I though the point was to engage. But do carry on.
Do show me the cheaper, more reliable option that SpaceX. Seems their methods do work.
Musk should take over the NHS.
What did you expect after this? Flowers?
Public-private partnerships like this only exist because publicly funded programs have got something to a point that commercial interests are interested in them. There is a wealth of work that is high risk, too far from the benefits being practically realized that are nonetheless important. The government engaging in these partnerships allows them to outsource “the last mile” where private entities may well have advantages over government, but also allows them to go back to working on the stuff that will give rise to the next generation of advancement (that some other company will step in and commercialize).
Treating the success of the corporations in these partnerships as evidence of the failure of government to do cool stuff completely misunderstands the relationship and the value the foundational work of the government entities, or that of their targeted public funding.
4 Likes
And yet it worked first time. All bases covered. Fully planned and executed with expected results.
Question is whether Musk’s approach is quicker and cheaper. I’m not convinced yet.
1 Like
How long did it take NASA to land a rocket and re-use it? The Shuttle was no more than a big capsule and it cost the earth to turn it round to fly.
I rest my case.
This one didn’t land in one piece either did it? I guess there will be another one to test separation, another to test post separation flight, another in orbit, a few more to fine tune the landing a bit more.
When does all of that add up to being the “best approach”? That’s all I’m asking.
Truth is, without seeing all the numbers you cant answer that question either.
It’s FUN.
Certainly spectacular.
1 Like
just out of interest…
if NASA are funding Spacex to proceed with a program whilst they chase other goals, how is it that any progresss that Spacex make is used as a stick to beat NASA with?
but anything Musk does -which is demonstrably outsourced- is evidence of some form of superiority?
surely its a colaboration? we can question the validity of the program, but if i read this correctly, its anything but a competition, no?
4 Likes
But Musk knows nothing about rocket design….
In the words of Richard Feinman (sp?) Where is everybody?
Not everyone may have access to this story due to the NYT paywall, but it seems that yesterday’s launch caused significant damage in the vicinity of the launch site and left Port Isabel, TX covered in dirt and debris.
Seems like shameless self publication? Do you follow Liverpool franchise FC?
https://www.youtube.com/live/Umx-gjHAXsc?feature=share
Clockwork. But you can’t land a rocket, don’t be stupid.
It does seem like something big is about to break. And if you believe Dr. Garry Nolan of Stanford University, they’re here already.
1 Like
post WW2 made massive changes in technology. I’m not saying it’s as a result of the reverse engineering of a vehicle from an advanced society, but the timelines look pretty indicative of such. When was Roswell / Area 51? late 1940’s into 1950’s?
Roswell is a fascinating place. Something very odd happened there. None of the official stories make sense. Some of the eye witness reports are extremely interesting. All the lampposts are aliens which just makes it cool to start with.
But if you reverse engineered alien tech that got Jonny green dude across the stars to here, you’re getting far more than chips, jets, rockets, radio, nukes and microwaves. Pretty much the only advances in the last 100 years.
lots of assumptions here. That humans have the capacity to understand alien tech. or the materials. Our ‘table of the elements’ are all that we KNOW about in our miniscule little part of the universe. 95% of what we know about space outside of our galaxy is theoretical, projections and observations.
1 Like
The truth is still out there but I think it just got a lot closer.