Elon's "BFR"

[Mallette]

2 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

Just hop on your rocket airplane and be anywhere on earth in 60 minutes.  What could go wrong with that idea?

There.  Put it in the context of 1905 where it belongs.  

Dave

[wvu80]

29 minutes ago, Mallette said:

There.  Put it in the context of 1905 where it belongs.  -Dave

Why, was rocket technology developed just this year, and by Elon Musk?

 

Let's put this in the context of having A HUNDRED AND TWO YEARS of rocket experience and understand traveling by rocketship commercially was rejected by NASA THIRTY YEARS AGO.  Why?

 

It's a bad idea with major logistic and safety problems and not economically feasible.  NASA couldn't do it.  Even Flash Gordon couldn't do it.

 

Just because Elon Musk says it, it doesn't make it a good idea.

 

 

[Mallette]

Dave, I was doubtful all my life...in spite of my pro-space leanings...to accept the idea of even a rocket landing on Earth under power.  Seemed (due to the very reasons of the history of the technology that you quote) completely unreliable as well as way to expensive.  

 

But there's old Elon, space cadet with only one goal since a teenager, doing it every few weeks and cutting the cost of reaching LEO by a massive level.  And landing dead on the x every time.  

If you seriously believe that "everybody says so..." is either scientific or a reliable means of predicting the future you should consider how rarely true that is in fact.  

 

I'll also say this:  If it were ANYBODY but Elon Musk saying he will do this, I'd be a lot more skeptical.  But this man cannot be ruled out as based on his performance in space ventures to date he is batting a thousand.

 

Dave

[billybob]

27 minutes ago, Mallette said:

I'll also say this:  If it were ANYBODY but Elon Musk saying he will do this, I'd be a lot more skeptical.  But this man cannot be ruled out as based on his performance in space ventures to date he is batting a thousand.

 

Dave

Looking like if leaving earth's orbit again in a manned and meaningful way is going to happen in a timely way, imo it will be the ilk of a Musk or Branson, or a combination of(private enterprise/venture), in order to achieve stated goals. I have personally always felt that we are and were behind the 8-ball when it comes to what was known as the earlier space race. Call it Sci-Fi inspired, yet, feel we are long behind the curve as regards to the future. NASA have stated some timeline, that I feel is abit too far out. More, but that is the jist(thrust) of my limited POV...

Thanks, Billy

[joshnich]

My Vote would be with Elon as well.

In regards to AV's. I do believe that you are correct and that AV's will be here sooner than anyone expects and that the roads will be overwhelmingly safer as a result. I also believe that folks  will very quickly buy in and embrace the technology. I also believe that there will still be a need for analog cars - at least I hope there is. At any rate it will be interesting to witness this all unfold.

[Mallette]

You know, Billy, I hesitated to comment on Dave's use of NASA as an authority.  They've been working on a space shuttle replacement for over a decade and still have nothing to show for it.  In the same time, Musk went from zero to a Titan level rocket (though FAR more reliable being new from the ground up) in the first five years, will launch a near Saturn V equivalent next month, and would be launching a man capable Dragon whose Super Draco engines would allow it to land on the Earth...or the moon...by next year if he hadn't decided it was already obsolete and that the BFR was a much better focus.  NASA LOST the plans to Saturn...can you BELIEVE THAT?  There's real competence for you.  Spend a 100 billion of our tax dollars and a decade to build a massive rocket then lose the plans.  It's the same outfit that tried to land a multi billion dollar Mars mission and made a new crater instead by sending landing instructions in the archaic English system to a computer programmed in Metric.  The computer worked fine...

 

NASA doesn't have a track record of doing anything except taking forever to do what Spacex does in months and requiring 20 times the money and 10 times the manpower to do it.  A few of them had "the right stuff" to fix things that should never have happened in the first place but some things like the loss of the two Shuttles are simply inexcusable.  

 

Dave

[Mallette]

2 minutes ago, joshnich said:

I also believe that there will still be a need for analog cars - at least I hope there is.

Never fear.  Where I live you still see folks on horseback routinely.  Much as I look forward to turning the controls over to something much more reliable than me, I would certainly go somewhere where I could rent an MGB or whatever and take her by the reins at least occasionally.  Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if someday the restrictions on driving a vintage vehicle was made legal again even on freeways as the technology will likely prove to prove capable to the point that other vehicle under AV control would remain perfectly safe from all but the most insane human actions from a vehicle under human control.

 

Dave

[billybob]

20 minutes ago, Mallette said:

You know, Billy, I hesitated to comment on Dave's use of NASA as an authority.  They've been working on a space shuttle replacement for over a decade and still have nothing to show for it.  In the same time, Musk went from zero to a Titan level rocket (though FAR more reliable being new from the ground up) in the first five years, will launch a near Saturn V equivalent next month, and would be launching a man capable Dragon whose Super Draco engines would allow it to land on the Earth...or the moon...by next year if he hadn't decided it was already obsolete and that the BFR was a much better focus.  NASA LOST the plans to Saturn...can you BELIEVE THAT?  There's real competence for you.  Spend a 100 billion of our tax dollars and a decade to build a massive rocket then lose the plans.  It's the same outfit that tried to land a multi billion dollar Mars mission and made a new crater instead by sending landing instructions in the archaic English system to a computer programmed in Metric.  The computer worked fine...

 

NASA doesn't have a track record of doing anything except taking forever to do what Spacex does in months and requiring 20 times the money and 10 times the manpower to do it.  A few of them had "the right stuff" to fix things that should never have happened in the first place but some things like the loss of the two Shuttles are simply inexcusable.  

 

Dave

Think there is much that is coming to light or, already has that is disheartening at best as regards NASA. Thanks for bringing me closer up to speed as I have not actually been following events as closely as I could have. It really is sounding encouraging as to recent events and, I fairly  recently did see an attempt and then a successful landing on the platform of the same vehicle to which you no doubt are referring to. For all the right reasons, I say, more power to the ones who grab the opportunity with renewed vigor. Creation of decent jobs that were there from before and same day delivery then define the present, my interpretation of your take, IMHO...

Thanks, Billy

[wvu80]

55 minutes ago, Mallette said:

If you seriously believe that "everybody says so..." is either scientific or a reliable means of predicting the future you should consider how rarely true that is in fact.  

"everybody says so..."  ???  I didn't say that.

 

I don't believe in appeals to authority.  It is on evidence I base my opinions.  My point was rocketry goes back a thousand years to the Chinese.  Goddard launched his first rocket in 1915.  NASA utilized a reusable spaceship which turned out to have an unacceptable risk factor to human life.  What I truly don't understand from you is what do you think Musk is doing that hasn't been thought of before?

 

55 minutes ago, Mallette said:

 

I'll also say this:  If it were ANYBODY but Elon Musk saying he will do this, I'd be a lot more skeptical.  But this man cannot be ruled out

 

as based on his performance in space ventures to date he is batting a thousand.

 

Haven't you followed the results of the SpaceX rockets blowing up?  Batting a thousand in space ventures?  No Dave, just no.  Check the facts, not a false belief in a person.  Please, watch the video so we will both have the same information.  Then we can talk percentages of success.

 

 

[billybob]

2 hours ago, wvu80 said:

Why, was rocket technology developed just this year, and by Elon Musk?

 

Let's put this in the context of having A HUNDRED AND TWO YEARS of rocket experience and understand traveling by rocketship commercially was rejected by NASA THIRTY YEARS AGO.  Why?

 

It's a bad idea with major logistic and safety problems and not economically feasible.  NASA couldn't do it.  Even Flash Gordon couldn't do it.

 

Just because Elon Musk says it, it doesn't make it a good idea.

 

 

Dave,

Feel that if we believe what is read in a more recent context, commercial applications have existed all along and yes, at one time not financially feasible to do so. Feel things have changed and are gaining momentum what with, billionaires looking to invest some of their money in a risk pool with others. Some just want to be part of something really big like, mining of rare metals or energy sources on the moon. A step farther even Mars. It would make sense to those in the know to revisit the moon if for only having a low-gravity platform to launch from, which the moon is. Much is still undiscovered as to the how, yet the willing appear to be stepping up to the plate. Venture capital may well be more readily available and we come back to the will to do something, rather than let such a possibly large opportunity pass them by. Safety and environmental concerns should and mostly have prevailed at NASA. The new attitude I read is yes, travelling into space is risky yet, the reward and some may say necessity do in fact outweigh the risk involved in pioneering our way off of this planet. If NASA does not hamper but limited partner with these new pioneers, I say, it can keep NASA relevant as to future space endeavors. Near space, there is now and for some time still exist the need for communication satellite repair, deployment, and recovery, in some instances. Satellite then, just being one example where commercial enterprise is considered essential, IMLO

Thanks, Billy

[Mallette]

Fer cryn' out loud, Dave...I've been trying to reason with you but you bring up the ridiculous rather than assume I have a lick of brains and live in another world.

 

Nowhere did I say everything Elon every touched went off without an error.  What I said was they all work, and work faster, better, and by far cheaper than anyone or any other group has ever achieved.  NASA?  No way.  Russkies?  Even worse.  Chinese?  Not yet even in the game.  

 

Please keep it to real world.  If you want to count explosions, failures, deaths...NASA is full of all of the above.  Lest you think I am anti-NASA, I believe there have been many great visionaries, engineers, astronauts and others in that organization.  But the best of them were there because it was, while godawful in its mission, the only game in town.  Now they are flocking to SpaceX and the others as these are the real deal.  Innovation governed by real world rules of transparency, sound business practices, and "the best idea wins" rather than obfuscation, no business practices of any kind, and the low bidder with the most influence wins.  

 

Dave

 

 

 

[Mallette]

1 minute ago, billybob said:

The new attitude I read is yes, travelling into space is risky yet, the reward and some may say necessity do in fact outweigh the risk involved in pioneering our way off of this planet.

TRVTH

You got it, Billy.  

 

Dave

 

[Mallette]

By the way, here's some science basics:

 

Calculus is not just a good idea, it's the law.  As rockets adhere to this, as long as the engines work there is nothing that can go wrong with the rocket itself to cause its loss other than structural or engine failure.  

 

The construction of the rocket to ensure minimum risk of structural failure is already a known science that can be practiced with great reliability

 

Rocket engines are FAR simpler than jet engines and Elon is designing his to be far more reliable than jets.

 

Airliners appear safer because they have wings.  But how many airliners have landed safely with ALL engines out?

 

Elon's BFR will have 39 engines, all more reliable than the few an airliner has.

 

Think about it.

 

Dave

 

[wvu80]

11 minutes ago, billybob said:

Near space, there is now and for some time still exist the need for communication satellite repair, deployment, and recovery, in some instances. Satellite then, just being one example where commercial enterprise is considered essential, IMLO

Thanks, Billy

Of course Billy, nobody is arguing that.  The US needs to have a dominant leadership role in space for all the reasons you listed, and for one important one you did not list, which is defense.

 

I don't have blind faith in in the infallibility of Elon Musk.  He has demonstrated failures in several ventures and one of his latest "visions" is terrestrial rocketship travel which is not now and never will be economically feasible.  He is a good pitchman but some of us don't look at hype, we look at facts.  

[Mallette]

12 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

I don't have blind faith in in the infallibility of Elon Musk.

Nor do I.  Not implied in anything I've said.

 

12 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

He has demonstrated failures in several ventures

Name them.

13 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

one of his latest "visions" is terrestrial rocketship travel which is not now and never will be economically feasible.

Absurd.  He's already done it.  All you have to do is land one.  He's landed quite a few so it's already not only economically feasible but demonstrably so.  

 

Dave

[Mallette]

Let's compare NASA and SpaceX on failures.

 

SpaceX has a catastrophic failure on launch, identifies and fixes it, and flies again with only a minimal schedule glitch.  NASA has a catastrophic failure, fixes it, and flies again in a few years.  

 

Dave

[Zen Traveler]

24 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

Of course Billy, nobody is arguing that.  The US needs to have a dominant leadership role in space for all the reasons you listed, and for one important one you did not list, which is defense.

I always enjoy these conversation but  one thing people always seem to miss in these discussions is when it comes to taxpayers money folks have all sorts of opinions on how to spend it....Mr Mallette calls these ideas "investment" while others will bring up where some of this "no brainer," spending cost taxpayers millions--Fwiw, if you follow Defense Budgets you will find those were being scrutinized *in the prior amount of time* and still weigh on the National Debt and Budget.

 

17 minutes ago, Mallette said:

NASA has a catastrophic failure, fixes it, and flies again in a few years.  

It seems when NASA has a failure people die at Taxpayers expense and then the population wants answers. 

[Zen Traveler]

36 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

 

56 minutes ago, billybob said:

The new attitude I read is yes, travelling into space is risky yet, the reward and some may say necessity do in fact outweigh the risk involved in pioneering our way off of this planet.

TRVTH

You got it, Billy.  

 

I'm telling you guys the budget restraints makes all of this a moot issue.

[billybob]

55 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

Of course Billy, nobody is arguing that.  The US needs to have a dominant leadership role in space for all the reasons you listed, and for one important one you did not list, which is defense.

 

I don't have blind faith in in the infallibility of Elon Musk.  He has demonstrated failures in several ventures and one of his latest "visions" is terrestrial rocketship travel which is not now and never will be economically feasible.  He is a good pitchman but some of us don't look at hype, we look at facts.  

Forgot defense yet, keeping the focus on economics, somewhat. A black Pentagon budget that the public never sees may boggle the mind for some time.

No doubt, at least in my mind that DARPA are continuing to do their thing, behind the scenes. This last, private should not just through caution to the wind when the subject is good stewardship in space, or own the good green earth...

 

21 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I'm telling you guys the budget restraints makes all of this a moot issue.

That is why the answer is private enterprise such as the SpaceX. Short answer but, watching the tube with Nan and do not have the time to oroperly respond to this. NASA is or has been already willing to step aside somewhat. It would require this as, private cannot be hampered by the constraints placed upon them. Time is a crux of this discussion since I joined you good people. We are behind the time, IMLO

Thanks, Billy

[Mallette]

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

It seems when NASA has a failure people die at Taxpayers expense and then the population wants answers. 

Fixing and flying are answers enough.  We didn't stop WWII when people died and we were loosing.  We fixed it and moved on. 

Dave