SpaceX Launch of Falcon Heavy Set for Today (maybe?)

[cvramsfan]

We have raised our temperatures and quickly are approaching the point of no return.

I have enjoyed reading both yours and @Farr Be It post on this. You both really know how to make a guy feel dumb, haha.

I am interested in the above quote. In your educated opinion when is the "point of no return" going to occur if we continue on the path we are on with no changes? Is it 5 years or 1000 years or ?

Again I am truly in amazement of how smart some of you guys are and as silly as it seems makes me proud that you guys are RAMS fans too.

 

[nighttrain]

SpaceX launch countdown clock: When is SpaceX launching the Falcon 9 rocket?
THE SpaceX launch countdown at Vandenberg Air Force Base has begun, with the Falcon 9 rocket preparing for liftoff. But when will the rocket blast off into space?
By SEBASTIAN KETTLEY
PUBLISHED: 16:27, Wed, Feb 21, 2018 | UPDATED: 16:34, Wed, Feb 21, 2018


UP NEXT:

LIfT Biosciences developing world’s first cancer-killing cells

The Falcon 9 will leave Earth in less than 24 hours after its Wednesday 9.17am EST (2.17pm GMT) launch window was dogged by poor atmospheric conditions.

The SpaceX rocket is now scheduled to launch from Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC-4E) at the same time on Thursday February 22.

SpaceX founder Elon Musk said he would rather delay the launch than risk losing the rocket and its payload to strong winds.

He tweeted: “High altitude wind shear data shows a probable 2% load exceedance. Small, but better to be paranoid.

RELATED ARTICLES

• 
  SpaceX launch LIVE stream: Watch Elon Musk's Falcon 9 launch online
• 
  SpaceX launch delayed: Did SpaceX launch the Falcon 9 rocket today?

“Postponing launch to tomorrow, assuming winds are better then.”

SpaceX also said: “Standing down today due to strong upper level winds.

“Now targeting launch of PAZ for February 22 at 6:17 a.m. PST from Vandenberg Air Force Base.”

Tomorrow’s Falcon 9 mission serves a dual purpose for SpaceX.

SPACEX

SpaceX launch countdown: The Falcon 9 will launch on Thursday February 22
Firstly, the company will deliver a Spanish PAZ radar satellite into low orbit on a five year mission.

Secondly, and more importantly to SpaceX, the Falcon 9 will deliver two prototype satellites for the upcoming Starlink project.

SpaceX plans to deliver a staggering 12,000 satellites into space by 2020 to deliver high-speed broadband to every corner of the planet.

Mr Musk teased on Wednesday: “Today’s Falcon launch carries 2 SpaceX test satellites for global broadband. If successful, Starlink constellation will serve the least served.”

SpaceX LIVE in pictures: best photos from Tesla Roadster’s journey
Thu, February 8, 2018
SpaceX launch: Elon Musk's Falcon Heavy rocket launch in pictures.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The Starlink project was given the seal of approval by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Postponing launch to tomorrow, assuming winds are better then

Elon Musk, SpaceX founder

FCC chairman Ajit Pai thanked the rocket manufacturer for attempting to deliver widespread internet across America.

Mr Pai said: "To bridge America's digital divide, we'll have to use innovative technologies.

“SpaceX's application — along with those of other satellite companies seeking licenses or access to the US market for nongeostationary satellite orbit systems — involves one such innovation.”

SPACEX

SpaceX: The Falcon 9 launch was postponed due to heavy upper level winds

SPACEX

Falcon 9: The SpaceX rocket will deliver prototype Starlink satellites into orbit
He added: “Satellite technology can help reach Americans who live in rural or hard-to-serve places where fibre-optic cables and cell towers do not reach.

“And it can offer more competition where terrestrial internet access is already available.”

According to permission documents filed at the FCC by SpaceX, the Starlink network will comprise 4,425 satellites about 700 miles up and another 7,518 around 210 miles up.

SpaceX hopes to have the network operational no later than 2020, drawing in millions of customers to its service.

The company said: “The combined SpaceX System will address both the need to bring new broadband capability to the US and international markets and the need to accommodate growing demands in more developed areas.”

RELATED ARTICLES

• SpaceX TRACKER: Where is Tesla Roadster now? Follow Starman LIVE
• SpaceX Starman: Tesla Roadster's current position in space tracked
• SpaceX Tesla Roadster: Starman’s upcoming key milestones MAPPED

Elon MuskSpaceSpaceX

 

[fearsomefour]

I have enjoyed reading both yours and @Farr Be It post on this. You both really know how to make a guy feel dumb, haha.

I am interested in the above quote. In your educated opinion when is the "point of no return" going to occur if we continue on the path we are on with no changes? Is it 5 years or 1000 years or ?

Again I am truly in amazement of how smart some of you guys are and as silly as it seems makes me proud that you guys are RAMS fans too.

Yeah,
Was that quote from 1974....1982....1998....2000.....2010 or today?
Haha.

 

[Farr Be It]

I didn't cite any of those sources though, and I don't suggest going to them. I suggested going to the actual scientists doing the actual research.



Without having looked at each person or their research, I wont really comment much on it. There's going to be some in pretty much every field, especially when this topic has been hijacked by politics. What matters is the overwhelming majority that does agree. Your assumption is that the majority is in on some giant secret and the minority are the truth tellers. In reality the majority is just doing good science and are correct and the minority, mixed with those who have financial interests in climate change being false, are just trying to make noise and are wrong.



I've worked directly with the data and the information, it has. You are correct though, we won't agree here, because you're insisting that the temperatures haven't risen and I've have actually worked with the data that shows that it has.

In terms of a few scientists who were trying to adjust the data, obviously it's not good if you're manipulating data, but if they are adjusting the experiment to be more accurate, that is okay, as long as the data is accurate. If it's not, then again, that's bad. Why I don't put a bunch of stock into that though is because I know a lot of scientists that have collected data and didn't manipulate any of it. I've worked with some of these scientists, and I've helped extract the data from their experiments, I know they were handled correctly just like the vast majority of data has been handled correctly. This is a very high profile research topic, the overwhelming majority of research is going to be good and sound, because there are so many people looking for any minor mistake to "expose" the secret. Climate scientists are like other scientists in that if they knowingly release false data their career is over. So the amount of care that most take with their work in pretty nuts. They don't want their career ending and would never put that at risk by manipulating data.



I don't really know how those are connected. I'm saying that since his "sign here" was essentially on the honor system, a lot of false signatures were placed on there from internet trolls. I really don't give a freak about Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio to be honest. So they're big champions of raising awareness of climate change, that's about it. There may be thousands that are skeptical (maybe, it's likely more like hundreds, if that), but that doesn't ignore that the overwhelming majority aren't.



It really hasn't. I'll point out that the previous two articles you posted though were conservative political websites though. That's exactly why I don't dive deeply into any retorts.



The science is never settled, any good scientist knows that. Without reading that article, from my understanding he says that the climate is changing and humans are impacting it, but he isn't so sure about how to solve it. But the article is behind a paywall, so I can't dive too deeply into it. I'm just going off of memory here.



Many real scientists don't disagree. Natural gas isn't a good source of energy, although I do agree that nuclear energy is pretty safe. Green energy isn't failed though, while it's not as efficient as fossil fuels, it's getting there. That shouldn't be a surprise either, as the technology improves, things will get more efficient. Things like windows that can collect solar energy, or even solar collecting roads. Right now the technology is new, expensive and not as efficient, but we know it's possible, and therefore we should work to improve it. That's how you move forward.



I didn't bring Bill Nye up, he doesn't mean anything to this discussion as far as I'm considered. However, I would give more of an ear to BIll Nye, who does have scientific background, than some political commentator youtuber.

I'm not saying that only PhD's can throw in their opinion, but they need to know their science. What I'm saying that 50 non-PhD holders who don't understand the science screaming that it's false does not beat one PhD holder who understands and works with the science.



I'm willing to listen to certain scientists who can come with facts, but it's going to take a lot to convince me that all the other data, some of which I've personally worked with, is bunk. If a scientist can show that it is, and have the tests be repeatable and good, then I'll jump on that train. That's how science works, I'm always willing to change my position based on what the science says. Fossil fuels aren't a sustainable energy source, which is another reason why moving to green energy is really smart. Methane isn't a pollutant either, but enough of it in our atmosphere and we all die.

Really, I'm going a little too far here, I don't want to continue.

The reason why I wanted to know where you were coming from was because I wanted to see if you were pulling from science or from politics. You pull more from politics, that's fine, that's what you're about. I will never convince you differently because it's a challenge to your political views, and you will never convince me because I've worked with some of the data personally.

So there's really no need to continue to engage, it'll just go around in circles.

Sounds good. We can end it here Blue. Great exchange. I appreciate all the time you spent addressing each point.

We may never see eye to eye on everything. But I think we both agree we are at a crossroads in the worlds energy usage, and I am confident there are solutions out there.

And though I would still disagree my views originate at a political source, but a sound science source, I do agree with something you said earlier: climate science is complicated, and guys like you are in The Arena doing great work and searching for truth and answers.

I wish you blessings in that quest. :cheers:

 

[Ramhusker]

You DO underatdn that he is not self-financing these companies, right?

SpaceX is privately owned. So, a small group of investors, who are intimately knowledgable about the financial condition of the company and associated risks.
Some background:
http://time.com/space-x-ten-things-to-know/ (check out item #7 - is SpaceX profitable?)
Some funding information (Musk appears to have sunk the "seed money", then it's been others:
https://www.quora.com/How-is-SpaceX-funded

So, for SpaceX, which has a small, "in-the-know" group of investors with money at stake, I agree, I'm OK if they don't turn a profit. Smaller group of people who can get burned.
(BTW, SpaceX appears to be doing well financially - although that can't be verified)

Tesla (the car company), is an entirely different matter. That is a public company, with hundreds of millions of shares outstanding. That's hundreds of millions of people who could be harmed - either directly, or indirectly (notice all the mutual funds that are invested):
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/holders?p=TSLA
Also note who ISN'T on that list of Direct Holders (Elon Musk).

So, in the case of the publicly held car company, yeah, I'd care if it's profitable... if I owned stock (which I do not... and would not).

That thing goes belly up, the market capitalization is over $54 billion!

And don't be fooled. Government monies are in the equation as well.