Space exploration: Where do we go from here?

[LynahFan]

That doesn't answer the question. They are now 85% government funded - are they not incentivized to not f**l things up, or will the feds continue to fund them no matter what? Look beyond one single occurrence.

I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Their “government funding” is in the form of payment for launch services, not R&D grants. When SpaceX launches from Cape Canaveral, they follow all the rules (including environmental) that any user of that government facility would have to. Much as I hate Elmo and SpaceX, there’s nothing to quibble with there - they built a better mousetrap that meets a government mission need, and they are justly reaping the rewards (ie profits).

It’s what Musk chooses to do with those profits where it all goes wrong. Rather than something useful or responsible, he’s choosing to plow them into his corner-cutting environment-ruining ego-ballooning disaster of a garage band. So far as I can tell, the US taxpayers have not invested a single penny into the Starship enterprise (if you’ll forgive the pun).

[dxmnkd316]

I still can't believe the destruction of the pad and surrounding area all because Musk "doesn't like the look of flame diverters or water suppression."

It's these little corners that they cut that just does not leave me with warm fuzzy feelings about NASA using SpaceX so heavily.

It's like Musk's ego couldn't handle 80 years of rocketry history and experience and threw it all out the window to "reinvent the wheel."

Tens of tiny rocket engines versus fewer and larger? The Soviets proved this was a problem, and scrapped it in favor of the tried and true bigger but fewer engines.

Flame diverter / water sound suppression? NASA, the Soviets, hell China figured that out long ago.

Launch pad design that doesn't resemble a roasted chicken stand? Again, Every space agency figured that sh*t out.

Rocket stage separation? SpaceX went pneumatic, instead of explosive bolts like every other rocket company.


It honestly wouldn't surprise me if you told me Musk doesn't like the ink in space pens AND hates that pencil lead can break in the capsule, so he's even having SpaceX engineer a new space pen.

I didn't know super heavy had 33 until this week. I immediately messaged my coworkers before the explosion and said "Lmao, sure let's take the most complicated and important part of the rocket and slap three dozen of them on there"

just insane.

lol. I called it a turkey fryer stand.

[Slap Shot]

I really don’t understand what you’re getting at. Their “government funding” is in the form of payment for launch services, not R&D grants. When SpaceX launches from Cape Canaveral, they follow all the rules (including environmental) that any user of that government facility would have to. Much as I hate Elmo and SpaceX, there’s nothing to quibble with there - they built a better mousetrap that meets a government mission need, and they are justly reaping the rewards (ie profits).

It’s what Musk chooses to do with those profits where it all goes wrong. Rather than something Iuseful or responsible, he’s choosing to plow them into his corner-cutting environment-ruining ego-ballooning disaster of a garage band. So far as I can tell, the US taxpayers have not invested a single penny into the Starship enterprise (if you’ll forgive the pun).

My quote was a response to this:

Either they are overpaid and can do this debacle, or they are underpaid for this failure. But they get paid for putting stuff in orbit, and 85% of that payment is our tax dollars.

[LynahFan]

My quote was a response to this:

Right, but their Falcon/Dragon based launch service (which apparently derives 85% of its revenue from government contracts) has nothing to do with their bumbling Starship project. The implication of that quote you responded to was “how can taxpayers be wasting money on Starship???” Which we aren’t.

The starship dollars are Musk’s dollars which he could be spending on real estate in Tahiti, but he’s choosing to repeatedly give himself public black eyes instead. Now, if he’s using that money to get the government to look the other way on safety or environmental impacts, there’s a major problem with that, of course.

[MichVandal]

Right, but their Falcon/Dragon based launch service (which apparently derives 85% of its revenue from government contracts) has nothing to do with their bumbling Starship project. The implication of that quote you responded to was “how can taxpayers be wasting money on Starship???” Which we aren’t.

The starship dollars are Musk’s dollars which he could be spending on real estate in Tahiti, but he’s choosing to repeatedly give himself public black eyes instead. Now, if he’s using that money to get the government to look the other way on safety or environmental impacts, there’s a major problem with that, of course.

So we are over paying for the service? If they have so much to waste like that. It was more waste than benefit.

[dxmnkd316]

So we are over paying for the service? If they have so much to waste like that. It was more waste than benefit.

Overpaying relative to what? Like, there are three or four acts in town. ESA, SpaceX, NASA (really just an agglomeration of contractors), and does blue horizons do contract work? So basically overpaying is relative to what you can get these three or four down to in costs.

It's a good question though.

[MichVandal]

Overpaying relative to what? Like, there are three or four acts in town. ESA, SpaceX, NASA (really just an agglomeration of contractors), and does blue horizons do contract work? So basically overpaying is relative to what you can get these three or four down to in costs.

It's a good question though.

Overpaying for how much it costs spacex, with all of what they have to waste on that kind of launch.

speed and cutting corners works if it happens to work, but it ends up being more expensive when it fails, especially when so much goes bad.

[LynahFan]

If your competitor makes toasters for $10 and sells them for $20, are you doing something wrong/unethical if you can make a toaster for $6 but are selling it for $19.99?

Are the people paying $19.99 overpaying?

First rule of business strategy: price and cost are independent variables.

[MichVandal]

Ok, but can they at least stop pretending everything went well. They rushed, it failed. There were more bad things than good ones.

it’s fine they want to do this, but that was more like Soviet embarrassment than NASA. Even the reaction.

[unofan]

If your competitor makes toasters for $10 and sells them for $20, are you doing something wrong/unethical if you can make a toaster for $6 but are selling it for $19.99?

Are the people paying $19.99 overpaying?

If you are creating market barriers preventing people from entering the market to sell toasters at $19.98, then yes. And if those barriers are inherent, that speaks to market failures and greater government controls over toasters to ensure people aren't overpaying.

[LynahFan]

If you are creating market barriers preventing people from entering the market to sell toasters at $19.98, then yes. And if those barriers are inherent, that speaks to market failures and greater government controls over toasters to ensure people aren't overpaying.

…..aaaaannd we are officially into conspiracy guess (not even theory) territory.

Shall we make a list of all the bad things that a company might do and explicitly state, one by one, that SpaceX would be in the wrong IF they were doing that?

[unofan]

…..aaaaannd we are officially into conspiracy guess (not even theory) territory.

Shall we make a list of all the bad things that a company might do and explicitly state, one by one, that SpaceX would be in the wrong IF they were doing that?

You threw the hypothetical out there. The only way to know if a $19.99 price means people are paying too much is if you provide more information. Without that, any answer has to be qualified.

[Kepler]

Saturn's moons may have oceans warm enough to support life.

Uranus has 27 moons, but the researchers focused on the five largest, which are Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon and Miranda. Of these, Ariel is the smallest at 720 miles (1,160 kilometers) across, while Titania is the largest at 980 miles (1,580 km) across.

Previously, scientists thought only Tatiana was likely to generate any internal heat via radioactive decay — the process by which unstable atoms lose energy through radiation — believing the other moons to be too small.

However, modeling the other moons' porosity suggested that all but Miranda are insulated enough to retain internal heat created by radioactive decay.

The researchers also found that any potential oceans beneath the icy crusts of these moons would be rich in chlorides, ammonia and salts, both of which would lower the freezing point of the water. The combination of a low freezing point and enough internal heat could mean that Ariel, Umbrial, Titania and Oberon all have oceans dozens of miles deep within their interiors, the researchers reported.

[dxmnkd316]

Drill baby drill

[Kepler]

Every once in a while, somebody combines amazing science with a night of off the chain drinking, and the result is wonderful.

TLDR: a bunch of really smart NASA scientists were thinking about all the deep space probes we have. They thought about first contact. They thought about trajectory and telemetry. They thought about signals. They went to dinner, and then, after, they got really high, and then they started actually thinking interestingly.

And the result is which star systems will get our probes' signals first -- in other words, a betting pool on who's going to call back first.



And yeah, you read that right. First potential callback is in 6 years. That will be the first time in ALL of human history (200,000 years) we find out if we're f-cked. And you and I -- well, you anyway -- are going to be here for it.

The odds are low but the stakes are... high.