Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Files Suit Against US Air Force

Today Elon Musk announced that SpaceX has decided to challenge the U.S. Air Force's restrictions on rocket launches related to national security. Such launches are done with a Russian rocket right now, and that contract is not up for competition with other rocket makers, like SpaceX. Musk says the company has exhausted other options to become part of the bidding process. "We're just protesting and saying these launches should be competed. And if we compete and lose, that's fine, but why were they not even competed?" He also said it's the "wrong time to send hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kremlin," referencing events in the Ukraine.

At the same press conference, Musk announced that SpaceX's recent attempt to soft-land a rocket booster stage was successful. It landed and was in "healthy condition" immediately afterward. Unfortunately, they weren't able to recover it because it landed in the middle of a rough storm, which eventually destroyed the stage. The storm was rough enough that the Coast Guard wouldn't even send a boat out to help recover it. Musk said, "We'll get much bigger boats next time." SpaceX also plans on landing the stage on shore at some point, which makes recovery easier. Musk made this prediction: "I expect we will be able to land a stage back at Cape Canaveral by the end of the year."

176 comments

  1. Russian Engine by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Such launches are done with a Russian rocket right now"

    more correctly, the launches are done with an American rocket, using a Russian engine (RD-180).

    see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lo...
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/20...

    (the article has it right; the summary is inaccurate).

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Russian Engine by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong on this, but I thought Pratt was going to be building the RD Amross (which is the american version of the RD-180) starting a couple of years ago. If that's the case then the RD-180's being used on the Atlas V are completely domestic.

      With that all said, no bid contracts are shit. The price delta between SpaceX and ULA are large enough that provided SpaceX can demonstrate the same reliability as the the Atlas 5 (so far it has) and the same capabilities (it has) then why not go with the cheaper of the two.

      Also, if my assertion in the first paragraph is wrong, then all the more reason to go with SpaceX.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    2. Re:Russian Engine by adamgundy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I could be wrong on this, but I thought Pratt was going to be building the RD Amross (which is the american version of the RD-180) starting a couple of years ago. If that's the case then the RD-180's being used on the Atlas V are completely domestic.

      no. they spent a small fortune on 'investigating the possibility' of building the engines in the US, which culminated in building one small part of an engine. then concluded that it was too expensive (a billion dollars to start production, and the US engines would also be twice the price).

      RD-180s are built in Russia. they have a two year stockpile here in the US.. but ULA have just been awarded a five year block buy.

    3. Re:Russian Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more correctly, the launches are done with an American rocket, using a Russian engine (RD-180) with Chinese parts.

    4. Re:Russian Engine by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      For anyone who's interested, Musk's announcement at the Nat'l Press Club is up on YouTube. It's 32 minutes long, and the lawsuit issue comes around 15:30. (The first 15m is about reusable rockets.)

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  2. "Contract is not up for competition" by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Translation: some Air Force brass are getting board seats in some corporation X after retirement, so of course they don't want to open the bidding and allow SpaceX to take the contract.

    1. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by alen · · Score: 1

      wasn't Apollo and almost every other space program the same way? the aerospace companies created a joint company that got the work and divided up the profits

    2. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      More like 10 years ago the company that designed and built the rocket, at great expense, did so because of a no-compete contract they signed with the government. Everyone likes to rail on these agreements but they are rarely signed just for shits and giggles.

    3. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Real translation: They have something that works.

      Developing and testing a heavy lift rocket takes years and piles of money. Once they have one they use it. Competing the procurement means anyone can come in with a low bid and provide some paperwork "proving" they have the expertise and resources to build the rocket. So now the government has to go through years of project management and cost overruns before finding out the contractor is incompetent. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

    4. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you saying that if they put out contracts for competition, nobody would build anything? Seems absurd on its face. Sure, there's no reason not to build the thing if you have a guaranteed payday, but there's plenty of reason to do it without the guarantee. I'd even be okay with the government footing a small portion of the bill for a handful of serious designs in competition with one another just to get more companies interested. But to simply hand the whole thing over to someone with a fat check and an unlimited credit card for the overages? Ridiculous.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    5. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      Maybe I've misread the summary, but "Corporation X" here seems to be the Russian government and I don't think a whole lot of retired US military types end up working for them...

    6. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody does anything long-term without an assurance of loyalty. This is why the US is falling behind: from employees right up to billion dollar government contracts, if the producer isn't given reassurances, its best interest is to milk early and often, taking no long term risks.

    7. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Competing the procurement means anyone can come in with a low bid and provide some paperwork "proving" they have the expertise and resources to build the rocket.

      SpaceX has a bit more than paperwork.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So now the government has to go through years of project management and cost overruns before finding out the contractor is incompetent. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

      Yes. That's better than the current situation. Just hold the contractors responsible. In China, defrauding the government for billions will get you shot. In the US, you get a no-bid contract and guaranteed profits for life.

      It's sad when the Chinese government is so much more efficient than the US.

    9. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by lgw · · Score: 1

      Only if you believe China actually works that way. Certainly people are shot by the government for any number of reasons. And I'm sure from time to time the actual reasons are the stated reasons. But you can be sure that if a CEO gets killed for "defrauding the government" the truth includes "and the right guy didn't get his cut".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the implication is that someone less competent might win.

      The world is littered with failed government projects that went to a low bidder whose solution passed on paper but was a total disaster in execution.

    11. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow! it's amazing, given the libertarian bent of this website, that space-x, who
      privately built a rocket with no cushy contracts, is getting no love at all.

      explain why you are implying space-x will fail?

    12. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by DMJC · · Score: 2

      Welcome to the JSF: Why make two companies compete for funding when you can just pay them both, and end up with a shittier version of two planes to choose from!

    13. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Correction: people get shot in China when their fraud embarrasses the government.

      What's with the hard-on that some right-wingers have for autocratic governments? Wait - don't answer that. It'll be depressing.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    14. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The USAF did that. They even demanded to have two suppliers. Lockheed Martin and Boeing won the EELV contest. However they decided to do a 'joint-venture' i.e. a monopoly afterwards claiming it was uneconomic to have two suppliers. Since then US government launch prices went up believe it or not...

    15. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You fix that by having more than one supplier.

    16. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      They Russians not sell the engines direct to the US.

    17. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Booz Allen" (said in the same manner a "Matt Damon" in Team America: World Police).

    18. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about? Space X have tons of cushy contracts. They just want more. This is just a simple case of Elon not being able to compete so he's litigating. He will lose like every other law suit he's tried. Then space x will be out of business before his flying death traps kill anyone.

    19. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by tomhath · · Score: 1

      You fix that by having more than one supplier.

      That pretty much doubles the price of the contract right from the start. Good luck getting funding for that.

    20. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by tomhath · · Score: 0

      First, availability. They need the rockets now, and they already have a supplier who can provide the rockets now.

      Second, risk. A low bidder could knock out the incumbent, which means you no longer have a supplier - just someone who is quite sure that someday he'll be able to make a rocket as good as the one they already have. If he fails you can't go back to the first supplier, they've laid off their engineers and shut down production

      Yea, you can keep the existing supplier going until the competitor puts up or shuts up. That will happen eventually, when they decide they're ready to build the next generation launch platform.

    21. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      Just because you supply something do the government, it doesn't mean they should be guaranteed a profit.
      Federal procurement rules would require a competition once there are two suppliers to compete for it.
      ULA was the only game in town, not anymore, hence the requirement that DoD payloads that the already fully operational SpaceX F9R rocket can handle to be competed on.
      Elon is very clear that he isn't contesting payloads that he can't handle yet (need Falcon Heavy ready). He's only contesting payloads that he can handle today.

    22. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...space-x, who privately built a rocket with no cushy contracts...

      Space-X privately built the Falcon-one "with no cushy contract". This was their small rocket-- about the equivalent of the smallest Delta.

      The Falcon 9, on the other hand, was funded by NASA.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    23. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just hold the contractors responsible. In China, defrauding the government for billions will get you shot.

      In China, defrauding the government may, if it happens to get caught, get somebody shot.

      Probably not the people who were involved, though. They have enough guanxi to urge people to go after somebody else.

    24. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any one can build a model rocket.

    25. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      AIUI russia makes the engines and then some US company turns them into complete rockets.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    26. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by fractoid · · Score: 1

      It depends on the investment required. If you're going to spend $X billion developing a specific product to a single customer's specifications, you're going to want some kind of commitment that that customer is going to buy enough of them to at least pay off your investment.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    27. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Less cynically, Air Force brass have been burned over and over again by companies who lowballs bids and can't deliver. It's human nature to try to steer contracts to companies that have made good on promises in the past.

      My was in the Air Force and worked on big contracted projects. You would not believe how often the AF has to deal with companies taking progress payments and then declaring bankruptcy.

      Of course the really big contracting decisions are all made on Capitol Hill *cough*F-35*cough*.

    28. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Funded by NASA" makes it sound like NASA paid the full development cost, which is nowhere near close to correct. Space X did get NASA funds, but it was the purchase of some flights.

      Note that the usual cushy contract being complained about is a cost-plus contract, where they get paid for expenses plus profit. Said contracts tend to go out of control, because government contractors are primarily good at working the system, and running their "necessary" costs up to milk the contract. Space X has been running on fixed-price contracts, where they just get a set price per launch.

    29. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      "Funded by NASA" makes it sound like NASA paid the full development cost, which is nowhere near close to correct.

      That is not merely "close" to correct, it is correct. The development of Falcon 9 was funded by NASA.

      Falcon ONE was funded independently by Space-X. Falcon-9 was funded by Space-X.

      Space X did get NASA funds,

      Yep. To develop Falcon 9.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    30. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dragon capsule received NASA funding. The Falcon 9 did not. It uses the same engine as the Falcon one (but 9 of them plus a vacuum version for the second stage).

    31. Re:"Contract is not up for competition" by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Space-X was funded by NASA to develop Falcon-9. Elon Musk stated that they "would have" developed it anyway, with profits from Falcon-1, but Falcon-1 was not profitable. This is not controversial; it is a matter of record. I'm not sure why you think it wasn't.
      Falcon 9 was funded by a space-act agreement signed in 2008, "Commercial Orbital Services Demonstration." http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jo...
      At that point Falcon 9 did not exist; it was not yet even designed. The contract states:

      "The purpose of this Agreement is to conduct initial development and demonstration phase of the commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) Project. Under this Agreement, Space X will receive milestone payments from NASA to develop and demonstrate vehicles, systems, and operations needed for Space X to perform earth to orbital space flight demonstration

      (followed by list of capabilities required).

      Notice the wording. They are contracted to develop the vehicle, and the payments under this design and development contract were made as the vehicle went through design process, with payments for successful design reviews. (A separate contract, commercial resupply, paid for the actual supply flights to the station.)

      Again: this is not controversial. It is well known to anybody who was actually paying attention at the time to the boring details of who is paying. Jeff Foust at Space Review, for example, wrote:
      http://www.thespacereview.com/...

      "the two companies funded by NASA to develop launch vehicles and spacecraft to ferry cargo to and from the International Space Station, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX... COTS, for NASA, has been a good thing: for an agency investment of about $800 million, it supported the development of two new launch vehicles, Antares and Falcon 9, and two cargo spacecraft, Cygnus and Dragon."

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  3. Gotta get that pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government (military) contracts are where all the real money is.

  4. Well the way things are going internationally... by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 0

    I'd say any teams and hopes we had with Russia should be maintained for the idea of brotherly love.

    Taking Russia out of the loop in the ISS for now could appear like we're being jerks in times of international crisis.

    We need goodwill now. Money is of no concern when you're thinking of the results of what could happen if Russia and USA blood goes bad.

  5. Welfare & Keeping Tabs by Scot+Seese · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I suspect the current arrangement with the Russians providing lift tickets to the ISS performs a similar function to the intelligence treaties we signed in the 90s allowing the U.S. and Russia to perform overflights of each others' countries to verify ICBM numbers and troop movements, plus the CIAs fanatical attention to assist the Russians in tracking and controlling any and all nuclear materials to keep it from wandering off in the hands of men like Viktor Bout, "Lord of War" arms dealer.

    By subsidising the Russian space program with this sweetheart no-bid contract, we, the U.S., help ensure that dozens of very highly skilled engineers and scientists with the ability to lead a team interested in designing and building short, medium, or long-range rockets - for whatever purpose - are kept "on payroll" and reasonably content safely and securely inside Russia. Exactly where we want them. Instead of helping a potential aggressor nation like Iran, North Korea, or theocratic / military dictatorship Du Jour develop accurate, long range weapons for suitcases full of cash, women, mansions and national hero-worship.

    The current deal also forces a certain level of cooperation between the space agencies, governments, and builds political good will on both sides. Good Will that Putin is destroying at the moment, but will return providing he doesn't go all Poland '39 on the remainder of Ukraine.

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
    1. Re:Welfare & Keeping Tabs by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      By subsidising the Russian space program with this sweetheart no-bid contract, we, the U.S., help ensure that dozens of very highly skilled engineers and scientists with the ability to lead a team interested in designing and building short, medium, or long-range rockets - for whatever purpose - are kept "on payroll" and reasonably content safely and securely inside Russia. Exactly where we want them. Instead of helping a potential aggressor nation like Iran, North Korea, or theocratic / military dictatorship Du Jour develop accurate, long range weapons for suitcases full of cash, women, mansions and national hero-worship.

      It would be an order of magnitude cheaper if we flew those guys to the US, handed them suitcases full of cash, and bought them all houses in southern California. If we really wanted to get fancy, we could even offer them jobs.

      Or we can pay their government tons more money to build a rocket engine we don't need.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:Welfare & Keeping Tabs by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      In other words, the US and Russia are engaged in the kind of keep-the-workers-from-moving deal that the US just dinged Apple, Google, etc. over. B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Welfare & Keeping Tabs by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Too bad there are no southern Californian companies employing rocket scientists these days... OH WAIT!

      (Yes, that was probably the joke.)

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    4. Re:Welfare & Keeping Tabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sort of doubt that Russia would let them all leave the country en masse.

    5. Re:Welfare & Keeping Tabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sort of doubt Putin would let them all leave the country *alive*.

    6. Re:Welfare & Keeping Tabs by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It certainly worked on the German rocket program after WWII. As Tom Lehrer put it so brilliantly in in the 1950's: "That's not my department", says Werner von Braun.

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    7. Re:Welfare & Keeping Tabs by Scot+Seese · · Score: 1

      That's cute - you think rules apply to the government?

      "National Security."

      Just utter those two words, and brush everything aside. "In The Interest / Not In The Interest of __National Security___. "

      I have a friend - who is quite possibly reading this, Hi, Beavis - who has Top Secret security clearance and a tidy officers' rank in the U.S. military. Many years ago, while undergoing the personal reference interview portion of his background check, I had a man from the Department of Defense come to my house. The guy arrived about 15 minutes late. He apologized, saying he had just come from an interview in Cleveland.

      "That part of Cleveland is an hour away - did you really leave the appointment 40 minutes ago??" I asked, incredulously, working the mental math that he would must have driven 90-100+ MPH down Route 77 South - Posted 65 MPH at the time - to arrive when he did.

      "Weren't you worried about the police?" I asked naively.

      "Oh..." he said, with a soft smile - "they have no authority over me." I processed that slowly as he settled onto the sofa and began opening his briefcase. Seeing the confusion on my face, he winked and said

      " ... National Security. Now, tell me, how long have you known Mr. __________ ? "

      --
      THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
    8. Re:Welfare & Keeping Tabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of educated people are leaving Russia. Google "educated people leaving russia". According to this article, "Russia is suffering from an exodus of educated, talented citizens, including scientists."

      A Wikipedia article says, "According to the New York Times, the leading element [in recent protests] has consisted of young urban professionals, the well-educated and successful working or middle class people[31] such as workers in social media."

      I imagine Putin is glad to get rid of protesters easily - just let them emigrate from Russia.

    9. Re:Welfare & Keeping Tabs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, the Wikipedia article about recent protesters in Russia is here.

  6. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has nothing to do with the ISS. This is for spy satellites.

  7. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    Heh, I thought I read this was launches to the ISS. Please ignore that. My point stands that we shouldn't be treating Russia like some rogue country, but still try and be cool with them. The guys point that we shouldn't be sending money to the Kremlin sends the wrong message to me. I think we should try and be peaceable and stay out of other country's affairs the best we can. I'd love to say,"Let the professionals deal in international affairs." but when you look at our elected officials just being corporate puppets, it makes me hang my head.

  8. Beta Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I'm not sure what world he lives in, but unless he's reusing his reusable rocket, he failed."

    Uh, you do, you know, realize that there was never, you know, any plan to, you know, reuse the first stage even if it was recovered? And that, you know, the actual, like, goal of launching the rocket was not to recover the first stage, but, you know, to launch the payload into space to, like the space station?

    Back in the real world, rather than whatever wacky alternate reality you live in, the goal of the recovery test was to perform a fake 'soft landing' over the sea to prove that such a thing was possible, and ensure that, if they screwed up, no-one would get hurt. That goal was successful. They only wanted to recover the stage so they could take it apart and see what had happened to the hardware in the process.

    1. Re:Beta Sucks by jafac · · Score: 1

      several fish were severely burned. probably.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    2. Re:Beta Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mr gp, you got an ac to disagree with you and get modded +5 insightful?
      well done sir!

    3. Re:Beta Sucks by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      It does not fucking matter. The fact remains that neither DARPA NOR NASA ran the program. They funded it. Nothing MORE.

      MD/Boeing sucked the milk dry from the teat and the whined about it, just like you.
      The fact remains that SpaceX is putting their money where they expect profits to come from.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Beta Sucks by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      NASA telling them they couldn't relight the engine in case it hit ISS.

      No, NASA told them they couldn't relight the engine in order to keep a sufficient reserve in case Dragon had to make multiple approach-aborts while attempting to dock with the ISS. Which, as it turned out, it didn't.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  9. Re:Elon musk's spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you have to rely on eBaying your stuff to keep from getting evicted, you may have made some poor life choices and shouldn't blame Paypal for it.

    (And I say that as someone who, as a poor undergraduate, often found myself selling stuff acquired in happier times -- I made some poor life choices.)

  10. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by raydobbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with this plan is that Russia and its leader don't want goodwill from the United States. They want a monster that can be slain with saber-rattling like in the old Cold War days - even if they have to manufacture one out of an ally. Putin isn't interested in who dies in the process in his quest to cement his legacy as the greatest leader of the NEW Soviet Union that ever was - we (not just the United States, but the International community at large) can't be so foolish as to just ignore it. The only way he can get what he wants to have us in a position of weakness - and giving his nation the only means to get to and return from the International Space Station is about the best leverage that we can give him.

    Its not a matter of *if* the relationship between the United States and Russia goes bad, its *when* it goes bad if Putin remains in power.

  11. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The idea was to test a soft landing, but not damage anything in case of failure. SpaceX determined that it would have landed safely on land, so next launch they can prepare a proper landing pad and worry less about frying the next town over.

  12. Re:He's playing with fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I trust that he has a better idea of the consequences than you.

  13. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

    It's not bad planning, it's that the mission was to deliver goods. NOT deliver goods AND recover the booster.

  14. Re:Elon farted by lazarus · · Score: 1

    He designs and builds electric supercars and rockets. When you fart it just smells bad.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  15. I've heard this before. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Musk said, "We'll get much bigger boats next time."

    Is he retrieving a booster or a shark?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  16. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by jedidiah · · Score: 0

    > Funny how successful it is ... but it couldn't be recovered.

    Commercial passenger planes "fail" in this manner on a frequent basis. Although they generally avoid those kinds of landings entirely and end up going to some entirely different destination.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  17. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not many countries want goodwill from the United States. That kind of "goodwill" is used to topple democraticly elected governments in other countries and take their oil and other resources.

  18. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    troll, Elon Musk is a genius and the awsomenest person ever

  19. axis of lameness by Thud457 · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, as soon as he has the Falcon heavy ready, he can launch his orbital solar deathray, and then he doesn't need to worry about Obummer (or Putin) interfering in this plans.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:axis of lameness by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      I'll have to rethink the realism of Moonraker. I used to think it was the most ridiculous of all the Bond films but Musk is well on his way to being a real life Hugo Drax.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    2. Re:axis of lameness by Megane · · Score: 1
      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  20. Bloody rocket dealerships by photonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is about time that the FTC steps in and allows SpaceX to sell their rockets directly to the Air Force. Blame the rich local rocket dealerships, we corrupted their local politicians to create laws that are only designed to maintain their business model of selling old fashioned rockets. What people in the street want is to buy a next generation rocket, directly from the Internet, without having to talk to one of those sleazy rocket salesman. I am getting confused, you were saying Elon?

    --
    karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
    1. Re:Bloody rocket dealerships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is about time that the FTC steps in and allows SpaceX to sell their rockets directly to the Air Force.

      Seriously? You want to take the Falcon rocket away from Elon Musk who is highly motivated to perfect it and give it to the Air Force who doesn't really care*?

      *When I say "doesn't really care", I mean the Air Force doesn't care about perfecting low-cost access to space. After all, it's not their money.

    2. Re:Bloody rocket dealerships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In space, nobody can hear your jokes go, "Whoosh!"

    3. Re:Bloody rocket dealerships by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      You seem to have completely missed the point of Photonic's post, which was to take a comment on Tesla's problems with dealerships, and swap Tesla/SpaceX, Dealers/Air Force, and Cars/Rockets.

    4. Re:Bloody rocket dealerships by Teancum · · Score: 1

      They are pretty much the same thing, other than the unit cost of the vehicles involved.

  21. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need goodwill now.

    "If I be real nice to him maybe he won't hit me again! It's all my fault!"

    Is such thinking any less heartbreaking on an international scale? No.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. Re:Elon farted by towermac · · Score: 0

    I know. Isn't he great? I wish I could vote for him.

    (Elon, not the AC)

  23. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny how successful it is ... but it couldn't be recovered.

    This was a TEST, in case it's not terribly clear.

    Specifically, it was a test of the rocket's ability to fly back from a launch, and hover over the ocean (the previous attempt to do this, without the landing legs, spun out of control).

    It was hoped that the rocket could be recovered, so they could evaluate the condition of the rocket after reentry.

    The design test - reentry plus hover over the ocean - worked just fine. Hence the test was successful.

    The bonus part - recover the first stage - failed because of stormy seas. They couldn't reach the rocket before it sank.

    Note that the design intention for the F9R is that it do the rocket thing, then brake to a landing and land on a pad back at the launch complex.

    It is likely that they'll repeat this test at least once more (mostly because they're scheduled to do another launch next month, and aren't going to change the launch profile at this late date), then try to land the thing on the ground on later launches.

    Note also that after they've worked out the problems with landing the first stage, they plan to start working on recovering the second stage (which will be REALLY interesting, since it'll essentially have the flight profile of a FOBS (Fractional Orbit Bombardment System), and might make several Space Defense Commands wet themselves.)

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  24. Re:He's playing with fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Elon Musk is swimming in the waters of international politics. Big "no no" with this administration currently in office. He's about to get bitch slapped down and possibly lose it all.

    Probably not. The administration hasn't shown that it's terribly interested in the details of Air Force contracting. There are probably Pentagon officials who are very annoyed and would like to slap him down, but this is simply Pentagon conservatism: the Pentagon likes to keep on doing things the way they do them, because that's they way they do them and it's too much trouble to change.

    To the extent that the administration cares at all, they want to sever contracts with Russia (they've already given other orders to that effect), so they're probably mildly on his side. But for the most part, I expect that they don't care much one way or another-- it's not a big item on their agenda.

    With Obama, he can be vindictive!

    Typical content-free Obama-bashing. You want a president who's vindictive, that was Nixon.

    In fact, Obama seems to like Space-X. He was the one who put "Commercial crew transport" as the official U.S. strategy for space access

  25. Diss Putin contracts... by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Remember Alexander Litvinenko. Diss putin can get you killed.

    1. Re:Diss Putin contracts... by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      His first ex-wife once said, Elon has big brass balls. Besides the awesome ability to get things done, his apparent total lack of fear of anybody really defines him.

  26. less than a third of the cost by bigpat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a taxpayer, I wouldn't usually care about these corporate tiffs, but SpaceX can probably save the government hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars which could be used towards additional capabilities in space... so using SpaceX for launches could allow the Air Force to double its launch capacity at the same cost. Forget about sending money to Russia using ULA rockets, using SpaceX could double or more than double US space capabilities which translates to more communications satellites, more surveillance satellites and more R&D payloads.

    It is boggles the mind that the procurement folks at the air force would sign long term contracts with ULA just a few months before SpaceX has finished jumping through all the Air Force hoops for certification. Seems like a pretty blatant multi billion dollar gift (going out of business gift?) to the United Launch Alliance and is a bad deal for the Pentagon.

    Given the likelihood of certification for SpaceX, at the very least the Air Force procurers should have limited the contract to nearer term launches and not so many.

    1. Re:less than a third of the cost by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      As a taxpayer, I wouldn't usually care about these corporate tiffs, but SpaceX can probably save the government hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars

      It's not just the US government, it's the US military. Start in the billions and work your way up from there.

      The way military contracting usually works, you may as well fold up some paper into a paper airplane and throw it across a room, then tell the Air Force your design does everything they want for $1. Then spend the next 20 years learning about aeronautical engineering and how to build jet fighters while sending the Air Force bills for $5 Billion a year (don't worry, they'll direct deposit immediately). At the end of it, deliver them something that's beta quality at best and let them kill a couple dozen test pilots (and "test" pilots) until you figure out all the obvious problems with it. Then charge them a few more billion to fix those things. If you're lucky, the project will get canceled due to the ridiculously high cost overruns and you won't have to build but a handful of half-working planes, but still pocket the tens of billions.

      Pretty sweet deal.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:less than a third of the cost by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      ... SpaceX can probably save the government hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars which could be used towards additional capabilities in space...

      Or left in the taxpayer's pockets for THEM to use as they see fit - which would probably do a LOT more for them and the economy - including private space missions.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:less than a third of the cost by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      I'm all for saving billions, just don't think that saving a billion is enough to buy a lot of classified spy or big DoD comm satellites, those cost over a billion a piece.
      Perhaps that should be the next step in Elon's endeavours, applying his SpaceX formula to DoD satellites. The he could save tens of billions of USA money over a decade.
      On the other hand, US$ 2 billion would pay for the production and launch costs of 12 GPS satellites (using SpaceX booster).

    4. Re:less than a third of the cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that should be the next step in Elon's endeavours, applying his SpaceX formula to DoD satellites. The he could save tens of billions of USA money over a decade.

      Hey macpacheco, did you acquire a concussion banging your numbskull into Elon's tailbone as he beseeched in ecstasy for you to lick in vain at his microscopic testicles?

      Are you fucking kidding me SpaceX SAVES the taxpayer billions?
      The SpaceX Falcon is limp wristing a paltry 1,000 LB to the ISS at $133 million, while the Russian Progress sends 5,000 LB for the same price tag.
      Probably why NASA is wimping out "punishing" the Russians by cutting off cooperation EXCEPT for Progress flights to the ISS.
      If SpaceX were actually saving money, the Russians would be gone completely as part of the "punishment".

    5. Re:less than a third of the cost by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      As a taxpayer, I wouldn't usually care about these corporate tiffs, but SpaceX can probably save the government hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars which could be used towards additional capabilities in space...

      Probably not. Even as expensive as launches are, they're still only a fraction of the total cost of developing and delivering an operational payload on orbit, and a *very* small portion of the total budget including operations costs.
       

      It is boggles the mind that the procurement folks at the air force would sign long term contracts with ULA just a few months before SpaceX has finished jumping through all the Air Force hoops for certification.

      Not really, not if you have a clue or at least don't belong to the Cult Of Elon and wear the sacred blinders. You don't set procurement schedules based on waiting for someone who may or may not ever be capable of bidding on the contract.

    6. Re:less than a third of the cost by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      It's not a gift so much as it is the usual graft and corruption.

    7. Re:less than a third of the cost by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Probably not. Even as expensive as launches are, they're still only a fraction of the total cost of developing and delivering an operational payload on orbit, and a *very* small portion of the total budget including operations costs.

      Do the math on this. With 36 launches costing about 450 million each that would be over $16 Billion. So, using SpaceX could save over $10 Billion over those 36 launches. Even if you go with a satellite that costs $1B to get to the launch pad that would mean you could launch an extra 5 to 10 satellites just by going with the Falcons instead of the Deltas. That is a significant enough difference. Heck you could toss in a couple hundred cubesat experiments on top of that with all that savings and extra launch capability.

      Not really, not if you have a clue or at least don't belong to the Cult Of Elon and wear the sacred blinders. You don't set procurement schedules based on waiting for someone who may or may not ever be capable of bidding on the contract.

      That is just silly. You set procurement schedules based on getting the best value for the taxpayers. And it isn't like they have been doing launch procurement this way for many years. The switch from single launch contracts to this block of launches going to a sole source being done to "save money" is just laughable reasoning when there is a competitor out there that can launch for less than a third of the cost.

      This procurement schedule very clearly seems to have been set to give the most taxpayer money to Boeing and Lockheed Martin before the air force is forced to put these contracts out to bid. If you care about US space capabilities for national defense then we need to reduce launch costs significantly. SpaceX is doing that.

    8. Re:less than a third of the cost by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Probably not. Even as expensive as launches are, they're still only a fraction of the total cost of developing and delivering an operational payload on orbit, and a *very* small portion of the total budget including operations costs.

      Do the math on this.

      What makes you think I didn't? You don't seem to grasp my point, so I'll repeat it more plainly: Saving money on launches does not mean more money is available for procurement and operations. Goverment budgeting doesn't work that way.
       

      Not really, not if you have a clue or at least don't belong to the Cult Of Elon and wear the sacred blinders. You don't set procurement schedules based on waiting for someone who may or may not ever be capable of bidding on the contract.

      That is just silly.

      No, it's not silly. It's a stone cold fact.

    9. Re: less than a third of the cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you have done the math. Figured the air force could save a Billion dollars a year and decided that spending more money for less capacity makes the most sense for national security

  27. Re:Elon farted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He doesn't design anything. He's a banker, with a very good PR firm.

    He steals the name a a true innovator and slaps it on a toy for the rich, then goes onto take the knowledge of the saturn program and call it his own.

    I think you may be breathing the fumes.

  28. Ya know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I stopped reading this shitty post after the third 'you know'. DIAF.

    But, you know, what he said was right (you know).

  29. "Much bigger boats next time..." by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Musk said, "We'll get much bigger boats next time."

    Knowing Musk, that means he's going to build a flotilla of fully autonomous fusion powered Nimitz class aircraft carriers constructed entirely from carbon fiber. They'll probably haul the booster up with carbon nanotube wires and preserve it in amber, then transform into robots and fly back to fucking Cybertron.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    1. Re:"Much bigger boats next time..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then transform into robots and fly back to fucking Cybertron.

      Man, I wish I could remember my login credentials. I think have some mod points, and this would have been a good use of one.

    2. Re:"Much bigger boats next time..." by PPH · · Score: 1

      Pull Musk's geek card. The correct line is, "We're gonna need a bigger boat."

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:"Much bigger boats next time..." by ultranova · · Score: 1

      transform into robots and fly back to fucking Cybertron.

      Hmm... I don't think I've seen any references of Unicron engaging in food play before. A cauldron of human creativity, this site is.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:"Much bigger boats next time..." by macpacheco · · Score: 1

      Funny score 10
      Reality score 0
      Musk wouldn't build anything useless
      He already said next launch will land much closer to land.
      Next payload is 8 pretty small orbcomm satellites, it will use in the order of 50% of F9R payload capacity for the target orbit.
      It expect him to land no further than 50 miles from land, perhaps as little as 10-20 miles.
      The demand on the next launch as far as recovery will be much easier. The plan will likely be to tow the stage instead of placing it onboard.

      One idea that has been persistently floated by SpaceX fans is some kind of floating platform that could be positioned to retrieve the booster without spending fuel to reverse course back to the launchpad. But that idea would probably require fairly calm oceans, would make the solution too limited.

  30. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by mythosaz · · Score: 2

    Note also that after they've worked out the problems with landing the first stage, they plan to start working on recovering the second stage (which will be REALLY interesting, since it'll essentially have the flight profile of a FOBS (Fractional Orbit Bombardment System), and might make several Space Defense Commands wet themselves.)

    :popcorn

  31. Re:Elon musk's spaceship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    irony (n): Someone complaining about a person who makes their life from auctions, in a thread where the founder of the auction house's payments provider is suing for the right to make a life from auctions.

  32. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need goodwill now. Money is of no concern when you're thinking of the results of what could happen if Russia and USA blood goes bad.

    So we're supposed to just throw all our money down the shitter to keep Russia from getting sad/angry? What are they going to do? Their economy is already collapsing and they've proven once before that you can't pose a real, sustainable military threat to much of anyone if you don't have the economy to keep it going. If we isolate Russia, their economy will take a dive and Putin will end up on the wrong side of pissed off Russians. They'll have a hard winter, then they'll come asking for money telling everyone they've changed their ways.

    We're pretty dumb, so we'll give them some money and the cycle will restart. We don't need to buy their stupid rocket engine in no-bid contracts. Let the best solution win.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  33. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Elon Musk is a billionaire. Tesla builds electric tanks that are somehow street legal. SpaceX builds rockets and launches things into outer space. You sit around at home scratching your ass and tossing out criticism.

    Musk 3
    You 0

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  34. soon it will be black orchid time, don't you worry by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    sssssshhhhhhhh.... you're not supposed to reveal to the supporting characters that they're cannon fodder in a James Bond novel.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  35. What about the DC-X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It butt-landed in 1991. What's the big deal?

    1. Re:What about the DC-X? by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      DC-X started landing from zero kilometres per hour at a maximum altitude of ~3km without ever having to re-light the engines. A Falcon 9 first stage starts landing from 11,000 kilometers per hour (mach 10) at 80km and has to re-light the engines twice (retro burn and landing burn). There's an enormous difference.

      DC-X is more comparable to Grasshopper, not an actual orbital Falcon 9 rocket.

    2. Re:What about the DC-X? by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      For starters, MD/Boeing never funded it.
      Secondly, DC-X cost the gov. loads of money, but was poorly built. The fact that they lost a leg speaks volumes.
      Third, when NASA offered loads of help, MD/Beoing insisted on loads of money.

      Finally, DC-X never went that high, nor anywhere near as fast. As mentioned, DC-X was a very small version of grasshopper which never got as high or fast, while F9R just flew TO SPACE and succeeded.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:What about the DC-X? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      GP AC was unfairly dissing SpaceX. Yes, this *is* a big deal.

      OTOH, you are unfairly dissing the DC-X. It was a proof-of-concept model of the eventual full-size Delta Clipper ship. Of course it didn't go very high or far, it was a small scale model built for testing the initial concept before shelling out the big bucks for the real thing.

      It was revolutionary for its time. Up until the DC-X flew, many in the industry did not believe a rocket could be made to hover in midair and fly sideways. The fact that some idiot forgot to connect one of the legs and it tipped over and caught fire speaks more about NASA incompetence than anything wrong with the DC-X team.

      I don't believe there was any direct technology transfer from the DC-X program to the Falcon 9R, but you can bet your ass that Elon had seen the DC-X flight videos and possibly drew inspiration from it.

    4. Re:What about the DC-X? by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      The DC-X was a small scale experimental vehicle built to demonstrate vertical takeoff and landing under rocket power. It was never able to or intended to fly very high or very fast.

      This was the first stage of a Falcon 9 orbital launch vehicle, returning after boosting the second stage and payload, on a launch that actually delivered a payload to the ISS. It's far bigger (the empty Falcon 9 first stage masses about as much as the fully fueled DC-X), far more capable, and it's currently being mass produced. It also uses a cheaper and easier to handle fuel and a more efficient and flexible staged architecture than the SSTO architecture envisioned for the launchers derived from DC-X.

    5. Re:What about the DC-X? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, I am NOT dissing the X. It was similar to the models that are used for X-48 BWB.
      BUT, the fact remains that neither DARPA, nor NASA ran the program. It was MD, and then Boeing that did it. And neither was willing to put money into it.
      And as to the leg, since NASA had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, other than funding, it was the original team that deserves the blame.

      Actually, IIRC, one or two of the old DC-X engineers actually work for SpaceX. And there is no doubt that some of it did transfer, or at least the lessons did.

      BTW, I have normally been one to stick up for clipper. I did not consider the F9R to be all that much above clipper. BUT, the clipper went up to something like 10K'. OTOH, F9R went to 60 miles and then returned. Vertically. THAT IS IMPRESSIVE.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  36. Just call up the President, Zuckerberg style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    time to call in those favors Musk paid for in getting the President elected. Unless he's used them all up getting EV credits and immunity from Union hassles for TESLA.

    Why is it that all cars are required to have front plates in CA, even if they did not come with them originally, but the Model S has no front plate or frame? Not a single one here in San Jose has a legal front plate that is required by law for everyone else.

    Maybe Musk needs to save some favors for his other projects, or wait till after helping buy the next election.

    1. Re:Just call up the President, Zuckerberg style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still attached to the front of romney's pants and milking it hard, are you?

  37. No by dlenmn · · Score: 2

    In what way is one company getting the work like a job being split up among many companies? According to the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), over 20,000 different companies and universities worked on the Apollo program.

    In short, the answer to your question is no.

    https://www.asme.org/engineeri...

  38. this is why we can't have nice things. by Thud457 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    McDonnell Douglas handed the DC-X over to NASA who promptly dropped it and set it on fire.

    Man, you make me sad. I remember how COOL that was at the time, it was the FUTURE, landing on a pillar of fire like a proper spaceship. Then we pissed away another 20 years doing nothing with it. May Space X have better luck.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:this is why we can't have nice things. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish that I had NOT commented already, so that I could have modded you down. DARPA dropped it because they did not want it. NASA picked it up, and then offered up a contest. The X-33 won, while MD, and then Boeing, decided to NOT fund it. X-33 was mostly funded by L-Mart, which is why they won the NASA funding.

      The ones that really dropped DC-X was MD/Boeing since they never would fund it.

      Now, OTOH, look at SpaceX. They are acting like our companies from the 40's-70's. They are out about long-term massive profits. Boeing, MD, L-Mart, etc are ran by GOP MBAers and they are all about short-term, lets-feed-on-gov-teat-for-everything, kind of companies.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:this is why we can't have nice things. by mbkennel · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Precisely.

      There are certain companies whose core competency is engineering around the government procurement process.

      Then there's SpaceX, whose core competency is rocket engineering.

    3. Re:this is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there's SpaceX, whose core competency is undeserved hype.

    4. Re:this is why we can't have nice things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. It's easy to immediately monetize long-term massive profits for short-term profits. You could release some kind of bond and have the money right away, all based on the strength of your long-term profits. With a blue-chip company like Boeing, it wouldn't even cost much in the way of interest.

      The CEO of Boeing is also an Obama appointee so I doubt he's GOP.

      If the government decided to stop spending money on space altogether, Space-X would close its doors the next day. Feeding on the government teat is basically what it does.

    5. Re:this is why we can't have nice things. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      nonsense is right.
      First off, I worked for Boeing. McNerney is friends with W, and worked with his admin. The only thing that he is doing with Obama is on the export group, to which he is exporting jobs. And he is in a massive battle with the dems.

      If feds were to stop funding for space esp. NASA, NRO, etc, Boeing and L-Mart would be far more hurt than SpaceX. The fact is, that at this time, less than 33% of SPaceX's launches are from the feds. It is private companies that are going with SpaceX.
      OTOH, 100% of ULA is from NASA, NRO, and DOD.
      In addition, about 95% of Boeing's space work is from the feds.

      Finally, your first paragraph is so far off. Our 787 was a total disaster. It was on pare with most of Airbus and even Russian aircraft. Boeing was the top of the top. The 787 is junk. That is what happens when you gut a great manufacturer like Boeing. And it is now becoming just like GE (a now worthless company).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  39. Carbon fiber stiff-airfoil sailboats. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Knowing Musk, that means he's going to build a flotilla of fully autonomous fusion powered Nimitz class aircraft carriers constructed entirely from carbon fiber. They'll probably haul the booster up with carbon nanotube wires and preserve it in amber, then transform into robots and fly back to fucking Cybertron.

    Actually I COULD see Musk building a carbon fiber hulled, wind driven,Knowing Musk, that means he's going to build a flotilla of fully autonomous fusion powered Nimitz class aircraft carriers constructed entirely from carbon fiber. They'll probably haul the booster up with carbon nanotube wires and preserve it in amber, then transform into robots and fly back to fucking Cy

    Actually I COULD see Musk building a carbon fiber hulled, wind driven, solar powered, cargo ship.

    I doubt he'd bother doing such a vessel as a recovery ship for this project, though, since he's just planning to land a couple to test that the control systems are working adequately before he starts bringing them in on land. Even if it made sense to build one to use it twice, by the time it was done its mission would have already been completed.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  40. +1 Funny by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    ROFL!

    Wish I had mod points just now.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  41. Re:I hope Musk gets terminal cancer soon. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Why all the hate? Is it just jealousy? I honestly don't understand why so many hate people they've never seen.

  42. And.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly have you done lately that's so innovative and amazing? Exactly, nothing. Banker or not, this guy has a strong vision and has worked hard to make those visions reality.

    1. Re:And.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing innovative about an electric car when we have had them for over 100 years. There is nothing innovative about a rocket that can only carry a tiny payload, unreliably I might add, to load to low earth orbit.

  43. I look forward to when they sue CONgress by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, SpaceX should sue the republicans for being the traitors that they are. If trash like shelby, wolf, Hatch, Coffman, etc were sued PERSONALLY, it would no doubt go through multiple courts, BUT, with information brought out, it would cause citizens to re-evaluate what is happening.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  44. Just another businessman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smart guy.

    He know's his main competition is OSC. And for nearly all small Airforce launches goto OSC. And OSC is using russian engines as well for their NASA bids.

    OSC is their main competition. OSC does built their own stuff, but at a different approach (older tech but still develops). He needs to stay ahead considering the competition's solution is much different but hitting the same price point.

  45. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...

    We need goodwill now. Money is of no concern when you're thinking of the results of what could happen if Russia and USA blood goes bad.

    And here I thought merely electing Obama would give us that....

  46. United Launch Alliance = Boeing + Lockheed by mbkennel · · Score: 2

    Who just happen to be by far the biggest military aerospace contractors, doing just about some of everything.

    The RD-180 business is minor.

  47. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by ultranova · · Score: 2

    I'd say any teams and hopes we had with Russia should be maintained for the idea of brotherly love.

    Just because you love your crazy axe murdering brother doesn't mean you should buy him an axe.

    We need goodwill now. Money is of no concern when you're thinking of the results of what could happen if Russia and USA blood goes bad.

    The problem is, it will go bad unless Putin gets what he wants, and what he apparently wants is to take over the neighbouring countries and rebuild Soviet Union. Which, of course, will bring him into a conflict with the EU, which in turn could lead to anything from World War III to EU dissolving from the stress to EU becoming a real federation to effectively counter the threat. To avoid such a chaotic situation with potentially catastrophic consequences Russia needs to be contained, and the most "goodwill" way of doing so is economic isolation.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  48. Beta Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For starters, DC-X cost about $60,000,000. That was in the 90s, but that's barely noticeable on any government budget, and significantly less than NASA spent to put a fake upper state on top of a shuttle SRB and fire it into the ocean. The low cost was one of the reasons it scared the established players so much.

    Secondly, if I remember correctly, the leg failed to extend because someone had disconnected a hydraulic line. And that was after NASA had taken over the program.

  49. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by jafac · · Score: 1

    I think that the really amazing bit was that they were able to land over the ocean, in stormy seas. I wonder what the wind-speed was at that time?

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  50. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    The idea of brotherly love is supposed to be two-way. And right now, US is seen as enemy #1 not only by the Russian government, but by the majority of the Russian society (which is being fed propaganda about how US is behind everything bad that's happening in Ukraine from their TVs).

  51. Re:He's playing with fire by Teancum · · Score: 1

    You nailed it with regards to the Obama administration with regards to space policy issues in particular, and defense issues in general. Apathy is the only word you really need to understand.

    On the positive side for SpaceX and Elon Musk in particular, he was a major donor to the Obama campaigns in both 2008 and 2012, which I'm sure has paid off somewhat here as well. I'm not saying that Elon Musk endorsed Obama, but he definitely saw a rising star and made sure he was covered with a legitimate bribe (*ahem* campaign contribution) making sure that his bases were well covered. In other words, a proper businessman who knows he can be screwed over by an arbitrary government if he doesn't curry favor immediately with those on the way up.

  52. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Teancum · · Score: 1

    You would rather than the country you live in be on the shit list of the U.S. government as opposed to being on a list of supporters?

  53. I can give you a nice long list ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that agrees with you. And that list is what I know personally to be true ... which is probably less than 1% of the total list.

    My team lost a contract to a competitor because of price, not actual technical feasibility. We had a working prototype that was proven technology (only needed 6 month to make it operational), but the government gave the competition (who only had a design on paper) because they heavily (and purposely) underbid the proposal. Five years later, the product delivered is not even 10% of what was bid, and what was delivered has cost 3X the bidding cost in post delivery repairs.

    So that "cheap" designed ended up costing over twice the amount that we bid.

  54. Re:He's playing with fire by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

    Actually the Air Force when it did the EELV contract considered it a problem important enough that AMROSS got a license to build the engine in the US and got all the technical documentation to do it. They were supposed to have an assembly line in the US. But they ended up not building engines in the US because it was 'too expensive'.

    After what happened in Crimea the 'reset' is over.

  55. Beta Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SpaceX has launched every payload it was paid to launch on Falcon 9, and the only failure to reach the desired orbit was due to NASA telling them they couldn't relight the engine in case it hit ISS.

    If that's not 'an acceptable level of reliability', I don't know what you think is.

  56. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just so we are clear the first stage didn't just soft land, it did so during a storm over the ocean. Not exactly optimal test conditions for a fist try. Unless you are SpaceX that is. They didn't just prove it can be done, but done during some very shitty weather.

  57. Re:I hope Musk gets terminal cancer soon. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Hurt people hurt people. Hurt, people hurt people. People hurt hurt people, I could go on all day, but you get the point. I've been trying to fuel their hurt less, and encourage them towards harmony, like a good hippie, but it's hard, brother.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  58. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Well the thing is we told Ukraine that if they gave up their nuclear weapons, we'd help protect them from foreign aggressors; they did and then got invaded by Russia. Unless we do something effective pretty soon, it's going to be a hard sell to get anybody else to give up their nucs.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  59. Re:He's playing with fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with you on that. I am a DoD civilian contractor who HATES the way things are done with the military. We spent over 4 WEEKS waiting on a routine sign-off for one sub-assembly we were building. The DoD engineer "had to do some research" on the sign-off, even though he had approved several hundred like that over the past 5 years. People complain of how long it takes for anything to get done in the military (F-35 JSF) it is because the military generally can not make their collective minds up on any one thing.

  60. Yep, jealousy by waimate · · Score: 1

    I think you're right: jealously. Musk has runs on the board - multiple runs in multiple arenas. He should be every geek's action hero, but instead people are calling him a con-man, a fake, a wannabe. It's absurd in light of the observable facts, and the only explanation that fits is that a collection of true wannabe's are sitting at home chucking sour grapes.

  61. Re:Why go cheap with a company ... by waimate · · Score: 1

    ... SpaceX hasn't managed to launch a single rocket without it having some mayor failure.

    I think the correct tense form is *mayoral* failure.

    Oh, unless you actually meant something else and just fucked up coz you were too distracted bootstrapping your own space launch business.

  62. Re: Well the way things are going internationally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not what the treaty says at all. The US made no such promise.

  63. Re:Why go cheap with a company ... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    SpaceX hasn't managed a single flight with an acceptable level of reliability.

    Acceptable to who? NASA seems pretty happy the last time they delivered supplies to ISS.

    Hell, every Apollo flight had some kind of major failure. That's why you build in redundancies.

  64. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by rahvin112 · · Score: 0

    Musk made his billions by creating Paypal and selling it to ebay.

    Musk: -100000000
    Everyone else: Fucked in the ass by paypal.

  65. Umm... by edibobb · · Score: 1

    It's bad for business to sue your customers.

    1. Re:Umm... by EmperorArthur · · Score: 2

      US Government contracting is insane paperwork wise, and bureaucrats have thrown every roadblock they can at SpaceX. When it looked like they couldn't stop them from competing with ULA they then went ahead and signed a huge multi-year sole source contract with ULA. The timing is pretty suspicious in and of itself. It reeks of corruption and kickbacks.

      If SpaceX wins the lawsuit, then the bureaucrats will have to justify going with the more expensive option that uses Russian made engines. They'll probably say something about how age and reliability make it the better choice, but when they're proven wrong it will just help show how corrupt they are.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
  66. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

    No, Elon made his hundreds of millions creating Paypal and selling it to eBay. It took Tesla to make him a billionaire

  67. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 1

    You would rather than the country you live in be on the shit list of the U.S. government as opposed to being on a list of supporters?

    This argument is often raised, but Haiti and Cuba are countries that make you stop and think about it. Haiti received government support from the U.S. and it not doing well by any measure. Cuba has had an embargo with the U.S., Bay of Pigs, etc. and is doing relatively okay for it in comparison.

    Now I like the U.S. and respect it for holding to its principles as a country, but there are a couple of supporting countries that have had their countries pretty well screwed over.

  68. Re:Why go cheap with a company ... by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 2

    Actually only the first 3 flights of the Falcon 1 were a total loss. All other flights have achieved every primary mission objective, including CRS-1 that suffered an engine failure that would that terminated the flight of any other rocket currently flying

  69. Go elon go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...continue to pioneer all those things only the rich can afford! I'm sure changing the world for that 1% is going to make a massive difference.

  70. Umm, friendship matters? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    So let's see if I understand the situation -- I don't live in your country, so this is damned confusing.

    Not so long ago, you had a huge military enemy. They were bigger than you. They were scary. Many lives were lost on both sides. Then there were decades of espionage. Movies, history books, and even comic book super-villians were written about your relationship.

    Then, you finally became allies, working together against many things. Once again, movies, history books, and even comic book super-heroes were written about your relationship.

    As a direct result, and probably actually the primary cause, you share technology for space exploration -- a laudible partnership and persuit.

    And now your own civilians are upset with your friendly relationship? So much so that they are suing you (i.e. themselves) in an attempt to actually harm or hinder that friendship?

    And, one of the excuses is that your friend is powerful? Poke the bear?

    There's a comedian with a great joke about your country -- "the U.S. goes to all the wars, they love war. they had a civil war! no one left to fight? screw it:, two teams...".

    Damn, you guys really do look for fights.

  71. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

    being fed propaganda about how US is behind everything

    You're right, they're not behind everything but they are behind the operations that we *know* the CIA is directing/informing. Does somebody want to guess at a percentage now, last month, and next month?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  72. Re:He said it worked, except we can't prove it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are willfully attaching goals to this experiment that were never part of it to begin with. Goal of this experiment was to test high altitude reentry, and from telemetry data spacex has verified it worked, ergo success.
    Recovering the stage would have been nice for additional data, but that was not of primary importance. Reusing rocket stage that has splashed down in saltwater was out of the question. The storm was not a problem, low altitude control has been verified with grasshopper already. Better downrange weather would have been preferable, but as low altitude testing was not primary goal it didn't matter and they couldn't delay primary mission of ISS cargo delivery because of that.

  73. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    It's not a treaty, no signer has ratified it. The "memorandum of understanding" states only that the US (and UK and Russia, and in a separate agreement, France) agrees not to use or threaten to use nukes on the Ukraine (which it hasn't), not to challenge the territorial integrity of Ukraine (which it hasn't), to respect the then existing borders of Ukraine (which it does), and to raise any attack by another party against the Ukraine in the Security Council (which the UK did, with US support.) There's no requirement to defend the Ukraine against another signatory or non-signatory attacking them. A mutual defence treaty is a whole different kettle of fish.

    The US (and UK and France) have upheld their ends of the agreement (again, not treaty), only Russia has violated the agreement.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  74. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Teancum · · Score: 1

    Cuba isn't really doing all that well either, although I think their PR efforts are better than what Haiti does. It really isn't a fair comparison and Cuba has definitely been hurt with the various blockades and embargoes done against it. Don't forget, Cuba is still being ruled by a communist dictator that has even more control and authority over that country than Adolph Hitler had over Nazi Germany. About the only thing I can really say that is positive is that Cuba seems to be doing better than North Korea, but then again Cuba isn't investing in a nuclear weapons program either. Cuba wouldn't have survived at all if it wasn't for the generous patronage and support given by the Soviet Union, who gave that support primarily because keeping Cuba prosperous also was excellent PR.

    Don't even get started with the Bay of Pigs invasion. There is no possible way that Cuba could have held out against the actual U.S. military, and why Kennedy let that abomination of a military action happen in the first place still is something to this day makes me say "Huh?"

    In other words, comparing one former French colony that nobody cares about to a former American colony that is a deliberate thorn in the side of every occupant of the White House is not even a realistic comparison at all. Perhaps the worst part about American administration of Cuba was the singular failure to dismantle some of the even earlier Spanish institutions that should have been removed but weren't until Castro came to power.

  75. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    The other thing is, even if CIA is truly behind every single thing happening in Ukraine, Russian populace at large believes that all those events have the singular purpose of getting at them. Basically, the "patriotic" picture of the world in Russia is that the country itself is sort of the center of all that is good and holy in the world (some people link it to Eastern Orthodoxy / Third Rome, some to Soviet legacy, many even combine the two), and the Western world (led by US) as a force of evil that would want to rule the world, and needs to destroy Russia utterly because it stands in the way of that. Therefore, every foreign activity of Western countries, real or imagined, is deemed to be aimed in Russia directly or indirectly.

  76. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely, you did not read/watched U.S news/TVs, right?
    Don't act like somethings good/bad, black/white!

    Oh! Look, how bad Russian mobs are:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/25/1294569/-NY-Times-photos-prove-masked-men-work-for-Putin-made-those-anti-semitic-fliers-Uh-no

  77. I'd Wondered About That Soft Landing by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    I missed what happened to it after the report of a successful soft landing.

    "Unfortunately, they weren't able to recover it because it landed in the middle of a rough storm, which eventually destroyed the stage."

    Well, if it's so damned smart and clever and capable and all, why didn't they tell it to land somewhere else?

    Land at sea in the middle of a bloody storm, you get what you deserve!

  78. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by swillden · · Score: 1

    We need goodwill now. Money is of no concern when you're thinking of the results of what could happen if Russia and USA blood goes bad.

    So, this is danegeld.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  79. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I didn't say anything about how the perception in US might be skewed, only how it's skewed in Russia. There's nothing black/white about it.

    And yes, I do actually know what I'm talking about - I'm a Russian citizen, I watch the state media as well as private blogs in Runet, and have plenty of friends there who fall on all sides of the spectrum.

  80. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea of brotherly love is supposed to be two-way

    May be, it's not your intention. But the way you expressed is the way I understood.
    Your previous comment is likely Russia painted U.S as bad guy, but U.S did not.

    Meanwhile, actually, Russia is not the guy stopped corporate with NASA, nor non-politic projects, e.g. RD-180 engine, etc...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clayton-anderson/iss-calling-russia-friend-or-foe_b_4912989.html

  81. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Russia is the guy who occupied a part of another country, and is sponsoring hostage-taking terrorism in another part of that country to prepare for one more takeover. What did you expect the rest of the world to do? Send Putin roses?

  82. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's show your actual intention. I like this straight, not disinformation.

    Yeah, Russia must be punished! :)
    But...
    * Not science, non-politic, 'for mankind' project ;)
    * Not the rest of the world, it's the Western world, decide to 'do something'. But, what will punish the 'rulers' for doing something even worse. E.g. Kosovo, no referendum, bombing innocent people, whitewash war crimes like:

    Kosovo Prime Minister Agim Ceku is no longer considered a War Criminal
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/kosovo-prime-minister-agim-ceku-is-no-longer-considered-a-war-criminal/2165

    Kosovo's PM Hashim Thaçi was 'mafia boss who stole human organs from Serbs'
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338766/Kosovos-PM-Hashim-Tha-mafia-boss-stole-human-organs-Serbs.html

    Russia is the guy who occupied a part of another country

    I don't agree with everything Russia do, but at least, almost of Crimean against to be part of Ukraina, since the end of Soviet. You, be a Russian must knew that!?
    What if Catalan don't want to be part of Spain, or more than 80% of Venetian want to be independent. How democracy the West promoted.

    is sponsoring hostage-taking terrorism in another part of that country to prepare for one more takeover.

    That is, you've proved that your one-way information.
    That is, all you've claimed has never be proved, even Kerry, or Psaki... And how the non-information made you believed this?
    Meanwhile, there more than one proof of financial support of Western for the 'Maidan' oligarchs.

    Secondly, I don't see the difference between the Molotov-throwing protesters who overthrown Yanukovitch with who - you called terrorists - in the Eastern Ukraine.
    Either the way they do, or their intention.

    What I read and what my compatriots who have lived there, I can tell that all people who *directly* participate in the up-rising in both West and East of Ukraine are all want to have better life. One against the 'Russia-backed' oligarchs, others against 'Western-backed' oligarchs.

    P/S: At least, Yanukovitch did NOT use military against his people!

  83. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I'm not of a particularly high opinion of how the West handled Kosovo, both back in 1999 and after its de facto independence. But, at the same time, it took an actual genocide (as in, people being dragged out of the houses and shot, or forced to relocate at a gunpoint, solely on the grounds of their ethnic identity), and over a year of negotiations and threats, before military force was used in Kosovo...

    I don't agree with everything Russia do, but at least, almost of Crimean against to be part of Ukraina, since the end of Soviet. You, be a Russian must knew that!?

    Sure, I don't have any doubts about the outcome of a fair referendum. But these things should be done right and proper, which is to say, a referendum carefully arranged, with plenty of observers present, and with everyone agreeing on how to handle the outcome. Not a hastily run affair under gunpoint with threats to those who disagree. And certainly not when, shortly after the referendum, people get beaten up for speaking the wrong language in public...

    That is, you've proved that your one-way information.
    That is, all you've claimed has never be proved, even Kerry, or Psaki... And how the non-information made you believed this?
    Meanwhile, there more than one proof of financial support of Western for the 'Maidan' oligarchs.

    My sources of information on this are the separatists themselves. You know that they give interviews and such, and they have websites and blogs of their own? They pretty much openly boasted of taking hostages, later explaining that it is to "exchange for our guys they captured". I have no idea what Kerry said on that subject - didn't even know he did - and I don't really care.

    In general, 95% of my information sources on the situation in Ukraine is Russian and Ukrainian press, and blogs of people who live there. I only read Western press to know what the public opinion on the matter is.

    Secondly, I don't see the difference between the Molotov-throwing protesters who overthrown Yanukovitch with who - you called terrorists - in the Eastern Ukraine. Either the way they do, or their intention.

    There was no difference when people in Eastern Ukraine started to organize for federalization or more rights (language etc). The difference appeared when they took up arms before any violence being directed at them (on Maidan, the molotovs appeared only after the first brutal beatings, and guns appeared only in the last two days of the conflict when Berkut started shooting at protesters with real bullets), and when they started taking hostages and throwing journalists of "hostile" media into jail. The other difference is that those people not only carry guns, they carry military guns (full auto AKs, RPGs), and are generally very well outfitted for a grassroots militia movement - but then it all starts to make sense when those guys are asked where they're from, and a good half came there from Crimea, and a bunch more from Russia proper.

    P/S: At least, Yanukovitch did NOT use military against his people!

    Sure, he used his intensely loyalist personal guard instead, just like Saddam used his fedayeen - because the army might not be willing to shoot at unarmed people (heck, they aren't even willing to shoot at armed people, as the new government has found out!). Either way, he told them to use real bullets, and now we have 100+ bodies coming from Maidan. How many bodies are there in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk?

  84. Dumb IS Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a dumb law suite. Why, Musk can't win because he isn't a US Citizen and none of his companies are US companies; all about taxes.

    It's a smart law suite. Why, Musk is what President Obozo (Barak Butthole Obama) can never be, a real 100% African ! Obozo ? The ass wipe is not even an African-American ! Why ? Obozo is just a half breed, American Kenyan Dingo.

    This law suite will keep Obozo haunkered down in the 'Situation Room' sucking his bong and masturbating to Putin videos until the half breed dingo walks on January 20 2017.

    Ha ha.

    Here dingo here dingo.

    Weeeeeeeeee !

  85. Re:Well the way things are going internationally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what, what you believe in Kosovo is what history has been re-written after NATO intervention. KLA WAS a terrorist group, and innocent Yougoslavia was bombed (I don't say Serbia was right, but all criminals must be treated as they are). And now, the KLA have done and doing the same with 'minority' group of Serbians. Ironic!

    It's not that West did that so Russia can do this, but I showed you that when you strongly believed in 'the rest of the world...' you must be in fantasy world. I sicked of this hypocrisy (not about you, but about what the side you believe in).
    Remember Arab Saudi, Jordan sent troops to Bahrain to suppress protesters. What are your 'the rest of the world...' when they are friends.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15bahrain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&gwh=626185009C8613BB1B9F513418DB146B&gwt=regi
    http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921113000706

    Not a hastily run affair under gunpoint with threats to those who disagree. And certainly not when, shortly after the referendum, people get beaten up for speaking the wrong language in public...

    I guessed, from the 'free' medias. I would say this **may** be happened, but did you remember the news about one Ukrainian soldier died in Crimea, no news media told that there also a self-defense member died, and BOTH were shot by unknown snipers. This was **covered** until the:

    Ukraine's unlikeliest funeral. the only two foes to die in Russia's Crimea takeover are mourned together - Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10716412/Ukraines-unlikeliest-funeral-the-only-two-foes-to-die-in-Russias-Crimea-takeover-are-mourned-together.html

    And, any media you read told that Region party members were beaten and forced to resign. Do you think this leads to free election in Ukraine!?

    My sources of information on this are the separatists themselves. You know that they give interviews and such, and they have websites and blogs of their own? They pretty much openly boasted of taking hostages, later explaining that it is to "exchange for our guys they captured". I have no idea what Kerry said on that subject - didn't even know he did - and I don't really care.

    I'm not talking about the hostage yet. I talking about [Russia] 'is sponsoring' this separatists, that is Kerry and Psaki claimed that there FSBs [was captured], 'pictures of Russian soldiers in self-defense force'. They couldn't prove this:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/25/1294569/-NY-Times-photos-prove-masked-men-work-for-Putin-made-those-anti-semitic-fliers-Uh-no

    There was no difference when people in Eastern Ukraine started to organize for federalization or more rights (language etc). The difference appeared when they took up arms before any violence being directed at them (on Maidan, the molotovs appeared only after the first brutal beatings, and guns appeared only in the last two days of the conflict when Berkut started shooting at protesters with real bullets), and when they started taking hostages and throwing journalists of "hostile" media into jail. The other difference is that those people not only carry guns, they carry military guns (full auto AKs, RPGs), and are generally very well outfitted for a grassroots militia movement - but then it all starts to make sense when those guys are asked where they're from, and a good half came there from Crimea, and a bunch more from Russia proper.

    Sure, he used his intensely loyalist personal guard instead, just like Saddam used his fedayeen - because the army might not be willing to shoot at unarmed people (heck, they aren't even willing to shoot at armed people, as the new government has found out!). Either way, he told them to use real bullets, and now we have 100+ bodies coming from Maidan. How many bodies are there in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk?

    Real bullets...! Did you believed in video captured Berkut kn

  86. Air Force Push Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Air Force Officials as making the rounds calling Musk and 'Apartheidist' . An Air Force Public Relations Officer made the connection when he read that Musk is an African, as in South African. Now with Kerry calling Israel an Apartheid country, the Air Force is pushing that Musk's SpaceX is an Apartheid company, and un-American to boot.

    Ha ha