SpaceX Pulls the Plug On Its Red Dragon Plans (arstechnica.com) 161
SpaceX has largely confirmed the rumors that the company is no longer planning to send an uncrewed version of its Dragon spacecraft to Mars in 2020, or later. Ars Technica reports: The company had planned to use the propulsive landing capabilities on the Dragon 2 spacecraft -- originally developed for the commercial crew variant to land on Earth -- for Mars landings in 2018 or 2020. Previously, it had signed an agreement with NASA to use some of its expertise for such a mission and access its deep-space communications network. On Tuesday, however, during a House science subcommittee hearing concerning future NASA planetary science missions, Florida Representative Bill Posey asked what the agency was doing to support privately developed planetary science programs. Jim Green, who directs NASA's planetary science division, mentioned several plans about the Moon and asteroids, but he conspicuously did not mention Red Dragon. After this hearing, SpaceX spokesman John Taylor didn't return a response to questions from Ars about the future of Red Dragon. Then, during a speech Wednesday at the International Space Station Research and Development Conference, Musk confirmed that the company is no longer working to land Dragon propulsively for commercial crew.
"Yeah, that was a tough decision," Musk acknowledged Wednesday with a sigh. "The reason we decided not to pursue that heavily is that it would have taken a tremendous amount of effort to qualify that for safety for crew transport," Musk explained Wednesday. "There was a time when I thought the Dragon approach to landing on Mars, where you've got a base heat shield and side mounted thrusters, would be the right way to land on Mars. But now I'm pretty confident that is not the right way." Musk added that his company has come up with a "far better" approach to landing on Mars that will be incorporated into the next iteration of the company's proposed Mars transportation hardware.
"Yeah, that was a tough decision," Musk acknowledged Wednesday with a sigh. "The reason we decided not to pursue that heavily is that it would have taken a tremendous amount of effort to qualify that for safety for crew transport," Musk explained Wednesday. "There was a time when I thought the Dragon approach to landing on Mars, where you've got a base heat shield and side mounted thrusters, would be the right way to land on Mars. But now I'm pretty confident that is not the right way." Musk added that his company has come up with a "far better" approach to landing on Mars that will be incorporated into the next iteration of the company's proposed Mars transportation hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More difficult with people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the personality cult around Musk is a bit scary and laughable at the same time (they always are). But the guy does deserve some credit. If anything he's a good example of "big dreams, small steps".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More difficult with people? (Score:4, Insightful)
I give him credit for at least *trying* to do things that are ultra-long shots at best.
People come up with long-shot ideas *all* *the* *time* yet they are never willing to put in effort, or risk their reputation or finances to do them. Can't say that about Musk - he knows that if he fails there will be people gleefully tearing at his corpse cackling "TOLDYASO TOLDYASO." Those same people will, of course, consistently move the goal posts when he succeeds at something, sniffing disdainfully, "It wasn't that hard!"
Anyway, with Musk, tbh, I think his cult following is kinda hilarious, but he seems to be trying to use it to try and get big shit done and doesn't seem to be hurting people in the process, so I don't really have a problem with it. The world needs brash people who set stupidly ambitious goals and only achieves 10% of them every bit as much as they need play-it-safe types who set eminently reasonable goals and achieves 90% of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More difficult with people? (Score:4, Insightful)
Questions Answer: Yes
(1) Have you ever used Autopilot before? 99 %
(2) Are you familiar with the car warnings that Tesla provides about how Autopilot is to be properly used? 98 %
(3) Are you aware that when you first enable the Autopilot, you have to do so through the Drivers Assistance section of Settings on
the center screen? 93 %
(4) Are you aware / Do you know that after enabling Autopilot, you had to agree to an acknowledgment box which stated that
Autopilot “is an assist feature that requires you to keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times” and that “similar to the
autopilot function in airplanes, you need to maintain control and responsibility for your vehicle” while using Autopilot? 99 %
(5) Do you know that each time you activate Autopilot, a message appeares on the screen behind the steering wheel stating:
“Please Keep Your Hands On The Wheel; Be Prepared To Take Over At Any Time“? 96 %
(6) Based on these communications, have you understood that when using Autopilot, the driver is expected to maintain control of the
vehicle at all times? 98 %
(7) Has the name “Autopilot” caused you to believe that the car is fully autonomous, meaning that it does not require the driver to be
supervising the car? 7 % (No : 93 %)
There was an interesting study [researchgate.net] done (unrelated to the German owners survey above) which showed that the minor autopilot failures (occasional lane drift, unexpected speed changes) are ironically improving consumer safety. Users were well aware of its ability to make mistakes specifically because they're common enough, and this keeps the vast majority of users from treating the vehicle like a tool you don't have to pay attention to it; instead they tend to treat it more like cruise control. As automation improves, the danger may counterintuitively increase as users get used to never having to do anything when the vehicle is driving and thus stop paying attention.
At the same time, despite the frequency of errors, the overwhelming majority of users felt that its failures presented either no risk, or little risk, as they tend to be things that any reasonable driver could react to (in the same way that we don't fear cruise control because if it's looking like it's going to drive us into the rear of the car ahead of us, we slow down). E.g. autopilot never just suddenly jerks the wheel to hard right in the middle of a road or whatnot. They also get quite used to what situations you use it in and what you don't use it in (just like people do with cruise control); the fact that the system won't let you use it when it perceives its ability to follow the road to be too poor doesn't even need to factor into the equation.
Re:More difficult with people? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like almost every piece of software we use today? Do you call whatever programs and operating systems you're now "beta" because there's regular updates for them? Most people consider the ability to patch software a good thing. Traditionally, cars are stuck with whatever they're shipped with, and retain any deficiencies for their entire lifespan.
Yes, one failure from a guy who was ignoring warnings and watching Harry Potter, in over a billion vehicle miles under autopilot. My god, how unthinkable.
Yes, that was their accusation as for why they were cutting off their relationship with Tesla. Contrarily, Tesla's accusation is that the Mobileye cutoff occurred when Mobileye learned that Tesla was doing its own in-house image recognition development, aka was going to be cutting Mobileye out of the loop in the future, and demanded as a condition to continue that Tesla kill its in-house development. Mobileye responded claiming that they knew about the team, but didn't feel threatened by it... yadda yadda yadda. Lovely when contract negotiations play out in public.
Re: (Score:2)
What impresses me about autonomous car tech is that it's already at the stage, in public traffic with a sea of the usual idiot human drivers, where accidents are so rare that each one can be micro-analyzed as though it were a plane crash. I never imagined it would get this far so fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla sure looks interested in safety to me. The autopilot works well, as long as you don't try making it do stuff you're explicitly told not to make it do. The cars themselves seem quite safe.
Reality bites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Signed,
Space Nutter
Going to Mars (Score:2)
There is nothing on Mars we want or need.
This is a Big Business dream shot to profit in a complete do over with them at the wheel instead of the founding fathers.
That way they can correct all the mistakes the founders made and allow themselves unencumbered profit.
Re: (Score:2)
>There is nothing on Mars we want or need.
It has a non-Terrestrial surface, possibly with sufficient mass to provide enough gravity for a human to be healthy, possibly with sufficient resources to create a long term self-sustaining colony.
It's a place to start a second instance of human habitation, just on the off chance something bad enough happens on Earth to wipe out all higher life (including, more specifically... us).
It's a place to learn about how to survive off Earth. Sure, it's rough (for really
Re: (Score:2)
We are better off moving under ground.
Re: (Score:2)
In the short term or for a 'normal' extinction event? Yes, absolutely.
A big enough rock (though unlikely at this point in the Solar system's life) could reliquefy the entire planet. It's happened before. Digging under the surface won't help when the entire surface is molten.
On a long enough time scale - ~700 million years - the planet will be too hot, there will be very little life left, the carbon cycle will have stalled. Mars will look pretty damn good long before that.
And that's just the 'eggs in one
Re: (Score:2)
It would be useful to learn how to keep people healthy going to Mars and living on it. Mars almost certainly has no resources worth sending back to Earth, given the expense involved. A second home for humanity is a really long shot. It would require that Mars be absolutely self-sustaining and have a good deal of surplus. It would require a large population, which isn't happening any time soon. That would take centuries, at a minimum.
Who will be the real D.D. Harriman? (Score:2)
Bezos? Musk? Someone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. We might find out that the Man Who Sold the Moon has a Chinese name.
We are better off (Score:2)
Moving under ground
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
You mean this whole idea of spending billions on a flashy project with absolutely zero profit potential was all publicity-generating bullshit designed to boost Elon Musk's cult of personality?? No way!
I think he has just got bored with his space toys, and decided to play with the digging toys [theverge.com] for a bit.
so... no Martian Manhunter? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, to be honest, I believe Elon Musk is boring now.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to undo accidental down moderation.
Parent SHOULD have been moderated +1 Funny ...
Re: (Score:3)
The 'digging toys' are for radiation shelters on Mars, Phobos, Deimos and the Moon. In case the caves theorized to be there, aren't. For access in any case.
Everything Musk, is doing is in pursuit of becoming a martian himself.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Informative)
It's like you didn't even read the article or pay attention to what he said. So I guess someone has to repeat it for you.
NASA's regulations for propulsive landing of a Dragon 2 capsule are too difficult to reasonably meet. So they're dropping propulsive landing from Dragon 2. Meaning it can't land on Mars either. At the same time, they've decided that there's a better approach to landing on Mars than Dragon 2's approach of a bottom-mounted heat shield and side-mounted thrusters.
And for the record, that better approach is what they're looking at with ITS - a side lifting body heat shield with base thrusters for landing. The latter spreads the heat out over a much larger area (Dragon 2 had no option for that because it had no giant, partially empty propellant tanks attached) and increases the length of time over which the heating occurs, slowing the rate.
It'll be interesting to see their changes to ITS. I'm glad to see that "smaller" is among them - I like ambition, but ITS was a step too far, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like you didn't even read the article or pay attention to what he said. So I guess someone has to repeat it for you.
To the contrary, it's like you read the article but weren't really familar with the mission.
NASA's regulations for propulsive landing of a Dragon 2 capsule are too difficult to reasonably meet.
Red Dragon was a proposed private mission to Mars. It is not a NASA mission, and NASA requirements are irrelevant.
I like Musk. I like the approach of trying stuff, and if it doesn't work, try something else. They worked on this idea and, when they got down into the details, decided the propulsive landing technique wouldn't work, so they gave up on it. Good for them.
But don't blame NASA. It wasn't a NASA mission
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is first and foremost the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Their requirements are relevant, unless perhaps you are launching from another country than the US.
What it says (Score:3)
How do the words "NASA's regulations" lead you to think that "NASA requirements" are irrelevant?
Possibly because the words "NASA's regulations" don't appear anywhere in the article cited [arstechnica.com]?
The article states that propulsive landing was deleted from human transport missions because "it would have taken a tremendous amount of effort to qualify that for safety for crew transport." But it was deleted from robotic Mars missions because "'I'm pretty confident that is not the right way" and SpaceX has "a far better approach". (Those are Musk's words, not mine.)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that SpaceX is planning on using this version of Dragon for the commercial crew program [nasa.gov], so NASA's requirements are VERY relevant to what SpaceX decides to develop. Since NASA's requirements for powered landings are more than SpaceX wanted to meet, they decided not to spend the money to do it.
Red Dragon (Score:3)
You're mixing up two different things. This article was about Red Dragon, which was a proposed unmanned Mars mission. Commercial crew is a different thing-- doesn't go to Mars, doesn't land on Mars, does carry humans.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not mixing up things. From the wiki page [wikipedia.org]:
"Red Dragon is a planned unmanned SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule for low-cost Mars lander missions"
From the Dragon 2 page [wikipedia.org]:
"Dragon 2 (also Crew Dragon, Dragon V2, or formerly DragonRider) is the second version of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft, which will be a human-rated vehicle able to make a terrestrial soft landing"
"Designed to ferry astronauts to space"
The Dragon 2 capsule is being developed for commercial crew, and the proposed Red Dragon mission intended to use tha
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, so you apparently think there was just some printed list sitting around of what NASA will and won't accept when you want to do something that's not been done before (propulsive crew landing)? As was made abundantly clear, what NASA will and won't accept came out of discussions with NASA. It became increasingly clear over time that they weren't going to allow it, so they cut it. I'm sure that you and your army of space psychics could have handled it better.
Yeah, let's just go back to Redstones. Because that will surely lead us to the future that SpaceX is working to achieve! The whole point is to innovate in ways that can make access to space cheaper and more routine, not to keep repeating what we know doesn't allow for cheap, routine access to space.
I love this double talk that you get from Slashdotters. On one hand, bringing a brand new mode of transportation from almost nothing to huge demand, to the degree that each new model is produced is in volumes an order of magnitude than the previous and yet accumulates even greater waiting lists, isn't happening nearly fast enough, that Tesla is "low sales" (actually, no, they're not [electrek.co], not when you take into account market segment). On the other hand, we're also always flooded with posts about how Tesla isn't paying dividends and keeps having to take capital rounds. So let me get this straight, Slashdot. Tesla is supposed to have, in a decade, gone from "design concept for an electric car" to "selling more cars than the major automakers", of an entirely different type of vehicle, while paying dividends and not raising capital. Am I understanding this correctly?
Tesla's rate of growth has been phenomenal. The fact that you find an automaker going from almost nothing to opening up factory lines to produce hundreds of thousands of $35k+ vehicles per year in under a decade to be way to slow, boggles the mind.
For decades, US launch costs had stagnated. In the matter of a few years, SpaceX cut them to a small fraction of their former value - and they've only barely just started reuse. Again, the fact that you find this to be "not really achieving much" and that you think NASA would have done better (despite decades of distinctly not doing better) likewise boggles the mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Musk is exhibiting the kind of real-world-driven financial decision-making that got him where he is. He doesn't like having to kill a developing product line, but in recognition of the fact that it was high-risk and a long shot, he decided to fold this hand and the money already in the pot, and try again next hand. There's a huge difference between "I quit" and "I have to stop and re-calculate the route" and he is doing the latter.
Re: (Score:3)
Even Zefram Cochrane wasn't Zefram Cochrane, he was just in it for the money. He wanted to retire to Tahiti.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's much more important to point out that Zephram is a fictional character living in a fictional universe. I guess your parent and ledow are both living in that fictional universe.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always a critic.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla has sold every single production vehicle they've made, plus 10s of thousands they haven't yet made. That's poor sales in absolute numbers, but in relative terms, the traditional auto makers would figuratively kill for those numbers.
Basically, you're a useless shit, hating someone you don't know, and almost certainly because you're a jealous loser. The Universe would be better off if you were no longer interacting with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla has sold every single production vehicle they've made, plus 10s of thousands they haven't yet made. That's poor sales in absolute numbers, but in relative terms, the traditional auto makers would figuratively kill for those numbers.
They would not kill for those numbers for such a small production level as it is not profitable. There have been many 'big car company' models that could not meet initial demand. What you want as a manufacturer ideally is to supply 100% of demand with minimal inventory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh, for every person who achieves something there's ten people who want to slap them down and find their faults and their weaknesses and belittle whatever they do. Everything from jocks bullying nerds to the people who have to hate on Jobs, Ballmer, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Jimbo Wales, Musk etc. almost out of principle. That just have to find that Jobs was an asshole and a terrible family man, so the universe is back in balance. Doesn't matter if you're fucking Gandhi somebody's going to get so pissed at you they'll want to shoot you dead. Maybe he's read a bit too many sci-fi novels. Still better to be a dreamer than a bitter, miserable old coot. Because that's mostly what your post comes across like.
Re: (Score:2)
>Doesn't matter if you're fucking Gandhi somebody's going to get so pissed at you they'll want to shoot you dead.
This is probably going to shock you, but Gandhi could be a bit of a creep and an asshole.
Very few people in history have been 'ideal'. I suspect Fred Rogers is about as close as you're going to find, and I'd bet at some point in his life even he had a screaming match with somebody.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Fred Rogers is about as close as you're going to find, and I'd bet at some point in his life even he had a screaming match with somebody.
The current Internet fixation seems to be on Bob Ross [wikipedia.org]. So far, I have yet to hear anything terrible about him.
Re: (Score:2)
> So far, I have yet to hear anything terrible about him.
Nothing TRUE, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Worst I've heard about him that has any evidence whatsoever is "His jewfro [wisegeek.com] was fake, he did it just for TV". Well, lots of people make their TV personas different from their daily life, so I'm perfectly willing to give him a pass on this one. Do actors and actresses deserve scorn for taking an hour or two in the makeup chair before every shoot?
Re: (Score:2)
>Worst I've heard about him that has any evidence whatsoever is "His jewfro [wisegeek.com] was fake, he did it just for TV".
I'd just assumed it was... given that was kind of a style at the time he rose to prominence, but still rare enough to make him iconic. A quick googling prior to this post produced a picture of him in the military, and post-military but pre-fro. The fro was a good choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a pompadour (once his preference) made him look like a cross between Tim Allen and Rick Astley. That wouldn't have been entirely out of place with the times either. Still, it was his choice, and whether I like the look or not, he had every right to make it. Just like Colin Kaepernick -- I think his hair is absolutely ridiculous, but it's his choice and people should stop giving him grief about it.
Re: (Score:3)
"for every person who achieves something there's ten people who want to slap them down and find their faults and their weaknesses and belittle whatever they do. "
And inevitably, such critics are people who have no clue about how to improve in what the folks they flame have ALREADY accomplished, let alone what they will contribute in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside form being an asshole, Steve Jobs also has a history of intellectual theft and anti-consumer practices. I have yet to encounter an example of him doing anything to benefit anybody other than himself. Based on the evidence I have, he was a bad person by every definition of the term that I will accept. So lets not use him as the example, huh? Lets go with George Westinghouse or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs forced through ease of use. Computers of various sorts would be harder to use without him.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:4, Interesting)
Kjella opined:
Meh, for every person who achieves something there's ten people who want to slap them down and find their faults and their weaknesses and belittle whatever they do. Everything from jocks bullying nerds to the people who have to hate on Jobs, Ballmer, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Jimbo Wales, Musk etc. almost out of principle.
I fail to see how either Ballmer or Ellison belongs in the company of the other individuals you list. Ballmer is an MBA candidate who never displayed the slightest trace of vision, invention, or originality (unlike Gates, who, love him or hate him, built a career and a company that achieved market dominance based on his having all three). For proof of his profound unfitness as an executive, you need look only as far as his slavish insistence on the stacked ranking mode [wikipedia.org]l for employee reviews. Ellison had one good idea - a multiuser relational database for businesses - and an ethos of profound ruthlessness and exploitation with regard to his customers that's based on his bullshit interpretation of bushido. Neither one is what I'd call a positive role model.
The other guys, though, are genuine visionaries, IMnsHO ...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, steal the LIZA interface, steal the DOS (from MPM-86),
Steal the Basic Interpreter (from the Dartmouth),
"Embrace, and expand" every standard to make them proprietary (Engulf and Devour),
use Permatemp labor until caught.....
if that is "vision" in Capitalism, I'll take better trains every single day
Re: (Score:2)
"He's a kid with a lot of money that's read too many sci-fi novels. "
Who has already accomplished far more in space than you ever will.
Re: (Score:2)
He accomplishes more by waking up than that shit you replied to ever will.
Re: (Score:2)
I essentially agree with most of what you are saying, but I do have two points. Firstly, Musk spends his money on exciting new technology and solving problems rather than exciting new football teams and taking drugs. I think it's easy to lose sight of that fact when he opens his mouth. Second, have you driven a Tesla P85D? That car is a whole other weird kind of fast. I don't actually like it for a bunch of reasons, but if you want a GT car that will outrun most hypercars that would do it.
Reusable [Re:I'm shocked!] (Score:2)
> previous NASA designs used successfully.
NASA doesn't have a design that has been successfully used to land a human on Mars. NASA doesn't have a successful design for reusable rocket either.
Right on the first, wrong on the second.
The space shuttle was a reusable launch vehicle that flew in 1981-- before half of you slashdotters were even born. More reusable than Falcon-9, in fact, since the Falcon 9 throws away the second stage (which tends to be the more expensive part).
(The problem with the space shuttle is that the technology got frozen in 1981. It should have been retired in favor of some better next-generation launcher by the 1990s. Instead, the demonstrated problems got patches, but
Re: (Score:3)
I don't count a reusable rocket that costs several times more to operate per launch than disposable rockets of similar capacity as "successful".
Re: (Score:2)
Did it achieve the main point of having a reusable launch system? HELL NO!
Re: (Score:2)
More reusable than Falcon-9, in fact, since the Falcon 9 throws away the second stage (which tends to be the more expensive part).
Nope, that's just wrong. In a rocket, the most expensive parts are the engines, generally followed by the capsule (which in SpaceX's case is also recovered and reused). The second stage only has 1 engine, the first stage has 9. But don't take my word for it, here [shitelonsays.com] is what Elon said about the relative costs:
Re: (Score:2)
Mod me down all you like, foolish dreamers. It ain't gonna get you any closer to Mars.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
SpaceX is routinely doing things that NASA has never been able to do . He is getting paid to launch his rockets, but he's charging less than the government would have to pay otherwise.
The Government rocket program isn't even attempting to match what he's doing currently. They have a grand plan for a bigger rocket that will fly in a decade or so (if it manages to keep the 'schedule' they've defined), but SpaceX will get a LOT of launches in between now and then, and I wouldn't be surprised if they keep ahead
Re: (Score:2)
He was agreeing with the post he replied to, you retarded illiterate.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like I misunderstood. /goes to sit in the corner.
Re: Screw it (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it has been SpaceX doing the heavy lifting for some time now. The have worked out how to land an orbital class first stage booster on a tiny ship in the middle of the ocean without anyone paying them to do so. They have designed new engines, modules and rockets faster than anyone else in the game using modern technology instead of relying on "tried and tested" 1960's engineering. Nobody demanded that their capsules must return to the launchpad propulsively, but they pushed ahead anyway and showed in full scale testing how their superdraco engines can hover and balance. There is no legitimate reason to doubt that they have the technical ability to land propulsively. However, if the safety demands of Nasa force them to stick with old (but proven) technology, then so be it.
Amazing how many naysayers there still are after all the amazing things SpaceX have already acomplished that most people thought were completely impossible just a couple of years ago. They are saving the American tax payer millions every single day and the trolls still come out and whine. As a European, I cannot fathom how so many Americans can be so ungrateful to a company that has been the leading star in private space technology. Maybe they will screw you all over tomorrow or a decade from now, but that can be said of any company in the world.
Re: Screw it (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the thing I don't get. SpaceX is saving the US government huge amounts of money. Yet so many Slashdotters have this weird conception that they're a giant leach sucking government budgets dry. Their conception is precisely the opposite of reality. ULA has been getting an unbelievable sweetheart deal for government launches, getting paid even when they don't launch anything, and charging massive fees when they do, while also getting government subsidy to develop new craft. SpaceX paid back its COTS funding in spades versus what was being doled out to ULA.
Re: Screw it (Score:4, Insightful)
It's because most Slashdotters are jealous morons who begrudge anyone else's success.
Seriously, look at any story about someone being successful at something and many of the responses are "well, it was obvious - ANYONE could have done it!"
They never ask the obvious follow-up: if it were obvious, if it were something anyone could have done, why didn't THEY do it and reap the rewards?
These are the same people who come up with an idea and then engage in mental masturbation about how awesome it is and how it's the most amazing thing and then never do a goddamn thing about it, but they act like that's exactly the same thing as coming up with (or borrowing) an idea and executing on it.
Ideas are easy. Everyone knows an "idea guy." But actually making shit happen is harder - extremely hard, in some cases, and takes dedication and time.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing I don't get..
Take it from me, it's not worth your mental effort.
Re: Screw it (Score:5, Insightful)
Space exploration was one of the favourite things for liberals to point fingers at and scream "let's see free market tackle THAT". Now it is, they're in panic.
I'm a liberal, I follow both politics and space news, and you just pulled that completely out of your ass. I have NEVER seen anything about liberals insisting that space exploration be a government monopoly. In fact, guys like Musk are the darlings of liberal politics. They actually believe in reality instead of trumpist "alternate facts".
Re: Screw it (Score:4, Informative)
You misread him. It isn't that they are " insisting that space exploration be a government monopoly." It is that they couldn't conceive of any for-profit company putting in the long term investment on something that doesn't give an immediate boost to the quarterly reports.
Here is a couple examples:
https://mic.com/articles/2267/... [mic.com]
http://bgr.com/2015/12/03/neil... [bgr.com]
“Private enterprise will never lead a space frontier,” Tyson told me in a phone interview. “In all the history of human conduct, it’s as clear to me as day follows night that private enterprise won’t do that, because it’s expensive. It’s dangerous. You have uncertainty and risks, because you’re dealing with things that haven’t been done before. That’s what it means to be on a frontier.”
Imagine a meeting between a space-obsessed entrepreneur and a venture capitalist, Tyson suggested. “We want your investment.” For what? “To go to space.” Why? “We want to put humans on Mars.” How much will it cost? “A lot. People might die.” What’s the return on investment? “Probably nothing in the short term, but later on you’ll make money.”
It’s not a perfect comparison, since the likes of Bezos and Musk have deep enough pockets to fund much of what they want to do, but the larger point remains.
“The government is better suited to these kinds of investments,” Tyson told me. “They have a longer time horizon. They’re not shackled to quarterly reports like you see in a private enterprise.”
Re: (Score:3)
It remains to be seen whether Musk can send people to Mars without his investors wringing his neck for the unprofitability of it. He can get away with planning because that's cheap and may have commercial side benefits. I suspect in the end he'll have to get a government contract to fund a Mars mission.
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX isn't really such a good counter to that. They benefitted from around a century of government research into rocketry, aerospace and space flight, as well as lots of government subsidies. Their biggest customer is one of the biggest governments in the world. And although they're doing it in very innovative ways, they're serving a pretty well-established market.
SpaceX and NASA [Re: Screw it] (Score:5, Insightful)
SpaceX isn't really such a good counter to that. They benefitted from around a century of government research into rocketry, aerospace and space flight, as well as lots of government subsidies. Their biggest customer is one of the biggest governments in the world. And although they're doing it in very innovative ways, they're serving a pretty well-established market.
And, most particularly, they leveraged NASA funding to build the Falcon-9.
To his credit, Musk doesn't ever try to hide that-- he clearly and directly acknowledges NASA's help. In interviews, he points out that after Space-X failed on their first three launches, NASA was the only one willing to invest in them, and they would have gone bankrupt without it.
In fact, SpaceX may have found the right middle ground -- working with NASA changed them from a company with a record of a string of failures to a company with a record of a sting of successes, but they are separated from NASA enough that they can try cool stuff without too long a string of regulations and reviews. Good for them.
They're still working with NASA. Let's hope they can keep that middle ground, distant enough to be innovative, close enough to be rigorous.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really the way it's supposed to work: the public takes the big risks and does the things that are not economically justifiable. When the endeavour becomes more routine, commerce takes over, and the public goes on to the next frontier.
Re: (Score:2)
It is that they couldn't conceive of any for-profit company putting in the long term investment on something that doesn't give an immediate boost to the quarterly reports.
SpaceX is doing it because there is a relatively immediate boost due to government funding. The profit is coming from NASA and the DoD.
It's still not private industry doing it by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Tyson someone I should be taking business advice from?
I'm not aware of him being anything but a public science personality and generally kinda cool guy, so maybe I missed that he is considered an authority on business, finance and economics?
The parent of the post you are responding to was just some ideological warrior trying to stir the pot. I'm as liberal as they come, and the only time I panic about private entities doing something is when they harm other people or behave unethically. Maybe not vilifyi
Re: (Score:2)
Space-X is not pushing frontiers. Space-X is doing stuff we've already been doing for decades and slashing the cost. This is very valuable, but it's not what Tyson was talking about.
Musk wants to go to Mars, but we'll see how that plays out. As Tyson pointed out, there's no profit potential. Musk can spend his own money, but getting a publicly held corporation to go along is by no means guaranteed.
There is value in getting people to Mars, but it's the sort of general value that a government is best
Re: (Score:2)
Greatest Generation liberals from the time of Roosevelt to JFK supported science and its applications, but starting in the Seventies they switched sides and went Nu Nukes No GMO No Nothing.
Last month in Iceland I saw geothermal power being tapped from a volcano, with the spent water ( heat exchanger isolated from the highly mineralized volcano circulation) piped all the way to Reykjavík for district heating. There are not many places in the world where you can do that, but one of them is Hawaii, the ki
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about something completely different, which is respecting the local people who actually happen to live in an area. That has zero to do with whether you believe in science or not. Not stomping on the locals doesn't mean you don't believe in science.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you as a present-day Democrat had been in charge of things during the Depression, you would have given bartenders in Boulder City veto power over Hoover Dam. Except that before the dam, Boulder City didn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you as a present-day Democrat had been in charge of things during the Depression, you would have given bartenders in Boulder City veto power over Hoover Dam. Except that before the dam, Boulder City didn't exist.
What you're really talking about is the difference between unrestricted green-field development and development in populated areas where there are already established interests.
When it's the wild frontier and the only people out there are you and the buffalo, then there's nobody to stop you from doing whatever you want.
When people live in an area and have an interest in preserving their way of life, you either have to steamroller over them or you have to negotiate and make compromises with them.
Yes, large-s
Re: (Score:2)
If considering the feelings of the local people even meant using the small-d democratic process to poll the sentiments of the public, there wouldn't be so much of a problem. But this privileging of the crotchets of a tiny minority of activists who happen to have good connection with academia is no better than giving corporate lobbyists a free hand in determining what gets built.
Re: (Score:2)
Hawaiians will have to get power from the rapid rotation of FDR in his grave
With all due respect to FDR, Hawaii will be getting its power directly from the sun [wikipedia.org]. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFA:
"In 2015 solar provided 6% of Hawaii's electricity."
Wow. 6%. Pretty underwhelming.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with solar in Hawaii is that the islands do not have large tracts of empty desert to pave over with collector arrays. I'm assuming that rooftop solar will eventually be used to its full potential, but only a continuously available source will put an end to those ugly diesel generators. Geothermal could be the renewable to fill that need without being an eyesore on the landscape.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Screw it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Space exploration was one of the favourite things for liberals to point fingers at and scream "let's see free market tackle THAT". Now it is, they're in panic.
Yeah, I'll challenge that statement. I don't think I've ever heard a liberal say that.
It just hasn't been a big issue on the liberal agenda, frankly.
One thing I know... [Re: Screw it] (Score:2)
One thing I know is that Space X has renewed hope for space travel, where NASA could not
SpaceX renewed hope for space travel by working with NASA.
Re: Screw it (Score:5, Informative)
If you think SpaceX has only made one landing, you haven't been following things well, landings are pretty close to routine now (unless the mission is for a payload heavier than anything short of a delta heavy can handle, and they're rivaling that, the Falcon heavy will be able to handle payloads over double the max that a delta heavy can do)
You ask if it's reproducable, they've landed about a dozen first stages, (7 so far this year)
they've had two first stages that they've flown and landed twice, and one dragon capsule that's flown and landed twice.
They are on track to have about 20 'flight tested' first stages by the end of the year, and either late this year or early next year are planning to land, refuel and refly a first stage with a 24 hour turnaround.
Re: Screw it (Score:5, Informative)
To elaborate on the above AC's point, here's a list of SpaceX launches (starting with the first oceanic "landing" attempt) and their success/failure rate.
29-sep-2013: Ocean failure
03-dec-2013: No attempt
06-jan-2014: No attempt
18-apr-2014: Ocean success
14-jul-2014: Ocean success
05-aug-2014: No attempt
07-sep-2014: No attempt
21-sep-2014: Ocean success
10-jan-2015: Drone ship failure
11-feb-2015: Ocean success
02-mar-2015: No attempt
14-apr-2015: Drone ship failure
27-apr-2015: No attempt
**********28-jun-2015: In-flight failure
22-dec-2015: Ground pad success
17-jan-2016: Drone ship failure
04-mar-2016: Drone ship failure
08-apr-2016: Drone ship success
06-may-2016: Drone ship success
27-may-2016: Drone ship success
15-jun-2016: Drone ship failure
18-jul-2016: Ground pad success
14-aug-2016: Drone ship success
**********01-sep-2016: Pre-launch testing failure
14-jan-2017: Drone ship success
19-feb-2017: Ground pad success
16-mar-2017: No attempt
30-mar-2017: Drone ship success
01-may-2017: Ground pad success
15-may-2017: No attempt
03-jun-2017: Ground pad success
23-jun-2017: Drone ship success
25-jun-2017: Drone ship success
05-jul-2017: No attempt
These don't even tell the whole story because not only has their success rate gone way up, but they've also been attempting to land from increasingly difficult flight envelopes that previously they wouldn't have even attempted from (and simply flown legless / finless rockets)
The issue with testing rocket landing is, you can't just do it in some research lab; you can only do it by actually landing rockets, and changing whatever doesn't work. That's the only way you can learn of your failure modes. Sure, you can use scaled-down testbeds, and SpaceX did that with the Grasshopper series - but there's the difference between a testbed and something that actually goes to orbit. There's a reason that SpaceX used to call them "experimental landings". I don't think they use that term any more; nowadays a landing failure would be seen as a pretty significant setback.
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX used to call them "experimental landings". I don't think they use that term any more; nowadays a landing failure would be seen as a pretty significant setback.
IIRC the last three-engine landing burn used up pretty much the entire crush core. As in, it almost failed. They still seem pretty willing to push it straight to the limit rather than the conservative approach of trying it little by little. And as long as the expectations are set right to the engineers that you can push the limits and fail and to the public that we're pushing the limits and might fail, it works quite well for everyone. As long as it's cargo and dry-runs anyway, I'm sure NASA has made it ver
Re: (Score:3)
> They still seem pretty willing to push it straight to the limit rather than the conservative approach of trying it little by little
Not surprising - re-launching rockets isn't yet a major part of their short-term business plan, and landing failures are going to be far less of a PR problem now than in the future. Meanwhile, they've got their sights set on bigger projects in the future, and unqualified success teaches you nothing.
Plus, they're trying to land rockets from increasingly aggressive launches
Re: Screw it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, and they were trying out never-before used titanium grid fins, too. But that was their highest energy trajectory yet (as noted, they keep pushing the bounds on trying to land more and more difficult trajectories). I imagine they'll cut back on that a lot once the Heavy is in full service and they can just offload heavier payloads to the Heavy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and they were trying out never-before used titanium grid fins, too. But that was their highest energy trajectory yet (as noted, they keep pushing the bounds on trying to land more and more difficult trajectories). I imagine they'll cut back on that a lot once the Heavy is in full service and they can just offload heavier payloads to the Heavy.
Maybe, but there seems to be a sliding scale from landing all three back at the launch site to landing one or all on drone ships to using them as expendables so they probably want the most aggressive landing profile possible for a given weight. With three first stages to one second stage I guess the value of reuse and quick turn-around goes up. And if I understand it correctly the center stage will go longer and faster than the side boosters, that one is probably always coming in hot.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! Nice screed. Firestone Theater did it better, though. Lookup "Everything You Know is Wrong!".
Re: (Score:2)
From Pharmacology to nuclear energy, the risks are all public, the profit all private
Now the Republikkklans want to privatize the mail.
Well THAT will make things faster, better, cheaper, more reliable, equal in service to all
NOT!
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you're a worthless piece of excrement that has never performed a useful task in his life.