Slashdot Mirror
On Fourth Launch Attempt, SpaceX Falcon 1 Reaches Orbit
xp65 writes with the just-announced success of Elon Musk's SpaceX's long efforts to reach orbit with a privately-developed launching craft: "T+0:08:21 Falcon 1 reached orbital velocity, 5200 m/s Nominal Second stage cut off (SECO) — Falcon 1 has made history as the first privately developed liquid fueled launch vehicle to achieve earth orbit!"
dbullard adds "This was a completely new vehicle — it's not using any previously developed hardware. All developed from scratch. No government supplied hardware, Russian engines, or old ICBM motors. My hat's off to the employees of Space X — all 550 of them. (Note — no 'cast of thousands,' just 550).
They've got video of the entire launch."
but you don't see it on the front page do you?
If the Chinese can do it, that means the US, the Brits, and even the French have already done it, and a long, long time ago.
No one is waiting around for these clowns to get their act together finally. Given their pathetically incompetent history the fact that they finally managed to not fuck up once again is certainly due to pure dumb luck.
Dream on if you think anyone is going to let these nimrods anywhere near something as valuable as the International Space Station.
Space X is going launch their first monkey into space with their commercial craft. Unfortunately the monkey they are hoping for won't be available until next year. And that's if the same monkey doesn't destroy the economy first. Silly chimp!
Did you just mention a character from "Atlas Shrugged"? You do realise that makes you a self important retard, don't you?
Why will he swim in money? The global economy is in a bit of a state right now and I don't think many people are going to be that keen in putting their money into a launcher with a 75% failure rate.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
What a triumph for the private sector! Just think of the people queuing up to pay for their ticket on a launch platform with a 80 percent failure rate!
All hail the mighty power of 'teh private sector'! Take that 'teh government'!
Ooops:
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/dnepr_sum.shtml
Preempted by teh eveel commies once again
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Please don't compare the Falcon 1 to the R7, because I don't want to piss myself laughing then have to change my trousers.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Depends what party.
People are cheerleading this fairly mundane flight (after a series of hilarious disasters, and there are more to follow I promise) simply because the idea of corporate space flight fits in with their masturbatory Atlas Shrugged fantasies.
I find it sickening for free market fundamentalists to be celebrating this whilst the rest of reality shows their belief system to be incredibly damaging. I mean, how many banks have had to be bailed out recently? How many have lost their homes?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Dnepr
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Number three wasn't stage seperation timing. It was how long the engine would continue to produce thrust. Even as a sceptic I stared slack jawed at the screen when I read this. How the fuck did they let that get through?
These pricks you are cheerleading for have about as much quality control as a Chinese dairy farm, which is why they didn't know how much thrust their own damn engine produce before it was slamming their stages together. Check your facts before you call someone and idiot next time you cocksucker.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Taxes? Don't come the "Private is best" crap with me whilst your government is propping up failing banks.
Space being classified? Not really.
Energy crisis? You aren't one of these Helium-3 retards are you?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
They haven't done better. They have produced a more costly, less reliable version of established Soviet/Russian launchers and have given themselves far too much of a pat on the back for it.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Taxes? Don't come the "Private is best" crap with me whilst your government is propping up failing banks.
The problem is, that the government tried to regulate the economy which in turn caused the banks to fail (along with some stupid decisions by the CEOs). Ever heard of the FDIC, Taxes and the minimum wage? All those things are things that the government put in to regulate (and thus end up ruining) the economy.
Space being classified? Not really.
In that talk, he suggested that all software developed by the Federal Government should be released to the public domain or a very, very liberal open-source license. That's not even a copyleft license. Does the American public have any access to the source code currently on the Phoenix? Are there plans to make some of the source code available? Well, no. There are no plans to make that available. And one of the issues that we have is that our spacecraft are designated as subject to international trafficking and arms regulations. So even -- Crypto regulations in exporting and such? Yeah. Yeah. I mean even though these are not military spacecraft, the technology used in them is space technology. And so the State Department does not allow us to release anything that we've done in terms of technical details to foreign scrutiny. Now, in fact as I said, we have a team of Canadians. The Canadians delivered our meteorology instruments, and we had to be very careful about our relationship with them and how much we could disclose to them.
From http://news.oreilly.com/2008/07/the-software-behind-the-mars-p.html from the /. article http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/10/213211
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The dopes making excuses for this pathetic company aren't even trying. They're just recycling the same old damage control posts used a damage control for shitty open source software.
Public funded space exploration is wrong because it deprives tax payers of their liberty. It takes resoures from people without their consent that they earned with their own sweat and hard work.
I don't care how valuable your pet project is to humankind -- if you fund it with the barrel of a gun it isn't worth it. That's (one of) the reason Musk's effort is amazing. He has done it (well, mostly), with his own cash.
I would however like to see you defense -- I believe it will be ripped apart here with great haste...
Satellites used for the profitable uses that you mentioned are privately funded.
NASA is a civilian agency -- not a military agency, so any justification based on national defense falls flat.
Mao! Is that you?!
You are correct -- I am against all taxes that do not provide for the common defense (national security).
Having said that, I appreciate, and agree with many of your points. However, your list of justifiable projects to spend my money on is just your opinion. I have my opinion as well, and while it is nicely aligned with yours, I have no right to force you or anyone else to fund my projects. If I (or you) believe in them we should enter the capital markets with our reputations in hand to get them funded.
What I don't agree with is your thesis that these things wouldn't be done without a government and the requisite taxes. I do believe that corporations would do many of these things. More importantly, as Elon has demonstrated, I believe that individuals with means would fund the riskier things. But, we have to allow them to build up discretionary funds and not suck them up with taxes.
Finally, anyone that has seen the inner workings of NASA today will likely attest that it certainly isn't "pushing the envelope" in the way that its funding (~$18B/year I believe) should.
No, I'm suggesting that companies are smart. If you can't show value in anything shorter than fifty years it isn't worth doing. Break it down into smaller, valuable steps.
Shareholders don't demand short-term profits -- they demand risk-adjusted and time discounted profits. Just like you do whenever you collect a salary.