SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
Toaster said:
For me what space X has done is capitalised on funding from NASA, utilised the R&D technologies that other companies initiated and can be traced way back to the mid 1990's, computing power miniaturisation of components and changes in manufacturing etc have all lead a path to what Space X do.
Not to mention that they pinched the whole idea from Top Gear.
Every time a person takes a ride on a jet airliner, they are "capitalising on government funding". The horror of it - maybe we should boycott all technology that was at some point funded as part of government budgets.
Pointless comment by a person who is an expert at pointless comments.
Pointless comment by a person who is an expert at pointless comments.
welshjon81 said:
Dude, that's like dropping an iron filing onto a football pitch and worrying about the mess you've caused...Some people....
Thats what was thought about years ago with emissions.It is well documented about the junk that is orbiting the earth and issues for space flight, all thats happened here is a bigger piece of junk in a larger orbit. which posses a risk for the future......
Toaster said:
welshjon81 said:
Dude, that's like dropping an iron filing onto a football pitch and worrying about the mess you've caused...Some people....
Thats what was thought about years ago with emissions.It is well documented about the junk that is orbiting the earth and issues for space flight, all thats happened here is a bigger piece of junk in a larger orbit. which posses a risk for the future......
ukaskew said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm far more concerned about "space junk" resting on the sea bed out near Bermuda than I am about "space junk" out around the asteroid belt.
This occurred to me long before the space junk non-issue, I'm surprised 'people' didnt kick off more about this.https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/or...
And no consideration to space junk is required according to the PH Science community. Thank goodness for the real Scientists
RDMcG said:
Eric Mc said:
I essentially ignore Toaster on here as he is, to put it mildly, a negatively minded, cantankerous old moaning Minnie.
I've had enough of people like him to be honest.
Let him denigrate all he likes. This is a marvellous event and there will be more to come from SpaceX and the Falcon Heavy - of that I am sure.
Agree 100%. Knowledge evolves constantly and we need pioneers. History will deal kindly with Musk long after he is gone.I've had enough of people like him to be honest.
Let him denigrate all he likes. This is a marvellous event and there will be more to come from SpaceX and the Falcon Heavy - of that I am sure.
Toaster said:
For me what space X has done is capitalised on funding from NASA, utilised the R&D technologies that other companies initiated and can be traced way back to the mid 1990's, computing power miniaturisation of components and changes in manufacturing etc have all lead a path to what Space X do. Just like electric cars I suspect there will now be a wholesale change in Rocket design unless disposable ones can be brought down in cost to compete and used where applicable.
Love all these type of comments. If it was that easy why hasn't somebody else / governments done it beforehand The fact that Musk has in the last 10 years, started a car company, started a rocket company that can land rockets, tunnel boring company, AI. is nothing short of amazing. I obviously don't know him, or own a Tesla, but frankly he is one of the few people who can claim to have have made a significant positive impact on the world.
WestyCarl said:
Toaster said:
For me what space X has done is capitalised on funding from NASA, utilised the R&D technologies that other companies initiated and can be traced way back to the mid 1990's, computing power miniaturisation of components and changes in manufacturing etc have all lead a path to what Space X do. Just like electric cars I suspect there will now be a wholesale change in Rocket design unless disposable ones can be brought down in cost to compete and used where applicable.
Love all these type of comments. If it was that easy why hasn't somebody else / governments done it beforehand The fact that Musk has in the last 10 years, started a car company, started a rocket company that can land rockets, tunnel boring company, AI. is nothing short of amazing. I obviously don't know him, or own a Tesla, but frankly he is one of the few people who can claim to have have made a significant positive impact on the world.
Im still waiting...
Dr Jekyll said:
Not to mention that they pinched the whole idea from Top Gear.
Nope but there were a number of companies involved in the development of vertical landing rockets so I guess if you deny that then of course Space X came up with the idea.I suggest that they have followed through what others started but either technologically systems were not quite at a stage for success or the shear commercial model needed to be developed. but Space X were certainly not the first with the idea.
Toaster said:
ukaskew said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm far more concerned about "space junk" resting on the sea bed out near Bermuda than I am about "space junk" out around the asteroid belt.
This occurred to me long before the space junk non-issue, I'm surprised 'people' didnt kick off more about this.https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/or...
And no consideration to space junk is required according to the PH Science community. Thank goodness for the real Scientists
I don't get the Musk hate either. Doesn't matter to me whether the man is standing on the shoulders of giants or not, he's indisputably pushed rocket science forward & made space exciting again. By the way, someone has put the Tesla up for sale 
https://www.gumtree.com/p/other-vehicles/tesla-roa...
https://www.gumtree.com/p/other-vehicles/tesla-roa...
fakenews said:
Reading tweets from people this morning and there's a growing number (albeit responding to the BBC's tweets) asking about why scrap/petrol engined car has been launched into space and what the impacts are for the ozone layer. TBH I'm absolutely tired of this - we've two directions to go now:
1. (Theirs) where we live in a police state, pay fines for even thinking about the channel 9 weathergirl and regress to a society devoid of happiness.
2. (Musks) where we're brought together by a vision, push humanity forward and explore space. Likely to also develop technology to save our planet along the way.
I'm so for number 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgzQuE1pR1w1. (Theirs) where we live in a police state, pay fines for even thinking about the channel 9 weathergirl and regress to a society devoid of happiness.
2. (Musks) where we're brought together by a vision, push humanity forward and explore space. Likely to also develop technology to save our planet along the way.
I'm so for number 2.
Toaster said:
Nope but there were a number of companies involved in the development of vertical landing rockets so I guess if you deny that then of course Space X came up with the idea.
I suggest that they have followed through what others started but either technologically systems were not quite at a stage for success or the shear commercial model needed to be developed. but Space X were certainly not the first with the idea.
Pretty sure it was Gerry Anderson, and Elon ripped of the design of Thunderbird 3 I suggest that they have followed through what others started but either technologically systems were not quite at a stage for success or the shear commercial model needed to be developed. but Space X were certainly not the first with the idea.
Toaster I note from your NASA link, the current protocols are to maneuver if the risk of collision increases beyond 1 - 100,000 and the box in which they hold manned craft is 50km by 50km by 1km of space....
Congrats to SpaceX!
The twin landing was awesome!!!
On the Core failure, I personally think something went wrong with the fuel re-distribution (the side boosters share fuel with the core before they separate).
2 Reasons:
1. It would appear the Core ran out of fuel.
2. The side boosters were dumping fuel during their decent.
The twin landing was awesome!!!
On the Core failure, I personally think something went wrong with the fuel re-distribution (the side boosters share fuel with the core before they separate).
2 Reasons:
1. It would appear the Core ran out of fuel.
2. The side boosters were dumping fuel during their decent.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff