There's a lot of water dumped on the pad at launch, and I'm sure some of it splashes on to the bells.
I don't think they are worried about pushing it sideways, the word from Musk is that they don't really have to tie the rocket down once it's landed, and winds and rocking on something 160 feet high are probably more force than that water stream. The rocket is very bottom-heavy with the tanks empty.
When they turned the water on, the nozzle was tilted upward. It wasn't aimed at where the flame was. So it's not too clear what was going on, but I agree that nozzle looked like it was commanded or the result of some sort of fire alarm.
We don't know what was burning down there. It might just have been fuel seeping out of the turbopump. They did a 3-rocket burn this time, and the other two times we've seen a 1-rocket burn.
It's got a much larger fire on the way up. I agree it was alarming, but we don't know that it represented actual damage yet.
Landing a first stage after a ballistic re-entry is a pretty big deal. This means that SpaceX can recover the first stage in low-remaining-fuel situations like heavy payloads, geostationary injection (because it's a higher orbit) and when the booster is the center stage of a Falcon Heavy (and is really high and far downrange).
Since they've recovered 9 out of 10 engines, they've recovered most of the cost of both stages. If they can get a high recovery rate (and this more-difficult recovery argues that they might), that drives down the cost of a launch.
People at ULA watched this one and it sure wasn't good news for them. They can't compete financially with SpaceX as an expended rocket, forget about their competing with working first-stage recovery. It also blows the ULA recovery strategy - ejecting the engines and recovering just them, instead of the entire booster - out of the water.
But the big challenge for SpaceX now isn't one with astounding demonstrations of technology. It's doing the same thing over, and over, and doing it quickly, and making a profit. SpaceX wanted to reach a cadence of 18 launches this year, and they have so far launched 4 in the first third of the year. To be a profitable company and to reap the economic advantage of first-stage recovery, they will need to get higher than 18 per year.
So, I'm disappointed that Elon announced the "instant Mars demo" immediately after last month's at-sea landing. Yes, for Elon SpaceX has always been about Mars. But now is the time for SpaceX to focus on making a profit and having a rapid cadence. If Elon does that, he will have lots of $$$ and recovered boosters for Mars projects.
It would be OK if the Electoral College amplified. The problem is that it distorts. I think in theory you can win in the EC with just over a quarter of the popular ballot. That's pretty severe distortion.
It also tends to amplify a problem in a single state, such as the famous "hanging chad". With a real popular vote it is more likely that state problems are lost in the noise when you pool the votes of all states.
We don't immediately unify the country behind a single leader because of the Electoral College. We just count differently and arrive at a decision at about the same time as if we had a straight popular vote. And then we have overlap of the incumbent and the newly-elected President.
The reasons for having the Electoral College no longer obtain. State Sovereignty is a farce today. The communications problem has not been an issue since the electric telegraph. And we always, even back then, had the technical capability to count all of those votes. It was only the communications delay that stopped us from doing so.
Sanders won't run as an independent. He's committed to having Trump lose the election. He and Clinton both know they have to hang together after the primary, as they have no reason to split the Democrats while the Republicans have split themselves.
Look back at Sanders history. He didn't win in as a Senator of Vermont by being impractical.
Warren didn't run when so many people were pleading with her to do so. That's bigger than not endorsing Clinton, and you'd better believe that Clinton is grateful, as Warren might have won the primary.
A bit of online research would help next time. Obama issued an executive order to close Gitmo in 2009. Congress voted to block it, and enough Democrats voted aye for the block to pass.
I am not happy about SLS, but read the party affiliations here and you will not be so sure that a Republican administration will stop it.
I am also not entirely happy with Elon's plan of the week. I wish he'd work on cadence (meaning achieving the 18-launch goal this year) and getting SpaceX to be a profitable low-cost launch business before he started messing with Mars. Humans need cheap access to space more than they need the red planet.
Regarding teaching, I have done a lot of work to put the tools in those people's hands. My next trip is to South Korea, where I will evangelize rather than teach. In general I can inspire more than one teacher that way. If you want me to go to South America to speak get me invited. I don't have limitless wealth, someone else has to pay for the flight, hotel, and food, but I will donate my time if there's a good opportunity to evangelize.
I know what Libertarian means. You can maximize liberty in two very different ways: Maximize liberty for everyone, or maximize liberty for "me" (the Libertarian speaking). These things are diametrically opposed, and unfortunately the Libertarian party is very solidly on the "me" side of the question.
Sanders has already permanently changed the way elections are run, and he's shoved the Democratic party farther to the left, forcing Clinton there whether she wants it or not.
The problem with protesting the Breitbart crowd's events is that when you're in a fight with an idiot, it's hard for other people to tell which one the idiot is.
The California exchange has been pretty successful in negotiating premiums with its vendors. Unfortunately, not every state chose to take the plan to heart as California did. If yours was dragged in kicking and screaming, it might show in the rates.
I do think it's ironic that today the man who authored "The Art of the Deal" is seen as somebody who would be impossible to work with.
If you want self-interest, he's your guy and you can read all about how he thinks he did it. If he had been the saint of low-income housing, he would be better placed to work with other politcians. But that wasn't his interest.
I think the big thing that turned employment in a downward direction during the G.W. Bush administration was that he allowed if not encouraged the country to completely freak out over 9/11 and shoot itself in the foot economically. That was a choice. We really could have taken a page from the British "keep calm and carry on".
Slashdot Mirror
There's a lot of water dumped on the pad at launch, and I'm sure some of it splashes on to the bells.
I don't think they are worried about pushing it sideways, the word from Musk is that they don't really have to tie the rocket down once it's landed, and winds and rocking on something 160 feet high are probably more force than that water stream. The rocket is very bottom-heavy with the tanks empty.
When they turned the water on, the nozzle was tilted upward. It wasn't aimed at where the flame was. So it's not too clear what was going on, but I agree that nozzle looked like it was commanded or the result of some sort of fire alarm.
Yes, they had total mission success.
We don't know what was burning down there. It might just have been fuel seeping out of the turbopump. They did a 3-rocket burn this time, and the other two times we've seen a 1-rocket burn.
It's got a much larger fire on the way up. I agree it was alarming, but we don't know that it represented actual damage yet.
Landing a first stage after a ballistic re-entry is a pretty big deal. This means that SpaceX can recover the first stage in low-remaining-fuel situations like heavy payloads, geostationary injection (because it's a higher orbit) and when the booster is the center stage of a Falcon Heavy (and is really high and far downrange).
Since they've recovered 9 out of 10 engines, they've recovered most of the cost of both stages. If they can get a high recovery rate (and this more-difficult recovery argues that they might), that drives down the cost of a launch.
People at ULA watched this one and it sure wasn't good news for them. They can't compete financially with SpaceX as an expended rocket, forget about their competing with working first-stage recovery. It also blows the ULA recovery strategy - ejecting the engines and recovering just them, instead of the entire booster - out of the water.
But the big challenge for SpaceX now isn't one with astounding demonstrations of technology. It's doing the same thing over, and over, and doing it quickly, and making a profit. SpaceX wanted to reach a cadence of 18 launches this year, and they have so far launched 4 in the first third of the year. To be a profitable company and to reap the economic advantage of first-stage recovery, they will need to get higher than 18 per year.
So, I'm disappointed that Elon announced the "instant Mars demo" immediately after last month's at-sea landing. Yes, for Elon SpaceX has always been about Mars. But now is the time for SpaceX to focus on making a profit and having a rapid cadence. If Elon does that, he will have lots of $$$ and recovered boosters for Mars projects.
They did.
I'm not her biggest fan, but she has more self-respect than that.
Carly Fiorina would do it.
The vote was veto-proof. Back then emotions were a lot higher and a super majority did not want those guys in the U.S.
It would be OK if the Electoral College amplified. The problem is that it distorts. I think in theory you can win in the EC with just over a quarter of the popular ballot. That's pretty severe distortion.
It also tends to amplify a problem in a single state, such as the famous "hanging chad". With a real popular vote it is more likely that state problems are lost in the noise when you pool the votes of all states.
We don't immediately unify the country behind a single leader because of the Electoral College. We just count differently and arrive at a decision at about the same time as if we had a straight popular vote. And then we have overlap of the incumbent and the newly-elected President.
The reasons for having the Electoral College no longer obtain. State Sovereignty is a farce today. The communications problem has not been an issue since the electric telegraph. And we always, even back then, had the technical capability to count all of those votes. It was only the communications delay that stopped us from doing so.
Tell me this when the Euro gets below the Dollar. They opened at 1:1.
Ha ha! You never learned about the lethal duel between a sitting Vice President of the United States and a former Secretary of the Treasury.
Sanders is still in the Senate. He's going to be a lot more high-profile now.
Sanders won't run as an independent. He's committed to having Trump lose the election. He and Clinton both know they have to hang together after the primary, as they have no reason to split the Democrats while the Republicans have split themselves.
Look back at Sanders history. He didn't win in as a Senator of Vermont by being impractical.
Warren didn't run when so many people were pleading with her to do so. That's bigger than not endorsing Clinton, and you'd better believe that Clinton is grateful, as Warren might have won the primary.
If Warren had run for President she might have won the primary. Might be.
A bit of online research would help next time. Obama issued an executive order to close Gitmo in 2009. Congress voted to block it, and enough Democrats voted aye for the block to pass.
Not charitable at all. Obama issued an executive order to close Gitmo in 2009. Congress blocked it. It happens to have been a bipartisan vote.
Obama would have closed Gitmo. Congress and the states have not allowed him to do so. They have blocked the transfer of detainees to U.S. soil.
I think you're right. It's been a long time...
I am not happy about SLS, but read the party affiliations here and you will not be so sure that a Republican administration will stop it.
I am also not entirely happy with Elon's plan of the week. I wish he'd work on cadence (meaning achieving the 18-launch goal this year) and getting SpaceX to be a profitable low-cost launch business before he started messing with Mars. Humans need cheap access to space more than they need the red planet.
Regarding teaching, I have done a lot of work to put the tools in those people's hands. My next trip is to South Korea, where I will evangelize rather than teach. In general I can inspire more than one teacher that way. If you want me to go to South America to speak get me invited. I don't have limitless wealth, someone else has to pay for the flight, hotel, and food, but I will donate my time if there's a good opportunity to evangelize.
I know what Libertarian means. You can maximize liberty in two very different ways: Maximize liberty for everyone, or maximize liberty for "me" (the Libertarian speaking). These things are diametrically opposed, and unfortunately the Libertarian party is very solidly on the "me" side of the question.
Trump can ask all he wants, Sanders knows better.
Sanders has already permanently changed the way elections are run, and he's shoved the Democratic party farther to the left, forcing Clinton there whether she wants it or not.
The problem with protesting the Breitbart crowd's events is that when you're in a fight with an idiot, it's hard for other people to tell which one the idiot is.
The California exchange has been pretty successful in negotiating premiums with its vendors. Unfortunately, not every state chose to take the plan to heart as California did. If yours was dragged in kicking and screaming, it might show in the rates.
If you want self-interest, he's your guy and you can read all about how he thinks he did it. If he had been the saint of low-income housing, he would be better placed to work with other politcians. But that wasn't his interest.
I think the big thing that turned employment in a downward direction during the G.W. Bush administration was that he allowed if not encouraged the country to completely freak out over 9/11 and shoot itself in the foot economically. That was a choice. We really could have taken a page from the British "keep calm and carry on".
This is one opinion why. There are more online.