Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Has Received Permission From the US Government To Launch Elon Musk's Car Toward Mars (businessinsider.com)
SpaceX this week is preparing to launch Falcon Heavy, the biggest rocket in the company's history, for the first time. From a report: The 230-foot-tall three-booster launcher is scheduled to blast off Tuesday between 1:30 and 4:30 p.m. ET. SpaceX says Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket in the world. SpaceX's founder, Elon Musk, wanted this test launch to happen as early as 2013, though he recently said it could end in an explosion. Instead of putting a standard "mass simulator" or dummy payload atop Falcon Heavy, Musk -- who once launched a wheel of cheese into orbit -- will put his personal 2008 midnight-cherry-red Tesla Roadster on top of the monster rocket. In an Instagram post over the weekend, Musk also revealed that the car would carry a dummy driver, which Musk is calling "Starman," wearing a SpaceX space suit. "Test flights of new rockets usually contain mass simulators in the form of concrete or steel blocks. That seemed extremely boring," Musk said in an Instagram post in December, adding that the company "decided to send something unusual, something that made us feel." However, all rocket payloads need a permit from the Federal Aviation Administration to launch, and Musk's sleek electric car is no exception. The FAA granted SpaceX that permission on Friday in a staunchly formal notice, which Keith Cowing posted on NASA Watch.
Elon Musk is a very popular figure on sites like reddit that "like" technology and science but have very little understanding of it. Every week he says something that either shows what a "down to earth" guy he is, some doomsday prophecy, or announces some pipe dream technology that will never be worked on, and the masses start reposting his every word.
He (or rather his PR team) is very good at creating that "image" and keeping himself popular on reddit, but he's terrible at the thing an enterpreneur is supposed to excel at - generating profits.
He's popularizing science and technology. That's a good thing right? Even if you think yourself superior to him technologically, don't you appreciate that he is making science and tech "cool" to the mainstream?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Come Elon, where's your ambition? Either launch it TO Mars or not at all, I say!
So I'm gonna bitch about the super rich. There's no shortage of useful things to send up on a rocket, but we're gonna waste a launch on a dumb stunt by a rich guy. I'm an American, so I don't even have guaranteed health care let alone a robust social safety net, so maybe I'd be a little less bitter if I did. But this sort of nonsense reminds me of the pyramids, the opera houses and other excesses of the ultra wealthy. It's not a good sign to see stuff like this starting to make a comeback.
The dumb stunt is intended to do exactly what it is doing. Make news.
If journalists didn't report that he was sending a car up there, he'd probably send a lump of rock up there instead as a payload test weight. Making news = bringing in more sponsorship money. Yeah, probably more useful things to launch, but the more money that comes in the more he develops the rockets.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Although this one will probably be adrift in space, I just realized that they could claim the title of the fastest car in history since it'll be zooming through space at speeds not possible on land. Too bad it won't be under it's own power.
There's no shortage of useful things to send up on a rocket, but we're gonna waste a launch on a dumb stunt by a rich guy.
The important thing to remember about test launches is that they are test launches, and as the summary points out, are more likely to end up in explosions. "Useful things" have inherent value, and they cost someone money to put together. An explosion would therefore cost someone something of real value.
Elon Musk's car, however, has only sentimental value, and mostly (if not completely) to him. Blow it up for a publicity stunt? Roger that. Blow up a satellite that cost someone a million dollars and 12 months of work to put together? Well, let's not.
What I like about the terminology is "mass simulator". You put a "mass simulator" into a test rocket because it has mass. Exactly what mass is it simulating? If it is only simulating mass, then is it real?
They aren't "wasting a launch", they are testing a rocket. You don't send up a useful payload in a test launch, because it might fail, and useful payloads cost orders of magnitudes more than a $50K used car. Not only that, useful payloads have specific launch requirements, not just "up" or whatever gets you the best launch test data.
i.e. this is just a very minor publicity stunt, there are more important things to get angry about.
But not in a Corvette!
Martians respond; stop dumping your trash on us!
First launch of any rocket is typically done with mass simulator (usually a tank of water). You don't typically launch with a real payload because the risk is far too high. Once you have one or two test launches, and all the data from those launches analyzed to make sure there are no surprises to what your simulations predicted, then you start taking on real payloads.
Rather than use a water tank as a mass simulator, SpaceX is using a Tesla roadster.
And those 'useful things' can go up on later launches, when they know the rocket works, rather than risk destroying those 'useful things' on an untested rocket.
"Test flights of new rockets usually contain mass simulators in the form of concrete or steel blocks. That seemed extremely boring."
#DeleteFacebook
Well, according to Einstein, you could simulate mass with a whole lot of energy. Oh wait. That would actually be mass. I think the only way to simulate mass would be by promising things that never actually go on the rocket.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
>>> he's terrible at the thing an enterpreneur is supposed to excel at - generating profits.
Let's see. Typing 'Entrepreneur' into Google, I get a definition: "a person who organizes and operates a business or businesses, taking on greater than normal financial risks in order to do so."
Well, that pretty much sums up Elon Musk.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Elon's rocket thrusts 63,800 Kg into low earth orbit. Back in the 60s, NASA's Saturn V was thrusting it's massive payload of 140,000 Kg into low earth orbit. NASA had a truly magnificent thrusting machine while Elon's flaccid little fire tube is less than half as large and powerful.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Yes, because he lost so much money on PayPal.
"That seemed extremely boring" - Says the guy who literally founded and runs The Boring Company.
Wish I was there to see it.
I'm glad he is making it fun, that is what science and engineering should be.
Its NOT A PRODUCTION LAUNCH, its a test vehicle with a good chance of exploding. If it does explode, anything you put on top of it is now at a huge loss, and any group that launched it now has to start over. The only other option besides the car is a lead block...would you be happier if they had used a lead block instead of something fun?
Good-bye
It's not the inherent value that you have to worry about in a rocket failure, it's the marginal cost.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The dummy is the autopilot. It will be vinyl and sport a smug grin. The real question is, how will they convince Julie Hagerty to go along as co-pilot to re-inflate it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No other car company has rockets.
First: This is a test launch. The alternative would have been a block of steel or concrete.
Second: Where's the "super rich" angle coming from here? SpaceX is a business, just like building roads and cars and railroads is a business. The next FH launch is already signed, will have a paying customer and will launch a GSO comsat, just like the F9 launches things for money and is cheaper than others.
This money is not coming from nothing and if this launch wouldn't happen you wouldn't have a single penny more than you have now. Rockets aren't pyramids.
Testing a launch vehicle that is supposed to launch billion dollar payloads in the future before you put said billion dollar payloads on top of it is not "waste" or "a dumb stunt" or "nonsense", it's the reasonable thing to do. Otherwise you get Ariane 5's first flight.
Ezekiel 23:20
Nobody risks a satellite (which almost always is much more expensive than the rocket that launches it) on the very first launch of a new rocket. Well, at least not if the company that builds that rocket says that this is a test launch and has a good chance of not succeeding. Spending millions and millions of dollars on satellites just to see them go down in flames is not a wise move.
There is literally nothing more useful that you would want to launch on the maiden flight of a completely unproven rocket design. Most companies and governments send slabs of concrete or steel plates. They just need x amount of weight in the fairing. But why just launch concrete when you can have some fun with it and have the same effect? SpaceX gets its fake payload mass, free publicity is gained, people get to have good laugh and fun and dream a bit. I'm not seeing a problem here.
Useful things that you put on rockets typically are also things that you don't want to explode. The entire reason to put a "payload simulator" (in this case a car) in the first launch of a new rocket is to not spend huge amounts of money on research and development building something useful, and then have it blow up when the rocket doesn't work.
What useful thing do you believe can usefully be placed into a trans-Mars injection orbit? So usefully, in fact, that it'd be worth equipping the payload to actually make the Mars-orbit injection portion (this won't) and have it hang around for a couple decades until we get our butts in gear in send humans to Mars? But it can't be too useful -- like a satellite -- because it has good odds of going KERBLAM on the way up.
And, by the way, who's this "we" business? Did you pay one penny, even in tax dollars, toward this specific launch? Do you own even one restricted share in SpaceX?
So it's not the principle, it's the selfish envy. If you had "yours" (what about Egyptians?) then somehow that improves the calculus for you.
No value in monuments and art at all, except to all the people who pay Egyptians ("the pyramids" I presume) and opera house owners to go to them...
I'd go in a fucking heartbeat; even if there was a 90% chance it would blow up.
Fuck a roller-coaster, that's a Real Ride!
Godspeed, Starman!!
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
It would be better than anything else this decade, with exception being the martian.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
But I'd rather hear Taylor than Gaga, personally.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
A standard payload for a first launch is a block of concrete. The (cancelled) Ares-1's only launch had a concrete payload.
There is no communication or science satellite that's so "off the shelf" that it's reasonable to launch it & shrug when it is blown to hell. We don't have them just laying around waiting to be launched.
For some perspective:
- GPS satellites cost more than double what the Falcon Heavy does
- Weather satellites are about triple the cost of a Falcon Heavy
No insurance company is going to underwrite the payload for the first Falcon Heavy, and they'd be insane if they did.
Between launching a concrete block and a publicity stunt, it's probably a better idea to use it for publicity. In Musk's case, it's a 3-for one sale: Falcon 9, Tesla Roadster, SpaceX Space Suit.
I personally think they should have launched a retired school bus.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
I was curios at how Musk's rocket stacked up to the rocket that sent us to the moon. From New Atlas:
the two-stage Falcon Heavy has nine Merlin 1D main engines in each of its first stage elements burning supercooled liquid oxygen and kerosene to produce 5,548,500 lb of thrust. Then the second stage takes over with its single Merlin 1D engine to punch 210,000 lb of thrust
That's remarkable when compared to the Atlas and Ariane rockets of today, but now let's look at the Saturn V. Its S-IC first stage has five Rocketdyne F1 engines that, when set loose, generate a staggering 7,610,000 lb of thrust as it burns kerosene and liquid oxygen.
Then comes the S-II second stage with its five Rocketdyne J-2 putting out 1,155,800 lb of thrust from a mix of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. But where Falcon Heavy has already used up its stages, the Saturn still has its S-IVB third stage and its single J-2 engine that can manage a respectable 225,000 lb of thrust.
Lots of other interesting information in the article such as size of payload and cost.
Mrs. Frizzle, is that you?
Once you've factored in the value of free PR that results, it's cheaper(*) than launching the traditional (and completely uninteresting) big-block-of-metal dummy payload.
(*) where cheaper == smaller net loss
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The pictures show a car mounted in rather emtpy space.
https://www.popularmechanics.c...
I was under impression that a rocket launch is a lot of shake, vibration and gforces. How is a car like that going to survive it and more importantly, would it break apart and cause damage to the launch vehicule? Not to mention the batteries (likely they will discharge them?)
What can go wrong with this idea?
4wdloop
Once the car leaves Earth orbit, it belongs to Mars.
So, technically it will be a Mars Car.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
He didn't ask me
Totof
I'm not seeing a problem here.
The only problem I have with it is I would love to have that car. I mean, hell, launch an old broken-down chevy but not something nice like that...
Granted, Elon'll get one of the new roadsters when they come out...
I agree completely. They should have launched a full size yellow school bus.
On a more serious note, there's no insurance company that's going to underwrite a satellite payload, including one from SpaceX.
The alternatives are the traditional block of concrete which has little publicity value ...or a space vehicle (say a Dragon 2 prototype) which costs many, many times what a Tesla does, and has a significant risk SpaceX won't get the data they need when the Dragon 2 is blown to hell.
So, yeah... less cost effective than concrete, but much, much better PR.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
To all left wondering what "between 1:30 and 4:30 p.m. ET" means: it's 1830-2130 GMT
A heliocentric Earth-Mars transfer orbit, which happens to cross Mars's path... a couple months before Mars gets there.
Were they to launch in early May, the story would be quite different.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
If I had one wish...
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
What I like about the terminology is "mass simulator". You put a "mass simulator" into a test rocket because it has mass. Exactly what mass is it simulating? If it is only simulating mass, then is it real?
I imagine a good mass simulator would require good church, priest and congregation simulators as well.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
We always suspected he was a Persian cat away from being a supervision. Now I have incontrovertible proof!
He's going to retrieve the Loc-Nar from space.
I've finally got your number now, Musk!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Payload Dummy second stage (S-4), weighing 25,000 pounds, ballasted with 90,000 pounds, 11,000 gallons of water
Dummy third stage (S-5), weighing 3,000 pounds, ballasted with 100,000 pounds, 12,000 gallons of water
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Launching a car in to space? Why? What the heck is this saying "Except" Elon Musk can be a complete "Idiot" at times.
I know! Why would we testing a rocket by using a car as a test mass when we could, instead, help all of humanity by launching some of our surplus double-quotes, which seem to turn up, like invasive mussels in the Great Lakes that don't belong there and make their users look foolish, everywhere.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That joke is over done.... But the whole movie was over done..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
for PR, OK something I had not come up with right away ;)
;)
Just my 2 cents
So the Tesla will have full self-driving capabilities, then?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I mean they don't own the rights to space... Is it because it's being launched through US airspace?
If you want to send a socially useful test payload on the Falcon Heavy, I would send as many pharma executives as can be crammed into the payload bay. But if their mangled flesh actually does impact Mars, this would be a major instance of contamination. No matter how much we all would applaud such a demonstration of the public will, a car is the more responsible option.
Most companies and governments send slabs of concrete or steel plates.
(darkly) ... or dogs.
Except that NASA's Office of Planetary Protection would never let them put the car anywhere near Mars. There are lots and lots of bacteria in that car. If it lands on Mars, it could seed Mars with Earth life, potentially wiping out Mars life, which would be a massive loss to science.
I expect (although I've never seen it discussed) that the target orbit will have some resonance that ensures it never gets near Mars.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Healthcare is not a right, and I don't know why so many people feel it is. A right is something that you started with, and shouldn't be taken away. There is a right to breathe air. There is a right to free speech. There is a right to freedom from persecution based on religion, race, creed. These things, you would have if you lived on your own on an island. No one had to do or give anything for you to have them, they are inherent to the human condition.
Rights are not something that you didn't start out with, and want. Healthcare is not provided by mother nature at birth. A doctor (and his or her support staff, the hospital, the pharmaceutical industry, and everything else that goes into it) has to give it to you. If you mandate the doctor do so, he is no longer free. You are asking we take the freedom of a doctor to choose if he wants treat you or not, and ask to be compensated as he thinks is just and the market will bear, for your WANT of his services. How is that right? How is that fair?
If you want the services someone else, convince them with monetary compensation. If you want the service of a doctor, convince him or her with monetary compensation.
There are lots and lots of bacteria in that car.
That plague ship sailed decades ago.
There were âoelots and lotsâ of bacteria on the Viking missions, Mars Pathfinder, Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, the Mars Polar lander, Phoenix lander, Beagle, and Curiosity.
They used a âoeclean roomâ to keep dust out of instrumentation, but they were never sterile.
The fact is we donâ(TM)t know how to sterilize a spacecraft without destroying itâ" a major factor in why we havenâ(TM)t seriously considered sending a probe to Europa.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
I think Musk's shiny Tesla is far better than a broken down Chevy because somebody, to make their own space statement, might launch a mission to get the Tesla back.
This makes me think of the beginning of the movie Heavy Metal.
We really need to hear about flacid rockets from the man with Gypsy Hands,lol
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Just a couple days delay! I'll be in Florida starting on Thursday, and want to see this, dammit!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yeah, if you want to be all hard-assed, scorched-earth libertarian about it. But, if you want to be human, you would look at health care as something we all need and something that is cruel to withhold from people. That doesn't mean abandon capitalism. But, it does mean, in my opinion, that the government has the purview to set up a system that ensures universal access to reasonable-priced and available medical care. We don't have to be savages.
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
>. "Test flights of new rockets usually contain mass simulators in the form of concrete or steel blocks.
My understanding is that you can make a simple "pico satellite", or in this case "pico probe" from essentially an Android phone, for a couple hundred dollars on the low end. Launch costs, however, are in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Rather than carrying a concrete dummy load, or a car, why not carry a thousand hobbyist / university experiments? Sure it might not be successful - in which case I've lost my $400 probe, but if it is successful I've saved $40,000 on launch costs. You only need a 1% probability of success to make it worthwhile. I'm probably missing something here?
None of these things would have any use where that rocket is going. It's not going to orbit Mars, it's going to fly by and then orbit Sun in perpetuity.
His car on Mars will collide with one of NASA's robots, and insurances will fight in the court for years!
>> I'm probably missing something here?
Yes,
1) Not enough PR
2) Cost of added complexity and certification costs
3) Infrastructure and support costs (you need a big power supply, ground control infrastructure and manpower, communication at long distance, which require attitude control of the spacecraft, tracking, etcetcetc...)
4) Integration onto/into the spacecraft
5) radiation hardening: this is not your typical LEO cubesat. It goes through intense radiation.
6) Communication bandwidth to mars distances is really really small. Divide that by a thousand experiment, and they become useless.
aaaaaaa
>> it always feel strange when we go "backwards".
That's normal, don't worry.
Civilizations all rise and fall, so id the actual western civilization
aaaaaaa
And given the design of the previous record holder he is only slightly switching the design around replacing a pair of rockets strapped on a car with a car strapped on a triplet of rockets.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
So launching a car is fun and all but why not use the launch for some sort of useful scientific instrument instead? Something that might not otherwise get into orbit and do it gratis. Doesn't have to be anything sophisticated or expensive. Sure it might blow up and whoever built the instrument will need to understand that going in but then we aren't wasting a launch on something that even Elon will admit is ridiculous. Is there nothing that weighs a ton that could do something useful if it makes it into space and that we can live with losing if it all goes tits up?
I think Musk's shiny Tesla is far better than a broken down Chevy because somebody, to make their own space statement, might launch a mission to get the Tesla back.
That would even be a nice KSP challenge. They're probably waiting for the actual ephemerids to be published to play them in RSS.
Nobody risks a satellite (which almost always is much more expensive than the rocket that launches it) on the very first launch of a new rocket.
So put some sort of cheap but heavy scientific instrument on board instead. I fail to see the utility in launching dead weight when we could do something useful instead. I'm sure some clever scientist could come up with an experiment that is cheap, useful, and we don't care if it blows up. The risk is understood so you design the payload accordingly.
Geico should "provide car insurance for mars vehicles" and run a joint ad campaign. They could put a "gecko" in the space suit.
There is no communication or science satellite that's so "off the shelf" that it's reasonable to launch it & shrug when it is blown to hell. We don't have them just laying around waiting to be launched.
That doesn't mean we couldn't design something that is cheap and useful. I have a hard time believing that there is absolutely nothing useful we could come up with to launch that is less useful than dead weight.
Useful things that you put on rockets typically are also things that you don't want to explode.
Only if you have an extremely narrow definition of useful. Are you seriously arguing that there is absolutely nothing we couldn't put in the payload bay with more utility than dead weight? Nothing? No simple experiment or device?
No I'm not buying that argument. It doesn't have to be a muilti-million dollar satellite to or probe to be useful.
They aren't "wasting a launch", they are testing a rocket.
Those are orthogonal concepts. You can both waste a launch and test a rocket in the same launch. And that is what they are doing here. So what if the chance of it going BOOM is higher than you want for a pricey satellite? Launch something cheap that you don't care so much if you lose it.
You don't send up a useful payload in a test launch, because it might fail, and useful payloads cost orders of magnitudes more than a $50K used car.
So design a useful payload that costs less than $50K. That shouldn't be a hard problem for a scientist worthy of their PhD. Are you seriously arguing that anything we could design for under the cost of a Tesla car that would have less utility than dead weight?
i.e. this is just a very minor publicity stunt, there are more important things to get angry about.
Who is angry? Just pointing out that it is an opportunity wasted is all.
Testing a launch vehicle that is supposed to launch billion dollar payloads in the future before you put said billion dollar payloads on top of it is not "waste" or "a dumb stunt" or "nonsense", it's the reasonable thing to do.
Who said the payload has to cost a billion dollars? Launch something of equal or lesser value than the car with any amount of scientific utility and you have a net gain. I'm pretty sure we can design a payload that costs very little and still has more utility than dead weight.
Could he spin it out to kids to 'launch' something they've made? Even if it's just going up to come crashing/burning back down again, I'd probably have loved to have sent one of my toys, or a bit of electronics up in a rocket.
I agree, no one's going to put a multi-million bitcoin satellite or something on there, but it could be filled with stuff we know we're going to lose. Hell, he could fill it up with plastic dredged from the ocean ;-)
You need something sufficiently heavy that someone would be willing to sacrifice.
Yes and? I'm pretty sure that's not a hard problem to solve. Just ask literally every professor on earth for their best proposal. Pretty sure someone can come up with something that would fit the mission parameters and be more useful than dead weight.
Or do you have any payload costing less than several millions (or alternatively are you willing to take the risk of losing more than several millions) and weighing at least two tonnes or so to in order to match the conditions for the planned FH missions? I'm pretty sure SpaceX would have been able to accommodate you if you paid for it.
Why would SpaceX need to charge for it? Especially given the risk of KABOOM? Right now it's just a cost to them to even put dead weight on it. You think that Elon's car was free? It's a sunk cost so it costs SpaceX nothing to put something other than dead weight in place as long as they don't foot the bill. They would be no worse off if they offered to launch something for free to anyone willing to take the risk.
For sale. Cheap. Tesla Roadster 2008. Low mileage. Self pick up from Mars.
You reference a "staunchly formal notice" and where it was posted but can't include a link?
Permit: http://images.spaceref.com/new...
Reference page: http://nasawatch.com/archives/...
"editor".. sheesh
The thing is 10 years old, it's a sunk cost. That being said, I would have gladly traded him my 2011 Subaru for the roadster. Kind of a shame to launch such a gorgeous car into never-never land.
You sound like you have never worked in the space industry. You cannot make a 50K payload that does anything useful.
I call bullshit. You can get the components to build a microsat for $25K so you absolutely could design something to do some task more useful than being dead weight for under $50K. But even if it cost 5X that much it still would be a bargain and much more useful than launching a fracking car. And it certainly wouldn't cost SpaceX a thin dime more than what they are already doing.
Oh and FYI in my day job I am the lead engineer and GM for a company that has made equipment that has been sent into space to the ISS.
Active payload is designed and tested like you wouldn't believe and this alone costs oodles of money.
That is for something that is expected to be reliable. Not necessary to test something to have absurd levels of reliability and safety in this circumstance. It will be lucky to even make it to orbit. The usual expectations don't apply here. You merely would have to do some rudimentary checking to ensure it wouldn't screw up the primary mission (testing the launch vehicle) which doesn't need to cost vast sums.
The fact that you say it shouldn't be a hard problem to come up with a sub 50K payload for any scientist proves to pretty much anyone who has worked in the space industry that you are clueless when it comes to payload development.
You sound like someone who works for a cost+ contractor who cannot imagine that things can be done for less than millions of dollars. I don't have a doubt in my mind that someone could develop some sort of payload to do something scientifically interesting for less money than a luxury car.
"So, Dunn, you were under Oveur and over Unger."
"Yeah, both Dunn and I were under Oveur, even though I was under Dunn."
The fact is we donâ(TM)t know how to sterilize a spacecraft without destroying it...
Well, let's not forget that Mars is covered in perchlorates which are sterilizing agents stronger than what we'd use to clean any Mars probe.
Well the problem is that Tesla is no longer making them. They're on to their own next generation (the original "Tesla Roadster" was a Lotus Elise body with Tesla guts). Personally, I don't like the new one and wouldn't spend the money for it.
And, yes, I've been looking at the "used" market.
That would make me an astronaut, not a suicidal nutjob.
C'mon, this is SlashDot; where the fuck do you think you are, LinkedIn?
rofl
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Opera houses are an excess of the ultra-wealthy? Wow - I've attended regularly over the past twenty years, and I've always been scratching to make middle-class. Thanks for the promotion!
"A right is something that you started with, and shouldn't be taken away."
Nice post. To clarify a bit, we have both natural (human) rights and legal rights. Legal rights are whatever the courts currently decide, and can continuously be granted or denied. Natural rights (often called human rights) are the innate rights that you are referring to.
But our right to those rights goes beyond "shouldn't be taken away". They are inalienable - that is, they cannot be either taken away or given up. They can be ignored or trampled, but cannot be separated from us.
Still... taking no chances with the contamination present.
Curiosity is in range of some of the discovered liquid water.
It’s allowed nowhere near it.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Imagine if he managed to get it back down after orbit in one piece. That would be one frickin' expensive car!
Ah, Mr. Lazy Ad Hominem returns! Never any substance, always embarrassingly childish rants. But thanks for reliably demonstrating the shallowness of your grasp on things that matter. Please, keep it up!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's too bad he didn't launch a Model S. At launch we could have said: Look at that S Car go!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Hahahahaha Francis! That's only cool if your last name is BLACK!
Too fake! It's gotta be real since it looks so fake and all. Got to give it this much, it is more believable than any moon mission!