SpaceX launch ends in failure, rocket erupts
Sorry to hear this.
Best of luck to Elon Musk and SpaceX.
Uno
The seven previous SpaceX supply runs, dating back to 2012, had gone exceedingly well.
This is the second failed station shipment in a row and the third in eight months.
In April, a Russian cargo ship spun out of control and burned up upon re-entry, along with all its precious contents. And last October, another company's supply ship was destroyed in a launch accident.
This Dragon had been carrying replacement food, clothes and science experiments for items lost in those two mishaps.
The three space station residents were watching the launch live from orbit.
"Sadly failed," space station astronaut Scott Kelly said via Twitter. "Space is hard."
QFTSpace is hard.
Monumentally so!"Space is hard."
Foil hat anyone?Monumentally so - especially with human saboteurs with agendas incompatible with humans in space.
Here's hoping a few human errors and/or crazy saboteurs don't deter us from further attempts! [crossing fingers]
Foil hat anyone?
SpaceX launch ends in failure, rocket erupts
Sorry to hear this.
Best of luck to Elon Musk and SpaceX.
Uno
My wife works in space, this is seriously going to fuck things over big time. They had a docking adapter they were going to install (1 of 2 planned) in order to make it easier to dock the next spacecrafts. With that out of the water it's totally throwing off all plans. In addition to any of the supplies that contained tests/equipment.
The public image right now is stupid though, No one can shut up about 3 failures in a row. First off, one of those was Russian - so that one was a WEE bit out of our hands.
I'm sure the next crew they are sending up is shitting bricks though.
We are never getting off this mudball. Damned aliens! lol
Oh, of course... no one would every want to possibly sabotage a space program.
I didn't even say this WAS, only questioning the possibility because there are some groups genuinely against space exploration. So say something other than hurling an insult, eh?
Pretty far fetched to think that someone would sabotage a resupply and science payload cargo to the ISS because they opposed space exploration. Those two things only have the barest of connection to each other.
We just need to progress past the current technology of barely contained explosions and the inherent race condition that the fuel weight imposes.
We'll get there, but I don't think it will be in any of our life times.
*sigh*
Let me clarify even more.
NASA had a lot of exploded tests before SpaceX came along. I suspect ~99% chance of human error, ~1% chance of naughty human buggery.
1) While I hope it's just an error easily corrected, one shouldn't rule out all possibilities, and
2) I hope this doesn't deter further efforts.
Okay?
Let's keep 'em flying!
I dunno. Government is increasingly becoming centered on wealth transfer, not wealth production. Science is increasingly being shunted from hard science to political issues, as best witnessed by NASA shifting more of its resources toward global warming and oddly, making Muslims feel better about their contributions to science. And take a look at how much we spend on, say, artificial gravity (or just understanding Gravity, and no I do not understand why Apple insists the second instance must be capitalized) compared to, say, making better boners.We just need to progress past the current technology of barely contained explosions and the inherent race condition that the fuel weight imposes.
We'll get there, but I don't think it will be in any of our life times.
Science is increasingly being shunted from hard science to political issues, as best witnessed by NASA shifting more of its resources toward global warming...
Though Cruz is correct that spending on earth sciences has increased during the Obama administration, his statement that it is a “disproportionate increase” does not fully reflect NASA’s budget history. In fact, NASA’s spending on earth sciences in the past has been higher as a percentage of the total budget.
In 2000, for example, the enacted budget for earth sciences was $1.69 billion, which is equal to $2.29 billion in today’s dollars when adjusted for inflation — more than the 2016 request. In 2000, that amount represented about 12.4 percent of the total enacted NASA budget; in the 2016 request, that proportion is 10.5 percent.
Hint: all governments are focused on wealth transfer.I dunno. Government is increasingly becoming centered on wealth transfer, not wealth production. Science is increasingly being shunted from hard science to political issues, as best witnessed by NASA shifting more of its resources toward global warming and oddly, making Muslims feel better about their contributions to science. And take a look at how much we spend on, say, artificial gravity (or just understanding Gravity, and no I do not understand why Apple insists the second instance must be capitalized) compared to, say, making better boners.