SpaceX

[Prokleto Djubre]

Sad vec zamisljam inzenjere u SpaceX kako planiraju da isfinansiraju ceo poduhvat tako sto dovlace sir od koga je napravljen Mesec i prodaju ga na pijacama sirom planete.

[bigvlada]

Problem sa svim grandioznim kosmičkim poduhvatima je što samo države imaju para da ih finansiraju i to samo nakon dugog niza godina. Nigde politička klima nije toliko povoljna da omogućava višegodišnje (a u mnogim slučajevima višedecenijsko) nesmetano finansiranje. Apolo je bio izuzetak, ali to je bila politička odluka prouzrokovana strahom da Rusi ne stignu prvi na mesec, ne željom za istraživanjem.   

[bigvlada]

It’s Time to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Elon Musk and Cronyism

 

 David Williams / November 13, 2016 /  comments

 

 

From Enron to Bernie Madoff, at the end of every great American financial scandal, the totality of the perpetrators’ greed seems to be matched only by the public’s incredulity at how such a thing could be allowed to happen.

 

And thanks to Elon Musk, there’s a good chance we may all be asking this question again soon.

 

The Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee have launched a probe into tax incentives paid to solar companies, according to The Wall Street Journal. The committee probes, led by their respective Republican chairmen, Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, have found an appropriate and disturbing target to begin this work.

 

SolarCity, a solar installation company set to be purchased by Tesla Motors Inc., is one of the seven companies named in the initial investigation.

 

 

Already grossly subsidized, Musk’s SolarCity has become an albatross of waste, fraud, and abuse of tax payer dollars. As legitimate earnings and cash become even scarcer for SolarCity, its entanglement in the Tesla empire suggests that a drastic reckoning not only is imminent, but in fact emboldening Musk to become more outlandish and reckless.

 

Notably, SolarCity is run by Musk’s cousins, Lyndon and Peter Rive. During his chairmanship at SolarCity, Musk’s family enterprise has taken in billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies from both the federal and local governments. But the subsidies and sweetheart deals were not enough, as losses and missed projections continued to mount.

 

Ultimately, rather than endure the embarrassment of collapse and further damage to the public image of Musk and Tesla, the cousins conspired to have Tesla simply purchase SolarCity this year. The conditions of the deal screamed foul play.

 

To say nothing of what sense it might make for an automaker to purchase a solar installation company, Tesla stockholders were being forced to absorb a failing, cash-burning company and pay top dollar to do so.

 

While cost cutting and corporate restructuring should have been the priority for a company swimming in debt and burning through available cash, SolarCity in fact has been doubling down on the failed model of taxpayer support. The desperate thirst for handouts has manifested itself in some of the murkiest political waters imaginable.

 

Thanks to Musk’s cozy relationship with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, the state has granted at least $750 million of its taxpayers’ money to SolarCity, building the company a factory and charging it only $1 per year in rent.

 

It would be hard to imagine such an operation would not be lucrative for its shareholders. And yet somehow, SolarCity never has made a profit.

 

It’s not just in New York. In this year’s race for Arizona Corporation Commission, the state’s public utilities overseers, only one outside group funneled cash into the contest.

 

All of the $3 million donated by that group, Energy Choice for America, came from SolarCity. The beneficiaries are candidates who have signaled their willingness to be part of the “green machine” that greases the skids for lucrative government subsidies.

 

Burning through taxpayer dollars, buying elections, and expanding a network of crony capitalism has become so inherent to the SolarCity model that $3 million to a public commissioner’s race, brazen though it may be, is only a drop in the bucket for Musk and SolarCity.

 

In 2013 alone, SolarCity received $127.4 million in federal grants. The following year, in which it received only $342,000 from the same stimulus package, total revenue was just $176 million and the company posted a net loss of $375 million.

 

Despite an expansion of operations and claims to be the leader in the industry, SolarCity never has been able to survive without serious help from government subsidies and grants. The failure to responsibly turn taxpayer dollars into a profitable renewable energy provider has led to SolarCity’s collapse into the welcoming arms of Tesla.

 

And with Tesla, SolarCity in fact will be right at home, compounding a disastrous shell game that Elon Musk is playing with government resources.

 

It has been widely reported that among SolarCity, Tesla, and the rocket company SpaceX, Elon Musk’s confederacy of interests has gotten at least $4.9 billion in taxpayer support over the past 10 years.

 

This is almost half of Musk’s supposed net worth—taken from the pockets of American citizens and put into companies that can survive only by cannibalizing each other, spending without end, and promising that success is always just beyond the horizon and yet never arrives.

 

The American people are being taken on a ride by SolarCity, Tesla, and Musk. The ride is fueled by a cult of personality in Musk. And it costs billions of taxpayer dollars as he promises us not only the moon, but to harness the power of the sun and send us all to Mars.

 

In the cases of Enron and Bernie Madoff, in the end the cheated victims wished to have woken up sooner to the hubris that enabled such a downfall—or that at least regulators had pulled their heads out of the sand before the full impact of the collapse was realized.

 

We’ve seen this story before and we know how it ends.

 

The congressional investigations underway not only are necessary but a signal that more must be done, and soon. We may not be able to help Elon Musk stop himself from failing again, but we certainly shouldn’t be the ones to pay for it.

 

It’s past time for the American people to stand up to Musk and demand that our legislators and other elected officials bring him back to earth before spending one more dollar of our money. He’s wasted enough of it already.

 

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/13/its-time-to-stop-spending-taxpayer-dollars-on-elon-musk-and-cronyism/

[hazard]

Doticni David Williams je predsednik TPA (Taxpayer's Protection Alliance), NVO koja je izgleda protivi maltene svakoj vrsti drzavne potrosnje...nemam sad vremena da detaljno istrazujem ko su, ali cini mi se da su neki desnicari kojima narocito smeta kada drzava trosi pare na "zelene" tehnologije...

 

Evo pogleda iz drugog ugla:

 

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/dark-money-behind-latest-leed-bashing.html

 

(LEED je inace novi standard za "zelene/ekoloske" zgrade, a TPA je pokusao da progura pricu da je sve to zavera da bi profitiralo par "ekoloskih" NVO)

 

Ko je iza TPA i Williams-a? Hm, izgleda neki republikanci:

 

 

However when you dig up the 990, a form required by the IRS for every tax-exempt non-profit, you find some very big fish indeed.

 

Barry Bennett and the Alliance for America's Future

 

Barry Bennett is described lovingly in Huffington Post:

 

Bennett has a history as a frontman for Republican Party ventures financed by donors intent on maintaining their anonymity. Since the 1990s, he has headed two nonprofits set up for the purpose of influencing elections while maintaining donor secrecy. He has operated within the underbelly of politics where secret money flows through obscure trusts and foundations to finance attack ads and campaigns free of fingerprints.

 

Bennett now runs The Alliance for America's Future; Paul Blumenthal continues in Huffpo:

 

Joining him at the new conservative nonprofit were Mary Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Kara Ahern, Cheney's former chief of staff. The nonprofit was formed after the Citizens United ruling that, among many other things, allowed nonprofits to spend money on express advocacy for candidates seeking election. This change effectively sanctioned much of the activity that Bennett and CCF [his former gig] had pursued in the 1990s. The CCF ads had to mask their negative message about a candidate behind criticisms over issues. The Alliance for America's Future, however, could raise unlimited contributions from anonymous donors to fund ads that openly call for the victory or defeat of candidates.

 

The nonprofit is part of a network of independent conservative groups that have either been established or increased their visibility in the wake of the Citizens United decision. They include the Karl Rove-linked American Crossroads and the Koch brothers-funded Americans for Job Security.

 

Stephen Demaura and Americans for Job Security

 

And who is president of Americans for Job Security? Why, it is Stephen Demaura, Treasurer and Secretary of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance. According to Sourcewatch,

 

AJS has long been ahead of the trends for dark money political spending. "You could say Americans for Job Security has been keeping donors anonymous since before it was cool," Talking Points Memo wrote in December 2012....in a FEC Complaint, Public Citizen wrote that AJS is a "sham front group that would be better called Corporations Influencing Elections ... masquerading as a non-profit to conceal its funders and the scope of its electioneering activities."

 

No wonder TPA Prez David Williams refused to tell Paula where his money came from; he's the front man for two of the biggest conservative dark money organizations in the country, funded by the Kochs and no doubt the American Chemistry Council and SFI, who are all working together to gut LEED and make America safe for the makers of formaldehyde, vinyl and clearcut lumber.

 

Dakle tip koji se predstavlja kao veliki borac protiv burazerske ekonomije i netransparentnog trosenja drzavnih para pliva u parama brace Koh i anonimnih republikanskih donatora...simpaticno. I njemu smeta sto drzava trosi pare na podrsku solarnoj industriji...I'm shocked, shocked :D

[bigvlada]

Ah, znam sa kim imam posla, istraživao sam malo kako sajt, tako i fondaciju koja stoji iza njega i autora. Poenta je da je ovde u više navrata i u više kompanija vršeno kreativno računovodstvo. Govorio sam o tome kako su slali satelite bez osiguranja i kako to nije održiv poslovni model. Plan za Mars mi je bio jako sumnjiv, naročito kada je rekao da će svakako država morati da da najveći deo keša.  Jedino nisam znao da su to radili i u ostalim kompanijama u grupaciji. 

[eumeswil]

Inside the ‘Tunnel’ Elon Musk Is Already Digging Under Los Angeles

 

 

 

Over the weekend, workers excavated a “test trench” 30 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 15 feet deep on the grounds of SpaceX’s Los Angeles headquarters. Musk calls it the beginning of an experiment. “We’re just going to figure out what it takes to improve tunneling speed by, I think, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 percent,” he said Sunday during a hyperloop design competition at SpaceX. “We have no idea what we’re doing—I want to be clear about that.”

[eoten]

izgleda da će posle dosta godina ljudi opet napustiti zemljinu orbitu: http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year

[bigvlada]

izgleda da će posle dosta godina ljudi opet napustiti zemljinu orbitu: http://www.spacex.com/news/2017/02/27/spacex-send-privately-crewed-dragon-spacecraft-beyond-moon-next-year

 

Neće. 

 

 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-137

 

Zmaj^tm još uvek nije sertifikovan za ljudsku upotrebu, niti će to biti ove godine. Prve letove u orbitu su najavljivali za 2014. godinu. Očekivati da će odmah nakon sertifikacije slati kapsulu sa ljudskom posadom u orbitu oko Meseca je naučna fantastika. 

 

 

Jedan pogled na privatnu kolonizaciju Marsa od...pazite sad... američkih jakobinaca 

 

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/mars-elon-musk-space-exploration-nasa-colonization/

[bigvlada]

Space X je po prvi put uspeo da lansira i uspešno prizemlji prvi stepen rakete koji је već jednom leteo. Pre njih su DC-X i Blue Origin imali letelice koje su više puta izvodile podorbitalne letove i vraćale se na meto lansiranja. 

 

http://www.space.com/36291-spacex-used-rocket-launch-landing-success.html

 

Ovo je odlična vest sa tehničke strane, pokazali su da raketa koja nije dizajnirana kao višekratna može da se ponovo upotrebi. Ostaje pitanje koliko je to isplativo jer pretpostavljam da je osigurajne za polovnu raketu skuplje od onog za novu ako ni zbog čeg drugog onda zato što to prdstavlja presedan. Sojuz, Proton i Arijana se smatraju stabilnim lanserima, Falcon-u 9 će trebati još mnogo uspešnih misija da bi mogao da stekne taj status. Moguće je da je i to razlog zašto im je cilj da lansiranje polovnim prvim stepenom košta samo 40% cene lansiranja novom raketom. 

[MilenaS]

[ivy]

 

 

jos milion snimaka https://www.space.com/39197-spacex-spectacular-rocket-launch-views.html

Edited December 23, 2017 by ivy

[hazard]

https://www.space.com/39663-atomic-clock-space-falcon-heavy.html

 

Quote

The Next Falcon Heavy Will Carry the Most Powerful Atomic Clock Ever Launched into Space
By Rafi Letzter, Live Science Staff Writer | February 12, 2018 10:37am ET

 

An ultra-precise atomic clock the size of a four-slice toaster is set to zip into outer space this summer, NASA said.

 

This isn't your average timekeeper. The so-called Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC) is far smaller than Earth-bound atomic clocks, far more precise than the handful of other space-bound atomic clocks, and more resilient against the stresses of space travel than any clock ever made. According to a NASA statement, it's expected to lose no more than 2 nanoseconds (2 billionths of a second) over the course of a day. That comes to about 7 millionths of a second over the course of a decade. [5 of the Most Precise Clocks Ever Made]

 

In an email to Live Science, Andrew Good, a Jet Propulsion Laboratory representative, said the first DSAC will hitch a ride on the second Falcon Heavy launch, scheduled for June. [5 Everyday Things that Are Radioactive]

 

Atomic clocks are the most powerful time-measuring devices human beings have ever built. Broadly speaking, they work by observing atoms that are known to do certain things — like emit light — extremely regularly and quickly, then counting how many times those atoms do those things. The most powerful atomic clocks on Earth can go billions of years without losing a second of time.

 

And measuring time extremely precisely is a big deal. All sorts of scientific experiments rely on measuring fractions of a second without errors. The Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite network wouldn't work without precise measurements of the time it takes radio signals to bounce around. And spacecraft beyond Earth's orbit rely on Earth-bound atomic clocks and radio signals to precisely determine their location in space and make course adjustments.

 

Every deep-space mission that makes course corrections needs to send signals to ground stations on Earth. Those ground stations rely on atomic clocks to measure just how long those signals took to arrive, which allows them to locate the spacecraft's position down to the meter in the vast vacuum. They then send signals back, telling the craft where they are and where to go next.

 

That's a cumbersome process, and it means any given ground station can support only one spacecraft at a time. The goal of DSAC, according to a NASA fact sheet, is to allow spacecraft to make precise timing measurements onboard a spacecraft, without waiting for information from Earth.

 

A DSAC-equipped spacecraft, according to NASA's statement, could calculate time without waiting for measurements from Earth — allowing it to make course adjustments or perform precision science experiments without pausing to turn its antennas earthward and waiting for a reply.

 

The DSAC relies on a relatively new atomic clock technology, first described in a paper published in 2006, that measures the behavior of a single trapped, laser-cooled mercury ion. That ion "ticks" much faster than the cesium atoms in older atomic clocks, such as the ones that guided official U.S. time for years, or the ones aboard GPS satellites.

 

The version used for the DSAC is also designed so the clock doesn't lose time under the stresses of launch G-forces or the deep cold of outer space, as well as to draw very little power. And toaster-size isn't the limit, as NASA also wrote in its statement that the clock could be further miniaturized for future missions.

 

Once launched, the test DSAC will orbit for about a year to test its performance. Down the road, in addition to using it for deep-space missions, NASA wrote that the technology could be used to improve the GPS system.

 

[hazard]

Falcon Heavy može da ponese teret do 64 tone (za nisku orbitu). Najbliži američki konkurent je ULA-ov Delta IV Heavy, koji do niske orbite može da ponese 29 tona.

 

SpaceX naplaćuje 90 miliona dolara po lansiranju za ponovo upotrebljivu (tj. potencijalno ,,polovnu") raketu, a 150 miliona dolara po lansiranju za ganc novu tj. jednokratnu.

 

Delta IV Heavy je uvek jednokratna (dakle uvek nova), a ne zna se tačno koliko košta državu svako lansiranje - iz ULA u jednom trenutku kažu 350 miliona dolara, u drugom od 400 do 600, a to ne uzima u obzir činjenicu da SAD plaćaju ULA izvan svih tih lansiranja (lansiralo se nešto u datoj godini ili ne) još milijardu dolara godišnje. Može se reći da je ULA do 5 puta skuplji od SpaceX-a, za raketu koja nosi oko 44% tereta.

 

Druga stvar: NASA trenutno razvija svoju ,,tešku raketu" pod imenom Space Launch System (SLS). Razvoj SLSa košta 2,6 milijardi dolara godišnje. Rad na SLSu počeo je 2011. godine. SLS može do niske orbite da ponese veći teret nego Falcon Heavy, ali ne mnogo više (70 tona naspram 64). SLS je trebalo da poleti 2017., ali neminovno kao sa svim kosmičkim projektima (državnim ili privatnim) to je bilo preoptimistično, te se sada planira 2020. Samo te tri godine koštaće NASA-u 7,8 milijardi dolara. Za samo te tri godine (da ne računamo dakle do sada potrošen novac, jer je u to period u kom Falcon Heavy nije bio na tržištu), od tih para NASA bi mogla sa iznajmi Falcon Heavy 86 (,,polovna" varijanta) il 52 puta (,,ganc nova"). To izađe nekih 3000 tona tereta ukupno. NASA nema šta trenutno da lansira u orbitu toliko puta i u tolikoj masi, tj. dobar deo tih 7,8 milijardi je mogao da ode na neke druge projekte, tj. NASA bi imala para i da razvije nešto novo (satelit, sondu, itd.) i da ga lansira SpaceX-om. Drugim rečima, SLS je ogromno bacanje para u bunar.

 

Svi podaci su iz ovog članka, gde još piše kako je i SpaceX uzdrmao lansersku industriju i naterao i druge zemlje da razmisle o tome kako i za koje pare šalju stvari u orbitu:

 

Quote

Europe notices

 

It is not just other US-based launch systems feeling the heat from the Falcon Heavy launch last week. In a blog post published on Sunday, five days after the new heavy lift vehicle flew, the director general of European Space Agency said Europe must now consider "disruptive ideas" to counter competitive pressure in the aerospace industry.

 

"One particularly powerful example is in the launcher sector, where global competition has been intensifying with the advent of very cheap systems," Jan Wörner wrote. "In addition, breakthrough developments from new space sector players such as reusable launchers and marketing wheezes like sending a car into space are attracting attention and increasing pressure on the public sector."

 

Europe demands an autonomous launch capability, and it is not ready to rely on private providers like SpaceX. European nations should therefore continue to fund development of its smaller Vega C launcher, as well as its new medium-lift rockets the Ariane 62 and Ariane 64, Wörner said.

 

However, the threat of low-price competitors and reusable launch systems like the Falcon Heavy and forthcoming New Glenn rocket from Blue Origin should not be met with heads in the sand, Wörner noted. Instead, Europe should consider investing significantly in new and modern approaches toward spaceflight.

 

"The process of discussing and deciding on a launcher system that eschews traditional solutions can send a powerful signal," he wrote. "I therefore intend to invite innovative, really interested European players to come together to define possible ways forward."

 

[bigvlada]

4 hours ago, hazard said:

Falcon Heavy može da ponese teret do 64 tone (za nisku orbitu). Najbliži američki konkurent je ULA-ov Delta IV Heavy, koji do niske orbite može da ponese 29 tona.

 

SpaceX naplaćuje 90 miliona dolara po lansiranju za ponovo upotrebljivu (tj. potencijalno ,,polovnu") raketu, a 150 miliona dolara po lansiranju za ganc novu tj. jednokratnu.

 

Delta IV Heavy je uvek jednokratna (dakle uvek nova), a ne zna se tačno koliko košta državu svako lansiranje - iz ULA u jednom trenutku kažu 350 miliona dolara, u drugom od 400 do 600, a to ne uzima u obzir činjenicu da SAD plaćaju ULA izvan svih tih lansiranja (lansiralo se nešto u datoj godini ili ne) još milijardu dolara godišnje. Može se reći da je ULA do 5 puta skuplji od SpaceX-a, za raketu koja nosi oko 44% tereta.

 

Druga stvar: NASA trenutno razvija svoju ,,tešku raketu" pod imenom Space Launch System (SLS). Razvoj SLSa košta 2,6 milijardi dolara godišnje. Rad na SLSu počeo je 2011. godine. SLS može do niske orbite da ponese veći teret nego Falcon Heavy, ali ne mnogo više (70 tona naspram 64). SLS je trebalo da poleti 2017., ali neminovno kao sa svim kosmičkim projektima (državnim ili privatnim) to je bilo preoptimistično, te se sada planira 2020. Samo te tri godine koštaće NASA-u 7,8 milijardi dolara. Za samo te tri godine (da ne računamo dakle do sada potrošen novac, jer je u to period u kom Falcon Heavy nije bio na tržištu), od tih para NASA bi mogla sa iznajmi Falcon Heavy 86 (,,polovna" varijanta) il 52 puta (,,ganc nova"). To izađe nekih 3000 tona tereta ukupno. NASA nema šta trenutno da lansira u orbitu toliko puta i u tolikoj masi, tj. dobar deo tih 7,8 milijardi je mogao da ode na neke druge projekte, tj. NASA bi imala para i da razvije nešto novo (satelit, sondu, itd.) i da ga lansira SpaceX-om. Drugim rečima, SLS je ogromno bacanje para u bunar.

 

Svi podaci su iz ovog članka, gde još piše kako je i SpaceX uzdrmao lansersku industriju i naterao i druge zemlje da razmisle o tome kako i za koje pare šalju stvari u orbitu:

 

 

Da ali ne. Idemo redom. 

 

Najveći komad gvožđurije koji je lansiran a da nije šatl/Buran ili komad orbitalne stanice (koji su opet svi bili do 20 tona izuzev Skajlaba koji je težio 77 tona i nesrećnog Poljusa koji je imao 80) je satelit Proton 1, mase 17 tona, koji je postavljen na orbitu na prvom lansiranju rakete Proton 1965. godine. Falcon Heavy je prevelik za 99% tereta koji su do sada lansirani a premali za Mesec/Mars. Ako gledaš teret koji može da izbaci u geostacionarnu orbitu, tu se malo razlikuje od Arijane V. Prednost Teškog Sokola kada se radi o niskim orbitama je što može odjednom da ponese više manjih satelita. Atlas, Delta i Titan nikada nisu bili komercijalno konkurentni evropskim, ruskim i kineskim raketama i većinu lansiranja su odradili za američke državne naručioce. 

 

Saturn V je počeo sa razvojem krajem pedesetih i trebalo im je skoro deset godina da je dovedu u operativno stanje. SLS prati istu metodologiju (Ares 1 i 5 su napušteni jer nisu mogli da koriste skupu infrastrukturu koja je preostala od Saturna a SLS to može). SLS je građen za misije na Mesec i Mars i u osnovnoj konfiguraciji može da ponese 70 tona a sa unapređenim dodatnim motorima na čvrsto gorivo 140 tona (to je samo sa 2 bustera, od potencijalnih osam). Sa druge strane Falcon 9 Heavy može eventualno da doda još dva identična prva stepena (štos koji je planiran za Proton, čije je puno ime bilo Univerzalna Raketa-500 - u krajnjoj iteraciji UR-700 je trebao da može da baci 750 tona u nisku orbitu).

 

Drugim rečima, autor poredi gotovo potpuno unapređenu verziju jednog lansera sa vanila verzijom drugog a pritom su građeni sa različitim misijama u vidu. Loženje na tehničkim forumima je podjednako delovanju pseudoreligijske sekte ljubitelja Apple proizvoda a i podjednako su imuni na svaki disonantan ton. Njima je nemoguće objasniti da je F9 "reusable" manje nego šatl. 

[MilenaS]

 

Kako mi se gadi ovaj MUSK, retard neviđen