Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS

Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

OK, just imagined it. It worked. So much for your post.

Quote from: Shifter on March 03, 2019, 09:36:03 PM

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

OK, just imagined it. It worked. So much for your post.

That's quite an imagination you got there! Break it down for the rest of us

That's quite an imagination you got there! Break it down for the rest of us

Light Fuse - Get Away

Let computers make adjustments

Bump into target

Celebrate

Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

Except there was no reason to include a passenger as it was testing the system. Ideally, you don’t endanger people’s lives if the system can be automated, that’s common sense.  If you recall, we had some  disasters with the shuttles killing a number of astronauts shutting down the shuttle each time so just including a full load of unnecessary passengers if the system can be automated isn’t a great idea since we greatly value human lives.

Space 'exploration' is not about people exploring space.
Never was.

People in space is about keeping people in space alive.
Unnecessary waste of resources.

Science in space is done with automatic tools.
It does not require a woman astronaut to flip the on/off switch.

Seriously, AUTO MA TION.



I wonder if they're going to pitch the dummy overboard?   

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

You mean on a system which is capable of correcting itself?
What will be next, the amazing bullseyes coincidence of being able to slowly walk along a plane flying at almost the speed of sound and still managing to get into your seat just fine?

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

No, it is a very possible achievement.

If you would like to try explaining just why it is so magically impossible, go ahead.

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

Because it was a test flight.
Why go to the hassle of getting criminal scum when a mannequin is so much easier?
Why go to the hassle of getting a volunteer when there would be so much paperwork?

Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

So the know-it-all Shifter thinks it's simply making a "bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another".
And is too lazy to see what is involved in making the mid-course corrections.

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

Don't you mean for an ignoramus of the early 21st century who can't be bothered even trying to understand it this is an unbelievable achievement!
And so said ignoramus simply sits on the sidelines and ridicules the whole thing.

I should add that there is nothing wrong with being ignorant about various topics - obviously, we are all quite ignorant on some topics.
The problem is that some like shifter, Heiwa and sceptimatic think that they are so intelligent that if they cannot understand the issue then it is impossible.

The passenger probably has a higher intelligence level than shifter...

The passenger probably has a higher intelligence level than shifter...

So JackBlack thinks after all the effort and work in building the damn thing that the paperwork in getting an actual person (you know, the point of the whole thing) is too hard.

If this was deliberate it was a total waste of money unless the phantoms aboard the ISS requested a mannequin. Maybe the dummy was a love doll.

Rabs only argument is calling people names - not even going to entertain him with the dignity of a reply

And what are you bringing to the discussion? With a name like 'here to laugh at you' you are just a mindless troll, trolling.

Not one of you have actually advanced your argument.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on March 04, 2019, 03:50:53 AM

The passenger probably has a higher intelligence level than shifter...

Rabs only argument is calling people names - not even going to entertain him with the dignity of a reply

What names did I call anyone? "Know-it-all" and "lazy" are not names, they are adjectives!
And if you chose to apply "ignoramus" to yourself or anyone in particular, all I can say is "If the cap fits, wear it!"

Not one of you have actually advanced your argument.

Why would anyone bother? I saw no argument in your OP, just an attempt at ridicule based on your own ignorance.

If I was trolling, I would at least TRY to disguise my amusement.

I do suppose it's OK for SpaceX to test their technology before risking human lives...

I mean, money dries up when you start killing highly trained astronauts.

If I was trolling, I would at least TRY to disguise my amusement.

I do suppose it's OK for SpaceX to test their technology before risking human lives...

I mean, money dries up when you start killing highly trained astronauts.

You don't need highly trained astronauts to suicide themselves. Criminal scum on death sentences, or stupid volunteers (how many signed up for the chance to die on the fake 'Mars One' project) will do. But these people could 'talk' I guess.

'hey! This is a crappy green screen room!'

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on March 04, 2019, 06:29:11 AM

If I was trolling, I would at least TRY to disguise my amusement.

I do suppose it's OK for SpaceX to test their technology before risking human lives...

I mean, money dries up when you start killing highly trained astronauts.

You don't need highly trained astronauts to suicide themselves. Criminal scum on death sentences, or stupid volunteers (how many signed up for the chance to die on the fake 'Mars One' project) will do. But these people could 'talk' I guess.

'hey! This is a crappy green screen room!'

Except that we value human lives, at least most people do.  We don’t experiment on criminals anymore either.  They are a private company who has had rockets blow up and fail, why would they test out a new system with human lives in it if it is testable without?  If humans were to die on their maiden launch of this technology, that would probably put a damper on their program don’t you think?

They included supplies in the capsule for the ISS.  So, the mission wasn’t just to test the rocket and capsule, it did bring items with it needed by the space station.

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2019, 06:39:48 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on March 04, 2019, 06:29:11 AM

If I was trolling, I would at least TRY to disguise my amusement.

I do suppose it's OK for SpaceX to test their technology before risking human lives...

I mean, money dries up when you start killing highly trained astronauts.

You don't need highly trained astronauts to suicide themselves. Criminal scum on death sentences, or stupid volunteers (how many signed up for the chance to die on the fake 'Mars One' project) will do. But these people could 'talk' I guess.

'hey! This is a crappy green screen room!'

Except that we value human lives, at least most people do.  We don’t experiment on criminals anymore either.  They are a private company who has had rockets blow up and fail, why would they test out a new system with human lives in it if it is testable without?  If humans were to die on their maiden launch of this technology, that would probably put a damper on their program don’t you think?

They included supplies in the capsule for the ISS.  So, the mission wasn’t just to test the rocket and capsule, it did bring items with it needed by the space station.

A plush toy of the earth as a globe?

And America does experiment on criminals. The cocktail of drugs used to execute them for one....

Is technology moving too fast for you shifter?

Or not fast enough?

Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Ripley may not be able to talk, but she was wired up with lots of telemetry sensors, so she really does have a lot to say.

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

Except that it wasn't a "bullseye shot".  It started as a launch to an orbit about 200 km lower than the ISS orbit.  Over the next 25 hours or so, the orbit was raised and adjusted several times until it matched the orbit of the ISS.

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

Actually, the space community has been hailing it a a rather significant achievement.  Although, to be fair, most of the mission profile has been done 16 times before by SpaceX during their ISS resupply missions.  The biggest difference is that this was the first launch of a human rated commercial spacecraft to the ISS.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

Ummm... No.  NASA had been doing if for years with the shuttle until it got retired and the Russians are still doing it today.  Again, this is a commercial spacecraft, not a government spacecraft.

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

Unfortunately NASA tends to be rather risk averse and is making SpaceX and Boeing jump through all sorts of hoops before they let any humans fly.  This includes launch abort tests and unmanned test flights.  The crew Dragon capsule that is currently docked with the ISS is scheduled for an in flight abort test in a couple of months.  If the rest of this test mission and the launch abort test go well, then SpaceX could fly humans as soon as July. 

Even the earlier Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs had several unmanned test flights before humans were allowed to fly.  In fact, the space shuttle was the only US spacecraft that did not have an unmanned test flight before launching humans.

It's a great achievement. If they can successfully pull this off, it means that Astronauts are no longer dependant on the Russians to get to the ISS.

Is technology moving too fast for you shifter?

Or not fast enough?

How about less trolling and more substance?

Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

So which is it? It didn't happen and was faked so there is no need to put a mannequin on board, just use more of the supply of fake actor astronauts in front of green screens? Or it actually did happen, so you're upset SpaceX used a mannequin instead of "criminal scum"? (By the way, what is the contingency for the rocket not blowing up? When the criminal reaches the ISS, go directly to the brig? Oh, that's right, spaceships only have those on the TV shows where you get all your space info. Or perhaps you were thinking they should send a sentenced hooker, that way the crew gets to have a little fun.)

Which is it?

Quote from: Shifter on March 03, 2019, 09:36:03 PM

Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

So which is it? It didn't happen and was faked so there is no need to put a mannequin on board, just use more of the supply of fake actor astronauts in front of green screens? Or it actually did happen, so you're upset SpaceX used a mannequin instead of "criminal scum"? (By the way, what is the contingency for the rocket not blowing up? When the criminal reaches the ISS, go directly to the brig? Oh, that's right, spaceships only have those on the TV shows where you get all your space info. Or perhaps you were thinking they should send a sentenced hooker, that way the crew gets to have a little fun.)

Which is it?

Read. I said it's clearly bogus and the use of a sex doll rather than an actual person lends compelling weight to that.

Yes a rocket launched but no contact was made.

Ever released a helium balloon? You watch it until you can't see it anymore. After the rocket was out of sight, they just let it burn out. Like JerkFace suggested - paperwork is quite difficult for them. Imagine pulling this project off!

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 04, 2019, 08:02:18 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 03, 2019, 09:36:03 PM

Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

So which is it? It didn't happen and was faked so there is no need to put a mannequin on board, just use more of the supply of fake actor astronauts in front of green screens? Or it actually did happen, so you're upset SpaceX used a mannequin instead of "criminal scum"? (By the way, what is the contingency for the rocket not blowing up? When the criminal reaches the ISS, go directly to the brig? Oh, that's right, spaceships only have those on the TV shows where you get all your space info. Or perhaps you were thinking they should send a sentenced hooker, that way the crew gets to have a little fun.)

Which is it?

Read. I said it's clearly bogus and the use of a sex doll rather than an actual person lends compelling weight to that.

Yes a rocket launched but no contact was made.

Ever released a helium balloon? You watch it until you can't see it anymore. After the rocket was out of sight, they just let it burn out. Like JerkFace suggested - paperwork is quite difficult for them. Imagine pulling this project off!

So you will believe it when they launch it next time with an actual person on board? Because if not, then what is the point in arguing about using a doll instead?

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2019, 08:14:00 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 04, 2019, 08:02:18 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 03, 2019, 09:36:03 PM

Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

So which is it? It didn't happen and was faked so there is no need to put a mannequin on board, just use more of the supply of fake actor astronauts in front of green screens? Or it actually did happen, so you're upset SpaceX used a mannequin instead of "criminal scum"? (By the way, what is the contingency for the rocket not blowing up? When the criminal reaches the ISS, go directly to the brig? Oh, that's right, spaceships only have those on the TV shows where you get all your space info. Or perhaps you were thinking they should send a sentenced hooker, that way the crew gets to have a little fun.)

Which is it?

Read. I said it's clearly bogus and the use of a sex doll rather than an actual person lends compelling weight to that.

Yes a rocket launched but no contact was made.

Ever released a helium balloon? You watch it until you can't see it anymore. After the rocket was out of sight, they just let it burn out. Like JerkFace suggested - paperwork is quite difficult for them. Imagine pulling this project off!

So you will believe it when they launch it next time with an actual person on board? Because if not, then what is the point in arguing about using a doll instead?

Because the doll can't talk. And it suggests a lack of confidence in their own tech. Perhaps with good reason

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on March 04, 2019, 08:16:10 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2019, 08:14:00 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on March 04, 2019, 08:02:18 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 03, 2019, 09:36:03 PM

Except this person is a mannequin. Who conveniently can't talk....

Imagine the bullseye shot in getting 1 tiny object to intercept another, hundreds of kilometres skyward travelling at ~27000km/h

And globe earthers are just like 'meh' as if it's no small achievement.

For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement!

If there was any real confidence, that mannequin would have been Elon Musk himself. Or some other moron who thinks it's all real. Because why send up a mannequin when there are no shortage of volunteers or criminal scum you would give 2 shits about if the whole thing blew up on the launch pad?

So which is it? It didn't happen and was faked so there is no need to put a mannequin on board, just use more of the supply of fake actor astronauts in front of green screens? Or it actually did happen, so you're upset SpaceX used a mannequin instead of "criminal scum"? (By the way, what is the contingency for the rocket not blowing up? When the criminal reaches the ISS, go directly to the brig? Oh, that's right, spaceships only have those on the TV shows where you get all your space info. Or perhaps you were thinking they should send a sentenced hooker, that way the crew gets to have a little fun.)

Which is it?

Read. I said it's clearly bogus and the use of a sex doll rather than an actual person lends compelling weight to that.

Yes a rocket launched but no contact was made.

Ever released a helium balloon? You watch it until you can't see it anymore. After the rocket was out of sight, they just let it burn out. Like JerkFace suggested - paperwork is quite difficult for them. Imagine pulling this project off!

So you will believe it when they launch it next time with an actual person on board? Because if not, then what is the point in arguing about using a doll instead?

Because the doll can't talk. And it suggests a lack of confidence in their own tech. Perhaps with good reason

Well usually things are tested without any danger to humans. Or, jumping to 'danger of losing information', when an IT-engineer changes existing software, he will also test it first before putting it live. Testing stuff is quite normal. Car manufacturers use professional drivers on closed tracks before putting a car out to the public. A crash by a professional driver wearing safety gear and helmet on a closed track means that the crash is probably not fatal. If a rocket fails, the chances of survival are A LOT smaller.

So you will believe it when they launch it next time with an actual person on board? Because if not, then what is the point in arguing about using a doll instead?

If he doesn't believe the hundreds of previous manned space launches, why would he believe the next one? 

Because the doll can't talk. And it suggests a lack of confidence in their own tech. Perhaps with good reason

No, it suggests that you don't understand the testing process for new rockets and spacecraft.  First flights are almost never manned or carry real payloads because the odds of failure are so much higher than with flight proven craft.

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on March 04, 2019, 08:16:10 AM

So you will believe it when they launch it next time with an actual person on board? Because if not, then what is the point in arguing about using a doll instead?

If he doesn't believe the hundreds of previous manned space launches, why would he believe the next one? 

That's the point I'm trying to make. Why is someone saying "You're using a doll so I'm not buying this" when they didn't think it was real anyway.

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2019, 08:50:03 AM

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on March 04, 2019, 08:16:10 AM

So you will believe it when they launch it next time with an actual person on board? Because if not, then what is the point in arguing about using a doll instead?

If he doesn't believe the hundreds of previous manned space launches, why would he believe the next one? 

That's the point I'm trying to make. Why is someone saying "You're using a doll so I'm not buying this" when they didn't think it was real anyway.

He's just trying to mock the flight test process is all.  If space travel was fake, then there wouldn't be any need for unmanned tests, would there? 

BTW, Blue Origin also uses a test dummy in their test flights of their New Sheppard rocket. 
https://www.space.com/39111-blue-origin-mannequin-skywalker-dummy-launch.html

It seems that Virgin Galactic is the only one using real human pilots for their test flight program.

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2019, 08:50:03 AM

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on March 04, 2019, 08:16:10 AM

So you will believe it when they launch it next time with an actual person on board? Because if not, then what is the point in arguing about using a doll instead?

If he doesn't believe the hundreds of previous manned space launches, why would he believe the next one? 

That's the point I'm trying to make. Why is someone saying "You're using a doll so I'm not buying this" when they didn't think it was real anyway.

There have been humans ventured into space I don't dispute that. I dispute the alleged fact that we can get people to dock with a tiny object going more than twice the speed of the current most powerful rail gun projectile. Think about the area that comprises the skies above our planet.

We will pull it off someday, of that you can be sure.

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on March 04, 2019, 08:55:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2019, 08:50:03 AM

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on March 04, 2019, 08:16:10 AM

So you will believe it when they launch it next time with an actual person on board? Because if not, then what is the point in arguing about using a doll instead?

If he doesn't believe the hundreds of previous manned space launches, why would he believe the next one? 

That's the point I'm trying to make. Why is someone saying "You're using a doll so I'm not buying this" when they didn't think it was real anyway.

There have been humans ventured into space I don't dispute that. I dispute the alleged fact that we can get people to dock with a tiny object going more than twice the speed of the current most powerful rail gun projectile. Think about the area that comprises the skies above our planet.

We will pull it off someday, of that you can be sure.

They've been doing it since 1966.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_rendezvous#First_docking