Higgs Boson finally discovered?

[Zeekar]

The ISS is a massive resource and has provided a platform, bridge and destination between 1980's style big-space exploration to unmanned and private transportation. It's also run hundreds of experiments with many small, but fascinating discoveries that have provided immeasurable value to engineers, chemists and biologists.

Calling Space X private transportation is optimistic at best and a blatant lie at worst. Everybody who is something there came from Nasa, their main funding is from Nasa the only thing that didnt came from Nasa is the founding member. I'm not going to criticise their accomplishments they are impressive to say the least but they are far from private.

[Pattern]

The ISS is a massive resource and has provided a platform, bridge and destination between 1980's style big-space exploration to unmanned and private transportation. It's also run hundreds of experiments with many small, but fascinating discoveries that have provided immeasurable value to engineers, chemists and biologists.

Calling Space X private transportation is optimistic at best and a blatant lie at worst. Everybody who is something there came from Nasa, their main funding is from Nasa the only thing that didnt came from Nasa is the founding member. I'm not going to criticise their accomplishments they are impressive to say the least but they are far from private.

Yeah, your preaching to the choir.

[Frug]

Calling Space X private transportation is optimistic at best and a blatant lie at worst. Everybody who is something there came from Nasa, their main funding is from Nasa the only thing that didnt came from Nasa is the founding member. I'm not going to criticise their accomplishments they are impressive to say the least but they are far from private.

I'm not exactly an authority on business... but i don't think so.

Also I hate how people overuse "x at best and y at worst".

How exactly would you have spacex structured to fit what you would call a private enterprise as opposed to how it is now? You are objecting to them using experienced employees? You're objecting to the fact that they're "funded" (paid/hired) by NASA?

The significant difference is with payment models, bidding processes, and organizational structure. They don't have to be paid by other privately owned bodies to make a profit off of flying dirt into space and seeing how it floats. That's not profitable. The money comes from NASA because the government is the only body currently willing to pay to shoot people into space to watch plants grow in zero gravity.

There is more of a difference between spacex and the old NASA way of doing things than people putting on a different colored shirt with a different logo on it.

[lubica]

People implying that a public insitution is basically just the same as a publicly funded private enterprise is just

seriously, get your shit together, that's just bad.

[elmicker]

MAD is the U.S. (the Soviets prob had their own) plan to destroy all the things. Which is the polar opposite of a ban..

Plan? The soviets built an automated launch system to guarantee MAD.

[Pattern]

To be fair, X Space has other clients beyond NASA.

[Zeekar]

Calling Space X private transportation is optimistic at best and a blatant lie at worst. Everybody who is something there came from Nasa, their main funding is from Nasa the only thing that didnt came from Nasa is the founding member. I'm not going to criticise their accomplishments they are impressive to say the least but they are far from private.

I'm not exactly an authority on business... but i don't think so.

Also I hate how people overuse "x at best and y at worst".

How exactly would you have spacex structured to fit what you would call a private enterprise as opposed to how it is now? You are objecting to them using experienced employees? You're objecting to the fact that they're "funded" (paid/hired) by NASA?

The significant difference is with payment models, bidding processes, and organizational structure. They don't have to be paid by other privately owned bodies to make a profit off of flying dirt into space and seeing how it floats. That's not profitable. The money comes from NASA because the government is the only body currently willing to pay to shoot people into space to watch plants grow in zero gravity.

There is more of a difference between spacex and the old NASA way of doing things than people putting on a different colored shirt with a different logo on it.

Yes there are significant differences between how Space X and Nasa operate especially in bureaucracy. But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa. Sorry it just doesn't fly with me. Their future on the other hand is completely in their hands so we can wait and see what they will do with their knowledge.

To be fair, X Space has other clients beyond NASA.

1 customer so far? There are other in the pipeline but there has been only one satellite delivered in orbit for another company beyond Nasa.

[AmaNutin]

Calling it, China's going to beat us to having manned missions to Mars.

edit: how did we get from quantum research to spaceflight?

[lubica]

Who cares,

[Frug]

Yes there are significant differences between how Space X and Nasa operate especially in bureaucracy. But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa. Sorry it just doesn't fly with me.

You're confusing designs and employees with business models. You can't lump everything together into a vague idea of what you consider to be the meaning of a "private company" and expect to have a coherent argument. It's nonsense. If microsoft began manufacturing rockets based on NASA designs and hiring NASA employees, would you say the same thing? The designs of the ships themselves is a completely separate topic from them being a private company. You don't need to invent a square wheel to start a tire company - you need to make tires.

In fact, if it's more economically viable and efficient for them to adopt field tested NASA designs then they should do that to be considered a well run, profitable company and to compete in the bidding process. Blowing piles money on inventing fancy things for no good reason is what NASA is for and the exact opposite of what you're claiming spacex should be doing. You'll need to point out issues with the COTS program if you want me to believe there's something amiss in how they won over other private companies by being "less private".

Employees, too, are people with salaries and jobs, not elements of a public entity that pollute the private sector by being tainted with public cooties.

To be fair, X Space has other clients beyond NASA.

1 customer so far? There are other in the pipeline but there has been only one satellite delivered in orbit for another company beyond Nasa.

At what point will they have enough clients in what is a small field (dominated by government agencies) to meet your stamp of approval? They're a new company that's opened themselves up to clients. That's exactly the sort of thing that makes them different.

[Tellenta]

MAD is the U.S. (the Soviets prob had their own) plan to destroy all the things. Which is the polar opposite of a ban..

Plan? The soviets built an automated launch system to guarantee MAD.

Ah, the good old days.

[elmicker]

But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa.

If what they did was so blatantly just copying nasa's past innovation, why is it that when nasa attempted to do the same thing they've done with Falcon 9 and Dragon in Ares I/V and Orion, they ended up with cost estimates multiple orders of magnitude higher and plans lasting multiple decades? If it was all nasa's brilliance that enabled such things surely they'd have been able to do what SpaceX did much more easily.

[Frug]

MAD is the U.S. (the Soviets prob had their own) plan to destroy all the things. Which is the polar opposite of a ban..

Plan? The soviets built an automated launch system to guarantee MAD.

Ah, the good old days.

http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...10/mf_deadhand good read, linked from the wiki article. tl;dr we're still in the good old days if you believe wired.

[Zeekar]

Yes there are significant differences between how Space X and Nasa operate especially in bureaucracy. But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa. Sorry it just doesn't fly with me.

You're confusing designs and employees with business models. You can't lump everything together into a vague idea of what you consider to be the meaning of a "private company" and expect to have a coherent argument. It's nonsense. If microsoft began manufacturing rockets based on NASA designs and hiring NASA employees, would you say the same thing? The designs of the ships themselves is a completely separate topic from them being a private company. You don't need to invent a square wheel to start a tire company - you need to make tires.

In fact, if it's more economically viable and efficient for them to adopt field tested NASA designs then they should do that to be considered a well run, profitable company and to compete in the bidding process. Blowing piles money on inventing fancy things for no good reason is what NASA is for and the exact opposite of what you're claiming spacex should be doing. You'll need to point out issues with the COTS program if you want me to believe there's something amiss in how they won over other private companies by being "less private".

Employees, too, are people with salaries and jobs, not elements of a public entity that pollute the private sector by being tainted with public cooties.

What im saying they got subsidized by the government and they got subsidized heavily in money and knowledge. Calling that private is silly.

To be fair, X Space has other clients beyond NASA.

1 customer so far? There are other in the pipeline but there has been only one satellite delivered in orbit for another company beyond Nasa.

At what point will they have enough clients in what is a small field (dominated by government agencies) to meet your stamp of approval? They're a new company that's opened themselves up to clients. That's exactly the sort of thing that makes them different.

More then 1.

But what I find slightly meh is that almost all of their designs are based on designs done by Nasa with Nasa engineers and with money from Nasa and then calling that innovative private enterprise when almost everything ( thats according by them ) came from Nasa.

If what they did was so blatantly just copying nasa's past innovation, why is it that when nasa attempted to do the same thing they've done with Falcon 9 and Dragon in Ares I/V and Orion, they ended up with cost estimates multiple orders of magnitude higher and plans lasting multiple decades? If it was all nasa's brilliance that enabled such things surely they'd have been able to do what SpaceX did much more easily.

Cut the bureaucracy in Nasa and they will be able to. Even Elon Musk is admitting that. He's also saying he wouldn't be able to pull this off without Nasa.

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...Employees.html

[elmicker]

So it was almost like they innovated in the way they produced the end product!

[Frug]

We all know private companies don't get subsidized by the government.

Right guise?

[Tellenta]

MAD is the U.S. (the Soviets prob had their own) plan to destroy all the things. Which is the polar opposite of a ban..

Plan? The soviets built an automated launch system to guarantee MAD.

Ah, the good old days.

http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...10/mf_deadhand good read, linked from the wiki article. tl;dr we're still in the good old days if you believe wired.

We're in a new shift of the good old days. The big boys on the block stopped openly threatening each other. Which doesn't automatically mean that the plans are gone it really just means no one will be banging shoes on podiums declaring that they will bury us. The shit storm is more or less dormant for now but will never really be gone unless we find something else to point our nukes at. I can't really think of a something else without going all science fiction up in here. So hopefully someones trigger finger doesn't get itchy.

[Tellenta]

Yay a double post, so I heard those higgs have bosons in them.

[Itiken]

I would argue that CERN is actualy quite cheap.
After all, a yearly budget of 800 million Euros isn't too much if one considers the great scientifical successes of CERN and the fact
that this money is shoulded by 20 different nations.

Particularly not when you consider that cash is all going into the pockets of european academics, engineers and infrastructure. CERN's a cornerstone of european technical academia. It's a bargain really when you consider the amount each nation spends on it per year. About £100m per year for the UK. Less than the cost of a single Eurofighter.

Hehe, by try to explain that to the usual "fundamental science is expensive and useless" retards.
I am especialy fond of those who complain that this money could go to africa while they themselfs probably never spend a single buck for charity.

Considering that just ONE of of the Offshoot technologies developed by the LHC is "The Internet" then the whole discussion is kinda moot.

[elmicker]

Considering that just ONE of of the Offshoot technologies developed by the LHC is "The Internet" then the whole discussion is kinda moot.

I think you mean that some guys who happened to be at cern also happened to develop the world wide web. The internet significantly predates the web, and honestly CERN's role in the WWW's birth is overstated.