SpaceX go boom!

[Stuart1971]

2 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I'm conflicted about Musk. On the one hand I applaud what he's doing to make space travel affordable and sustainable, but on the other his Starlink junk just annoys the heck out of me, though I can see that he needs the money to fund Starship etc.

Like I say, no simple answer. 

Affordable to who….😂😂😂

[Stuart1971]

1 minute ago, DaveS said:

Point one: it isn't a waste.

Point two: what Musk has spent is chicken feed compared to what would be needed.

Total waste….IMHO…and every bit would help…

[Paul M]

1 hour ago, SteveNickolls said:

Taken after lift off yesterday-

 

I only saw a few bits of launch coverage yesterday and when I saw that I wondered what it was at first!

Thinking about it now, there is an opportunity there for some advertising. That engine array looks like a huge dot matrix display. Could have it displaying the McDonalds "M" or something..

As for Musk's detractors and haters, well, I can think of some billionaires that humanity would be better off without in future. Musk isn't one of them. 

 

[SteveNickolls]

Just now, Paul M said:

Thinking about it now, there is an opportunity there for some advertising. That engine array looks like a huge dot matrix display. Could have it displaying the McDonalds "M" or something..

That is special, do you work in marketting? 👍

[SamAndrew]

1 minute ago, Stuart1971 said:

Total waste….IMHO…and every bit would help…

Everyone on Earth benefits from telecommunications, mapping, survey satellites, GPS, etc.

What Musk is doing is bringing the cost down ?! how is that a bad thing?! expendable rockets are a waste.

[Alan White]

I see how Elon Musk is a galvanising and devisive character, he does have a way with him that bring sout both of the aformentioned in me.
Firstly he has driven space launch ahead, probably by decades and he is now followed over re-usable hardware etc.
He and Space X as already said are not driven by financial public funding oversight and the belief that cheap is good value.

The need to get bigger into space is a reality of so many projects and those projects do have earth bound spin offs with material technologies etc,
and exploring is in our DNA and to do that we need a ship etc to do so.

As to spending the funds for space on good, well I see that sentiment, but in reality it is being spent on good and the furure of mankind.

The what looks gung ho methods of Space X are in reality calculated steps by them, as they say you dont make an omlette without breaking eggs.
If you think doing so, then the Government funded method is likely favoured by you and will tie mankind to near earth orbit for so much longer.

 

[Macavity]

1 minute ago, Paul M said:

 

humanity would be better off without...

Are you a professional HITMAN? 😱 But "personal attacks" are deprecated? [teasing] 🤣
 

[DaveS]

8 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

Total waste….IMHO…and every bit would help…

Do you want to return to a dirt-grubbing substance agrarian economy? I certainly don't.

[SamAndrew]

4 hours ago, Ags said:

That may be true, but when the top stage lifts off from the Moon or Mars, there will be no flame diverter...

The thrust needed to get a half filled rocket off the Moon is a fraction needed on Earth, Apollo showed it can be done.

Mars, they will likely need to build a launch tower, but there's a whole load more challenges such as building the refueling infrastructure, that's a problem for a later date.

They get Falcon Heavy to launch with 27 engines without issue. The number of engines is not the problem.

[Paul M]

3 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Are you a professional HITMAN?

I'd be the world's worst hitman. I get upset if I see an injured insect! 🦋 😁

[Elp]

16 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I'm conflicted about Musk. On the one hand I applaud what he's doing to make space travel affordable and sustainable, but on the other his Starlink junk just annoys the heck out of me, though I can see that he needs the money to fund Starship etc.

Like I say, no simple answer. 

I used to have respect for his drive (as much as you can respect someone without even knowing them personally in person), but the whole Twitter saga (read up on it, you cannot make it up about how the whole acquisition process panned out and the immediate actions taken thereafter) and you see another side.

Spacex seems like a good thing on the surface, at least it will allow space agencies more time to concentrate on the science progression rather than the expensive game of getting equipment into space.

[Macavity]

Are there any *Chemists* here, who recognise the TRIPOD
(Bunsen Burner and Clamp!) Technology? Just saying... 😛
 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Macavity

[saac]

19 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

Very true, and I don’t have the answer, but what benefit to 99.9999% of the people on this earth, is getting a big rocket into space going to have, absolutely none whatsoever, an absolute pointless task, but he has the money to waste…at least his starlink venture was helping many people, as much as it’s a pain for us astrophotographers….but this latest stuff, is a case of “Boys and there toys”

Why can't we do both?  Who knows what may come from from this technology?  Fast forward a few decades and we may well find we are in an age of mining of materials extra terrestrial.  Appropriately so called "rare earth" metals essential for a whole host of technologies and which are certain to play a key role in our future energy generation  (fusion, solar etc) are the prize.  I can't remember who said it, Brain Cox perhaps,  "these technologies (SpaceX etc) will allow us to move damaging, heavy polluting  industrial activity off our fragile Earth. 

As for Starlink, yes I do agree with you there, the gain seems frivolous compared to the damage done.  

Jim 

[SamAndrew]

6 minutes ago, saac said:

As for Starlink, yes I do agree with you there, the gain seems frivolous compared to the damage done.  

Jim 

Curious what you consider to be the damage done? Bringing internet to the whole world at the expense of a few trails in some astro photos (that can be stacked out) is something I can live with.

Edited April 21, 2023 by SamAndrew

[DaveS]

I rather think that Ukraine has been very glad of Starlink.

[DaveS]

12 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Are there any *Chemists* here, who recognise the TRIPOD
(Bunsen Burner and Clamp!) Technology? Just saying... 😛
 

Yep, and the exhaust from the Raptors does look very much like a humongous Bunsen burner 

[ollypenrice]

Space X's favourable spin on this explosion reminds me of how politicians who have lost elections rabbit on at length about the many positives of the result and how, properly looked at, it represents a great step forward for their party.

Olly

[SamAndrew]

Just now, ollypenrice said:

Space X's favourable spin on this explosion reminds me of how politicians who have lost elections rabbit on at length about the many positives of the result and how, properly looked at, it represents a great step forward for their party.

Olly

Given the only possible outcome was the destruction of both the booster and ship, it was literally a test to see how far it got before it exploded.

[SamAndrew]

14 hours ago, saac said:

Telemetry provides performance parameters (pressure, flow rate, temperature, position and displacement etc) it doesn't provide failure mode for that you need to get the physical component for onward analysis. Think of aircraft accident investigation; where they can, they recover as much of the aircraft structure and components as possible for analysis.  Anyway, they know what they are doing and will be all over it. 

Jim 

There's no intention to recover any of the wreckage, other than the clean up anything that didn't sink. They have all sorts of sensors that can triangulate the source of failures visually, acoustically, via temperature, stress etc. On one of the falcon 9 they traced down the individual strut that failed in one of the fuel tanks just on the acoustic telemetry.

[Macavity]

17 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Space X's favourable spin on this explosion reminds me of how politicians...

BINGO! But I still feel science COULD distance itself from politics - If it/they so chose? 😎
But then science has discovered that "being political" wins votes... for SpaceX etc.
I feel sorry for NASA in a way. A political "whipping boy" these days? 🙁
Govt. Scientists don't always vote... for the Govt? <wink> lol

Edited April 21, 2023 by Macavity

[Stuart1971]

59 minutes ago, SamAndrew said:

Everyone on Earth benefits from telecommunications, mapping, survey satellites, GPS, etc.

What Musk is doing is bringing the cost down ?! how is that a bad thing?! expendable rockets are a waste.

And that is exactly what I said re starlink, read my posts….👍🏻

[Stuart1971]

38 minutes ago, saac said:

Why can't we do both?  Who knows what may come from from this technology?  Fast forward a few decades and we may well find we are in an age of mining of materials extra terrestrial.  Appropriately so called "rare earth" metals essential for a whole host of technologies and which are certain to play a key role in our future energy generation  (fusion, solar etc) are the prize.  I can't remember who said it, Brain Cox perhaps,  "these technologies (SpaceX etc) will allow us to move damaging, heavy polluting  industrial activity off our fragile Earth. 

As for Starlink, yes I do agree with you there, the gain seems frivolous compared to the damage done.  

Jim 

We need to worry about here and now not a few decades in time, they way things are going there won’t be decades in time….😮☹️

Edited April 21, 2023 by Stuart1971

[Paul M]

2 minutes ago, Macavity said:

But I still feel science COULD distance itself from politics

Without going off into banned territory, I think the shoe is on the other foot? 

Science can't get away from politics. Science has been, to a large degree, subordinated by politics. 

It comes down to the root of all evil, money. Science needs money and that often comes at a moral cost.

[Macavity]

2 minutes ago, Paul M said:

Without going off into banned territory, I think the shoe is on the other foot?

Possibly so? But then, sometimes I think that our laudable(!) efforts, to remain
NON "religious and political", seem to rather favour the uhm... more extreme.  😛

I think these are valuable discussions! Though perhaps somewhat limited? lol
But then I am comparing e.g. neighbours opinions to SGL's erudite discussion! 😅

[Paul M]

2 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Possibly so? But then, sometimes I think that our laudable(!) efforts, to remain
NON "religious and political", seem to rather favour the uhm... more extreme.  😛

I think these are valuable discussions! Though perhaps somewhat limited? lol
But then I am comparing e.g. neighbours opinions to SGL's erudite discussion! 😅

It's a bit like Fight Club.

The first rule of Fight Club: Don't talk about Fight Club!

Anyway, it's good job Musk doesn't own SGL, there'd be a lot of banning going on!! 🤣😁