Scot Dutchy wrote:Still remains true. We are not going anywhere unless there is a world organisation. Do you see that happening. Bloody orange turd. No way.

Tiangong-2 is single country. India has plans. What you post bears no relation to events and circumstances.

Of course not. What has India got plans for? The country is a mess. It needs to modernise its infrastructure before wasting money on rockets. Building pea shooters is the way. America should invest its money in health care, education and infrastructure.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Of course not. What has India got plans for? The country is a mess. It needs to modernise its infrastructure before wasting money on rockets. Building pea shooters is the way. America should invest its money in health care, education and infrastructure.

Is that supposed to be a reply to my post? If it is then to what does the first sentence refer? How does the remainder address your issue that "a world organisation" is required when the examples given show otherwise?

These questions are rhetorical and this topic concerns spacex, please keep relevant.

As for the Indian space program, there's a wiki for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Sp ... ganisation

Scot Dutchy wrote:We are not going anywhere unless there is a world organisation.

Ah, well. You must have designated destinations that define your greatness in having so designated. Department of tautology department.

Scot Dutchy wrote:America should invest its money in health care, education and infrastructure.

Because, like, you never know where the next great rocket scientist will come from. Been there. Done that.

Space exploration has wide benefits aside from national pride ...

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

I'm sure Scot's ancestors would have prefered Magellan's, Cook's ships or Darwin's Beagle used for firewood

Recalls the "if man were meant to fly" mantra

Macdoc wrote:Space exploration has wide benefits aside from national pride ...

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

I'm sure Scot's ancestors would have prefered Magellan's, Cook's ships or Darwin's Beagle used for firewood

Recalls the "if man were meant to fly" mantra

Top notch, Macdoc.

Macdoc wrote:Space exploration has wide benefits aside from national pride ...

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

I'm sure Scot's ancestors would have prefered Magellan's, Cook's ships or Darwin's Beagle used for firewood

Recalls the "if man were meant to fly" mantra

What a load of Macdoc crap as always but never mind. Cant get away from insults can you. Spin offs? Tell that to the poor guy in America that cant afford his meds.

Scot Dutchy wrote:
What a load of Macdoc crap as always but never mind. Cant get away from insults can you. Spin offs? Tell that to the poor guy in America that cant afford his meds.

What a load of Scot crap as always but never mind. Can't get away from hyperbole riddled responses accusing people of insulting him, when there are clearly no insults contained within.

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:
What a load of Macdoc crap as always but never mind. Cant get away from insults can you. Spin offs? Tell that to the poor guy in America that cant afford his meds.

What a load of Scot crap as always but never mind. Can't get away from hyperbole riddled responses accusing people of insulting him, when there are clearly no insults contained within.

No? What has my ancestors got to with anything? Childish insulting comments but why are you commentating on what I say does that have to do with the thread? No it is just your busy body self. Now go away and play in the sand pit.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:
What a load of Macdoc crap as always but never mind. Cant get away from insults can you. Spin offs? Tell that to the poor guy in America that cant afford his meds.

What a load of Scot crap as always but never mind. Can't get away from hyperbole riddled responses accusing people of insulting him, when there are clearly no insults contained within.

No? What has my ancestors got to with anything? Childish insulting comments but why are you commentating on what I say does that have to do with the thread? No it is just your busy body self. Now go away and play in the sand pit.

What a brilliant way to prove Macdoc was correct.

Scot - that you feel "insulted" by a comment, doesn't actually mean that the comment was insulting. Going around and claiming any comment directed at you is an "insult" isn't going to work on anyone less impressionable than a five year old.

That the US has an unfordable medical system has nothing to do with US technical prowess much of which has been developed through efforts like the space exploration programs.

Historically countries have pushed forward to explore - the Brits offer a reward for a time piece to navigate - no different than the X-Prize

To say nothing of the undeniable facts of extensive medical advancements and technology existing in the first place because of our space program - which has benefited people throughout the world, especially including in the US.

Spaceflight has much more than paid for itself in medical advancements alone.

And commercial spaceflight comes from an entirely different pot of money - money unrelated to spending on health care, and that wouldn't be available for health spending if the companies chose not to engage in spaceflight.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:We are not going anywhere unless there is a world organisation.

Ah, well. You must have designated destinations that define your greatness in having so designated. Department of tautology department.

...

I suspect that you didn't understand what Scot meant, which had to do with international co-operation and co-ordinaton.

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:We are not going anywhere unless there is a world organisation.

Ah, well. You must have designated destinations that define your greatness in having so designated. Department of tautology department.

...

I suspect that you didn't understand what Scot meant, which had to do with international co-operation and co-ordinaton.

I did, because international cooperation is easier said than done. That said, it is easier said that it is "easier said than done" than it is done. Where does that leave us? So, when you say "international cooperation", you'd best say how it works for something other than a one-off project. Astronautical projects with international cooperation do work better than you would expect from other examples of international cooperation, but why is that?

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:We are not going anywhere unless there is a world organisation.

Ah, well. You must have designated destinations that define your greatness in having so designated. Department of tautology department.

...

I suspect that you didn't understand what Scot meant, which had to do with international co-operation and co-ordinaton.

I did, because international cooperation is easier said than done. That said, it is easier said that it is "easier said than done" than it is done. Where does that leave us?

Confused, especially about what you are trying to say.

So, when you say "international cooperation", you'd best say how it works for something other than a one-off project. Astronautical projects with international cooperation do work better than you would expect from other examples of international cooperation, but why is that?

Maybe because they have a clear goal, and require a lot of money to put them into effect, forcing governments to watch them carefully.

DavidMcC wrote:
Maybe because they have a clear goal, and require a lot of money to put them into effect, forcing governments to watch them carefully.

Projects that require a lot of money are difficult to get going in the first place. To show that the best ones always get funded, you should provide a list, including a list of competing projects that didn't get funded, and see what you can learn from that. You might not be able to give your opinion about what the best projects entail, let alone willing.

Cito di Pense wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Maybe because they have a clear goal, and require a lot of money to put them into effect, forcing governments to watch them carefully.

Projects that require a lot of money are difficult to get going in the first place.

Of course they are - that is why they have historically been government-run or at least government funded.

To show that the best ones always get funded, you should provide a list, including a list of competing projects that didn't get funded, and see what you can learn from that. You might not be able to give your opinion about what the best projects entail, let alone willing.

It is not my responsibility to do any of that, any more than it is yours. I was merely pointing out that very expensive projects (that no one company can afford to take the financial risk of starting independently) tend to be either goverment run or at least government funded.
Also, in the case of space projects, any military spin-off would be closely watched by the sponsoring government, which they would have difficulty doing if it was completely independent.

Launch timing for the Falcon Heavy demo launch:

February 6th, with a backup on the 7th.

Launch time is 13:30-16:30 EST (18:30-21:30 UTC)

They will attempt to land all three rocket cores - the centre core on the drone ship OCISLY, and the booster cores back at Cape Canaveral.

Should be screening live on their webcast page: http://www.spacex.com/webcast

Hopefully no big boom.

Static fire of the FH stack is up on the webcast page ATM: http://www.spacex.com/webcast