@Irobert55
I didn't count them as problems. They functioned perfectly. I was intending to mean to clarify that they weren't the first reuseable orbital booster. Believe me, I know all of the upsides and downsides of different fuel types. I once wanted to build a small rocket, and considered everything, but for what I wanted it to do, liquid as the only option.
@Irobert55
The shuttle had two reusable external SRBs. They detached, making it not an SSTO. Also, don't get excited about the reusable boosters. They were parachuted down, and by themselves were practically useless. (Uncontrollable, not stabilised) Also, airplanes were originally deathtraps too. It takes time and development to get things done, so throwing away an idea because it's too dangerous is not helpful. After plenty of unmanned flights of BFR, maybe it will prove itsself, and be ready for human transport. We'll have to see. The idea's not perfect, but that's because it's an idea. We're fairly new to space travel, anyway. (Relatively, I mean, we have 60 years' experience.) And about N1, I meant that they never static tested all engines at once.
@Irobert55
He's already gotten 27 engines to work. The 31 of BFR is four away. Not to mention that this is 50 years in the future, from the N1. The N1 failed because it was never test fired with all of its engines together. That's why the vibrations were never discovered. SpacX always test fires when the rocket is assembled. With BFR being such an important rocket, they'll have it fully assembled on the pad to test fire it.
@Irobert55
The thing is, is that it's not a race just yet. It's just progress. You can go to Mars, you can be the first to get there, and you can go there ten times, but if you do it the same way, with obsolete disposable rockets, you're only going to Mars, and that's all. It will be expensive, and wasteful. If you land the rocket, you are at least making progress. Almost nothing is wasted, so the price drops, and the more you progress that, the more you can sell to people. Glenn Curtiss didn't invent the airplane, but he was extremely influential to aviation, his JN-4 started general aviation in America. Henry Ford didn't invent the car, but he made it accessible to everyone! Elon is trying to be the opposite of "Good ideas need a price tag", considering that his Falcon Heavy is twice as powerful as the nearest competitor, at one-THIRD of the cost! NASA can't do that! Know why? They don't land their rockets! The Shuttle, even, was a complete failure at reusability because it was anything but cheap. (The whole point of reusability.) The fact is, is that if nobody tries to compete with SpaceX, then SpaceX will succeed. Customers will look at the prices and, see that their satellite is 1/3 of the price of the other companies, and that's it. We can't make progress if we can't make things available to the public. It's as simple as that. SpaceX is leading the way to public space travel, and until someone tries to match them, I'll be on their side.
@Irobert55
He's not an inventor, the idea's been around for ages, but ever noticed how he's the first guy to do any of it? He's leading the way. The shuttle was a flop, and I can't find anything on your ULA launch, but Elon has reused 12 boosters, now. He's not the first to have the idea, he's not the first to try the idea, but he is the first to make that idea practical. And I frankly could care less about hyperloop, so don't bring that up.
@Irobert55
Give him a year or so. Now that they're done redesigning F9, he can focus on, a. disposing of the old ones, b. building the new ones, and finally, c. getting the turnaround time down. Then, he'll be far superior to the shuttle.
@Irobert55
You mentioned reusable rockets being limited, well, spaceplanes would be even more limited. I'm fine with space planes, but they're hard to build. Again, we don't have to drop anything in the ocean. Elon's proven that they're not very limited either. Well being a bit tedious, and difficult, refueling in orbit would allow BFR to go to mars, and only lose the consumables and a handful of explosive bolts. (Aka "Pyrotechnic Fasteners") I don't think that having to rebuild the rocket for every flight is progress, even if you save the "only part that is really necessary."
.
.
Then I do math.
.
.
I did a little bit of math, and while it may not be entirely accurate, if you saved the first stage engines on the falcon 9, and dropped the rest of the 1st stage in the ocean, you'd lose about $15.43 million dollars every launch. While that's less than the engines, It's a lot of money, and every single launch, you waste $15.43 million. That does, however, include all of the (now useless) landing apparati, but you still need 9 parachutes, and the extra fuel capacity to compensate, I'll give you a good $10 million wasted every launch. I might recalculate that, but I'd say It's a good ballpark estimate for that. Not to mention the parachutes. I tried to find the pricing, but I was unable to find how much the parachutes would cost, so let's say that they repack the parachutes. But what If they don't? A ballistic recovery system for a Cessna Skyhawk costs $13,499, but since the weight is lower for an engine, I rounded that number down to $12000. x9 engines, and you have $108,000 wasted per flight if you don't recover the chutes. So, a grand total of $10,108,00 of wasted hardware every flight (Not including 2nd stage, which is never recovered anyway). For a flight to GTO. Again, this is very rough, but even then, It's a decent guess.
@Irobert55
I meant, what if planes did that? Imagine how much would be wasted every flight? Why should we drop anything in the ocean, it we have the ability to not do so.
I feel like having the ENTIRE part explode is a bit much. I know that this would be very difficult to do, but making the part explode in pieces would be nice. If that's too hard (It is) they could at least get rid of the explosion spreading to other parts of the plane, and for parts with fuel, they should only be set on fire by the explosion, possibly burning down until they fall off, or just disintegrate, but an explosion is a bit much. Engines can explode, that's fun, but fuselages shouldnt. It would be cool to have a fire spread through the plane instead of, "Hey, your center tank got hit? Heh, three two one, and boom! Say goodbye to both wings!" Missiles and bombs should definitely destroy the plane when hit, and a jammed gun should make a small explosion if tried to fire.
@RailfanEthan
I have the PBY, but not sure what version, It's the first one. I hate it. XD It's a really big and slow target, I can't seem to hit any aerial targets, and I don't have any fancy bombs on it, so my p-40 can do a similar amount of damage in one pass. I haven't really bothered to grind out the bomber line, yet, but i'll do that starting today or tomorrow.
@JackTheBestBoss
YOU'll BE SORRY!
We should take Simplelandia, and PUSH it somewhere else!
This week's Weekly was weak so we have to wait a week for next week's Weekly, and then it'll be weekly again?
Yes.
@Irobert55
I agree with that.
However, a lot of new phones are coming out with notches, so you may get your answer.
Step 1: Sell phone.
Step 2: Buy medium quality gaming laptop.
Step 3: Buy SP with remaining money.
Boom! So much more performance.
I read the title, but screamed the all-caps words.
+1A Redneck with a 12 gauge.
+1@Irobert55
I didn't count them as problems. They functioned perfectly. I was intending to mean to clarify that they weren't the first reuseable orbital booster. Believe me, I know all of the upsides and downsides of different fuel types. I once wanted to build a small rocket, and considered everything, but for what I wanted it to do, liquid as the only option.
@Irobert55
The shuttle had two reusable external SRBs. They detached, making it not an SSTO. Also, don't get excited about the reusable boosters. They were parachuted down, and by themselves were practically useless. (Uncontrollable, not stabilised) Also, airplanes were originally deathtraps too. It takes time and development to get things done, so throwing away an idea because it's too dangerous is not helpful. After plenty of unmanned flights of BFR, maybe it will prove itsself, and be ready for human transport. We'll have to see. The idea's not perfect, but that's because it's an idea. We're fairly new to space travel, anyway. (Relatively, I mean, we have 60 years' experience.) And about N1, I meant that they never static tested all engines at once.
@Irobert55
He's already gotten 27 engines to work. The 31 of BFR is four away. Not to mention that this is 50 years in the future, from the N1. The N1 failed because it was never test fired with all of its engines together. That's why the vibrations were never discovered. SpacX always test fires when the rocket is assembled. With BFR being such an important rocket, they'll have it fully assembled on the pad to test fire it.
@Franticmatty @RailfanEthan
RIP Railfan's heart.
Last words: "but WHAT"
Lifts keg and drops it on the table.
+1Heersh ta you frand.
@Irobert55
You've neglected the part where only one of those is proven to work...
@Irobert55
The thing is, is that it's not a race just yet. It's just progress. You can go to Mars, you can be the first to get there, and you can go there ten times, but if you do it the same way, with obsolete disposable rockets, you're only going to Mars, and that's all. It will be expensive, and wasteful. If you land the rocket, you are at least making progress. Almost nothing is wasted, so the price drops, and the more you progress that, the more you can sell to people. Glenn Curtiss didn't invent the airplane, but he was extremely influential to aviation, his JN-4 started general aviation in America. Henry Ford didn't invent the car, but he made it accessible to everyone! Elon is trying to be the opposite of "Good ideas need a price tag", considering that his Falcon Heavy is twice as powerful as the nearest competitor, at one-THIRD of the cost! NASA can't do that! Know why? They don't land their rockets! The Shuttle, even, was a complete failure at reusability because it was anything but cheap. (The whole point of reusability.) The fact is, is that if nobody tries to compete with SpaceX, then SpaceX will succeed. Customers will look at the prices and, see that their satellite is 1/3 of the price of the other companies, and that's it. We can't make progress if we can't make things available to the public. It's as simple as that. SpaceX is leading the way to public space travel, and until someone tries to match them, I'll be on their side.
@Irobert55
He's not an inventor, the idea's been around for ages, but ever noticed how he's the first guy to do any of it? He's leading the way. The shuttle was a flop, and I can't find anything on your ULA launch, but Elon has reused 12 boosters, now. He's not the first to have the idea, he's not the first to try the idea, but he is the first to make that idea practical. And I frankly could care less about hyperloop, so don't bring that up.
@Irobert55
Give him a year or so. Now that they're done redesigning F9, he can focus on, a. disposing of the old ones, b. building the new ones, and finally, c. getting the turnaround time down. Then, he'll be far superior to the shuttle.
@Irobert55
At this point it seems like they're trying everything to avoid landing the whole rocket! XD
@Irobert55
You mentioned reusable rockets being limited, well, spaceplanes would be even more limited. I'm fine with space planes, but they're hard to build. Again, we don't have to drop anything in the ocean. Elon's proven that they're not very limited either. Well being a bit tedious, and difficult, refueling in orbit would allow BFR to go to mars, and only lose the consumables and a handful of explosive bolts. (Aka "Pyrotechnic Fasteners") I don't think that having to rebuild the rocket for every flight is progress, even if you save the "only part that is really necessary."
.
.
Then I do math.
.
.
I did a little bit of math, and while it may not be entirely accurate, if you saved the first stage engines on the falcon 9, and dropped the rest of the 1st stage in the ocean, you'd lose about $15.43 million dollars every launch. While that's less than the engines, It's a lot of money, and every single launch, you waste $15.43 million. That does, however, include all of the (now useless) landing apparati, but you still need 9 parachutes, and the extra fuel capacity to compensate, I'll give you a good $10 million wasted every launch. I might recalculate that, but I'd say It's a good ballpark estimate for that. Not to mention the parachutes. I tried to find the pricing, but I was unable to find how much the parachutes would cost, so let's say that they repack the parachutes. But what If they don't? A ballistic recovery system for a Cessna Skyhawk costs $13,499, but since the weight is lower for an engine, I rounded that number down to $12000. x9 engines, and you have $108,000 wasted per flight if you don't recover the chutes. So, a grand total of $10,108,00 of wasted hardware every flight (Not including 2nd stage, which is never recovered anyway). For a flight to GTO. Again, this is very rough, but even then, It's a decent guess.
@Irobert55
I meant, what if planes did that? Imagine how much would be wasted every flight? Why should we drop anything in the ocean, it we have the ability to not do so.
@Irobert55
+1What if airplanes only saved the engine on landing, and all the people/payload were jettisoned and parachuted down?
@ForeverPie
I know.
@CarsonG1017
+3Q X-Files theme
@Flightsimulator
I don't have those planes, I'd need a template file. Or Id need to shivers play as Germany.
:P
@BACconcordepilot
Waait I actually did die, the forum post was a glitch!
@ColonelStriker
Granted.
RISE OF THE UNDEAD PLANES
+2I like this... Keep doing these.
This is ClownP***s signing in.
Everything was going fine till the last pic. XD
+5I feel like having the ENTIRE part explode is a bit much. I know that this would be very difficult to do, but making the part explode in pieces would be nice. If that's too hard (It is) they could at least get rid of the explosion spreading to other parts of the plane, and for parts with fuel, they should only be set on fire by the explosion, possibly burning down until they fall off, or just disintegrate, but an explosion is a bit much. Engines can explode, that's fun, but fuselages shouldnt. It would be cool to have a fire spread through the plane instead of, "Hey, your center tank got hit? Heh, three two one, and boom! Say goodbye to both wings!" Missiles and bombs should definitely destroy the plane when hit, and a jammed gun should make a small explosion if tried to fire.
+2@jamesPLANESii
That can be read multiple ways.
I read it like you tripped, and fell off of a brige, before finishing reading my comment.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, ok.
@F104Deathtrap
...maybe.
@Chancey21
So far, we're even...
@jamesPLANESii
X minus 15
X - 15
@Chancey21
No it just put me in a S**tposting mood.
@InternationalAircraftCompany
Subtracting Polynomials.
@Chancey21
Both
@RailfanEthan
Ya see, I've also heard that it's pretty crap! XD
@Chancey21
:P
Respectfully
+1SHUT UP
+2@RailfanEthan
I have the PBY, but not sure what version, It's the first one. I hate it. XD It's a really big and slow target, I can't seem to hit any aerial targets, and I don't have any fancy bombs on it, so my p-40 can do a similar amount of damage in one pass. I haven't really bothered to grind out the bomber line, yet, but i'll do that starting today or tomorrow.
@RailfanEthan
lickable
@RailfanEthan @ScreamingApe
https://youtu.be/czTksCF6X8Y
@F104Deathtrap
Now that's a platinum-worthy build!
+1@F104Deathtrap
Who ever said that you need to take a picture of the plane? The designer is so much more interesting.
@F104Deathtrap
No need to worry about bad lighting, when you can have no lighting!
"What is it?" "I built a P-51!" "Where?" "Down there, by Florida" "I can't see it." "Keep looking, it's right by the coast."
+2