/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9980960
He can't even make more than 5000 cars in a month and you want him to go to Mars?

>>9981106
He figured out how to make rockets, how to make rockets cheap, how to land rockets, and how to make big rockets, and how to make big rockets land. Would that be a good indicator of him being able to land bigger rockets?

>>9981106
>>9981114
>elon is spacex

>>9980960
It will never ever happen. It's time to grow up, real life isn't star wars.

>>9981138
t. increasingly desperate ULA shill

>>9981138
Lmao 'life isn't star wars, nothing I haven't seen yet will happen'

>>9980960
>Will it really happen in the next 10 years?

You will still be here.

>>9980960
>will it really happen in the next 10 years?

I truly hope it does. It will be a great venture for humanity, especially if we can somehow make it a self-sustaining colony; but honestly it'll probably be quite some time for that to become a reality. What's likely to happen is Mars ends up consuming a lot of Earth resources and bureaucracy's icy death grip stunts any meaningful progress.

>>9981138
t. roscosmos technician with a drill

>>9980960
The estimated date keeps getting pushed back so no, it won't be 2022-2024 but it will happen. If not SpaceX than another company.

It's just inevitable, but thankfully SpaceX got the ball rolling by making rocket launchers cheaper and proving the viability of private enterprise doing a better job than NASA.

>>9980960
Jesus Musk's astroturfing has hit obscure basket weaving boards too

>>9982178
>2022
If we are lucky we will see the first unmaned BFR testlaunch.
That monster will probably blow up and they will have to scale it down a bit until they get it working.
2030 first transgender POC STRONG woman on mars.

>>9980960
Elon is a fraud

>>9981106
Your statement is factually incorrect; Tesla is producing far more cars than 5000 per month. In the last quarter Tesla delivered more than 40,000 cars, which of course means at least 13k each month.

>>9982256
How is Ol'Musky a fraud? SpaceX is taking over the commercial launch market. Tesla is producing cars by the thousands each week, and that big-ass power grid battery they built in Australia is working fine. Starlink is testing satellites in orbit now. The Boring Company has a test tunnel, and will start building a tunnel from Chicago's airport to the downtown area soon. And so on.

>>9982270
I'm surprised you managed to type so well with Elon's dick in your hand

>>9982270
>SpaceX is taking over the commercial launch market
No
>Tesla is producing cars by the thousands each week
Nobody, except shill, drives these cars

>big-ass power grid battery
Doesn't exist

>The Boring Company has a test tunnel
lol

>>9980960
The Falcon 9 is a shit rocket and the Falcon Heavy are three shit rockets tucked together. The Falcon Heavy is completely useless, as it is getting close to 0 missions to fly and the Falcon 9 can only do simple orbits and is only so cheap because Elon exploits his workforce like he's a northkorean dictator, as well as bathing in government monies. Soibois need to pull their heads out of their asses, Musk is a frau and SpaceX will be exposed just like Tesla is being exposed at the moment.

>>9982285
So, no actual arguments about any alleged fraudulent behavior on Elon Musk's part, only childish insults.
>>9982298
Yes, SpaceX is taking the bulk of the commercial launch market; they grabbed 2/3rds of the launch contracts for this year, for example, and the heads of Ariane & Russia's space agency have both stated concerns about their ability to compete with Space X.

Yes, people do drive Teslas; last quarter alone they delivered 40 thousand of them. Unless you think those people are all shills.

And yes, Tesla did build a big grid battery in Australia. Claiming it doesn't exist is just silly.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/06/how-teslas-big-battery-is-bringing-australias-gas-cartel-to-heel

The test tunnel shows that the Boring Company is a serious endeavour, not just something to sell flamethrowers.

>>9982313
So how is it remarkable that Elon copied a 50 years old russiand rocket?

>>9980960
There is no technical showstopper to a Mars colony. So it can very well happen.

>>9982309
Falcon 9 is the most advanced rocket you retard.

>is only so cheap because Elon exploits his workforce

Bullshit, Russians, Indians and the Chinese pay their people peanuts compared to SpaceX employees, and yet SpaceX is cheaper.

>>9982315
Oh, it's YOU again. Can't wait for the first BFR launch, your butthurt and idiotic claim that they'll be copying the N1.

>>9982256
>>9982298
>tripfag spewing nonsense
Why am I not surprised.

>>9982315
Yes, it is remarkable that they land first stages and are least expensive in the industry.

>>9982313
>actually believes Elon Musk is a genius and wants to save humanity
>calls others childish

>>9982325
>Falcon 9 is the most advanced rocket

laughingwhores.jpg

It's a shit kerosene-rocket that can only make simple orbits.

Landing is useless, because you won't be able to reuse the rocket anyway, as SpaceX is demonstrating, by not reusing the Falcons. Such a gimmick like vertical landing is a nice way to lure in monies though, Elon is definetely a demi-god when it comes to hyping his shit up and getting people to give him money.

>>9982333
Seconded. Imagine believing Elon's numbers at this point. Cheaper my ass. 3 months maybe, 6 months definitely

>>9982331
It's about as remarkeable as the chinese being the worlds cheapest electronics producer, not at all, they are just treating their workers shittier than anybody else is.

>>9982332
>>9982333
>>9982337
>>9982340
Well ok then, see you 3 to 6 month from now. Now fuck off.

>>9982320
The long 2 year delays for launches between earth/mars are show stoppers.

>>9982333
>you won't be able to reuse the rockets
They literally used a used rockets for their falcon heavy.

>>9982349
You nitwit it's an Elon meme.

>>9982333

>It's a shit kerosene-rocket that can only make simple orbits.

There is nothing shitty about kerosene, in fact it is superior to hydrogen due to its density and easier handling. Anyway, the future is methane.

>as SpaceX is demonstrating, by not reusing the Falcons

They are reusing them so you dont know what you are talking about.

>>9982340
So you are saying that Space X treats its workers worse/pays less than Russia or China. After all, Space X is cheaper. Pardon me if I seem a bit skeptical of that claim.

>>9982340
Russians, Indians and the Chinese pay their people peanuts compared to SpaceX employees, and yet SpaceX is cheaper. So you cannot blame SpaceX prices simply on low wages.

>>9980960
Can't wait for BFS testing going south.
Should be next year, but the lack of factory makes me doubt it somewhat.
More esplosions so we can learn why.
Those are costly, but actually increase safety in the end.

>>9982373
If they're not happy, why don't they apply to a job in Russia or China?

>>9982383
the lack of a factory has now slowed down construction at all
behold the power of tents

>>9982373
Falcon 9 doesnt have a third stage you idiots. If you compare the building cost of the first two stages, they are on par with China and Russia. This is because the wages are similar, too. The other western space companies pay 1,5-2 times what SpaceX pays. However, Elon has found the possibility to pay his employees in memes, something that so far is working brilliantly.

If BFR was just an upscaled Falcon 9 with an expendable upper stage then sure, they could probably do that in the next 5-6 years. Thinking they are also going to develop a new upper stage as well that is essentially a Shuttle orbiter without wings that can reenter from orbit and land vertically is utterly absurd and I can't believe anyone has taken it seriously.

>>9982393
>This is because the wages are similar, too.

They are not similar at all, SpaceX still pays several times better wage than Russia or China.

>>9982394
you can peddle your talking points all you want, it's not going to stop the BFR from being built
go be a fuckboy shill somewhere else, preferably reddit

>>9982394
The dragon capsules were supposed to have propulsive landing, but they scrapped that concept and moved it to BFS. The amount of money required for the propulsive landing on capsule is probably a wasted money. But since then, they upscaled it to a BFS level and this would net more money in return.

>>9982386
>speaking Russian or Chinese at a technical level
>As an American

>>9982400
They probably scrapped propulsive landing because of NASA red tape.

Fuck NASA so much

>>9982410
Nah, its just too much work required for such a small capsule. First, the capsule itself can be landed easily with cheaper parachutes. Second, the capsule itself is probably much cheaper in long run than to develop propulsion. Third, not enough time required for testing before NASA approves of the final design, unless Elon wants to drag it a year or more.

>>9982398
I don't really buy into this whole retarded dichotomy that exists on here where you have to either think Elon is an utter fraud or some kind of space wizard who can literally do nothing wrong. I generally am a fan of what SpaceX has done and hope they can continue to push the aerospace industry forward.

It just genuinely seems really odd to me that anyone could think the BFR upper stage being fully operational within the next 4-6 years isn't completely ridiculous.

>>9982470
Its ridiculous absolutely. Just as it was ridiculous for a private space rocket company to exist. Or a cheap private space rocket company to exist. Or a cheap reusable rocket to exist. Or a cheap large reusuable rocket to exist. Landing simultaneously.

These things were ridiculous just 10 years ago. You have to remember, SpaceX was on the brink of destruction just 10 years ago. He pulled all of this shit in just 10 years. Now a bigger rocket based on this successful implementation is certainly not outside the realm of probability. A bigger rocket will probably be created in the next few years.

But I get your skepticism about the BFS(the actual ship). That would require bit more engineering work. Essentially it would use the landing system worked on the Falcon 9 and make it slightly larger.

Imo, the BFR and BFS is like 2-3x scaled up Falcon9 carrying another a slightly larger Falcon 9 that can land on mars and fly again after refuel.

The key components are there, now its mainly a engineering challenge and the money (which they have). Whether or not they will get there in their Elon time is a big question, not an IF.

>>9982358
>The long 2 year delays for launches between earth/mars are show stoppers.

Nope. It is a mere inconvenience.

>>9982482
If BFR really works and can put giant loads on orbit for peanuts why not put together a larger ship on orbit that could take landing pods from Earth to Mars and back much faster?

If the current pace of progress in AI continues, we will reach human level in 5-7 years.

10 years is very achievable for Mars.

>>9982470
Even if the BFR never takes off, and the Falcon 9 heavy is the biggest they ever launch.
Even then spaceX has done a lot for the industry.
it made goverment space agency's all over the world get nervous and made them realize that people want results out of all that goverment money.
Nasa's endless SLS delays for example have become quite a eyesore for them.
And boeing has taken in tenfold what spaceX has since it started in funding and has produced nothing that works.

>>9982482
I don't think any of those things were ridiculous. Impressive, sure, and they required the right person to come along and take on the necessary risk and vision required to achieve them, but none of it compares to the engineering miracle that would be required for BFS to be fully functional in 6 years.

Anyway I guess we don't really disagree, it's just that the argument seems to be "yeah it's nuts, but it will happen because Elon". Can't really make an argument against that other than see you in 6 years and let's see what's happened.

>>9982493
The international space station is about 400 tons, if the BFR actually delivers what they claim it can do they could lift 150 tons in every flight to leo.
Thats around 3 trips to put the same amount of mass of the ISS in space as the ISS program has been doing over two decades.
If you make purpose build modules that fit on the first stage BFR booster you could probably go far beyond the 150 tons per launch.
So IF the BFR ever works they could make a massive space station if they wanted to at lower price then the ISS current cost.
I'm also curious at a how hard it would be to scale up a bigelow module to the BFR size and then put it up in leo and expand it.
That would be gigantic.

>>9982495
Yeah, I completely agree with all of that. Which was what I was trying to imply when I mentioned them pushing the industry forward.

It doesn't make them fucking wizards though.

>>9982514

BFR payload is really volume rather than mass limited. Still, it can put up 850 cubic meters of payload. Bigelow modules can expand that 2-3 times. That means a station twice the size of ISS in a single launch.

>>9982509
In hindsight nothing is ridiculous as its now part of mainstream "common sense." Try asking people in the 1900s what they thought about heavier than air flight.

>>9982514
NASA pays ~5 billion a year to get something to the moon again. If BFR becomes a thing, they can build a station on the moon and rent that station for $2 billion a year to NASA.

>>9982482
lmao what retards like you dont get is that every bigger nation can put out a rocket similar to the Falcon 9 within 5 years. BFR is a whole different story, the only time humans were able to do that was when the most powerful government of the world spend 10% of its yearly budget on it. The second most powerful literally couldnt do it.

landing vertically is a nice gimmick but nothing really useful, hence why NASA cancelled their related dev programme in the 90s.

>>9982517
>That means a station twice the size of ISS in a single launch.

I'm now thinking of a massive pressurized dock where they could assemble all kinds of things without the spacesuit getting in the way.
And bring in satelites for repairs.

>>9982520
>Try asking people in the 1900s what they thought about heavier than air flight.
Not remotely comparable. Propulsive landing of rockets was well understood in theory and had been done to some degree by experimental craft, all SpaceX did was follow through with the necessary work to actually do it.

>>9982523
>lmao what retards like you dont get is that every bigger nation can put out a rocket similar to the Falcon 9 within 5 years.

But not at such a low cost. And cost-efficiency is the most important aspect of a modern space program. Apollo times of unlimited budgets aint coming back, grandpa.

>>9982534
That's true, and this is why SpaceX will succeed. The past failures of propulsive landing wasn't any engineering problem, it was political and economics problem.

>>9982523
>within 5 years
Within 5 years, SpaceX will be testing their BFR and BFS. That's much larger and much cheaper per kg.

All this bigger nation do is chase SpaceX today, and hope they will reach where SpaceX is today 5 years from now. This is a fine starting goal, but its not going to reach SpaceX.

>>9980960
>>9980960
>next 10 years

>>9982534
>all SpaceX did was follow through with the necessary work to actually do it.

You mean the most important part? Reality is that cheap reusable rocketry was considered the holy grail, and NASA spent countless billions and lots of effort over decades pursuing it for decades. Yet it failed spectacularly. Make no mistake, what SpaceX did, while conceptually quite simple, was considered practically impossible by the rest of the spaceflight industry. Until SpaceX came along.

>>9982392
*sprung structures :^)

they don't like you calling em tents

>>9980960
Meth overdose for Musk.
Sorry.
You will still be able to work on NAP contract on Bezos minining station “Diversity-1” with engineering officer Pajeet and HR supervisor Jamal

>>9982372
I am not sure about kerosene being superior to hydrogen but I do agree with the methane fuel mixture.

>>9982552
>impying NASA wasn't just a giant ATM for aerospace contractors who had no real interest in developing new technologies

>>9982373
They actually do, am aero engineer student and the wages compared to other not so known names are not terrible but are worse, the benefit out of it would be to have the coveted SpaceX name on your resume

>>9982566
This, do people actually believe that boeing needed all that money for their starliner module?
So far they have double the budget of spaceX for the starliner module compared to the dragon2

the ULA shills are hard today man

>>9982270
>Ol'Musky
Literally no one calls him that.

>>9981138
This.

>>9980960
Grow up. Space isn't real.

>>9981135
elon moves spacex.

>>9982547
You are so deluded, India can put a rocket similar to Falcon 9 out in 5 years, Euros or Japanese could do it in 3. BFR is something else, you need an order of magnitude larger ressources to do that. As I said that, last time that succeeded was when the US government spent more on a single rocket than they did on military, and that for 10 straight years. You shouldnt be blinded by the gimmick that is vertical landing, SpaceX is not better at building rockets than anybody else.

>>9982959
>when the US government spent more on a single rocket than they did on military, and that for 10 straight years.
Never ever ever ever ever happened. The US spent many times more on the vietnam war alone than they did on the entire Moon program.

still on track: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1037814898900840448

>>9982404
They're supposed to be smart.

>>9980960
Fewer than half of the unmanned missions to Mars have been successful. What makes anyone think that manned missions will succeed?

>>9983060
Is there a decent list with ratio comparison out there?
actually curious about how many missions have failed so far.

>>9981106
kek

>>9983060
That’s due to the Russians

>>9983060
The majority of Mars probes were one-offs, never-before-flown unique spacecraft. Furthermore, they've all been small, with components optimized for light weight rather than reliability.

BFS will be a proven, extensively tested spacecraft, which will have proven itself landing reliably under the harsher conditions of Earth (higher gravity, stronger winds) before being sent to Mars. It'll also be very large, and able to carry ample supplies for a manned mission along with the crew, unlike any previous manned mission into space, let alone to another heavenly body.

>>9982573
Yeah, they are painfully obvious too.

>>9982259
Why did you even post this? You know I referred to the model 3, which is the key 5000 number that he failed to achieve last month. The number all over the news.

>>9983421
they've been making ~4k model 3's a week for the past month and a half

>>9983060
Before any success, failures will rack up. After successes follow, ratio of success to failure will start to favor successes more and more. If the limit is it to NASA's last 10 mars mission, we get a clearer present day capabilities.

Of the last 10, NASA had 8 success in a row. The failures were the first two that happened before Y2K. There is two more that will arrive next month. If those two are success, then it will be 10/10 for NASA.

Before 2000, the success rate was shoddy at maybe 50% for the last 10 flies (before 2000).

>>9982193
this

Imagine living in such a place and knowing that you will never come back.

>>9982252
>BFR
Total pipedream. An SSTO the size of a saturn V is a joke beyond the capabilities of my sides to withstand.
>launch
>violently explodes 5 minutes later, killing dozens of hyped up millionares and destroying a
fucking huge rocket
>one bolt in one engine on the first(only) stage failed
>>9982313
Teslas are a fad
Stop biting the musk woo bait for a moment and aqquire some FUD

>>9982548
>muh socialism

>>9982393
F9 can go to GTO with kerolox because it has the best structures in the industry the mass fractions are insane.Ivans and Changs can't seem to get their structural mass to 70s standards and are left with multiple stages to get anywhere while using much more efficient engines

>>9982493
>real life space vidya for cheap
I hope BFR actually works instead of exploding every other launch (like the N1). I want to fuck off to the moon and not deal with people ever again.

>>9980960
Elon will cancel the mission and call Mars a pedophile on twitter.

>>9983626
Welcome to new land, I call it America.

>>9983629
>not a single argument was made

>>9983421
I did not know that you only ment Model 3 sales; if you want to limit discussion to a single model you need to specify that before hand. And even then Tesla is producing far more than 5,000 Model 3s per month now; the news is about how they missed their 5,000 Model 3s per WEEK goal by a few hundred or so. Weeks & Months are different things.

>>9982959
Military spending was always far larger than space spending. In 1969 the US spent just under $80 billion on the military; space spending was in the $5 billion dollar range. See pages 80 & 99 of the 1969 fiscal year budget.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/54/item/19022

>>9983634
Lol, no it cant. The satellites are flying there themselves. This drastically decreases the orbits the f9 can deliever to. Even the falcon heavy seems to have Problems in that regard.

>>9983794
You are aware of the difference between GEO and GTO?

I really dont know how Tesla is managing to not do any profits, anyway. The first time I sat in a Model S I couldnt believe this car was supposed to cost nearly 100k. I though the profit margins Tesla must be making are insane. But apparently they never made any profits whatsoever. This just shows that Teslas main issue is that they are just really, really bad in their core business, and that is manufacturing cars.

>>9983810
their cars have 20%+ profit margins. but they put all of their money into expansion and R&D.

>>9983803
And you seem to think there is only one GTO lol. F9s are not good at anything except easy orbits for cheap. SpaceX can cover the mass-market of the easy to deploy satellites, but they wont get any of the really lucrative missions, that have huge profit margins, because the F9 cant do them.

>>9983815
This is bullshit. Tesla is a public company, so everybody can look this up. From the operating business, Tesla makes no or only very little profit. When you calculate R&D and investments in, Tesla is obviously making huge losses. But I am talking about overative business. Tesla is not profitable there.

>>9983629
>An SSTO the size of a saturn V is a joke beyond the capabilities of my sides to withstand.

BFR is not a SSTO.

>>9983817
American launchers mostly get GTO1800 due to geography and Araine5 gets 1500.
SpaceX is able to do direct demonstrated on FH demo but performance drops off but with brute force approach they can outlife DH.
More complex reference orbits are in process of certification.
Vast majority of commercial sats go to single burn GTO and only military satellites go for multiple burn transfers

>>9983817
>but they wont get any of the really lucrative missions, that have huge profit margins, because the F9 cant do them.

Falcon Heavy can.

>>9983810
Its because they are spending so much of their money on infrastructure. Every new business has expenses phase. For a large and GROWING company like Tesla, that expenses phases will be longer than smaller companies. Amazon didn't turn profit until until 14 years into its operations. It was burning so much money just expanding for those 14 years. Funnily enough, Tesla is 15 years and its right at the corner of turning profit. Should be this quarter or the next quarter due to them being able to scale up to >5K cars a week now.

>>9983846
No, they are not making money from the car-selling alone, not regarding yet the insane loss they make because of infrastructure investments. Therefore, it is also impossible that they will make profits anytime soon, even if they wouldnt make any new investments anymore. Amazon always was profitable in its operational business. Tesla isnt and never was.

>>9983851
I suspect you don't read any economist projection and simply read the mainstream daily news pundit's quotes.

Actual tesla trackers have mostly predicted that Tesla will either turn profit this quarter or next quarter. That's if Tesla makes > 15% profit margin on their cars, which is mostly assumed to be true by most analysts.

>>9983862
Also to add to this, the major concern now isn't profitability and expenses, but rather whether or not the competition is actually serious or not. We don't see any actual competition in the field yet, but there are some signs peeking out. Chances are all the old timers are still only getting their feet wet instead of jumping in to the pool.

>>9983862
But that picture is supporting my points you dumb fuck. Revenues went up 600 million between March and June while total automative cost of revenue and selling, general and admin went up for the almost exact same amount. This means that Tesla is not making profits purely with their car selling business. Numbers from third quarter are not out yet, they will show the same picture.

>>9983870
Look at the last month dumb ass. Look at the net loss. Stop trying to only read what you believe it to be true. Read the over all picture.

You do realize it does not matter whether Tesla is making a profit currently or not?

Tesla sells half of all electric cars in the US. This is a market that WILL replace the whole ICE market sooner or later. Even more importantly, having a Tesla has become a status symbol.

Tesla is a golden goose, regardless of whether they will make a profit this quarter or that.

>>9983879
That last month are fantasy numbers, third quarter numbers will be released at Novemre 1st.

You should just check the numbers. They are insane. Revenue went up from 3,3 to 6,3. This means these numbers are assuming Tesla is producing almost twice as many cars as they did in the quarter before. E.g. roughly 8.000 cars instead of roughly 4.000. This is insane and by no means anything they are actually producing. Plus, besides doubling the revenue, the points "energy generation and storage", "service and other" for some reason remained absoluetely identical, while "selling, general and admin" only grew by less than 5% despite doubling revenues.

>>9983641
>wanting to go to the moon
I hope you enjoy razor sharp rape dust tearing you several new assholes while turning your lungs to tattered messes
there are better locations to go if you want to go personally, the moon is for robots who can withstand the buttfucking

>>9982959
>You are so deluded, India can put a rocket similar to Falcon 9 out in 5 years, Euros or Japanese could do it in 3
Why aren't they? Three years from now the EU is going to be working on a new generation of expendable rockets and five years from now India is going to be using their GSLV MkIII to put their first man in space, matching the achievements of the US and Soviet Union in 1961

>>9983626
The whole point of the planned infrastructure is so that people can fly from Mars to Earth two years after they flew from Earth to Mars

>>9985076
>EU is going to be working on a new generation of expendable rockets
They are?
First time reading about this.

>>9985076
Meanwhile, SpaceX still didnt match 1961 achievements lel.

>>9982256
based and redpilled