successor to the Hubble Telescope is ready - the James Webb Space Telescope

[Sakkura]

21 minutes ago, zMeul said:

along with the rocket, a 195mil USD satellite also went up in flames

Here's how the first Ariane 5 launch distributed $370 million (in 1997 money, so more when comparing) worth of satellites:

 

[Space Reptile]

Just now, zMeul said:

well, it exploded one when the oxygen tank ruptured and an 2nd time when the kerosene tank ruptured 

shit happens man , nasa blew up tonns of rockets , even w/ people inside 

[bob345]

7 minutes ago, zMeul said:

no, my friend

last time a NASA rocket blew up during fueling was back in the 70s or 80s, don't recall exactly

SpaceX is so fucking retarded they're trying to reinvent the rocket

So they are retarded because they being innovative new technologies to reduce cost? spacex isn't the one that thought it would be a good idea to use leaky old Soviet tanks on a modern mission.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

shit happens man , nasa blew up tonns of rockets , even w/ people inside 

well. NASA has actually evolved to the point where their rockets did send people into space

SpaceX's haven't sent shit into space ... some smoke maybe 

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, bob345 said:

So they are retarded because they being innovative new technologies to reduce cost? spacex isn't the one that thought it would be a good idea to use leaky old Soviet tanks on a modern mission.

innovative?!

do you know why rocketry hasn't "evolved" since 1940s? because there are not many ways to make a wheel 

 

reducing cost means cutting corners; and when rocketry is involved, cutting corners means things blowing up

[Space Reptile]

Just now, zMeul said:

innovative?!

do you know why rocketry hasn't "evolved" since 1940s? because there are not many ways to make a wheel 

but many ways to improve it 

 

also i beg your pardon but only because w.v.braun made the v2 and the Apollo means not that we haven't progressed since then , do some research pls 

[zMeul]

Just now, Space Reptile said:

also i beg your pardon but only because w.v.braun made the v2 and the Apollo means not that we haven't progressed since then , do some research pls 

no, we haven't

the same principles and same engine (combining the oxidizing agent with the fuel) still hold since then

[Space Reptile]

Just now, zMeul said:

no, we haven't

the same principles and same engine (combining the oxidizing agent with the fuel) still hold since then

so the first piston engine is still comparable to a modern engine? 

[bob345]

24 minutes ago, zMeul said:

well. NASA has actually evolved to the point where their rockets did send people into space

SpaceX's haven't sent shit into space ... some smoke maybe 

Your kidding right? spacex has already launched plenty of satellites into orbit along with iss resupply missions.

[zMeul]

Just now, Space Reptile said:

so the first piston engine is still comparable to a modern engine? 

from the working principle, absolutely

we added more cylinders, different ignition system ... but the internal combustion engine is the same

[Sakkura]

7 minutes ago, zMeul said:

well. NASA has actually evolved to the point where their rockets did send people into space

SpaceX's haven't sent shit into space ... some smoke maybe 

Apart from 35 satellites, 8 resupply pods for the ISS, and a few testing/qualification payloads, that is.

 

And it's not just into wimpy LEO orbits, 11 of their missions went to GTO.

[Space Reptile]

Just now, zMeul said:

from the working principle, absolutely

we added more cylinders, different ignition system ... but the internal combustion engine is the same

its not that simple

 

to put it to more tech terms , a 3ghz p4 is not the same as a 3ghz i-whatever

 

we don not use methanol and hydrogen peroxide anymore in our rockets , the nozzles are not steel anymore , we do not have single fire engines anymore , and shure as hell not gravity fed anymore

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

to put it to more tech terms , a 3ghz p4 is not the same as a 3ghz i-whatever

you can add different extensions to the base arch, but the building block of any x86 CPU is the x86 ISA - that's 3 decades old

[Sakkura]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

from the working principle, absolutely

we added more cylinders, different ignition system ... but the internal combustion engine is the same

No it isn't. SpaceX is moving to full-flow staged combustion, which has never been achieved before on an operational launch vehicle.

[manikyath]

58 minutes ago, zMeul said:

no, my friend

last time a NASA rocket blew up during fueling was back in the 70s or 80s, don't recall exactly - 1960 from what I found

SpaceX is so fucking retarded they're trying to reinvent the rocket

failures happen, on all space programs. in fact the russians may be the most reliable ones at the moment.

 

and if you consider the amount of money nasa has to poor into a launch compared to what spacex is trying to achieve, it's far from retarded, here's an analogy i fished off a livestream (dasvaldez) a while back:

Quote

the space shuttle program was shut down because it was too expensive, in comparison, filling a spacex booster with dollar bills, and using that as a fuel to shoot the rocket up would be cheaper than a space shuttle launch.

spacex isnt just "fucking retarded" trying to reinvent the rocket, they're "fucking retarded" making it something that is *actually* economically viable.

 

and unfortunately, failures just happen, they happen everywhere.

Spoiler

 

and this one, which by itself killed multiple astronauts:

 

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

spacex isnt just "fucking retarded" trying to reinvent the rocket, they're "fucking retarded" making it something that is *actually* economically viable.

call me back when SpaceX actually achieves something, like reusing one of those reusable rockets they're so proud of - how many rockets SpaceX has reused so far? zero! they haven't even tested if one of those recovered rockets can actually be reused

or .. dunno ... not blowing up with 200mil$ equipment on board

[manikyath]

Just now, zMeul said:

call me back when SpaceX actually achieves something, like reusing one of those reusable rockets they're so proud of - how many rockets SpaceX has reused so far? zero!

or .. dunno ... not blowing up with 200mil$ equipment on board

call me back when you've managed to make something actually go up into space without government funding

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

call me back when SpaceX actually achieves something

\/   i mean have you missed this post?    \/

41 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Apart from 35 satellites, 8 resupply pods for the ISS, and a few testing/qualification payloads, that is.

 

And it's not just into wimpy LEO orbits, 11 of their missions went to GTO.

 

 

[zMeul]

Just now, manikyath said:

call me back when you've managed to make something actually go up into space without government funding

that's what the private sector is for

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

\/   i mean have you missed this post?    \/

I don't read the posts made by that person

 

also ESA - guess why NASA went to ESA for this mission and not SpaceX 

[Space Reptile]

Just now, zMeul said:

I don't read the post by that person

didnt or refuse to read it 

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

didnt or refuse to read it 

I have him/her blocked

[Sakkura]

This thread has gone full Trump.

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

I have him/her blocked

ಠ_ಠ

 

oh btw , worth a read

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

oh btw , worth a read

the reusable rocket system is another retarded attempt at rocketry - it's inefficient and very dangerous to the main mission

• the rocket will have to carry extra fuel to compensate for the dead weight of the extra fuel needed for landing, and extra equipment the rocket needs for landing
• that extra fuel can blow up

SpaceX has not once demonstrated the reusability of the recovered rockets