@geoffc there is nothing weak, nor naive about the article. It's just positive about something without being negative about something else.

Maybe it will make you feel better to remember instead, if only for the time it takes for the station to cross your night sky, that while everything can seem so awful and cynical here at home, we are still capable of distant miracles.

"I criticize, therefore I am" is an empty philosophy.

@uhoh Oh look! Space is cool is naive. It is a pretty feeling, but it is naive. No offering of real research performed, no comments on the cost of that pretty feeling. Weak and naive seem appropriate. neither is an attack, just descriptive.

I think space is cool. I would not write that weak an article to demonstrate it to the public.

@geoffc what articles have you written? What's your overall ratio of articles written to articles criticized?

@uhoh I have written 450 articles, 2 books, and at least 12,000 forum posts. A link to my articles is in my profile I think. Or here:

wiki.microfocus.com/index.php/…

Side note; Please do follow the link and let me know if it works. I am in a redirect loop since I have an account (since I can edit the Wiki) and it looks like the front end auth is stuck on a cookie I have.

I get lost of criticism. It has made me a better writer.

What have you written?

I wrote about one article a week for about 6 years straight, almost without missing one. This past year I have totally sucked at it, and have only published 15 articles in all of 2017. Which is a shame on me.

Almost all articles are 2000+ words. Usual news article is 700 words. I am approaching 1 million words in publication.

I do not run the Wiki, and they have this issue with my page, sorry about that, if it is not working.

(and now off to bed, sorry, late in my time zone).

The link doesn't work for me but you are all over the internet!

It's a big world and there are different kinds of writing, different reasons to write, different messages, and different readers. Currently there's quite a surplus of writing about what's wrong with stuff. This article really resonated with me and it may others as well.

@uhoh Ya, it is it their reverse proxy... Argh, not again.

@geoffc thanks for keeping me in my place geoff. i don't know what i'd do without you.

@kimholder We aim to please.

wiki.microfocus.com/index.php/KP/Geoffrey_Carman

^ that link works...

personally, i love the ISS for what it represents. it's a difficult position to defend, but i think one day it will be looked back on as the early guide to how to work together in space, and that will turn out to be much more important that we think it is now.

@kimholder I know but it doesnot show all the articles the way I want. :) Thank you for looking though, I need to report the issue again.

@kimholder Not disagreeing. I hear that perspective. I am curious to hear you explain the 'importance' that you see.

yes, that is the part that is difficult to defend....

it has been necessary to plow through awkward international agreements and accept a lot of inefficiency and unsatisfying compromise to make it work.

and, i think the merit of that is really under-rated.

once we manage to do it right, we'll realize the early days were bound to be that way.

@kimholder I accept there are conceptual values. I.e. Seeing countries share. I guess. Hard to put a value on it.

I would suggest that even during conflicts US/Russia, they did not try and hold ISS hostage via Soyuz launches. Very much to Russia's credit. Sure they need the money and it is a large amount, but I will give them the credit unreservedely nonetheless).

But from a science perspective, I question. Could the money have been better spent? Almost certainly, but so be it. There is more value than just bang for buck. The question is, was this such an example or not?

it certainly hasn't lived up to its potential on that score.

it may in fact be true that it won't shine unless it is privatized and the many restrictions imposed by working with multiple space agencies go away.

still. if it wasn't for those agencies, it wouldn't exist.

let me expand a little... if conditions changed, it is possible the ISS could be a platform for research into materials and biology in low gravity, but something would have to be done so that crew can devote their time to tending to research, or the research is automated or conducted remotely.

@kimholder Agreed. Two fold: 1) ISS design is too maintence intensive. Once Commercial crew goes live (Summer 2018!!!!! Woo Hoo!) they will add a 7th crew, which means their current 1-man day total science output should close to double. I.e. 6 people need to do 5 man days of maint work every day. With 7 the hope is to get 2 man days of actual research work after maint/sleep/excersize/etc.

2) It is too expensive to get there, (Commercial Crew will help). If you can do automated research, then an unmanned facility occasionally visited is much cheaper. and thus you could do more/have more sites/etc.

I joined the SpaceX Facebook group, I follow Reddit r/SpaceX and the pics they are getting are so awesome! I have to ask questions, to use the pictures! :)

I know I posted a link earlier.. But did anyone else look at Mr Steven?

SpaceX has no concept of 'too big' or 'too crazy'. Mr Steven is the recovery ship they use to tow ASDS's They swapped coasts (Used to be Atlantic, currently in the Pacific).

Those arms are to hold something, a net? A bouncy castle? Assumed to catch a payload fairing after it parafoils down after being jetissoned in launch!!!

We know they have recovered fairings (There is a pic of this ship with a fairing on it, covered). This time they are getting serious!

Even more amazing... SpaceX is now so confident in First stage recovery that Fridays launch of Iridium 4 from Vandenberg is not going to try and land on JRTI since they do not want to have to store another Mod 3 core, when the Mod 5's are due before the summer, and they want to use up the Mod 4's for reuse before Mod 5 is out.

(Guess they still had some Mod 3's in the build process and want to use them up). This core has already flown on a previous Iridium mission, so not resuing it a third time.

There have been rumors of trying to recover the upper stage.

So they are just going to crash a booster stage because they don't want to have to store it?

@PearsonArtPhoto I think their point is, why waste crew time, wear/tear on ASDS to recover it. Then crane/crew time to unload. Then shipping time.money to move it somewhere.

Also it will have flown the second time as of this mission, so beyond a pretty display no need to save it. Mod 3's are only getting 2 flights. Curious to see how many Mod 4 gets before Mod 5 is in full swing.

Fair enough.

If I was Space-X, I might try to do a "Hot" test, ie, missile.

Target a spot on the ocean, see how fast and accurately you can try to hit that spot.

But maybe that's just the way I think.

If there are no grid fins, be interesting to see if their newest algorithms can still control it. I.e. Let the software play with a Grid fin failure case when it does not matter. Or heck, only install 2 fins? Or 1?

I like your idea. The "I regret bullying young Elon Musk test" you mean.

There will be a whole stack of Mod 3 boosters to refly next year, so might as well get some test data out of the,

I'm certain they will do something.

The odds of doing a completely uncontrolled reentry, knowing SpaceX, are almost 0...

@PearsonArtPhoto What do you think of the Mr Steven Doc Ock upgrade? That is so cool, and so SpacecX extreme I cannot wait to see how it used on Friday!

Not sure that I've heard of that...

Look for the image abouot one page up.

The boat with the spider legs sticking out.

Wow...

Right? They have no concept of 'that seems a bit extreme' at SpaceX.

Fairing recovery. Net or bouncy castle on this mission. They tranisted Panaman Canal to bring it over to Pacific for Iridium4.

I mean, my first thought is that it seems a lot like what I would expect to land without landing legs.

This is such a great time to be a fan of space.

But it's a bit too big for that

Much better now then a decade ago...

Let' see if I can guess how big it is...

I remember Rotary Rocket, wish that had worked out at the time. Had Musk had his money and backed them, history would be very different.

Is there a question about it?

marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:3439091/…

61 X 10m in size.

(ship)

Looking at the cargo container, I was guessing the base is about 24 m or so.

It's hard to say how hight the top is, but I would guess twice that size?

It's too big to catch a fairing.

How so?

I guess it could catch the parachute from a fairing, if there is one...

Parafoil for control, they say.

Big enough to catch 2 fairings?

I mean, it isn't big enough for the booster.

It almost seems like it could grab a booster that is landed.

Oh would that not be so cool! I doubt the deck of that ship is designed for the thrust of the engine on landing..

I doubt it's to catch a fairing, but...

It's hard to say how it could be anything else.

Mr Steven was the fairing recovery ship for the Atlantic so far. So seems like a logical extension. But who knows?

It doesn't look like a sensor platform.

Tomorrow we find out!

It can't be to land a rocket on it.

So the only other thing that would make any sense is to catch the fairing.

If it's to catch the fairing, the only thing that I can think that would make sense is if each of the poles was designed to catch the fairing, assuming the fairing can pass in a very small window of space.

Assumption seems to be a net held between the arms. Or else the 'bouncy castle' Elon tweeted about.

A net would make sense.

Still seems strange to have 4 of them.

I did see that.

I think the idea is a net strung between all four, making a flattish )Convex down) surface.

Yeah, I suppose that makes sense.

And it is the right shape for that.

And Ti grid fins on the side boosters!!!! How interesting. Someone should ask a question about that!

Rocket porn!

That is the money shot for me.

I think some pin up model, carassing one of the boosters would be so funny.

Check this out, finally full view, it's to close first maiden launch

@Mark777 But no payload attached yet. Patience. That Tesla Roadster needs a custom mount point I suppose.

Will be interesting.

Do we really think he is lauching his Roadster?

I give it a better than 50% chance, but not 100%.

Or is he just screwing with us? So hard to tell. Have to be playing Space Odessy, Hadfield version on the in car stero till it runs out the battery!

At this point, I think he would be hard pressed not to launch it.

Besides, if he launches this one, he can justify getting the new one:-) What else is he going to do with the old one?

He has 5 I think.

You know Tesla Roadster 2.0 VIN 1 is his.

Exactly. I mean, who really needs 6 Tesla Roadsters?

Steve Jurveston is getting #2 or 3 I imagine.

He got X #2 or 3 I think.

I remember the delivery event for X and saying. hey, I recognize that guy getting #2 or 3.

Hmmm.

I'm still on track for Mid-2018 for a Tesla 3.

Still not certain I'll buy it, but...

Yeah geoffc, of course it needs payload :). But is exciting that soon in a couple of weeks we shall see it at the launch pad. Hopping it will be successful

I have a decent chance, my work seems to like me, so...

I don't think he would hold up the launch to launch a Tesla, but I bet he's going to try and do it.

@Mark777 Better than cheese! I would have loved to see Red Dragon. To be fair Musk said they would send the Roadster on an Earth escape/Mars targetting orbit...

There is q for the site? How hard is encapsulating a Tesla Roadster to mount on a F-H?

It will have crazy Delta-V, I wonder if it has enough to actually do a flyby of Mars.

Merlin Vac is a great engine, but crappy ISP.

Another question for the site.

C3 numbers are available.

reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2jtyp1/falcon_heavy_c3_vs_payload

Specifically:

I don't think SpaceX has released a lot of details of the FH's payload BEO. But they have said that it can lift ~13 tonnes to Mars. I think we can assume that would be the maximum payload using a Hohmann transfer orbit, or some other even lower energy transfer orbit

That really would be great launching their Red Dragon, imagining that spacecraft trying to land at Mars surface. still looking three boosters landing and a possible attempt for the fairings is still great

2 years with 4.5-6 km/s delta-V. I'm pretty sure that if the Tesla is the main payload, they can do it.

I wish they had a solid, reliable launch date, I would kill to watch the launch and then watch two boosters landing side by side (Will they delay one?) at LZ1. Oh the sheer joy of it.

I am not sure about the fairings, will they attempt recoreving or isn't confirmed?

But almost all of jan i am booked, so will have to stream it. First landing CRS-6? Was so epic to watch. This will be equally awesome.

Well, they have the booster assembled.

But not the upper stage.

@Mark777 Fairing recovery is underway. Look up the page for the ship they modified and moved Atlantic-> Pacific for the Iridium4 mission on Friday. So they are very very very serious about fairing recovery.

I bet they will finish the assembly of the rocket by the end of the year, and do a static fire soon after the new year.

They probably have a date they are working towards about week 2 of Jan.

So they usually try on missions when they are ready. F-H may just be one more. Might be willing t take more risks, since if the fairing fails, who the hell cares, so long as second stage makes it to orbit. Not like there is a serious orbital target for it.

But they probably won't announce that until they do the static fire.

Static fire should be suitably epic.

Actually, I have no idea how the launch pad conversion is going.

Yeah i saw that, it would be interesting watching in livestream

27 engines, 5.7 mLbs thrust. Almost shuttle level!

@PearsonArtPhoto They took down a lot more of the RSS recently.

I would guess no earlier than week 2 in Jan, probably more realistically towards the end of the month.

I suspect the critical path right now isn't the rocket so much as the launch pad.

It would be a new record if it is a successful launch, rocket with the highest number of engines at 1st stage firing at the same time launched succesful

Weather also could affect the launch date

@Mark777 N-1! Pshaw, Musk snears at the N-1.

N-1 was never succesful, hoping that FH will make it in the 1st flight

@Mark777 I know. Making jokes! Heck' N-1 engines flew on Antares until they killed a flight.

It was kind of cool that engines, built in the 1970's, kept in storage, flew in the 2010's on Antares. (Which has since switched to RD-191 engines, which is 1/4 (One thrust chamber) of a RD-170, which powered the Energia side boosters (which became Zenit as a standalone booster).

@uh

@uhoh Long story, I used an apostrophe when I started the Wiki page and it causes a redirect loop. This link works to show my 450 articles. Though I need to update in the last dozen or so.

wiki.microfocus.com/index.php/…

Yeah i know about the history of those engines at that time, NK-15 then NK-33 and then AJ after Aerojet Rocketdyne took them. Even RD derivatives engines starting as a technology before 90's and is used as a safe and reliable engine models even today. Cold war era was was a time were lot of new developments and technologies were made. In our days the only game changer is SpaceX referring to technology. Reusability, methane rocket fuel and the low cost new technologies will start giving feedback.

These elements could raise competition between companies. Blue Origin, NASA, Roscosmos, ESA could be in competition.

Better for space exploration. New technologies and human missions beyond Earth orbit that makes exciting space exploration.

@Mark777 Yep.

And Static fire may be delayed into Jan. Oh well. This will take time.

@geoffc I used to edit quite a few Wikipedia articles myself.

Interesting that the static fire was possible in December until now.