Space X

[rkbabang]

I don't know what club he thinks he belongs to, but SpaceX doesn't have a club, it stands alone.

 

Maybe the ego club? 

 

The launch and landing was incredible.  I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning.  My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible.  My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy.  This is how it should be.  I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace.

 

Absolutely! These are exciting times.  And don't get me wrong, I hope Blue Origin does become a real company competing for and completing space missions.  It just isn't there yet.

 

[John Hjorth]

Maybe the ego club? 

Elon Musk is an outstanding human being. However investing alongside with him is another matter.

 

 

 

[augustabound]

I think it was a dig from Bezos to Musk.

 

Bezos first ever tweet was about using a used rocket that lifted off and landed. "The rarest of beasts", was the term used.

 

Musk replied basically that Space X has done it multiple times before and it's not so rare.

Musk tweeted multiple times after that about it. He even said that Jeff may not know the difference between orbit and space.

[shhughes1116]

I don't know what club he thinks he belongs to, but SpaceX doesn't have a club, it stands alone.

 

Maybe the ego club? 

 

The launch and landing was incredible.  I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning.  My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible.  My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy.  This is how it should be.  I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace.

 

I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years.  But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me.  Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited.  Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work.  This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children...  Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? 

[rkbabang]

I don't know what club he thinks he belongs to, but SpaceX doesn't have a club, it stands alone.

 

Maybe the ego club? 

 

The launch and landing was incredible.  I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning.  My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible.  My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy.  This is how it should be.  I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace.

 

I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years.  But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me.  Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited.  Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work.  This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children...  Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? 

 

I have the exact opposite reaction.  I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit.  And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid.  The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon.  How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun.  We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money.  Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity.

[shhughes1116]

I don't know what club he thinks he belongs to, but SpaceX doesn't have a club, it stands alone.

 

Maybe the ego club? 

 

The launch and landing was incredible.  I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning.  My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible.  My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy.  This is how it should be.  I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace.

 

I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years.  But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me.  Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited.  Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work.  This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children...  Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? 

 

I have the exact opposite reaction.  I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit.  And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid.  The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon.  How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun.  We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money.  Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity.

 

I would have not responded to you comment, except that you stated that taxpayer money is stolen.  Your political biases are very apparent from your post, and thus I now I feel the need to point out a few basic facts: 

1.  If you look back at history, government has generally been responsible for opening up frontiers using taxpayer money.  The Wright Brothers would never have been successful without that initial contract from the US Army Signal Corp.  The United States would have struggled to settle the Western Frontier if not for the taxpayer-funded Lewis and Clark expedition to map the territory, the taxpayer-funded army outposts in the West, the Transcontinental railroad, etc. 

2.  We would not be in space in the first place if it wasn't for the government.  Don't forget that the entire reason SpaceX is able to fund this adventure is with taxpayer money that is funding future resupply of the International Space Station.  Remind me, did private companies fund Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle,  the ISS or SpaceLab, or did the taxpayer?  Most of these commercial companies (with the exception of Virgin) are innovating precisely because they are competing for government contracts.)

3.  If you compare the amount of money spent on the space program to the scientific advances directly attributed to the space program, the ROIC is substantially positive.  However, government is generally not allowed to patent taxpayer-funded scientific advances, so the private sector takes them and exploits them.  If you look at the American aviation industry over the last 50 years, the primary reason we have been competitive is because private companies were able to exploit taxpayer-funded R&D in hard science and avionics (funded by DoD, NASA, NOAA, etc).  If you look at the renaissance in biotech that is occurring right now, a big reason that is happening is because many of these companies are exploiting taxpayer-funded R&D that was conducted to answer basic fundamental questions.  The entire reason this taxpayer money was spent on R&D @ NIH and HHS is because commercial enterprises were unwilling to do this science in the first place.

 

Just like space, and just like the moon, the Martian frontier will also be opened up by the government, using taxpayer money, because commercial firms will be unable to show a positive ROIC.  But don't worry, commercial firms will come along for the ride, because they will benefit financially from the government contracts. 

     

 

   

[rkbabang]

I don't know what club he thinks he belongs to, but SpaceX doesn't have a club, it stands alone.

 

Maybe the ego club? 

 

The launch and landing was incredible.  I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning.  My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible.  My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy.  This is how it should be.  I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace.

 

I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years.  But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me.  Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited.  Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work.  This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children...  Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? 

 

I have the exact opposite reaction.  I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit.  And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid.  The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon.  How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun.  We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money.  Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity.

 

I would have not responded to you comment, except that you stated that taxpayer money is stolen.  Your political biases are very apparent from your post, and thus I now I feel the need to point out a few basic facts: 

1.  If you look back at history, government has generally been responsible for opening up frontiers using taxpayer money.  The Wright Brothers would never have been successful without that initial contract from the US Army Signal Corp.  The United States would have struggled to settle the Western Frontier if not for the taxpayer-funded Lewis and Clark expedition to map the territory, the taxpayer-funded army outposts in the West, the Transcontinental railroad, etc. 

2.  We would not be in space in the first place if it wasn't for the government.  Don't forget that the entire reason SpaceX is able to fund this adventure is with taxpayer money that is funding future resupply of the International Space Station.  Remind me, did private companies fund Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle,  the ISS or SpaceLab, or did the taxpayer?  Most of these commercial companies (with the exception of Virgin) are innovating precisely because they are competing for government contracts.)

3.  If you compare the amount of money spent on the space program to the scientific advances directly attributed to the space program, the ROIC is substantially positive.  However, government is generally not allowed to patent taxpayer-funded scientific advances, so the private sector takes them and exploits them.  If you look at the American aviation industry over the last 50 years, the primary reason we have been competitive is because private companies were able to exploit taxpayer-funded R&D in hard science and avionics (funded by DoD, NASA, NOAA, etc).  If you look at the renaissance in biotech that is occurring right now, a big reason that is happening is because many of these companies are exploiting taxpayer-funded R&D that was conducted to answer basic fundamental questions.  The entire reason this taxpayer money was spent on R&D @ NIH and HHS is because commercial enterprises were unwilling to do this science in the first place.

 

Just like space, and just like the moon, the Martian frontier will also be opened up by the government, using taxpayer money, because commercial firms will be unable to show a positive ROIC.  But don't worry, commercial firms will come along for the ride, because they will benefit financially from the government contracts. 

 

 

Just to clear up a few things.

 

1) What was done with the money afterwards has no bearing on whether or not it was stolen.  If I put a gun to your head and steal your money, and then proceed to do something wonderful with it, it doesn't mean that the money wasn't stolen.  When you take money from someone against their will that is theft.  Always.

 

2) If I steal your money and do something that has never been done before, that doesn't mean that only I could have done it.  It probably means that the private economy wasn't ready to spend its money on that yet.  Money is always put to its most useful current purpose.  What you don't see in all of your above scenarios is what didn't happen with all of the money spent by government on those things and what all of the people involved didn't spend their time doing.  If that was the absolute best use of those resources then the private economy would have produced the same results, if that wasn't the best use of those resources then the world was a poorer place for those events occurring, not a richer one.

 

3) I don't want to go to Mars until it is profitable for the human race to do so.  The best way to make sure that is the case is to keep the government out of it.

 

[Cardboard]

What they are doing seems incredibly complex and I guess cheaper but, wasn't the space shuttle a more novel idea?

 

They were re-using the space shuttle that was landing on almost a regular airport runway. Both rocket boosters were re-used after they landed in the sea. The only thing that got destroyed was the hydrogen tank.

 

And that was done 35 years ago!

 

This rocket stuff with some still blowing up feels like Sputnik and the Apollo program compared to what I was raised looking at on TV.

 

Cardboard

[augustabound]

What they are doing seems incredibly complex and I guess cheaper but, wasn't the space shuttle a more novel idea?

 

They were re-using the space shuttle that was landing on almost a regular airport runway. Both rocket boosters were re-used after they landed in the sea. The only thing that got destroyed was the hydrogen tank.

 

And that was done 35 years ago!

 

This rocket stuff with some still blowing up feels like Sputnik and the Apollo program compared to what I was raised looking at on TV.

 

Cardboard

Chris Hadfield said in an interview that the shuttles were just getting too old.

He said they decided after the 2003 Columbia accident that they needed to finish the space station with the shuttles and retire them.

 

 

[Jurgis]

IIRC (maybe Musk said that), despite of "reuse" shuttles had huge "repreparation" cost between flights pretty much negating the reuse argument. I don't have specifics. Someone can Bing it I'm sure.

[Cardboard]

Ok.

 

So what about some kind of plane that is able to take-off. You fuel its external booster once it is at 40,000 feet with a larger plane (like those used by the Air Force). Then it turns the booster switch on and gets into orbit. And since it has ceramic plates on it, it can re-enter the atmosphere. Is that impossible?

 

Seems to me like it would be a much safer, cheaper and reliable way to fly people and payloads than the current method.

 

I can understand all the discussion about the private being more efficient and less prone to corruption but, is this vertical take-off the best and ultimate way?

 

Cardboard

[Jurgis]

I think you are talking about something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne

Apparently, this would need way more energy than it has right now to reach orbit.

Also way more heatshielding to reenter.

 

Accelerating a spacecraft to orbital speed requires more than 60 times as much energy as accelerating it to Mach 3. It would also require an elaborate heat shield to safely dissipate that energy during re-entry

Not clear when they will get there or even if they are planning to.

[JBird]

Cardboard: What they're are doing seems incredibly complex and I guess cheaper but, wasn't the space shuttle a more novel idea? They were re-using the space shuttle that was landing on almost a regular airport runway.

 

Elon: A lot of people think it was reusable—but the main tank was thrown away every time. Even the parts that did come back were so difficult to refurbish that the shuttle cost four times more than an expendable rocket of equivalent payload capability.

 

Cardboard: Ok. So what about some kind of plane that is able to take-off. Seems to me like it would be a much safer, cheaper and reliable way to fly people and payloads than the current method.

 

Why does it seem cheaper and safer to you? I'm surprised that anyone on this forum has such expertise in aerospace engineering. What is your professional background?

 

 

[JBird]

Accelerating a spacecraft to orbital speed requires more than 60 times as much energy as accelerating it to Mach 3. It would also require an elaborate heat shield to safely dissipate that energy during re-entry

Not clear when they will get there or even if they are planning to.

 

I just read about Falcon Heavy last night on SpaceX's website.

 

"When Falcon Heavy lifts off next year, it will be the most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor of two. With the ability to lift into orbit over 53 metric tons (117,000 lb)--a mass equivalent to a 737 jetliner loaded with passengers, crew, luggage and fuel--Falcon Heavy can lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy, at one-third the cost."

 

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

 

 

[rkbabang]

The Space Shuttle was about propaganda value and looking futuristic on TV. It was more expensive than regular rockets and carried less. Whereas Spacex is trying to be cost effective and even profitable.  You could easily spend a million dollars to build a robotic vacuum cleaner that looked like the maid from the Jetsons pushing a vacuum. But is it really progress if a Roomba is many times cheaper and cleans better? That is the difference between government and private.

[Cardboard]

Just because one big shot (two with Bozo) launches rockets straight up, you think it is the ultimate formulae. I guess that I should move to Kazakshtan and pledge allegiance to the USSR. Indeed, it took geniuses after World War II to actually figure out that ICBM's were feasible.

 

I just have a mechanical engineering background but, I also know that discoveries will surprise you in the future. I also know that lift and decreasing air friction is a very useful and economical force to get you up to a certain altitude.

 

There was also this guy who planned to make an inflatable 10 mile high tower from which he would launch space flights. Sounds like crazy but, awake me in 10 years time.

 

10 years ago, I thought a flip-phone was the thing!

 

Cardboard

[Cardboard]

And since we have this efficiency discussion. Why do we have to continually refuel, re-feed that space station? Do you guys sincerely believe that it could mean a life savior if life was ruined on Earth? Does it really bring new discoveries at the moment?

 

Let's fly an old F-15E from Andrew Air Force Base and blow it up with an anti-satellite missile that we used to have in the 80's during the Star Wars program.

 

Cardboard

[JBird]

Just because one big shot (two with Bozo) launches rockets straight up, you think it is the ultimate formulae.

 

Huh?? I have no position on the best means of space travel whatsoever. What did I say to even hint that I did?

 

I just asked you a why question...

[Jurgis]

Ultimately space elevator is the way to go.

 

Probably won't happen for another 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

[rkbabang]

The horse wasn't the ultimate means of human ground transportation and neither is the modern automobile. You do what makes sense with the technology you have.

[eclecticvalue]

Ultimately space elevator is the way to go.

 

Probably won't happen for another 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

 

I can't imagine what it feels like going up an elevator to space. It will be crazy to see a structure like that.

[Pelagic]

Ultimately space elevator is the way to go.

 

Probably won't happen for another 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

 

Space elevators are probably a non-starter, neat idea though. You'd have "anchor" it in geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles) while low earth orbit is quite a bit closer for example the ISS is at about 250 miles. You can't exactly ride the elevator up to the LEO floor and hop off either since you need horizontal speed to stay in orbit.

 

If I were forced to bet on our next path to orbit after chemical rockets it would be a very long coil "gun" up the side of a mountain at the equator. Chemical rockets will probably still be our only ticket off this rock for the next couple decades though which is why getting their cost down is such a monumental achievement.

[rkbabang]

Ultimately space elevator is the way to go.

 

Probably won't happen for another 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

 

Space elevators are probably a non-starter, neat idea though. You'd have "anchor" it in geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles) while low earth orbit is quite a bit closer for example the ISS is at about 250 miles. You can't exactly ride the elevator up to the LEO floor and hop off either since you need horizontal speed to stay in orbit.

 

If I were forced to bet on our next path to orbit after chemical rockets it would be a very long coil "gun" up the side of a mountain at the equator. Chemical rockets will probably still be our only ticket off this rock for the next couple decades though which is why getting their cost down is such a monumental achievement.

 

With current technology you are correct a space elevator is not possible.  I think you will see one in your lifetime however.  The rail gun method will only work for cargo, never for humans.  The acceleration would kill you.

 

[Cardboard]

My challenge is simply what it is. It is not much different IMO than Musk himself challenging the high speed train in California to push the idea of the hyperloop.

 

I still think that rockets are unreliable and unsafe if you are to look at the percentage of catastrophic failures and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to observe that!

 

Now if there is nothing cheaper, after including all catastrophic failure costs including loss of life and payloads, then so be it. Maybe that Red Bull will do it with a balloon?

 

Brings me back to another question. Where is Lockheed, Boeing and all the rest of them? They have a ton of experience, manufacturing, patents, etc. They make ICBM's on a regular basis. They can't make the same stuff as startups Musk and Bezos? The rate of return is too unattractive?

 

I find that bizarre since Tesla has competition from Nissan, Chevrolet and some others. And actually much cheaper products doing the same thing. Sorry for Tesla owners but, that is all the car has extra: luxury.

 

He has competition too for his solar panels.

 

Cardboard

[Pelagic]

Ultimately space elevator is the way to go.

 

Probably won't happen for another 20 years or so. Possibly longer.

 

Space elevators are probably a non-starter, neat idea though. You'd have "anchor" it in geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles) while low earth orbit is quite a bit closer for example the ISS is at about 250 miles. You can't exactly ride the elevator up to the LEO floor and hop off either since you need horizontal speed to stay in orbit.

 

If I were forced to bet on our next path to orbit after chemical rockets it would be a very long coil "gun" up the side of a mountain at the equator. Chemical rockets will probably still be our only ticket off this rock for the next couple decades though which is why getting their cost down is such a monumental achievement.

 

With current technology you are correct a space elevator is not possible.  I think you will see one in your lifetime however.  The rail gun method will only work for cargo, never for humans.  The acceleration would kill you.

 

A coil gun is a series of railgun, each providing acceleration which could be scaled to achieve the necessary velocity over a long track theoretically making the acceleration survivable for cargo and humans.

 

One thing everyone who's a proponent of space elevators seems to miss is this. They require an extraordinary amount of engineering and materials science to construct on Earth. If we're to the point where constructing one is a possibility, why not just build it on the moon where construction and design requirements would be orders of magnitude easier and then just use lunar resources for construction.