Elon Musk's Space X Rocket Launch Tonight

DesVegas

https://i.imgur.com/f8llWps.jpg

Bygone_Tones

LuttiS said:

stickyfiddle said:

@fob completely agree. 

I have no idea re Musk's charitable contributions in cash terms, but what he's trying to do with solar & battery tech via Tesla will literally change the world. It's already made a huge difference in Puerto Rico after the recent hurricane.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/10/27/elon-musks-tesla-delivers-solar-power-puerto-rico-childrens/

And his call for a new space race could be interesting... during the last space race dozens of life-changing bits of tech came out and everyone benefited.
Even the Soviets. They lost, went bankrupt and collapsed. Like i said, everyone benefited 

Not to mention, if/when we have finished making planet earth uninhabitable we might just be grateful for the option of somewhere else to live out there. This is a very real possibility in my opinion in the next 100 or 200 years.

stickyfiddle

siraxeman said:

siraxeman said:

What...nobody has debunked the evidence that it is 100% FAKE yet? C'mon kiddies...how did they manage to fit in nearly all the ball earth in that pic from so close? When NASA needs to do composites from the Imaginery Space Station, (the pretend 'home' of many Freemasonic actornauts for months at a time).

And don't you just LOVE Elon Musk's very own words "well I think it LOOKS SO RIDICULOUS AND IMPOSSIBLE...err and you can tell its real because it LOOKS SO FAKE....Honestly we have WAY BETTER CGI IF IT WAS FAKE..."

Well what a strange thing for him to say don't ya think?

We'l then kiddies...none of you really clever sci-fi guys answering? How did they fit so much of ball earth into that pic from so close? Am i asking questions that are too hard for ya?  

A wide-enough angled lens to get the whole of the earth in from the distance the camera was. It's not complicated, unless you're now going to dispute how cameras work as well??  I would also assume the Tesla was exponentially further from the earth's surface than the ISS is when that photo was taken. It's not difficult.

You're going to ask why the car looks so big compared with the Earth next...

Ravenous

stickyfiddle said:

A wide-enough angled lens to get the whole of the earth in from the distance the camera was. It's not complicated, unless you're now going to dispute how cameras work as well?? 

You're going to ask why the car looks so big compared with the Earth next...

You're wasting your time arguing, but for anyone else interested, part of the test was to fly a long coasting phase in a big elliptical orbit, then do the earth escape later.  This elliptical loop was to show the upper stage wouldn't suffer any radiation problems on the way up to a geostationary orbit.

The wider pics of earth were obviously taken either on that coast phase, or several hours later when the upper stage went on its earth escape orbit.

Elementary orbit stuff really.

RandallFlagg

 I think  @siraxeman might be onto something

The astronaut in Elon Musk's car looks fake to me, he hasn't moved for ages and how will he eat on his trip to Mars?

Fretwired

How to debunk conspiracy theories and not a 'fuckwit' in sight .... very good documentary.

Sassafras

RandallFlagg said:

 I think  @siraxeman might be onto something

The astronaut in Elon Musk's car looks fake to me, he hasn't moved for ages and how will he eat on his trip to Mars?

The glove compartment is crammed full of Mars Bars.

carlos

Bygone_Tones said:

Not to mention, if/when we have finished making planet earth uninhabitable we might just be grateful for the option of somewhere else to live out there. This is a very real possibility in my opinion in the next 100 or 200 years.

That's mental. How can it be easier to make a planet that's anathema to Earth life like Mars suitable for us, compared to fixing a planet that's perfect for us? That's like wanting a new car and having to decide between an old banger and a loaf of bread. And then deciding the loaf of bread will make a better car in the end because it's too much trouble to fix the old banger.
If you can terraform a planet that will kill Earth life in seconds, surely you can terraform the most polluted corner of the Earth.
Mr Musk is a show-off that uses these pie in the sky projects to raise his own brand. It has a better ROI than regular advertising. This still hasn't stopped his company from taking on massive losses recently.

Garthy

Fretwired said:

Majorscale said:

Fretwired said:

Emp_Fab said:

Oh come on you grinches !  Launching anything into space that isn't another bloody tv / spy / satellite is cool - especially if it's something utterly frivolous like a sports car....  and to Bowie.  Keith Moon only drove a car into a swimming pool - Elon Musk launched one into space FFS !

In a country where millions can't afford basic healthcare a billionaire can fire one of his cars into space. Personally I think its pathetic - all those bright people and billions of dollars wasted shoving yet more junk into space. It's not rock n' roll. Its not even cool. 

Call me Mr Grinch, but Musk is just Howard Hughes MK2.

I don't like the idea of creating junk anywhere either, although in this case it was a rocket test and there had to be a payload of something. Instead of using blocks of concrete or metal (the usual payload approach used by space agencies), Elon used one of his cars. Same net result from a test standpoint, but definitely a great marketing coup at the same time.

Right ... but the aim was to fly it Mars so a little more than testing a payload. That's gone wrong so now a dummy in a space suit will be whizzing round the solar system while the cars body rots ... and we're trying to get people to recycle more and not dump plastics.

Things don't rot at the top of Everest/K2 so its not going to rot in space.

Fretwired

Garthy said:

Things don't rot at the top of Everest/K2 so its not going to rot in space.

Is that so? There's no heavy radiation or a vacuum at the top of Everest. Experts say much of the car won't last long.

According to Indiana University chemist William Carroll all of the organics will be subjected to degradation by the various kinds of radiation in space. This means all of the plastic parts of the car and its carbon-fibre frame, largely comprised of carbon-carbon bonds and carbon-hydrogen bonds, will disintegrate. These chemical attractions can falter under the intense energy from the radiation. As the bonds break, the car can literally fall apart.

The bonds will break at random and, over time, all organic parts of the car will simply disintegrate. Bit by bit, materials will be torn apart as their chemical bonds snap. Those organics, in that environment, "I wouldn't give them a year." Eventually, the car will be a husk of its former self, with only inorganic parts like its aluminium frame, persisting.

In addition the rubber will be exposed to extreme cold, heat and the vacuum of space and will quickly crack and break up.

stickyfiddle

Fretwired said:

Garthy said:

Things don't rot at the top of Everest/K2 so its not going to rot in space.

Is that so? There's no heavy radiation or a vacuum at the top of Everest. Experts say much of the car won't last long.

According to Indiana University chemist William Carroll all of the organics will be subjected to degradation by the various kinds of radiation in space. This means all of the plastic parts of the car and its carbon-fibre frame, largely comprised of carbon-carbon bonds and carbon-hydrogen bonds, will disintegrate. These chemical attractions can falter under the intense energy from the radiation. As the bonds break, the car can literally fall apart.

The bonds will break at random and, over time, all organic parts of the car will simply disintegrate. Bit by bit, materials will be torn apart as their chemical bonds snap. Those organics, in that environment, "I wouldn't give them a year." Eventually, the car will be a husk of its former self, with only inorganic parts like its aluminium frame, persisting.

In addition the rubber will be exposed to extreme cold, heat and the vacuum of space and will quickly crack and break up.

I don't know where anyone's got this from, since the underpinnings of a Roadster are essential those from a Lotus Elise mk2 (albeit heavily modified), including the aluminium tub, which is definitely not made from carbon fibre.

dindude

stickyfiddle said:

Fretwired said:

Garthy said:

Things don't rot at the top of Everest/K2 so its not going to rot in space.

Is that so? There's no heavy radiation or a vacuum at the top of Everest. Experts say much of the car won't last long.

According to Indiana University chemist William Carroll all of the organics will be subjected to degradation by the various kinds of radiation in space. This means all of the plastic parts of the car and its carbon-fibre frame, largely comprised of carbon-carbon bonds and carbon-hydrogen bonds, will disintegrate. These chemical attractions can falter under the intense energy from the radiation. As the bonds break, the car can literally fall apart.

The bonds will break at random and, over time, all organic parts of the car will simply disintegrate. Bit by bit, materials will be torn apart as their chemical bonds snap. Those organics, in that environment, "I wouldn't give them a year." Eventually, the car will be a husk of its former self, with only inorganic parts like its aluminium frame, persisting.

In addition the rubber will be exposed to extreme cold, heat and the vacuum of space and will quickly crack and break up.

I don't know where anyone's got this from, since the underpinnings of a Roadster are essential those from a Lotus Elise mk2 (albeit heavily modified), including the aluminium tub, which is definitely not made from carbon fibre.

If it's a Lotus it'll definitely disintegrate.

Fretwired

stickyfiddle said:

Fretwired said:

Garthy said:

Things don't rot at the top of Everest/K2 so its not going to rot in space.

Is that so? There's no heavy radiation or a vacuum at the top of Everest. Experts say much of the car won't last long.

According to Indiana University chemist William Carroll all of the organics will be subjected to degradation by the various kinds of radiation in space. This means all of the plastic parts of the car and its carbon-fibre frame, largely comprised of carbon-carbon bonds and carbon-hydrogen bonds, will disintegrate. These chemical attractions can falter under the intense energy from the radiation. As the bonds break, the car can literally fall apart.

The bonds will break at random and, over time, all organic parts of the car will simply disintegrate. Bit by bit, materials will be torn apart as their chemical bonds snap. Those organics, in that environment, "I wouldn't give them a year." Eventually, the car will be a husk of its former self, with only inorganic parts like its aluminium frame, persisting.

In addition the rubber will be exposed to extreme cold, heat and the vacuum of space and will quickly crack and break up.

I don't know where anyone's got this from, since the underpinnings of a Roadster are essential those from a Lotus Elise mk2 (albeit heavily modified), including the aluminium tub, which is definitely not made from carbon fibre.

The Roadster has a parts overlap of roughly 6 percent with the Lotus Elise; a 2-inch longer wheelbase, and a slightly stiffer chassis. Tesla's designers chose to construct the body panels using resin transfer moulded carbon fibre composite to minimize weight; this choice makes the Roadster one of the least expensive cars with an entirely carbon fibre skin.

Lotus made the glider until around 2011 - it wasn't a standard Elise though.

Ravenous

Cor blimey. They don't call this section Off Topic for nothing

Fretwired

I sent Elon Musk's Tesla astronaut a congratulations email last night.. he was apparently over the moon!!

RandallFlagg

Sassafras said:

RandallFlagg said:

 I think  @siraxeman might be onto something

The astronaut in Elon Musk's car looks fake to me, he hasn't moved for ages and how will he eat on his trip to Mars?

The glove compartment is crammed full of Mars Bars.

yeah but he will have to hold his breath while he opens his visor to take a bite. Clearly proving that there is in fact a breathable atmosphere in "space" and that the earth is actually a painting on  a black PVC sheet

stickyfiddle

Fretwired said:

stickyfiddle said:

Fretwired said:

Garthy said:

Things don't rot at the top of Everest/K2 so its not going to rot in space.

Is that so? There's no heavy radiation or a vacuum at the top of Everest. Experts say much of the car won't last long.

According to Indiana University chemist William Carroll all of the organics will be subjected to degradation by the various kinds of radiation in space. This means all of the plastic parts of the car and its carbon-fibre frame, largely comprised of carbon-carbon bonds and carbon-hydrogen bonds, will disintegrate. These chemical attractions can falter under the intense energy from the radiation. As the bonds break, the car can literally fall apart.

The bonds will break at random and, over time, all organic parts of the car will simply disintegrate. Bit by bit, materials will be torn apart as their chemical bonds snap. Those organics, in that environment, "I wouldn't give them a year." Eventually, the car will be a husk of its former self, with only inorganic parts like its aluminium frame, persisting.

In addition the rubber will be exposed to extreme cold, heat and the vacuum of space and will quickly crack and break up.

I don't know where anyone's got this from, since the underpinnings of a Roadster are essential those from a Lotus Elise mk2 (albeit heavily modified), including the aluminium tub, which is definitely not made from carbon fibre.

The Roadster has a parts overlap of roughly 6 percent with the Lotus Elise; a 2-inch longer wheelbase, and a slightly stiffer chassis. Tesla's designers chose to construct the body panels using resin transfer moulded carbon fibre composite to minimize weight; this choice makes the Roadster one of the least expensive cars with an entirely carbon fibre skin.

Lotus made the glider until around 2011 - it wasn't a standard Elise though.

I know all that (my Dad led the project team that designed the Elise mk2 and my sister took over Tesla’s old manufacturing unit after they moved production to the USA) but that still doesn’t mean it has a carbon frame

stickyfiddle

Does this help anyone’s argument...???

Kalimna

Thats all very all, Sticky, but where's Great A'Tuin?

Fretwired

stickyfiddle said:

Fretwired said:

stickyfiddle said:

Fretwired said:

Garthy said:

Things don't rot at the top of Everest/K2 so its not going to rot in space.

Is that so? There's no heavy radiation or a vacuum at the top of Everest. Experts say much of the car won't last long.

According to Indiana University chemist William Carroll all of the organics will be subjected to degradation by the various kinds of radiation in space. This means all of the plastic parts of the car and its carbon-fibre frame, largely comprised of carbon-carbon bonds and carbon-hydrogen bonds, will disintegrate. These chemical attractions can falter under the intense energy from the radiation. As the bonds break, the car can literally fall apart.

The bonds will break at random and, over time, all organic parts of the car will simply disintegrate. Bit by bit, materials will be torn apart as their chemical bonds snap. Those organics, in that environment, "I wouldn't give them a year." Eventually, the car will be a husk of its former self, with only inorganic parts like its aluminium frame, persisting.

In addition the rubber will be exposed to extreme cold, heat and the vacuum of space and will quickly crack and break up.

I don't know where anyone's got this from, since the underpinnings of a Roadster are essential those from a Lotus Elise mk2 (albeit heavily modified), including the aluminium tub, which is definitely not made from carbon fibre.

The Roadster has a parts overlap of roughly 6 percent with the Lotus Elise; a 2-inch longer wheelbase, and a slightly stiffer chassis. Tesla's designers chose to construct the body panels using resin transfer moulded carbon fibre composite to minimize weight; this choice makes the Roadster one of the least expensive cars with an entirely carbon fibre skin.

Lotus made the glider until around 2011 - it wasn't a standard Elise though.

I know all that (my Dad led the project team that designed the Elise mk2 and my sister took over Tesla’s old manufacturing unit after they moved production to the USA) but that still doesn’t mean it has a carbon frame

US terminology mate - check the spec of the car. There's lots of carbon fibre. We're not talking about the chassis, but pretty much everything above it. Google is your friend.

'They decided to go with a carbon-fiber body instead of a polyester glass composite'.

Read all about it ..

http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-the-origin-story-2014-10?r=US&IR=T