AngelLestat

Warzouz: you fall in his trap.. K2 is an evil guy You need to spent infinite energy if you dont want to fall in that point (event horizon).

Yeah is like Deutherius said. But well, telescopes in earth had better accuracy than that I guess. Not if you focus.. You will choice what is your focus distance. But you need to take into account the angular speed needed to aim. If this thing is at 100 km, then your angular velocity needed to aim (even if you have 14m/s speed difference) it will be very low. Is like when you travel in car, all the signs at the side of the route are hard to follow with the view, but not the things that are far away.

You are saying the same thing.. question if the evidence is valid, equal to find evidence to prove or disprove the first evidence. So if you find evidence which disprove the evidence that proves the theory, then you are finding evidence to disprove the theory. In that case this guy is a magician. He is doing many test in tv, it may be some tricks behind all that (I will not denied that) but still, the test looks convincing. So even if it uses tricks.. those tricks allow it to acomplish those things.I find this material when I was searching a possible material light and not flammable to use as envelope or envelope addom for a hydrogen airship. If resist an hydrogen-air flame, then it works. Of course, we need to know if the material does not degrade with the time.. or any other drawback. It will be nice to find a official record of these test done by nasa. When they mention the laser test, maybe they are saying that with steal, that laser reach 10000c, but starlite survive the same test. I have the same doubts, but I will like to have some extra evidence to have a more accurate opinion.. Right now I am in 50% 50%, a place where I dont like to be.

It will be a little harder to reach a rought number in this case.. If they are the owners and they are not renting, then the cost does not change so much. But yeah, not sure about the cost of this.

It looks like a good idea in case it works.. I find hard to believe that they can reach objects of 1cm at 100km range and be able to push them in the correct direction.

We manage to reach 3.6 billions of degress.. so.. what is your point? http://www.livescience.com/614-record-set-hottest-temperature-earth-3-6-billion-degrees-lab.html

We can make our predictions using as example the design of each living being on earth, that would increase the chances to be more accurate in our predictions.. But this doesn´t mean that the most common design type of intelligent life (or just life) is like us, maybe life on earth is not the rule.. perhaps is the exception. Life on earth already gave us a clue, we all descended from a common ancestor, but now we have 2 millions species which each one is very different from the other, then we need to count all the designs which fail due extreme causes over the past, that will rise the number a lot. And that is just 1 example from a common anscestor (which it may be thousands of possible types) and from 1 enviroment (which it may be millions of different types). Then taking into account all that.. the people who said that they can predict how alien life would look like, are crazy. We dont have the intelligence, neither the creativity and neither the imagination to such task. Look a cat and see the logic behind its design doesn´t require much intelligence. First we know that if survive all that long, then is doing something right, but a cat is very complex, is not just skin, legs and eyes; you also have a nervous system, protection against germs, etc. So if you want to imagine a different creature from scratch, you need to take into account all that, because its survival chance depends of many factors which may be very different in different enviroments. Replicator: We dont know how it was our replicator base, but involve into a system called ADN. This molecule carry all the information to design the whole being, it has a complex mechanism to choose what info select depending in its current position over the being. But this is the only possible system base for life? If we try we can imagine many different possible mechanism to produce living beings. Is hard.. but we know that there is always many solutions for a single problem. Intelligence: All animals are intelligent in their own way, they analyze situations and act accordy all the time, our antropologic centered view always manage to put a barrier between animals and we, animals acts with instincts, we use our intelligence-- we always said... To those who study animal behavior knows that this type of thinking is very dumb of our part. Culture is what it gave us all the things we accomplish and see all days. Culture involves super fast, so maybe an small change in a different species may allow it to transmit its experiences and knowledge to the next generations with a way to save that info. In that case they would be the higher develope species instead us, and it doesn´t has nothing to do with what they eat our if they have hands or not. Culture overseed all those issues.

That is not logic.. that is lack of information.. Your will find the answer if you keep reading post on this topic. But I guess you wouldn´t, because you dont wanna find how wrong you are. Even if your electric source is 50% or 80% carbon. Electric cars will pollute much less than gasoline cars.

Which is the photon sphere.

At least quote the thing you want me to read. That is a huge reddit discussion, and is not a trusted source. Is true that they forgotted for the moment about reusing the second stage and that right now are more focus in the Mars program. But you can not take nothing definitive.. Its goal still is full recovery, so if they found the way they will do it. "nobody" believe them either about its possible success as a launch company at the begining, but here they are.. with the lower prices in the world. Maybe they are where they are because they know something that others do not. Ok, I missread you. So your opinion stand in only a 10% of lower cost if they accomplish return the first stage save in all launchs? I guess that 10% can be accomplish in 2016 already (for the contracts made that year) even if they are not sure how to return all first stages safety yet. 3500 employess, they are not all enginners, you have turners, people on sales, software, secretaries, average workers and some engineers. An enginner lv 3 salary is close 100000 anual, so lets calculate an average of 70000 for each employe, that give us 245 millions anual, now remember that half of these employes work in development for the mars program or working in all the new technology that they need. But all that money comes from investments, not from the profits of the falcon9, some of the profits from falcon9 can be focus in some development of the same falcon, but thats it. Those employess did 24 first stage core and similar amount of second stages in one year, ahh.. but I forget that those employess are in fact included in the rocket cost.. so they dont need to be included.. But well the company can sale right now 24 flight by year, at 53 millions we have 1300 millions anual. But in fact the funds that spacex receive (which count the half of their launch) is 1 billion by year aproximmaly. So we are talking of a rought number of 30% of its employess working in the administration cost of the falcon family? That is less than 10% of the total launch cost. But that cost is not fixed.. because if you recover all stages, then you dont need to keep doing rockets, so you have a lot of employess which can work in assembly and maintainence, which you can rise the amount of launchs without increase your employess (working in that area). Also the employess which makes all the calculations about fuel leves and design for each payload, they will start to make all calculations more fast, because they already had experience with many different size and weight payloads. Each time you increase the launch rate all becomes more automated which reduce a lot the cost. So the employess cost is not fixed either. It all depends on your launch rate. And if you recovery the stages, that launch rate increase a lot.

I founded, is from the 2004 :s http://trajectory.grc.nasa.gov/aboutus/papers/STAIF-2003-177.pdf But as so many said.. if spacex acomplish to low the prices enoght and Space Agencies start to accept a little more risk and become more greedy. Then all this schedule will be almost possible. The problem that if you want to leave some colonies in mars, or venus or wherever you choose.. that will complicate the fund to different manned missions.

Can you post your sources??

It said that the same laser capable to do a 2 inches (not sure, I dont remember) hole on a steal stick, doesn´t do much to the starlite (maybe because its reflect a big part, not sure) And the temperature can be measured from the steal experiment or maybe from the upper surface of the starline. It doesn´t. But is not enoght evidence to point that is false. I personally believe that it may be not so good in some cases, but the videos, comments and test of the drawbacks were forgoten and now we see only the good virtues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program "published cost of US$56.5 million per launch to low Earth orbit, "Falcon 9 rockets are already the cheapest in the industry. Reusable Falcon 9s could drop the price by an order of magnitude, " "SpaceX has said that if they are successful in developing the reusable technology, launch prices of around US$5 to 7 million for a reusable Falcon 9 are possible" Ah I forget to count those penies, time to spent them in Ice cream, yumm. What about short rotor blades as I said to remplace the fins? Parachutes can not be guided at least they are parasails, but their lateral velocity is hard to counter for lands. Ah my bad, you said that recover the first stage will reduce the cost only by a 10% instead 30%. Against my bet that it will be 70% just for the first stage (in case they are at least 95% sure that they can recover without crash). Now in the last post you said 60% which is not very different than my 70%, LOL Welcome to the spacex side.. Your words: "SpaceX is going to reuse the first stage of their rocket. Reusing one part of the rocket does not generate huge savings in the total launch cost, so this might optimistically translate into a 10% price reduction for customers, bringing the cost of a launch from $60 million to $55 million" http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83102-Best-energy-alternatives-to-stop-global-warming?p=1234903&viewfull=1#post1234903 Also not all companies are the same.. There are companies which has 10% cost in product/services and 90% in workers and others had 90% cost in product and 10% in workers. It all depends... Do not use anologies if they haven´t practical comparison.

Somebody read my solution to the ring problem? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115522-Super-Massive-Station-In-Orbit?p=1836871&viewfull=1#post1836871 I can make a draw if is not clear enoght.

I remember when you said it that the rocket represent only the 30% of the cost.. now it seems that is the 60%.. Few months more and you will said 80%.. Then when spacex achieve this you will said that this was always your opinion and that you disagree in other matter... Also 90% for just recovery the first stage, I never said that. It can be 70% or 80%, but I mention many times and elon musk too, that huge saving cost are only possible if you recover all the stages in the same pad being ready to launch again in few days. If you dont recover the upper stage you still have a bottleneck in your operations which slow down all. Because each upperstage will still require extensive testing before each launch. So if you can not launch very often, then you can not drop much the prices because you can not deal with the demand. Plus the testing cost and hardware cost from the upper stage. That is not where the discussion start.. It was here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83102-Best-energy-alternatives-to-stop-global-warming?p=1239707&viewfull=1#post1239707 Also here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108756-SpaceX-Falcon-Heavy/page7?highlight=spacex And it seems that the company (with all their scientist and enginners) who has the most chepeast prices in the market with only few years from start had the same opinion.

not land is not equal to do anything. Ground surface is not always the layer more valuable of each planet or satellite. What is the point to land in europa? The important layer there is the sea under the ice. In venus the important layer is at 50km height. Is the place more similar to earth in the whole solar system. There is the key to improve all our climate models and being able to predict with accuracy the global warming and the best way to countered. Just with that it has more use that any other planet can give us. But Venus is also more easy than mars (this is mention for the same NASA) and it has several and important advantages over mars to become our second home. You can explore with probes the surface of venus very easy. First land is not a problem.. you can land there even without parachutes.. Missions to venus always had like 80% of sucess instead of 50% of mars. There are already many probes designs that are small and can last a week exploring the surface. There is also electronics develope in gleem research center which can stand venus temperatures by months. But as I said.. the most important layer on venus is at 50km, not in its surface.

THey comment that for the first stage core/booster reusability an 11 tons launch will be still cheaper to use a falcon9 without reusability. That is because in the falcon heavy they still have problems about how to recovery the center core stage. When you said "we" you mean shynung and you? I (and some others) also explained lots of times why your logics and calculations are wrong. At this point when we both already propose our arguments and we find not agreement, the only we can do is wait and see who was right. About how much it will take to reduce the cost when they achieve to recovery the first stage/boosters, almost right away if their chances of success are high. This is because even if you dont need to reduce the prices much, they will do it anyway to the max they can for two reasons. 1- To show everybody they did what their promise, also this it will mean a clear evidence for investors that is a safe bet being so far from the competence and with good chances to control the space market in not time. This will produce also a lot of losses to their competence which it will be harder to reach them. 2- To encourage new bussiness oportunities in space and increase by a lot the amount of launchs by years, which is equal to how fast you can progress and reduce the cost even more. Never said never.. Never in this case means 5 years for the first tries or plan. I never said that any kind of payload will have those prices. But if for certain type of payload you get great discounts, then everybody will start to designs spacecrafts to fix those payload margins. I guess 3 short rotor blades at the side of the booster will full fill the fins duty even better and will provide much more control and chances to a soft landing using the autorotation effect. This also reduce the amount of fuel waste it. Like this but with shorter blades

But even if you can launch the half of the payload in full reusable mode, you reduce current spacex cost (which are already cheap) by more than a 90%, this counts for falcon 9 and falcon heavy. There are many missions which you dont need the full payload.

The amount of fuel needed to brake before re-enter in the atmosphere is similar than brake your latitude velocity and then back to the cape. They dint said this.. but is what I imagine.. That is why they want to do the next try on land, not because they are silly and they dint do the math before.

Kryten: The Falcon 1 was an expendable launch system privately developed and manufactured by SpaceX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1 NEWFLASH.. SpaceX only received money from darpa to design the Falcon 1.. it was not develope by them! Sorry, but your news channel does not give accurate info Is the same that the company Aero (with some others) received money for a darpa program which they need airships able to land and takeoff without external ballasts. But the aeroscraft design was 100% from Aeros. I guess you misunderstand the word develope with fund. And the SLS as I said and show in the link, was develope all by NASA, then once they have the design, they can give all the parameters to the contractors to do "some parts" and finish the design of procedures about its contruction. Or what? You think that each extra contractor will make one part of the rocket as they most want?

So you are saying that they dont develope launch systems? Really? I just read that these are the ones involve with the developement: The SLS Program at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., has been working closely with the Orion Program, managed by NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, and the Ground Systems development and Operations Programâ€â€the operations and launch facilities at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla. All three programs are managed by the Explorations Systems Development Division within the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. The other SLS agency partners include NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif, which is responsible for physics-based analysis; NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, which is responsible for omposites research and payload fairing development; NASA’s Goddard Space Center in Greenbelt, Md., which is responsible for payloads; NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., which is responsible for wind tunnel testing; NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility, which will manufacture and assemble the SLS core and upper stages, as well as the main propulsion system; and NASA’s Stennis Space Center, which is responsible for J-2X and RS-25 testing. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf But as you said.. they never develope launchers... About spacex first contract I know, In fact I said that spacex is paid to do that job.. but its design, develope, built and check is all on them.

Really? So why they have the nasa´s glenn research center, nasa's Ames Research Center, Nasa Langley Research Center, George Marshall Space Flight Center, and some others that they may have. Where is being develope the SLS?? Of course as I said.. there are some exceptions. Spacex is very different, they paid them to make a job, and is all done inside spacex under their own control. Yeah I use the word "corporation" as a way to distinguish company levels. We can not compare Boing earnings and history vs Spacex. Spacex is a new company so all the examples that I did applied to them.

Is the same.. All the design (with some exceptions), manufacture procedures and quality checks are imposed by nasa. Also those companies are corporations, at those levels they gain contracts thanks to politician connections. They haven´t enoght risk to lose a contract or enter in bankruptcy for excessive cost. By other hand if spacex does not do anything with the best efficiency, then they die and can not compete. ------------------------------------ Going back to my washing machine analogy.. what is more trusted? a new one that I buy today and I never test it, or my old one with the 12.5 earthquake in each wash.

Is not.. is the general rule in the whole world. There are some exceptions that are related to corruption and monopoly, but for those is also responsable the goverment. http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/private-enterprise-does-it-better.html Sorry, I lose you there.. The only contradiction here is statement number 1 vs number 2.