I’ve always been a big fan of magnetic levitation trains in vacuum tubes like the Virgin hyperloop. This project is inspiring. It could bring the globe together and better the lives of everyone on the planet. The concept is from Musk and it’s awesome on many different levels, but he’s not backing that horse. He wants to go to space, but rather than working with the maglev technology of a Startram he’s trying to re-invent the wheel with fossil fuel based rockets. To add insult to injury for his first package into space he sent a Tesla as a publicity stunt. I share the sadness for the waste of an opportunity for research and advancement that this represents.
http://www.iflscience.com/space/not-everyone-is-happy-about-elon-musk-sending-his-car-into-space/
And it’s not like Musk isn’t renewable energy conscious. His solar collecting shingles are very nice, and pretty cool. Even if I’m his Powerwall is un-inspiring it’s at least an attempt to move away from fossil fuels.
Now I tried to think positively about this. I tried to convince myself that this is just advertising, and it’s working. I should admit that a lot of people are talking about it. I’ll also admit that as this was the maiden voyage so as Musk said, “there is a good chance this monster rocket blows upâ€, but the whole thing just seems like such a waste to me. He could have easily sent up expendable experiments, or I’m sure he could have gotten some investors to take a risk with a contingency that if the rocket blew up they wouldn’t have to pay for the trip, but if it was successful they had to pay him and he could have recouped some much-needed capital on his passion project.
I get the infatuation with space, but it just seems like to me that he’s throwing reason out the window in pursue of his dreams.
It does seem like a flamboyant extravaganza of self promotion. There are others; Donald Trump, Pat Robertson, Mohamed Ali. Musk is the smartest of them, but he does like the lime-light, and there is no shortage of ego there. I wouldn't call his actions in poor taste, because I'm not sure what his purpose even is, but there is an element of craziness in it. It's like a rich guy flying his private jet to Paris for lunch. It serves no dietary purpose that can't be served more efficiently by simpler means. This is the way the rich get attention. Poor people are lucky to get a small role in a Jack Ass movie, or find themselves on the Jerry Springer Show. Yes, the money could be more wisely spent, but that is not the objective here.
In the end, I don't have any particular nagging feelings about this one way or the other. We live in a crazy world, and there are a lot more crazy things going on all around us, and we even participate in some of them. And the big kicker is that if I wanted to stop Elon Musk from behaving this way, I wouldn't have a snowball's chance of influencing him one way or the other.
Robert Goddard developed the idea of "dummy payloads" when testing rockets. NASA uses it routinely. The Ariane rocket used the concept. Musk just used a used car.
Don't we already have enough junk floating around in space? Now they want to start sending old car bodies up there? I'm picturing the Guardians of the Galaxy quietly drifting through a debris field that includes rusty cars and discarded refrigerators, a space junk yard open to salvaging, but a part of space where we can keep all the junk in one place.
Quote from: SGOS on February 10, 2018, 05:26:47 AM
Don't we already have enough junk floating around in space? Now they want to start sending old car bodies up there? I'm picturing the Guardians of the Galaxy quietly drifting through a debris field that includes rusty cars and discarded refrigerators, a space junk yard open to salvaging, but a part of space where we can keep all the junk in one place.
Whatever was in the capsule would be up there "forever". You can't test if a rocket will lift a payload of X tons unless you test it with a payload of X tons.
And if you would compare the amount of junk we've put up there with the amount already in the solar system you'd be enlightened. There is an issue with junk in Near Earth Orbit (NEO) but the Tesla wasn't hanging around, it was heading for Mars orbit, hopefully.
Hey, if you know how to put a drydock up in orbit just using maglev technology then I'm all ears!
My Favorite Technologyâ,,¢
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 10, 2018, 05:33:05 AM
Whatever was in the capsule would be up there "forever". You can't test if a rocket will lift a payload of X tons unless you test it with a payload of X tons.
And if you would compare the amount of junk we've put up there with the amount already in the solar system you'd be enlightened. There is an issue with junk in Near Earth Orbit (NEO) but the Tesla wasn't hanging around, it was heading for Mars orbit, hopefully.
Not true. Any orbital payload can be designed to be safely de-orbited. If not, it is money talking.
Elon is Deep State. They wouldn't let him attempt to launch a spy satellite, if he wasn't. And he is too big to fail, so he will continue to get additional payloads to launch, even given failures. Think Lehman Brothers.
I have a friend, working on Orion, the next manned project by Nasa. A real organization.
As usual, you didn't read my post.
Quote from: SGOS on February 10, 2018, 05:26:47 AM
Don't we already have enough junk floating around in space? Now they want to start sending old car bodies up there? I'm picturing the Guardians of the Galaxy quietly drifting through a debris field that includes rusty cars and discarded refrigerators, a space junk yard open to salvaging, but a part of space where we can keep all the junk in one place.
Almost all space junk orbits the Earth. And yes, that's a problem because our new satellites are sometimes hit with debris from the old satellites.
But the Tesla has cleared Earth orbit (the prime collision hazard location) and is currently 700,000+ miles from Earth (http://www.whereisroadster.com/), headed for Mars and perhaps reaching as far as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The chance that the car will hit anything we would care about is literally astronomical.
That may be one of the few times Elon has shown some responsibility. Not common among the Elite.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 10:14:57 AM
That may be one of the few times Elon has shown some responsibility. Not common among the Elite.
"I got a used car to Mars! I can get YOU to Mars!"
Quote from: Coveny on February 10, 2018, 01:15:08 AM
He wants to go to space, but rather than working with the maglev technology of a Startram he’s trying to re-invent the wheel with fossil fuel based rockets. To add insult to injury for his first package into space he sent a Tesla as a publicity stunt. I share the sadness for the waste of an opportunity for research and advancement that this represents.
Warning: Long post.
Many years ago I attended a talk by Burt Rutan while at an aviation convention. Look him up if you don't know who he is. Burt and his sideburns spoke for the better part of an hour and half. He started by talking about how the Wright flyer that flew in 1903 doesn't look much at all like the airplanes we have today. The Wright flyer is really sort of proof of concept machine and nothing more. It could fly short distances and carry one passenger at most. But it really didn't have much utility beyond that and never would. The design just didn't allow for the kind of utility that would be needed if any kind of aviation industry was ever going to happen.
So fast forward 20 years and lots of aircraft design innovations happened which collectively led us to the default aircraft design we still use today. Almost none of those design innovations happened at the hands of the Wright brothers. Instead they happened at the hands of countless individuals who had looked at what the Wright's had achieved and said if they can do it, maybe I can do it better. In those early years, aircraft companies sprung up in garages and back yards all over the country. Lots design ideas were tried. Some worked well, others failed miserably. But all those different individuals trying all those ideas are what led to the design innovations which allowed a commercial aviation industry to be born and begin to grow. IOW it wasn't the Wrights who gave us commercial aviation, it was all those other folks who decided to try their hand at the game and see what improvements they could make.
Burt's talk then shifted to the 1950's and 1960's and the space race. He talked about how NASA showed us that rockets could be built that could get us into space and get us back. But unlike the early 1900's there was no revolution which followed with people deciding to see what kind of rocket they could build in their back yard. There was no movement of private individuals and companies deciding to try their hand at space travel and trying to figure out what innovations could be found to make it more practical and affordable.
That never happened with space travel the way it did with air travel. But imagine if it did. Where would be today if hundreds of startups had appeared in the late 60's all trying to make their own space vehicle designs. Its easy to imagine that had that happened, getting into space would be much more affordable and accessible today.
So if Elon wants to try to light that spark by putting one of his cars in space, let him. Its an early first step in getting us to a place where private space vehicle companies are innovating and moving the needle slowly closer to a world where space travel is as common as getting on bus.
Could he have done it differently and loaded the thing with experiments? Sure. But guaranteed he would have gotten 1/10 the amount of press coverage. So put experiments on board and maybe this flight leads to one or two more flights. Or make it a press event like he did and this flight leads to ten or twenty more. Which is better? Elon is a big picture guy and he hasn't failed much so far. There are certainly worse horses you could bet on.
I'm reminded of "The Man Who Sold The Moon", by Heinlein.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 10, 2018, 05:09:11 AM
Robert Goddard developed the idea of "dummy payloads" when testing rockets. NASA uses it routinely. The Ariane rocket used the concept. Musk just used a used car.
I disagree with that method. It would be easy to send up expendable experiments that created the useable weight, and I'm sure people would freely accept the risk of it blowing up.
Quote from: Jason78 on February 10, 2018, 06:04:43 AM
Hey, if you know how to put a drydock up in orbit just using maglev technology then I'm all ears!
Yes it's called Startram gen-1. You shoot the freight into space and then send humans up to construct it through the regular method. Then once it pays for itself you create Startram gen-2 and get rid of the fossil fuel component completely. The weight of getting freight into space costs a LOT more fossil fuels, over all, than getting humans into space. (because we need a lot more freight up there than we need humans up there)
Quote from: Johan on February 10, 2018, 12:47:20 PM
Could he have done it differently and loaded the thing with experiments? Sure. But guaranteed he would have gotten 1/10 the amount of press coverage. So put experiments on board and maybe this flight leads to one or two more flights. Or make it a press event like he did and this flight leads to ten or twenty more. Which is better? Elon is a big picture guy and he hasn't failed much so far. There are certainly worse horses you could bet on.
I think you are exaggerating the advertising effect of the publicity stunt as well as the belief that 10 times advertising equates to 10 times as many flights. I'll give you that sending the car created a bigger buzz about SpaceX, but those experiments could have created more capital rather than just brand recognition, and at this point I don't think there are any rich elite on the planet who didn't know that Musk was running SpaceX and are now going to invest because they heard about him sending a Tesla into space.
Quote from: Coveny on February 10, 2018, 02:57:00 PM
I disagree with that method. It would be easy to send up expendable experiments that created the useable weight, and I'm sure people would freely accept the risk of it blowing up.
But they don't. Any experiment that has designers who don't mind it blowing up isn't really worth it, and is probably dubiously designed for launch to boot. The dummy payloads usually have devices in them to record all the data they can grab, but that's not mandatory. Goddard was happy if the chute deployed.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 10, 2018, 03:21:28 PM
But they don't. Any experiment that has designers who don't mind it blowing up isn't really worth it, and is probably dubiously designed for launch to boot. The dummy payloads usually have devices in them to record all the data they can grab, but that's not mandatory. Goddard was happy if the chute deployed.
So your stance is that 100s of low cost high quality camera probes that aren't a big deal if they blow up isn't feasible? Because everything we have taking pictures out and about in the universe is OLD and doesn't have very good quality. If they blew up it wouldn't be a big deal, but if they made it you'd have 100s of live feeds across the universe sending back data and expanding human knowledge.
Quote from: Coveny on February 10, 2018, 03:50:06 PM
So your stance is that 100s of low cost high quality camera probes that aren't a big deal if they blow up isn't feasible? Because everything we have taking pictures out and about in the universe is OLD and doesn't have very good quality. If they blew up it wouldn't be a big deal, but if they made it you'd have 100s of live feeds across the universe sending back data and expanding human knowledge.
Thanks for the strawman. I won't be repeating this across the internet.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 10, 2018, 03:58:55 PM
Thanks for the strawman. I won't be repeating this across the internet.
The whole post is about a useful payload over a dummy payload, there's no straw here...
Quote from: Coveny on February 10, 2018, 05:43:02 PM
The whole post is about a useful payload over a dummy payload, there's no straw here...
OF
COURSE
NOT
Quote from: Coveny on February 10, 2018, 01:15:08 AM
I’ve always been a big fan of magnetic levitation trains in vacuum tubes like the Virgin hyperloop. This project is inspiring. It could bring the globe together and better the lives of everyone on the planet. The concept is from Musk and it’s awesome on many different levels, but he’s not backing that horse. He wants to go to space, but rather than working with the maglev technology of a Startram he’s trying to re-invent the wheel with fossil fuel based rockets. To add insult to injury for his first package into space he sent a Tesla as a publicity stunt. I share the sadness for the waste of an opportunity for research and advancement that this represents.
http://www.iflscience.com/space/not-everyone-is-happy-about-elon-musk-sending-his-car-into-space/
And it’s not like Musk isn’t renewable energy conscious. His solar collecting shingles are very nice, and pretty cool. Even if I’m his Powerwall is un-inspiring it’s at least an attempt to move away from fossil fuels.
Now I tried to think positively about this. I tried to convince myself that this is just advertising, and it’s working. I should admit that a lot of people are talking about it. I’ll also admit that as this was the maiden voyage so as Musk said, “there is a good chance this monster rocket blows upâ€, but the whole thing just seems like such a waste to me. He could have easily sent up expendable experiments, or I’m sure he could have gotten some investors to take a risk with a contingency that if the rocket blew up they wouldn’t have to pay for the trip, but if it was successful they had to pay him and he could have recouped some much-needed capital on his passion project.
I get the infatuation with space, but it just seems like to me that he’s throwing reason out the window in pursue of his dreams.
I don't mind at all that it's a publicity stunt. The American space program has needed a good one for a long time.
We'll dispense with the fossil fuel canard right nowâ€"what do you expect them to use? Yes, yes, you're going to say liquid hydrogen, but there are stability and safety issues to keep in mind as well. And you're not going to get to space on solar power. They have to burn
something. RP-1 is a stable and powerful rocket fuel. Keep in mind that it's the fuel of choice for the most successful rocket families -- the Delta II and III, the Soyuz-FG and Zenit, the privately-built Antares, which delivers the Cygnus supply modules to the ISS.
As to the payload, it's simple: on the trial flight of a rocket, you
don't put experiments. That's someone's career that gets derailed, delayed or detoured if the launch fails. Furthermore, if an experiment is 'expendable', is it really worth doing? 'Expendable' means you don't really care if it works or not. If I were going to commit to the years necessary to design, build and test a space-based experiment, you damn skippy betcha I'm going to care if it ever returns data and I am
not putting that on top of a test flight.
Now normally, they use just basically a large lump of cheap and expendable matter. Musk opted to use his old Tesla. That qualifiesâ€"certainly by the measure of his personal net worthâ€"as cheap and expendable. There's nothing unreasonable about using a Tesla as the inert payload on a rocket's test flight: the only job it has to do is is sit there and have mass.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Apollo missions. I am. Moonbase by 1980 and Mars by 1990 were serious things, and the only reason we were unable to meet those goals was a failure of political will, not of technology. It was an unfortunate combination of a Congress who failed to see what NASA investment was doing for the economy (an estimated $7 to $14 returned to the economy for every $1 spent (http://www.21stcentech.com/money-spent-nasa-not-waste/)â€"most money managers would spit and roast their own grandmothers for an ROI like that), and a president, Richard Nixon, who was happy to crush a program that was closely associated with his late political rival, John F Kennedy. The technology was there. We could've built a functional moon base on the technology in hand in 1980, and we did not, not because we couldn't, but because our representatives chose not to and we didn't punish them for that short-sightedness.
If the public was fully engaged, politicians would not have felt safe gutting NASA the way they did. Remember what happened in 2004 when they started talking about not servicing Hubble again and letting the space telescope die: there was a massive public outpouring of support, and NASA okayed a further servicing mission. It's now projected to last until 2030, perhaps even 2040.
So public support for space exploration is there. Clearly, Musk knows that, and he's determined to get the public engaged in thinking outward again. So I'm not going to fault him for a publicity stunt on the maiden flight of his new rocket. This is the best time to do it.
Later, when he's moving personnel and material for pay,
then it would be inappropriate.
For now: mission accomplished. Everyone
is talking about how over-the-top cool that was... although for my money, the synchronized landing of the two boosters next to each other was even more amazing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfBviE1G3k).
Quote from: trdsf on February 10, 2018, 05:56:50 PM
I don't mind at all that it's a publicity stunt. The American space program has needed a good one for a long time.
We'll dispense with the fossil fuel canard right nowâ€"what do you expect them to use? Yes, yes, you're going to say liquid hydrogen, but there are stability and safety issues to keep in mind as well. And you're not going to get to space on solar power. They have to burn something. RP-1 is a stable and powerful rocket fuel. Keep in mind that it's the fuel of choice for the most successful rocket families -- the Delta II and III, the Soyuz-FG and Zenit, the privately-built Antares, which delivers the Cygnus supply modules to the ISS.
As to the payload, it's simple: on the trial flight of a rocket, you don't put experiments. That's someone's career that gets derailed, delayed or detoured if the launch fails. Furthermore, if an experiment is 'expendable', is it really worth doing? 'Expendable' means you don't really care if it works or not. If I were going to commit to the years necessary to design, build and test a space-based experiment, you damn skippy betcha I'm going to care if it ever returns data and I am not putting that on top of a test flight.
Now normally, they use just basically a large lump of cheap and expendable matter. Musk opted to use his old Tesla. That qualifiesâ€"certainly by the measure of his personal net worthâ€"as cheap and expendable. There's nothing unreasonable about using a Tesla as the inert payload on a rocket's test flight: the only job it has to do is is sit there and have mass.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Apollo missions. I am. Moonbase by 1980 and Mars by 1990 were serious things, and the only reason we were unable to meet those goals was a failure of political will, not of technology. It was an unfortunate combination of a Congress who failed to see what NASA investment was doing for the economy (an estimated $7 to $14 returned to the economy for every $1 spent (http://www.21stcentech.com/money-spent-nasa-not-waste/)â€"most money managers would spit and roast their own grandmothers for an ROI like that), and a president, Richard Nixon, who was happy to crush a program that was closely associated with his late political rival, John F Kennedy. The technology was there. We could've built a functional moon base on the technology in hand in 1980, and we did not, not because we couldn't, but because our representatives chose not to and we didn't punish them for that short-sightedness.
If the public was fully engaged, politicians would not have felt safe gutting NASA the way they did. Remember what happened in 2004 when they started talking about not servicing Hubble again and letting the space telescope die: there was a massive public outpouring of support, and NASA okayed a further servicing mission. It's now projected to last until 2030, perhaps even 2040.
So public support for space exploration is there. Clearly, Musk knows that, and he's determined to get the public engaged in thinking outward again. So I'm not going to fault him for a publicity stunt on the maiden flight of his new rocket. This is the best time to do it.
Later, when he's moving personnel and material for pay, then it would be inappropriate.
For now: mission accomplished. Everyone is talking about how over-the-top cool that was... although for my money, the synchronized landing of the two boosters next to each other was even more amazing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otfBviE1G3k).
No I'm not "going to say liquid hydrogen" I'm going to say electricity. (because that's what I've already said in the OP when I stated he should be using Maglev vacuum tube of the Startram.
Sending that care into space cost 6 million dollars. Now you may feel like that's not a lot of money, but I do. You may feel like no scientist would risk an experiment, but I do. (most scientist risk failure on a regular basis it's basically the job) I get you think sending a car into space is "cool", but how cool would it have been to send 100s of high quality cameras that sent back live feed from the various corners of space? Next question, if you designed the experiment to send $2 camera probes through space would you lose your job/career if the rocket blew up? Me thinks you wouldn't, and it would have been better than a car in all regards.
An actual rocket scientist made the decision.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 10, 2018, 06:55:15 PM
An actual rocket scientist made the decision.
Yes, Von Braun, for the Nazi missile program!
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 06:57:14 PM
Yes, Von Braun, for the Nazi missile program!
Every V2 that landed on London can be laid at the feet of Robert Goddard.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 10, 2018, 07:13:35 PM
Every V2 that landed on London can be laid at the feet of Robert Goddard.
That would have required a much longer range rocket (he was mostly in New Mexico during WWII, not Peenemunde. And you are ignoring the Russian contribution ... eh Ensign Checkov?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky
It was seriously considered, to put Von Braun and others on trial for war crimes, but Operation Paperclip prevented that. More insidiously the US inherited the German biological weapons program.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 07:47:29 PM
That would have required a much longer range rocket (he was mostly in New Mexico during WWII, not Peenemunde. And you are ignoring the Russian contribution ... eh Ensign Checkov?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky
It was seriously considered, to put Von Braun and others on trial for war crimes, but Operation Paperclip prevented that. More insidiously the US inherited the German biological weapons program.
You really don't have any filters, do you.
When the US rocket people ask von Braun about his missiles he said he'd taken everything from Goddard.
Quote from: Coveny on February 10, 2018, 06:10:15 PM
No I'm not "going to say liquid hydrogen" I'm going to say electricity. (because that's what I've already said in the OP when I stated he should be using Maglev vacuum tube of the Startram.
Maglev doesn't get you to space.
Also, have you stopped to think where the capital is going to come from for a maglev infrastructure that does not currently exist? This isn't a project he can just piggyback on top of an Amtrak line.
So, SpaceX and the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and the $1.9 billion contract to deliver supplies to the ISS. Musk isn't interested in space, maglev trains and electric cars for their own sake. He plans for all of these to be very profitable. Space is what's going to have to pay for maglevs.
Basically, you've got the cart before the horse. Hyperloop is the least certain to be profitable. Space and cars are known markets with pre-existing infrastructure. Musk didn't need to build a new launchpad to put the Falcon Heavy up, nor does he need special roads for the Tesla to drive on. High speed railâ€"and that's fundamentally what Hyperloop isâ€"does not have a successful history in the United States, and it's likely to be a money pit for a long time. There aren't pre-existing tunnels under partial vacuum that he can just lease the use of. SpaceX and Tesla are going to have to pay Hyperloop's way for quite some time.
Quote from: Coveny on February 10, 2018, 06:10:15 PM
Sending that care into space cost 6 million dollars. Now you may feel like that's not a lot of money, but I do. You may feel like no scientist would risk an experiment, but I do. (most scientist risk failure on a regular basis it's basically the job) I get you think sending a car into space is "cool", but how cool would it have been to send 100s of high quality cameras that sent back live feed from the various corners of space? Next question, if you designed the experiment to send $2 camera probes through space would you lose your job/career if the rocket blew up? Me thinks you wouldn't, and it would have been better than a car in all regards.
There's a difference between risking the failure of a theory to meet an experimental test, and the failure of the experiment entirely. Again, it's not just a matter of sticking an experiment into the fairing of a rocket. It needs to be developed for space, capable of surviving not just the harsh conditions of space but also the physical punishment of the launch itself. You're not going to kit-bash that together in your garage and run it out to Canaveral in the back seat of your car.
That's the point of this:
the entire launch was already an experiment. They had every other aspect of the flight to look at; the SpaceX ground crew had enough to do without the distraction of putting a functional payload into space.
And if you can develop a camera that can survive the launch, survive space itself, orient itself in space, *and* send back high quality images from as far as the Moon, much less Mars and beyond
and do it for $2 a unit, I'll nominate you for a Physics Nobel myself. Even taking maneuverability out of it, I don't think you can send a unit capable of returning images from even low Earth orbit for $2 a unit. If you want to posit an experiment to waste on top of what's already an experiment, at least pose a plausible one.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 10, 2018, 08:26:59 PM
You really don't have any filters, do you.
When the US rocket people ask von Braun about his missiles he said he'd taken everything from Goddard.
Nazi war criminals are honest.
Personally I admire Von Braun of course, but then I am part German-American ... and want to FEMA camp everyone.
No, it was Galileo who should be blamed, and Newton. Damn those physicists ... as per Oppenheimer, now they know sin.
Pious little fucker, ain't you.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 11, 2018, 05:39:05 AM
Pious little fucker, ain't you.
Don't show me yours, and I won't show you mine ;-)
No, I am just playing with you ... I don't see any reason for you to come out of "crazy field" and start defending Von Braun. I find it remarkable, if not admirable, how the US took Nazi scientists in ... at least to keep them out of the hands of the Soviets. And yes, I admire Goddard too ... he had to put up with totally ignorant reporters in the 1920s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eXPBhy7i10
Anything done, is political ... not just idealism. I was a younger interested guy compared to the hero in this movie. Should I show you my thank-you letter from the White House, for my naive childish idea about an ion engine? Yeah, I only got three days work on the Hubble ... but that will be a memory I will carry with me always.
I wasn't defending von Braun, idiot.
Quote from: trdsf on February 11, 2018, 04:37:57 AM
Maglev doesn't get you to space.
Also, have you stopped to think where the capital is going to come from for a maglev infrastructure that does not currently exist? This isn't a project he can just piggyback on top of an Amtrak line.
Yes a Maglev DOES get humans into space with the StraTram Gen-2. (although I was just suggesting a Gen-1 and to send humans up the normal way) As far as the capital and infrastructure that doesn't exist... tell me again about the capital and infrastructure existed for SpaceX when they started up? Tell me again about the millions NASA has given SpaceX to help it have the capital and infrastructure it needed to exist. Obviously this isn't something that can piggyback on top of an Amtrak as it needs a vacuum tube to achieve the required speeds as well as around 80 miles of acceleration. Please do a bit a research on the Startram Gen-2 and stop with these strawman arguments that aren't what I'm suggesting at all.
Quote from: trdsf on February 11, 2018, 04:37:57 AMSo, SpaceX and the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and the $1.9 billion contract to deliver supplies to the ISS. Musk isn't interested in space, maglev trains and electric cars for their own sake. He plans for all of these to be very profitable. Space is what's going to have to pay for maglevs.
Basically, you've got the cart before the horse. Hyperloop is the least certain to be profitable. Space and cars are known markets with pre-existing infrastructure. Musk didn't need to build a new launchpad to put the Falcon Heavy up, nor does he need special roads for the Tesla to drive on. High speed railâ€"and that's fundamentally what Hyperloop isâ€"does not have a successful history in the United States, and it's likely to be a money pit for a long time. There aren't pre-existing tunnels under partial vacuum that he can just lease the use of. SpaceX and Tesla are going to have to pay Hyperloop's way for quite some time.
There's a difference between risking the failure of a theory to meet an experimental test, and the failure of the experiment entirely. Again, it's not just a matter of sticking an experiment into the fairing of a rocket. It needs to be developed for space, capable of surviving not just the harsh conditions of space but also the physical punishment of the launch itself. You're not going to kit-bash that together in your garage and run it out to Canaveral in the back seat of your car.
That's the point of this: the entire launch was already an experiment. They had every other aspect of the flight to look at; the SpaceX ground crew had enough to do without the distraction of putting a functional payload into space.
And if you can develop a camera that can survive the launch, survive space itself, orient itself in space, *and* send back high quality images from as far as the Moon, much less Mars and beyond and do it for $2 a unit, I'll nominate you for a Physics Nobel myself. Even taking maneuverability out of it, I don't think you can send a unit capable of returning images from even low Earth orbit for $2 a unit. If you want to posit an experiment to waste on top of what's already an experiment, at least pose a plausible one.
Fair enough, the $2 per nanocraft is an exaggeration but Strange Hawkings and NASA have an idea where "each craft would cost little more than a smartphone to produce" that could travel to Alpha Centauri, so I assume if it didn't need to survive as long or go as far it would be cheaper to produce, so although they won't be $2 each, they would be under $200 each. The Tesla could have been sold (as it was the first from the plant) for some amount to cover the costs of production... OR he could have sold the data he got back from the probes to recover the cost of creating and sending them out to the stars. He's not getting anything back on the Tesla.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/nasa-nano-starship-breakthrough-starshot
Quote from: Coveny on February 11, 2018, 10:24:02 AM
Yes a Maglev DOES get humans into space with the StraTram Gen-2. (although I was just suggesting a Gen-1 and to send humans up the normal way) As far as the capital and infrastructure that doesn't exist... tell me again about the capital and infrastructure existed for SpaceX when they started up? Tell me again about the millions NASA has given SpaceX to help it have the capital and infrastructure it needed to exist. Obviously this isn't something that can piggyback on top of an Amtrak as it needs a vacuum tube to achieve the required speeds as well as around 80 miles of acceleration. Please do a bit a research on the Startram Gen-2 and stop with these strawman arguments that aren't what I'm suggesting at all.
One: Gen-1 is a reasonable
theoretical way to get objects into space, but unlike rockets it's also an
unproven way. By all means, research, but you are rather coming across like you think rocket science should be dropped now in favor of constructing a system that doesn't yet exist. The Gen-1 concept requires levitating the launch body 10cm; maglev trains levitate at around 1.5cm. StarTram assumes costs per kJ that simply do not exist yet.
Also, how many of these do you think can or will be built? The site requirements are pretty daunting, since it involves carving out a 130 km tunnel in a mountain, evacuating it, and sealing it with a plasma window on a scale not yet attempted, much less accomplished. Even granting that the plasma only needs to be in operation during the brief moment the external hatch is open, that's yet another part of the system that's theoretical. And for minimal atmospheric effects, it needs to be close to the opening, so both the cargo vessel and the hatch mechanism have to be built to withstand some 15,000ºK (26,000ºF), however briefly.
And the estimated cost to build just
one is nearly $20 billion.
And that brings us to another problem. All it takes is one glitch to take down the entire system. The cargo vessel contacts a wall at up to 30
g, the plasma window fails and the entire tunnel explosively decompresses, a minor earthquake a few kilometers deep cracks the tunnel wall, the hatch opens a fraction too slow, a terrorist plants a bomb, any failure that causes the payload to contact the tunnel wall and the entire launch system is useless, possibly irretrievably so.
If a Falcon Heavy blows up on the pad, they lose the pad, not all of Kennedy Space Center, and they move the next launch to a different pad and get back to the business of shooting things into space while other teams sort out what went wrong and putting the pad back together.
Gen-2 is completely unfeasible for the foreseeable future. That's a mega-engineering project that involves magnetically levitating an evacuated tube a thousand kilometers long rising over twenty kilometers into the sky. Make that a 'someday' project; I'd bet you that it's technically unfeasible until the mid-2200s at the very earliest, but neither of us will be around to see who's right. I am confident that even if made a research priority, the engineering difficulties to overcome are great enough that it won't happen within the next 50 years, and you are talking about these things as if we should be constructing them right now. That's just not plausible.
Do the research, but that's not a basket we can put
any of our eggs into just yet. Not even one. I'm not going to say what the future will be, but the
present of space delivery is rockets.
Which leads me to point two: Yes, exactly,
that's the whole point about infrastructure. Musk didn't have to invent systems from the ground up. Reliable rocket engines exist, to be studied and improved upon. The fundamentals of efficient and effective ground control are understood. Space-based communications are already a thing. Launch facilities exist. He gets to focus on doing it more efficiently, rather than on doing it
at all.
Show me where the equivalent exists, in the United States, to do the same with Hyperloop (much less StarTram of any type).
I'll wait.
For now, and for the foreseeable future, maglev
still doesn't get you to space. Rockets
do. And they make the profit that can be turned into maglev research (http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop), because it's not just going to automagically happen out of the goodness of someone's heart or spring fully formed out of a theory. There's a lot of basic research to do, and that has to be paid for, and hey, look, the guy who just made a huge media splash and got a whole lot of positive attention for two lines of business that will almost certainly be at least a little bit more profitable because of it... well what do you know, he's one of the people who's actually paying to
do that maglev research.
Even if Musk himself doesn't pursue StarTram, if he makes Hyperloop work,
that's the technology that makes StarTram work, and someone else will do it if he doesn't.
That Tesla in space pushes, indirectly, the very thing you want to see happen.
So what's the problem?
Quote from: Coveny on February 11, 2018, 10:24:02 AM
Fair enough, the $2 per nanocraft is an exaggeration but Strange Hawkings and NASA have an idea where "each craft would cost little more than a smartphone to produce" that could travel to Alpha Centauri, so I assume if it didn't need to survive as long or go as far it would be cheaper to produce, so although they won't be $2 each, they would be under $200 each. The Tesla could have been sold (as it was the first from the plant) for some amount to cover the costs of production... OR he could have sold the data he got back from the probes to recover the cost of creating and sending them out to the stars. He's not getting anything back on the Tesla.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/nasa-nano-starship-breakthrough-starshot
Oh, I'm well familiar with the Breakthrough series of goals; I'm especially interested in Breakthrough Listen. They're also completely irrelevant to the Falcon Heavy launch. You're back to talking about future things, not now things.
Musk is getting back exactly what he needs (and, I expect, wanted) from his Tesla in space: additional positive publicity. He would not have gotten the boost from a dummy payload, and the money raised from selling the car, I expect, would turn out to be less than the increased sales Tesla Motors will make over the coming year, probably a great deal lessâ€"we can check back on that later to see if sales growth improved after the launch or if it maintained its previous rate. I think it will. Hey, look! A testable hypothesis!
The point is, people are talking about Tesla, and SpaceX, and I repeat, since you ignored the point entirely, that
these two need to be successful in order to pay for Hyperloop, and that's the best currently feasible testbed for the technology that can become StarTram.
Falcon Heavy already has actual paying missions scheduled for this year. Guess where some of that money is going? Even if Tesla Motors continues to struggle with profitability, the basic research on electric components is vital to any Hyperloop system. And I assertâ€"and we can come back in a year and look at the numbersâ€"that this will improve Tesla sales, which means more research on charging/discharging systems and other components necessary to Hyperloop and beyond,
and makes more money available for Hyperloop research, either as a matter of cutting Tesla's losses, or actually pushing it into stable profitability.
However, if you really want to obsess on experimental results, the car has been automatically picked up by ATLAS (http://www.hawaii.edu/news/2018/02/09/atlas-telescope-spots-tesla-roadster/) (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System), providing a fine demonstration of
that experimental system's capabilities. They weren't looking for it; ATLAS noticed something in the vicinity of Earth (as it's meant to) and logged it; now they know they can detect something as small as a car at a distance of over half a million miles.
And that was a gimme, it wasn't even planned.
Quote from: Coveny on February 10, 2018, 03:00:41 PM
Yes it's called Startram gen-1. You shoot the freight into space and then send humans up to construct it through the regular method. Then once it pays for itself you create Startram gen-2 and get rid of the fossil fuel component completely. The weight of getting freight into space costs a LOT more fossil fuels, over all, than getting humans into space. (because we need a lot more freight up there than we need humans up there)
Cool! Where has that been built?
Quote from: trdsf on February 11, 2018, 04:00:10 PM
One: Gen-1 is a reasonable theoretical way to get objects into space, but unlike rockets it's also an unproven way. By all means, research, but you are rather coming across like you think rocket science should be dropped now in favor of constructing a system that doesn't yet exist. The Gen-1 concept requires levitating the launch body 10cm; maglev trains levitate at around 1.5cm. StarTram assumes costs per kJ that simply do not exist yet.
Also, how many of these do you think can or will be built? The site requirements are pretty daunting, since it involves carving out a 130 km tunnel in a mountain, evacuating it, and sealing it with a plasma window on a scale not yet attempted, much less accomplished. Even granting that the plasma only needs to be in operation during the brief moment the external hatch is open, that's yet another part of the system that's theoretical. And for minimal atmospheric effects, it needs to be close to the opening, so both the cargo vessel and the hatch mechanism have to be built to withstand some 15,000ºK (26,000ºF), however briefly.
And the estimated cost to build just one is nearly $20 billion.
And that brings us to another problem. All it takes is one glitch to take down the entire system. The cargo vessel contacts a wall at up to 30g, the plasma window fails and the entire tunnel explosively decompresses, a minor earthquake a few kilometers deep cracks the tunnel wall, the hatch opens a fraction too slow, a terrorist plants a bomb, any failure that causes the payload to contact the tunnel wall and the entire launch system is useless, possibly irretrievably so.
If a Falcon Heavy blows up on the pad, they lose the pad, not all of Kennedy Space Center, and they move the next launch to a different pad and get back to the business of shooting things into space while other teams sort out what went wrong and putting the pad back together.
Gen-2 is completely unfeasible for the foreseeable future. That's a mega-engineering project that involves magnetically levitating an evacuated tube a thousand kilometers long rising over twenty kilometers into the sky. Make that a 'someday' project; I'd bet you that it's technically unfeasible until the mid-2200s at the very earliest, but neither of us will be around to see who's right. I am confident that even if made a research priority, the engineering difficulties to overcome are great enough that it won't happen within the next 50 years, and you are talking about these things as if we should be constructing them right now. That's just not plausible.
Do the research, but that's not a basket we can put any of our eggs into just yet. Not even one. I'm not going to say what the future will be, but the present of space delivery is rockets.
Which leads me to point two: Yes, exactly, that's the whole point about infrastructure. Musk didn't have to invent systems from the ground up. Reliable rocket engines exist, to be studied and improved upon. The fundamentals of efficient and effective ground control are understood. Space-based communications are already a thing. Launch facilities exist. He gets to focus on doing it more efficiently, rather than on doing it at all.
Show me where the equivalent exists, in the United States, to do the same with Hyperloop (much less StarTram of any type).
I'll wait.
For now, and for the foreseeable future, maglev still doesn't get you to space. Rockets do. And they make the profit that can be turned into maglev research (http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop), because it's not just going to automagically happen out of the goodness of someone's heart or spring fully formed out of a theory. There's a lot of basic research to do, and that has to be paid for, and hey, look, the guy who just made a huge media splash and got a whole lot of positive attention for two lines of business that will almost certainly be at least a little bit more profitable because of it... well what do you know, he's one of the people who's actually paying to do that maglev research.
Even if Musk himself doesn't pursue StarTram, if he makes Hyperloop work, that's the technology that makes StarTram work, and someone else will do it if he doesn't.
That Tesla in space pushes, indirectly, the very thing you want to see happen.
So what's the problem?
Oh, I'm well familiar with the Breakthrough series of goals; I'm especially interested in Breakthrough Listen. They're also completely irrelevant to the Falcon Heavy launch. You're back to talking about future things, not now things.
Musk is getting back exactly what he needs (and, I expect, wanted) from his Tesla in space: additional positive publicity. He would not have gotten the boost from a dummy payload, and the money raised from selling the car, I expect, would turn out to be less than the increased sales Tesla Motors will make over the coming year, probably a great deal lessâ€"we can check back on that later to see if sales growth improved after the launch or if it maintained its previous rate. I think it will. Hey, look! A testable hypothesis!
The point is, people are talking about Tesla, and SpaceX, and I repeat, since you ignored the point entirely, that these two need to be successful in order to pay for Hyperloop, and that's the best currently feasible testbed for the technology that can become StarTram.
Falcon Heavy already has actual paying missions scheduled for this year. Guess where some of that money is going? Even if Tesla Motors continues to struggle with profitability, the basic research on electric components is vital to any Hyperloop system. And I assertâ€"and we can come back in a year and look at the numbersâ€"that this will improve Tesla sales, which means more research on charging/discharging systems and other components necessary to Hyperloop and beyond, and makes more money available for Hyperloop research, either as a matter of cutting Tesla's losses, or actually pushing it into stable profitability.
However, if you really want to obsess on experimental results, the car has been automatically picked up by ATLAS (http://www.hawaii.edu/news/2018/02/09/atlas-telescope-spots-tesla-roadster/) (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System), providing a fine demonstration of that experimental system's capabilities. They weren't looking for it; ATLAS noticed something in the vicinity of Earth (as it's meant to) and logged it; now they know they can detect something as small as a car at a distance of over half a million miles.
And that was a gimme, it wasn't even planned.
The tech is proven it's not just theory. The falcon didn't exist before Musk made it, so the same basic logic would apply there. It took things that worked and put them together in a different way to be more efficient. The same thing applies to Startrams.
Yes I think rocket science should be phased out as a way to get off world. It's very inefficient.
The Japanese Maglev already achieve 10cm of lift. Again this exists and is proven technology. (in reference to the Gen-1)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzdGFydHJhbXByb2plY3R8Z3g6NDI1YjVjZmMwZmRjY2VlMg
If we built only one it would out produce all the rockets we currently have. We could "launch" multiple times a day with ease if we wanted to.
Yes a plasma window of that size does not exist, but we have them and they work, the only the difference is making it bigger.
SpaceX has invested Billions into their program. I get the number is big, but when you play in this area it's really not that big. (I mean have you looked at our "defense" budget...)
Do you seriously comparing catastrophes between the two? Rockets are just controlled explosions, and if anything goes wrong everyone dies. If something goes wrong in a tube in most cases some people might get hurt, but no one will die.
And if something goes wrong with the 90 miles of tunnel with the Startram it doesn't destroy 90 miles of tunnel...
I'm not arguing for the Gen-2, but I will argue that it's not feasible in the foreseeable future. It's VERY feasible, it's just people have grown to love their rockets ships and don't want to give them up. On the tethers "Startram tethers, in contrast, needs tethers with breaking lengths of only tens of kilometers, which is well within the specifications of modern fibers.". But I will give you that levitating the tube is more technologically advanced/difficult. (but I'm not advocating that as the first step, I'm advocating the Gen-1 version for now)
http://www.startram.com/startram-technology
I have done the research (maybe you should as you didn't know we already achieved 10cm) and it's possible for the Gen-1 without much in the way of "new" tech. The cost savings are out of this world. (pun intended deal with it.. hehe)
Show me where the falcon existed before Musk built it, in the United States, actually in the world... I'll wait. There is a saying inventors stand on the shoulders of giants. Both the Falcon and the Startram take tech that existed and adapt it, any argument you use against the Startram can be equally used against the Falcon.
Only you and Musk's foreseeable future, others however aren't so short sighted and can look paste doing the same thing that they have always done.
Ok the Atlas thing I didn't know about and was pretty cool. Fair enough.
Quote from: Coveny on February 11, 2018, 07:27:45 PM
The tech is proven it's not just theory. The falcon didn't exist before Musk made it, so the same basic logic would apply there.
There's a slight difference between building a slightly modified version of something that has long existed to bringing something that currently only exists on paper to life.
Quote from: Coveny on February 11, 2018, 07:27:45 PM
The tech is proven it's not just theory. The falcon didn't exist before Musk made it, so the same basic logic would apply there. It took things that worked and put them together in a different way to be more efficient. The same thing applies to Startrams.
Yes I think rocket science should be phased out as a way to get off world. It's very inefficient.
The Japanese Maglev already achieve 10cm of lift. Again this exists and is proven technology. (in reference to the Gen-1)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzdGFydHJhbXByb2plY3R8Z3g6NDI1YjVjZmMwZmRjY2VlMg
If we built only one it would out produce all the rockets we currently have. We could "launch" multiple times a day with ease if we wanted to.
Yes a plasma window of that size does not exist, but we have them and they work, the only the difference is making it bigger.
SpaceX has invested Billions into their program. I get the number is big, but when you play in this area it's really not that big. (I mean have you looked at our "defense" budget...)
Do you seriously comparing catastrophes between the two? Rockets are just controlled explosions, and if anything goes wrong everyone dies. If something goes wrong in a tube in most cases some people might get hurt, but no one will die.
And if something goes wrong with the 90 miles of tunnel with the Startram it doesn't destroy 90 miles of tunnel...
I'm not arguing for the Gen-2, but I will argue that it's not feasible in the foreseeable future. It's VERY feasible, it's just people have grown to love their rockets ships and don't want to give them up. On the tethers "Startram tethers, in contrast, needs tethers with breaking lengths of only tens of kilometers, which is well within the specifications of modern fibers.". But I will give you that levitating the tube is more technologically advanced/difficult. (but I'm not advocating that as the first step, I'm advocating the Gen-1 version for now)
http://www.startram.com/startram-technology
I have done the research (maybe you should as you didn't know we already achieved 10cm) and it's possible for the Gen-1 without much in the way of "new" tech. The cost savings are out of this world. (pun intended deal with it.. hehe)
Show me where the falcon existed before Musk built it, in the United States, actually in the world... I'll wait. There is a saying inventors stand on the shoulders of giants. Both the Falcon and the Startram take tech that existed and adapt it, any argument you use against the Startram can be equally used against the Falcon.
Only you and Musk's foreseeable future, others however aren't so short sighted and can look paste doing the same thing that they have always done.
Ok the Atlas thing I didn't know about and was pretty cool. Fair enough.
Let me give you a word that you've thrown around a lot: strawman.
Point to where I ever said never to bother looking at other methods, that rockets are the only way
ever.
I'll wait.
Next time,
read what I wrote. Don't argue against something I never said. In fact,
I have repeatedly stated, and
you have repeatedly ignored, that it looks pretty clear that Musk is just as interested in Hyperloop as everything else, and that Hyperloop is where the technologies that make StarTram possible will get developed, and the success of SpaceX and Tesla are necessary to fund that.
One other point about disasters: if you have a 100km tunnel and the 70th kilometer is plugged because a coil failed and a cargo unit slammed into the wall at several
gs acceleration, pray, how do you intend to continue using it? You can't just move to another pad. You need another complete system, not just a replacement component.
Where did the Merlin engine that powered the Falcon Heavy come from? Well, if you're interested, the Merlin 1D engine is based on the earlier Merlin 1C, which was based on the Merlin 1A, which was based on a TRW design for a lunar descent module (http://astronautix.com/m/merlin1a.html). Startram requires us to do things that have
never been done and scale up systems that have
never been scaled up. That's the whole point of evolution over revolution. So Musk can build a better rocket engine because we have some pretty good rocket engine designs and their operation is pretty well understood. No one can build a better magnetic launch system because there's never been one to build on before.
I don't fault you your enthusiasm for this design. It'd be awesome to see even Gen-1 in service. But you're deliberately ignoring realities that currently exist, and you're way too ready to blindly accept the claims of one paper as written, as if it can go right into operation with nothing more than a couple tweaks to existing technologies that have never been scaled up that far.
The Powell paper is interesting. I think either project is feasible long term to very long term.
As I have repeatedly said and as you deliberately misrepresented above. But I think he's over-optimistic about the system's duty cycle, and both the cost and the length of time it will take to bring even Gen-1 into operation.
Also, they're
fixed trajectory systems. The paper itself says you need different launch sites to be able to do both equatorial and polar orbitsâ€"you don't even get out of the abstract before that little shortcoming is mentioned.
So either you have these huge tunnels scattered all over the place or... you keep using rockets, so you can guide the vehicles once the payload is in orbit. Which means you're still lobbing large containers of liquid oxygen and either R1 or liquid hydrogen into space.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 11, 2018, 07:40:43 PM
There's a slight difference between building a slightly modified version of something that has long existed to bringing something that currently only exists on paper to life.
Something that has long existed like MagLev trains? 1902 if you're curious.
Quote from: Coveny on February 11, 2018, 10:48:00 PM
Something that has long existed like MagLev trains? 1902 if you're curious.
Ever see a maglev train in outer space?
I'm going to predict the privatization of space if current trends continue with primarily nobody but billionaires funding space exploration at least in the US.. Luckily we're not the only nation heading to space, but I can envision everything beyond our earthly atmosphere being off limits to everyone except those who have probably already laid claim to it..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 12, 2018, 01:04:41 AM
I'm going to predict the privatization of space if current trends continue with primarily nobody but billionaires funding space exploration at least in the US.. Luckily we're not the only nation heading to space, but I can envision everything beyond our earthly atmosphere being off limits to everyone except those who have probably already laid claim to it..
Luckily most nations, including those with current space capabilities have signed treaties against doing just that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 12, 2018, 05:39:14 AM
Luckily most nations, including those with current space capabilities have signed treaties against doing just that.
Same as Antarctica. And that division was based on freedom of navigation law. Good thing the US owns the Moon though, we can put all our lunatics there ;-)
Treaties are only as good as the armies used to enforce them.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 12, 2018, 01:52:42 PM
Treaties are only as good as the armies used to enforce them.
So Canada is fucked?
We're all fucked - we just don't know it yet.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 12, 2018, 01:52:42 PM
Treaties are only as good as the armies used to enforce them.
According to Iron Sky II ... Hitler built a utopian society under the S Pole, not just on the dark side of the Moon (Iron Sky I) ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 12, 2018, 06:38:31 PM
We're all fucked - we just don't know it yet.
Tell that to the Russian ordinary and extraordinary military personnel killed in Syria recently. Some just last week. Oops! Will Putin release the Kraken?
Quote from: Johan on February 10, 2018, 12:47:20 PM
So if Elon wants to try to light that spark by putting one of his cars in space, let him. Its an early first step in getting us to a place where private space vehicle companies are innovating and moving the needle slowly closer to a world where space travel is as common as getting on bus.
Could he have done it differently and loaded the thing with experiments? Sure. But guaranteed he would have gotten 1/10 the amount of press coverage. So put experiments on board and maybe this flight leads to one or two more flights. Or make it a press event like he did and this flight leads to ten or twenty more. Which is better? Elon is a big picture guy and he hasn't failed much so far. There are certainly worse horses you could bet on.
Challenges are good things. Space X wouldn't exist with the governments trying things first. Basic research leads to commercial enterprises.
Well, apparently it wasn't just a Tesla that they sent into space:
QuoteIn the glovebox of the Tesla Roadster launched on the SpaceX Falcon Heavy is the secret to preserving human knowledge forever - and it comes from a small lab in Southampton.
Professor Peter Kazansky of the Optoelectronics Research Centre at the University of Southampton has found a way to store data onto near-indestructible glass that could last for billions of years.
With the help of Nova Spivack of the Arch Mission Foundation, they aim to secure human history, art and culture in space for eternity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2OTtIFnC50
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 20, 2018, 03:44:09 PM
Well, apparently it wasn't just a Tesla that they sent into space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2OTtIFnC50
Which history? The Liberal one?
.O.P. i got on this post late...
Elon probably didnt want to risk another expensive piece of equipement. On a test flight of the smaller rocket there was a military satelite that was destroyed when the rocket failed. I think he had to prove the heavy could lift the weight before anybody wanted to risk another piece of equipement.
The Navy has an electromagnetic rail gun that uses a magnetic field to accelerate a projectile to a speed that can cause serious damage. Maybe we can use it to launch space objects. Or we could try using that gun that Saddam had in Iraq that was meant to launch stuff into space. I dont think he ever got to try it.
Quote from: fencerider on March 20, 2018, 11:27:58 PM
.O.P. i got on this post late...
Elon probably didnt want to risk another expensive piece of equipement. On a test flight of the smaller rocket there was a military satelite that was destroyed when the rocket failed. I think he had to prove the heavy could lift the weight before anybody wanted to risk another piece of equipement.
The Navy has an electromagnetic rail gun that uses a magnetic field to accelerate a projectile to a speed that can cause serious damage. Maybe we can use it to launch space objects. Or we could try using that gun that Saddam had in Iraq that was meant to launch stuff into space. I dont think he ever got to try it.
Saddam killed the Canadian engineer traitor who was building that cannon for him. Rail guns work brilliantly, they have been proposed for the Moon for example, to get Lunar products into low Lunar orbit or even farther. No air resistance and lighter gravity. In long distance shots in Earth orbit, one would still have some drop in trajectory ... but on the Moon, firing vertically, no problem.
Quote from: fencerider on March 20, 2018, 11:27:58 PM
The Navy has an electromagnetic rail gun that uses a magnetic field to accelerate a projectile to a speed that can cause serious damage. Maybe we can use it to launch space objects.
I am highly in favor of studying mag/lev technology. Chemical rockets got us into space, but they are too costly and dangerous for routine work. And it is time routine space travel starts.
Let's not forget that the Moon is a harsh mistress.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 21, 2018, 01:09:54 AM
I am highly in favor of studying mag/lev technology. Chemical rockets got us into space, but they are too costly and dangerous for routine work. And it is time routine space travel starts.
You missed your opportunity to be the crash test dummy on the Space Tesla ;-) I remember funny ads for safety, being done by crash test dummies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 21, 2018, 05:57:22 AM
Let's not forget that the Moon is a harsh mistress.
Particularly if she wears leather, lives in Berlin and is chancellor of Germany ;-) Funny code names we use.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 20, 2018, 03:44:09 PM
Well, apparently it wasn't just a Tesla that they sent into space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2OTtIFnC50
Fortunately, it wasn't the bible sent up on the glass storage unit, but the Foundation trilogy. And a copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And a towel. :)
Quote from: trdsf on March 21, 2018, 09:17:24 AM
Fortunately, it wasn't the bible sent up on the glass storage unit, but the Foundation trilogy. And a copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And a towel. :)
Excellent choices. :)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 21, 2018, 05:57:22 AM
Let's not forget that the Moon is a harsh mistress.
Actually, our Moon may be the easiest way off Earth.
1. It WAY easier and faster to get to the Moon.
2. The Moon's gravity is less. Safer to land on and leave.
3. The Moon's gravity is less, part2. Easier to move heavy stuff around in.
4. The Moon CAN be reached in an emergency. Mars is a couple of years away.
5. One step at a time! When we are children, we learn to cross a street. Them we learn to go down the block. Them across town. Don't underestimate gradual learning. And I agree completely that one can learn too slowly, but also try to learn too fast. Neither works; the slow-goers and the fast-goers tend to fail. I think colonizing the Moon is the right balance. We are in a point of time to try it successfully.
Agreed. The moon is an excellent beachhead. Plus, it has helium-3, which is a nice incentive to get out there.
Quote from: Johan on February 10, 2018, 12:47:20 PM
Warning: Long post.
Many years ago I attended a talk by Burt Rutan while at an aviation convention. Look him up if you don't know who he is. Burt and his sideburns spoke for the better part of an hour and half. He started by talking about how the Wright flyer that flew in 1903 doesn't look much at all like the airplanes we have today. The Wright flyer is really sort of proof of concept machine and nothing more. It could fly short distances and carry one passenger at most. But it really didn't have much utility beyond that and never would. The design just didn't allow for the kind of utility that would be needed if any kind of aviation industry was ever going to happen.
So fast forward 20 years and lots of aircraft design innovations happened which collectively led us to the default aircraft design we still use today. Almost none of those design innovations happened at the hands of the Wright brothers. Instead they happened at the hands of countless individuals who had looked at what the Wright's had achieved and said if they can do it, maybe I can do it better. In those early years, aircraft companies sprung up in garages and back yards all over the country. Lots design ideas were tried. Some worked well, others failed miserably. But all those different individuals trying all those ideas are what led to the design innovations which allowed a commercial aviation industry to be born and begin to grow. IOW it wasn't the Wrights who gave us commercial aviation, it was all those other folks who decided to try their hand at the game and see what improvements they could make.
Burt's talk then shifted to the 1950's and 1960's and the space race. He talked about how NASA showed us that rockets could be built that could get us into space and get us back. But unlike the early 1900's there was no revolution which followed with people deciding to see what kind of rocket they could build in their back yard. There was no movement of private individuals and companies deciding to try their hand at space travel and trying to figure out what innovations could be found to make it more practical and affordable.
That never happened with space travel the way it did with air travel. But imagine if it did. Where would be today if hundreds of startups had appeared in the late 60's all trying to make their own space vehicle designs. Its easy to imagine that had that happened, getting into space would be much more affordable and accessible today.
So if Elon wants to try to light that spark by putting one of his cars in space, let him. Its an early first step in getting us to a place where private space vehicle companies are innovating and moving the needle slowly closer to a world where space travel is as common as getting on bus.
Could he have done it differently and loaded the thing with experiments? Sure. But guaranteed he would have gotten 1/10 the amount of press coverage. So put experiments on board and maybe this flight leads to one or two more flights. Or make it a press event like he did and this flight leads to ten or twenty more. Which is better? Elon is a big picture guy and he hasn't failed much so far. There are certainly worse horses you could bet on.
I agree. And that is saying a lot about everything you said. So, for once, I am just agreeing.