I have no doubts that the private sector could better drive future space developments than any government agency.

if you say SpaceX fast enough it sounds uhh

Quote from: ＲＹＬＥ on February 14, 2015, 01:12:56 PM

if you say SpaceX fast enough it sounds uhh

If you let me fuck you fast enough, we'll both be moaning uhhh

you know if all asians are as horny as you it makes sense that theres so much overpopulation over there

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on February 14, 2015, 01:14:06 PM

Quote from: ＲＹＬＥ on February 14, 2015, 01:12:56 PM

if you say SpaceX fast enough it sounds uhh

If you let me fuck you fast enough, we'll both be moaning uhhh

you know if all asians are as horny as you it makes sense that theres so much overpopulation over there

Go to China during the year of the Dragon

They will pay you to impregnate them

Quote from: ＲＹＬＥ on February 14, 2015, 01:17:32 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on February 14, 2015, 01:16:13 PM

Quote from: ＲＹＬＥ on February 14, 2015, 01:15:04 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on February 14, 2015, 01:14:06 PM

Quote from: ＲＹＬＥ on February 14, 2015, 01:12:56 PM

if you say SpaceX fast enough it sounds uhh

If you let me fuck you fast enough, we'll both be moaning uhhh

you know if all asians are as horny as you it makes sense that theres so much overpopulation over there

Go to China during the year of the Dragon

They will pay you to impregnate them

i went to mexico one time and the women there wanted me to fuck their brains just because i had blue eyes and blonde hair

Come over here to North Carolina and I'll let you fuck my brains out

reported

It made me wonder if SpaceX (or the private sector) will completely overshadow NASA from here on out.

You tell me.

Quote from: TBlocks on February 14, 2015, 10:50:29 AM

It made me wonder if SpaceX (or the private sector) will completely overshadow NASA from here on out.

YouTube

You tell me.

Like NASA hasn't made 3x10^6 animations in their time?

My time to shine.

No.

SpaceX provides launch services, that's it. They build rockets that take things to space, companies/organisations/whatever else pay them to put something in space for them, usually satellites and probes. SpaceX does not make satellites and probes, they make rockets, which put satellites and probes into space.

NASA has never made it's own rockets, they pay other companies to make them. For example, the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (the two rockets at the side of the orange tank) were made by two companies, Thiokol Corporation and Pratt and Whitney, according to Wikipedia, not NASA. Another example, the iconic 'NASA' rockets, like the Space Shuttle, and the Apollo (moon) rockets, are not made by NASA, NASA pays other companies to make different parts. NASA will simply assemble the different parts into the finished product. NASA obviously works very closely with these companies to make them, but it isn't NASA specifically making the rockets, it's different companies.

SpaceX is a private company, NASA has no say it how it is run, or what they should make/do. It's simply SpaceX makes rockets that NASA will want to use. NASA will produce the satellites and probes that go into space, but SpaceX are paid to use their rockets to put them in space, once they are in space, SpaceX's job is essentially done, NASA has control of the satellites then.

SpaceX is essentially a postman. NASA has an item they want to sent, they tell SpaceX they want it in space, so SpaceX being the postman takes it to space. After it's in space, the postman's job is done.


NASA makes the interesting stuff, the rovers on Mars are made by NASA, the probes orbiting other planets are made by NASA. The job of SpaceX is pretty boring over all, they're just rocket postman as stated above.


I can go into more detail about specific things if you like, like why it's SpaceX this and SpaceX that.

Quote from: BerzerkCommando on February 14, 2015, 01:11:12 PM

Quote from: ⱭAS ᗺ00T x2 on February 14, 2015, 11:06:36 AM

I have no doubts that the private sector could better drive future space developments than any government agency.

With a government backed agency they would have a larger founding to do things than what a private one would. With NASA if the budget was handled right they would be getting money from taxes and probably also donations.  With a private one they would be getting money from donations and whoever is invested into it. So the pockets of a government backed one would be a lot deeper. They would also more likely be taking more risks than what a private one would. With a government backed one if a project fails they still have a budget to work with to retry or do something else. With a private one they might back out of that project or do less expensive things. Also they probably wouldn't do risks outside Earth until the tech for it is there. They wouldn't want to risk money on something that would either fail or not produce the desired results they want. The other thing is that NASA would be doing things to improve humanity while a private sector would only be doing it for a profit.

YouTube

Bullshit because muh free market.

You see this guy? That guy hates you for your free markets.

My time to shine.

No.

SpaceX provides launch services, that's it. They build rockets that take things to space, companies/organisations/whatever else pay them to put something in space for them, usually satellites and probes. SpaceX does not make satellites and probes, they make rockets, which put satellites and probes into space.

NASA has never made it's own rockets, they pay other companies to make them. For example, the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (the two rockets at the side of the orange tank) were made by two companies, Thiokol Corporation and Pratt and Whitney, according to Wikipedia, not NASA. Another example, the iconic 'NASA' rockets, like the Space Shuttle, and the Apollo (moon) rockets, are not made by NASA, NASA pays other companies to make different parts. NASA will simply assemble the different parts into the finished product. NASA obviously works very closely with these companies to make them, but it isn't NASA specifically making the rockets, it's different companies.

SpaceX is a private company, NASA has no say it how it is run, or what they should make/do. It's simply SpaceX makes rockets that NASA will want to use. NASA will produce the satellites and probes that go into space, but SpaceX are paid to use their rockets to put them in space, once they are in space, SpaceX's job is essentially done, NASA has control of the satellites then.

SpaceX is essentially a postman. NASA has an item they want to sent, they tell SpaceX they want it in space, so SpaceX being the postman takes it to space. After it's in space, the postman's job is done.


NASA makes the interesting stuff, the rovers on Mars are made by NASA, the probes orbiting other planets are made by NASA. The job of SpaceX is pretty boring over all, they're just rocket postman as stated above.


I can go into more detail about specific things if you like, like why it's SpaceX this and SpaceX that.

I actually would.
You seem to have extensive knowledge in this field.

Hey, OP.
I hope you get cancer and die.

Quote from: Ryle | Son of Cancer on February 14, 2015, 01:17:32 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on February 14, 2015, 01:16:13 PM

Quote from: ＲＹＬＥ on February 14, 2015, 01:15:04 PM

Quote from: Ingloriouswho98 on February 14, 2015, 01:14:06 PM

Quote from: ＲＹＬＥ on February 14, 2015, 01:12:56 PM

if you say SpaceX fast enough it sounds uhh

If you let me fuck you fast enough, we'll both be moaning uhhh

you know if all asians are as horny as you it makes sense that theres so much overpopulation over there

Go to China during the year of the Dragon

They will pay you to impregnate them

i went to mexico one time and the women there wanted me to fuck their brains just because i had blue eyes and blonde hair

fuck their brains?

woah, sounds kinky

some typos just arent meant to be fixed

I actually would.
You seem to have extensive knowledge in this field.

Okay, this is a fucking long post, be warned.


Alright, there are a few reasons SpaceX are in the news a lot lately.


For simplicity I shall only compare SpaceX to the most well known and reliable American space launch organisation currently operating, United Launch Alliance, which does the same thing as SpaceX, but is much more established in the market. I shall ignore other launch provides such as the European Arianespace.

The first reason is quite simple, they are new. As you can imagine, making reliable rockets isn't easy, so you have very few companies who actually try it, and even less who try to while still being profitable. United Launch Alliance is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. These two companies already had a large amount of experience in aerospace and rocket development seperately, so bringing them together to make rockets is a lot easier, as they both have experience.

On the other hand, SpaceX was a completely new company, that had no previous experience in aerospace engineering. For example, Boeing was formed in 1916, and has been making aeroplanes since then, that's almost a century of experience.
That has made SpaceX's job a lot more difficult, they haven't been able to build off their past successes in aerospace like Boeing has, they've had to start from scratch, which costs a lot of money, and as stated before, isn't easy when attempting to build rockets. They've done an incredible job from starting with nothing, to building reliable rockets like they do today.

_________________________________________________ ______________________________________________

The second reason is that their rockets are much cheaper than rockets offered from current launch providers such as United Launch Alliance, and that's because SpaceX is efficient.

SpaceX is a private company, they don't get money from selling shares on the stock market, so their business needs to be effective and profitable on its own, this means making cheap rockets. How do they do this? By making most of the rocket themselves.

As I said in my last post, NASA didn't make rockets, they paid different companies to make different parts of the rocket, then NASA brings them all together and has the finished product. Turns out this is expensive as fuck, and incredibly inefficient.
First you're paying lots of different companies, which is inefficient, and you can't find these parts anywhere else, so you're paying them a lot as you have no other alternative. And secondly, you've got to ship these parts from different part of America to the same place, which is a pain in the ass when you're shipping entire fucking rockets which are several stories high that can't be damaged at all.

SpaceX gets around these problems by producing around 80% of their rockets themselves, all in the same place. This means no shipping costs of moving entire rockets across the country, and not paying several companies lots of money for very specific things.

And given that SpaceX is a business, they're built around being profitable, whereas NASA isn't a business, it's a government organisation, and just like many other government organisations, they're inefficient because they're not built around getting the best bang out of their buck, they're built around simply doing their job, even if it's not done well. Then businesses will take advantage of that by charging stupidly high prices, simply because the government organisation will pay those prices, because they have no need to be efficient. Which just means more taxpayer money going to waste.

How does this apply to United Launch Alliance? Well they've had a monoply over the American launch market for a while now, they've had no need to be efficient because they've had little competitive, so they've been able to charge high prices. But now SpaceX has arrived, and with rockets that are 1/3 the prices of United Launch Alliance rockets, United Launch Alliance has a problem. They've become complacent, and they've not ready for competition.

_________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

Now, the most interesting reason SpaceX is in the news is that they're trying to reuse rockets.
Rockets that want to go into space have stages, this is because rockets are heavy, so if you get rid of parts of the rocket, you can reduce the mass, and make it easier to get into space. You have the first stage, which is used to get off the ground, and usually take you into space, but not orbit. Getting to space is easy, just fly up, getting into orbit is hard, you need to go something like 22000mph to get into orbit.
So the first stage gets your into space, the next few stages, depending on the rocket, get you into orbit.


Now, once a stage has been used, that's it, you just leave it. It will either burn up in the atmosphere, or just crash back to Earth, never to be used again. That's a waste, but we've never had a way to recover stages which are travelling several thousand miles per hour in space, so you've just had to make new rockets each time.

Now what SpaceX is trying to do is reuse the first stage, and that's fucking difficult, hence why no one has done it before.
And they reuse it by landing the stage back on Earth. But how?

I'm not going to go into specifics on how they bring it back to Earth, but essentially when the first stage is discarded, it isn't travelling too fast when it is discarded, so if you save some fuel in the first stage, you can use that fuel to essentially turn the rocket around, fire the engines, and put it on a trajectory that takes it back to the launch site, then use the remaining bit of fuel to land the rocket.

Now that's difficult as you're essentiall trying to take a brick, that's in space, that's travelling at 5000mph, and bring it back to Earth in one piece, with the precision of a helicopter landing. SpaceX hasn't actually landed a stage yet, but holy fuck have they come close.
Here is a video of their first attempt at an actual landing on a barge, which is out in the ocean.


Yes it blew up, but they got that rocket to that barge, which is something like 300x100m from fucking space. The fact that they hit the barge first time is utterly amazing, and the data they got from that attempt will one day, hopefully soon, help them successfully land a rocket.

Nobody else had come even close to replicating what SpaceX is doing right now.

TL;DR
SpaceX is a new competitor in a market that has essentially been a monoply for a while now. They make efficient and cheap rockets. And they're attempting to land, and reuse rockets, which has never been done before, which would further reduce cost.

Quote from: TBlocks on February 14, 2015, 08:24:05 PM

I actually would.
You seem to have extensive knowledge in this field.

Okay, this is a fucking long post, be warned.


Alright, there are a few reasons SpaceX are in the news a lot lately.


For simplicity I shall only compare SpaceX to the most well known and reliable American space launch organisation currently operating, United Launch Alliance, which does the same thing as SpaceX, but is much more established in the market. I shall ignore other launch provides such as the European Arianespace.

The first reason is quite simple, they are new. As you can imagine, making reliable rockets isn't easy, so you have very few companies who actually try it, and even less who try to while still being profitable. United Launch Alliance is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. These two companies already had a large amount of experience in aerospace and rocket development seperately, so bringing them together to make rockets is a lot easier, as they both have experience.

On the other hand, SpaceX was a completely new company, that had no previous experience in aerospace engineering. For example, Boeing was formed in 1916, and has been making aeroplanes since then, that's almost a century of experience.
That has made SpaceX's job a lot more difficult, they haven't been able to build off their past successes in aerospace like Boeing has, they've had to start from scratch, which costs a lot of money, and as stated before, isn't easy when attempting to build rockets. They've done an incredible job from starting with nothing, to building reliable rockets like they do today.

_________________________________________________ ______________________________________________

The second reason is that their rockets are much cheaper than rockets offered from current launch providers such as United Launch Alliance, and that's because SpaceX is efficient.

SpaceX is a private company, they don't get money from selling shares on the stock market, so their business needs to be effective and profitable on its own, this means making cheap rockets. How do they do this? By making most of the rocket themselves.

As I said in my last post, NASA didn't make rockets, they paid different companies to make different parts of the rocket, then NASA brings them all together and has the finished product. Turns out this is expensive as fuck, and incredibly inefficient.
First you're paying lots of different companies, which is inefficient, and you can't find these parts anywhere else, so you're paying them a lot as you have no other alternative. And secondly, you've got to ship these parts from different part of America to the same place, which is a pain in the ass when you're shipping entire fucking rockets which are several stories high that can't be damaged at all.

SpaceX gets around these problems by producing around 80% of their rockets themselves, all in the same place. This means no shipping costs of moving entire rockets across the country, and not paying several companies lots of money for very specific things.

And given that SpaceX is a business, they're built around being profitable, whereas NASA isn't a business, it's a government organisation, and just like many other government organisations, they're inefficient because they're not built around getting the best bang out of their buck, they're built around simply doing their job, even if it's not done well. Then businesses will take advantage of that by charging stupidly high prices, simply because the government organisation will pay those prices, because they have no need to be efficient. Which just means more taxpayer money going to waste.

How does this apply to United Launch Alliance? Well they've had a monoply over the American launch market for a while now, they've had no need to be efficient because they've had little competitive, so they've been able to charge high prices. But now SpaceX has arrived, and with rockets that are 1/3 the prices of United Launch Alliance rockets, United Launch Alliance has a problem. They've become complacent, and they've not ready for competition.

_________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

Now, the most interesting reason SpaceX is in the news is that they're trying to reuse rockets.
Rockets that want to go into space have stages, this is because rockets are heavy, so if you get rid of parts of the rocket, you can reduce the mass, and make it easier to get into space. You have the first stage, which is used to get off the ground, and usually take you into space, but not orbit. Getting to space is easy, just fly up, getting into orbit is hard, you need to go something like 22000mph to get into orbit.
So the first stage gets your into space, the next few stages, depending on the rocket, get you into orbit.

example of stages

Now, once a stage has been used, that's it, you just leave it. It will either burn up in the atmosphere, or just crash back to Earth, never to be used again. That's a waste, but we've never had a way to recover stages which are travelling several thousand miles per hour in space, so you've just had to make new rockets each time.

Now what SpaceX is trying to do is reuse the first stage, and that's fucking difficult, hence why no one has done it before.
And they reuse it by landing the stage back on Earth. But how?

I'm not going to go into specifics on how they bring it back to Earth, but essentially when the first stage is discarded, it isn't travelling too fast when it is discarded, so if you save some fuel in the first stage, you can use that fuel to essentially turn the rocket around, fire the engines, and put it on a trajectory that takes it back to the launch site, then use the remaining bit of fuel to land the rocket.

Now that's difficult as you're essentiall trying to take a brick, that's in space, that's travelling at 5000mph, and bring it back to Earth in one piece, with the precision of a helicopter landing. SpaceX hasn't actually landed a stage yet, but holy fuck have they come close.
Here is a video of their first attempt at an actual landing on a barge, which is out in the ocean.

barge landing attempt

YouTube

Yes it blew up, but they got that rocket to that barge, which is something like 300x100m from fucking space. The fact that they hit the barge first time is utterly amazing, and the data they got from that attempt will one day, hopefully soon, help them successfully land a rocket.

Nobody else had come even close to replicating what SpaceX is doing right now.

TL;DR
SpaceX is a new competitor in a market that has essentially been a monoply for a while now. They make efficient and cheap rockets. And they're attempting to land, and reuse rockets, which has never been done before, which would further reduce cost.

That was an awesome read!
Thank you very much!