Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Rocket Stuns Californians As It Carries 10 Satellites Into Space (theguardian.com)

A reused SpaceX rocket carried 10 satellites into orbit from California on Friday, leaving behind a trail of mystery and wonder as it soared into space. Elon Musk jokingly tweeted a video of the rocket with the caption, "Nuclear alien UFO from North Korea." The Guardian reports: The Falcon 9 booster lifted off from coastal Vandenberg air force base, carrying the latest batch of satellites for Iridium Communications. The launch in the setting sun created a shining, billowing streak that was widely seen throughout southern California and as far away as Phoenix, Arizona. Calls came in to TV stations as far afield as San Diego, more than 200 miles south of the launch site, as people puzzled about what caused the strange sight. Cars stopped on freeways in Los Angeles so drivers and passengers could take pictures and video. The Los Angeles fire department issued an advisory that the "mysterious light in the sky" was from the rocket launch. The same rocket carried Iridium satellites into orbit in June. That time, the first stage landed on a floating platform in the Pacific ocean. This time, the rocket was allowed to plunge into the sea. It was the 18th and final launch of 2017 for SpaceX, which has contracted to replace Iridium's system with 75 updated satellites. SpaceX has made four launches and expects to make several more to complete the job by mid-2018. The satellites also carry payloads for global aircraft tracking and a ship-tracking service. Did any Slashdotters manage to view the spectacle?

105 comments

  1. Not just California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a great view of it from the east side of Flagstaff, the crew of the Discovery Channel in Happy Jack, Arizona reported that it was spectacular from their vantage, and several people in the Phoenix area posted some very impressive pictures.

  2. Iridium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's still a thing?

    1. Re:Iridium? by fendragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, Iridium certainly was still going a few years ago when I wrote some code to do FTP over it. (for data from unattended ice measuring equipment in Antarctica, the only way they could do it)

    2. Re:Iridium? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Iridium did not really meet its initial spectacular (for the time) objectives.

      But it was still a success, in more limited roles.

      The new Iridium satellites should not only exceed the initial project goals, but (with more recent technology) do what it was originally designed to do, but much better. (The latter of course depends on what the commercial contracts say.)

    3. Re:Iridium? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Iridium failed to generate a return on investment and filed for bankruptcy in 1999.

      However, as the constellation of satellites was already in orbit and functional, they had considerable value. A group of investors bought them from Motorola for $25 million (vs. $5 billion to build and launch), assumption of debt, and indemnity for Motorola. They drastically reduced the scope of the project, slashing costs to the point where fewer customers could keep it profitable, and repurposed the satellites for things other than telephone communications.

  3. I saw just as I was to bang my girlfriend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but then she said, no way.

    1. Re:I saw just as I was to bang my girlfriend by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      Sorry, man, my friend got her first.

      Don't feel bad. You had good judgment.

  4. Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this considered news?

    It isn't even close to the most satellites launched at one time. Yes, it is a recycled rocket -- whatever that really means.
    Mostly it seems like Mr Musk generating publicity out of nothing.

  5. Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by saibot834 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As much as Elon Musk likes to make big announcements with dubious time schedules, SpaceX has really delivered in 2017. Copying from FutureMartian97:

    18 Falcon 9 launches
    100% Primary mission success
    100% First Stage landing success
    The first reflight of a Falcon 9 first stage
    The first reflight of a Dragon Capsule
    Reflying 5 first stages
    Reflying 2 Dragon Capsules

    And Falcon Heavy is going to launch very soon, currently scheduled for January.

    1. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by prefec2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't explode a rocket on the launchpad recently? How do you come up with 100% success rate?

    2. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by CeasedCaring · · Score: 3, Funny

      That was a pre-launch engine test, not a flight, so it doesn't count.

    3. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 3

      Didn't explode a rocket on the launchpad recently? How do you come up with 100% success rate?

      Someone must have held the rocket the wrong way.

    4. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by prefec2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Under that assumption the Apollo program also 100% success, as Apollo 1 was also just in testing mode. SpaceX lost payload. Therefore, this counts as loss.

    5. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If 2016 is recently, then yes they had a pre-launch explosion during fueling recently. But accidents in 2016 do not affect the 2017 success rate.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    6. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually it was just refuelling. There were no engines involved.

    7. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Refuelling accidents never factor in *LAUNCH* statistics.

    8. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      They do when they screw up the launch cadence...

      2017 may have seen even more Falcon 9 launches had flights not been stopped in September 2016. It takes time to get back into the swing of things.

    9. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by cjameshuff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not in 2017. The accident was a ground equipment failure on a test stand during a test of a single engine that didn't even involve a complete rocket stage, let alone any payload.

    10. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about the Amos-6 accident? That was in 2016.

    11. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      100% success rate of what? The GP mentioned two specific circumstances where there was 100% success rates and that explosion had nothing to do with either of them.

      The last time SpaceX had a failure of primary mission was Q3 2016 when the Facebook satellite blew up.

    12. Re:Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >has really delivered in 2017...And Falcon Heavy is going to launch very soon, currently scheduled for January.

      January 2018 counts as 2017, so they delivered quite a lot in 2017. And this reusable rocket that launched
      yesterday was discarded into the ocean...setting a first for a reusable rocket, reusing it as a sea object.

    13. Re:Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      100% First Stage landing success

      Money in the bank. Literally, like printing your own money.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    14. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% of those that worked were successful.

    15. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Desperation stinks... go shower or something.

    16. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That wasn't the AMOS incident, though, which was most likely the thing being referred to.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by cjameshuff · · Score: 2

      The AMOS incident happened in 2016. The only explosion significant enough to reach the news this year was that engine test.

    18. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Yeah.
      Fact: Red is not blue.
      Randon internet user: You're wrong. You didn't mention yellow.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    19. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      What desperation? I'm pro-SpaceX, there's no desperation on my part to make SpaceX look bad.

      The fact remains that if the 2016 halt to flights wasn't enacted, they would have hit 2017 running, and the increase in cadence we saw toward the to end of 2017 would have happened much sooner, resulting in more flights and a better success tally.

      The 2016 explosion didn't just harm SpaceX flights in 2016, it also harmed them in 2017 - you just didn't see it as obvious due to the fact that they were back flying from mid-January.

    20. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that one was even an explosion, much less an engine explosion. There was some sort of oxygen leak and fire in the test equipment. But the person asking "Didn't explode a rocket on the launchpad recently?" surely wasn't talking about an engine test stand.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    21. Re: Remarkable Achievements from SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMOS-6 failure was in 2016.

  6. Good Marketing by prefec2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    For public relations that was a great stunt. Otherwise nothing extraordinary.

    1. Re:Good Marketing by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2

      Sure is a lot better than North Korea's PR.

      No one is thinking about obiliterating Musk. We'll see who has the better business plan.

    2. Re: Good Marketing by PoopJuggler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah there's nothing extraordinary about launching a rocket into outer space... Anyone with a 3D printer can do that.

    3. Re: Good Marketing by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      Beide SpaceX others are launching rockets in a regular basis. For example, Boing, Arianespace, the Russians, China and India. However, you rarely hear about their accomplishments, but when SpaceX launches something it is in the press. Looks to me as good marketing.

    4. Re: Good Marketing by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      That is because you live in the wrong country.
      In Europe most launches make news.
      And then again, you could google and find pages like this: https://www.space.com/32286-sp...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re: Good Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this stunned Californian citizens. I hope everybody without a 3D printer survived the aftermath.

    6. Re: Good Marketing by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      No one is thinking about obiliterating Musk.

      No one except Roscosmos and ULA...

    7. Re: Good Marketing by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Boing

      Trampoline launches?

    8. Re: Good Marketing by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Great idea, trampoline launches. Anyway, the Boing company is of course the correct spelling of Boeing according to the smartphone spell checker. Therefore, this is a good example of to dumb to check the text before sending.

    9. Re: Good Marketing by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      First of all I live in the EU. Second ESA launches are seldomly national news. The completion of Gallileo or the Mars crash are news and if course SpaceX launches, but all the regular launches of Arianespace are not mentioned and if they are it is a 1 minute report.

  7. Yes. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    I live in Camarillo, in Ventura County, and saw both the frozen lightning and the rocket. Actually, my sister and I saw two different lights, drifting toward the west. No pictures, though, as we were too busy to get out our phones.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they closed Camarillo down. Say hi to Nurse Ratched for me.

    2. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Camilacabello was in Havana? Or east Atlanta?

    3. Re: Yes. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      my sister and I... were too busy to get out our phones

      California... or Arkansas??

    4. Re: Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, someone please mod up.

  8. Gattaca is coming true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elon Musk will make damn sure those Californian riffraff stay on the Earth where they belong.

  9. Re:Send shitty smelly hindu-chimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll need to build an interplanetary internet first, so you can outsource your IT function to indo martians.

  10. Into the Pacific? by Zorpheus · · Score: 0

    That's the wrong direction, did it launch retrograde?

    1. Re:Into the Pacific? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2

      The satellites are nearly in polar orbits. South of Vandenberg is ocean, as it is to the west.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    2. Re:Into the Pacific? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Polar. They launched to the south, out over the Pacific.

    3. Re:Into the Pacific? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It launched south, went over Antarctica and back up along the east coast of Africa and through the middle east. I believe SpaceX only uses California for polar orbits, Florida for normal orbits.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Into the Pacific? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Ok that makes sense. Although I would think a location closer to a pole would be more suitable, if you have a location just for polar launches, since the rockets would get less prograde momentum from there.

    5. Re:Into the Pacific? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you have to have a location with ocean to the south for safety. Unless we start launching from Alaska, there aren't more northerly locations with the ocean to the south.

    6. Re: Into the Pacific? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      They can start from Scotland, to the North :)
      It is one of the most Northern locations with not too much freezing, so this could actually be pretty good. Though I don't know how difficult the legal and customs aspects are.

    7. Re:Into the Pacific? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More centrifugal force when you're closer to the equator. Alaska has a launch facility at Poker Flats (near Fairbanks) but it's used for sounding rockets heading North - not for orbital flights.

    8. Re:Into the Pacific? by idji · · Score: 1

      Van den Berg Airforce Base in California is the only place in US near the equator where launching south won't crash on anyone if there's a failure.
      Florida is the only place in the US near the equator where launching east wont' crash on anyone if there's a failure.

    9. Re:Into the Pacific? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If you're going for 7500 m/s southward, adding additional 400 m/s westward is a 10 m/s difference, courtesy of Mr. Pythagoras.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re: Into the Pacific? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't perfectly polar- it was launched into an orbit of 86 degrees, iirc. That 4 degrees of inclination is roughly what the earth's spin at Vandenberg provides, meaning the rocket launcher pretty much due South.

    11. Re:Into the Pacific? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have an interesting definition of "near the equator."

      Cape Canaveral is closer to the border between the U.S. and Canada than it is to the equator.

    12. Re:Into the Pacific? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > More centrifugal force when you're closer to the equator.

      Oh please, it's a negligible difference (something like 0.5%).

  11. Spectacular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I grew up in Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley. Starting in the early 1960s when I was 10 years old, I saw dozens of rocket launches from Vandenberg. They are/were generally not announced ahead of time. Maybe that's changed. When lit up by the sun from below the horizon, like this evenings launch, the rocket trail glows against the dark background.
    The more spectacular launches in the 1960's and 70's were the result of explosions. You could see the trail suddenly bloom much wider, and the rocket at the front of the trail would often slow it's foreward trajectory, of even disappear of drop downward.
    This evenings launch I caught driving home in the early stages, instantly recognized what it was. I pulled over to the side of the road and grabbed a vintage mini-monocular I keep in the car. 10x or something like that.
    What you see is the rocket trail, like an airplane trail, and at the front of the trail is rocket itself. At the front there is a bowshock , the tail spreading out from the rocket. With the monocular the bright rocket was not resolved beyond a large 'point.'
    I first saw it driving toward it after passing some small hills. The trail was to the west, with a gap in it. The trail was wider with more detail than a plane trail. The trail tends to widen over time, staring off fairly thin, say 1/10th or 20th the moon's diameter, and in a few minutes 10 or 20 moon diameters.
    This launch was impressive for:
    1. it seemed to be lower in the atmosphere than any other launch I've seen. It may have had a different trajectory than most launches.
    2. It was moving faster than any I had seen before.
    3. It was brighter, more contrast, as a result of lighting effects, and maybe actually being closer.
    4. I watched it until it disappeared behind the hills, less than 10 minutes, spreading over at least 40 degrees.
    5. The trail showed a lot of filament like detail, randomly spread out.
    6 Staging occurred about 1/2 way through my viewpoint. I could see the falling away stage spiraling, leaving a corkscrew trail. This was spectactular--okay, for Gen-Xers: This was awesome. Naked eye and with the monocular I could see the second stage moving in a loop, making a loop every 5 or 7 seconds. I had never seen this in any detail.
    Comment: I don't know if the bright view of the main rocket and the falling away stage was more reflected sunlight or a direct few of the rocket flame. My guess is with greater distance the brightness of the flame was lessened. With the monocular the main rocket and falling stage appeared not as points, but as a bright spot, that I could not resolved to see any detail.
    After staging, the falling stage continued heading SE, but more east, while the main rocket left it behind heading SE but more south. As the separation of the two increased I could see a few bright spots that seemed to fall away from the main rocket. Satellites? Parts being jettisoned?
    Meanwhile the trail keeps getting fatter, and the effects of wind start to slowly twist it.
    Around 15 minutes after I first spotted it, and it has faded, and the filamentous detail has faded too. Or blended together. During this last phase color become more saturated. In the earlier portion of the event the trail is bright white with faints hits of color. At the end the trail becomes a fainter patch but with definite color. Blue-turquoise dominated the Western edge, while the south eastern and southern view was still white. I've seen the Aurora Borealis, but I suspect something like this.
    Anyone care to compare this to a Canaveral launch, with the ocean and sun in the opposite direction?

    1. Re:Spectacular by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Saw it from the beach in LA, and it was very impressive. I have to admit I had no idea what I was looking at; funny how the altitude isn't obvious. The first stage separation was very distinctive, but the glow of the trail really made it amazing to watch.

      I am still a little confused by the bright dot that appeared to fall into the ocean while the second stage kept glowing as you describe; presumably that was the payload after second stage separation, although my impression was that it was the payload fairing.

      Very cool and inspirational.

    2. Re:Spectacular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I am still a little confused by the bright dot that appeared to fall into the ocean"

      Are you talking about the first stage falling into the ocean? They used its engines to soft land it there (instead of landing on a barge like they often due). It's more likely that you saw that than the fairings.

    3. Re:Spectacular by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The second stage firing right after separation created a 3-D fan of lighted vapor that many observers interpreted as a transparent blimp.

    4. Re:Spectacular by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      That WAS the first stage. The 625-mi orbit required use of all the first stage fuel, so this time there was no plan to bring it back. It was a used stage.

    5. Re:Spectacular by Solandri · · Score: 1

      You can get the same effect from a pre-dawn launch from Canaveral. The contrail, being so high up in the atmosphere, is lit by the sun while the ground and most of the sky above the observer is still in darkness. On the west coast the conditions for this to happen occur after sunset. On the east coast the conditions occur before sunrise.

    6. Re:Spectacular by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually necessary to ditch it for fuel reasons (other Iridium flights landed just fine), but SpaceX needs to get rid of old boosters.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Spectacular by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Need to find a narrated version of the video. I could clearly see where the first stage was, so confident it wasn’t that. I could also see the second stage shooting off, but from the second stage one dot was clearly visible; there could have been two. It looked like a flare with a parachute.

  12. Best Vid I've Seen by Kunedog · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Best Vid I've Seen by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      Another good one, less zoomed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  13. It didn't land, but... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For some reason SpaceX didn't want this one back. It was a Mod 3, and they are building Mod 5s. It was its second flight, so I guess they had no need for it. But, they did go through the landing procedure. When the second stage released, you could see the first stage fire its return to land burn. You could also hear them announce the reentry burn. I think I even heard them announce the landing burn. But there was no ship to land on. I guess they just did all this for testing and practice.

    1. Re:It didn't land, but... by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      I've read rumors that they needed to scavenge some parts off the drone ship to repair the drone ship on the other coast.
      It would make sense to prioritize it since the next launches from Florida are Zuma which will be a new booster, and the Falcon Heavy which is a custom center booster.

    2. Re:It didn't land, but... by SkyratesPlayer · · Score: 1

      I believe I read somewhere that they were going to use more aerodynamic braking in the future (Block 5's only?), to use less fuel for landing. So this may have been an envelope-expansion test, basically flying sideways as much as they dared to see if it would stay controllable and hold together. They may have left the legs off and the barge in port because they thought the chances of success were low. (Spin recovery training and research has always been dangerous for planes, and in a rocket you have big tanks with liquids sloshing around.) However I would have thought that the legs would change the aerodynamics enough in that regime that the test would be more valid with them. Or, more excitingly, they could be fine-tuning their reentry models as part of BFR design work.

    3. Re:It didn't land, but... by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      I read a comment somewhere indicating SpaceX have more landed boosters than they know what to do with at the moment. The Block 3 stages seem to need a fairly large amount of work to refurbish for another launch.

    4. Re:It didn't land, but... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere that they were going to use more aerodynamic braking in the future (Block 5's only?), to use less fuel for landing

      So they're heading back towards the solution we used for the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters - attach parachutes and let them drift down into the ocean, where a ship tracks them down and picks them up.

    5. Re:It didn't land, but... by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      No, they're just flying at a higher angle of attack to do more maneuvering aerodynamically instead of with propulsion. They tried parachutes and soft-landing in the water...parachutes couldn't even keep the stage intact through reentry, and even the softest splashdowns led to stages breaking up either when they toppled over or because of waves afterward. Even if the stage remained mostly intact, at best they'd be able to salvage some pieces of hardware.

      The goal is rapid reuse, with little more than a quick inspection, re-stacking with second stage and payload, and refilling expended fluids. No parachutes, no fishing waterlogged hardware out of the ocean. In fact, Musk has talked about possibly refueling the stages on the barge and flying them back

  14. Two odd things by Framboise · · Score: 1

    Didn't anyone notice ?

    1. No report about first stage landing
    2. Curious spiraling motion of first stage after separation

    1. Re:Two odd things by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Apparently, they were doing an experimental water landing. Go through the motions of a landing, but without the boat.

    2. Re:Two odd things by krelvin · · Score: 1

      Not odd at all. It was planned that way.

      The SpaceX Iridium 4 Launch was a full thrust launch to get the Iridium satellites in the necessary orbit. When done the 1st stage would not have enough fuel to make a landing so they didn't attempt it. See the official mission overview:

      Official mission overview
      SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket will deliver 10 satellites to low-Earth orbit for Iridium. SpaceX is targeting launch of Iridium-4 from Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E) at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The instantaneous launch window is at 5:27 p.m. PST on Friday, December 22 ...

      Falcon 9’s first stage for the Iridium-4 mission previously supported the Iridium-2 mission from SLC-4E in June 2017. SpaceX will not attempt to recover Falcon 9’s first stage after launch.

      The Press kit for this launch:

      http://www.spacex.com/sites/sp...

      Mission patch:
      http://spacexpatchlist.space/p...

    3. Re: Two odd things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't send out the barge to land it, but the rocket still followed its programming to a soft splashdown. We don't know why they didn't recover it, but it may have been just that they weren't going to reuse it, so saved the expense.

      As to the spiraling - i saw no evidence of it. We did see the firing of the rcs thrusters the stage uses to orient itself- they were very visible.

  15. What's with the stupid title? by gweihir · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nobody is "stunned" here. Are you desperately trying to get attention?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re: What's with the stupid title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you didn't see it. I did. And I think you would have been stunned if you had.

    2. Re: What's with the stupid title? by kencurry · · Score: 1

      OP is right. The only "stunned" people here are the dopes that come from other states. Real Cali's know to take it all is stride.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    3. Re: What's with the stupid title? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Obviously you didn't see it. I did. And I think you would have been stunned if you had.

      Wish I had seen it live. Just from what I saw in media, I can imagine how great it would have been live.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  16. Photo just after staging from a mountain peak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/867783746598531/permalink/1669484316428466/

    Be warned this is a Facebook link.

  17. The president's on line 1 by mfnickster · · Score: 1

    Calling about is everything okay with the alien space cloud from Planet 10, or should he just go ahead and destroy North Korea?

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  18. Saw it along with with stunned crowd in Disneyland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the rocket left behind a lingering iridescent cloud for 1/2 hour, I wonder if it is possible to create a firework type effect for Elon Musk to leave a âoeBat Signalâ each time he launches a rocket? Something like a huge glowing âoeXâ in the sky... ?

  19. Notice the weak winter Sun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science says the tilt of the Earth gives less sunlight to the North this time of year. But have you noticed that the sun also appears weaker, and yellower? The tilt only moves it towards the south, and gives it a shorter, lower track through the sky. But the amount of atmosphere traversed is the same for any light coming up from the horizon -- East or South. So what makes the light itself appear weaker in Winter? There should be the same amount of atmosphere to cross whether the Sun rises due East in the summer, or South-East in the winter.

    So why is the winter Sun weak and yellower than the summer sun at the same altitude in the sky?

    Space is fake. The Earth is flat. The eclipses prove it.

    Solar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/230976895
    Light of the chromosphere can be observed on the back of the moon. Allais Effect
    Lunar Eclipse: https://vimeo.com/92378881
    Shadow is black, then changes color to reddish.
    Next lunar eclipse: January 30/31, 2018 North America

  20. Aliens.. by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

    ..because it's always aliens. Seriously, Spacex should make a movie of all their successes and failures to encourage others to never, ever give up on their dreams. It's a shame Elon's too smart to run for office.

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
    1. Re:Aliens.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want to know is: who's going to be the first to just blow Elon Musk and get it over with?

  21. totally missed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would've definitely made a point to see it if they had bothered to mention it

    https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/12/22/2111252/elon-musk-shows-off-the-tesla-roadster-that-spacex-will-send-beyond-mars would've been a perfect opportunity to say something WTF

  22. Space Condom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like... an inflated condom

  23. Yes here is the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We saw it here in Southern California. It was the most beautiful thing I ever saw! Here is my video from phone if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBz1RC0oAIw

  24. Elon stuns taxpayers sending their $ to the moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will never see that cash again, Elon!

  25. Orly? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    As a professional space whale biologist I can tell you with absolute certainty that the footage was of an albino space whale.

  26. Re:Elon stuns taxpayers sending their $ to the moo by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    We will never see that cash again, Elon!

    Somebody here seems to think that money has been spent anywhere other than on Earth.

  27. Better Living Thru Chemistry by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    Amazing what you can accomplish with just the right chemical reactions. And lots of it.

    One day this will look like such a crude and primitive method of ascending out of our gravity well.

  28. Technically that was not a failure by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Loss of Facebook Overseer class satellites should be counted as a win for humanity, not a failure.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Technically that was not a failure by Memnos · · Score: 2

      Nope it was, since the satellite was going to transmit the Facebook source code to every star that might harbor a technological civilization to threaten us, thus ensuring its immediate collapse.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    2. Re:Technically that was not a failure by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Damn good point sir, I stand corrected!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  29. Coulda trolled em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Officials should have announced the arrival of the Pillow Aliens. I bet Trump would have tweeted about it. Wasted a perfectly good opportunity to make fun of all the idiots. :-(

  30. Everyone loves Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and for good reason. I just wonder why some people are loved and others are hated. He is very media savvy and Californians luv him. However if we replaced Musk with someone like Dick Cheney and say that Dick Cheney was not sec of Defense and instead had sold ebay to start a car and rocket ship company, I think all the Californians would be complaining about the fact Cheney's rockets were polluting the atmosphere and weren't powered by solar energy. On the same note if Musk had been Sec of Defense, I think all the liberals would be applauding the gulf war and wanting to nuke all those evil right wing Arabs.

    People are funny. I'm just glad they all know what is going because i don't

  31. They did land it - they just didn't bother with th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did have the fuel to land it - indeed, this booster's previous launch was an identical iridium launch. Call outs during the launch broadcast indicate that it landed softly as planned.

    Most popular speculation as to why they didn't send the barge out is that they already have too many flight-proven rockets in the shed.