SpaceX's First Falcon Heavy Launch Will Now Take Place In 2018 (engadget.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX's First Falcon Heavy Launch Will Now Take Place In 2018 (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday November 30, 2017 @10:00PM from the excuses-excuses dept.

The launch of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket has been delayed to 2018. In an email to Aviation Week, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said, "We wanted to fly Heavy this year. We should be able to static fire this year and fly a couple of weeks right after that." Engadget reports: The static fire test will be the first time that all of Heavy's 27 Merlin engines will be fired at once. And if all goes well there, Falcon Heavy should be ready for launch within the first few weeks of 2018. There have been multiple launch delays with Heavy, which Elon Musk has attributed to the development of such a large and powerful rocket being "way, way more difficult" than SpaceX expected. "Falcon Heavy requires the simultaneous ignition of 27 orbit-class engines," Musk said at the ISS R&D conference in July. "There's a lot that can go wrong there." And because of that, Musk has been very clear about where everyone's expectations should be going into Falcon Heavy's first launch. "There's a real good chance that it does not make it to orbit. I hope it gets far enough away from the launch pad that it does not cause pad damage -- I would consider that a win," he said.

131 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 22:06 · Score: -1, Troll

"I hope it gets far enough away from the launch pad that it does not cause pad damage" - I have a similar wish for this Presidency.
1. Re:Seems reasonable by Rei · 2017-11-30 22:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The statement is clearly preemptive damage control. That said, given the track record of "first launches of new rocket systems" around the world, probably well warranted.
  I'm sure if SpaceX could turn back time they would have skipped the development of FH altogether and focused entirely on BFR; the development process turned out to be much harder than they anticipated. But, they've come this far, so it's time to get this bird in the air.
  
  --
  Pinkypants -- my favorite!
2. Re:Seems reasonable by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-11-30 23:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The things they learn from launching FH will probably help them a lot putting BFR together. The fact that it turns out to be this hard for them to develop FH means that they probably could use the experience before scaling up.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
3. Re: Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 23:49 · Score: -1
  
  You stupid fagget have no gut to be a president yourself, but you figured you can bark at him and that will earn you a few cocksucker points from you butt-buddies.
4. Re:Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 23:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  As the head of the German rocket program in WW2, Walter Dornberger, said:
  "We might well have been daunted by the multiplicity of the task before us. Luckily the difficulties were for the most part still entirely unknown to us. We attacked our problems with the courage of inexperience and had no thought to the time it might take us to solve them."
5. Re:Seems reasonable by taiwanjohn · 2017-12-01 01:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  if SpaceX could turn back time they would have skipped the development of FH altogether and focused entirely on BFR
  The deciding factor seems to have been second-stage recovery. About a year ago, I recall Elon saying something about trying to recover a 2nd stage "next year" (2018). Then, a few months later, he announced his intention to reveal a new, scaled-down version of the BFR at this year's IAC.
  Like Falcon Heavy, recovering that second stage turned out to be a lot harder than expected. Meanwhile, they'd just completed a ton of work on figuring out the BFR's lifting-body spaceship, which is a combination of 2nd stage and payload all in one vehicle. Why waste time and resources on 2nd stage recovery when you've already got the whole reusability enchilada figured out?
  I think the real "light-bulb moment" for Elon was realizing that his grand vision for Mars didn't have to be so grand as to be impractical for the existing space market. Instead of building "old fashioned" stick-and-capsule rockets to pay for the development of the BFR, a slightly smaller BFR could eventually pay for itself.
  That said, however, they really need the FH to be successful. They've sunk a lot of time into it, and they already have several customers lined up for it. Assuming it works, it will still be a huge step forward, both in payload capacity and launch costs. With F9 and FH, they can lead the market quite comfortably for the next few years as they work on the new BFR.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
6. Re:Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  if it works , he has to make money off it in the semi real commercial world and not keep feeding at the goverment money tit.
7. Re:Seems reasonable by Immerman · 2017-12-01 03:24 · Score: 2
  
  >Why waste time and resources on 2nd stage recovery when you've already got the whole reusability enchilada figured out?
  I don't know that they've got it figured out, but yeah, at least they have a plan. I'd be interested to see if they try a scaled-down prototype designed to ride the Falcon 9 or Heavy
  As for the value of the Heavy - you left out the technology would also likely scale to the BFR, which would let you lift *really* large payloads. I recall pretty much all the early interplanetary launch plans involving not just 2, but 8 auxilliary boosters, and I doubt he's abandoned that vision entirely. IF they can get it to work reliably, then it's a wonderful way to dramatically increase your payload using existing hardware. Until we've established the full mining, refining, and manufacturing chain in space (which I don't see happening any time soon, especially for advanced composites), the ability to launch, say, an entire mining platform in one go is going to be quite useful.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
8. Re:Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  if it works , he has to make money off it in the semi real commercial world and not keep feeding at the goverment money tit.
  Government satellite launches legitimately serve the public interest.
  I do not want my government to depend on Russian-made rocket engines, or Russian-made anything, for launches that serve national security interests.
  I want my government to spend my tax dollars on the most cost-effective provider of launch services.
  Right now, that is SpaceX.
9. Re:Seems reasonable by Thelasko · 2017-12-01 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  The things they learn from launching FH will probably help them a lot putting BFR together. The fact that it turns out to be this hard for them to develop FH means that they probably could use the experience before scaling up.
  From what I have read, what they learned was adding outboard boosters is a bad idea. They thought they could just strap three Falcon 9's together and get a massive increase in capacity. Turns out that's really inefficient. Most of the complexity is in the need to consume all of the fuel in the outboard boosters without using the fuel in the central booster in order to get the efficiency they wanted.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
10. Re:Seems reasonable by Geoffrey.landis · 2017-12-01 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  The statement is clearly preemptive damage control. That said, given the track record of "first launches of new rocket systems" around the world, probably well warranted.
  Yep. Turns out that a very good way to make a new vehicle is to just try it, see what goes wrong, and fix it.
  This means that failures should be expected: they're part of the process. That's how you learn.
  But the publicity and public outcry around a launch failure doesn't allow for the fact that failure is an important part of the process. So it's good to "preemptively" remind people of that beforehand.
  
  --
  http://www.geoffreylandis.com
11. Re:Seems reasonable by religionofpeas · 2017-12-01 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  But it worked in Kerbal Space Program...
12. Re:Seems reasonable by networkBoy · 2017-12-01 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't read it as damage control, I read it as "Realist".
  Has there been *any* successful on first go for a new rocket design?
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
13. Re:Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  But in kerbal space program we have asparagus staging.
  In reality pumping that much fuel that quickly from the side boosters into the central booster will cause all kinds of nasty effects, as a figure skater pulling her arms in when pirouetting. This is not simulated in kerbal space program.
14. Re: Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  The space shuttle worked the first time. There was no unmanned test flight.
15. Re:Seems reasonable by Gavagai80 · 2017-12-01 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Let me guess, you own Boeing stock and are angry they're being underbid for NASA and military contracts.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
16. Re:Seems reasonable by Gavagai80 · 2017-12-01 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Turns out that a very good way to make a new vehicle is to just try it, see what goes wrong, and fix it.
  Actually, the far enough to not damage the launch pad part is quite important. They're just now back up to 2 launch pads after a previous explosion put one out of use for a year. That's why they've spent so many years trying to get Falcon Heavy right before launching -- they can't afford to keep blowing up launch pads.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
17. Re: Seems reasonable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  How DARE anyone ever question a President. Political dissent is VERBOTEN!
18. Re:Seems reasonable by the_other_chewey · 2017-12-01 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't read it as damage control, I read it as "Realist".
  Has there been *any* successful on first go for a new rocket design?
  There's this obscure (but well known in enthusiast circles) rocket called "Saturn V".
19. Re:Seems reasonable by Kjella · 2017-12-01 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Turns out that a very good way to make a new vehicle is to just try it, see what goes wrong, and fix it. This means that failures should be expected: they're part of the process. That's how you learn.
  IIRC the Shuttle had something like 2.5 million parts and each part probably has more than one failure mode. Even if SpaceX got it down to 1/10th the complexity fixing faults by trial and error ain't really happening, that'd take centuries. And that's only if you have the kind of problems where it consistently fails every time, if it's more like a dice roll it'll take forever to get anything reliable. This meme that failures are "expected" and a great "learning experience" is mostly hogwash. Those engineers had better get it 99.99% right the first time while the last 0.01% are mostly unknown unknowns nobody even imagined up front.
  
  But the publicity and public outcry around a launch failure doesn't allow for the fact that failure is an important part of the process. So it's good to "preemptively" remind people of that beforehand.
  Yes. But not because failures are the vehicle of progress but because there is only so much you can simulate, estimate and test before actually doing it. Every rocket needs a maiden flight. And that's when you find out that despite all your brilliant models, theories, proof-of-concepts, prototypes etc. don't 100% conform to reality. But you could have spent forever staring at the blueprints without finding it, more effort just wouldn't have gotten you any further. See: All the people who've tried to do the waterfall method "right" by creating the perfect spec.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
20. Re:Seems reasonable by WindBourne · 2017-12-01 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it is not truly a new design.
  Most of it has been fully tested.
  Still, I agree with you. There is a LOT that can wrong here.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
21. Re:Seems reasonable by networkBoy · 2017-12-01 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  *most*
  That means there's something new... *boom* :P
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Werner Von Braun said by boudie2 · 2017-11-30 22:24 · Score: 1

What's the big woop? We were doing this in 1942. And it worked, ask the British.
1. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Rei · 2017-11-30 22:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nobody was launching 64-tonne-to-LEO rockets in 1942. Ask Wernher von Braun about the difficulty of scaling up rockets to that stage and about the huge chain of embarrassing failures along the way.
  
  --
  Pinkypants -- my favorite!
2. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe not the 40s, but the SaturnV was doing 140 tonne payloads into LEO in the 60s and 70s.
3. Re:Werner Von Braun said by boudie2 · 2017-11-30 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  Did that with a slide rule fifty years ago. Some people are just nacky like that.
4. Re: Werner Von Braun said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 23:54 · Score: -1
  
  American CIA terrorists will capture North Korean rocket scientists and torture them into slave labor. North Korea is a real deal, that's why stupid American librurd media is bad mouthing them in fake news propaganda networks.
5. Re:Werner Von Braun said by religionofpeas · 2017-11-30 23:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  the SaturnV was doing 140 tonne payloads into LEO in the 60s and 70s.
  It wasn't very good at soft landings, though.
6. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Rei · 2017-11-30 23:56 · Score: 2
  
  Did "that"? What is "that"? Made things explode frequently? Yes. Yes they did.
  But "that" is not just a "fifty years ago" thing. "That" continues up to the present. Even today, launches of new rockets are extremely risky. The problem is that there's a lot that you really can't test properly except in flight; there's only so much you can do on the ground.
  
  --
  Pinkypants -- my favorite!
7. Re:Werner Von Braun said by phayes · 2017-12-01 00:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The Saturn V was also a hand built assemblage of unique components for each launch. Yes, there were no S5 launch failures but that could have easily become the case had they continued to launch. The manual brazings for on the injector & nozzle for the F1 were impressive feats that I really wouldn't want to count upon for high reliability.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
8. Re: Werner Von Braun said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 00:43 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is an interesting read:
  https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/contents.htm
9. Re: Werner Von Braun said by someone1234 · 2017-12-01 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  Those rocket scientists can only dream about employment in the US. At least, they would be cured out of their tapeworms.
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
10. Re: Werner Von Braun said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  Does Elon Musk hand out free quote marks to his most loyal fans?
11. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  This is an unusual first stage, I think something like this was attempted just once (a few ill-fated "launches") and that was the Soviet moon rocket, N1, which happened to kill dozens people on the ground.
12. Re: Werner Von Braun said by SirTreveyan · 2017-12-01 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent link. If I had mod points I'd up vote you. Somebody do this please!!!
  
  --
  SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
  
  0 rows returned
13. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  "Nobody was launching 64-tonne-to-LEO rockets in 1942. Ask Wernher von Braun about the difficulty of scaling up rockets to that stage and about the huge chain of embarrassing failures along the way."
  Strangely enough you needed the very same Nazi to send the Saturn 5 to the moon.
14. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Immerman · 2017-12-01 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Doing what - lifting comparably heavy payloads to orbit? Yeah, we've done that before, but it's been a while. And it needed massive rockets designed specifically for the task.
  What *is* a big whoop is the ability to slave multiple first stages together to dramatically boost launch capacity using existing "off the shelf" rockets with minimal redesign - as I recall that strategy has only even been attempted once before, by the Russians I think, though I can't recall enough details to find more information. And they never got it remotely close to working - there just didn't have the quality control or the advanced control systems to get all those engines working together harmoniously.
  Plus, IF they can get this working reliably, then it's a fair bet that the experience and technology will be applied to future rockets and larger clusters as well.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
15. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Did that with a slide rule fifty years ago. Some people are just nacky like that.
  In a cave!
  Out of a bunch of scrap!
16. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Rei · 2017-12-01 04:08 · Score: 2
  
  On the other hand, I don't think the Soviets get enough credit, and the Germans get too much.
  The US swept up most of the important rocketry figures with Operation Paperclip; the Soviets got a lot fewer, and most were line workers; only a couple had any positions of significance in the Soviet program. Also, while the US integrated the Germans into its rocket program, the Soviets mainly just collected information from those that they gathered up, and as soon as they felt they knew everything they needed to from them, shut them out. Yet the US program kept stumbling while the Soviet program moved forward by leaps and bounds. The US didn't take the lead until the sheer force of far higher levels of investment made it possible (the Soviet N1 program was horribly rushed and underfunded; even a comparably small amount of extra funding could have made the difference for it)
  
  --
  Pinkypants -- my favorite!
17. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Rei · 2017-12-01 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  ** positions of significance in the German program.
  
  --
  Pinkypants -- my favorite!
18. Re: Werner Von Braun said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  You've apparently never seen a Delta 4 heavy.
19. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Strider- · 2017-12-01 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  ULA's Delta IV Heavy does this, and has been flying since 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  That said, it's lower payload to orbit than FH, and lacks the reuseability. The soviets never built a rocket like this. yes, they have plenty of rockets with strap-on liquid fueld boosters (such as Soyuz), but the boosters are of radically different design than the center core.
  What you're probably getting crossed in your mind is the issues the soviets had with their N1 rocket. They had significant combustion stability, and ignition stability issues with the 30 engines on its first stage. The difference was that all 30 engines were at the base of a single stage, not broken up between rocket cores. The propellant plumbing to feed fuel and oxidizer to 30 engines is enormously complex, and hard to get right. Conversely, with a design such as FH, from a fuel delivery perspective it really is 3 independent boosters, all of which have propellant feed systems that are well known and tested at this point.
  What is as equally complex is the control systems and thrust control/vectoring to keep the whole thing stable. Keeping your thrust vector going through your CoM is the hard part, and that's what I'll be interested in seeing with the launch of FH.
  
  --
  ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
20. Re: Werner Von Braun said by techcodie · 2017-12-01 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for the great link. My current non-fiction reading slot needed a boost.
  
  --
  last minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people.
21. Re:Werner Von Braun said by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-01 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  That is not correct, in numbers, if not in talent, the soviets captured more rocket scientists than the americans.
  But unlike the americans the rocket scientiests were allowed to work on rockets right away.
  Werner von Braun and others were kept silent out of work and joined the american rocket orograms relatively late.
  Hence the russians had the first sattelite up and the first man in space.
  Bottom line both big space programs were: German. The russian even more than the US one.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
22. Re: Werner Von Braun said by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Beyond my ongoing astonishment that they pulled off the technology, from this I also learned about the Herculean logistical challenges.
23. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Immerman · 2017-12-01 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  So it does, I stand corrected. Though with only one engine each it probably doesn't have the potential torsion issues of a cluster of mutli-core rockets. I suspect the issue will be not so much keeping the thrust through the center of mass, the Falcons seem to have worked out pretty accurate engine throttling, as in keeping the linkage stresses within acceptable limits while avoiding (or dealing with) barrel rolls and other aerodynamic complexities of a non-cylindrical rocket.
  You're quite possibly right about the N1. I thought I remembered something about ejecting engines as well, but we all know how unreliable memory is. I do recall it being used as an example of how the Falcon multi-core strategy would never work.
  So I guess it's not so much doing much fundamentally new, just combining several of existing technologies into a new and hopefully more capable arrangement. I can live with that.
  Though, the fact that the Delta IV Heavy managed to make it to orbit on it's maiden flight gives me more hope that Musk is intentionally underselling their chances of success.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
24. Re:Werner Von Braun said by Rei · 2017-12-01 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  The simple fact is that Operation Overcast, then Operation Paperclip occurred first. And were incredibly successful at getting almost everyone of significance from the German program. Operation Osoaviakhim, the more forceful Soviet equivalent, occurred afterwards, and as a consequence was only able to clean up the scraps. Mainly line workers, as I mentioned. They had a couple fairly high ranking people (such as Helmut Gröttrup, Ferdinand Brandner, and Fritz Preikschat), but not many - nothing compared to what Operation Paperclip got. Most of the line workers were released after 1-2 years. The Soviets had completely purged their rocketry industry of even the high-level Germans by 1953.
  These are the facts. Facts are not up for debate.
  
  --
  Pinkypants -- my favorite!
25. Re: Werner Von Braun said by k6mfw · 2017-12-01 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  I've been looking for such a comprehensive for Shuttle, I wonder if any will be written for SLS. I don't expect for FH as that is purely company rocket. Maybe something is there, I've burned too much time sifting through retreads of PPTs.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
26. Re:Werner Von Braun said by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-12 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  That is a glorified after war propaganda.
  The americans did not "acquire", "capture" any german rocket scientist.
  The rocket scientists convinced Hitler that it is a good idea to "hide" in south Germany/Bavaria in "remote" areas which have "underground cities" aka very deep bunkers for relatively large populations.
  They deposited about 14tonnes paper with research results, plans etc. there and lived there until the area was "liberated" by american forces. And then they simply came out of the bunker and said: "Hello! We are rocket Scientists, we like to talk to your commander". That was Werner von Braun and his "closest stuff". About a hundred or a few more _rocker scientists_ (Your wikipedia link is about all kinds of scientists)
  In America, the rocket scientists where not allowed to work, where isolated and basically kept captive in a fancy resort till about 1960.
  On the other hand Russia *captures* about 2000 of the remaining scientists in East Germany that where not privileged enough to follow Werner von Braun, not smart or resourceful enough to flee on their own.
  They were put to work immediately, and had a relatively nice life and returned mostly to Germany in the mid 1960s.
  In both situations there was no "operation super secret" involved.
  The smart ones "prepared to be captured" by the USA and the less smart ones "got captured" by the USSR.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Schedule Transparency by mentil · 2017-11-30 22:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's a Morton's Fork for project managers: give repeated updates to a changing schedule, slips and all, or to give a vague window that conceals these schedule slips. The benefit of the former is that onlookers can get an increasingly precise estimate of final delivery, whereas the benefit of the latter is that it appears more professional. The downside of the former is a constant request for updates (which one feels obligated to answer) and doom and gloom from onlookers every time the schedule slips; for the latter, it's that few people know when the project will be completed until it's almost done and a release date is easy to nail down, and it's difficult to plan around such a nebulous release window. Those who choose transparency often are stressed out by the scrutiny, sometimes wishing they maybe hadn't been so transparent.

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
1. Re:Schedule Transparency by jellomizer · 2017-11-30 23:04 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  I am sure if enough people were interested in seeing Gant charts and pages of documents the media would provide such info to be profitable. But for most of us with just a passing interest. Oh a rocket is going off in 2018 not 2017.
  Or are you bitter that your project is behind and your boss is riding your ass.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:Schedule Transparency by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2017-11-30 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ah. So the James Webb Space Telescope project planning "appears more professional". Interesting.
  
  Just sayin'.
3. Re:Schedule Transparency by mentil · 2017-11-30 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  They should've been more vague about the launch date, given it's been delayed 12 years so far. The people who control NASA expect it to deliver one thing: Pork. And it does so on time, every time. Investor/consumer confidence doesn't affect NASA much. They should just move to a "when it's done" deadline system... if the politicians would let them.
  
  --
  Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
4. Re:Schedule Transparency by Immerman · 2017-12-01 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how exactly a vague window looks any more professional.
  Unless of course we're talking the "We're know we're lying, you know we're lying, but we're all going to sit around and pretend we've said something informative" brand of "professional".
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
5. Re:Schedule Transparency by Bruce+Perens · 2017-12-01 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  So, by your theory it's the transparency of Open Source projects that dooms them to failure? :-)
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
F9 is already "heavy" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 23:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anyone lining up to criticise SpaceX for the delays to Falcon Heavy needs to be reminded that the current iteration of the standard Falcon9 rocket is now more powerful on its own than the original specs for Falcon Heavy.
Several of the payloads that were originally booked with FH have already been launched on single F9s.
So the Falcon Heavy that is being rolled out now is a substantially more significant piece of hardware than it would have been if we'd been watching this event two or three years ago.
The lessons learned from developing Falcon Heavy will also pay forward into the development process for BFR. Even if FH never flies again, the process was still worth it.
1. Re:F9 is already "heavy" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  I can't stand SpaceX, largely because I can't stand Elon Musk, but I do wish them well with this just for the sake of their staff.
  Rockets with that number of relatively small engines do not have an awesome historical track record. See for example the Soviet moon rocket.
2. Re:F9 is already "heavy" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  Can you clarify on what you don't like about them/him?
3. Re:F9 is already "heavy" by Bruce+Perens · 2017-12-01 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  I can't stand SpaceX, largely because I can't stand Elon Musk
  Because he's egotistical, self promoting, and wins because he's already a winner? You might find me a minor annoyance too, then. :-)
  I think it might need people like that to get big things done.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
4. Re:F9 is already "heavy" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  Better to keep paying the Russians to launch everything into space? That is what we were doing since the NASA had no technology to deliver payloads to LEO, after the shuttle program was shutdown.
  He's like every other visionary has been. Edison was a dick too.
5. Re:F9 is already "heavy" by someone1234 · 2017-12-01 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  The Russians just fucked up a Soyuz rocket launch, burning 19 satellites. You better pay Elon to keep your satellites in orbit and having american workers.
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
This Is About ROI by ytene · 2017-11-30 23:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

As Elon stated in the quoted comment, the complexity of this launch is pretty significant. Although it must be possible to measure the respective thrust output from 27 different rockets simultaneously [i.e. torsion gauges across your rocket superstructure], translating that in to real-time simulation that balances thrusts for both trajectory and vehicle integrity are going to be hard.

Whilst this launch is certainly experimental, SpaceX will want to get the maximum possible return on that investment - it's their USP after all - and that means having a good degree of confidence that it will work. Something that blows up on the pad after giving half a second of telemetry isn't much use to anyone except the afternoon news shows and YouTube. Well, and ULA.

This is all about balancing the need to test [in order to get data] with the need to test successfully [in order to get data]. And although the cost of an F9 Heavy launch [to SpaceX] certainly won't be three times the cost of a regular F9 launch, it won't be cheap, either. If regular F9 launches are $60MM, then the cost of F9H must be at least in the order of $120MM or so.

Worth taking the time to give it a reasonable chance of success.
1. Re:This Is About ROI by Immerman · 2017-12-01 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming there's thrust and torsion gauges on the static firing apparatus, they will potentially have already worked out a lot of the thrust balancing issues - and they do have experience with the basic problems since an F9 is already having to balance the output from 9 engines.
  Of course, releasable linkages are going to be a far cry from integrated infrastructure, in terms of both strength and rigidity, so there's an awful lot of relative unknowns to test as well. I'll be rooting for them. And like he said - if they can get far enough from the pad to avoid damaging it that will be a win - there's a lot of seconds of data to be collected by then on problems and how they respond to automated attempts to solve them. More data would be better obviously, but any fundamental problems will likely show up quite rapidly, and the next batch of fundamental problems probably wouldn't rear their head until side-booster separation.
  It would certainly be nice if it manages to survive to separation so they can get at least a glimpse of that batch of problems, but that seems like almost too much to hope for.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
2. Re:This Is About ROI by Bruce+Perens · 2017-12-01 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Reduce the cost by the fact that the two side boosters are used, thus already paid at their retail cost for by previous missions and now being reused by SpaceX at their internal reuse cost. Now, we don't know SpaceX's refurbishment costs, but all suspicion is that the Block 4 rocket does not require major refurbishment to be used a second or third time. Block 5 rockets are supposed to be reusable more times without refurbishment.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
3. Re:This Is About ROI by ytene · 2017-12-02 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with your observation regarding static test firing. That is certainly going to help.
  
  One question occurred to me though: although it's been a while since I studied Physics, each force applied to the vehicle structure [i.e. thrust from the rockets] will act around a moment [a point at a determinable, perpendicular distance from the point on which the force [thrust] acts]. So in essence, as the "width" of the vehicle is extended by scaling from a single, circular cross-section, to essentially, a beam, so we introduce the potential for the moment to scale into significance.
  
  Now, what we don't know for our speculation concerns the specific performance characteristics of each Merlin engine. In other words, what are the manufacturing tolerances and performance variations observed across individual units that SpaceX manufactures? How consistent [uniform] is the thrust? How easy is it to calibrate the throttles?
  
  I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that variations are actually pretty minimal, mainly because if there were a variation of more than a handful of percent then the job of balancing on even a single F9 launch becomes more of a headache. And of course, SpaceX have been making Merlins for a while now - plenty of time to iron out kinks in manufacture.
  
  Also factor in that when NASA went to the Moon in the 1960s, the Saturn computers had to be able to re-compute and adjust thrusts 50 times a second [and think about how much further we have advanced with our computing and sensor technology since the 1950s-era design freeze for the Apollo program] and nothing you suggest is beyond SpaceX today.
  
  Having said all that, my original observation stands. Musk wants [and perhaps needs] to do this - in order to maintain the forward momentum that SpaceX has generated and in order to stay ahead of Blue Origin and ULA. But he needs this to be as successful as he can reasonably hope for. He'll be asking his people for a chance of success that is [my guess] 70% or better... He'd like 80 but he might even fly on 60.
  
  I don't underestimate the scale of the challenge, but I think that come launch day, Musk will be far more confident than he is letting on...
Musk the Hypocrite. by Computershack · 2017-11-30 23:30 · Score: -1, Troll

Brings out the Tesla because he wants to cut pollution and save the planet, sets up space company which has a rocket that'll burn a million pounds of fuel in a matter of seconds just to send stuff to a space station that just sits there spinning round the globe.

--
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
1. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by joh · 2017-11-30 23:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Most launches aren't to the space station at all but just satellite launches.
2. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-30 23:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you think rocket launches use a lot of fuel, you're probably underestimating the amount of fuel burned in road vehicles. Just the USA alone burns 1.5 million gallons of gasoline per hour (extrapolated from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php)
  Tesla's push to electrifying road cars will save many orders of magnitude more fuel per year than SpaceX will burn in total.
3. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Rei · 2017-12-01 00:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Satellite launches that improve quality of life here on Earth. Mainly communications and monitoring.
  Also, expect a significant decrease in emissions per unit mass launched to orbit over time. BFR, for example, will burn methane rather than RP1, and will have a much higher payload fraction. And as for the ground operations, I strongly expect SpaceX to be a major early customer of the Tesla Semi once they're available. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first megacharger routes to go live connects SpaceX facilities with their Florida launch pads.
  So long as natural gas is cheap, they'll probably continue using it for methane supply for BFR. But if its price ever rises enough and/or the cost of producing it from electricity and CO2 ever drops enough, I'd strongly expect them to switch to synthesized methane. We're far from that at present, however - you'll need to see natural gas disappearing from baseload grid power generation first, as an early indicator.
  
  --
  Pinkypants -- my favorite!
4. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Rei · 2017-12-01 00:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  ** Ed: also connecting Vandenberg AFB. Vandenburg through LA (access to Hawthorne), out on I-10, through Texas (passing 150mi from McGregor), along the Gulf Coast to Jacksonville, then down I-95.
  Obviously they'll also be running Semi between Gigafactory and Fremont, but you don't really need a megacharger network in there. Perhaps one station.
  
  --
  Pinkypants -- my favorite!
5. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 00:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes, because GPS, weather forecasts, telecommunications, global warming science, astronomy and so on are anything but useful for mankind?
  Think again. And also think scale: a small town and it's cars burns more fuel daily than a big rocket bringing sattelites into orbit.
  If you want to fight pollution, aim your arrows against military uses. Coal fuel plants. The slow adoption rate of renewals. The power of oil companies. Inefficient use of heating & cooling. Air freight. Datacenters. Hell, aim your arrows against bitcoin or so for wasting energy if you wish so.
  Almost anything you can think of makes more sense than complaining about space launches.
6. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 00:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  >because he wants to cut pollution and save the planet
  He wants to go to Mars.
  Space-X gets him there, Tesla powers the planet, Boring Company builds living space and connective tunnels, Hyperloops gives him transport (and easier, since Mars' low pressure means you probably don't even bother evacuating the tubes).
  If Musk next starts in on magnetically confined plasma shielding technology and closed-loop environmental systems... you'll know for sure. He will want to get to Mars without the elevated cancer risk and survive there without constant resupply from Earth.
7. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 02:24 · Score: -1
  
  What a wonderful imagination you have! It was fun to be eight years old, huh? But now we are grown up and we can tell fact from fiction, right?
  If you want some more space religion, here you go:
  http://www.terrantradeauthority.com/
  Remember those books? Such fun! But alas, reality is something else.
8. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  Elon Musk: 'I'm planning to retire to Mars'
  https://www.theguardian.com/te...
9. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  No need to connect Vanderberg : it will be reconfigured as a "landing pad" for Hwasong-15.
10. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 02:42 · Score: -1
  
  "I'm planning to eat Katy Perry's pussy".
  So what?
  We don't even have the Concorde anymore and this loon thinks we'll be able to support an aged human in an environment so hostile it makes the Antarctic night look like a beach resort?
  What's he going to breathe? How? From where? Who's maintaining this? What are they eating and breathing? Where are they living? How are they getting there?
  Space Nuttery.
11. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Strange, I remember when his rockets landing was called space nuttery.
  I remember when the roadster first came out the main car companies were calling it Elecric Car nuttery.
  I remember when he start pushing solar tile that was also called Solar nuttery.
  I remember the 100 MWH battery for Australia in 100 days also being called nuttery.
  I remember and still hear people calling The Boring Company nuttery even while the test tunnels are being dug.
  And the HyperLoop is called nuttery even as governments are making bids on get it.
  Musk can not be right in all things, but the best way to bet is to always assume he will succeed because that is the way it has been going so far.
12. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  > He will want to get to Mars without the elevated cancer risk
  Not so much need for fancy shielding for one man, just fly solo in the middle of a densely packed cargo ship, you only need the equivalent of a few meters of rock to get the approximate shielding benefit of Earth's atmosphere, and I think it's only like a meter or so necessary to absorb most of the cosmic ray particle cascade.
  As for closed loop environmental systems - there's already been tons of research done on the subject, and even the very first large scale attempt, Biosphere 2, was impressively successful. Besides, one of the things that makes Mars so much more appealing than the Moon is that you don't *need* to be closed system - you've got nigh-unlimited supplies of water and CO2 available on-site to work with, the bulk components of life. And you'd better believe finding easily harvestable sources of nitrogen and important trace elements is going to be a priority.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
13. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing much stopping us at this point but the will to throw enough money at the problem, and Musk seems to have the will, if not the money. And SpaceX is beginning to rapidly lower the pricetag.
  The only missing piece to start the attempt is rockets big enough to transport people and cargo effectively - you don't need much high technology to make airtight underground terrariums with solar-powered LED lighting. Not if you're bringing the electronics from Earth.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
14. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  >Not so much need for fancy shielding for one man, just fly solo in the middle of a densely packed cargo ship, you only need the equivalent of a few meters of rock to get the approximate shielding benefit of Earth's atmosphere, and I think it's only like a meter or so necessary to absorb most of the cosmic ray particle cascade.
  True enough, but without a much faster rocket (as opposed to the 'merely' much less expensive one Musk is pushing), a smart traveller is probably going to want some artificial gravity... and I believe the best we can manage now would be a capsule on a counterweighted tether during the unpowered portion of the trip. I'm certainly no spaceship designer, but I think they'd keep as much payload away from that as possible to minimize the counterweight and tether requirements.
  Then again, we don't actually HAVE magnetically confined plasma shielding yet, we just know it's possible. And I've no idea how big and heavy that setup would be, either.
  >As for closed loop environmental systems - there's already been tons of research done on the subject, and even the very first large scale attempt, Biosphere 2, was impressively successful.
  Well... I suppose for certain degrees of 'impressively successful'. A lot of confidence and public interest in the results was certainly lost as they mishandled the atmospheric issues they ran into with the first two major runs.
  >one of the things that makes Mars so much more appealing than the Moon is that you don't *need* to be closed system
  Water gets you H2 and CO2 gets you... CO2. We need a noble gas for the bulk of our atmosphere, and I'm reasonably confident it'd be easier to recycle what you have rather than constantly mine for more to extract from local minerals. After all, we do know that a greenhouse in an artificial ecosystem is going to cause problems - with an excess of O2, I think (don't quote me!). Anyway, you're probably not going to want to constantly bleed air to fix that.
  Maybe a few controlled fires and a good air scrubber? Anyway, if the 'boffins' say it's a problem, I'm going to assume they've given it more thought and investigated far further than I have, and the tech ain't there yet.
  > And you'd better believe finding easily harvestable sources of nitrogen and important trace elements is going to be a priority.
  Personally, I think we need automated mining, processing, and construction successfully demonstrated on Mars before sending people. And even then, I think it'd be wise to have an automated greenhouse and raise a few generations of lab mice ahead of time too... maybe even something larger. We have no idea what 0.38g does to the long term health of a mammal.
15. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by careysub · 2017-12-01 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Brings out the Tesla because he wants to cut pollution and save the planet, sets up space company which has a rocket that'll burn a million pounds of fuel in a matter of seconds just to send stuff to a space station that just sits there spinning round the globe.
  Rated "Troll" I see, which is appropriate, but let me show just how stupid this post really is.
  Last year the U.S. conducted a total of 22 space launches. The current Falcon 9's full up launch weight is 549 tonnes. If we assume that that weight is all fuel (it is mostly) then a Falcon 9 launch burns 549/3.56 = 154 tonnes of RP-1 kerosene (since the LOX to RP-1 mass ratio is 2.56/1), so this is an upper bound on the fuel used.
  A fuel fuel load of a 747-400 is 165 tonnes, more than the Falcon 9. If every one of those 22 launches had been a Falcon 9 (7 of them were in fact) then the entire U.S. space launch program would have used as much fuel as just 22 regularly scheduled long distant wide body commercial flights.
  This is 0.0065% of the 54 million tonnes of aviation fuel used by the U.S. airline industry in 2016.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
16. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by careysub · 2017-12-01 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  This is silly fallacy.
  What you are saying is that since some people somewhere called each one Musk's ventures "nuttery" (although actually nothing you list is really implausible - only founding a new car company was a stretch), then no one anywhere can point to any of his claims as being factually suspect.
  Not quite the "they laughed at Galileo" fallacy, but close.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
17. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Gavagai80 · 2017-12-01 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Living in zero gravity for as long as a year is a solved problem. You're not comfortable when you arrive back on a planet, you can't exert heavily for a while and you may have vision issues, but you're functional if you've been doing your exercises. No doubt more functional on Mars than on Earth. Nobody's going to Mars to have an easy comfortable time anyway.
  As for what 0.38 gravity does to a person, is there really any reason at all to suspect serious negative side effects? Zero gravity's problems arise mainly from things not flowing downwards as expected. It seems far more likely that reduced gravity is good for you -- being heavy creates a lot of stress on the body.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
18. Re: Musk the Hypocrite. by Type44Q · 2017-12-01 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  even the very first large scale attempt, Biosphere 2, was impressively successful.
  So you don't actually know anything about Biosphere 2. Oops?
19. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  >Living in zero gravity for as long as a year is a solved problem.
  Not by a long shot; it causes a temporary severe reduction in health with a smaller permanent reduction, and the deterioration only stops when you return to Earth.
  >As for what 0.38 gravity does to a person, is there really any reason at all to suspect serious negative side effects?
  ABSOLUTELY! The human body is a collection of 'hacks' blindly put together by evolution. Our fundamental environment has been constant throughout our evolution, which means there's potential for any number of problems to arise when those constants are changed.
  We already know about body fluids migrating towards the head, vision issues, immune system impairment, and bone density loss. I would expect those items all apply in anything less than 1g... but I have no idea to what degree.
  Maybe Mars will have enough gravity to keep our bodies working well, but maybe it won't. We absolutely have no idea, because we have no way to test fractional g other than lying in bed with our feet raised above our head, and that method is only used because we have nothing better.
20. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-01 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Biosphere 2 was not the first one, as the number 2 clearly indicates.
  Both, Biosphere 1 and Biosphere 2 were failures.
  But I guess the technical problems could be solved.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
21. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by careysub · 2017-12-01 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  > He will want to get to Mars without the elevated cancer risk
  Not so much need for fancy shielding for one man, just fly solo in the middle of a densely packed cargo ship, you only need the equivalent of a few meters of rock to get the approximate shielding benefit of Earth's atmosphere, and I think it's only like a meter or so necessary to absorb most of the cosmic ray particle cascade.
  The radiation exposure for 6 months in interplanetary space is about 60 cSv (60 rems). This is 12 years of the maximum allowable dose for a radiation worker. NASA currently allows a 55 year old astronaut to accumulate 400 cSV (Musk is 46, and won't be going for many, many years). So the radiation exposure is within currently accepted occupational limits. So this is not really a problem.
  
  As for closed loop environmental systems - there's already been tons of research done on the subject, and even the very first large scale attempt, Biosphere 2, was impressively successful. Besides, one of the things that makes Mars so much more appealing than the Moon is that you don't *need* to be closed system - you've got nigh-unlimited supplies of water and CO2 available on-site to work with, the bulk components of life. And you'd better believe finding easily harvestable sources of nitrogen and important trace elements is going to be a priority.
  Getting nitrogen is easy. Just compress and liquefy the Martian air. At lower Martian elevations the pressure is about the same as an altitude of 30 km on Earth, where high altitude aircraft have flown. 1.9% of the atmosphere is nitrogen so in the process of collecting CO2 from the air, you can get whatever nitrogen you need.
  But the problem is not really that it has to be "closed loop" (although it does, even on Mars). It is that the atmosphere has to be entirely manufactured and maintained at normal Earth conditions by mechanical systems, which if they fail kills everyone. To maintain a breathable atmosphere you must continuously remove CO2, and exhaled moisture, and any gases released by systems on board. Being on Mars "fixes" none of that. All of the oxygen is being manufactured somehow. Water recycling will be mandatory as there are not large accessible supplies of water that we know of.
  The workload on the ISS simply to maintain the environmental systems is a full-time job for two people.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
22. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that Biosphere 2's first mission lasted the full two years, despite several difficulties, was incredibly impressive. And on Mars you've got a steady flow of new atmospheric gasses available, and artificial control of lighting, so the biggest problems don't translate.
  Water and CO2 together, supplemented with nitrogren compounds and other trace elements, get you plant life - which means food, air, and extremely versatile and useful cellulose-based construction materials.
  And point in fact we do NOT need a noble gas in our atmosphere - we do just fine in a pure oxygen environment, just as plants do just fine in a high CO2 environment - neither of us breathe nitrogen (mostly, a very few plants do). Plants need nitrogen, but need it fixed into larger, more reactive molecules in the soil/hydroponic solution. Fill a habitat with a normal O2/CO2 mix at 1/5th atmosphere and we mostly won't notice the difference, nitrogen just reduces the risk of fire (so yeah, we'll probably want *something* to cut the air with. Doesn't much matter what so long as it's non-reactive.)
  And yes a closed *greenhouse* is going to cause problems with oxygen buildup - which is why what you want is a closed *terrarium*, with animals such as humans, insects, chickens, etc converting oxygen and plant-matter back into CO2 and water. And in an environment where you have complete control over lighting, it's relatively easy to regulate photosynthesis to maintain the desired O2/CO2 balance.
  Gravity is the one potentially serious complication - though most of the problems we've encountered with microgravity shouldn't translate (much) to moderate gravity, where skeletal impacts and fluid pressure gradients will be only somewhat reduced. A mouse terrarium would indeed be a good test to at least give us some ideas of what problems we might encounter. It wouldn't even have to be on Mars, a pair of well-shielded orbital terrariums spinning around a tether at the right speed would be quite informative. But so long as the first wave of colonists are willing to take the risks, I don't see a problem. Colonial life expectancy has always been low, and gravity related issues are unlikely to be what kills them.
  As for construction - well, if the Boring machines pan out as planned, you've got it. It won't be an industrial base, but the plan is to continue shipping durable goods from Earth for some time. So long as you have the equipment to make reinforced tunnels, all you need is the right "paint" inside to make them airtight. Personally I think a small nanocellulose production plant would be a valuable addition - it's transparent, non-toxic, gas-impermeable, comparable in strength to aluminum, and you can produce it from plant waste using purely thermo-mechanical processes (no eco-cycle contamination). It's also water soluble, which presents some challenges, but also makes it really easy to work with and repair.
  As far as mining and industry are concerned - what exactly do you think the early colonists are there to do? You don't risk your life colonizing an alien world so you can sit around the spa all day monitoring productivity readouts.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
23. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-01 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Then again, we don't actually HAVE magnetically confined plasma shielding yet, we just know it's possible.
  Hu? You never hold a magnet in your hands?
  Never heard about electro magnets and electric engines?
  Having an magnetic shield is suoer simple, no idea why you think 'we don't have it'.
  The peercentage of CO2 is super low, so the O2 produced from it is super low, too. No idea again for what you are aiming here.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
24. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  >As far as mining and industry are concerned - what exactly do you think the early colonists are there to do?
  Survive; there has to be enough infrastructure to give a reasonable chance of survival. I would assume the colonists will do a better job than the robots, but having the initial site built before anyone gets there is important unless you think they should depend entirely on the rocket they arrive in (which may not be the worst plan in the world, but I don't think it's the best, either).
25. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  >Having an magnetic shield is suoer simple, no idea why you think 'we don't have it'.
  Well... first because I didn't say 'magnetic shield' (though we don't have those for spacecraft yet, either). I said, 'magnetically confined plasma shield'. There's an extra couple of words in there, and they are important. The plasma is used to absorb what the magnetic field can't deflect.
  The concept was seriously proposed in the 1990s, and last I heard some kind of lab proof of concept was planned about a decade ago, but that it was anticipated a real-world deployment would require a room temperature superconducting wire (which we don't have and may not be possible).
26. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  You know what else causes a small but permanent reduction in health? Living on Earth for a year. There's certainly room for improvement, but a solution does exist.
  You seem to be assuming that being able to live on Mars means living just as long and healthily as if you had staid on Earth. Why should that be the case? Colonists have *always* seen reduced lifespans compared to those who stayed home, and especially for the early waves of colonists into such an isolated and unforgiving environment, it probably won't be gravity-related health complications that kill them.
  Even if Mars gravity cuts life expectancy by maybe 20%, why is that a problem? So long as the people making the choice to move there think it's worth the risk - so be it. You could increase your lifespan considerably on Earth living in a hermetically sealed bubble and consuming only maximally nutritious/minimally unhealthy foods - but nobody considers it a problem when you decide to do enjoy life instead. And don't bother mentioning the children who didn't make the choice - you enter the world, you takes your chances. Few people are up in arms over the hundreds of millions of children born into environments right here on Earth that subject them to much worse life expectancy reductions.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
27. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-01 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Erm ...
  You release some gas, usually hydrogene, into the magnetic bottle.
  The sun wind strips electrons away and you have a plasma.
  It is as simple as that ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
28. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly you'd prefer to have at least basic habitats in place before you land, maybe even greenhouses up and running, but after that all you really need is agriculture to survive in the short term. And it's expected that it will take years, maybe several decades, before a colony could have a good chance of survival if the shipments from Earth stopped. That's risk is inherent in the endeavor - if you're not willing to accept it, don't go. Those who don't want to put their life on the line to colonize a new world will, by necessity, have to wait until other people have built it for them, and then accept whatever vision they can buy into for it. That's how it's always been.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
29. Re: Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Mission 1 lasted for the full 2-year plan. They had a LOT of problems, but they persevered and completed their mission. And those problems were the whole *point* of the experiment - to find out what problems they didn't already know about. If it had gone off without a hitch then the whole experiment would have been completely useless except as "proof" that we already knew everything.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
30. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it was - Biosphere 1 is also known as "Earth". They were attempting to recreate the critical parts on a much smaller scale.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
31. Re: Musk the Hypocrite. by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Finding problems isn't a failure. But in the decades since then, no experiments have actually *solved* those problems. Don't forget that a major issue was psychological breakdown of the crew itself. Won't be any easy fixes for that.
  I'm going to LMAO when Elon Musk gets to Mars and realizes he has given up a life of luxury for a tin can on a frozen airless rock.
32. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Biosphere 1 has been a total failure. Time to shut down Earth and everyone go home.
33. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-01 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  So, why do the guys who conducted the experiment call it a failure then?
  For starters: they had atmosphere problems, it was not self contained as in food as they planned originally ... so: a failure.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
34. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's the radiation exposure at the surface of the ship. Hence the "middle of a densely packed cargo ship" - the cargo doubles as radiation shielding. It only takes a few meters worth of rock-equivalent mass (14 pounds of shielding per square inch of surface) to duplicate the shielding effects of Earth's atmosphere. You don't get the benefit of the magnetosphere - but I believe that doesn't so much stop a lot of things that would otherwise reach all the way to the surface, as stop those particles from stripping away the atmosphere they would otherwise collide with.
  As for nitrogen, the atmosphere is certainly a potential, if energy-intensive, source. The problem being that you really only need a comparative trickle of CO2 to offset atmosphere leakage and support ecosystem growth. Meanwhile for every kg of atmospheric CO2 you collect, you only get 20g of Nitrogen (along with 21g of Argon, 1.5g or O2, and 0.5g of CO). But perhaps you could work out some more efficient way to separate the N2 out of ambient atmosphere.
  As for mechanically producing and filtering your atmosphere - there's no need and it introduces massive potential for failure, as you point out. That's a solution for when you're mass-constrained. In a colony you'd do it the same way we do it here - with plants. You're basically building one of those sealed terrarium-in-a-jar toys, just on a massive scale - rather like they did with Biosphere 2, only with no artificial requirements to be closed loop, so you can import all the water, CO2, and other useful materials you can find outside, and with complete control over the light exposure your greenhouses are getting, so that you can fine-tune photosynthesis rates as needed.
  Pollution will certainly be an issue - but lots of plants are very good at filtering the air. the most important aspect will be minimizing the amount of artificial pollutants introduced - which shouldn't be too difficult, as they all have to be imported. (Industry would, I assume, operate in Martian atmosphere, possibly compressed if helpful.)
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
35. Re: Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Sure there will be - a much larger population to interact with, and a mcuh larger environment to work in. Small-group dynamics can get particularly ugly over long periods, especially with a bunch of self-important egos involved (they are scientists after all, possibly even worse than actors for large egos).
  You also have the fact that your colonists will be people self-selected (and hopefully further screened) to be willing to travel to another planet on what may very well turn out to be a one-way trip, to spend the rest of their life building an offworld colony - rather than scientists willing to sacrifice face-to-face interactions with their loved ones for a couple years for the sake of their research.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
36. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Immerman · 2017-12-01 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Can you offer any reference for that claim? The *media* reported it as a failure, I don't recall ever hearing anything from the scientists in that regard, except with a bunch of qualifiers that make it clear that it only failed to reach the ideal goal - which is why they were doing the experiment in the first place.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
37. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Baron_Yam · 2017-12-01 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Three choices:
  1 - English isn't your first language.
  2 - You're deliberately misunderstanding me.
  3 - You're an idiot.
  I really don't care which, I only care that the end result is there will be no meaningful discussion with you.
38. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-01 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  True to 1, 2 not so likely, you claim there is no working magnetic plasma shield, right? So you are wrong.
  3, unlikely.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
39. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  If you want to fight emission look only to electricity generation and fossil fuel vehicles, that is more than 50% of the total.
40. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-01 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  It was declared a failure 20 years ago, so it should be easy to google.
  Here is the wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
41. Re: Musk the Hypocrite. by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Do you see the contradiction? To be survive, colonists will have to be humble, cooperative, mentally stable, socially well-adjusted people. Anyone who voluntarily signs up for a one-way trip should be immediately disqualified. And if colonists are screened for being too egotistical, then Elon will have to stay home.
42. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-01 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  My fault.
  Biosphere 2 ... as the building ... was running 2 experiments.
  I thought the first one was called Biosphere 1.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
43. Re:Musk the Hypocrite. by WrongMonkey · 2017-12-01 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  all you really need is agriculture to survive in the short term
  Also oxygen, heating, water, waste disposal, replacement parts, medical supplies... list goes on.
  
  That's risk is inherent in the endeavor - if you're not willing to accept it, don't go.
  
  SpaceX depends on government funds, so that puts the risk into realm of public scrutiny. Why should we pay for a bunch of people to commit mass suicide in the most convoluted way in human history?
Young Sheldon by p51d007 · 2017-12-01 00:56 · Score: 2

Well, as was shown on the TV show "Young Sheldon" on Thursday night, NOW we know how Musk got the technology to do what he's doing. LOL
1. Re:Young Sheldon by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  That made me laugh. :)
The cost of synthesizing Methane by ytene · 2017-12-01 01:33 · Score: 1

Agree with your analysis, but would add that "the cost of getting methane from natural gas" has to include the environmental impact...

And as for the cost of synthesizing methane using carbon dioxide and electricity, well, Musk does just happen to have another couple of companies, one of which produces solar panels and another which produces huge storage batteries...

When you think about that, you realise that he's thinking seriously long-term, because he's actually hedging against the inevitable increase in the cost of natural gas with time - i.e. as it becomes more and more scarce.
Lesson learned from KSP by Bohnanza · 2017-12-01 02:00 · Score: 1

Use lots of struts

--
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
Space is FakeX. Earth is flat. Eclipses prove it. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 02:49 · Score: -1

With a few careful observations, you can begin to understand that the
heliocentric model is a lie, and you live on a flat plane.
Solar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/230976895
Corona not shaped in a spherical configuration; orients toward Earth. Corona lines can be observed to move faster than the speed of light. Light of the corona can be observed on the back of the moon. Light of the chromosphere can be observed on the back of the moon. Light of protuberences can be observed on the back of the moon. Sun and Moon same size and near. Wiki: Allais Effect
Lunar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/92378881
Irregular shadow shape, progression. Shadow is black, then changes color to reddish: Shadows don't change color. Moon glow of uneclipsed portion increases as shadow becomes reddish, detail lost. Moon has no rotation(see Nikola Tesla): we always see the same face. Moon emits own light. Craters not from impacts: Too round.
No model of the lunar eclipse correctly captures it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/10/06/why-does-the-moon-turn-red-during-a-lunar-eclipse/
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/usa/scottsdale?iso=20140415
Next lunar eclipse: January 30/31, 2018 North America
Do the math, and remember the USSR moon rocket... by Ancient_Hacker · 2017-12-01 03:20 · Score: 2

If each engine is x% reliable against kabooming the whole mess, then the chances of success are:
% Chance of success
99 76%
98 57%
97 43%
96 33%
95 25%
There is a rather dismal history on many-engine rockets. The USSR's attempt at that failed rather miserably.
Oh no, a few (more) months delay by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 03:36 · Score: 0

I'd rather they spend a few months extra to get the launch right rather than launch before they're ready and risk a failure. Launching despite warnings from engineers/known dangers has resulted in more than a few NASA rocket failures. And unlike SLS taxpayers aren't on the hook for the overtime.
Re:Do the math, and remember the USSR moon rocket. by religionofpeas · 2017-12-01 03:57 · Score: 1

The Merlin engine has proven to be very reliable. The fact that they get to recover most of the engines and inspect them should help to keep reliability high, or even improve it. Also keep in mind the multiple engine configuration also allows the rocket to complete the mission successfully if one of the engines fails.
Re:Do the math, and remember the USSR moon rocket. by Rei · 2017-12-01 04:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

You assume that an engine failure dooms the mission. The whole point is engine-out capability that doesn't. In such a case, the reliability increases the more engines you have.
The problem with the N1 was a combination of A) its engine-out failures tended to be cascading (aka, the engines were not properly protected from each other), B) its rate of engine-out failures was huge, C) lots of miswiring, and D) overcautious software that killed missions it shouldn't have, and outright destroyed a launch pad when it didn't need to.

--
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
Re:Do the math, and remember the USSR moon rocket. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 04:09 · Score: 0

You're basing your numbers on 1960s level tech for an expendable launcher? We've made a few advancements since then. In fact SpaceX's failure tolerance designs have already at least partly proven themselves with an engine exploding on a Falcon 9 flight but the rocket continuing on to orbit for a mostly successful launch (a secondary payload was lost but the primary made it to orbit). And if I'm recalling correctly that has been the only engine failure that is known to have occurred out of over 400 (44 launches x 9 main stage engines plus one second stage engine).
history lesson by NikeHerc · 2017-12-01 04:49 · Score: 1

I hope Elon has done his homework. The Soviets failed miserably with 30 engines in the first stage of their N1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket). All four launch attempts failed spectacularly. Wikipedia also says after the first launch failure: "All subsequent flights had freon fire extinguishers installed next to every engine." Doesn't sound like a good design to me.

--
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
1. Re:history lesson by Required+Snark · 2017-12-01 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm so glad you brought this up. I'm sure that no one at SpaceX has even heard about the N-1, or is aware that there was a successful space program in the days of the USSR. I suggest that you contact them immediately and tell them this important news.You can look up their address, they are located in Hawthorn California.
  It's also important that we realize that there has been no significant technical progress since the N-1 project was started in 1965. And that engineering and manufacturing in the USA in 2017 is exactly like it was in the Soviet Union in the 60's and 70's.
  Just out of curiosity, how many ground breaking high-tech companies have you started?
  
  --
  Why is Snark Required?
Lowered Expectations.. by DarthVain · 2017-12-01 05:08 · Score: 1

I love it!
"I hope it gets far enough away from the launch pad that it does not cause pad damage -- I would consider that a win,"
1. Re:Lowered Expectations.. by ledow · 2017-12-01 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  I love the way that someone "realises" that it's not as easy as everyone in the field has been saying for decades but somehow this is an "oh, wow, we never would have guessed" moment.
  Like, it's not fucking rocket science, is it? :-)
2. Re:Lowered Expectations.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  Musk generally tries to set the bar low for SpaceX achievements at least in the testing phase. When a car manufacturer makes a new car they go through dozens of prototypes, burn up engines, fry electronics, wear out bearings, etc. It takes either a lot of testing (IE failures), a lot of design (IE boatloads of money), or some combination of the two to get to a usable vehicle. The same goes for rockets, most launch contractors focus on design side, which can result in a more efficient vehicle but often costs a lot especially when something comes up that designers didn't anticipate. SpaceX focuses more on the testing side, building version after version until they achieve a decent product (the "block 5" version, due to launch next year). Most people however seem to think that the first thing shown to the public should be the finished product with all of the kinks worked out. This simply isn't possible with rockets, unless you spend an obscene amount of money (see the $10-45 billion dollar SLS).
Re:Do the math, and remember the USSR moon rocket. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:11 · Score: 0

Don't forget about faulty fuel line plumbing, I believe several of the failures were caused (or at least exacerbated) by fuel lines shattering after unexpected reverberations or attempts to shutdown failed engines resulting in fires in the engine section. The Russians did some amazing things in space travel, but then the head of their program died during routine surgery and everything seemed to fall apart.
Re:Do the math, and remember the USSR moon rocket. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 05:23 · Score: 0

It's not really engine outs that doom launches. It's engine booms.
Nobody intentionally launches an unreliable rocket, and it's true the Merlin engine has a good track record. It also hasn't been used in a configuration where so many of them are running in close proximity. That's what the Soviets had a lot of problems with, even though they have always built reliable engines, even back then.
Re:Do the math, and remember the USSR moon rocket. by Rei · 2017-12-01 05:32 · Score: 1

A proper engine design can't "boom". It can burn violently until propellant can be cut off (you can't really stop that, when you're dumping fuel and oxidizer together), but if you design properly, you prevent backflowing "hammer" effects in feedlines, have proper debris catching around turbopumps, etc.
SpaceX has lost Merlins in flight before. No boom, at least so far :) A new Block 5 development engine was initially reported to have exploded on the test stand, but it turned out to be a failure of the test equipment.

--
Pinkypants -- my favorite!
Re:Do the math, and remember the USSR moon rocket. by EnsilZah · 2017-12-01 07:58 · Score: 1

They actually lost an engine and completed the mission on one of their earlier launches ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?...) .
From what I've read, there's a chance they might even be able to make it to orbit while losing two of them, depending on how heavy the payload is.
And since they're planning all three cores of the FH, there's going to be more margin to bring the payload up in expendable mode if an engine fails.
So the question is, do you prefer the chance of losing one big engine and the whole mission, or betting that you won't lose 2-3 engines on the same launch (For F9, I'm not sure how many it would be for FH).
Of course, SpaceX has other considerations with the number of engines they use, like the ability to use fewer of them for landing, and general economies of scale for production and testing.
obligatory monty python life of brian quote by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-01 09:22 · Score: 0

REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES: The aqueduct?
REG: What?
XERXES: The aqueduct.
REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.
LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO: Irrigation.
XERXES: Medicine.
COMMANDO #2: Education.
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1: And the wine.
FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO: Public baths.
LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?!
XERXES: Brought peace?
REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!
Avoid holiday period and safer by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-02 08:27 · Score: 0

HF was already delayed to late Decembers. Workers would be stressed or distracted by holiday activities then.
Launch a teapot into orbit around the sun! by maxcelcat · 2017-12-03 16:28 · Score: 1

Then Russell's Teapot would be a a real thing!