Four things SpaceX can do in 2017

[RonM]

Oh please. SpaceX has been getting things done by just about any honest measure.

Yes, they are getting things done. I think people are forgetting SpaceX has a large staff and is capable of working on many projects at the same time.

Unfortunately, SpaceX has lost two payloads in less than two years. They can't afford to lose another one in 2017. I'm sure they are working very hard to prevent another loss.

Once SpaceX gets all three pads operational, they will be able to quickly get through their launch backlog.

If SpaceX stops blowing anything up, that's a sure sign they've stopped really innovating.

They need to keep failures limited to their tests. Blowing up customer payloads is not a good thing.

[Lee Jay]

To be clear - Orbcomm-OG2 wasn't "splashed" it was put in a lower-than intended orbit.

It burned up in the atmosphere and the remaining pieces likely landed in the ocean.  I believe the point was clear.

[Robotbeat]

Actually, I don't think flying cars carries quite the inspirational power that colonizing Mars does.  It's a convenience, but you'll never be able to cast it as "saving the species".

Gosh...I'd be a million times more interested in having a personal flying machine in my garage than in living in a desolate wasteland with no people, no services, no life and no air.  I suspect I'm in the 99+% on that demographic.

Costs less than a car: http://www.ebay.com/bhp/powered-paraglider

[Robotbeat]

To be clear - Orbcomm-OG2 wasn't "splashed" it was put in a lower-than intended orbit.

It burned up in the atmosphere and the remaining pieces likely landed in the ocean.  I believe the point was clear.

Less than 10% of that F9's payload by mass and value and still partly successful. Point seems pretty clear.

[Lee Jay]

If SpaceX stops blowing anything up, that's a sure sign they've stopped really innovating.

Did you notice how I didn't include either the Grasshopper explosion nor any of the recovery failures in my list?

They can blow up all the test stuff they want to as long as they don't blow up the super expensive stuff their customers pay them to put safely into space.  I'm all in favor of trying hard stuff in tests - and failing.  The main-line stuff has to be as good or better than the average in the industry, and that's around a 5% failure rate.  SpaceX is currently more than twice that.

[Lee Jay]

To be clear - Orbcomm-OG2 wasn't "splashed" it was put in a lower-than intended orbit.

It burned up in the atmosphere and the remaining pieces likely landed in the ocean.  I believe the point was clear.

Less than 10% of that F9's payload by mass and value and still partly successful. Point seems pretty clear.

It failed to get to orbit because one of SpaceX's engines RUD'd during first stage flight, and it was a paying customer payload that burned up in the atmosphere.  They've launched other stuff for that company.  If those count as successes, this one counts as a failure.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX's failure right is in line with other new launch vehicles (for instance, Ariane 5 had 2 full failures in first 20 launches plus partial failures. Pegasus had 3 total failures and 2 partial failures in its first 20 launches). And far better than the early days when there was true innovation.

They must do well in 2017 as you say, but it's silly concern trolling to pretend they're way out of line.

[llanitedave]

Actually, I don't think flying cars carries quite the inspirational power that colonizing Mars does.  It's a convenience, but you'll never be able to cast it as "saving the species".

Gosh...I'd be a million times more interested in having a personal flying machine in my garage than in living in a desolate wasteland with no people, no services, no life and no air.  I suspect I'm in the 99+% on that demographic.

So all you need is some inspirational entrepreneur to start a company dedicated to doing just that, who attracts a crowd of bright-eyed young visionaries to help him build it for less than the prevailing wage.


It could happen.  And these will probably be self-flying cars, using technology based on that from Tesla and Google.

[sdsds]

I'm totally and completely rooting for them,

Really?

[Robotbeat]

To be clear - Orbcomm-OG2 wasn't "splashed" it was put in a lower-than intended orbit.

It burned up in the atmosphere and the remaining pieces likely landed in the ocean.  I believe the point was clear.

Less than 10% of that F9's payload by mass and value and still partly successful. Point seems pretty clear.

It failed to get to orbit because one of SpaceX's engines RUD'd during first stage flight, and it was a paying customer payload that burned up in the atmosphere.  They've launched other stuff for that company.  If those count as successes, this one counts as a failure.

Nope. It got to orbit, so that 5% was partially successful. Main payload, which was 95% of the mass and value, was fully successful.

Remember Atlas V once put a payload in a lower than planned orbit. The payload had to compensate with on-board propellant which technically should reduce its service life as well. No one counts that launch as a full failure, even though it was the main payload.

[Robotbeat]

Every customer who flies on a SpaceX rocket or ANY rocket knows they're taking a risk. This is partly why SpaceX doesn't charge as much. Orbcomm still ends up WAY ahead. They are one of SpaceX's happiest customers.

[meekGee]

Actually, I don't think flying cars carries quite the inspirational power that colonizing Mars does.  It's a convenience, but you'll never be able to cast it as "saving the species".

Gosh...I'd be a million times more interested in having a personal flying machine in my garage than in living in a desolate wasteland with no people, no services, no life and no air.  I suspect I'm in the 99+% on that demographic.

That sentiment is partly why humanity in general needs to expand.

I'd love me a flying car too, but it doesn't help with survivability.

[Robotbeat]

It's a nonsense point, to be honest. You can already get a very affordable paramotor trike. Just most people don't really want to learn how to fly. We'll probably get flying cars, too, if you can afford to pay for it. Or something like them, like small VTOL electric aircraft. But that's significantly off-topic.

[Lee Jay]

Actually, I don't think flying cars carries quite the inspirational power that colonizing Mars does.  It's a convenience, but you'll never be able to cast it as "saving the species".

Gosh...I'd be a million times more interested in having a personal flying machine in my garage than in living in a desolate wasteland with no people, no services, no life and no air.  I suspect I'm in the 99+% on that demographic.

That sentiment is partly why humanity in general needs to expand.

I'd love me a flying car too, but it doesn't help with survivability.

Neither does moving a few people to a place with no biosphere, who will be totally dependent on Earth.

Face it, if we screw up Earth, we're screwed.  Period.  That is, unless we have nuclear powered rocketry.

[Robotbeat]

Actually, I don't think flying cars carries quite the inspirational power that colonizing Mars does.  It's a convenience, but you'll never be able to cast it as "saving the species".

Gosh...I'd be a million times more interested in having a personal flying machine in my garage than in living in a desolate wasteland with no people, no services, no life and no air.  I suspect I'm in the 99+% on that demographic.

That sentiment is partly why humanity in general needs to expand.

I'd love me a flying car too, but it doesn't help with survivability.

Neither does moving a few people to a place with no biosphere, who will be totally dependent on Earth.

That's begging the question. And frankly, if sustainable space settlement (i.e. Possibility of Earth independence) isn't possible, then all human space flight is basically pointless. Which is 90% of this whole website and the reason people come here and not unmannedspaceflight.com and about half of NASA's budget.

Face it, if we screw up Earth, we're screwed.  Period.  That is, unless we have nuclear powered rocketry.

What does nuclear powered rocketry have to do with it?

[meekGee]

Actually, I don't think flying cars carries quite the inspirational power that colonizing Mars does.  It's a convenience, but you'll never be able to cast it as "saving the species".

Gosh...I'd be a million times more interested in having a personal flying machine in my garage than in living in a desolate wasteland with no people, no services, no life and no air.  I suspect I'm in the 99+% on that demographic.

That sentiment is partly why humanity in general needs to expand.

I'd love me a flying car too, but it doesn't help with survivability.

Neither does moving a few people to a place with no biosphere, who will be totally dependent on Earth.

Face it, if we screw up Earth, we're screwed.  Period.  That is, unless we have nuclear powered rocketry.

I don't think you understand the point of colonising Mars then.

A few people on a Mars base are indeed not helpful.  Even a single million will do the trick though, and this can be done in under 100 years.

And yes, what was that about nuclear rockets?

[savuporo]

1. Fly
2. Fly
3. Fly
4. Fly

"Less talk, more rocket"

[Robotbeat]

There's an interesting bias that people have with respect to probabilities. We seem to treat low probability (say, 10%) as synonymous with impossible. This goes in both directions, i.e. Probability of launch failure and probability of something amazing happening.

[Robotbeat]

I'd give SpaceX a 50:50 chance of launching the next 25 rockets successfully in a row. That may be optimistic, as it assumes about a 97.5% reliability, higher than the industry average and higher than they've demonstrated. And a 75% chance of getting through 2017 without a launch failure.

This business is not for the faint of heart. Everyone eventually has a failure. (ULA hasn't suffered a FULL failure since they formed... Which absolutely deserves respect. But they've never fielded a new rocket since formation, either, and they pay a LOT for mission assurance... They'll have a failure eventually, too.)

[Lee Jay]

A few people on a Mars base are indeed not helpful.  Even a single million will do the trick though, and this can be done in under 100 years.

Not under anything close to a rational economic model, and not with chemical rockets.  Never going to happen.  Not even close.