StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Watched on CNN.

God damn, its nice to see some good news for a change. My compliments to Elon Musk.

You're complimenting a guy who undercut the competition on cost by being the first to introduce the worst and illegal corporate labor practices to the US space industry? Interesting.

That was spectacular! Boosters returning together and landing looked like something straight out of sci fi. Now just one more burn from second stage and Tesla Roadster will be on escape trajectory. Still no news from center core. Video feed vent out end not returned. Probably crashed and took out the antenna. Still major success for SpaceX. Given the history of landings seems that fixing whatever caused a crash will be easy.

Sea Skimmer wrote: ↑2018-02-06 04:54pm You're complimenting a guy who undercut the competition on cost by being the first to introduce the worst and illegal corporate labor practices to the US space industry? Interesting.

Wasn't aware of that. Source?

But even still- he may be an asshole, but frankly, I'm just glad to see some fucking progress on space. Ideally, it would be NASA doing this. But we all know how likely that is.

"And rockets proudly land upon their tailfins,
As God and Robert Heinlein meant them to."

Watched it live this time. An impressive sight; and I got a good laugh from the "Don't Panic" sign in the car's dashboard (printed in large friendly letters, of course). Just a few more hours until the final burn to take it out of Earth orbit and heading out. Then we can call it a success.

Here's hoping we get news of the core stage landing (or not) soon. It looked to me that there was a sudden blast of wind/seawater covering the drone and the camera just before the stage was due to land; looked a bit ominous.

The BBC report just updated; apparently the core stage ran its tanks dry and (fortunately) missed the drone ship. That must have been the splash we saw on the camera. Still, two out of three landings on a maiden flight is a good showing.

Just wait till he has industrial platforms up there. Who's going to enforce safety regs in space?

InsaneTD wrote: ↑2018-02-07 01:35am Just wait till he has industrial platforms up there. Who's going to enforce safety regs in space?

Considering the amount of money it takes to put and keep something up there... probably themselves, because they won't want to waste that kind of money by someone falling asleep at the desk with a lit cigarette or whatever.

That and the mountains of bad PR if there's a fatal accident once they start crewed flights. Especially if, as CNN's coverage reported, Musk is going to be flying billionaire tourists who's estates could bog him down in billion-dollar wrongful death lawsuits.

As much as I don't trust corporations to regulate themselves, and as much as I expect that there will, sadly, be some horrible failures, I do think that the costs involved, and the environment that they're operating in, will force a certain level of pragmatic concern for safety.

To quote Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory (yeah, I know a lot of people hate the show, but the quote fits):

"Ah, gravity, thou art a heartless bitch."

Oh, and funny side note- IIRC, one of the commentators they had on CNN was named Miles O'Brien (or was it O'Brian). Thought that was worth a chuckle.

Update to the update: looks like there was some kind of engine ignition failure. The Boostback and Entry burns light up three of the nine engines (the actual landing burn only uses the centre engine), but two of them didn't ignite.

On the regulation side: Until such a time as SpaceX is entirely orbital and becomes a sovereign state under God-Emperor Musk, they will still be subject to the laws and enforcement of the United States.

Well, if Elon gets his way he, or his descendants, may well set up the first corporate-run state on Mars. But that is a long way away.

SpottedKitty wrote: ↑2018-02-08 09:24pm Update to the update: looks like there was some kind of engine ignition failure. The Boostback and Entry burns light up three of the nine engines (the actual landing burn only uses the centre engine), but two of them didn't ignite.

The cores use three engines for landing burns, and the center core, which was to land down range on the drone ship, only had one of those three engines ignite. The ignition system used involves an injection of triethylaluminum-triethylborane into the combustion chamber because while liquid oxygen and kerosene will burn, they do not spontaneously ignite. Musk said that the outer engines didn't get the TEA-TEB, and that is why the core hit the water at about 300 miles per hour.

TimothyC wrote: ↑2018-02-09 08:23am The cores use three engines for landing burns, and the center core, which was to land down range on the drone ship, only had one of those three engines ignite.

Is this a change from the previous singleton Falcon-9 landings? I'm sure the ones I've watched only used a single engine for the final landing burn; the exhaust plume is much wider at the nozzles when it's three in a row burning.

Thanks for the igniter info, I hadn't come across that before.

SpottedKitty wrote: ↑2018-02-09 10:14pm

TimothyC wrote: ↑2018-02-09 08:23am The cores use three engines for landing burns, and the center core, which was to land down range on the drone ship, only had one of those three engines ignite.

Is this a change from the previous singleton Falcon-9 landings? I'm sure the ones I've watched only used a single engine for the final landing burn; the exhaust plume is much wider at the nozzles when it's three in a row burning.

Thanks for the igniter info, I hadn't come across that before.

Yes, this is a change from most of the prior launches. Up until the GovSat-1 launch earlier this year, they did a single engine burn. B1032.2, the GovSat-1 core, did a three engine burn into the water, and validated that such burns work. the side cores (B1023.2 and B1025.2) on the Heavy launch did this for their landings back at the cape. By using three engines, normally one would expect a burn that is 33% of the length of a single engine burn, but it's actually slightly less because the rocket doesn't have to fight gravity for as long.

Note that the decimal place and the digit after indicates which flight it is for the booster with .1 being the first and so on.

So, oligarch throws junk up into space using state money, to advertise for his own car company that allegedly runs a zero-advertising budget (but still loses over 500 million usd a year).

People find it inspiring. Those who find throwing useless junk into space "inspiring" must ask themselves, will they also find a junkyard on the Moon "inspiring"?

K. A. Pital wrote: ↑2018-02-10 07:18am So, oligarch throws junk up into space using state money, to advertise for his own car company that allegedly runs a zero-advertising budget (but still loses over 500 million usd a year).

People find it inspiring. Those who find throwing useless junk into space "inspiring" must ask themselves, will they also find a junkyard on the Moon "inspiring"?

You really ought to end every post with "Ceterum censeo America delendam esse!"

Tribble wrote: ↑2018-02-10 11:13amI was waiting for your "I hate westerners!" post and I'm rather surprised it took this long. Are you slowing down with age?

Only a tiny bit.

Tribble wrote: ↑2018-02-10 11:13amYou really ought to end every post with "Ceterum censeo America delendam esse!"

I think I had something similar in my signature for a few years.

K. A. Pital wrote: ↑2018-02-10 11:25am

Tribble wrote: ↑2018-02-10 11:13amI was waiting for your "I hate westerners!" post and I'm rather surprised it took this long. Are you slowing down with age?

Only a tiny bit.

Tribble wrote: ↑2018-02-10 11:13amYou really ought to end every post with "Ceterum censeo America delendam esse!"

I think I had something similar in my signature for a few years.

Huh I didn't release I deleted half my post lol

As for useless junk, Im sure someone will come along and give the car a tune up one day, though I imagine that after a few million years in space it might require more than an oil change

Tribble wrote: ↑2018-02-10 11:45amHuh I didn't release I deleted half my post lol

As for useless junk, Im sure someone will come along and give the car a tune up one day, though I imagine that after a few million years in space it might require more than an oil change

Or maybe this guy will come and clean it up

Yeah, you can complain about Elon Musk and capitalism all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is actually useful and necessary technology he's developing here. Should be NASA doing it, but... well, NASA hasn't had its act together on manned spaceflight since the '70s, really (through no fault of NASA, but rather incompetent and apathetic "leadership' from multiple Congresses and Presidents).

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2018-02-10 01:42pm Yeah, you can complain about Elon Musk and capitalism all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is actually useful and necessary technology he's developing here. Should be NASA doing it, but... well, NASA hasn't had its act together on manned spaceflight since the '70s, really (through no fault of NASA, but rather incompetent and apathetic "leadership' from multiple Congresses and Presidents).

I admit GMO is a useful technology. Doesn't make Monsanto a good corporation.

Neither does the excitement about spaceflight detract from the fact Musk is a terrible human being and what he's doing overall and in space exploration as such is of very, very questionable value.

NASA is a Bad? Sorry but two wrongs don't make a right.

K. A. Pital wrote: ↑2018-02-10 02:13pm

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2018-02-10 01:42pm Yeah, you can complain about Elon Musk and capitalism all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is actually useful and necessary technology he's developing here. Should be NASA doing it, but... well, NASA hasn't had its act together on manned spaceflight since the '70s, really (through no fault of NASA, but rather incompetent and apathetic "leadership' from multiple Congresses and Presidents).

I admit GMO is a useful technology. Doesn't make Monsanto a good corporation.

Neither does the excitement about spaceflight detract from the fact Musk is a terrible human being and what he's doing overall and in space exploration as such is of very, very questionable value.

NASA is a Bad? Sorry but two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not disagreeing about Musk, but I do question your claim that a new, more powerful heavy-lift launch vehicle is of "...very, very questionable value."

It strikes me that, once again, you are so focused on a single issue (hatred of Western capitalism) that you prioritize it over all others, and are willing to attack genuinely worthwhile things in order to spite the One True Enemy.

Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that even deeply flawed people, or deeply flawed systems, can produce good results on occasion. And that when said good result is to produce something that's necessary to humanity's long-term future, I am hesitant to reject it out of hand.

Comrade has a point. What other purpose, than showing other men how big his balls are, did it serve Musk tossing out a toy for rich idiots and wannbe rich idiots?

The same question could be asked of the entire Falcon X project, as America's already demonstrated they no longer pretend they care about space exploration, once it no longer serves as propaganda, and only keep NASSA around to serve as fodder for willfully ignorant conspiracy ravings.

All is vanity.