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

[Space Reptile]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

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

you know that it only needs a small amount to slow itself down because it looses approx 80% of its mass (payload and fuel) before it returns? 

Just now, zMeul said:

that extra fuel can blow up

scientific fact : all fuel explodes , thus carrying no fuel on a rocket is the way to go 

 

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

you know that it only needs a small amount to slow itself down

numbers please

compare the launch fuel to the launch fuel of non-returning rocket

 

also, why recover a rocket if you aren't gonna reuse it?

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Past_launches check the serials of each rocket

[Space Reptile]

Just now, zMeul said:

numbers please

compare the launch fuel to the launch fuel of non-returning rocket

JUST WATCH SCOTT MANLEY OR PLAY KSP 

 

 

im talking to a wall , and my nerves are having to pay for it 

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

JUST WATCH SCOTT MANLEY OR PLAY KSP 

 

 

im talking to a wall , and my nerves are having to pay for it 

Just remember @zMeul, you get diminishing returns by adding more and more fuel. And boosters can turn into accidental ICBM.

[manikyath]

15 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

This thread has gone full Trump.

go turnip or go home

4 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

JUST WATCH SCOTT MANLEY OR PLAY KSP 

 

 

im talking to a wall , and my nerves are having to pay for it 

joking aside, scott manley and dasvaldez are actually amazing sources for people who arent scientists to understand how space works

[zMeul]

24 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

JUST WATCH SCOTT MANLEY OR PLAY KSP 

 

im talking to a wall , and my nerves are having to pay for it 

I'll give you some numbers since you can't be bothered

a Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket has a mass of 505846kg (fully fueled), the propellant alone (fuel + oxidizer) is 395700kg

so, to lift a single ton of F9 rocket, 780 Kg of it has to be fuel - some dumb ass napkin mathematics 

 

here's the source: http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-v1-1-f9r/

[manikyath]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I'll give you some numbers since you can't be bothered

a Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket has a mass of 505.846kg (fully fueled), the propellant alone (fuel + oxidizer) is 395.700kg

so, to lift a single ton of F9 rocket, 780 Kg of it has to be fuel - some dumb ass napkin mathematics 

 

here's the source: http://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/falcon-9-v1-1-f9r/

and how is that ratio on a nasa or esa vessel?

 

and how does that difference in fuel cost compare with needing a new vessel on each launch?

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

and how does that difference in fuel cost compare with needing a new vessel on each launch?

call me back when SpaceX actually reuses a single fucking recovered rocket - they haven't so far, not a single one

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

call me back when SpaceX actually reuses a single fucking recovered rocket - they haven't so far, not a single one

they have existed for 5 years and launched many payloads into orbit.

where was nasa when they existed for 5 years?

 

what i wonder more is how long it'll take until trying to have an intelligent discution with you is like talking to a brick wall.

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

call me back when SpaceX actually reuses a single fucking recovered rocket - they haven't so far, not a single one

Ever heard of refurbishing? Because that's also what NASA had to do after every shuttle launch to ensure that there were no accidents (with the ones that ended up happening any way not being related to the shuttle). Also, you really are pessimistic.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

Ever heard of refurbishing? Because that's also what NASA had to do after every shuttle launch to ensure that there were no accidents (with the ones that ended up happening any way not being related to the shuttle). Also, you really are pessimistic.

I suggest you look at the serials of each Falcon 9 rocket - every single one is new

every single one costs 61mil$ to launch

[manikyath]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

Also, you really are pessimistic.

he's not pessimistic, at least not about everything.

he's only pessimistic about things he dislikes

[manikyath]

Just now, zMeul said:

I suggest you look at the serials of each Falcon 9 rocket - every single one is new

it's called a development phase

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

it's called a development phase

meaning bullshit

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

he's not pessimistic, at least not about everything.

he's only pessimistic about things he dislikes

Maybe I should start yelling AMD at him.....

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

meaning bullshit

The development phase is stage 4 of project management: https://www.projectmanagement-training.net/category/six-phases/

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

Maybe I should start yelling AMD at him.....

and here is where I draw the line

[Space Reptile]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

meaning bullshit

wow you REALLY HAVE NO IDEA do you ? 

 

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

wow you REALLY HAVE NO IDEA do you ? 

yeah?!

when I asked you for concrete data, you started having migraines 

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

meaning bullshit

i know this is hopeles but...

 

meaning:

each new rocket they make is in essence "reusable" but contains minor incremental fixes over the last one, for example they may find the landing legs open too slowly on a landing, so the next one has increased hydraulic pressure on the landing gear.

 

it is a critical stage between the initial design, and the "launch" of the product, making sure all of the little bugs are worked out before they strap humans to the top of it. the launch during refueling, for example, most likely resulted in the next iteration having a redesigned fueling system, hopefully stopping this incident from occuring again, or if the incident occurs having it occur in a safe manner (eg. if a valve control fails, it'll always fail in the closed position)

 

in effect, it's much like how new generations of computer hardware are designed, there's many, MANY iterations of fully functional test samples before the one the end user gets, all of these generally dont look much different, but they need to be manufactured and tested under real world scenarios to make sure what the end user gets doesnt end up being a time bomb.

[Mira Yurizaki]

In other news NASA supposedly verified the EM drive works.

 

(Sorry, I thought I could lighten up the mood)

[Space Reptile]

Just now, zMeul said:

yeah?!

when I asked you for concrete data, you started having migraines 

you googled the weight of the falcon 9 , and you compared it to NO OTHER ROCKET 

 

oh btw , a saturn 5 was 185million per launch in 1969~71´s money , wich would be about 1.2 billion today 

 

but 61m$ per falcon is a waste :3 

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

In other news NASA supposedly verified the EM drive works.

 

(Sorry, I thought I could lighten up the mood)

probably will turn out in a similar way as orion drives tho...

 

"it's technically possible, but has too many downsides to be practical"

[IAEInferno]

Can we perhaps see more life and possibly an intelligent alien race!

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

you googled the weight of the falcon 9 , and you compared it to NO OTHER ROCKET 

 

oh btw , a saturn 5 was 185million per launch in 1969~71´s money , wich would be about 1.2 billion today 

 

but 61m$ per falcon is a waste :3 

who pais for the 200mil satellite? add it to the national debt