beecee Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 1 minute ago, IDNeon said: Other way around. Ocean drops are better. Less expensive, leaves out unnecessary complication of already complicated systems. SpaceX is destined to blow-up astronauts and be sued into oblivion. Mark my words. Nonsense.
IDNeon Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 1 minute ago, beecee said: Proved it? I already proved it. So Musk DID NOT invent reusable rockets. Got something else he's supposedly done? He didn't even invent using rockets to land. Already did that too. 1 minute ago, beecee said: Nonsense Really? So SpaceX isn't legally liable for incidents? Soyuz is a remarkable capsule. Its shape allows for bank, drag and lift. So it can actually fly surprisingly well for being a capsule. Dragon capsule can't do that.
beecee Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 (edited) Some more info on Space -X and the "Block 5 Falcon 9: https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-launches-block-5-falcon-9-reusable-rocket/ SpaceX launches Block 5 Falcon 9, a radically reusable rocket Elon Musk & Co. send up a rocket that's designed to head back to space 99 more times. 1 The first Block 5 Falcon 9 blasts off. SpaceX Elon Musk and SpaceX successfully launched the final "Block 5" version of the company's Falcon 9 rocket on Friday, after a last-minute computer abort signal pushed things back a day. Block 5 is the upgraded model Musk says could be reflown about a hundred times. The updated rocket also has a distinctive new look, with a black interstage section that sets it apart from earlier versions. It blasted off from Florida's Kennedy Space Center at 4:14 p.m. ET on Friday, carrying the Bangabandhu satellite-1, the first satellite for Bangladesh. The launch went off like many SpaceX missions before it. The first stage of the Falcon 9 blasted off, sent its payload on the way to orbit and then dove back down through the atmosphere to land safely on the Atlantic-based droneship "Of Course I Still Love You." more..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: As I say, Elon Musk, and Space-X will contiue to receive all the support NASA and the general public can give them. Unsupported,rhetorical paranoid, continious dribble on a science forum will not change that. Edited May 3, 2021 by beecee
IDNeon Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 1 minute ago, beecee said: As I say, Elon Musk, and Space-X will contiue to receive all the support NASA and the general public can give them Hahaha it'll lose that support instantly when it: 1) fails to achieve its assigned mission. So far all it does is Mail deliveries (satellites to orbit and basic LEO capsule missions) 2) kills people 3 minutes ago, beecee said: The first stage of the Falcon 9 blasted off, sent its payload on the way to orbit and then dove back down through the atmosphere to land safely on the Atlantic-based droneship "Of Course I Still Love You." This to me is really sad. Why do we need THIS capability? It serves no purpose. It will get no one any closer to the Moon or Mars. Oh that's why he did it. Because he can't actually get to the Moon or Mars. When you can't do something useful. Do something flashy. Do you not understand why re-landing a booster rocket is meaningless? It is a waste of money to invent it.
beecee Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 More news on Musk and Space-X.... https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-simplified-everything-you-need-to-know-about-elon-musks-rocket-empire/#:~:text=SpaceX%2C the rocket company founded,of taking humans to Mars. extract: SpaceX grabbed heaps of attention in February of 2018 when it launched Falcon Heavy, the most powerful rocket launched from the US since the Saturn V that sent astronauts to the moon. Basically, three Falcon 9 rockets strapped together, the huge launch system sent a test payload consisting of Musk's personal red Tesla Roadster in the direction of Mars. Two of the three Falcon 9s that made up Falcon Heavy also landed nearly simultaneously at Cape Canaveral, Florida. More than 15 years after his initial trip to Moscow, Musk finally pulled off the international spectacle he had conceived in 2001, and he's also built a viable business in the process. The second launch of Falcon Heavy came April 11, 2019, and was followed by the first successful landing of all three first-stage rocket cores. A third Falcon Heavy launch was conducted June 25, 2019, and SpaceX took reusability a step further by catching the payload fairing (the nose cone that shields the payload during launch) using a ship equipped with a gigantic net. and catching "the payload fairing" https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-camera-captures-incredible-view-of-rocket-part-returning-to-earth/ and..... https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-spacex-aim-to-launch-sn15-mars-rocket-prototype-soon/ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: What impresses me with regards to some of Space-X failures, is the open report system given to news outlets throughout the world. Obviously no hidden variables and all is hung out to dry...impressive as is most of what this man has achieved.
IDNeon Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 (edited) China isn't going for gimmicks. They are going for the Gold. They are using Hydrogen while Musk is pushing for Methane begging to cut costs anywhere he can to look profitable which he isn't. China doesn't care about profit. China's Long March 5B out performs anything SpaceX has. I can give a rat's butt if the rocket can land on a dime. Can it do the job? Right now China's LM5B does the job more than SpaceX's Falcon Heavy. 9 minutes ago, beecee said: the most powerful rocket launched from the US since the Saturn V This also is a bunch of lies. The Orbiter was more powerful than Falcon Heavy. The Orbiter had 6.78million pounds of thrust sea level. Falcon Heavy has only 3.4million pounds of thrust sea level. Seriously. Why are you a liar? Edited May 3, 2021 by IDNeon -1
Ken Fabian Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 There is no viable plan for colonising Mars and the improvements SpaceX have made to rocketry are not nearly sufficient to make Mars colonies possible. I suggest Rockets capable of taking missions to Mars part are just one unresolved issue amongst a plethora. Are we not supposed to point out the problems with Mars ambitions? Sorry but the optimistic enthusiasm looks more like Belief and Faith that Elon the Prophet will lead the way to the Promised Land than it being a rational and reasonable ambition for a worthwhile goal that is within reach. At every point the arguments in favor revert to variations of "Planet B", "Lifeboats for escaping a world with no future", "inevitable", "Destiny", "builds hope", "just like Columbus", "Once there people will thrive" and "new tech will make it easy". None of those address concerns raised about fundamental economics or what it takes to be self sufficient under such circumstances. I should just share the enthusiastic hope and refrain from criticising? Sorry, no. I think the subject needs a healthy round of scepticism; people who otherwise appear reluctant to accept extraordinary claims on trust sound a lot like dogmatic Religionists on this.
beecee Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 4 minutes ago, IDNeon said: China isn't going for gimmicks. They are going for the Gold. That's nice, and they have my support. 5 minutes ago, IDNeon said: China doesn't care about profit. Not really concerned about whether China cares about profit or not. *shrug* 6 minutes ago, IDNeon said: China's Long March 5B out performs anything SpaceX has. Is that right? I bet they still don't get to Mars before the USA/NASA/SPACE-X, or even get to the Moon again before the USA/NASA/SPACE-X 8 minutes ago, IDNeon said: I can give a rat's butt if the rocket can land on a dime. Can it do the job? Right now China's LM5B does the job more than SpaceX's Falcon Heavy. You seem rather emotionally troubled with the first part of that statement. The second part, if correct, great! Still doesn't mean they will get to Mars before you know who. 11 minutes ago, IDNeon said: .This also is a bunch of lies. The Orbiter was more powerful than Falcon Heavy. The Orbiter had 6.2million pounds of thrust sea level. Falcon Heavy has only 1.7million pounds of thrust sea level. Seriously. Why are you a liar? Ummm, I'm quoting articles. Why can't you recognise that fact? You proceed under many false assumptions, and an obvious agenda.
IDNeon Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 Just now, beecee said: Not really concerned about whether China cares about profit or not. *shrug* You should be concerned if you don't want them to win the next space race. Just now, beecee said: Ummm, I'm quoting articles. Why can't you recognise that fact? You proceed under many false assumptions, and an obvious agenda. Wtf? Your articles are flat out LYING. Is 6.78million bigger than 3.4million? 1 minute ago, beecee said: Still doesn't mean they will get to Mars before you know who If their rockets are more powerful than SpaceX's then yes it does mean precisely that. 2 minutes ago, beecee said: That's nice, and they have my support Sounds very naive of you. Like you have no understanding of geopolitics and why things matter. -2
beecee Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 2 minutes ago, IDNeon said: You should be concerned if you don't want them to win the next space race. Why? They won't...that's as clear as anything could be.
IDNeon Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 Just now, beecee said: Why? They won't...that's as clear as anything could be They have better rockets and less budgetary constraints. Why would they NOT win? They also aren't wasting money on relanding rockets on launch pads just to save a few dollars. Saving a few dollars might make sense in a profit motivated industry that is knee capped by limited demand. But China doesn't care about those things and neither does Mars. Mars has no demand and no profit to be gained by going there.
beecee Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 6 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: I think the subject needs a healthy round of scepticism; people who otherwise appear reluctant to accept extraordinary claims on trust sound a lot like dogmatic Religionists on this. No one is denying that there will be many problems to overcome Ken, and no one is denying that new technology will be needed to achieve a manned landing. We all have told you that. What this current debacle is about is someone with an agenda as obvious as dog balls, spraying all the unsupported venom and trolling he can muster at someone [Musk and Space-X] who is at least trying something, achieving much success and with a vision. Time at this stage for a famous quote 1
IDNeon Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, beecee said: no one is denying that new technology will be needed to achieve a manned landing. We all have told you that I'm not denying that either. What I've said over and over is that SpaceX has gotten NO CLOSER to doing any of that. China hasn't either but at least they are working with Liquid Hydrogen. SpaceX isn't even doing that. Quite literally SpaceX has gone BACKWARDS in terms of space technology. Landing a rocket is not impressive. It does NOTHING to get us closer to solving the dV budget problem 9 minutes ago, beecee said: who is at least trying something, achieving much success and with a vision. What the hell is Musk trying? What's his stupid vision? Musk is a crackpot. If space travel were WW2 then Musk is the guy burning down airforce bases testing fire-bat bombs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb Thank God Winston Churchill wasn't a cultist convinced that if only we build more bat bombs we will defeat the Nazis. RESULTS MATTER. Got that? America is in a "post-results" Era. Any crackpot idiot with money can convince people they are successful because they are rich. That's the decayed moral fiber of American society. I hope you to repeat after me. R-E-S-U-L-T-S M-A-T-T-E-R. So I'll ask again. Why did SpaceX lie about being the biggest rocket since SaturnV? Edited May 3, 2021 by IDNeon
beecee Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 Conspiracy nonsense aside and unsupported jealous type claims and criticism of Musk and Space-X aside, here are some more reliable facts......... https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/5-facts-about-the-spacex-starship-that-set-it-apart-from-other-rockets/ 5 Facts About the SpaceX Starship That Set It Apart from Other Rockets: abridged rundowns: [1] It Features Raptors: COST EFFICIENT. AS DETAILED. [2] It Uses Methane:Most important advantage over H is storage safety and most importantly, CH4 can be made on the surface of Mars." [3] It’s Made Out of Steel: "Starship is being made out of steel, specifically a combination of 301 and 304L stainless steel. Titanium and aluminum, both being light and strong metals, tend to fail around 300-400 °F, while steel can tolerate closer to 1500-1600 °F. Steel also tends to become stronger when dealing with low cryogenic temperatures, something the other two do not". [4] It Can Land. . Landing and reuse is central to the SpaceX strategy. [5] It Will Be Able to Refuel in Space: "Science-fiction author Robert Heinlein once said in an interview that “If you can get your ship into orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere.” more reputable info at link.............. Of course Musk is not perfect. He is seen to be less then enthusiastic about covid 19, sadly, while NASA is following all the medical recomendations as detailed. NASA I believe is right with the established goals of the "Artemis program" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program The Artemis Program formally began in December 2017 under the Trump administration, with its initial focus including commercial mining of the Moon. Its stated goal is landing the first woman on the Moon; long-term objectives include establishing an expedition team and a sustainable presence on the Moon, laying the foundation for private companies to build a lunar economy, and eventually sending humans to Mars.[6] The Artemis Program is carried out predominantly by NASA and contracted U.S. commercial spaceflight companies, with international partners including the space agencies of Europe, Luxembourg, Japan, Canada, Italy,[7] Australia, the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates,[8][9] Ukraine, and Brazil.[10] While NASA is leading the effort, it anticipates other nations playing a key role, with the eponymous Artemis Accords opened for signature since October 2020 for governments to participate. In February 2021 the succeeding Biden administration officially endorsed the Artemis Program.[11] In April 2021, NASA contracted SpaceX to develop, manufacture, and fly two lunar missions with the Starship HLS lunar lander;[12] the following month, the Lunar Gateway was announced as an international space station to orbit the Moon. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Here;s hoping that all parties work together to achive this reasonable achieved goal, with the full co-operation of all parties invoved.
iNow Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 9 hours ago, beecee said: Ummm, I'm quoting articles. Why can't you recognise that fact? You proceed under many false assumptions, and an obvious agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood Quote Don't expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth.
dimreepr Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 23 minutes ago, iNow said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
Phi for All Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 10 hours ago, IDNeon said: I already proved it. ! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. Proof is for maths and philosophy. What you haven't done is support your arguments with more than hand-waiving and aggressive assertion you can't back up. Your extraordinary claims haven't been supported with extraordinary evidence. And you really need to dial back on the uncivil tone. It's unnecessary and provocative and makes it look like you're trying to bully rather persuade people who are used to using reason. More rigor, or more of your posts go to Trash.
MigL Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 (edited) Not that I agree with, or like, IDNeon's posting style. Nor do I agree with many of his assertions. We most certainly will go to the Moon, and ( not anytime soon ) Mars. But the 50s and 60s were different times, after the 70s, beancounters made the decisions, and still do to this day. But some I do agree with. Last year was the first year Tesla ever made a profit, yet it is one of the most valuable companies in the world. SpaceX has no new technology, but NASA didn't have to pony-up development money for a new launcher ( to low Earth orbit ). I would not be surprised if SpaceX/E Musk is losing money with every launch. But hey, E Musk gets to make outlandish claims and gets publicity. And similarly to a 'cult', people lap it up. Does the CEO of GM, or the head of NASA, go on Saturday Night Live ? Do they make an announcement about having bought their strangely named kid a variety of bitcoin, which jumps in value several hundred percent in the next couple of days, due to their millions of Instagram followers ? Do they use their launching system to put a car into space ???? Of course not ! These are all E Musk publicity stunts. He's developing his cult of personalty. And of course he'll succeed, because we, as a socety, place popularity above all else. It's the same reason we buy a $1200 iPhones, and replace them yearly when the new model comes out, or buy a $2000 Macbook when a $600 Lenovo or Dell will do the same job, making Apple the most valuable company in the world. Edited May 3, 2021 by MigL 1
Ken Fabian Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 I am not endorsing IDNeon's combative contributions. I remain interested in discussing and debating the real prospects for colonising Mars. I see fundamental problems and am not impressed with "Problems are opportunities" type truisms as responses to them. Those problems are not due to a lack of an optimistic attitude; they need much more substantive solutions than additional optimism. At this point "plans" to colonise Mars are little more than wishful thinking and adding more wishful thinking won't do it.
zapatos Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 19 minutes ago, MigL said: Last year was the first year Tesla ever made a profit, yet it is one of the most valuable companies in the world. Amazon was founded in 1994. It wasn't before 2001 that they showed their first profit; $0.01 per share! Today their market capitalization is $1.7T. There is a reason their value is so high. Stock prices are set by people smarter than me.
StringJunky Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 20 minutes ago, zapatos said: Amazon was founded in 1994. It wasn't before 2001 that they showed their first profit; $0.01 per share! Today their market capitalization is $1.7T. There is a reason their value is so high. Stock prices are set by people smarter than me. I would have thought stock price is the product of a hive mind.
zapatos Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 18 minutes ago, StringJunky said: I would have thought stock price is the product of a hive mind. Roughly 90% of stocks are either purchased in passive funds like indexed funds, or by actively managed funds. Individuals make up the other 10%. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/passive-investing-now-controls-nearly-half-the-us-stock-market.html That means the price of 90% of the stocks is set by what stock analysts are willing to pay. Weak stock pickers don't keep their job very long. 1
beecee Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 48 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: I am not endorsing IDNeon's combative contributions. I remain interested in discussing and debating the real prospects for colonising Mars. I see fundamental problems and am not impressed with "Problems are opportunities" type truisms as responses to them. Those problems are not due to a lack of an optimistic attitude; they need much more substantive solutions than additional optimism. At this point "plans" to colonise Mars are little more than wishful thinking and adding more wishful thinking won't do it. You know my point of view and my thinking, and I know yours. I actually agree with the highlighted section, with particular emphasis on "at this point" And the fundamental problems you see, are the same ones I see. That doesn't mean that we give up as such, and as IDNeon's posts would indicate. But at the same time I also understand that we will return to the Moon, within a reasonable time frame [Artemis] and in a larger time frame, will eventually make it to Mars. The difficulty of the problems to be overcome may mean not for up to half a century perhaps. And at the same time, I understand [as hopefully you do] that we also have much to solve with Earthly based problems, not the least being climate change and global warming, and all the other aspects that go with it. My ownly selfish attitude in any Mars manned expedition, is that it happens before I kick the bucket. Sadly, that most likely won't happen. None of that though detracts from the importance of continued space expeditions and manned landings on other bodies, in the course of time and when we have overcome all the problems that exist. 1 hour ago, MigL said: These are all E Musk publicity stunts. He's developing his cult of personalty. And of course he'll succeed, because we, as a socety, place popularity above all else. It's the same reason we buy a $1200 iPhones, and replace them yearly when the new model comes out, or buy a $2000 Macbook when a $600 Lenovo or Dell will do the same job, making Apple the most valuable company in the world. I have said somewhere, that Elon Musk is not perfect, and probably have overstated his personality, which was to counter the nonsensical over-the-top accusations against his person. Overall though, he is attempting something worthwhile and has been chosen by NASA, PS: I only have an I-phone 7 😉
CharonY Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 28 minutes ago, zapatos said: Roughly 90% of stocks are either purchased in passive funds like indexed funds, or by actively managed funds. Individuals make up the other 10%. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/passive-investing-now-controls-nearly-half-the-us-stock-market.html That means the price of 90% of the stocks is set by what stock analysts are willing to pay. Weak stock pickers don't keep their job very long. I think the recent Gamestop debacle shows that stock market values do not need to correspond anything rational per se (or maybe I am misunderstanding your comments).
iNow Posted May 3, 2021 Posted May 3, 2021 Tesla is publicly traded. SpaceX is not. This is all moot. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now