... and an inspiration!
I'm done with CRUD-ing my life away. It's time to tackle some hard problems.
I think I'm still young enough (26) to retrain. I'm not a US citzen, but screw it. This is the future, and I will be a part of it.
Mission control in 2012: http://i.imgur.com/xevZj.jpg
This is indeed the future I was promised as a child.
Nowdays most of this really isn't necessary of course. The media can watch the same screens from a different room and the workers can share the same view on different computers and work in pretty much any room large enough to fit them all. It is still somehow important though to have everyone in the same room (mission control still isn't separate people in their own backyards connected over the internet)....
I'm veering wildy off topic but the way people perceive spaces is really interesting to me. A great example; The debating chamber of the Houses of Parliament was destroyed by a bomb in WW2. It was proposed to rebuild it larger to accommodate the higher number of MPs serving, so that everyone got a seat for busy debates. Churchill vetoed this because he felt that standing room only in the debating chamber was more dramatic and served to underline the importance of the discussion of serious issues.
I've been smiling for an hour now.
And a few moments in the vid which really show how much it means to the team:
Solar panels deploying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
The ground crew after the launch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
Well done, Americans! Be proud!
(non US citizen, fwiw)
Besides the economic factor the major hurdle is bureaucracy. If you are a small country you can be sure that all the big guys will want to know what you are going to do, how, when and they would probably even request a means to overhaul the operation if they deem it necessary. And that's just international bureaucracy. Most nation governments will probably never support you in such an endeavour anyway.
There is no way something like this is happening in NZ.
To be honest, I don't really get the hubbub about this launch. It's a business innovation, not a scientific one. We've been putting unmanned rockets into space for 70 years.
I just wish people had this kind of enthusiasm and press for every launch. There are great missions flown all the time and no one really cares. The SpaceX people are amazing, but so are the NASA, ESA, ISRO, Chinese, and Russians. All launches are beautiful and amazing.
The business innovation is what the hubbub is all about. People aren't excited because of the science, but because this is a watershed moment in the business of space.
All successful technological revolution have to pass through two critical phases, when it becomes possible and when it becomes profitable. This is a big step in phase two.
But it's not only for what they did with this launch. The rocket meets NASA's requirements for carrying humans, once they finish building an escape system. It's also a lot cheaper per pound of cargo than what we've been using.
A successful dock with the ISS will mean they're well on track to carry astronauts there, and to carry tourists to Bigelow's orbital hotel.
So far there have been only two successful manned space programs, both run by superpower governments. Now it looks like a fairly small private company is going to pull it off. That's a pretty big step forward.
Co-incidentally I read a post on HN this morning arguing that the iPhone wasn't special. We already had phones, and palm computers, and downloadable apps. It was no big deal.
In the case of both SpaceX and Apple thy've taken something that's existed already, but made it accessible. With SaceX the massively reduced costs has made dreams possible that we all thought were dead. With the iPhone they made a hand computer that my wife's sister, who's hardly ever used a computer in her life, could pick up and understand and fall in love with in minutes.
When you take an existing technology, but cut the barriers to entry radically lower (barriers in terms of cost, or usability, whatever) then you have something special. Amazon did this with online shopping, facebook did it with social networks (orkut was a clunky piece of junk - been there). Instagram did it with photo sharing, dropbox did it with file sharing.
Identify barriers, in whatever form you find them, and knock them flat. That's where the opportunities are.
"And the next day is... Hatch opening day!! YAY!!!" <Does the Happy Dance>
"Everything is, uh, go, so we're ready to rock'n'roll!!!"
I get the sense that the enthusiasm is completely unscripted.
Really reminds me the Idiocracy movie...
My point isn't entirely moot though. I still think knowing things about almost a billion people, namely what & when they do things, has more proof of value today than these contracts. The cool factor doesn't necessarily mean money.
(What 'money' itself means and how it represents value is a totally different discussion)
Moreover, this Falcon 9 launch was part of a commercial contract with NASA to provide supplies to ISS over the next few years (12 additional flights in addition to this demo). When someone signs a contract with you and gives you money in exchange for goods and services we call that business.
Today you are doing web stuff. Tomorrow...
I bet that people in the 60s/70s were thinking the same.
There will be web apps on Mars too. The question is - will they still be slower than native?
You are not really cut out, but the communication is not interactive and you can only play round based online games.
I still hope quantum entanglement can be used as a communication tool.
Quantum entanglement might still be used for communication. See quantum cryptography
At 21,000 meters, the U-2 didn't fly that high. That's only a half marathon, and many people can run that distance easily.
In other words, I fail to understand your point, even omitting the 7.9km/second sideways velocity for LEO.
Most of the difficulty to orbit isn't distance, it's the amount of energy it takes to get something moving that fast.
Actually it's much, much worse than that, because it's actually the change in momentum involved.
I think it's logarithmic, but my math is bad.
The problem is the rocket equation. Yes, there's a natural log in there, but working against our favor.
Apparently they couldn't do it this time due to the narrowness of the launch window, not because they couldn't be ready again in a few hours.
And away she goes
Way to go, Elon! If you can keep this up, history isn't going to forget you.
Buzz Aldrin is now the major of The Moon.
Foursquare: Elon Musk has become the Mayor of Mars.
This launch blew all of that away. I just have to figure out how to present it to my seven year old.
Godspeed and all the best, SpaceX.
Guys, don't beat up other startups and people on what they are doing or will do.
Celebrate this for what it is.
Many of the SpaceX controllers wore untucked T-shirts and jeans or even shorts, a stark contrast to NASA’s old suit-and-tie shuttle team.
Congrats to SpaceX for a successful launch!
Solar arrays deployed at T+11:50! And the crowd goes wild!
UPDATE: from :
Thursday May 24th - approaching station and maneuvering, Friday May 25th - docking, May 31st - return trip to Earth.
Unless you count Quicktime or WMP.
I only noticed it because the Twitter feed updated correctly...
(Edit: Poking around some more it seems the problem occurs when changing the quality setting.)
NasaTV has their own video at youtube, but I'd be more interested of the SpaceX version (apparently they were separate streams).
Engineer billionaire playboy CEOs for the win!
The Falcon 9 is actually a fairly incremental upgrade from the Falcon 1: essentially identical engines; nearly identical avionics; just much bigger tanks and more complicated plumbing. It's evident now that this approach has really paid off for them.
Similarly, by the time they'll fly a Heavy, they'll have at least five Falcon 9 flights under their belt. And the Heavy is not really much more of a step change from the Falcon 9 than the Falcon 9 was from the Falcon 1: just a lot more of the same engines; very similar avionics, and more complicated plumbing due to the propellant cross-feed system. So, not THAT big a step technically, despite its outrageous payload capabilities.
Only the first flight did anything close to "blow up", and the payload was recovered largely structurally intact (sensitive components irreparable). It would almost certainly have been survivable in an LES-equipped capsule.
Flights 2 and 3 were prevented from reaching orbit but did not blow up, catch fire, or do anything else that would have precluded a safe, if rather early, return of the crew.
All three flights would certainly have been survivable if equipped with a LES; all three would certainly have led to loss of payload if not launching people. In any case, five flawless flights since then have demonstrated that they've learned quite a lot from those early experiences.
"Vehicle is supersonic."
I heard lots of cheering during the deployment of the solar array, I'm guessing past missions this has been the turning point?