SpaceX launches Falcon Heavy successfully - biggest rocket since Saturn V

[EGarrett]

It has seeped into pop culture. The new Star Trek Series. Discovery. I like it. In an early episode somebody says "You could be the next Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, or Elon Musk." Implying that Musk will be as revered in the future as guys on that level. I am not sure which examples were used specifically. But it was people like Einstein and Newton and Musk was added. lol. I shook my head.

 

[EGarrett]

That place is pretty overrated on the whole, although the faculty certainly isn't but that's just the thing: to take up residence there you'd of already had to make fundamental, career-best contributions to your respective field and that ordinarily happens about once in a lifetime, if you're extremely talented. Richard Feynman had some pretty scathing words for the IAS. As you probably know, Richard Feynman is arguably the greatest post-WW2 physicist in history as well as Top 10 all-time. Nobody is going to tell Richard Feynman anything. Dyson knows.

When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK?

So they don't get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do something, and they're not getting any ideas. I believe that in a situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you, and you begin to worry about not getting any ideas. And nothing happens. Still no ideas come. Nothing happens because there's not enough real activity and challenge: You're not in contact with the experimental guys. You don't have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing!"



Brilliant sonofabitch.

I've read "Surely You're Joking" and "What do you care what other people think." Different people work different ways, Einstein, for example, preferred to be alone and either walk around aimlessly or play his violin. Ramanujan liked to scribble on his slate all day and have his mother only bother him to put rice bowls in his hand.

Other people get ideas from interacting with others. A place like the IAS or other institutes for advanced study (who are collected, awkwardly enough, as an organization called "Some Institutes for Advanced Study,") are better for people who like isolation.

 

[Phr3121]

This was very cool to see SpaceX invigorate space exploration and aerospace engineering.

Top rating avatar. Please do share more pictures...

 

[Phr3121]

@Phr3121 loves this shit, almost as much as talking about the development of the a-bomb. America used to go balls to the wall.

Indeed. Two great human achievements. Apollo 11 (Saturn V) and the Atom Bomb. Missed out on both - the live version. Planning to be there for the SLS launch in two years if all goes according to plan. Rockets and nuclear physics. Great topics. Better than talking about women we are never going to sleep with or BJJ.

Nice old simple video. Nuclear Physics 101. How to build your own Atom Bomb. This through the fission method using U235. I have lots of Uranium 238 in my collection. Also, nuclear propulsion for rockets. Both topics combined.

 

[V-2]

It has seeped into pop culture. The new Star Trek Series. Discovery. I like it. In an early episode somebody says "You could be the next Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, or Elon Musk." Implying that Musk will be as revered in the future as guys on that level. I am not sure which examples were used specifically. But it was people like Einstein and Newton and Musk was added. lol. I shook my head.

There really isn't much doubt in my mind that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are the greatest scientists to have walked the Earth as it pertains to the physical sciences and probably even overall, but James Clerk Maxwell is the bridge between them who I'd put about on the same tier and is criminally underrated.

His primary work on electromagnetism underpins virtually all electric, radio and optical technology in the world, he dropped the greatest 'mission statement' in the history of science IMO and ushered in modern theoretical physics, he's responsible for taking the world's first color photograph, laying the foundation of control theory and cybernetics, introducing statistical methods into physics, conducting the first effective scientific thought experiment (Maxwell's demon), showing how polarized light can be used to reveal strain patterns in a structure and was the first to suggest using a centrifuge to separate gases.

He died at 48 and much like elder collaborator and fellow genius Michael Faraday was - as a human being - a man of utterly exceptional character and principles. He's on the highest of tiers in the history of humanity.

 

[Phr3121]

There really isn't much doubt in my mind that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are the greatest scientists to have walked the Earth as it pertains to the physical sciences and probably even overall, but James Clerk Maxwell is the bridge between them who I'd put about on the same tier and is criminally underrated.

What exactly are you studying in Germany, or have you already graduated? You have a scientific mind and know a lot about the big players. Just a handful would fall into that category here on Sherdog. I'm not one of them. A MMA site of all places...

 

[ralphc1]

It ran out of fuel, central core burned for longer than the side boosters.

They knew how long it had to burn. The time scale is on the launch video. If they ran out of fuel, that would require a redesign of the core to hold more fuel.

 

[V-2]

What exactly are you studying in Germany, or have you already graduated? You have a scientific mind and know a lot about the big players. Just a handful would fall into that category here on Sherdog. I'm not one of them. A MMA site of all places...

The clue is in my custom title (still studying), though I think information has been crossed up through our convos across different threads over the last year because I haven't been in Germany since 2014 and quite a bit has gone down over the last four years as you might've heard. I'm not big on touting or discussing my personal stuff tbh (maybe off the main), even though I posted a virtual timeline of self photos here. I'm content with my genetics.

 

[Phr3121]

he clue is in my custom title (still studying)....I'm not big on touting or discussing my personal stuff tbh (maybe off the main), even though I posted a virtual timeline of self photos here.

Biology? Yeah, I saw the photos. Didn't realize you weren't in Germany.

 

[V-2]

Biology? Yeah, I saw the photos. Didn't realize you weren't in Germany.

I suppose in an interdisciplinary sense of informing it, i.e. nitrogenous bases compose the nucleotides that are the backbone of DNA. Bio-Chemistry, Molecular Biology and Genetics are pretty closely related fields though on the whole I tend to prefer the exactness of the physical sciences and there's good reasons for why they are.

Applied mathematics is a big one and while biology has been increasingly brought to heel it's still different levels and major reason for the far more provisional language in the life sciences whereas the physical is pretty much constant across space and time, for instance any hydrogen atom is identical to any other in existence and they are the same now as they were billions of years ago. Organisms dont abide by such robust rules and they're also historical with factors such as natural selection to take into consideration.

 

[Phr3121]

Organisms dont abide by such robust rules and they're also historical with factors such as natural selection to take into consideration.

No two snowflakes are alike or fingerprints. But combined: Biology, Chemistry, and Physics - as in animal (human) life, it makes me believe in a higher power. The odds of all the things that have to come together for its existence (life) in the universe is truly amazing.

 

[Cocrehamster]

Getting ready to start a thread on your boy Musk and Tesla.

"Elon Musk’s immense self-regard has led him to believe his company can do things differently from the way other automakers do them. He has special insights and visions that afford him the luxury of shortcuts. But what seems to him a special vision and understanding seems a prodigious arrogance and ignorance. By far the most important subsidy has been the $7,500 U.S. federal tax credit. If the Tesla buyer could not make use of it, then the leasing company could."

"But for Tesla, the end is near. That credit will be slashed in half in Q4, and will disappear altogether in 2019. Meanwhile, Tesla's competitors will have lots more running room. Tesla Is Structurally Bankrupt. Even once it ramps up Model 3 production, Tesla still will be losing hundreds of millions each quarter. As CoverDrive has spelled out, the company is structurally bankrupt - which is to say it depends completely on continued capital infusions for its survival."

Good for you. I am a fan of what the guy is doing, and I hope Tesla survives and prospers. We'll see what happens there.

SpaceX does not have the financial issues that Tesla does, so I don't see what this has to do with SpaceX. Let me try to explain to you why I don't think it's fair to compare Blue Origin's accomplishments to SpaceX at this point in time:

1. SpaceX vs Blue Origin
I previously stated this, but New Shepard, the only currently operational Blue Origin rocket, is not capable of reaching orbit. They have landed it, and that's a huge accomplishment, by delivering cargo to orbit is an entirely different ballgame from my understanding, and I think it makes intuitive sense. I have no doubt that Blue Origin will be able to accomplish this with New Glenn, but who knows when they will accomplish it. Building and launching a new rocket is hard, and can experience significant delays regardless of funding. This is why I don't think it's fair to say that they are right behind SpaceX based on their accomplishments with New Shepard and their future plans.

Russia achieved orbit before the USA reached space; I'm not implying that Blue Origin cannot catch up. I'm just saying, from my view, that they are far behind at the current moment.

I hope that they are successful, and that New Glenn launches ASAP. I can assure you, I will be watching, and I hope that they do informative webcasts like SpaceX does.

2. SLS

The reason I think that SLS is a waste of money, is because of the rockets that SpaceX (BFR), Blue Origin (New Armstrong), and other aerospace companies are building. I think they would be better off using that funding on missions, and using a private launch operator. What is the point of building a non-reusable, costly to launch rocket, when there are other, much cheaper rockets, capable to doing as much and more?

Buzz Aldrin's comments make a lot of sense to me. Is there something I'm missing? I'm not trying to argue just to argue.​

“In recent years, Aldrin has used his astronautics expertise and fame to push a cycler concept that he believes would be the best way to visit and eventually inhabit Mars. In his public lectures, however, Aldrin has largely avoided criticizing the present approach being taken by NASA with the development of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft and its two-decade "Journey to Mars."

That changed at this week's Humans to Mars conference. In his remarks, Aldrin said NASA should change the approach it has had in place since the 1960s, that of designing and managing development of its own rockets. He took direct aim at the SLS vehicle, which he reminded listeners was based on 1970s technology and the space shuttle rather than more modern concepts. "It competes with the private sector," Aldrin said. "I thought most of us were in the process of learning that the government shouldn't do that."

Aldrin was referring to efforts by SpaceX to develop the Falcon Heavy rocket, which has a launch capacity of 54 metric tons to low-Earth orbit (the SLS will have an initial capacity of 70 metric tons). Independent estimates suggest the SLS will cost more than the Falcon Heavy for each launch by at least a factor of 10.

During his remarks Aldrin also suggested NASA's Orion spacecraft didn't serve much of a purpose, in his view, for a Mars exploration program. "It's rather marginal for its use at Mars," Aldrin said, adding that he viewed commercial spacecraft as better options for transporting astronauts into low-Earth orbit and onto the Moon as staging locations for Mars missions. "I'm not sure I see where Orion fits in there," he said.”

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...sa-should-focus-less-on-rockets-more-on-tech/

 

[EGarrett]

There really isn't much doubt in my mind that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein are the greatest scientists to have walked the Earth as it pertains to the physical sciences and probably even overall, but James Clerk Maxwell is the bridge between them who I'd put about on the same tier and is criminally underrated.

His primary work on electromagnetism underpins virtually all electric, radio and optical technology in the world, he dropped the greatest 'mission statement' in the history of science IMO and ushered in modern theoretical physics, he's responsible for taking the world's first color photograph, laying the foundation of control theory and cybernetics, introducing statistical methods into physics, conducting the first effective scientific thought experiment (Maxwell's demon), showing how polarized light can be used to reveal strain patterns in a structure and was the first to suggest using a centrifuge to separate gases.

He died at 48 and much like elder collaborator and fellow genius Michael Faraday was - as a human being - a man of utterly exceptional character and principles. He's on the highest of tiers in the history of humanity.

Yeah, I get Faraday and Clerk Maxwell confused a lot. I know one of them had essentially no scientific training and was a pure autodidactic. That's one of the most effective ways to learn.

To me, a real genius doesn't need a budget. They're the guys who take a notebook and a pencil, or a garage and spare parts, or a ratty old computer and a book on coding, and do something earth-shaking.

Musk is obviously a smart guy, but if he wants to be labeled with the "g-word," that's what he needs to do. Forget the billions of dollars and all the loans and subsidies. Show me what you can do with 0.

 

[EGarrett]

Good for you. I am a fan of what the guy is doing, and I hope Tesla survives and prospers. We'll see what happens there.

SpaceX does not have the financial issues that Tesla does, so I don't see what this has to do with SpaceX. Let me try to explain to you why I don't think it's fair to compare Blue Origin's accomplishments to SpaceX at this point in time:

1. SpaceX vs Blue Origin
I previously stated this, but New Shepard, the only currently operational Blue Origin rocket, is not capable of reaching orbit. They have landed it, and that's a huge accomplishment, by delivering cargo to orbit is an entirely different ballgame from my understanding, and I think it makes intuitive sense. I have no doubt that Blue Origin will be able to accomplish this with New Glenn, but who knows when they will accomplish it. Building and launching a new rocket is hard, and can experience significant delays regardless of funding. This is why I don't think it's fair to say that they are right behind SpaceX based on their accomplishments with New Shepard and their future plans.

Russia achieved orbit before the USA reached space; I'm not implying that Blue Origin cannot catch up. I'm just saying, from my view, that they are far behind at the current moment.

I hope that they are successful, and that New Glenn launches ASAP. I can assure you, I will be watching, and I hope that they do informative webcasts like SpaceX does.

2. SLS

The reason I think that SLS is a waste of money, is because of the rockets that SpaceX (BFR), Blue Origin (New Armstrong), and other aerospace companies are building. I think they would be better off using that funding on missions, and using a private launch operator. What is the point of building a non-reusable, costly to launch rocket, when there are other, much cheaper rockets, capable to doing as much and more?

Buzz Aldrin's comments make a lot of sense to me. Is there something I'm missing? I'm not trying to argue just to argue.​

“In recent years, Aldrin has used his astronautics expertise and fame to push a cycler concept that he believes would be the best way to visit and eventually inhabit Mars. In his public lectures, however, Aldrin has largely avoided criticizing the present approach being taken by NASA with the development of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft and its two-decade "Journey to Mars."

That changed at this week's Humans to Mars conference. In his remarks, Aldrin said NASA should change the approach it has had in place since the 1960s, that of designing and managing development of its own rockets. He took direct aim at the SLS vehicle, which he reminded listeners was based on 1970s technology and the space shuttle rather than more modern concepts. "It competes with the private sector," Aldrin said. "I thought most of us were in the process of learning that the government shouldn't do that."

Aldrin was referring to efforts by SpaceX to develop the Falcon Heavy rocket, which has a launch capacity of 54 metric tons to low-Earth orbit (the SLS will have an initial capacity of 70 metric tons). Independent estimates suggest the SLS will cost more than the Falcon Heavy for each launch by at least a factor of 10.

During his remarks Aldrin also suggested NASA's Orion spacecraft didn't serve much of a purpose, in his view, for a Mars exploration program. "It's rather marginal for its use at Mars," Aldrin said, adding that he viewed commercial spacecraft as better options for transporting astronauts into low-Earth orbit and onto the Moon as staging locations for Mars missions. "I'm not sure I see where Orion fits in there," he said.”

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...sa-should-focus-less-on-rockets-more-on-tech/

Well-reasoned post. It is good to know that there are intelligent, mature and thoughtful people who also support Musk.

 

[EGarrett]

No. NASA is helping fund SpaceX. But yeah, a car is space 'trash'. There are so many other things that could have gone up as rocket cargo. When Jeff Bezos sends up his next Blue Origin rocket, it will have the yellow rubber duck in orbit. Blue Origin has no funding from NASA.

I will actually defend Musk on this one subset of a point. Yeah, it's not his money, but ignoring that...there are thousands of people he could've consulted on things to send up into orbit, he would've gotten thousands of requests and proposals. Nobody would want to be buried in that nonsense.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

It’s all bulls hit, earth is flat, this shit is just some cgi stuff made by nasa

 

[V-2]

 

[ShinkanPo]

Indeed. Two great human achievements. Apollo 11 (Saturn V) and the Atom Bomb. Missed out on both - the live version. Planning to be there for the SLS launch in two years if all goes according to plan. Rockets and nuclear physics. Great topics. Better than talking about women we are never going to sleep with or BJJ.

Nice old simple video. Nuclear Physics 101. How to build your own Atom Bomb. This through the fission method using U235. I have lots of Uranium 238 in my collection. Also, nuclear propulsion for rockets. Both topics combined.

I am not good with math but I love to geek out about Space exploration,Physics,Weapons, and Rocketeering

 

[GhostZ06]

looks like nasa is developing nuclear propulsion technology

 

[GhostZ06]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...t-use-nuclear-powered-rockets-reach-Mars.html