@mwlucas couldn't have put it better. And it saddens me that we cannot just be brilliant any longer.

It reminds me of ITsec: smart ideas now have to have a dickish slant when presented.

I don't like this "new world order".

@kurtm See all Ariane "first flights" but not only. It is a very sensible tradition. Say you have two missions which you would like to fly but money to fly only one (i.e. build both the satellites but not fly both) then "first flights" allow you risk the satellite but have a decent chance to fly it for free.

More science.

@kurtm @cynicalsecurity The second-tier science satellite tradition goes back to the 70s.

And this is going to Mars. We have GOBS of small Mars orbiters that never got a launch.

Private commerce doesn't care about the betterment of mankind. I'm glad we're getting back into space. But this is the oligarchic approach.

If Musk really wants to live on Mars he needs to think about science, not just the business & engineering.

@mwlucas @cynicalsecurity I suppose we can console ourselves with the fact that they botched it and it's not going to Mars, it's heading for the asteroids.

@kurtm @cynicalsecurity A Mars orbiter in the Belt would gather useful data... the inner edge of the belt almost hits Mars, so solar cells and such would probably work for a while.

@mwlucas @cynicalsecurity @kurtm
few second-tier science satellite builders will bet their scientific career (think PhD.) on the first launch of an unproven rocket when the company building it publicly says it hopes it wont destroy the launch pad.
Also https://www.geekwire.com/2018/nasa-pass-spacex-falcon-heavy-garver/

@benno @kurtm @mwlucas many missions were flown on “first flight” rockets which would have not flown. Sometimes the risk is worth a free flight.

For example many cubesats, each relatively inexpensive, could have hitched a ride on the Falcon Heavy and get some real science done. But no, we shot a car. So yes, NASA turned down the opportunity, but they didn’t exactly kill themselves to replace a stunt with science.

Going to heliocentric orbit that intersects Mars orbit, which is not remotely the same as going to Mars.

@mwlucas @cynicalsecurity @kurtm

@deejoe @cynicalsecurity @kurtm

True. And there's even more probes that could have hitched a ride on that.

@mwlucas @kurtm @deejoe Thank you… precisely my point.

@cynicalsecurity @deejoe @kurtm

Name a spot in the Solar System. Any spot. Any orbit.

Some scientist wants to put a probe there.

(Also true for outside the Solar System, but those opportunities are even rarer...)

@mwlucas

Not that I think you should do this to satisfy me, but it seems it would be easy then to find a citation from someone actually building sone sort of sat that would have been willing to risk it having been blown up.

@cynicalsecurity @kurtm

@deejoe @cynicalsecurity @kurtm Lots of scientists interviewed on this, for this launch, saying "yes me."

@mwlucas

Ones with budgets? I mean, I'm (arguably) a scientist and think it'd be fun, sure. But I have nothing to back that up, nor a decision to make about rolling those dice.

@cynicalsecurity @kurtm

@deejoe @mwlucas @cynicalsecurity
It's pretty clear that you just want someone to say that you are right. It's not a good look.

@kurtm

I do not seek, nor need, anyone's approval to state, let alone to hold, the opinion that this petty carping about what this guy sent up rather than the standard hunk of concrete is anything other than the frail work of small minds.

There is a lot to criticize this ultra-rich mogul over, and even more over which to criticize others in his class.

This, though, is a question not just of what is the reasonable done thing (eg, concrete) 1/n

@kurtm

2/n nor is it just a question of the intricacies of getting anything useful out of any space flight that might blow up and is headed out on a challenging-to-support orbit.

It's a question of taste. I feel pretty comfortable saying that Musk has demonstrated considerably more sensitivity to taste than most of the half-hearted, underinformed carping here. Clearly, you're not the target market.

@mwlucas
@cynicalsecurity

@deejoe It's tough to believe your accusation of "petty carping" when you are the one who resurrected a ten day old thread.

@kurtm

oh well, if no one else means what they've said any more, then nevermind, I guess.

@Keltounet @cynicalsecurity He's certainly entitled to have fun. It's his private playground.

An otherwise unlaunched satellite would be better for mankind. There's no chance of a long-term win for his Roadster stunt.

@mwlucas @Keltounet @cynicalsecurity I think the inspirational factor from those wacky Starman photos can be a long-term win. How many people - kids and adults both - will look at those and be inspired to support or even join future space exploration efforts? My guess is more than a couple.

@Keltounet @cynicalsecurity I disagree that it didn't have to be useful. It shouldn't have been *critical* maybe, but useful would be fine.

Musk also has *plenty* of fun. It's not like he's kept locked in a box all the time except for launches...

@edavies Perhaps the SLS is a waste of resources but NASA’s mandate is clear, Elon’s is not. SpaceX is a private company answering only to its owners and furthering its own agenda. For the time being NASA is still for the benefit of mankind.

@cynicalsecurity NASA's mandate is far from clear. SLS exists largely as a result of corruption in Congress.

@edavies OK, I don't know enough about NASA & USA politics to make an educated remark.

I'll stand by ESA & ESO though.

@cynicalsecurity http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/372994-spacex-could-save-nasa-and-the-future-of-space-exploration

“…but It is time for the nation to decide if we want a space program — or a jobs program.”

“SpaceX offered NASA the opportunity to get a free ride on this first launch. But the space agency viewed commercial development of this rocket as "competition" and refused their offer.”

@edavies then the following should have happened:

1) NASA should be told they are idiots,
2) SpaceX should have gone to ESA, the Indian space agency, anyone else wanting to put a satellite in space for free but at high risk of failure (the fact that the car's orbit is wrong could have also messed up a satellite).

@cynicalsecurity

1) NASA, like most organizations, has lots of internal conflicts of interest. I'm sure many insiders know they are idiots. The writer of that article is an ex-deputy administrator.

2) SpaceX is a private company. There's only so much they can do when they're desperately trying to keep things as simple as possible. Too much complexity it why SLS has already cost 10x more in development than Falcons 9 and H combined and is still at least 2 years away from flying.

@cynicalsecurity AFAIK the car's orbit (from Earth's orbit out to about the distance of Mar's aphelion) is pretty much as intended.

Musk misstated the aphelion soon after T“M”I which was an unnecessary bit of confusion so a bit irritating but not a big deal in the grand scheme.

@Finfell As discussed elsewhere there is a tradition of giving scientists a free ride in a “high risk, high reward” scenario which has been used in the past.

In this instance SpaceX offered NASA a ride which was declined citing commercial issues. SpaceX could have offered a ride to many cheap cubesats instead but didn’t.

That is a great pity. There was science to be done and we did not, replacing it with a stunt.

@paco This wasn’t art, it was a stunt. Make no mistake. A stunt by a rich bloke “because I can”™.

@cynicalsecurity While I agree that it's a waste of a launch from the perspective of "we have Earth-orbiting craft that don't have a ride" perspective ... the flight plan would have to have been redone to accommodate riders bound for EO, and it failed to reach a Mars transfer orbit

----

The car is a ridiculous stunt, but I guess it can be used as a proof of integrity for complex structures that a deadweight cannot, so, at least there's that?

@myrrlyn I would have offered a ride to a bunch of cubesats which could have done something interesting no matter where they went accommodating the launch profile rather than being accommodated. I’m sure SpaceX didn’t plan it all last month so there would have been plenty of time to design useful science around whatever launch profile they had planned.

@cynicalsecurity As a cubesat operator, I agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment but the more I've looked into the FH profile the more I'm wavering tbh

I guess my position is that I'm okay with no riders having been on /this flight profile/, but also, I'd sure like to see firmer proof that there was no workable flight profile that would achieve primary mission goal and also be useful for secondary payloads

@myrrlyn I agree wholeheartedly: if there was absolutely no workable scientifically useful flight profile then fine. But a strong “if”.

@cynicalsecurity (extremely anticap voice) also what did we expect of private enterprise rather than a public organization amirite

@cynicalsecurity on the third hand, at least it's not the fucking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanity_Star

there's always a dumber idea, I guess :/

@myrrlyn @cynicalsecurity They wanted to demonstrate sending of payload to GEO without using payloads own engines/apogee kick motor to do the orbit maneuver. That's the reason for waiting 6 hours before the last 2nd stage burn, demonstrating such a long flight time without fuel freezing etc. Apparently this is a requirement for launching certain US spy satellites. 1/2

@benno @cynicalsecurity yup. AIUI, this has the downside of making kickoffs while in lower altitudes not have the right profile for staying in lower orbits, and MEO is murder on small sats

@cynicalsecurity @myrrlyn
Regarding the seemingly wasteful launch: If spacex manages to drop launch price/launch 50 times per year/build BFR, then this single flight hardly matters. They don't have to care about getting something up there now, because in a few years they can launch anything (small) whenever they want. 2/2

@myrrlyn

A friend and I were wondering what sort of prep was required for the car. We started musing about materials longevity and so on, and then I threw out "so, you don't just Armor-All the tires and send it off" at which point I went through, duh, you can't send up inflated pneumatic tires, so something had to give there, just as a trivial example. Take out the tire valve cores or what?

@cynicalsecurity

@cynicalsecurity @myrrlyn

I think there's an argument to be made that for prepping and seeking approval for any non-trivial load, one so well-known to Musk would have definite advantages over anything new.

@deejoe @cynicalsecurity oh the non-metal stuff is absolutely gonna get shredded by radiation and micrometeorite impacts. The tires only need to be underinflated by 15psi but are probably wholly empty to avoid maneuvers when the tires leak and disintegrate.