Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 02:55:28


Post by: KTG17


Man, I was really impressed with the single rocket returning back to the earth, but this is really incredible. . .




You know, as divided as this country can get, and despite the problems it has, and the criticism of it from outside this country, I look at this and just think, "Man, who else is doing sh!t like this?" No one. Those Space X employees have every right to be as excited as they are. Really cutting edge stuff. Amazing. And the balls to send a car into space. Awesome.

We still got it. Best years still yet to come.



Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 10:02:35


Post by: Mr Morden


Just heard about it - its certainly more interesting news than what passes for it most of the time.

Congrats to the team hwo made this happen and kudos for having a sense of humour as well.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 12:32:57


Post by: Peregrine


Something that puts the difficulty of this feat into perspective, from an engineering point of view: according to my amateur rocket engineer friend the engines on those boosters can not be throttled down low enough to hover, thrust is always going to be greater than weight. So to make that landing without crashing and exploding or lifting back into the air (followed shortly by crashing and exploding) they had to perfectly execute the braking burn so that the rocket hit zero velocity exactly as the landing legs touched down. The precision of it is just mind-boggling.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 13:22:36


Post by: Skinnereal


I'm guessing these rockets have elements of the Tesla car autopilots in them. Cross-development can't hurt.
Having both rockets land within seconds of each other though, within seconds of the scheduled landing time... impressive.

You know, as divided as this country can get, and despite the problems it has, and the criticism of it from outside this country, I look at this and just think, "Man, who else is doing sh!t like this?" No one. Those Space X employees have every right to be as excited as they are. Really cutting edge stuff. Amazing. And the balls to send a car into space. Awesome.
We still got it. Best years still yet to come.
I don't know how international SpaceX is, but Elon is a "South African-born Canadian American". This stuff as gone beyond national teams, and commercial projects like Space X see the money involved.
Virgin Galactic are trying stuff like this, as is Boeing, I think. The X prize was set up to get things moving, and Space X started there, I think.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 13:33:17


Post by: Peregrine


 Skinnereal wrote:
I'm guessing these rockets have elements of the Tesla car autopilots in them.


I doubt it, at least on more than a very superficial level. The tasks involved are massively different*, and with this kind of precision engineering at huge expense you're going to be making custom control software and hardware for the specific application. There would be very little savings in trying to swap components between the two, and high potential for errors and/or sub-optimal design choices.

*TL;DR version: landing a rocket involves very precisely executing a physics equation with a well-understood solution, a self-driving car involves making correct judgement calls with low-precision hardware.

Having both rockets land within seconds of each other though, within seconds of the scheduled landing time... impressive.


Not really, at least not beyond how impressive the feat of landing the rocket at all is. The landing time is constrained by physics, if they hadn't hit the planned arrival time within a second (and quite possibly a smaller window) they'd be a very expensive fireworks show when they crashed. Losing enough precision to meaningfully deviate from the schedule would be a catastrophic failure. And because both boosters were on identical trajectories their arrival times ended up identical as well.

The X prize was set up to get things moving, and Space X started there, I think.


Somewhat, maybe in general "yay space" hype at most. SpaceX and the winning X Prize effort have absolutely nothing in common.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 13:38:13


Post by: Skinnereal


The X prize was set up to get things moving, and Space X started there, I think.
Somewhat, maybe in general "yay space" hype at most. SpaceX and the winning X Prize effort have absolutely nothing in common.
Yeah. I just read up some more and that's true. Nothing to do with each other.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 13:43:55


Post by: KTG17


 Skinnereal wrote:
I don't know how international SpaceX is, but Elon is a "South African-born Canadian American". This stuff as gone beyond national teams, and commercial projects like Space X see the money involved.


All true, but I don't see these things happening in Canada, South Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. Its happening here for a reason, that's my point.



Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 13:48:00


Post by: lliu


I'm wondering though, the body slammed into the ocean at 300 km/h after running out of fuel. If they can make miscalculations like this, what will the risk be when they start sending more valuable payloads? What happens when they send astronauts in their spacesuits into space? The error margin must be considerably lower for me to feel safe watching one of these takeoff. However, this is only a small part and it is pretty amazing to have both boosters touch down within milliseconds of each other precisely on target. It's very cool, at the very least!


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 13:56:46


Post by: KTG17


Well, its the first time they did something like this. Usually those launches only use one Falcon rocket. This one used three of them. I think this is a lot more complicating than the casual observer gives them credit for. I am sure Space X will learn from this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


LOL


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Looks like the opening scene from Heavy Metal.

Pretty awesome.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:11:28


Post by: Skinnereal


KTG17 wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
I don't know how international SpaceX is, but Elon is a "South African-born Canadian American". This stuff as gone beyond national teams, and commercial projects like Space X see the money involved.
All true, but I don't see these things happening in Canada, South Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. Its happening here for a reason, that's my point.
China, India and Europe (the ESA) all have active space programmes. They don't get as much media coverage as Space X gets though.
[Edit: Also Japan, Russia and USA have the 6 national agencies]


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:14:41


Post by: Kroem


Nice one, they only gave it even odds of getting off the launchpad so I'm glad it went so well.

We need to get on with space travel in England, can't let the Americans and the Russians have all the fun exploring Alien temples and wooing spacebabes without us!


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:16:05


Post by: Peregrine


lliu wrote:
If they can make miscalculations like this, what will the risk be when they start sending more valuable payloads?


Pretty low. Remember, this is a completely new design on its initial test flight. Good engineering work and simulations are valuable, but at some point you have to actually fly the thing and see if reality matches your calculations down to the very tiny error margins required for a successful mission. There's a reason why they launched a car into orbit and not an actual payload. With a first test like this you (as Elon Musk said) consider it a win if the explosion doesn't wreck your launch pad, getting the dummy payload into orbit and recovering 2/3 of the boosters is a massive win. You'll notice that the previous generation of rockets is at the point of being very consistent in its successes.

And in general the SpaceX rockets are carrying obscenely huge fuel margins by the standards of space flight. Unlike expendable rockets, where you have just enough fuel to get to your destination, a reusable rocket carries a ton of fuel for the recovery portion of the flight. If fuel is being burned faster than expected you have the option (and SpaceX has included it in their design) to burn the recovery fuel to get the payload to its destination. It sucks that you don't get to recover the boosters after all, but the payload doesn't care if SpaceX's quarterly profit numbers take a hit.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:16:51


Post by: Skinnereal


 Kroem wrote:
We need to get on with space travel in England,
After having seen Hyperdrive, I'm not sure that's such a good idea.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:19:13


Post by: KTG17


 Skinnereal wrote:
China, India and Europe (the ESA) all have active space programmes. They don't get as much media coverage as Space X gets though.
[Edit: Also Japan, Russia and USA have the 6 national agencies]


Oh really? I hadn't been caught up on current events. Let me know when a rocket they launch returns to the launch area on its own.

Let me know when they put a guy on the moon too.

Completely missing my point bro.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
And in general the SpaceX rockets are carrying obscenely huge fuel margins by the standards of space flight. Unlike expendable rockets, where you have just enough fuel to get to your destination, a reusable rocket carries a ton of fuel for the recovery portion of the flight. If fuel is being burned faster than expected you have the option (and SpaceX has included it in their design) to burn the recovery fuel to get the payload to its destination. It sucks that you don't get to recover the boosters after all, but the payload doesn't care if SpaceX's quarterly profit numbers take a hit.


I think the benefit too I don't hear about is by recycling, you also limit the amount of trash accumulating in space. Download the SkyView app for your phone and look around. There are hundreds of various leftover boosters sitting in orbit. Some since the 60s.The app will even tell you what the launch was from and when.



Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:24:33


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Kroem wrote:
Nice one, they only gave it even odds of getting off the launchpad so I'm glad it went so well.

We need to get on with space travel in England, can't let the Americans and the Russians have all the fun exploring Alien temples and wooing spacebabes without us!


The European Space Agency is headquartered in England.

Here are all the missions launched or planned:

http://www.esa.int/ESA/Our_Missions/



Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:32:08


Post by: Kroem


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Kroem wrote:
Nice one, they only gave it even odds of getting off the launchpad so I'm glad it went so well.

We need to get on with space travel in England, can't let the Americans and the Russians have all the fun exploring Alien temples and wooing spacebabes without us!


The European Space Agency is headquartered in England.

Here are all the missions launched or planned:

http://www.esa.int/ESA/Our_Missions/


The link just says 'page not found' for me, unless that is a tongue in cheek reference to how little the ESA actually get done.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:35:17


Post by: KTG17


I think what makes this launch cool, and something I have been frustrated with NASA for, is that it does create attention and capture imagination in ways that most NASA launches do not. Sometimes I can't believe some of the crap they send up there. Its not that I am not in favor of hardcore scientific projects, but at times you also need to justify your budget to the average person, and sending something up like Kepler is rather pointless to me if we have no means to reach any of the planets it finds. I would rather see them do things like Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity, only send them to every moon in the Solar System. Send satellites to map all of the planets and moons. That would be far more interesting to the average person. If we ever manage to develop light speed, then yeah, that would be a good time to fiddle around with something like Kepler.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:40:48


Post by: Rosebuddy


KTG17 wrote:
I think what makes this launch cool, and something I have been frustrated with NASA for, is that it does create attention and capture imagination in ways that most NASA launches do not.


Because they spent a lot of money on marketing. States have been putting stuff in space since Sputnik so this nerd spending billions on a vanity project does not impress me.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 14:41:36


Post by: Peregrine


KTG17 wrote:
Let me know when a rocket they launch returns to the launch area on its own.


It's impressive from a "whoa, that is cool" point of view, but it's hardly an essential component of a successful space program. The primary value is to private industry, where making a profit on every launch and every satellite is essential. If you're talking about a government-funded space program it's much less essential. Expendable rockets give you much better payload to mass ratios, and if money is not an issue you don't care about throwing away the engines after every launch.

Let me know when they put a guy on the moon too.


Also an increasingly irrelevant standard. At this point manned exploration is mostly about ego and nationalism, the scientific value is extremely limited compared to spending that payload mass on robots.

I think the benefit too I don't hear about is by recycling, you also limit the amount of trash accumulating in space. Download the SkyView app for your phone and look around. There are hundreds of various leftover boosters sitting in orbit. Some since the 60s.The app will even tell you what the launch was from and when.


It's a benefit, but mostly a side effect of the real goal. If all you want to do is limit space junk it's easy to do a brief reentry burn and let the wreckage crash in the ocean. And the SpaceX boosters were never reaching an orbital trajectory, they were coming down one way or another no matter what. Even the fully-expendable maximum payload configuration of the Falcon Heavy has sub-orbital boosters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
Because they spent a lot of money on marketing. States have been putting stuff in space since Sputnik so this nerd spending billions on a vanity project does not impress me.


It isn't a vanity project, it's a successful business. Don't think that putting a car into space was the goal here. The only reason the car was there was because the alternative was launching a box of lead weights into orbit. The rocket was never going to fly with a real payload on its initial test flight, so you might as well have some fun with it. This rocket design, once it gets through the test program and into normal operation, is going to make SpaceX a lot of money.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 16:07:59


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Peregrine wrote:
This rocket design, once it gets through the test program and into normal operation, is going to make SpaceX a lot of money.


The purpose of the mission is not to explore space, but to privatise it. I said it was a vanity project because they tossed a car out rather than a simple weight, but the rocket being an actual vanity project would be far preferable to this. At least it would just be money wasted rather than put to something awful.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 16:31:10


Post by: Herzlos


KTG17 wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
I don't know how international SpaceX is, but Elon is a "South African-born Canadian American". This stuff as gone beyond national teams, and commercial projects like Space X see the money involved.


All true, but I don't see these things happening in Canada, South Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. Its happening here for a reason, that's my point.



I think that's more to do with suitable sites close to the equator than anything else? The talent at this level will likely move around as required, or be done remotely.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 16:43:30


Post by: Peregrine


Rosebuddy wrote:
The purpose of the mission is not to explore space, but to privatise it.


Ok? So? You know that we have a lot of very useful private satellites in space already, right? For example, communications satellites are private industry, and I don't know of any argument that those are bad. And SpaceX is launching government-funded scientific payloads as well as their purely commercial contracts. If you want to explore space you should be celebrating the development of low-cost reusable launch vehicles, as it has the potential to significantly cut the cost of scientific missions in the future.

Also, it's not like SpaceX is the first to commercialize space, the stuff they're putting into space would just have flown on a Boeing/Lockheed Martin rocket if SpaceX didn't win the contract.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote:
I think that's more to do with suitable sites close to the equator than anything else? The talent at this level will likely move around as required, or be done remotely.


Pretty much. There's a very limited set of good launch sites, you need a point near the equator and on the coast (so you don't have rocket debris falling on people) with enough infrastructure to build your rocket and deliver it to the launch site. SpaceX was never going to operate out of Europe for simple physics reasons.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 17:02:40


Post by: Kroem


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
This rocket design, once it gets through the test program and into normal operation, is going to make SpaceX a lot of money.


The purpose of the mission is not to explore space, but to privatise it. I said it was a vanity project because they tossed a car out rather than a simple weight, but the rocket being an actual vanity project would be far preferable to this. At least it would just be money wasted rather than put to something awful.

I think making space travel economically productive is crucial if we are ever going to spread our species out amongst the stars.

Space travel being nothing more than a scientific curio doesn't lend enough urgency or resources to the affair, we need the competition created by business or nations to make progress.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 17:05:04


Post by: Peregrine


 Kroem wrote:
I think making space travel economically productive is crucial if we are ever going to spread our species out amongst the stars.


No, space travel is not required for this. Good writing talent is, because the only place it's going to happen is in science fiction.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 19:13:42


Post by: ProtoClone


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
This rocket design, once it gets through the test program and into normal operation, is going to make SpaceX a lot of money.


The purpose of the mission is not to explore space, but to privatise it. I said it was a vanity project because they tossed a car out rather than a simple weight, but the rocket being an actual vanity project would be far preferable to this. At least it would just be money wasted rather than put to something awful.


I am OK with that because its Elon Musk and I am OK if this is a project that will inflate his ego.

We get so much more out of this. He is on the move to making launches much more affordable. This means justifying missions to space will be less of a hassle for places like NASA.
As far as I see it this isn't money wasted because people stand to benefit from this like we have from previous missions to space.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 19:30:12


Post by: KTG17


I am OK with this and if Elon wants to launch a school bus into space next I say go for it.

And yes, in the grand scheme of things this kind of stuff does great things for the US Space Industry. NASA can't do everything, and they def can't do it as economically. If private businesses can find a way to do it cheaper it works out for everyone.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 19:41:01


Post by: feeder


Amazing. Only 12 years from Bowie playing Tesla to Tesla playing Bowie


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 19:53:30


Post by: xKillGorex


Missed a launch last year while in Florida by about 3 days, was gutted. Always wanted to visit kennedy and loved it.
Seems a good move by nasa to allow other groups to launch from there.
Have my eye on the next moon landing and mars mission although the one that grabbed me is the plan to snag asteroids and bring the back to mine. Sounds too sci-fi and expensive but hell the payouts alone must be worth it. Beats digging up the navi home world lol.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 19:58:21


Post by: Iron_Captain


This is nothing yet. Putting a car into space and such is all very fun, but really we don't want to just launch random junk into space, we want to go to space ourselves. Let me know when Americans finally build something that can match the Soyuz, when they can actually put people into space again without high risk of blowing them up. The Soyuz is pretty much ancient at this point, but still the safest and most cost-effective spacecraft ever designed. Even NASA has recognised its obvious superiority. American astronauts can only get into space on Russian spacecraft.
Nobody builds better rockets than good old Mother Russia.

So, with the blatant nationalist feelings out of the way, I can say that I think that this was a pretty nifty work of science and engineering. Especially for a private company. Let us hope that many useful developments follow this launch that will benefit all of humanity.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 20:28:17


Post by: KTG17


 Iron_Captain wrote:
This is nothing yet. Putting a car into space and such is all very fun, but really we don't want to just launch random junk into space, we want to go to space ourselves. Let me know when Americans finally build something that can match the Soyuz, when they can actually put people into space again without high risk of blowing them up. The Soyuz is pretty much ancient at this point, but still the safest and most cost-effective spacecraft ever designed. Even NASA has recognised its obvious superiority. American astronauts can only get into space on Russian spacecraft.
Nobody builds better rockets than good old Mother Russia.


Did you ever think that the US goes along with the Soyuz not just because they are reliable and economical, but so they can spend money and time doing other things? While the Russians are taxi-ing our peeps up into space, we're sending rovers, telescopes, and now convertible cars into space.

The legacy of the Soyuz is impressive, but if the US felt the need to actually have to build their own to use instead, it would be done. And I am sure the Russians keep the costs down to keep the revenue stream going.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 xKillGorex wrote:
Missed a launch last year while in Florida by about 3 days, was gutted.


I live in Florida and have yet to see a launch. My Grandfather watched one of the space shuttles back in the day and said it was unbelievably awesome. I would make an effort, but honestly its some distance and there are delays and I would be super irritated to go all that way only to find it wasn't happening.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 21:32:05


Post by: xKillGorex


Have a relative that’s been there and seen two launches, said it was unreal. Damn I was happy just going to see the Atlantis exhibition.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/07 23:14:15


Post by: ProtoClone


KTG17 wrote:
I am OK with this and if Elon wants to launch a school bus into space next I say go for it.

And yes, in the grand scheme of things this kind of stuff does great things for the US Space Industry. NASA can't do everything, and they def can't do it as economically. If private businesses can find a way to do it cheaper it works out for everyone.


Honestly, Elon is probably the right person to be doing this in the private sector.

Didn't he openly share his tech on his electric cars because it would foster competition?

He may be just another rich boy, but he is making the most of his position and doing good with it.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 00:49:31


Post by: KTG17


You know I don't know about his upbringing, but when I read he started Paypal and sold it got bookoo cash for it, I was already thinking he was brilliant. And Paypal was the second company he created and sold. So if he was a rich boy before that, he still certainly earned his wealth on his own.

I don't follow the guy, but I really appreciate what he is doing. I am an environmentalist, and despise what we are doing to this planet, and while we're going to have an issue getting rid of batteries some day, I would rather see us using those than burning gas for our cars. Not that I even drive an electric car now, but when they become more affordable in the long term I wouldn't mind. But he's got an great imagination and the drive to see some of those dreams come alive.

Some people might resent him, but then I have to ask what are they doing to change the world for the better?


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 02:07:30


Post by: Future War Cultist


 Kroem wrote:
Nice one, they only gave it even odds of getting off the launchpad so I'm glad it went so well.

We need to get on with space travel in England, can't let the Americans and the Russians have all the fun exploring Alien temples and wooing spacebabes without us!


If I remember correctly, Britain is the only country to have started a space program and got a working rocket up into space (the Black Arrow), only to suddenly cancel it all. Sad really.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 08:12:59


Post by: A Town Called Malus


KTG17 wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
China, India and Europe (the ESA) all have active space programmes. They don't get as much media coverage as Space X gets though.
[Edit: Also Japan, Russia and USA have the 6 national agencies]


Oh really? I hadn't been caught up on current events. Let me know when a rocket they launch returns to the launch area on its own.

Let me know when they put a guy on the moon too.

Completely missing my point bro.



SpaceX is not a national endeavour. Trying to use it as a chest thumping exercise to big up the USA just makes yourself look foolish. The ESA has currently been working on multiple projects such as Galileo (a new GPS satellite system), ATHENA (a new x-ray space observatory). You know, science and exploration.

Also, SpaceX hasn't put someone on the moon and the US national space agency currently doesn't have a launcher capable of doing so, unless it builds more Saturn Vs.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:14:28


Post by: KTG17


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

SpaceX is not a national endeavour. Trying to use it as a chest thumping exercise to big up the USA just makes yourself look foolish.


No actually it doesn't. I am pointing out the things that can be accomplished in this country, aside from the BS that takes a lot of attention in the media and the division even found on this board. The fact you can't seem to read the opening comment show me that you yourself are foolish. And then you have to bring up the ESA's accomplishments to make yourself feel like you aren't left out. Ha.

And even if it was a national endeavor, I am not part of it and still wouldn't be chest thumping. Space X is an American company employing primarily Americans and accomplishing some kick-ass things and I am proud of them and envious of the work they get to be part of.



Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:21:41


Post by: d-usa


For what it’s worth, the launch also wasn’t 100% successful and ended up overshooting the trajectory. So the car will be floating somewhere else other than the planned orbit they were going for. Which is why there is a car floating up there, and not people or some other payload.

Of course with these kind of things even “failures” are still successful experiments and you still get lots of data to build on. A giant fireball would still have given SpaceX data to improve on.

But SpaceX successes belong to SpaceX, not to the USA.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:25:17


Post by: Peregrine


 d-usa wrote:
For what it’s worth, the launch also wasn’t 100% successful and ended up overshooting the trajectory.


Well, yes and no. It overshot its trajectory, but only because of how the target was defined. The final burn was done as "burn outbound until it runs out of fuel", not targeting a specific course. So total fuel consumption was a bit less than expected, resulting in extra fuel left for the final burn and an "overshoot". If they'd been targeting a specific destination instead of just trying to throw it out into space they would have cut off the engine upon reaching the required velocity instead of just letting it run.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:28:04


Post by: jhe90


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
China, India and Europe (the ESA) all have active space programmes. They don't get as much media coverage as Space X gets though.
[Edit: Also Japan, Russia and USA have the 6 national agencies]


Oh really? I hadn't been caught up on current events. Let me know when a rocket they launch returns to the launch area on its own.

Let me know when they put a guy on the moon too.

Completely missing my point bro.



SpaceX is not a national endeavour. Trying to use it as a chest thumping exercise to big up the USA just makes yourself look foolish. The ESA has currently been working on multiple projects such as Galileo (a new GPS satellite system), ATHENA (a new x-ray space observatory). You know, science and exploration.

Also, SpaceX hasn't put someone on the moon and the US national space agency currently doesn't have a launcher capable of doing so, unless it builds more Saturn Vs.


Likely better. With modern advances in metal, fuels, materials and computers a new set could be more powerful than before not limited by what was available at the time when forst built.

A new class could even maybe carry us to Mars or a class based off the Saturn V.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:31:13


Post by: d-usa


So the math was wrong, which can be a huge issue. What if they couldn’t have remotely shut off the engine? Now humans would be floating forever rather than making it to their destination. Yes there are contingencies that “may” be able to correct the mistake, but that doesn’t change the fact that they made the mistake and that the car is floating in a different place than expected.

It’s a “failure” because it’s not where they expected it to be. It’s a “success” because they still got data out of it and will continue to get data while the car is slowly getting destroyed out there.

I hope they put Space grade conditioner and protectant on that dash!


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:34:52


Post by: Mr Morden


 Future War Cultist wrote:
 Kroem wrote:
Nice one, they only gave it even odds of getting off the launchpad so I'm glad it went so well.

We need to get on with space travel in England, can't let the Americans and the Russians have all the fun exploring Alien temples and wooing spacebabes without us!


If I remember correctly, Britain is the only country to have started a space program and got a working rocket up into space (the Black Arrow), only to suddenly cancel it all. Sad really.


We shut down a lot of project in order to buy US versions of the same thing - some better, some inferior. Some of its related to a small country trying to do stuff rather than a continent and others for political reasons.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:36:41


Post by: A Town Called Malus


KTG17 wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:

SpaceX is not a national endeavour. Trying to use it as a chest thumping exercise to big up the USA just makes yourself look foolish.


No actually it doesn't. I am pointing out the things that can be accomplished in this country, aside from the BS that takes a lot of attention in the media and the division even found on this board.

But you have no evidence that it was accomplished thanks to anything unique in the US.

The fact you can't seem to read the opening comment show me that you yourself are foolish. And then you have to bring up the ESA's accomplishments to make yourself feel like you aren't left out. Ha.

You were the one who had to bring up the moon landings to try and defend your view of the US space industry in an attempt to belittle others. For reference, that was almost 50 years ago. You could have brought up Juno and New Horizons, instead.

And even if it was a national endeavor, I am not part of it and still wouldn't be chest thumping. Space X is an American company employing primarily Americans and accomplishing some kick-ass things and I am proud of them and envious of the work they get to be part of.
If you aren't part of it then stop using "we" as if you are.

KTG17 wrote:

You know, as divided as this country can get, and despite the problems it has, and the criticism of it from outside this country, I look at this and just think, "Man, who else is doing sh!t like this?" No one. Those Space X employees have every right to be as excited as they are. Really cutting edge stuff. Amazing. And the balls to send a car into space. Awesome.

We still got it. Best years still yet to come.



This does nothing to deflect the criticism of your country. Nobody is criticising your country as one where private companies cannot launch rockets. And, as pointed out, other countries are doing gak like this. China is developing its own space program with the aim of landing on the Moon. The Falcon Heavy does not have the payload capacity to reach the moon (it's LEO max payload is less than half that of the Saturn V, for reference). The Chinese are on track to launch an automated sample return mission to the moon soon, which will be followed by manned missions with the intent of establishing permanent lunar bases.

As for reusable spacecraft, that is one of the future goals of the Indian Space agency. It has already completed preliminary flight tests on a demonstration reusable spaceplane.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:48:56


Post by: KTG17


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

But you have no evidence that it was accomplished thanks to anything unique in the US.


WHAT?!?!


You were the one who had to bring up the moon landings to try and defend your view of the US space industry in an attempt to belittle others. For reference, that was almost 50 years ago. You could have brought up Juno and New Horizons, instead.


Exactly, because another euro was knocking this accomplishment by stating other countries have space programs too. Big deal. The man on the moon happened 50 years ago and we're still the only ones that have done it. So then the others do, it will tell me they have caught up.

If you aren't part of it then stop using "we" as if you are.


Oh no, now I am owning it. Since your simple brain doesn't understand generalizations, I might as well.



Please, keep complaining.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:49:48


Post by: Peregrine


 d-usa wrote:
So the math was wrong, which can be a huge issue.


Not necessarily. Everything in engineering has margins for error, however slight, and even the best simulation can't predict with 100% accuracy how things are going to go. That's why the test launch didn't carry a real payload. From what I've seen the outcome was "hey, we did better than our low-end prediction", not "wtf, how did this happen". To put some arbitrary fake numbers on it, they had an expected fuel level of 5% +/- 0.5% before starting the final burn, for a possible range of 4.5% to 5.5%. If 4% is the fuel required for the delta-V of a Mars orbit trajectory then the mission is a success if your "use all the fuel no matter where it puts us" burn exceeds the delta-V of a Mars orbit trajectory, regardless of whether it exceeds it by 0.5% or 1.5%.

What if they couldn’t have remotely shut off the engine? Now humans would be floating forever rather than making it to their destination.


What if? What if the rocket just exploded on the pad? Then the humans would be floating forever, in the afterlife. It didn't happen that way, and it would be utter lunacy to design a manned rocket with no ability to take local control over the engine or adjust the course at a later point. You're talking about a catastrophic failure in a critical system that almost certainly has multiple redundant backups for exactly that reason.

Also, a manned flight is always going to be carrying extra fuel (and a satellite launch probably is as well) in case fuel consumption is slightly higher than expected. You're never going to calculate out exactly how much fuel you need and then depend on running out at exactly the right time for any situation where accuracy matters.

Yes there are contingencies that “may” be able to correct the mistake, but that doesn’t change the fact that they made the mistake and that the car is floating in a different place than expected.


Only because they didn't bother trying to do better. When your plan is "let's kind of send it off over there-ish" it's not a mistake when you end up over there-ish instead of a different there-ish. They deliberately went with a plan that had a degree of uncertainty in it because they cared more about exhausting the entire fuel supply than aiming for a specific trajectory target. There's no "may" about it when you're talking about the result of a deliberate mission choice where the alternative is well understood and easy to implement.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:51:25


Post by: KTG17


Its amazing we live in a time where only one company shoots a car into space, lands 2 of 3 boosters on landing pads, and people want to knock it.

Standards are pretty high these days. Especially since everyone is doing it.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 14:52:36


Post by: d-usa


A rocket in space to make America look great, canceled out by a guy on a forum making America look small.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
So the math was wrong, which can be a huge issue.


Not necessarily. Everything in engineering has margins for error, however slight, and even the best simulation can't predict with 100% accuracy how things are going to go. That's why the test launch didn't carry a real payload. From what I've seen the outcome was "hey, we did better than our low-end prediction", not "wtf, how did this happen". To put some arbitrary fake numbers on it, they had an expected fuel level of 5% +/- 0.5% before starting the final burn, for a possible range of 4.5% to 5.5%. If 4% is the fuel required for the delta-V of a Mars orbit trajectory then the mission is a success if your "use all the fuel no matter where it puts us" burn exceeds the delta-V of a Mars orbit trajectory, regardless of whether it exceeds it by 0.5% or 1.5%.

What if they couldn’t have remotely shut off the engine? Now humans would be floating forever rather than making it to their destination.


What if? What if the rocket just exploded on the pad? Then the humans would be floating forever, in the afterlife. It didn't happen that way, and it would be utter lunacy to design a manned rocket with no ability to take local control over the engine or adjust the course at a later point. You're talking about a catastrophic failure in a critical system that almost certainly has multiple redundant backups for exactly that reason.

Also, a manned flight is always going to be carrying extra fuel (and a satellite launch probably is as well) in case fuel consumption is slightly higher than expected. You're never going to calculate out exactly how much fuel you need and then depend on running out at exactly the right time for any situation where accuracy matters.

Yes there are contingencies that “may” be able to correct the mistake, but that doesn’t change the fact that they made the mistake and that the car is floating in a different place than expected.


Only because they didn't bother trying to do better. When your plan is "let's kind of send it off over there-ish" it's not a mistake when you end up over there-ish instead of a different there-ish. They deliberately went with a plan that had a degree of uncertainty in it because they cared more about exhausting the entire fuel supply than aiming for a specific trajectory target. There's no "may" about it when you're talking about the result of a deliberate mission choice where the alternative is well understood and easy to implement.


The goal was X, X didn’t happen. Simple stuff really.

As for the rest, it’s almost like I acknowledged that anything is success in a science sense, and even a fireball on the launch pad would be good science. Heck, it wouldn’t have been the first fireball on the launch pad for Musk, and he would have learned a ton of stuff from it. Admitting that they didn’t have 100% success with the planned parameters isn’t going to kill anyone. And all of the world can use the science from overshooting the target to help improve the next launch.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:07:21


Post by: KTG17


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This does nothing to deflect the criticism of your country. Nobody is criticising your country as one where private companies cannot launch rockets. And, as pointed out, other countries are doing gak like this. China is developing its own space program with the aim of landing on the Moon. The Falcon Heavy does not have the payload capacity to reach the moon (it's LEO max payload is less than half that of the Saturn V, for reference). The Chinese are on track to launch an automated sample return mission to the moon soon, which will be followed by manned missions with the intent of establishing permanent lunar bases.

As for reusable spacecraft, that is one of the future goals of the Indian Space agency. It has already completed preliminary flight tests on a demonstration reusable spaceplane.


Are you following this thread? The topic of this thread is Space X launching a car into space and having the boosters return to earth. No, I don't see anyone else doing that, and bringing up general examples of what other countries are doing, some of which the US did some 50 years ago, doesn't mean that they are doing the same thing.

Yes, everything everyone is doing is impressive to some degree. I am more impressed with this. Don't care you aren't, and you aren't going to change my mind.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:07:47


Post by: A Town Called Malus


KTG17 wrote:
Its amazing we live in a time where only one company shoots a car into space, lands 2 of 3 boosters on landing pads, and people want to knock it.

Standards are pretty high these days. Especially since everyone is doing it.


Nobody here was ever knocking the achievement of the SpaceX engineers. We were knocking your assertion that their accomplishment was somehow evidence that the USA was super special and doing things others aren't.

The rest of the world is already aware of how good SpaceX is. We use their rockets to launch satellites.

And hey, at least we in Europe built our high energy particle accelerator, the USA cancelled its attempt to build a supercollider


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:11:27


Post by: KTG17


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Nobody here was ever knocking the achievement of the SpaceX engineers. We were knocking your assertion that their accomplishment was somehow evidence that the USA was


Fine, I am an American, in America, Space X is American, employing Americans, launching rockets in America into space. Yes. I take that as a source of pride. Like you prob do about 4pm tea time.

The environment here in this country, through whatever means you wish to list, allows for some awesome things to happen. I am proud to be part of that environment. So kiss it.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:12:26


Post by: d-usa


http://www.iflscience.com/space/heres-a-list-of-every-upcoming-space-mission-for-the-next-twenty-years-and-some-of-them-are-unbelievably-awesome/

We can celebrate all things space and science without making it a nationalistic chest thumbing contest.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:16:37


Post by: KTG17


We could, but I chose to specify the USA's, because of this specific launch. For some reason, peeps have to knock it down and talk about others.

This event was awesome, and that's that.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:18:44


Post by: Peregrine


 d-usa wrote:
The goal was X, X didn’t happen. Simple stuff really.


No, the goal was X and X happened. The goal was to burn the entire remaining supply of fuel onboard, regardless of where it sent the rocket, to evaluate that part of the design. I guarantee you that the engineers actually running the mission were well aware that they were aiming "somewhere roughly in the general direction of Mars-ish" and had no particular trajectory in mind, and the whole "Mars orbit"* thing was just the short version for the publicity material. Few people want to sit through an explanation of test parameters or minimum delta-V goals or whatever, so the publicity guy says "send it to Mars". Meanwhile the engineers involved have a good understanding of exactly what unknown variables they are testing for and what the outcomes could be, and have exactly zero concern for meeting the over-simplified promises of the publicity guy.

*Technically "intersecting Mars orbit, because we don't actually want it going to Mars", but close enough.

As for the rest, it’s almost like I acknowledged that anything is success in a science sense, and even a fireball on the launch pad would be good science. Heck, it wouldn’t have been the first fireball on the launch pad for Musk, and he would have learned a ton of stuff from it. Admitting that they didn’t have 100% success with the planned parameters isn’t going to kill anyone. And all of the world can use the science from overshooting the target to help improve the next launch.


It's not just a success in the sense that data was obtained, it's a success in that the mission was executed according to the plan (with the exception of the failed restart on the center core). When the plan is a deliberate choice for an inaccurate final trajectory that is not at all the same choice that would be used if a specific trajectory is desired ending up somewhere there-ish is not a failure.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:19:07


Post by: d-usa


If Musk truly loved America, he would have launched the Eagle Heavy.





Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:19:33


Post by: Ketara


I've always liked to imagine Elon Musk as being essentially Cave Johnson.




Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:21:05


Post by: Peregrine


KTG17 wrote:
The environment here in this country, through whatever means you wish to list, allows for some awesome things to happen. I am proud to be part of that environment. So kiss it.


I'm not really clear on how it's supposed to be a point of national pride that the US has coastline near the equator and connected to developed-nation-average infrastructure. The US being better suited to rocket development than the UK is a direct result of orbital mechanics, not a relevant fact about the political entities currently occupying those points on the map. I guess go Team USA, we haven't wasted our potential launch sites so badly that nobody wants to use them? Seems kind of underwhelming as an accomplishment.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:25:30


Post by: kronk


I am sad he did not launch a '57 Chevy with an 8-track blasting some Lynard Skynard.


THAT would have been 'Merican!


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:26:38


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Kroem wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Kroem wrote:
Nice one, they only gave it even odds of getting off the launchpad so I'm glad it went so well.

We need to get on with space travel in England, can't let the Americans and the Russians have all the fun exploring Alien temples and wooing spacebabes without us!


The European Space Agency is headquartered in England.

Here are all the missions launched or planned:

http://www.esa.int/ESA/Our_Missions/


The link just says 'page not found' for me, unless that is a tongue in cheek reference to how little the ESA actually get done.


No, it was a bad bit of html. I have fixed it.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:29:03


Post by: Alpharius


GENERAL IN THREAD REMINDER - RULE #1 IS BE POLITE.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 15:30:51


Post by: Kilkrazy


Doubled.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 16:11:25


Post by: Darkjim


 kronk wrote:
I am sad he did not launch a '57 Chevy with an 8-track blasting some Lynard Skynard.


THAT would have been 'Merican!


And a pistol in the glove box and a pair of shotguns in the boot (trunk) in case of encounters with anything Un'Merican

This a fantastic achievement, regardless of how 'Merican it is. Space rocks.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 16:38:47


Post by: d-usa


“Did you see that ludicrous display last night?”
“What was Musk thinking, separating the stage that early?”
“The problem with SpaceX is they always try to fly it in.”

Am I doing this right?


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 16:44:54


Post by: Iron_Captain


KTG17 wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:

But you have no evidence that it was accomplished thanks to anything unique in the US.


WHAT?!?!


You were the one who had to bring up the moon landings to try and defend your view of the US space industry in an attempt to belittle others. For reference, that was almost 50 years ago. You could have brought up Juno and New Horizons, instead.


Exactly, because another euro was knocking this accomplishment by stating other countries have space programs too. Big deal. The man on the moon happened 50 years ago and we're still the only ones that have done it. So then the others do, it will tell me they have caught up.

No. If other countries would put people on the moon they would be stupid, not catching up. Putting people on the moon was a prestige project that the Americans pursued to compensate their hurt feelings at having been beaten in everything space-related by the Soviets. No other country has really pursued trying to put people on the moon, because doing so has little scientific value and is very expensive compared to sending unmanned missions. A manned moon landing was not really a scientific goal, so no one was really pursuing it until President Kennedy arbitrarily declared it as a major goal. It was a political goal. After Kennedy set the goal, the US spent massive amounts of resources on reaching it. It also made the Soviets set up two small programs just to see if they could beat the US, but those never were given much attention or resources as Soviet researchers were more interested in orbital space stations (and even with these limited resources, the Soviet program was on schedule to put someone on the moon in 1968 until the guy in charge of the program died in 1966 and the whole project kinda died with him). Additionally, the Soviets, unlike the Americans did not really have anything to proof. They had already shown the world who is the boss in space.
So that is why no one else has ever landed a man on the moon. It has little scientific value relative to the costs and besides the US no one really needed the prestige.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote:
We could, but I chose to specify the USA's, because of this specific launch. For some reason, peeps have to knock it down and talk about others.

This event was awesome, and that's that.

Agreed, it definitely was awesome.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 16:51:30


Post by: d-usa


More science, less “my county can beat up your country” please?


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 17:01:23


Post by: kronk


 d-usa wrote:
More science, less “my county can beat up your country” please?


Right, especially since 89% of all porn is made right here in the USA according to a quick google search I just did at work...

Anyway, I might be out on the streets soon, but at least I know that I'm on the streets of the Number One Country!

USA! USA! USA!


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/08 18:01:58


Post by: feeder


 kronk wrote:
I am sad he did not launch a '57 Chevy with an 8-track blasting some Lynard Skynard.


THAT would have been 'Merican!


NO! I'll not let this stand. I'll let the extremely gauche display of chest thumping nationalism slide, but not this!

Lynyrd Skynyrd has no need for proper vowels! They were rocking so hard, all the proper vowels fell off.

Now we all have to watch and listen until the spirits of Van Zant and co. are appeased.




edit: wrong link


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/09 15:52:58


Post by: Rosebuddy


KTG17 wrote:

Some people might resent him, but then I have to ask what are they doing to change the world for the better?


I have done more for this world and the people in it than Elon Musk has by: not being a union-busting bastid.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/09 18:13:35


Post by: Grey Templar


lliu wrote:
I'm wondering though, the body slammed into the ocean at 300 km/h after running out of fuel. If they can make miscalculations like this, what will the risk be when they start sending more valuable payloads? What happens when they send astronauts in their spacesuits into space? The error margin must be considerably lower for me to feel safe watching one of these takeoff. However, this is only a small part and it is pretty amazing to have both boosters touch down within milliseconds of each other precisely on target. It's very cool, at the very least!


Indeed. Which is why I think that it would still be better to focus on making a craft which can take off like a airplane as well as land like one.

Its definitely an amazing feat, but I still feel like its a lot of energy in the wrong direction.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/09 22:02:47


Post by: oldravenman3025


KTG17 wrote:
Man, I was really impressed with the single rocket returning back to the earth, but this is really incredible. . .




You know, as divided as this country can get, and despite the problems it has, and the criticism of it from outside this country, I look at this and just think, "Man, who else is doing sh!t like this?" No one. Those Space X employees have every right to be as excited as they are. Really cutting edge stuff. Amazing. And the balls to send a car into space. Awesome.

We still got it. Best years still yet to come.






I watched the launch on live stream. It was awesome. Especially putting a freakin' Roadster in space.


Mars isn't that far in the future. Woot!


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/09 23:03:53


Post by: Peregrine


 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Which is why I think that it would still be better to focus on making a craft which can take off like a airplane as well as land like one.


You think wrong. The design compromises for that kind of craft are crippling. It's why the space shuttle was trash even though it only tried to do the landing half of that idea, with a glide ratio that compares unfavorably to a brick. And what do you get for that? A design that still has opportunities for catastrophic failure. Vertical landing works far better, especially in the context of unmanned cargo flights. It doesn't require major design changes to the rocket itself, only reserving a fraction of the fuel for the return trip. If you want maximum payload capacity you can treat it as an expendable rocket, burn all of that reserve fuel, and get much better performance.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/09 23:30:07


Post by: d-usa


Isn’t the general plan more like a beefed up lunar approach to get to Mars, rather than sending a Space Shuttle to Mars?

The human components would still fly in more traditional capsules, landing on earth via parachutes on land or water. And on lunar or mars mission they could land via parachutes or more like the old lunar landing modules.

The reusable rocket modules would be send prior to any humans, carrying supplies and equipment to make fuel for the flight home. After they arrive safely you send humans the traditional way, strap the capsule back on the rocket for a return flight home, and take back off.

Or at least that’s my very basic and simplified understanding of the plan.

As for the stage that crashed: I thought the issue wasn’t a miscalculation, but that only 1’of 3 engines fired during the landing which didn’t slow it down enough?


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/09 23:34:02


Post by: Peregrine


 d-usa wrote:
As for the stage that crashed: I thought the issue wasn’t a miscalculation, but that only 1’of 3 engines fired during the landing which didn’t slow it down enough?


Correct. The course was set and executed, the igniters for the other two engines just ran out of fuel and they couldn't restart all three. One engine wasn't enough braking thrust, so it hit the water at a fatal speed. So it's a miscalculation somewhere in design, because the igniters clearly didn't work as intended, but it's the kind of miscalculation you expect to get with initial test flights (again, why they launched a car into space instead of anything useful) and don't see again once the problems are worked out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
And on lunar or mars mission they could land via parachutes or more like the old lunar landing modules.


Well, parachutes for a Mars mission maybe, though you still need a powered landing once the parachutes have provided initial braking power. Kind of impossible to use parachutes for a lunar mission.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/09 23:52:54


Post by: godardc


Wow, I just came here today and what ? People arguing against Musk and the USA...
Really ? This thread has only been 3 pages...
Let's just enjoy this great Science and technical feat !
Go USA ! Let's go to Mars and find the Protheans !


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/10 00:01:42


Post by: Grey Templar


 Peregrine wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Which is why I think that it would still be better to focus on making a craft which can take off like a airplane as well as land like one.


You think wrong. The design compromises for that kind of craft are crippling. It's why the space shuttle was trash even though it only tried to do the landing half of that idea, with a glide ratio that compares unfavorably to a brick. And what do you get for that? A design that still has opportunities for catastrophic failure. Vertical landing works far better, especially in the context of unmanned cargo flights. It doesn't require major design changes to the rocket itself, only reserving a fraction of the fuel for the return trip. If you want maximum payload capacity you can treat it as an expendable rocket, burn all of that reserve fuel, and get much better performance.


But as we've seen. It is incredibly difficult to make a rocket do this. The chance of catastrophic failure seems to have been far higher so far with these reusable rockets than it has been with the space shuttle.

And if the space shuttle was truly trash, why was it so successful for so long? If it was so bad, surely we would have just kept using rockets to go and parachutes to go back down?

Of course the better solution all around would be to make a space elevator...


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/10 00:04:34


Post by: d-usa


I wonder if part of the success with the Space Shuttle was influenced by the ability of it to be modular and act as a hybrid between Crew Transport System and mini Space Station.

By the time the ISS came around we didn’t have any traditional transport options and ended up shooting the small space station to ferry people to the big space station. And I think our rosy glasses make it easy to forget just how risky the shuttle was, that half our fleet crashed or exploded, and that in the end we spend a large part of each flight inspecting the shuttle to make sure it could land and one couldn’t fly without the other standing by as a life boat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 godardc wrote:
Wow, I just came here today and what ? People arguing against Musk and the USA...
Really ? This thread has only been 3 pages...
Let's just enjoy this great Science and technical feat !
Go USA ! Let's go to Mars and find the Protheans !


Nobody is arguing against either.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/10 00:46:25


Post by: Ouze


 Grey Templar wrote:
And if the space shuttle was truly trash, why was it so successful for so long? If it was so bad, surely we would have just kept using rockets to go and parachutes to go back down?


It wasn't trash. It was a workable concept at the time, and it was successful because we didn't yet have the modern computational power we do to make a better solution possible. That doesn't make it a fundamentally superior design.

To use an analogy, you're a guy in 1941 saying piston driven fighters are a better design since they've been working for 40 years.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/10 00:57:34


Post by: ZergSmasher


I'm excited for the possibilities that this launch mission has opened up. Once they get the bugs worked out of the system (through more tests and number crunching), we'll have ourselves a pretty nice little launch system thanks to Mr. Musk. Hopefully they keep making even better ones and get some humans to Mars, or at least back to the moon, in my lifetime. I know some people think that that's all about ego or something, but to me it's just that much more of a real accomplishment if an actual person is able to make such a journey rather than just a machine. We're eventually gonna need to find a way off this rock before the sun explodes in about 5 billion years anyways...


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/10 01:52:28


Post by: kronk




Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/10 06:33:36


Post by: Peregrine


 Grey Templar wrote:
But as we've seen. It is incredibly difficult to make a rocket do this. The chance of catastrophic failure seems to have been far higher so far with these reusable rockets than it has been with the space shuttle.


It's difficult, but it has been accomplished. SpaceX is already to the point of using their boosters on multiple flights, this was a test of a new thing that failed. Long-term reliability is likely going to be just fine.

And if the space shuttle was truly trash, why was it so successful for so long?


Because we had it available, and we didn't want to admit defeat. It was a terrible idea, but once we sunk all that money into it using it was arguably better than just scrapping the shuttles. And it would have been a rather embarrassing PR debacle to admit the complete failure of a national prestige project like that.

It wasn't trash. It was a workable concept at the time, and it was successful because we didn't yet have the modern computational power we do to make a better solution possible. That doesn't make it a fundamentally superior design.

To use an analogy, you're a guy in 1941 saying piston driven fighters are a better design since they've been working for 40 years.


Actually it was trash at the time. The problem with the shuttle was that it was a compromise design based on conflicting program needs. The military wanted a spaceplane with very flexible landing options and then promptly forgot about that requirement once the design was committed, NASA wanted a reusable launch vehicle based on a launch rate that we never even came close to meeting, and expendable rockets were ruled out in favor of "reusability" that involved a complete rebuild of major systems before every flight. The shuttle program should have been scrapped before it became operational and replaced with systems that actually met the design goals in any kind of efficient manner.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/10 07:50:20


Post by: Jadenim


A slight tangent, but I re-watched the Martian the other day and it got me wondering why everyone is so focused on one-shot missions to Mars; I’m thinking it would be more practical (and faster) to build a sort of Mars liner (think a mobile ISS). Get it up to speed and set it on a repeating Earth-Mars-Earth loop. Send up new crew and supplies near Earth and deploy landers at the other end.

It could save a lot of fuel accelerating and decelerating the whole thing, possibly even allow a shorter journey time from operating at a higher average speed and offer more security to the people on the Mars end, as you know there is going to be a resupply / return option coming back in a few months.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/10 12:27:33


Post by: Kilkrazy


Why didn't they put parachutes on the solid booster rockets? It's an impressive technical feat to get them to hover down, but it seems a bit like the Space Pen approach to technical solutions. Just use a pencil.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/10 13:09:22


Post by: Peregrine


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why didn't they put parachutes on the solid booster rockets? It's an impressive technical feat to get them to hover down, but it seems a bit like the Space Pen approach to technical solutions. Just use a pencil.


Because parachutes alone are not sufficient. You're smashing the rocket down into a corrosive environment, compared to a nice soft landing on a dry surface. The shuttle boosters were only "reused" in the sense that, after tearing everything apart, inspecting, and overhauling it they used some of the old components to build a new rocket. The "reusable" part of it turned out to be mostly of PR value, the actual costs ended up being higher than just using expendable boosters. SpaceX, on the other hand, lands the rocket without damage and can re-use the entire thing as-is. Give it a routine inspection to make sure nothing was damaged, load some more fuel in, and go. That's an immense advantage, and makes reusable rockets practical.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/11 03:33:47


Post by: Commander Cain


 Jadenim wrote:
A slight tangent, but I re-watched the Martian the other day and it got me wondering why everyone is so focused on one-shot missions to Mars; I’m thinking it would be more practical (and faster) to build a sort of Mars liner (think a mobile ISS). Get it up to speed and set it on a repeating Earth-Mars-Earth loop. Send up new crew and supplies near Earth and deploy landers at the other end.

It could save a lot of fuel accelerating and decelerating the whole thing, possibly even allow a shorter journey time from operating at a higher average speed and offer more security to the people on the Mars end, as you know there is going to be a resupply / return option coming back in a few months.


That's a neat idea, not sure how the physics of having a space station orbiting two planets would work though. If it needed a big chunk of fuel which would have to be sent up to it then I don't think it would be much more advantageous than using rockets. If it did work though I could see something like that being really useful.

The idea of a one way trip could be down to the fact that any people spending an extended period of time on Mars would be unable to live comfortably in Earth's weaker gravity or just the fact that it would be much more expensive.

What we really need is a space elavator but I highly doubt that such a thing would ever happen. Even if we did invent carbon nanotubes that could grab an asteroid or something, I bet there would be many nations that would object to such a potentially dangerous project...



More on topic though, that was a great looking launch! Say what you like about Musk but he has got people talking about space exploration again and making it much more affordable is definitely a step in the right direction.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/11 05:43:43


Post by: Grey Templar


 Commander Cain wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
A slight tangent, but I re-watched the Martian the other day and it got me wondering why everyone is so focused on one-shot missions to Mars; I’m thinking it would be more practical (and faster) to build a sort of Mars liner (think a mobile ISS). Get it up to speed and set it on a repeating Earth-Mars-Earth loop. Send up new crew and supplies near Earth and deploy landers at the other end.

It could save a lot of fuel accelerating and decelerating the whole thing, possibly even allow a shorter journey time from operating at a higher average speed and offer more security to the people on the Mars end, as you know there is going to be a resupply / return option coming back in a few months.


That's a neat idea, not sure how the physics of having a space station orbiting two planets would work though. If it needed a big chunk of fuel which would have to be sent up to it then I don't think it would be much more advantageous than using rockets. If it did work though I could see something like that being really useful.

The idea of a one way trip could be down to the fact that any people spending an extended period of time on Mars would be unable to live comfortably in Earth's weaker gravity or just the fact that it would be much more expensive.

What we really need is a space elavator but I highly doubt that such a thing would ever happen. Even if we did invent carbon nanotubes that could grab an asteroid or something, I bet there would be many nations that would object to such a potentially dangerous project...



More on topic though, that was a great looking launch! Say what you like about Musk but he has got people talking about space exploration again and making it much more affordable is definitely a step in the right direction.


I don't think it would be possible to have a station continuously orbit between Earth and Mars on its own momentum.

But having a station with engines that would allow it to move itself between orbiting Earth and Mars as desired would be possible. Of course that would really make it more of a space ship than a station.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/11 09:23:53


Post by: Jadenim


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Commander Cain wrote:
 Jadenim wrote:
A slight tangent, but I re-watched the Martian the other day and it got me wondering why everyone is so focused on one-shot missions to Mars; I’m thinking it would be more practical (and faster) to build a sort of Mars liner (think a mobile ISS). Get it up to speed and set it on a repeating Earth-Mars-Earth loop. Send up new crew and supplies near Earth and deploy landers at the other end.

It could save a lot of fuel accelerating and decelerating the whole thing, possibly even allow a shorter journey time from operating at a higher average speed and offer more security to the people on the Mars end, as you know there is going to be a resupply / return option coming back in a few months.


That's a neat idea, not sure how the physics of having a space station orbiting two planets would work though. If it needed a big chunk of fuel which would have to be sent up to it then I don't think it would be much more advantageous than using rockets. If it did work though I could see something like that being really useful.

The idea of a one way trip could be down to the fact that any people spending an extended period of time on Mars would be unable to live comfortably in Earth's weaker gravity or just the fact that it would be much more expensive.

What we really need is a space elavator but I highly doubt that such a thing would ever happen. Even if we did invent carbon nanotubes that could grab an asteroid or something, I bet there would be many nations that would object to such a potentially dangerous project...



More on topic though, that was a great looking launch! Say what you like about Musk but he has got people talking about space exploration again and making it much more affordable is definitely a step in the right direction.


I don't think it would be possible to have a station continuously orbit between Earth and Mars on its own momentum.

But having a station with engines that would allow it to move itself between orbiting Earth and Mars as desired would be possible. Of course that would really make it more of a space ship than a station.


Yes, it would be a ship, with manoeuvring capabilities; I don’t know much about orbital mechanics, but enough to know that you can’t just stick it up there and not course correct. I was just trying to manage expectations, you say “spaceship” and immediately people start thinking of the Enterprise

When I said “one-shot”, I wasn’t meaning the one way mission idea (which I do find an interesting concept), but the more conventional proposals that involve getting a ship into orbit, accelerating it to interplanetary speed, decelerating to inject into Mars orbit, circling Mars for a while, accelerating back to interplanetary speed and then decelerating back into Earth orbit (or even just landing). Seems like a lot of stop-start and spending a lot of time at less than full speed.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/11 10:39:27


Post by: jhe90


Herzlos wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
I don't know how international SpaceX is, but Elon is a "South African-born Canadian American". This stuff as gone beyond national teams, and commercial projects like Space X see the money involved.


All true, but I don't see these things happening in Canada, South Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. Its happening here for a reason, that's my point.



I think that's more to do with suitable sites close to the equator than anything else? The talent at this level will likely move around as required, or be done remotely.


Theres not the level of skills at this level and specialist abilities available in every nation. Many people will be recruited from afar, tale t at this level will move to the jobs, and there's not jobs in this industry so people are going to travel to them.

Rocket science is hardly a field where you find a ad in thr newspaper a few miles from your house. Fi ding a high level rocket scientist is not always going to be easy, your going to have to start looking wider beyond borders to find those rare elite talents in the industry.



Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/11 13:17:38


Post by: Peregrine


 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't think it would be possible to have a station continuously orbit between Earth and Mars on its own momentum.


In theory you could do it, put the "station" into a solar orbit that intersects the two planetary orbits. The problem is that most of the delta-V requirement between Earth and Mars is getting from the surface into orbit, and most of the rest is moving between low orbit to escape velocity (since the hypothetical station can't slow below escape velocity or it will become trapped at either planet). Once you have your spacecraft into the interplanetary region of its trip and a deceleration option at the end you've effectively solved the entire problem of getting there. Any "on the way" assistance is solving the last tiny part of the problem.

And it only gets worse from there. For a 100% passive station you have to keep it in a transfer orbit between Earth and Mars, never burning any meaningful amount of fuel (we'll assume arriving ships carry a bit of extra to top off the maneuvering thrusters). It can't ever provide any delta-V to the spacecraft using the station, otherwise it will fall out of its orbit and no longer be useful. And any food/water/etc you want to use aboard the station has to be carried aboard the incoming spacecraft. All you're really getting is the ability to move into a temporary apartment and have some bigger living space on your way to Mars, without having to boost a bunch of empty space into orbit. Except wait a second, you have to carry empty space anyway. Remember your fuel tanks? Well, if you're a clever rocket engineer you realize that for a small mass penalty you can partition off the tanks and make it so that once you do your final Mars-ward burn all of the remaining fuel (for arriving at Mars and slowing down into orbit) is in one tank and all of the fuel you used came from a second tank. Haul some furniture and privacy curtains into the fuel tank and you have a new living space.

But wait, there's more! To have a 100% passive transfer orbit between Earth and Mars you have to accept the fact that you can only go between the two planets when they line up in the right relative positions, putting a serious time constraint on your mission. How many years are you willing to wait for the perfect opportunity? It seems like a ton of work for a very marginal benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, the problem with a Mars mission is not how to do it, it's why to do it. The how has been in place for decades. Yeah, it's a massive engineering project to actually build a Mars spacecraft, but it's a natural extension of concepts we've understood just fine since the Apollo era. From there it's just a matter of investing enough time and money to turn theory into hardware. What we don't have is the desire to go to Mars. Space exploration hasn't been a major national priority since the Apollo era, and that rules out massive-scale projects like a Mars mission. And now, with robots getting more and more capable there's less and less scientific justification for sending humans. Why spend payload capacity on humans and their support when, for the same cost, you can cover the planet in robot probes doing much more science? At this point you're pretty much depending on someone feeling sufficiently motivated to launch a nationalistic flag-planting mission, and I don't see that happening any time soon.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/11 13:46:16


Post by: Voss


KTG17 wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
I don't know how international SpaceX is, but Elon is a "South African-born Canadian American". This stuff as gone beyond national teams, and commercial projects like Space X see the money involved.


All true, but I don't see these things happening in Canada, South Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. Its happening here for a reason, that's my point.



Yep, it's closer to the equator than Canada or South Africa, so space launches are at an advantage.
A nationalist take on a private venture is pretty absurd, especially since it's partly happening because the national space agencies are largely wasting time and money.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/12 08:25:20


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Voss wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
I don't know how international SpaceX is, but Elon is a "South African-born Canadian American". This stuff as gone beyond national teams, and commercial projects like Space X see the money involved.


All true, but I don't see these things happening in Canada, South Africa, or anywhere else for that matter. Its happening here for a reason, that's my point.



Yep, it's closer to the equator than Canada or South Africa, so space launches are at an advantage.
A nationalist take on a private venture is pretty absurd, especially since it's partly happening because the national space agencies are largely wasting time and money.


The National agencies aren't wasting time or money, it is just that their missions don't get as much publicity any more. I mean this made the news for sending a car into space. Why? Launching a car is pointless except to get into newspapers. The national agencies build and launch actual satellites which do actual scientific work, be that providing networks of earth observation satellites allowing us to learn more about our own planet, space observatories to learn about the far off reaches of the universe or probes to learn more about our own solar system. Thing is, you often only hear about these when they find something big which is also easily understandable.

New Horizons launched in 2006. It only got widespread coverage when it actually reached Pluto 9 years later.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/12 10:33:24


Post by: KingCracker


KTG17 wrote:
I think what makes this launch cool, and something I have been frustrated with NASA for, is that it does create attention and capture imagination in ways that most NASA launches do not. Sometimes I can't believe some of the crap they send up there. Its not that I am not in favor of hardcore scientific projects, but at times you also need to justify your budget to the average person, and sending something up like Kepler is rather pointless to me if we have no means to reach any of the planets it finds. I would rather see them do things like Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity, only send them to every moon in the Solar System. Send satellites to map all of the planets and moons. That would be far more interesting to the average person. If we ever manage to develop light speed, then yeah, that would be a good time to fiddle around with something like Kepler.




I agree with this almost completely. I think its cool that we have found so many other planets and solar systems out there, but then reality kicks in for me. Yes thats really cool and they have found some really i teresting things floating around out there but these objects are SO IN INCREDIBLY far away that we simply will never see it let alone visit. Inside our solar system though people argue about how many actual planets there are. And if any of the moons could carry life. Hell we just recently finally saw what Pluto looks like and before that we werent really sure of its color.

Id rather learn and explore our backyard first before we start wondering what the backyards in Australia look like


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/12 12:16:41


Post by: Peregrine


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Launching a car is pointless except to get into newspapers.


And to test the new rocket design. Remember, the car was a dummy payload on a launch that would otherwise have just carried a load of concrete blocks to demonstrate its ability to lift a given mass into Mars orbit. It's cooler than a load of concrete blocks, but it's still the least interesting thing about the mission. Falcon Heavy will soon be joining its smaller variants in launching legitimate scientific and commercial payloads.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/12 13:59:09


Post by: lliu


Is this the first car in space? I doubt anyone shot say a Honda Civic into space.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/12 14:24:40


Post by: jhe90


 Peregrine wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Launching a car is pointless except to get into newspapers.


And to test the new rocket design. Remember, the car was a dummy payload on a launch that would otherwise have just carried a load of concrete blocks to demonstrate its ability to lift a given mass into Mars orbit. It's cooler than a load of concrete blocks, but it's still the least interesting thing about the mission. Falcon Heavy will soon be joining its smaller variants in launching legitimate scientific and commercial payloads.


That makes sense. Your not going to trust a multi million doller payload worth alot of money on a test experimental mission.

It was a good proof of system and concept


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/12 16:35:17


Post by: Skinnereal


lliu wrote:
Is this the first car in space? I doubt anyone shot say a Honda Civic into space.
There's NASA's Luna Rover, but that wouldn't count. Lots of similar stuff to pootle about, but that was the only rideable one.


Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/12 16:44:54


Post by: A Town Called Malus


lliu wrote:
Is this the first car in space? I doubt anyone shot say a Honda Civic into space.


It is the first terrestrial car, but not for lack of trying:




Did you guys see the Space X Heavy launch? @ 2018/02/13 09:31:53


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Peregrine wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Launching a car is pointless except to get into newspapers.


And to test the new rocket design. Remember, the car was a dummy payload on a launch that would otherwise have just carried a load of concrete blocks to demonstrate its ability to lift a given mass into Mars orbit. It's cooler than a load of concrete blocks, but it's still the least interesting thing about the mission. Falcon Heavy will soon be joining its smaller variants in launching legitimate scientific and commercial payloads.


True, but using a car as a dummy payload also introduces potential complications over just using a solid mass of concrete or some other solid block of material. Though those same potential complications also allow for better testing of the systems capabilities such as how effectively the mounting of the payload is absorbing the vibrations occurring during flight.

But still, you could have done that with a concrete block and some sensors, but that wouldn't have looked so good on the news.