Flying to outer space
Comments
-
FFS, I don’t doubt all three of them are arrogant pricks but the reuse of hardware is groundbreaking and they’ve only been at it a short while.
Soyuz is ancient and what China does is about securing China’s dominance.
If you want to see a technological evolution in space delivery, it is being driven by these people.
The shuttle was reusable but the costs were so extortionate it was reusable in name only. Here we have genuinely recyclable and scalable vehicles evolving.
Whether / how that benefits us is a valid debate but the evolution is the first time things have moved at this pace since the 60’s.
If anything Rick, you should be happy the space race the boomers remember is being put behind us by a new generation.0 -
I’m not a fan of relying on Victorian style charity or ultra rich whims to advance the world.morstar said:FFS, I don’t doubt all three of them are arrogant pricks but the reuse of hardware is groundbreaking and they’ve only been at it a short while.
Soyuz is ancient and what China does is about securing China’s dominance.
If you want to see a technological evolution in space delivery, it is being driven by these people.
The shuttle was reusable but the costs were so extortionate it was reusable in name only. Here we have genuinely recyclable and scalable vehicles evolving.
Whether / how that benefits us is a valid debate but the evolution is the first time things have moved at this pace since the 60’s.
If anything Rick, you should be happy the space race the boomers remember is being put behind us by a new generation.
It is not sustainable, it is not efficient and the “trickle down” is extremely limited.
It is the behaviour of the ultra rich as it is not economical, so I won’t buy the “it’s the free market competition” argument as it is not a market.0 -
Some of us buy over priced bikes because we can.
Same principle multiplied.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I have some sympathy for your comments here but corporations (and their heads) are now richer and more powerful than most nation states.rick_chasey said:
I’m not a fan of relying on Victorian style charity or ultra rich whims to advance the world.morstar said:FFS, I don’t doubt all three of them are arrogant pricks but the reuse of hardware is groundbreaking and they’ve only been at it a short while.
Soyuz is ancient and what China does is about securing China’s dominance.
If you want to see a technological evolution in space delivery, it is being driven by these people.
The shuttle was reusable but the costs were so extortionate it was reusable in name only. Here we have genuinely recyclable and scalable vehicles evolving.
Whether / how that benefits us is a valid debate but the evolution is the first time things have moved at this pace since the 60’s.
If anything Rick, you should be happy the space race the boomers remember is being put behind us by a new generation.
It is not sustainable, it is not efficient and the “trickle down” is extremely limited.
It is the behaviour of the ultra rich as it is not economical, so I won’t buy the “it’s the free market competition” argument as it is not a market.
NASA buys space travel from private enterprise or other nations.
Until the corporate / government balance of power shifts back, this is what cutting edge space travel looks like.
China is the notable exception but I don’t see any other nation replicating that in a hurry.0 -
The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.0
-
SpaceX is taking people to the iss isn't it?john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
0 -
They may well be but for commercial gain. The people doing the science work are not space X employees are they. It was being argued in the US that NASA should be contracting in services as they are doing with spaceX whilst they focus on the technological firsts they are good at.kingstongraham said:
SpaceX is taking people to the iss isn't it?john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
0 -
Not cutting edge, what a crock of shit.john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.0 -
What if UFOs are just multibillionaires from other planets?1
-
john80 said:
The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4eav7dFvc8
And I quote "I'm gon' send him to outer space, to find another race"0 -
Someday I hope someone can send the first human bicycle called SAVA to space-3
-
I am going to send this into extinction rebellion. They will be round your house to correct the error in your thinking. Could their cutting edge efforts be brought into a more useful stream. Say electric flight for domestic purposes. That seems to me to be a bigger challenge than reusing a rocket and infinitely more useful.morstar said:
Not cutting edge, what a crock of censored .john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.0 -
In my first post I used the word ‘if’ space travel is worthwhile.john80 said:
I am going to send this into extinction rebellion. They will be round your house to correct the error in your thinking. Could their cutting edge efforts be brought into a more useful stream. Say electric flight for domestic purposes. That seems to me to be a bigger challenge than reusing a rocket and infinitely more useful.morstar said:
Not cutting edge, what a crock of censored .john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.
So, I agree the virtue of it is worthy of debate but nice attempt at distracting from the point. You posted some garbage about not being at the cutting edge of development. Your irrelevant riposte here does nothing to change that.0 -
Using the same rocket technology that is already proven for decades is not cutting edge. Figuring out how to control the rocket on its descent is a nifty trick but it is also not the cutting edge of development. To be at the cutting edge of development it would have to move space exploration forwards in some significant way. It essentially uses pretty much the same amount of fuel as existing rockets and reduces the cost a bit through reusing parts. If you think this is some massive step forward in space exploration then crack on but I don't.morstar said:
In my first post I used the word ‘if’ space travel is worthwhile.john80 said:
I am going to send this into extinction rebellion. They will be round your house to correct the error in your thinking. Could their cutting edge efforts be brought into a more useful stream. Say electric flight for domestic purposes. That seems to me to be a bigger challenge than reusing a rocket and infinitely more useful.morstar said:
Not cutting edge, what a crock of censored .john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.
So, I agree the virtue of it is worthy of debate but nice attempt at distracting from the point. You posted some garbage about not being at the cutting edge of development. Your irrelevant riposte here does nothing to change that.0 -
And yet nobody did it before.john80 said:
Using the same rocket technology that is already proven for decades is not cutting edge. Figuring out how to control the rocket on its descent is a nifty trick but it is also not the cutting edge of development. To be at the cutting edge of development it would have to move space exploration forwards in some significant way. It essentially uses pretty much the same amount of fuel as existing rockets and reduces the cost a bit through reusing parts. If you think this is some massive step forward in space exploration then crack on but I don't.morstar said:
In my first post I used the word ‘if’ space travel is worthwhile.john80 said:
I am going to send this into extinction rebellion. They will be round your house to correct the error in your thinking. Could their cutting edge efforts be brought into a more useful stream. Say electric flight for domestic purposes. That seems to me to be a bigger challenge than reusing a rocket and infinitely more useful.morstar said:
Not cutting edge, what a crock of censored .john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.
So, I agree the virtue of it is worthy of debate but nice attempt at distracting from the point. You posted some garbage about not being at the cutting edge of development. Your irrelevant riposte here does nothing to change that.
Cutting edge is being at the forefront of development whether that be incremental or step change differences does not define the leading edge.0 -
he has reduced the costs by 80%john80 said:
Using the same rocket technology that is already proven for decades is not cutting edge. Figuring out how to control the rocket on its descent is a nifty trick but it is also not the cutting edge of development. To be at the cutting edge of development it would have to move space exploration forwards in some significant way. It essentially uses pretty much the same amount of fuel as existing rockets and reduces the cost a bit through reusing parts. If you think this is some massive step forward in space exploration then crack on but I don't.morstar said:
In my first post I used the word ‘if’ space travel is worthwhile.john80 said:
I am going to send this into extinction rebellion. They will be round your house to correct the error in your thinking. Could their cutting edge efforts be brought into a more useful stream. Say electric flight for domestic purposes. That seems to me to be a bigger challenge than reusing a rocket and infinitely more useful.morstar said:
Not cutting edge, what a crock of censored .john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.
So, I agree the virtue of it is worthy of debate but nice attempt at distracting from the point. You posted some garbage about not being at the cutting edge of development. Your irrelevant riposte here does nothing to change that.0 -
On what, other commercial rockets that put all the satellites up?surrey_commuter said:
he has reduced the costs by 80%john80 said:
Using the same rocket technology that is already proven for decades is not cutting edge. Figuring out how to control the rocket on its descent is a nifty trick but it is also not the cutting edge of development. To be at the cutting edge of development it would have to move space exploration forwards in some significant way. It essentially uses pretty much the same amount of fuel as existing rockets and reduces the cost a bit through reusing parts. If you think this is some massive step forward in space exploration then crack on but I don't.morstar said:
In my first post I used the word ‘if’ space travel is worthwhile.john80 said:
I am going to send this into extinction rebellion. They will be round your house to correct the error in your thinking. Could their cutting edge efforts be brought into a more useful stream. Say electric flight for domestic purposes. That seems to me to be a bigger challenge than reusing a rocket and infinitely more useful.morstar said:
Not cutting edge, what a crock of censored .john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.
So, I agree the virtue of it is worthy of debate but nice attempt at distracting from the point. You posted some garbage about not being at the cutting edge of development. Your irrelevant riposte here does nothing to change that.0 -
yes - it is his big disruptor idea to do things at 20% of the existing costrick_chasey said:
On what, other commercial rockets that put all the satellites up?surrey_commuter said:
he has reduced the costs by 80%john80 said:
Using the same rocket technology that is already proven for decades is not cutting edge. Figuring out how to control the rocket on its descent is a nifty trick but it is also not the cutting edge of development. To be at the cutting edge of development it would have to move space exploration forwards in some significant way. It essentially uses pretty much the same amount of fuel as existing rockets and reduces the cost a bit through reusing parts. If you think this is some massive step forward in space exploration then crack on but I don't.morstar said:
In my first post I used the word ‘if’ space travel is worthwhile.john80 said:
I am going to send this into extinction rebellion. They will be round your house to correct the error in your thinking. Could their cutting edge efforts be brought into a more useful stream. Say electric flight for domestic purposes. That seems to me to be a bigger challenge than reusing a rocket and infinitely more useful.morstar said:
Not cutting edge, what a crock of censored .john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.
So, I agree the virtue of it is worthy of debate but nice attempt at distracting from the point. You posted some garbage about not being at the cutting edge of development. Your irrelevant riposte here does nothing to change that.0 -
The idea or the execution?surrey_commuter said:
yes - it is his big disruptor idea to do things at 20% of the existing costrick_chasey said:
On what, other commercial rockets that put all the satellites up?surrey_commuter said:
he has reduced the costs by 80%john80 said:
Using the same rocket technology that is already proven for decades is not cutting edge. Figuring out how to control the rocket on its descent is a nifty trick but it is also not the cutting edge of development. To be at the cutting edge of development it would have to move space exploration forwards in some significant way. It essentially uses pretty much the same amount of fuel as existing rockets and reduces the cost a bit through reusing parts. If you think this is some massive step forward in space exploration then crack on but I don't.morstar said:
In my first post I used the word ‘if’ space travel is worthwhile.john80 said:
I am going to send this into extinction rebellion. They will be round your house to correct the error in your thinking. Could their cutting edge efforts be brought into a more useful stream. Say electric flight for domestic purposes. That seems to me to be a bigger challenge than reusing a rocket and infinitely more useful.morstar said:
Not cutting edge, what a crock of censored .john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.
So, I agree the virtue of it is worthy of debate but nice attempt at distracting from the point. You posted some garbage about not being at the cutting edge of development. Your irrelevant riposte here does nothing to change that.
Maybe I have not followed this closely but I refuse to believe they've knocked 80% off the cost of existing commercial rockets.0 -
See above.focuszing723 said:14 Straight successful launches for New Shepard, pretty good. 122 for SpaceX Falcon 9!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Shepard
I guess Bezos wants to up the anti and get some media attention for Blue Origin, given Nasa's Moon landing contract was given to SpaceX.
I suppose it's good to have the competition if the goal is to encourage exploration in space.0 -
A Falcon 9 first-stage booster is a reusable rocket booster used on the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy orbital launch vehicles manufactured by SpaceX. The manufacture of first-stage booster constitutes about 60% of the launch price of a single Falcon 9 (and three of them over 80% of the launch price of a Falcon Heavy), which led SpaceX to develop a program dedicated to recovery and reuse of these boosters for a significant decrease in launch costs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters0 -
Recovery and reuse of 80% does not mean an 80% saving.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
you know the existing competition only use a rocket once whereas he reuses his?rick_chasey said:
The idea or the execution?surrey_commuter said:
yes - it is his big disruptor idea to do things at 20% of the existing costrick_chasey said:
On what, other commercial rockets that put all the satellites up?surrey_commuter said:
he has reduced the costs by 80%john80 said:
Using the same rocket technology that is already proven for decades is not cutting edge. Figuring out how to control the rocket on its descent is a nifty trick but it is also not the cutting edge of development. To be at the cutting edge of development it would have to move space exploration forwards in some significant way. It essentially uses pretty much the same amount of fuel as existing rockets and reduces the cost a bit through reusing parts. If you think this is some massive step forward in space exploration then crack on but I don't.morstar said:
In my first post I used the word ‘if’ space travel is worthwhile.john80 said:
I am going to send this into extinction rebellion. They will be round your house to correct the error in your thinking. Could their cutting edge efforts be brought into a more useful stream. Say electric flight for domestic purposes. That seems to me to be a bigger challenge than reusing a rocket and infinitely more useful.morstar said:
Not cutting edge, what a crock of censored .john80 said:The elephant in the room is that this is not cutting edge. For sure a reusable rocket is a good piece of evolution but nothing they are actually doing in space is of value to science. All the value is in the programmes looking much further into space to increase our knowledge of the universe. Tesla is not launching satellites for anything other than future commercial gain. Will be slightly amusing if we derail an alien attack if they crash into his Tesla roadster on route.
Studying and scientific experiments are a totally different branch of science and technology to the vehicles that transport people and equipment into space.
These organisations are at the cutting edge of the latter regardless of what is done in the scientific realm. They are not mutually exclusive.
Scientists can do clever stuff whilst the engineers and rocket scientists also can. It’s just lazy criticism.
So, I agree the virtue of it is worthy of debate but nice attempt at distracting from the point. You posted some garbage about not being at the cutting edge of development. Your irrelevant riposte here does nothing to change that.
Maybe I have not followed this closely but I refuse to believe they've knocked 80% off the cost of existing commercial rockets.
apologies for wikipedia but comparing the cost of rocket launches is not that easy with SpaceX being a private comapany
Launch Vehicle Payload cost per kg
Vanguard $1,000,000 [19]
Space Shuttle $54,500 [19]
Electron $19,039 [20][21]
Terran 1 $9,600 [22]
Ariane 5G $9,167 [19]
Long March 3B $4,412 [19]
Proton $4,320 [19]
Falcon 9 $2,720 [23]
Falcon Heavy $1,400 [23]
Starship (planned cost, commercial price may be higher) $10 [24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition0 -
Whatever it is, it's a saving in cost being able to re-use the rockets. Can we all agree on that?pblakeney said:Recovery and reuse of 80% does not mean an 80% saving.
Gawd!0 -
We can agree that there are savings but no point in exaggerating those savings. Might only be 10%The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Let's just say 5% to make sure everybody is happy.0
-
you think that reusing the rocket rather than crashing it into the Atantic would only save you 10%pblakeney said:We can agree that there are savings but no point in exaggerating those savings. Might only be 10%
see my chart above, if you want to put a satellite into orbit then Ariane will charge you $9k per kilo whereas Falcon Heavy is $1.4k0 -
Is that run at a profit or even break even?surrey_commuter said:
you think that reusing the rocket rather than crashing it into the Atantic would only save you 10%pblakeney said:We can agree that there are savings but no point in exaggerating those savings. Might only be 10%
see my chart above, if you want to put a satellite into orbit then Ariane will charge you $9k per kilo whereas Falcon Heavy is $1.4k
Tesla have a habit of selling things at a loss.0 -
I could keep posting stuff but it will not change your mind. I would not buy Tesla shares but I do believe that reusing rockets makes them considerably cheaperrick_chasey said:
Is that run at a profit or even break even?surrey_commuter said:
you think that reusing the rocket rather than crashing it into the Atantic would only save you 10%pblakeney said:We can agree that there are savings but no point in exaggerating those savings. Might only be 10%
see my chart above, if you want to put a satellite into orbit then Ariane will charge you $9k per kilo whereas Falcon Heavy is $1.4k
Tesla have a habit of selling things at a loss.0 -
This thread is crackers.
I think it is perfectly legitimate to debate whether it is appropriate to spend countless millions and billions dicking about in space.
I think it is going to happen anyway but agree wholeheartedly with the right to question that.
However, the idea that great strides aren’t being made in recent years in cost reduction, reusability and scalability is just preposterous.
On one thread we deride Covid deniers as morons whilst taking similarly bizarre positions in others.1
