So far Space X has had 10 successful launches of their Falcon 9 rockets.
Actually, that number is 41. Try to keep up.
Of course by then you'll insist that, even though Hyperloop turned out to work after all and the BFR seems to take off and land like clockwork, everything else that will be in the pipeline at that point will be bound to fail because it can't possibly work
See there you go jumping to conclusions. Where is your evidence for what you just said? I personally don't have any evidence for success or failure although I have pointed out concerns. So far you seem to think that everything is going to work fine. I am sorry but science is not in the business of miracles otherwise we would all have jetpacks and flying cars by now.
Obviously I don't have evidence for future events. It's just a prediction based on the abysmal track record of people saying that Elon Musk would fail in pretty much everything he attempted.
While you can do these things, what are the economics?
It is simply not clear to me that reusing a rocket is cost effective.
Compare the price of a SpaceX launch to the launch cost of their competitors. Actually, no need to do that, launch customers already have, which is why SpaceX is projected to have a 50% market share next year.
And they haven't even reached maximum efficiency yet. The current generation of Falcon 9 still needs a lot of refurbishment between flights, so the benefit of reusability is still quite limited, but even then they are already outperforming their competitors. Looks like the cost of reusability isn't so high after all. Now imagine what block 5 will be like, where they have incorporated everything they learned so far to turn the boosters around with hardly any refurbishment between flights.
Yeah, the SpaceX business model is not viable, you can't possibly make money sending up rockets with extra fuel and a landing gear. I guess that's why they are doing more launches than any space agency, for a much lower price, and still making plenty of profit to pour into development of a Mars mission.
Right now their boosters still need a lot of refurbishment between flights, limiting the gains somewhat, but this did allow them to identify the weak spots and improve them. Block 5, flying soon, should hardly need any work between flights (which is something you definitely couldn't say about the Space Shuttle). And 18 out of 18 past landings seems to be a wee bit higher than 92%. Jeez, they're doing GTO launches with reused boosters landing them on the bull's eye of a drone ship and you STILL say the extra weight is too limiting to make it viable, and the chance of failure is too high?
I'm going to stop discussing this now, this is getting silly, feel free to contact me in a few years and admit you were wrong.
(Of course by then you'll insist that, even though Hyperloop turned out to work after all and the BFR seems to take off and land like clockwork, everything else that will be in the pipeline at that point will be bound to fail because it can't possibly work)
Rocket scientists (way above your level of expertise) used to say landing rockets vertically and reusing them afterwards was never going to work, for all sorts of reasons that an idiot like Musk obviously wouldn't know about. And landing them on barges in the ocean, come on, you've got to be kidding, that's totally ridiculous, nobody would even think of attempting that. Elon Musk is a fool. (That last phrase is a literal quote from a conversation I personally had with an ESA rocket scientist).
Also, making an electric car that people actually want to buy? Just a few years ago almost all engineers in the automobile industry (including, and especially those with well over 35 years of experience) would have told you that was impossible too. Let alone cars that would outperform the fastest supercars while having 5 seats and plenty of room for luggage. You've got to be kidding, that's a totally impossible thing to even attempt. Elon Musk is a fool, it will never work, nobody will ever buy them.
And setting up huge battery installations to make reusable energy viable for countries that were historically suffering from frequent outages? That will never work either, for all sorts of reasons that an idiot like Musk wouldn't know about. Any electrical engineer with well over 35 years of experience can tell you that, but never mind them.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk, effectively not minding those "experts", and unhindered by any "knowledge" on any of these subjects, is on track for a 50% market share in rocket launches in 2018, with more and more of those using actual reused boosters. The last 18 landings were all successful, including some very high energy ones. His Tesla Model S and X are a huge success, and model 3 has almost 500,000 preorders (yes, I know it's delayed a bit on its agressive rollout schedule, but not nearly as much as previous models, months rather than years). O, and that solar battery installation in South Australia seems to be coming together just fine, with another huge installation in Puerto Rico on the way.
Maybe it's time for some of these dinosaurs with well over 35 years of experience to retire if all they can do is say "ok, maybe you got lucky on that first thing we said couldn't be done, but you definitely cannot do this other thing... ok, maybe you got lucky there too, but this third thing, that's definitely impossible... o, wait...". Seriously, you lost all credibility.
Yeah, first they made you put your laptop into your checked baggage, now they're going to prohibit it? I wish they would make up their mind already.
But I agree, checked luggage is a bad idea, better in the cabin where the crew can fight the fire. (Cabin crew is trained and equipped to do so, at least in my company).
Well, this AI is doing a very bad job of impersonating Linus Torvalds. "Very nice to see"? Not a single swear word? No biting sarcasm? There's no way that's the real Linus.
Yeah, I must admit that whenever I read articles like that, I'm like "they cured cancer again?". Oh, and let me guess, it also charges you up in 5 minutes and triples your range?
We've made a little progress over the decades, but nowhere near what you'd expect from all the articles about revolutionary new treatments.
They could also use a captcha system like Google did for identifying street names and house numbers to train their algorithms. To confirm you're not a robot, identify this sex act...
I must say the combined phrases "it can also identify sex acts. Facial detection is nothing new, even for mobile devices" had me puzzled for a fraction of a second, there. What? There are mobile apps that identify facials?... Oh, faces, right.
Hasn't that always been the case with any Microsoft software? Their users are constantly struggling with the uncertainty principle and can often make a system collapse merely by observing it.
Also, saying he only delivered 17% of the cars they had planned is distorting the truth a bit. They planned to deliver 100 in August and 1500 in September, ramping up to around 5000 a week by the end of the year. So if they only delivered just over 200 cars in September, that's less than a month's delay which is peanuts compared to other Tesla delays in the past.
The reality? We've hardly advanced at all with treating or curing cancer; we've just started looking for it earlier.
It's probably even worse than that. Cancer death rate is the number of cancer deaths divided by the number of diagnosed cancers. But it's a well known fact that a large number of diagnosed cancers are false positives or are at least benign enough to be unlikely to actually become the cause of death. People can live with such a "cancer" for decades and end up dying from something else. This means that increased screening automatically increases the denominator of the cancer rate and therefore reduces the rate even if the number of deaths remains the same.
That doesn't mean we haven't made any progress at all, of course. I sure hope we've decreased the nominator as well. But it does make the 40 percent figure rather less impressive. I'm actually quite surprised that we haven't done better with all these cancer "breakthroughs" we keep hearing about in the media.
Slashdot Mirror
So far Space X has had 10 successful launches of their Falcon 9 rockets.
Actually, that number is 41. Try to keep up.
Of course by then you'll insist that, even though Hyperloop turned out to work after all and the BFR seems to take off and land like clockwork, everything else that will be in the pipeline at that point will be bound to fail because it can't possibly work
See there you go jumping to conclusions. Where is your evidence for what you just said? I personally don't have any evidence for success or failure although I have pointed out concerns. So far you seem to think that everything is going to work fine. I am sorry but science is not in the business of miracles otherwise we would all have jetpacks and flying cars by now.
Obviously I don't have evidence for future events. It's just a prediction based on the abysmal track record of people saying that Elon Musk would fail in pretty much everything he attempted.
While you can do these things, what are the economics?
It is simply not clear to me that reusing a rocket is cost effective.
Compare the price of a SpaceX launch to the launch cost of their competitors. Actually, no need to do that, launch customers already have, which is why SpaceX is projected to have a 50% market share next year.
And they haven't even reached maximum efficiency yet. The current generation of Falcon 9 still needs a lot of refurbishment between flights, so the benefit of reusability is still quite limited, but even then they are already outperforming their competitors. Looks like the cost of reusability isn't so high after all. Now imagine what block 5 will be like, where they have incorporated everything they learned so far to turn the boosters around with hardly any refurbishment between flights.
Yeah, the SpaceX business model is not viable, you can't possibly make money sending up rockets with extra fuel and a landing gear. I guess that's why they are doing more launches than any space agency, for a much lower price, and still making plenty of profit to pour into development of a Mars mission.
Right now their boosters still need a lot of refurbishment between flights, limiting the gains somewhat, but this did allow them to identify the weak spots and improve them. Block 5, flying soon, should hardly need any work between flights (which is something you definitely couldn't say about the Space Shuttle). And 18 out of 18 past landings seems to be a wee bit higher than 92%. Jeez, they're doing GTO launches with reused boosters landing them on the bull's eye of a drone ship and you STILL say the extra weight is too limiting to make it viable, and the chance of failure is too high?
I'm going to stop discussing this now, this is getting silly, feel free to contact me in a few years and admit you were wrong.
(Of course by then you'll insist that, even though Hyperloop turned out to work after all and the BFR seems to take off and land like clockwork, everything else that will be in the pipeline at that point will be bound to fail because it can't possibly work)
Rocket scientists (way above your level of expertise) used to say landing rockets vertically and reusing them afterwards was never going to work, for all sorts of reasons that an idiot like Musk obviously wouldn't know about. And landing them on barges in the ocean, come on, you've got to be kidding, that's totally ridiculous, nobody would even think of attempting that. Elon Musk is a fool. (That last phrase is a literal quote from a conversation I personally had with an ESA rocket scientist).
Also, making an electric car that people actually want to buy? Just a few years ago almost all engineers in the automobile industry (including, and especially those with well over 35 years of experience) would have told you that was impossible too. Let alone cars that would outperform the fastest supercars while having 5 seats and plenty of room for luggage. You've got to be kidding, that's a totally impossible thing to even attempt. Elon Musk is a fool, it will never work, nobody will ever buy them.
And setting up huge battery installations to make reusable energy viable for countries that were historically suffering from frequent outages? That will never work either, for all sorts of reasons that an idiot like Musk wouldn't know about. Any electrical engineer with well over 35 years of experience can tell you that, but never mind them.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk, effectively not minding those "experts", and unhindered by any "knowledge" on any of these subjects, is on track for a 50% market share in rocket launches in 2018, with more and more of those using actual reused boosters. The last 18 landings were all successful, including some very high energy ones. His Tesla Model S and X are a huge success, and model 3 has almost 500,000 preorders (yes, I know it's delayed a bit on its agressive rollout schedule, but not nearly as much as previous models, months rather than years). O, and that solar battery installation in South Australia seems to be coming together just fine, with another huge installation in Puerto Rico on the way.
Maybe it's time for some of these dinosaurs with well over 35 years of experience to retire if all they can do is say "ok, maybe you got lucky on that first thing we said couldn't be done, but you definitely cannot do this other thing... ok, maybe you got lucky there too, but this third thing, that's definitely impossible... o, wait...". Seriously, you lost all credibility.
Yeah, first they made you put your laptop into your checked baggage, now they're going to prohibit it? I wish they would make up their mind already.
But I agree, checked luggage is a bad idea, better in the cabin where the crew can fight the fire. (Cabin crew is trained and equipped to do so, at least in my company).
Continued bad press scares investors.
Yeah, that's the way to avoid bogus lawsuits. Reward them by paying them money. That'll set an example!
That's gay
That's LGBTQWERTY-harrassment!
they are really afraid to simply loose all lunches
What a beautiful typo. SpaceX is eating their lunch indeed :-)
A 3.2MB local database is probably not going to be a big deal for anyone.
More than two floppy disks full of data? Not a big deal? What has this world come to...
Well, this AI is doing a very bad job of impersonating Linus Torvalds. "Very nice to see"? Not a single swear word? No biting sarcasm? There's no way that's the real Linus.
Oh, and can users add local businesses?
Yeah, I must admit that whenever I read articles like that, I'm like "they cured cancer again?". Oh, and let me guess, it also charges you up in 5 minutes and triples your range?
We've made a little progress over the decades, but nowhere near what you'd expect from all the articles about revolutionary new treatments.
But this one really is original: they figured out how to triple range by only doubling the energy density! Think of the possibilities!
You mean their picture unlock where you can unlock the phone using a photograph? Not quite the same, is it?
By far my favorite sitcom ever.
(Well, the first three seasons anyway.)
You might as well come clean right now and get it over with. What did you do?
I guess I'm not the only one who genuinely misread that line...
They could also use a captcha system like Google did for identifying street names and house numbers to train their algorithms. To confirm you're not a robot, identify this sex act...
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Don't quit your day job, that faked orgasm was totally unrealistic.
In a non-sexual context, something like this would sure be useful for regular folks to categorize their home videos (sports, home, by person, etc).
Or in a sexual context, too. Cupboard of love
I must say the combined phrases "it can also identify sex acts. Facial detection is nothing new, even for mobile devices" had me puzzled for a fraction of a second, there. What? There are mobile apps that identify facials?... Oh, faces, right.
Hasn't that always been the case with any Microsoft software? Their users are constantly struggling with the uncertainty principle and can often make a system collapse merely by observing it.
Also, saying he only delivered 17% of the cars they had planned is distorting the truth a bit. They planned to deliver 100 in August and 1500 in September, ramping up to around 5000 a week by the end of the year. So if they only delivered just over 200 cars in September, that's less than a month's delay which is peanuts compared to other Tesla delays in the past.
I'm pretty sure that launch got them plenty of science points to unlock several nodes in the tech tree.
The reality? We've hardly advanced at all with treating or curing cancer; we've just started looking for it earlier.
It's probably even worse than that. Cancer death rate is the number of cancer deaths divided by the number of diagnosed cancers. But it's a well known fact that a large number of diagnosed cancers are false positives or are at least benign enough to be unlikely to actually become the cause of death. People can live with such a "cancer" for decades and end up dying from something else. This means that increased screening automatically increases the denominator of the cancer rate and therefore reduces the rate even if the number of deaths remains the same.
That doesn't mean we haven't made any progress at all, of course. I sure hope we've decreased the nominator as well. But it does make the 40 percent figure rather less impressive. I'm actually quite surprised that we haven't done better with all these cancer "breakthroughs" we keep hearing about in the media.