Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS

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.

It's all about relative speed. If you're going 100 km/h on the highway and you bump a car that's going 98 km/h, your damage will not be more severe than when you're bumping into a standing object at 2 km/h.

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.

Not too hard, just not worth the effort when they can easily just send a manequine.

If this was deliberate it was a total waste of money

No it wasn't as it was part of a required safety test.
If you want to call a safety test a waste of money go ahead, but most people wont agree.

Not one of you have actually advanced your argument.

It is your argument we are focusing on, and you are yet to even get it started.

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.

And what do you have to dispute this?

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

Yes, some day many years ago.

Now are you capable of backing up your argument, or just insult, ridicule and more baseless assertions?

Have any of you watched a rocket launch? For the FEers, what did you think you were seeing?

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.

Why is "the area that comprises the skies above our planet" even relevant?
How does a plane fly from London to Perth? Do you think that they just head off is some random direction and hope they get there?

That seems to be the level of your reasoning if your silly analogy.

The plane is navigated along the designed flight path just as a spacecraft is navigated along the planned path to its destination.
The great velocity of the target is of little relevance.

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

Done and did! "The first docking of two spacecraft was achieved on March 16, 1966 when Gemini 8, under the command of Neil Armstrong, rendezvoused and docked with an unmanned Agena Target Vehicle."

Yes, Neil Armstrong commanded the first US docking way back in 1966!

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2019, 09:06:53 AM

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.

Why is "the area that comprises the skies above our planet" even relevant?
How does a plane fly from London to Perth? Do you think that they just head off is some random direction and hope they get there?

That seems to be the level of your reasoning if your silly analogy.

The plane is navigated along the designed flight path just as a spacecraft is navigated along the planned path to its destination.
The great velocity of the target is of little relevance.

Quote from: Shifter

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

Done and did! "The first docking of two spacecraft was achieved on March 16, 1966 when Gemini 8, under the command of Neil Armstrong, rendezvoused and docked with an unmanned Agena Target Vehicle."

Yes, Neil Armstrong commanded the first US docking way back in 1966!

London is not a moving target at 27000km/h

And where is Neil now? He's dead.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2019, 03:07:42 PM

Done and did! "The first docking of two spacecraft was achieved on March 16, 1966 when Gemini 8, under the command of Neil Armstrong, rendezvoused and docked with an unmanned Agena Target Vehicle."

Yes, Neil Armstrong commanded the first US docking way back in 1966!

London is not a moving target at 27000km/h

And where is Neil now? He's dead.

What has London got to do with it? I never mentioned London! And Neil Armstrong is dead - why is that relevant?
The Agena Target Vehicle was an uncrewed spacecraft (satellite) launched on an Atlas rocket so the pair is often called the Atlas-Agena.

Spacecraft have rendezvoused and docked with other spacecraft numerous times, probably hundreds. It is no big deal.
Many have been uncrewed re-supply missions to the ISS by the Russian Progress, Arianespace's Ariane Transfer Vehicle or ATV and SpaceX cargo missions.

Some have been crewed with the Space Shuttle and the Russia's Soyuz Crew Capsule.

So what's your point? 
Has your ASI forsaken you so all you do can now post is total rubbish. Don't worry, you'll get over grieving in a year or two.

Go back to playing Were-Wotevers.

What has London got to do with it? I never mentioned London!

Look at your previous post. Wow that dementia kicks in fast. To make it easier - You can go point A to B anywhere on earth in a straight line and regardless of how fast you travel, the target will still be there. Not so much with a satellite zooming around the earth every 90 minutes

Quote from: rabinoz on March 04, 2019, 09:03:09 PM

What has London got to do with it? I never mentioned London!

Look at your previous post. Wow that dementia kicks in fast. To make it easier - You can go point A to B anywhere on earth in a straight line and regardless of how fast you travel, the target will still be there.

No, it's not dementia by my failure realise the depth of your ignorance on anything technical so I assumed my meaning was obvious.

I I wanted to be as pedantic as you often are, I would say that you cannot "go point A to B anywhere on earth in a straight line and regardless of how fast you travel, the target will still be there"!
1) The shortest route is a "great circle" not a "straight line" unless your plane can tunnel through the earth!
2) Point B is not travelling at the same speed around the earth as point A was when you left - Coriolis etc.
3) Unless mid-course corrections are made winds etc will push the plane off course.

As a result, it is far easier to automate spacecraft docking than long aircraft flights - there are fewer random variables.
Even the Mercury-Atlas spacecraft that John Glenn flew was automated sufficiently to fly the mission but John Glenn demanded the ability to take over.
And it was well he did - humans are much better at handling unexpected problems.

Not so much with a satellite zooming around the earth every 90 minutes

The ISS might be "zooming around the earth every 90 minutes" but its trajectory is very predictable, to the point where its arrival time can be predicted well ahead to within seconds.
The high velocity is no problem as long as the vehicle has the delta-V capability to handle any manoeuvring called for.

Aircraft flights are not predictable in that way!

It might not be easy but the path of the ISS is very much more predictable than the winds between London and Perth but it's hardly "rocket science".
Oh wait, maybe it is close to rocket science and we know from past experience that you and Heiwa just can't wrap your heads around that!

You can go point A to B anywhere on earth in a straight line and regardless of how fast you travel, the target will still be there. Not so much with a satellite zooming around the earth every 90 minutes

Are you saying that with all our computers and radars and other sensor it's difficult to get into orbit and dock? Pfffft, I can manually fly to orbit and dock by hand in Kerbal Space Program 

You might not believe in round earth physics, but KSP is a good simulation of them.

Look at your previous post. Wow that dementia kicks in fast. To make it easier - You can go point A to B anywhere on earth in a straight line and regardless of how fast you travel, the target will still be there. Not so much with a satellite zooming around the earth every 90 minutes

Yes, not quite the same with a satellite zooming past, just like not the same with an object in a train or plane or on a moving Earth.
Instead you leave from point A, knowing that you need to head to point B where your target will be.
Or you can just use a moving reference frame and move in that.

Even when a plane is moving at near the speed of sound, I still manage to get to my seat just fine. I don't magically end up in the middle of the ocean with the plane heaps far away.

Again, just what do you think is so hard and why do you think it is hard?

People aren't just aiming randomly and hoping for the best.

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2019, 09:31:20 PM

Look at your previous post. Wow that dementia kicks in fast. To make it easier - You can go point A to B anywhere on earth in a straight line and regardless of how fast you travel, the target will still be there. Not so much with a satellite zooming around the earth every 90 minutes

Yes, not quite the same with a satellite zooming past, just like not the same with an object in a train or plane or on a moving Earth.
Instead you leave from point A, knowing that you need to head to point B where your target will be.
Or you can just use a moving reference frame and move in that.

Even when a plane is moving at near the speed of sound, I still manage to get to my seat just fine. I don't magically end up in the middle of the ocean with the plane heaps far away.

Again, just what do you think is so hard and why do you think it is hard?

People aren't just aiming randomly and hoping for the best.

It would seem that Shifter's realised he's been ANNIHILATED again and run to seek sympathy from his cuddly toy.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 05, 2019, 12:33:20 PM

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2019, 09:31:20 PM

Look at your previous post. Wow that dementia kicks in fast. To make it easier - You can go point A to B anywhere on earth in a straight line and regardless of how fast you travel, the target will still be there. Not so much with a satellite zooming around the earth every 90 minutes

Yes, not quite the same with a satellite zooming past, just like not the same with an object in a train or plane or on a moving Earth.
Instead you leave from point A, knowing that you need to head to point B where your target will be.
Or you can just use a moving reference frame and move in that.

Even when a plane is moving at near the speed of sound, I still manage to get to my seat just fine. I don't magically end up in the middle of the ocean with the plane heaps far away.

Again, just what do you think is so hard and why do you think it is hard?

People aren't just aiming randomly and hoping for the best.

It would seem that Shifter's realised he's been ANNIHILATED again and run to seek sympathy from his cuddly toy.

Who is annihilated? None of you have proven anything. Just parroted the usual spin

But keep going. Your bullshit is almost entertaining to read.

Who is annihilated?

You and you're not even smart enough to recognise it.
Run off to your sand-pit and play Were-ASI or whatever.

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2019, 03:14:28 PM

Who is annihilated?

You and you're not even smart enough to recognise it.
Run off to your sand-pit and play Were-ASI or whatever.

I can't

I got annihilated in that game

If you had any real argument, you would address it rather than go to your 'off topic' defence. Your off topic strategy is getting old rab and quite predictable.

Here is a novel thought for you... How about addressing the OP at hand?

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2019, 09:31:20 PM

You can go point A to B anywhere on earth in a straight line and regardless of how fast you travel, the target will still be there. Not so much with a satellite zooming around the earth every 90 minutes

Are you saying that with all our computers and radars and other sensor it's difficult to get into orbit and dock? Pfffft, I can manually fly to orbit and dock by hand in Kerbal Space Program 

You might not believe in round earth physics, but KSP is a good simulation of them.

This. OP, play KSP and see how the concepts and practice arounding rendezvous and docking are simpler than you think it is.

Quote from: turtles on March 05, 2019, 11:26:12 AM

Quote from: Shifter on March 04, 2019, 09:31:20 PM

You can go point A to B anywhere on earth in a straight line and regardless of how fast you travel, the target will still be there. Not so much with a satellite zooming around the earth every 90 minutes

Are you saying that with all our computers and radars and other sensor it's difficult to get into orbit and dock? Pfffft, I can manually fly to orbit and dock by hand in Kerbal Space Program 

You might not believe in round earth physics, but KSP is a good simulation of them.

This. OP, play KSP and see how the concepts and practice arounding rendezvous and docking are simpler than you think it is.

I do believe in round earth physics. I just don't think we know all there is to know.

For arguments sake, let's say you are right and they pulled this off. Aren't you a bit annoyed they sent a sex doll up there instead of an actual person? So many people would put up their hand for a chance to go on the ISS. But these people rolling in so much money and pompous bullshit don't think anything of wasting trip after trip on nonsense. So the blokes get a sex toy and the chick's get a fluffy toy to cuddle at night. Does this seem like a rational way to spend millions of dollars?

Uber rich people don't get rich by wasting money time and time again.

Here is a novel thought for you... How about addressing the OP at hand?

There was nothing worth addressing in the OP. It's just your attempted riducule of things you obviously don't understand.

Your topic, "Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS", is wrong! Space X did not launch a person to ISS.
Though I guess were you the passenger it might have been correct.

And then quite incorrectly claim, "For humans of the early 21st century it is an impossible achievement! ".
In case you've forgotten how to read, I and others have addressed that silly ignorant claim.

Finally, SpaceX is trying to get the crew Dragon certified for human use.
Had "that mannequin . . . been Elon Musk himself" they would have broken the rules and probably been disqualified immediately.

Simply not understand something is nothing to be ashamed of but ridiculing it because you can't understand it is idiotic.

This has been covered already. It's a safety test, you know, the perhaps sparing of human life in case something goes horribly wrong. I think it did deliver some supplies though.

And how do you know the sex doll isn't for the chick and the cuddle toy for the blokes?

This has been covered already. It's a safety test, you know, the perhaps sparing of human life in case something goes horribly wrong. I think it did deliver some supplies though.

And how do you know the sex doll isn't for the chick and the cuddle toy for the blokes?

Hmmm good point. Did I just assume their sexuality? Oh dear...

This isn’t as safe as flying in an airplane. You couldn’t pay me a million dollars to go on even the safest space flights.

Chances of dying in a U.S. commercial airplane: 1 / 13 million

Chances of dying from a Space Shuttle flight: 1 / 100

Now, the shuttle wasn’t really a good design, and space flight is safer now than it was, but it’s still nowhere near as safe as we’d like it to be.

You honestly think they’ll stick a human in a type of flight the company is only just starting to venture in? It doesn’t matter if people volunteer. If officials say “no, it’s not safe enough yet,” then nobody is getting in that rocket.

Why you’re getting so hung up on that just seems a bit odd to me.

I do believe in round earth physics. I just don't think we know all there is to know.

Who suggested that "we know all there is to know"?

Who is annihilated?

You. You made a baseless claim and have been completely unable to back it up. Your attempts to do so have been destroyed with explanations of why they are wrong and examples showing it is nonsense.

Now, how about you try backing up your claim?
Why can't it have been real?
What makes it an impossible achievement?

We have already shown the speed isn't magically an issue as speed is relative and people can find their way at high speeds just fine.

So do you have anything to back up your claims?

You know when this rocket goes up and the tube comes back down to land on a barge. How does the tube manage to re-adjust to the so called spin of the Earth as it comes back down to land on that barge, because surely going up into the atmosphere and beyond the supposed drag the Earth must have been spinning below this rocket tube.
Funny how accurate it is to land on a barge when this should be happening, right?

Come on globalists, let's see your magic explanations. I know you'll have them at hand.

You know when this rocket goes up and the tube comes back down to land on a barge. How does the tube manage to re-adjust to the so called spin of the Earth as it comes back down to land on that barge, because surely going up into the atmosphere and beyond the supposed drag the Earth must have been spinning below this rocket tube.

The returning first stage does not have to "re-adjust to the so called spin of the Earth as it comes back down to land on that barge" because there was nothing to slow it down.

Funny how accurate it is to land on a barge when this should be happening, right?

No it is not funny. It is really quite complicated and required a lot of planning, research work and experimentation to get it right.
It did not happen easily and there were many failures along the way.
Unpredictable winds, waves and ocean currents make barge landings more difficult but "return to base" landings need more fuel.

But you wouldn't know anything about that because you never calculate anything nor do any experiments - you just dream things up.

Come on globalists, let's see your magic explanations. I know you'll have them at hand.

There is no magic - but lots of research and hard work any numerous calculations, but you don't do "sums".

Clarke's Third Law
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Some think it should be "To an ignorant person any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

You know when this rocket goes up and the tube comes back down to land on a barge. How does the tube manage to re-adjust to the so called spin of the Earth as it comes back down to land on that barge, because surely going up into the atmosphere and beyond the supposed drag the Earth must have been spinning below this rocket tube.
Funny how accurate it is to land on a barge when this should be happening, right?

Come on globalists, let's see your magic explanations. I know you'll have them at hand.

Booster seperation happens well within your denpressurized atmosphere, so they actually work a advertised in your model.

You know when this rocket goes up and the tube comes back down to land on a barge. How does the tube manage to re-adjust to the so called spin of the Earth as it comes back down

Air resistance.
What will your next ridiculous question be? How does a car sync up with the rotation of Earth when you apply the brakes?

Come on globalists, let's see your magic explanations. I know you'll have them at hand.

No magic is required.
You choosing not to understand it doesn't magically mean it is magic.

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

It seems that you believe that there is some BIG GUN somewhere which just shots the rocket toward something and rocket does not have any engines and guiding capabilities but is just something like a bullet which flies toward target. I guess you don't have imagination capabilities to imagine more complex things but just simple things. We feel for you.

I've imagined it at last.

I have a quadcopter that is capable of fully autonomous flight plan execution. I can set waypoints on a map, click a button, and it will fly a route and return to land, usually within inches of the launch point.

Why is it so hard to believe this can be done on a larger scale with basically unlimited resources?

Are we really debating ,why there was a mannequin instead of a person on a TEST FLIGHT ?