Slashdot Mirror


New Photos of SpaceX's Falcon 9 Assembly

RobGoldsmith writes "New images are now available of SpaceX's Falcon 9 being assembled. The images are accompanied with a small update from SpaceX. If there are no unexpected delays, it's possible Falcon 9 will be completely integrated by the end of the year. This update shows real flight hardware and really brings the rocket alive. View images of the Falcon 9 nearing completion now!"

122 comments

  1. by the end of the year? by OglinTatas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    as in the end of 2009? or tomorrow? Or somewhere in between, like the Chinese new year or Rosh Hashanah?

    1. Re:by the end of the year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, that's an odd turn of phrase to use when the end of the year is tomorrow. The article says "before December 31st", and it was posted on Dec 30. Um.

    2. Re:by the end of the year? by EagleEye101 · · Score: 1

      Article says tomorrow

    3. Re:by the end of the year? by bornyesterday · · Score: 3, Informative

      according to previous releases and a note in the NYT either today or yesterday, falcon 9 is supposed to be fully assembled by dec 31, 2008

    4. Re:by the end of the year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If there are no unexpected delays, its possible Falcon 9 will be integrated before December 31st â" certainly a great way to start off the New Year." -- from the official SpaceX page

    5. Re:by the end of the year? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it was posted in the SpaceX website on Dec 29.. It took a day to get to the spacefellowship, then another day to get to Slashdot.. so I'm surprised it isn't 2009 already.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  2. first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yay space?

    1. Re:first? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yay, newly-created organization which hasn't accumulated a work-impeding bureaucracy.

      SpaceX is doing great work. Let's hope they don't become another bloated military-industrial dependency anytime soon.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:first? by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 1

      > Yay, newly-created organization which hasn't accumulated a
      > work-impeding bureaucracy. ... yet!

      Given a little time I'm sure it will. ;o)

    3. Re:first? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Most organizations eventually do, but it can take many decades if the founders are careful about the culture they create.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:first? by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 1

      > Most organizations eventually do, but it can take
      > many decades if the founders are careful about
      > the culture they create.

      Ultimately, who cares what any given organisation does, or how they do it, so long as it is ethical and within the law, except for those who are members of said organisation? It is all a largely moot/irrelevant point.

  3. So close by longhairedgnome · · Score: 0

    Just think, next year everyone on earth will be able to fly into space on of these mean machines!! hurrah! oh wait... well we even have a space program(U.S.A.) then?

    --
    GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
  4. The Power of Capitalism by inKubus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This really shows the power of capitalism in this time of government failing. Yes, although the Congress and administration would like you to believe that the current "crisis" is a result of greed, the bottom line is that the money had to come from someplace, and it came from them. Anyway, by looking at Scaled Composites and SpaceX and seeing what they can do when freed from the binders of government "fairness" (corruption, really, since nothing is truely fair) has simply been fascinating. Space flight is finally coming of age.

    Look at this project in comparison to "Orion". A small team vs. thousands. A few designers vs. hundreds of engineers using bulky project management. It goes to show that you really only need project management to do something the first time (IE, not knowing where the major failing points will be). After that, you need something lightweight and agile so that you aren't throwing away the experience of your people by second guessing them until they are unable to make quick decisions.

    Will the NASA craft be somehow safer as a result of this rigor? I doubt it. Because the project is so tedious it's probably likely some things were just given up on. SpaceX will get it through testing, trial and error, and will find out more in two throw-away tests than NASA will in 10 years of rigorous development. And because they are only supporting one application, a proprietary one, they don't have to be "fair", and spend 10x as much to ensure compatibility with vendor specifications.

    Now I'm not saying the government should get out of the space business, but I do think they need to lean it out and put more on the contractors, and open it up to more competition. The fact that this is finally possible is in large part due to the decrease in cost of computers. From project management software to CAD to anything else, it's now possible to wield the same level of computational and data harnessing power on your desktop that was previously limited to only government-sized resources. The gap is closing because there's really not a lot they can do that we can't (with computers). In fact, the increase in the size of government recently seems to be it trying to preserve itself by creating more jobs. "Let's move those computers to something the private industry will never be trusted to do", they think, "such as listening to all the telephone and internet traffic or studying weapons."

    All that NASA is good at doing these days is burning money. Obama, if you're listening, clean it out. In fact, delete it entirely and create a new space agency with modern roots! Imagine what we could do with 500 billion over 10 years with a modern and efficient CIVILIAN organization.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
    1. Re:The Power of Capitalism by Allicorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All that NASA is good at doing these days is burning money.

      Deary me - isn't that a little unfair? The only thing they can do is burn money? You don't see any value at all in the various Mars missions, the fascinating output of Cassini-Huygens, or SOHO, or...? And so on.

      Check out the NASA Current Missions for a bit of an overview of some of the amazing work that NASA are doing.

      Whilst I don't disagree with your main point that small, nimble, commercial outfits can often work smarter and quicker than monolithic government departments, I don't think it's fair cast NASA as nothing but a bottomless sinkhole for cash.

      It might also be worth considering how many of those current projects would never even get to the drawing board stage if the only space enterprises we had were entirely commercial.

      --
      OMG!!! Ponies!!!
    2. Re:The Power of Capitalism by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, although the Congress and administration would like you to believe that the current "crisis" is a result of greed, the bottom line is that the money had to come from someplace, and it came from them.

      Yes, in a way it did come from the government -- it's called deregulation. IOW, "freer" free enterprise. Since the bad boys in the banks didn't have Big Brother looking over their shoulder, they were free to do very risky things -- bordering on outright fraud -- with other people's money. That's what caused the bailout, that's what caused the economic collapse. Don't just take my word for it -- read what's been coming out of the mouths of economists.

      Look at this project in comparison to "Orion". A small team vs. thousands. A few designers vs. hundreds of engineers using bulky project management. It goes to show that you really only need project management to do something the first time (IE, not knowing where the major failing points will be). After that, you need something lightweight and agile so that you aren't throwing away the experience of your people by second guessing them until they are unable to make quick decisions.

      You can't compare the two. Orion's eventual goal is go to Mars. First Orion will go back to the moon to 'practice', and what is learned there will be used to further develop the Orion program for a manned mission to Mars. Let me know when Elan Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson are even remotely planning anything on that scale. Then we can compare.

    3. Re:The Power of Capitalism by CommandoCody · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, the 50 years of accumulated NASA research and experience has been completely useless to SpaceX, an organization that has accomplished everything so far by starting from Newtonian first principles.

      I mean, think about it. "Delete it entirely and create a new space agency" - so, where shall we get experienced scientists and engineers to man this agency? And, where shall we find contractors to build everything this agency designs? Hey, this is all looking kinda familiar...

    4. Re:The Power of Capitalism by suzerain79 · · Score: 1

      You are aware that there are government mandates that require NASA to use private enterprise if that private enterprise can do it cheaper than NASA can? Unfortunately, there are not a ton of companies chomping at the bit to take on the risk to make use of this mandate. Hopefully, this is the start.

    5. Re:The Power of Capitalism by damburger · · Score: 3, Funny

      I knew clicking on these thread it would be full of libertarians mentally wanking themselves off.

      This really shows the power of capitalism in this time of government failing. Yes, although the Congress and administration would like you to believe that the current "crisis" is a result of greed, the bottom line is that the money had to come from someplace, and it came from them. Anyway, by looking at Scaled Composites and SpaceX and seeing what they can do when freed from the binders of government "fairness" (corruption, really, since nothing is truely fair) has simply been fascinating. Space flight is finally coming of age.

      The "power" of capitalism is what caused the current financial crisis, not teh evil government. Banking institutions collapsed after regulations were removed, not whilst they were in place. To go from that to claiming that a 50-years-behind corporate spaceflight program (that is hardly capitalist anyway as it is driven largely by Musk's cash and optimism, not genuine returns) shows a lack of grasp of reality.

      Oh, and never forget that his only real customer is the government. Its practically socialism!

      Look at this project in comparison to "Orion". A small team vs. thousands. A few designers vs. hundreds of engineers using bulky project management. It goes to show that you really only need project management to do something the first time (IE, not knowing where the major failing points will be). After that, you need something lightweight and agile so that you aren't throwing away the experience of your people by second guessing them until they are unable to make quick decisions.

      Retard. Their "small team" and "quick decisions" are what caused them to blow up the first 3 rockets they launch with hilariously simple mistakes. Your beloved capitalist market tends to interpret redundancy and quality control as waste and bureaucracy, when in fact they are necessary for space flight.

      Will the NASA craft be somehow safer as a result of this rigor? I doubt it. Because the project is so tedious it's probably likely some things were just given up on. SpaceX will get it through testing, trial and error, and will find out more in two throw-away tests than NASA will in 10 years of rigorous development. And because they are only supporting one application, a proprietary one, they don't have to be "fair", and spend 10x as much to ensure compatibility with vendor specifications.

      Thanks, but I'd rather take facts over the uninformed ranting of a teenage Ayn Rand fanboy. The facts are, SpaceX have a 75% failure rate and NASA have been putting people into space for decades with relatively few mistakes.

      Now I'm not saying the government should get out of the space business, but I do think they need to lean it out and put more on the contractors, and open it up to more competition. The fact that this is finally possible is in large part due to the decrease in cost of computers. From project management software to CAD to anything else, it's now possible to wield the same level of computational and data harnessing power on your desktop that was previously limited to only government-sized resources. The gap is closing because there's really not a lot they can do that we can't (with computers). In fact, the increase in the size of government recently seems to be it trying to preserve itself by creating more jobs. "Let's move those computers to something the private industry will never be trusted to do", they think, "such as listening to all the telephone and internet traffic or studying weapons."

      If you actually approached some kind of understanding of the subject and weren't just trotting out capitalist dogma like a mindless drone, you might know that a lot of the early problems NASA had were due to competition between contractors and insufficient (government, gasp!) management of them. Sorry if the facts interrupt your little

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    6. Re:The Power of Capitalism by jcr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, in a way it did come from the government -- it's called deregulation.

      I see that you're swallowing the party line. The fact of the matter is, regulations grew just as much under Bush as under any president before him. The key factor to this bubble was the unlimited credit that the Federal Reserve issued, and the Fed is a government-established monopoly. The lesson here is that central planning is a recipe for disaster, whether it's the Soviet bureaucracy setting grain quotas and prices, or the Federal Reserve setting interest rates for fiat currency.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:The Power of Capitalism by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The "power" of capitalism is what caused the current financial crisis, not teh evil government. Banking institutions collapsed after regulations were removed, not whilst they were in place.

      You mean, when the congress (see Barney Frank's ranting assurances that Fannie and Freddie were no risk at all, and perfectly well capitalized, etc) - for entirely political reasons, essentially forces the capital market to make irrational loans to people who cannot possibly afford them, that's regulations being removed? Hardly. Those institutions would never had made those loans, or invested in them, without that heavy dose of wrong-headed government involvement in the market.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:The Power of Capitalism by damburger · · Score: 1

      Capitalism retard misses the point once more. If what you claim is true, what is happening now would've happened a long time ago. You fail.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    9. Re:The Power of Capitalism by GameMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, as has been mentioned by other posters here, SpaceX (like all the other companies in the industry) has only been able to accomplish so much in such a short amount of time because they have had 50+ years of government funded rocket/space reasearch at their disposal (not just NASA or US reasearch, but also German reasearch funded during WWII as well as Russian research released after the end of the Cold War). Nothing ever stopped private companies from developing spacecraft. The reason they didn't was that the cost-benefit analysis said that even if they could afford to develop the tech it would have a pay-off to make the capital investment worth while or that pay-off was to far off in the future to sell the idea to investors. Thats one of the things government funding of research is good for. Governments can think in the long-term and do the unprofitable early research that make the technology more profitable for later private enterprise. They also do things for national defense reasons that serve the same effect, trickling down to non-military applications once the tech is cheaper to produce.

      You say that all NASA is good for, these days, is burning money but you ignore all the incredible things they've achieved such as the reacent Mars explorers that not only succeeded in their mission but ran for far far longer than their planned operational lives. What you aren't accounting for is the fact that, even with those 50+ years of research, space exploration is still extremely expensive because of the extreme nature of the environment. Try looking up the total cost of the Apollo program and converting that number to 2008 dollars. The price was astronomical. Compared to what it took to put people on the moon, what NASA has today is nothing.

      Now is the time for private companies to start looking at exploiting space, but we aren't ready yet to just get rid of NASA. Maybe, when one or two of these companies has a fully operational spacecraft capable of intra-solarsystem travel we could concider it. Right now we have nothing that could even come close to taking the place of NASA.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    10. Re:The Power of Capitalism by ruin20 · · Score: 1
      inKubus,

      I couldn't agree with you more, however I would like to point out the reasons why the bureaucracies exist and why we pay so much more on government programs than private ones. Having worked in both sectors I understand what's going on and the advantages and disadvantages on both sides.

      The reason government programs are so costly is accountability. Unlike private organizations, government institutions are nothing more than organizational structures. Therefore their setup must assume minimal competency at each point in the decision tree. Because of this decisions are split up into sub responsibilities with each sub responsibility being sent off to separate nodes in the tree. Those nodes each send their assessments (most of the time a simple pass/fail type system) up the chain where someone else signs off. Funding allocations are determined on how effective the whole unit is and the point of the process is not only to produce an item, but to additionally produce an accountability trail that is thorough enough that any failure can be re-examined and the root causes for failure can be brought out and blame can be properly assigned. When government partners with industry the bureaucracy doubles, because the government part of the process has to justify all the changes, expenses and performances that the industrial partner makes. On the gov side the motto is "Trust But Verify". The partner has to keep nearly identical records in case they fail and the funding they've been provided gets clawed back.

      The fact that this problem gets in it's own way is an issue, but the thought behind it isn't a bad one. There's something to be said about having a trace for the thought process behind development. That said, currently despite that every decision and discussion is documented and recorded, the volume the government produces acts most effectively as camouflage and the sheer volume of reporting makes it difficult to track back to root causes when stuff goes bad.

      To increases efficiency, you must assume more liability at each node in the tree. You improve competency at each node, and things move faster. Making nodes more competent, you can eliminate redundant nodes and stream line the process. On top of that they're only preforming half the function in that they aren't producing the same accountability trail that is required in government work.

      I'm not saying that the government way of doing things is correct, but I would say that there is a philosophy behind it that isn't totally worthless, even if the implementation is screwed up. I'm willing to bet that if SpaceX exhibits a failure, you'll have to turn to one of their senior engineers to understand and what went wrong and why. And if you're going to invest lots of public money into the system, there should be some assurance that if that happens, you don't just get a "shrug, idontkonw" in return. There should be a way of confirming that what he says the day after the failure is consistent with what he said before the failure.

      --
      Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
    11. Re:The Power of Capitalism by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If what you claim is true, what is happening now would've happened a long time ago.

      Wrong. The risk was accumulating (which is why the representatives from the administration are seen in congressional hearings, in front of Franks, telling him there's a serious problem looming). The only thing that delayed the results was the unusually long period of time that property values continued to go up on the market. When that stopped, as it always does, the empty loan values - the ones backed up by vague government promises and pressure on the market - came home to roost.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:The Power of Capitalism by goontz · · Score: 1

      Senator Sexton from Dan Brown's Deception Point? Is that you?!

    13. Re:The Power of Capitalism by Karrde45 · · Score: 1

      ISO 9000 and ISO 9001 are not limited to the government. There are many industry standards regarding record keeping and paper trails of critical hardware.

    14. Re:The Power of Capitalism by damburger · · Score: 1

      You've got a nice little thought-stopper there. By claiming that causative events are radically separated in time from their consequences, you can pin the global crisis on 'teh gubment' just as easily as you could pin global warming on a lack of pirates. You do not understand logic or reason, you ignorant little cretin. You also seem to fail to understand that every respected economic expert on the planet disagrees with your amateur assessment. Idiot.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    15. Re:The Power of Capitalism by jcr · · Score: 0, Troll

      You've got a nice little thought-stopper there

      If he does, you're the one it's affecting.

      Read and learn

      The Federal Reserve is the root of the problem. When you inflate the currency, it causes market distortions. In this case, the biggest distortion was the housing bubble. Fannie and Freddie are their chief accomplices, and the mortgage originators are like the corner drug dealers.

      every respected economic expert on the planet disagrees

      When you try to argue ad veracundiam, you might want to cite specific economists who happen to have been correct in their predictions. Just waving your hands like this makes you the idiot.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    16. Re:The Power of Capitalism by sgage · · Score: 1

      "This really shows the power of capitalism in this time of government failing."

      It is capitalism that is failing.

    17. Re:The Power of Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heaven forbid anyone not agreeing with you.

      If you cannot have a rational discussion without resorting to childish rants and insults, then I suggest you take a pill and log off. Seriously, any point you try to make is lost behind your 4th grade insults. You are essentially getting all worked up over a silly debate. Hell, you may even be right, but you have managed to be a troll and flamebait at once.

    18. Re:The Power of Capitalism by kwikrick · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, commercial space flight, especially in its development stage, needs investors. The economy is currently in a bit of a depresession, and commercial space flight is quite a risky investment (engineers make a mistake somewhere, booom, millions of dollars up in smoke). So I expect things will progress quite slowly in commercial space flight for a while.

      Capitalist economies are inherently unstable, and therefore, I'm glad that there are government sponsored space agencies.

      --
      assignment != equality != identity
    19. Re:The Power of Capitalism by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid that you're the one swallowing the 'party line'.

      Here's what really happened: Banks started giving out mortgages to lenders who didn't qualify from a credit score (risk) standpoint. They then packaged these into securities and traded them foreign investors. Understand that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed them to do this and that's the key to the whole thing.

    20. Re:The Power of Capitalism by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      >or the Federal Reserve setting interest rates for fiat currency.

      Just a quick clarification; The U.S. currency is not a "fiat" currency. A fiat currency is based on nothing. If you want an example of that, google "zimbabwe economy."

      The U.S. dollar is based on debt. I'd go into further detail, but I am technically supposed to be working right now.

      Also, the key factor was legislature mandating that credit be given out to bad risks, not that credit be given out in and of itself.

      A debt based economy is more than workable so long as the people manning the helm don't fall into the trap of thinking that exponential growth rates are sustainable. Unfortunately, convincing economists otherwise is a task only accomplished by things like recent events. Even then, such an event only reminds them of this fact for a short period of time.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    21. Re:The Power of Capitalism by damburger · · Score: 1

      I am perfectly rational, I also feel people who are stupid need to have this pointed out sometimes. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I do not suffer fools gladly.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    22. Re:The Power of Capitalism by damburger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      mises.org? Are you shitting me? Fringe lunatic economics don't impress me one bit. If you want a respected commentator on the situation try Robert Peston

      Oh, and don't throw around the Latin like it makes you look smart. I learned that shit at school and it doesn't impress me at all.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    23. Re:The Power of Capitalism by trytoguess · · Score: 1

      Thinking someone is stupid instead of misguided/naive/ignorant/whatever, and also thinking that insulting people isn't a bad thing makes you look like a fool. What is your reason for posting? Righteous indignation? Or a genuine desire to change another persons mind? Surely you've learned somewhere insults do anything but make a person receptive.

    24. Re:The Power of Capitalism by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I do not suffer fools gladly.

      But you sure like to make one of yourself. Why should anyone consider your rantings to be in any way credible when you can't manage to deliver them without acting like a spoiled, jerky grade school punk? Do you even read your own posts?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:The Power of Capitalism by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk.. learn to spell. And yes, he's planning to go to Mars. That's what is so cool. Rather than just being an "advocate" of space colonization and wondering when NASA is going to get around to it, he's putting his money where is mouth is and aiming to do it himself.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    26. Re:The Power of Capitalism by jcr · · Score: 1

      Fringe lunatic economics don't impress me one bit

      You can toss off epithets all you want, but the fact is that the Austrian school economists were the ones who predicted this mess while everybody else was denying the problem.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    27. Re:The Power of Capitalism by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. My understanding is that the legislation was that location could not be used as a criteria for evaluating debt risk and that a certain portion of loans had to be provided to people living in areas that, on average, had worse debt ratings. It would have still been possible to meet the regulatory constraints while limiting risk exposure and a number of banks did that. What happened is that this legislative change was used as an opening by banks and other lenders to accept risky loans from everywhere, not just the historically underserved locations, once they figured out they could make lots of money by handing the problem to somebody else through packaging it in over-rated securities. Without both parts of the equation, the damage would have been much less. The Democrats are primarily responsible for one part, and the Republicans are primarily responsible for the other.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    28. Re:The Power of Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you really love the cock there, don't you boy? You're a fucking idiot, go get hit by a bus, kthxbye.

    29. Re:The Power of Capitalism by psymonet · · Score: 1

      It's going to be many, many years before space flight "comes of age." We're now picking ourselves up from a fall during our very early experiments with crawling. Get back to me when we're making routine trips to Mars from one of our several moon bases.

    30. Re:The Power of Capitalism by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      Can we challenge them both to juris macto and scatter their ashes across the plains, or would that be illegal?

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
    31. Re:The Power of Capitalism by inKubus · · Score: 1

      I don't care what they did in the past, that is not justification to keep them in existance now when they are more administration than science. I specifically said I am FOR government space programs, just not NASA. A new organization needs to be built. Right now they are still using a military model which is outmoded in today's world. We will fall behind the newer space programs of India and China for no other reason than people wanting to keep their jobs, which is not a good reason. If you fired everyone and started a new program, they would all get their jobs back at more pay because there would be less waste.

      To launch a small craft takes the same amount of paperwork that the Apollo mission did, simply because it's there. It can cost over $250M to launch a small sat whereas Russia can do it for $10M with an old ICBM design. Look at the Space Shuttle, which is a perfect example of NASA failure. It was supposed to be able to go up, come back, recycle and go up again very quickly. Turns out it's so complicated to launch and land that it takes $1B and 8-10 weeks to get it ready to go! With that $1B you could launch 100! missile-type rockets! Even if you lost 50% you would still be WAY ahead. Why do we, as taxpayers put up with this?

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  5. Re:tinfoil conspiracy nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought this guy had been admitted into a home. No-one here is interested in these cut'n'paste rantings. Please stop already.

  6. When was the last time NASA did anything like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya know... design and manufacture a new rocket or anything?

  7. here's a spec. sheet by operator_error · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php (Please make source articles more complete)

    1. Re:here's a spec. sheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LEO missions: $36.75M
      TLI missions: $46.75M

      Pricing reflects US dollars Paid-In-Full at Authority-to-Proceed, January 1, 2008.
      SpaceX offers milestone-based financing at 5% APR.

      5% APR? Where's the "No money down, No payments until 2012" option I'm seeing at all the OTHER commercial spacecraft delivery services?

  8. Better Link by tibman · · Score: 3, Informative

    The offical site and news: http://www.spacex.com/updates.php It says exactly what the article links to, just a bit more offical ;)

    I know a lot of people never thought SpaceX would get this far. I watched the first three Falcon1's explode like everyone else before this last successful launch in Sept (even though it had no real payload). I'm hopeful their Falcon9 starts out successful.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  9. NASA isn't that bad. by ElSupreme · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But how much of this rocket is cherry picked from NASA devolpments. Their rockets probably are. And I would imagine that most of the whole project came from the NASA/Military complex in this country. They are standing on the shoulders of NASA and the Military to get to where they are. As for NASA they really do a lot with the money they get. They get peanuts compared to Army/Navy/Airforce and produce so much more. Probably because the A/N/AF is in the business of destroying stuff. They are pieceing together (from parts) a rocket that can go into space. NASA is desigining a rocket that goes into space. This would be like me going to a parts house and building a car from Ford/GM/Chrysler parts and saying my devolpment costs are so much less. They aren't because I didn't devolp a car. I pieced together a car. For my car to get better I have to get GM to devolp me a better engine.

    --
    My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    1. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by NameIsDavid · · Score: 1

      Actually, much of the rocket design is fresh thinking with extreme reliability in mind. This includes reducing failure modes by design but also extreme monitoring of each of the rocket's systems. Of course, the very nature of technological advance is building on the shoulders of what came before. It's why every generation doesn't start with stone tools and move up from there. NASA had German V2 rocket technology and its designers at its disposal, for instance.

    2. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by Karrde45 · · Score: 2, Informative

      SpaceX has developed their own engines. 4 at last count: Merlin, Merlin Vac, Kestrel, and Draco. They are using common dome tanks, which NASA (as far as I know) is not using in their current programs. SpaceX started as little more than an assembler of outsourced and off the shelf parts, but these days they pretty much design and build as much in house as they can. They may be relying on a lot of NASA's theoretical research of years past, but they are definitely designing their own rocket rather than just slapping NASA parts together.

    3. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      But how much of this rocket is cherry picked from NASA devolpments. [...] For my car to get better I have to get GM to devolp me a better engine.

      Depends on what you mean by "better", which is of course relative to your goals. I think that, given the goals we're shooting for here, what you actually mean above is "worse". It will be worse if it doesn't make use of cheap, proven, and most importantly, off-the-shelf parts I can get from my local auto store.

      The "Space Renaissance" doesn't come from developing new rockets. It comes from making them cheap and relatively common. The world didn't change the day the Wright Brothers flew. It changed the day you could go to the local airport and catch a flight to London.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by damburger · · Score: 1

      75% failure is not extreme reliability

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    5. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      75% failure is not extreme reliability

      "If at first you don't succeed, give up."

    6. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by damburger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "If at first you don't succeed because you were dumb, then second and third you still don't succeed because you are still being dumb, you probably shouldn't be handed big NASA contracts"

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    7. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If at first you don't succeed because you were dumb, then second and third you still don't succeed because you are still being dumb, you probably shouldn't be handed big NASA contracts"

      It's easy to call SpaceX "dumb", but none of the failures were traced to basic design flaws in the engine or rocket itself.

      All the failures were traced to problems that would be almost impossible to detect with computer models or ground tests.

      And NASA has had virtually the same or similar problems developing rockets and rocket engines in the past. Perhaps NASA shouldn't be handed NASA contracts either.

    8. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by jcr · · Score: 1

      "75% failure" isn't a very enlightening statistic. If that's the rate of failure over their entire development program, and they've been steadily improving then it's rather better than NASA did over the same amount of time when they started.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    9. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      It changed the day you could go to the local airport and catch a flight to London.

      I'd rather go to the Greek Islands. Maybe even live there, drinking coffee, eating souvlaki, pouring retsina down the drain and sampling their myriad forms of Ouzo. Although I appreciate Rembetika from a distance, I'd be listening to Bonzo Dog instead while watching Falcon 9 pass overhead.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    10. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by damburger · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. All the mistakes they made were schoolboy stuff that would've been spotted with proper quality control.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    11. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by damburger · · Score: 1

      When NASA started they were working with transistors and no clue if what they were doing was possible. SpaceX gets to draw on all the decades of work done by bad old government and they still fuck it up the first few times.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    12. Re:NASA isn't that bad. by tibman · · Score: 1

      Soo, you're saying they aren't dumb at all then? and that they need to step up their QAQC (and red tape and bureaucracy). It always amazes me how one broken bolt could bring down something so monumental. Kind of silly that something so large and powerful needs to be pampered and babysat 24/7 or it'll blow up in everyone's face.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  10. Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  11. Let's see these guys launch something first by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be so quick to give them accolades until they accomplish something. Like, let's see Falcon 9 actually get off the pad first without blowing up.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Let's see these guys launch something first by jcnnghm · · Score: 4, Informative

      They've already put the Falcon 1 into orbit. I'd say that's an accomplishment.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Let's see these guys launch something first by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but the Falcon 2 through Falcon 8 all blew up.

    3. Re:Let's see these guys launch something first by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Um, there was only a Falcon 1 and a Falcon 9...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    4. Re:Let's see these guys launch something first by Narishma · · Score: 1

      Wooosh.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    5. Re:Let's see these guys launch something first by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd have to agree. Besides getting to orbit, they've also built an extremely impressive in-house fabrication capability. Aerospace isn't my field, but if it was, I'd love to work there.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Let's see these guys launch something first by mephistophyles · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't wanna piss away my karma, but don't forget the canceled Falcon 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_5

      just thought I'd add that fyi, in case you didn't count it

    7. Re:Let's see these guys launch something first by shess · · Score: 4, Funny

      let's see Falcon 9 actually get off the pad first without blowing up.

      Hell, I'd pay to see either option.

    8. Re:Let's see these guys launch something first by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Ahem! I think what you meant to say was that Falcon 2 through 8 were not entirely successful.

    9. Re:Let's see these guys launch something first by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1
      Well, they do have (or they have in the past) a live (free) webcast of their launches http://www.spacex.com/

      Dunno why TFA didn't just link to their site... much more info.

      http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
  12. The power of government... by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Next time free enterprise puts a man on the moon, you let me know.

    If you capitalists hadn't have f--- up with your stupid lending decisions and dumb investments, there wouldn't be a government bailout now, would there? There was no need for government to momentarily take control of everything, until the people that previously controlled things utterly screwed up.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:The power of government... by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've got a bit of news for you, sport. Google for "Federal Reserve", and try to figure out what effect they've had when they made an unlimited amount of credit available at an interest rate below the inflation rate.

      Capitalism didn't get us into this mess. We were regulated into it, just like we were in 1929.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:The power of government... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with predatory lending practices (which had been going on in the credit industry long before the mortgage crisis). and for the most part, the investment banking industry has been self-regulated--which is an inherent conflict of interest.

      do a little research into the history of industry regulations in the U.S., and you'll see exactly why these regulations are necessary. anyone who thinks a laissez-faire free market economy is the solution to all the world's problems is clearly ignorant of our past and needs a reality check.

      despite what many libertarians seem to believe, greed does not inherently promote public welfare or ethical/responsible behavior. the truth is quite the opposite, which is historically why regulations have been legislated in the first place.

    3. Re:The power of government... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      There was no need for government to momentarily take control of everything, until the people that previously controlled things utterly screwed up.

      Which must be why the government forced banks that didn't want or need bailouts to take them. Or don't you remember that part?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:The power of government... by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the Federal Reserve had nothing to do with predatory lending practices

      Guess again.

      No matter how slipshod a mortgage lender is, it's the endless supply of credit from the Fed that makes it possible for him to hand out those loans. In a free market for credit, the more loans are made, the less money is available for lending, and the interest rates go up.

      anyone who thinks a laissez-faire free market economy is the solution to all the world's problems is clearly ignorant of our past and needs a reality check.

      Anyone who thinks government interference in the economy can improve it is indulging in wishful thinking. As for reality checks, we're in the midst of one right now, but sadly there are far too many people who believe it's possible to extinguish a fire by flooding it with gasoline.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:The power of government... by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      despite what many libertarians seem to believe, greed does not inherently promote public welfare or ethical/responsible behavior.

      What a bizarre strawman you've built there. I don't know any libertarian who's made any claim to that effect. What we do claim, is that in a free market with the rule of law, the way to prosper is to offer what people want to buy. Doing business ethically is conducive to getting repeat business. People who fuck over their customers will suffer damage to their reputation, and their business will suffer as a result.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:The power of government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm.. a quick google search will tell you that Fannie Mae, the institution that started this whole bail out debacle is a government sponsored enterprise. You blame the banking crisis on the 'Free Market' but the sad truth is that we haven't had anything close to a free banking market since the new deal. What has happened:
      1. A creature of government was formed to give out loans to bad creditors (bad idea)
      2. Then it was privatised in the name of supposed free market principles (worse idea)
      3. And finally after it doesn't survive in the real world it's subsidised and the beuracrats holding the reigns are further de-regulated (worst idea).

      Your comparing Apples to Oranges, what we have now is neither libertarian or socialist but rather a form of corporatism where large corporations are all scrambling for a piece of the tax loot. It's Pay to play government corruption at it's finest. Democrats (and now Republican's) start government monopolies in the name of the common good then Republican's (and now Democrats) privatise them by essentially handing the keys to this government monopoly over to the highest bidder. The fact that all of this is refered to as the 'Free Market' just makes me sick.

    7. Re:The power of government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I'm a fan of 'the system', but IMHO saying that "we were regulated into it" is plain stupid.

      Banks are, or were, institutions that collect (smallish) savings from many and use it to lend (largish) sums to those who temporarily need it, be it to get a house, start a company or bridge a financial gap etc... Charging a slightly higher interest rate for the loans than is given for the savings makes them money doing so. In theory, everybody wins.

      However, having worked for banks the past 10+ years I've learned that
      * banks indeed do what's described above using marketing to squeeze every drop out it making sure (higher) management gets its bonuses.
      * banks deviate from their 'historical raison-d'etre' in order to 'maximize' profit. To do so, they "invented" the weirdest schemes that somehow 'miraculously' makes them money. (Derivatives etc) Maybe that originally those started of as a method to mitigate the risk but they quickly sparked a whole new business-line of well... speculative banking.

      "Regulation" should have foreseen that part 2 was outgrowing part 1. In fact, "Regulation" tried to put this to a halt (eg Basel II), but since given regulation allows for so many "interpretations", banks will go to serious lengths to bend as much as possible towards the 'more profit' side, away from the 'as safe as possible' side =/

      What governments did wrong IMHO is that they intervened and saved the ass of those that were at the base of this whole debacle. It's like patting them on the shoulder saying "well, well, congratulations, you screwed us over fantastically, here's some money."

      (Posting anonymously as I don't want to put my employer in a bad daylight, we're in the business of financial reporting and implement software that should have avoided the whole financial mess ... ironically the software works fine but they tend to 'tweak' the source data a little bit here and there if possible, and then the same happens with the output before it goes out into the real world. Fraud ? Not quite, but grayish IMHO)

    8. Re:The power of government... by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Next time free enterprise puts a man on the moon, you let me know.

      Part of the reason it hasn't happened yet is that there's nothing to be gained from putting another man on the moon right now. Most of the scientifically valuable data either has been gathered already or can be gathered by remote-controlled probes; and other uses for the moon (mining, colonization) are economically or technically infeasible right now.

      Governments, on the other hand, are mostly free from such constraints. They can (for example) spend fantastic amounts of taxpayer money to send men to the Moon, just so they can gain bragging rights over a certain rival country.

      I'm not denying that the manned Moon missions had value, by the way; I just think there were better ways to spend that money, including unmanned probes or other types of research. Once the benefits of sending a man to the Moon exceeded the costs, free enterprise would have done so, and more cheaply than NASA ever could.

    9. Re:The power of government... by Poingggg · · Score: 0, Redundant

      People who fuck over their customers will suffer damage to their reputation, and their business will suffer as a result.

      True...but people who fuck over their employees and/or the environment to get things done cheaper, especially if they do it in places the customer is not (directly) affected by it, will only suffer from a bad concience and the problem how to spend all that money they earn, while their businesses flourish because they help their customers so well with their low prices. That has NOTHING to do with promoting ethical business, but just the contrary. But if the rule of law says that what you are doing is unethical, you can (at least in the US) always buy yourself some congress-critters to change the laws for you.

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    10. Re:The power of government... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      What a bizarre strawman you've built there. I don't know any libertarian who's made any claim to that effect. What we do claim, is that in a free market with the rule of law, the way to prosper is to offer what people want to buy. Doing business ethically is conducive to getting repeat business. People who fuck over their customers will suffer damage to their reputation, and their business will suffer as a result.

      This argument suffers from so many oversimplifications that have failed it boggles the mind.

      Fundamentally though, libertarianism can only work in a monocultural society because everyone's definition of fair must be agreed upon in order to avoid the need for regulation. The fact is, in a country of 300 million people of wildly differing values and beliefs, this is impossible, and so we have a system of laws in place to attempt to encode what the people elect as a sort of fairness, and these laws are a compromise as they must apply to everyone. Indeed, the very idea of the law as a compromise in the United States serves to create a government that is inherently self limiting, except in the most extreme of political circumstances.

      Libertarians would argue that we substitute this for a more active judiciary, and handle slights on a case by case basis, but, that would only result in the few laws we have being inconsistently applied, thus making it impossible to have any sort of predictability needed to even forecast a return on all but the most basic of capital investments. Indeed, many economists now argue that one of the largest problems in under-developed countries today is not the particular brand of government but the absence of any sort of rule of law, period. Your libertarian case by case system ultimately gets trumped by cases and cases of cash bribing people in the courts, and since there is no consistency in the law or strength to it, it is impossible to tell if someone has been bribed or merely made an honest decision.

      --
      This is my sig.
    11. Re:The power of government... by jcr · · Score: 1

      The fact is, in a country of 300 million people of wildly differing values and beliefs

      Go read Henry Hazlett's parable of the pencil. It's markets that make it possible for us to cooperate without caring what other people's values or beliefs are. You don't have to approve of what someone eats, what drugs they take, or who they sleep with to decide whether you're willing to pay they price they want for what they're selling.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re:The power of government... by jcr · · Score: 1

      What governments did wrong IMHO is that they intervened and saved the ass of those that were at the base of this whole debacle.

      Bailouts are a terrible idea, but they're not the cause of the bubble. They're just one impediment to the market coping with the collapse.

      The bubble is the fault of the Federal Reserve, which exists for one purpose only: to inflate the currency for the benefit of its owners. That's what Morgan and Rockefeller had in mind when they planned it. All other purported aims of the Fed are nothing but propaganda.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:The power of government... by tjstork · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You don't have to approve of what someone eats, what drugs they take, or who they sleep with to decide whether you're willing to pay they price they want for what they're selling.

      But that's the thing. You do do that, and a person's values are considered as a part of the exchange. Let's say you owned a software company. Would you hire someone that showed up to work not wearing a suit to an interview? Would you hire a felon? Would you hire someone who was a staunch socialist? Or would you hire someone who was an avowed libertarian? You know the answer to that. You are going to hire based on your values and you would argue the right to do that because it is your company. That's fine.

      But the counter-argument to that is that the people, expressed through their government, have the right to set values on trade as well. You can argue that your business is yours and should morally be immune from all government regulation, but it is government regulation that confers upon corporations the notion of limited liability, and hence the "right" to play with the deposits of other people in the form of loans to you.

      Libertarian economics is all well and good, but you have to take limited liability off of the table, eliminate non-compete clauses and non-disclosure agreements, get rid of patents and copyrights (to a degree), get rid of exclusive promotions and deals, in short, actually have a competitive marketplace. Without those things though, there's a lot less to attract investors, and really, there's no industrial revolution at all.

      To some extent, this experiment was tried in the American civil war. The north had greater government regulation in the supply of labor and the south did not. As a result, the north got the industrial revolution and the south got slavery. They had a big war, and the south lost, because, the north had more railways, more tents, more soldiers and more guns, cannons, ships and steel... whereas the south never had to have the industrial base to build this stuff with because the free market went straight to the lowest possible wage, which was buying slaves.

      And what's the world like now? Those nations that artificially raise the value of their labor, through government regulation, are making all sorts of technological breakthroughs, but those that do not, just throw bodies at problems and ultimately fail. Guess where the USA is? WE got a bunch of jerks arguing free trade and that's really just wage shopping in the other direction.
      You need government intervention to make an economy that advances.

      --
      This is my sig.
    14. Re:The power of government... by inKubus · · Score: 1

      As for reality checks, we're in the midst of one right now, but sadly there are far too many people who believe it's possible to extinguish a fire by flooding it with gasoline.

      Yep... It's pretty hard to reinflate a popped balloon.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  13. mammy by ionix5891 · · Score: 3, Funny

    whats a "cockblock" tag mean?

  14. Daaaamn by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Funny

    One of the sexiest things I've seen in a long time...

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    1. Re:Daaaamn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, not really, it looks gay, it's just one huge penis.

    2. Re:Daaaamn by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, that's what she said!

      Oh... wait... Sir Lewk...?

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  15. (Capitalism vs. Government debate) == airboxing by anticlimate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What do you mean by "capitalist"? Someone who has capital (how much?)? Someone who blindly believes in an "ism" which promotes free market as the cure for everything? Someone who generally favours market friendly solutions to economic problems? And the meaning of "free market" have many interpretations too. Especially when applied to the financial sector. At least you didn't use the word globalization... :)

  16. Re:tinfoil conspiracy nutjob by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    What I find sad is the fact that lots of websites still are using machine-generated URLs instead of readable ones.

  17. Re:tinfoil conspiracy nutjob by camperdave · · Score: 1

    What I find sad is the fact that lots of websites still are using machine-generated URLs instead of readable ones.

    You mean like this? Of course it's going to be machine generated. It's a link to a record in a database.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  18. Quite the opposite by mangu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Since the bad boys in the banks didn't have Big Brother looking over their shoulder, they were free to do very risky things -- bordering on outright fraud -- with other people's money.

    No, the current crisis wasn't created by deregulation, it was created by regulation that prohibited banks from denying credit to people based on the neighborhood where they live. That's what the "sub-prime" market is all about, people who borrow money to buy houses without the means to pay their loans.

  19. Re:tinfoil conspiracy nutjob by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    So what? That record points to a text that has a title, doesn't it?

    I'd rather see http://science.slashdot.org/new_photos_of_spacex_falcon_9_assembly/

    Not to mention that having the backend language in the URL itself is also a bad thing.

  20. If they could only get things to work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So far, the Falcon rocket has being nothing but failure. Every single one of their rocket has either exploited or the cargo has failed to reach the target orbit.

    With that kind of record, I would wait until they have at least 5 successful consecutive launches before I consider this company as viable/reliable for a civil/private space program.

    A vision with nothing but failures is not a vision at all. It is just a dream implemented by people who don't know what they are doing.

    1. Re:If they could only get things to work ... by SuperSack56 · · Score: 1

      So far, the Falcon rocket has being nothing but failure. Every single one of their rocket has either exploited or the cargo has failed to reach the target orbit.

      Flight 4 was dead-on perfect. http://www.spacex.com/F1-004-summary.php

    2. Re:If they could only get things to work ... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      A vision with nothing but failures is not a vision at all. It is just a dream implemented by people who don't know what they are doing.

      Welcome to business.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  21. Move the Cabana! by writerjosh · · Score: 1

    Somebody might want to tell them to move the cabana next time. It isn't rocket science...oh wait...it is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY-lyoPP3go
    (little cabana too close to launch site gets blown away)

  22. Still no decent pics of the interesting bits by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    neither in TFA nor on SpaceX's own site are there any pictures of the 9-engine cluster, just loads of boring photos of large cylinders.

  23. Falcon 9 is nothing... by TTURabble · · Score: 1

    Let me know when they get around to making a Falcon Punch!

  24. Pork barrell... by msimm · · Score: 1

    Small, nimble is a bit idyllic anyway. A lot of what the private sector does with government contracts can be called a lot of things, but smarter and/or quicker might not be it.

    Spacex is kind of an oddity and certainly inspiring but lets not get so inspired that we begin to believe all private sector ventures have the public good at heart.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Pork barrell... by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Where did the parent say anything about the "public good"?

      There is no public good. It is merely the aggregate of all of the individuals' good.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    2. Re:Pork barrell... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all the "woop for the free market" crap that comes out in every SpaceX story is starting to piss me off too. SpaceX is what it is and what it will be because Elon Musk has a vision and enough capital to make it happen. Why are you guys cheering the capital and ignoring the vision?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  25. It looks like by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    a giant engorged penis without testicles except it's white.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a non-rocket scientist.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    1. Re:It looks like by BigGerman · · Score: 1

      You just discovered one of the reasons men build rockets in the first place.

    2. Re:It looks like by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Maybe. I was wondering if there will be balls of fire on takeoff. That would be a sight.
      Hope someone takes a pic.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  26. Re:tinfoil conspiracy nutjob by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Yes, that record points to a text that has a title. However, that title is shared by at least five other pieces of text. So which piece of text do you want http://url/title to point to?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  27. Re:tinfoil conspiracy nutjob by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    But then how could they post the dupes?

  28. Re:tinfoil conspiracy nutjob by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Since Slashdot publishes what is essentially daily news, you can add the date in front of it, in ISO-8601 format of course.

  29. (off-topic) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you, jcr, for fighting the good fight. Nearly every time I see posts blaming the free market for our problems, you are there pointing out the larger historical picture and the meddlesome hand of government. Whenever libertarian ideals are misunderstood or misconstrued, you respond with corrections and clarifications. I have yet to see you tackle some of the tougher questions, but that is because they are not being asked.

    As we sink deeper into the depression and all the horrible stuff that Austrian economists have predicted continues to become manifest, you will begin to get more responses that are supportive instead of antagonistic. Your audience hasn't seen enough to get the hook yet, except for those of us who are already with you. As long as you continue to post quality content and refrain from sliding into the invective that is often directed at you, your voice will grow. I look forward to it.

    Best of luck,
    A fan

  30. Re:tinfoil conspiracy nutjob by Garridan · · Score: 1

    Fix it yourself, then. Slash is GPL'd.

  31. Wong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cargo never made it to the correct orbit.

  32. IS free enterprise really less expensive? by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once the benefits of sending a man to the Moon exceeded the costs, free enterprise would have done so, and more cheaply than NASA ever could.

    I think it is time that we challenge some basic assertions thrown around here.

    I really have to dispute the idea that free enterprise is inherently less expensive than the government. Innately, the government has enormous economies of scale, and, the ability to offer its workers additional power in addition to economic compensation.

    While it may have been fashionable in the 1980s to argue on behalf of the smaller, more nimble corporation as compared to a vast government, 30 years of mergers and acquisitions have left us with fewer corporations that are so large and slow they are practically governments themselves. How often have we used the word "Synergy", like it is a joke? If you can believe in any Wall Street merger, than certainly, would not the merger of all rivals into the government be the ultimate in "synergies". Clearly, libertarian arguments about the private sector versus the government are inconsistent.

    What is the real case is that the free enterprise system really exists to allow the government to offload the risk of engaging in new forms of commerce, most of which are honestly speculative, onto the private citizenry. Instead of the crown gambling with its money, it allows the people to gamble, and merely takes a cut of the successful. Thus, the government does not need to be in the business of making personal computers or cars, only to tax those that are successful, in order to satisfy the needs of the crown. That's the advantage of the free market, and really, nothing else. However, it is the case when the free market collapses, and citizens are not willing to assume private risk, then the government must step in.

    --
    This is my sig.
  33. Cheney is the aggregate of the individuals good... by msimm · · Score: 1

    The SpaceX program is an oddity because it's the ideological offspring of a person with vision and the capital/clout to fund it. Most of the time what we see is less adorned self-interest.

    --
    Quack, quack.