of idiots who you can trick to work for you with less pay then slaves (negative profits!) if there will be no more idiots or all your idiots realize it and quit or simply go bankrupt (negative profits!) then you will have no one to drive you around.

And this children is why capitalism is a load of shit.

>Nobody ever said flying rockets is easy, NASA lost 2 out of 5 space shuttles and eventually had to scrap the program due to inefficiencies
I agree however they lost 2 rockets over how many years? And how many times did the shuttles fly to space?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions

>inefficiencies
Did they explode?

> russia has had massive issues with their Proton-M
What problems? Explosions?

>spacex was founded in 2002

Shit it posted automatically.

>>>spacex was founded in 2002
"Its like they looked back at all of human history and managed to learn nothing from it."

Is a quote that comes to mind.

Because NASA did figure all of this out, and NASA is giving this knowledge for free.
And Elons joke company is to stupid to learn from NASA.

>go work for uber
Why? I have a degree and work for a company that pays more
>you get paid pennies or nothing
So you mean these people willingly work for "pennies" and that's somehow bad? You're not forcing them to work, it just proves that people that are unemployed due to minimum wage bs would want to work for less than minimum wage if they could
>you are obviously overcharging everyone
There's more to a transaction than just money
I'd easily not get paid $1000 to have a month off work, but I wouldn't not get paid $10k to have a month off work because I value my work time at around $10k which is what I get paid
>dont deserve to have any power
I have power over me and my property alone
>or property
Why don't you come along and try to take it, pic related
>you starve the next year
>overfarming
Proven wrong so far by any remotely free market economy
Far as I recalled when the government meddles with the economy though you had
>civil war
>The great depression
>Pearl Harbor
>Korea
>Vietnam
>Middle East
>Housing crisis
>the next crisis that's gonna hit ~2021-2
Anyways
>now back to Uber
Again, people that don't get paid because of unemployment would literally work with that wage
Thinking that makes them slaves because they make less than others, but refusing them a job by asking they get paid "muh living wage" is purely uneducated thinking
>noone to drive you around
If Uber disappears overnight, you'll have 1000 new businesses in its place the next morning
As a matter of fact, you probably already do
>capitalism is a load of shit
Feel free to go to Cuba or Venezuela

Attached: 1534049369952.png (558x744, 428K)

The reason why spacex exploded more is becase if it was a goverment project, it would've been canceled after second failure and all the money already poured into it would be wasted. So goverment run projects focus on not having stuff explode, whereas spacex can afford to focus on a particular goal even if the risk of stuff exploding during development is higher.

Thank you, user! I don't see these tarts building rockets..

>even if the risk of stuff exploding during development is higher.
Do you put your serious payloads on these rockets then? In like actual satellites that where expected to be in orbit? And got exploded in what is the pre alpha hacked together demo software for rockets?
Because this is what he totaly did.
Its OK to dick around with exploding rocket ideas however you don't use them seriously unless they are finished.
>The reason why spacex exploded more is becase if it was a goverment project, it would've been
Perfected until the rockets are ready for serious use see NASA rocket history.
>goverment project, it would've been
Did you say that government is superior to free enterprise? Because it totally is.

ITT: ELON MEMES

>but I wouldn't not get paid $10k to have a month off work because I value my work time at around $10k which is what I get paid
You are clearly overpaid I can't wait when the Uber for programming arrives so we can finely have cheep devs that are payed less then zero.

>perfected
Yeah, like they did the venturestar.

>overpaid
Nah, I believe I'm paid just about as much as I need be
>Uber for programming
That's arrived already, you're talking about Pajeets
I'm in network architecture, I believe I'm safe for the next 30 years considering less and less people get interested in actual hardware

It's ((his)) desk job. Elon pissing them off makes it so much sweeter.

10,000 feet up is not space

Okay user, is the moon in space?
Last I checked NASA landed a lunar lander on there with rockets, and then they launched it back up into orbit and docked it.

it doesn't have a "parashoot" because it has to control the area of decent you fucking idiot.

The next question is why it needs to be so precise? Even during the era of the space shuttle SRBs were recovered using just some boats.

because they have to ensure it lands on a spot that's level, solid, and not a spot that a human is at. Also, ocean landings would seem to be the safest option, because in the event of a failure there's nothing around to get damaged.

Well yes, that's the point, if they aim for the ocean and ask boats to stay away from the expected landing zone then they can forego fancy guidance systems and use a parachute and some inflatable balls.
If the guidance system fails or the propulsion system fails and they aim to land it anywhere but a barge in the ocean then they have a chance of hitting someone anyway.
They can also use that valuable last bit of fuel to get larger things into orbit (or get smaller things into higher orbits).

There's probably a reason they don't do this that I'm not smart enough to think of. It obviously does sound much easier. But why wouldn't nasa do this? There's probably a serious issue with it

He's had more than 40 consecutive successes so far with the Falcon 9 since the last incident, only Arianne 5 and Atlas V have that record atm. And he's launching more rockets/commercial payloads than these two combined.

Has anyone tried to fish huge fuel tank that smacked into water and then reuse it? Doesn't sound as easy and as safe as you make it out to be.

For the same reason that commercial airplanes don't parachute their customers over NYC and and then deploy a big chute to bail into the Hudson. It's better to land with your main propulsive mode than to add an entirely separate one on top of it.

Also, if you build the rocket to be able to land in water, it'll be too heavy to give any decent speed boost. The Falcon 9 first stage gives the upper stage more than three times more velocity than the shuttle SRB's did to the shuttle. It has to be built lightweight, and if you soft land it on water it won't survive flipping in the water after it's landed.

Yes, they literally did this with SRBs. But re-using the rockets even when you land them isn't much easier than reusing SRBs which landed in the ocean and were fished out shortly after.

Can someone please explain what this wall of aspergers means?

SRB's didn't have any fuel tanks, or rocket engines. They're like a firework rocket, they're just huge steel tubes filled with explosives that are designed to burn slowly. The thick steel tube is the cheap part, the shaped fuel was the expensive part of the SRB.

>Even during the era of the space shuttle SRBs
This I have seen a documentary about shuttle operation where the rockets(the big things it has in the start and is not coming back with) the shuttle drops where fished out.
Pro tip this is why all space facilities are next to water so they drop the things in the water.

Elon is more interested in making fancy looking landings then actually getting things into space, with less exploding rockets.

Is there a way to help in ruining him? I lost shitloads of money and now I'm more or less in debt because of his tesla scam and I'm trying to figure out how to fight back

For this reason, reusing the SRB's stopped because it was more expensive to just make a new one from scratch.

By comparison, a liquid fuelled first stage only needs to have it's fuel tanks refilled, like most existing vehicles.

Fuel represents like 10% of a rocket cost. Using that little bit of fuel to land your very expensive rocket parts near your base is a massive boost. Seawater rapes everything it touches too.

How do you lose money on Tesla? If you shorted his stock, that's entirely your own fault.

The issue with SRB reuse is that the most expensive part is the fuel. Which, coincidentally, is all used up during its operation. This is in great contrast with liquid rockets where the liquid is quite cheap compared to the rockety parts.

>Even during the era of the space shuttle SRBs were recovered using just some boats.

And then had to be rebuild from the ground up due to being destroyed by salt water.

Rockets need to land gently on the pad, otherwise dont even bother with reusability.

>But why wouldn't nasa do this?
NASA is doing the exact thing.

.>They can also use that valuable last bit of fuel to get larger things into orbit (or get smaller things into higher orbits).

You know there are multiple companies launching rockets? SpaceX reusing their rockets saves a lot of money but obviously that comes with the cost of having to carry that extra fuel and not being able to do heavier payloads or higher orbits.

NASA has a tool to figure out the best rocket for your use! Sometimes SpaceX would be best, sometimes not.

elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Default.aspx

Rockets are incomparable to commercial aeroplanes. This is a false equivalence.
An airline is transporting people on sub-orbital trajectories.
It's certainly not EASIER to land with your "main propulsive mode" and is also a big waste of the last drops of fuel which give most of the ∆v.
The concern over the water landing could be solved quite simply, the engine could detach from the (considerably cheaper) fuel tank. This would not only make it easier to recover but also lighter and less likely to break up if an inflatable heat shield was used for re-entry and parachutes and inflatable cushions were used for the water landing.
That's not the point though, the fact of the matter is that they were still very expensive to reuse.
You don't understand how that 10% of fuel makes up the majority of the ∆v.

To be honest, this is all talk in the end. I would be interested in seeing some actual numbers for cost to weight and profit.

This.

Rocket reusability is a meme that cripples performance severely.

Hence why it wasn't pursued until certain PR gurus decided to dabble into the business.

>I lost shitloads of money and now I'm more or less in debt because
Explain.
>his tesla scam
Update me on this.

>They can also use that valuable last bit of fuel to get larger things into orbit (or get smaller things into higher orbits).

Rockets are rarely used to full capacity. Landing fuel is essentially free. If additional capacity is really required, then they can use orbital refueling or even expend the rocket.

>NASA lost 2 out of 5 space shuttles
Stopped reading there

Musk loses 2 out of 5 launches, NASA lost 2 out of 140

Falcon 9 already has a larger lift capability than most rockets in reusable mode. If that's too small, the falcon heavy is big enough to handle pretty much every mission you could think up in reusable mode.

And then there's the BFR which will be introduced in a few years, which will have 150 ton payload to LEO.

Reuse arguably increases the payload of a rocket, because you can make it big enough to handle the largest payloads and still fly the smaller payloads on it profitably.

Finally a bit more reason. Though I'll argue that SMART which you are probably referring to is PR as well. There is no need to reuse anything. It's a double edged sword that always cuts you, either in R&D costs or by imposing limits on manufacturing.

Increase production capacity, maximize performance. That's the right way.

>> Musk loses 2 out of 5 launches, NASA lost 2 out of 140

[Citation needed]

BFR is never going to fly.

It is a powerpoint star-trekish "rocket".

brainlet posts

...And now the old established players can't compete. They had their chance and didn't make use of it.

But nasas rockets explose all the time

>Rocket reusability is a meme that cripples performance severely.
this is false and not what was said at all

>Musk loses 2 out of 5 launches, NASA lost 2 out of 140
I applaud you sir and the fact that there are still sane people on Jow Forums and not only Elon cock suckers.

First test flights are literally next year.

Ignorant.
All "old established players" are worth more than spacex and have numerous government contracts for variety of aerospace hardware.

uhh Space X is like the only really promising company Elon Musk has a hand in. Their track record with rocket launches is pretty damn good. I think part of the problem is that they video tape pretty much every test and have made many MANY of those tapes public, even if the rocket blew up. There is no bubblegum or ducttape on a spacex rocket.

In case you haven't noticed SpaceX rockets have a unique feature that they fire back up on the descent. It requires them to haul a BUNCH of extra fuel into orbit, way more than a traditional launch vehicle. It also contributes to the 'splody factor if the thing is gonna go up in flames.

Rockets are huge bro, there is no way you are going to parachute a falcon nine fuselage back to the ground without destroying it. even the engines by themselves would never make it on chutes alone

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2018

>I'm more or less in debt because of his tesla scam
Please expand on this

>[Citation needed]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions
5 tests 135 normal with humans.
135 +5 = 140

What exactly do you want documented?

>Musk loses 2 out of 5 launches

2 out of 61. Industry standard reliability.