Space X, get back on schedule, launch a $62 million bag of sand.

Space X, get back on schedule, launch a $62 million bag of sand.

This inquiry is worth no more than a bag of sand. It's delay, and delay is the enemy of disruption. I propose at the cost of 60 million,,, launch a bag of sand & any other test we can learn from and do it without incident. Then go for clearance to rejoin schedule. A 62 million test is worth getting back on schedule. We have things to do!!

DTsea | 09. lokakuu 2016

Space flight isnt done that way. You have to have a launch permit.

trx430ex | 09. lokakuu 2016

You have got to be kidding me, we need a launch permit, to prove competence in a test launch, to prove launch competence and retest the data again? Are you,,,,

Only in America.

In the current environment do those Russian rocket engines look any more attractive?

Enough of this, time for Space X to revisit it's roots, this contract does not apply globally, time to put a falcon 9 back in a plane and fly it to the south pacific. and launch again, GET Flying.

trx430ex | 09. lokakuu 2016

Another alternative, Using the existing ocean going landing platform,equip it for launch. Tow it out 200 miles in the Atlantic and no permit required in International waters.

trx430ex | 09. lokakuu 2016

Even if it had to be 4 times the size, that is hedging against risk. Both foreign ,,,& domestic. And provides a 5th alternative to current land based global risk to flight schedule.
An deep drilling oil platform acquisition would be a perfect candidate, they have suspension and infrastructure, that may be available on the cheep.
They also have mass, as in tons & tons of mass.

trx430ex | 09. lokakuu 2016

If one lowered a deep water oil platform all the way down to the water I bet it has enough mass to launch a Falcon Heavy.

trx430ex | 09. lokakuu 2016

Put 4 helipads, One on each corner of the rig, 4 choppers go live 5 minutes before launch. All station personnel evac the rig to a mile away. The rocket launches, pushes the rig 5 feet down in the water, 3 minutes later the platform is cleared for landing.
Return stage lands on current platform on location required.

Why let US law dictate disruption, just because Cape Canaveral is a ICON of history, does not mean it is the best place to launch in the US/ International Waters. The US Navy operates in BLUE water around the globe, what, we can not do this also?
I do not believe there are any global continental agreements in place that prohibit space exploration from international waters.

Ross1 | 10. lokakuu 2016

On your behalf I googled "SpaceX forum" and found several sites for you.

Remnant | 10. lokakuu 2016

@ trx430ex | October 9, 2016

<< Put 4 helipads, One on each corner of the rig, >>

Ingenious ... !

Basically, a synchronized platform, controlled by the launch/return vehicle itself.

JHB10 | 10. lokakuu 2016

Slightly unrelated:
As far as I know, SpaceX developed an escape module for astronauts in case the launch has a problem.
Can't they use this same system when launching satellites. That should reduce insurance and improve trust if it can save the satellite even if the rocket blows up.

DTsea | 10. lokakuu 2016


A fully fuelled launcher is a massive bomb. Pad 34, which is US government property, was severely damaged in the recent explosion. So the govt wont issue the permit to use THEIR LAUNCH FACILITY until SpaceX finishes the accident investigation.


dsvick | 10. lokakuu 2016

Nor will they issue a launch permit until they are reasonably sure that they aren't just launching a giant bomb that, should something else go wrong, could explode over some populated area.

Also, I'd be willing to bet that SpaceX themselves is in no hurry to lauch again until they know what happened or are pretty damn sure they'll never know for sure. This isn't a $20 model rocket you launch from your backyard where you can say "screw it, let's get another one" if you have a failure.

DTsea | 10. lokakuu 2016

Trx430,there was an enterprise called Sea Launch started by Boeing that launched Zenit rockets from a ship. Turned out to be kind of a flop.

trx430ex | 10. lokakuu 2016

Guys, your missing the point of launching from a deep sea oil rig, basically anytime you want. One is 200 miles offshore no permit is needed in International waters (that I know of). Getting the launch schedule back on the calendar, granted @ a 20% premium launched from Blue water. I picked a deep sea rig for many Pluses, the legs could be fuel tanks besides ballast. The bitch is that fuel is lighter than water trying to raise the rig up, we would need to add much more steel to push the rig back down in the water. One could regulate the weight of the rig with a center counterweight on the sea floor. That would keep the rig from trying to flip over.

It is only a flop if launch schedule is at %90 on time.(I'll take that bet, no offence intended) If we are not on time this provides the Hedge to keep launch schedule. It has a 20% premium charge to current NASA rules that has everything grounded for set amount of days. Any launch from US soil is regulated, launching from International waters is a different cat.

Go around regulation into deep water to hedge Canaveral red tape investigations to go 24/7. It's worth the investment.
The Mars presentation brought out some similarities of making our own fuel, if the rig could serve multiple purposes and draw it's fuel from a gas well. Then the only other thing we need is liquid oxygen, that we can make too cutting costs. To get a deep water oil rig into the closest international waters with a gas well,,,, I need a nautical map.

dsvick | 11. lokakuu 2016

I don't think an existing oil rig could be used to launch rockets without a huge amount of overhaul
I'm not so sure lighting off the rocket engines on an oil rig that has most likely been thouroughly soaked in a flamable liguid is the best idea, no matter how much you clean it
The costs involved in transporting (safely) the rockets, the payloads, and payloads to an off shore platform would be a lot more than a 20% increase
I'm not sure that a lot of companies would rush to hire SpaceX for launches if it were known that they were deliberately doing things to skirt regulations
Not to mention what all this would do to their insurance premuiums
Rocket science is hard, really hard. Why make is harder?

dsvick | 11. lokakuu 2016

"the rockets, the payloads, and payloads"

should be "the rockets, the payloads, and fuel"

DTsea | 11. lokakuu 2016

Need permit for any space launch.... so that nobody thinks it is an ICBM and pushes their own Big Red Button.

trx430ex | 11. lokakuu 2016

The paradox question is, is it legal? The rest of it can pay for itself. All global norms of space launch would be complied with. As for insurance, there are as many different insurers as launch costumers

I believe I ran to the absolute edge of Geo political global economic launch procedures. Do you think the Russians wait 60 days for an investigation to start launching/learning? Bet they could turn the launch site around in one week, I just aim to get to that spec,, then pass it.
I viewed a page a year ago that a hedge fund imploded through bankruptcy court and sold not one, but two deep water 1/2 a billion dollar rigs for 30 million each. That is 16 cents on the dollar investment one is bidding against scrapers and crashed commodities for some of the biggest deep water rigs in the world.
Big math boils down to simple math? How much money do we lose every day by being grounded VS how much money can be made being in control of the schedule on our judgement of safety/risk.

trx430ex | 11. lokakuu 2016

VS what customer/ insurer/SpaceX would sign off for to get product in place VS Global trade agreements of cost?
So if one could pic up a deep water rig for 16 cents on the dollar, it needs logistical support, well we could also pick up the SS United States for free as a logistical ship. It is big, it is heavy, and military spec. Even in the worst case launch off the platform it could not hurt this ship. park a mile away from the platform and become launch control. No souls are on the platform on launch, they are all on the "big U" Safety first. But fly back to the rig a hour later.

trx430ex | 11. lokakuu 2016

The part deuce arrangement in using the big U for free launch control is that the ship can never be made US maritime compliant. It's only life at sea is a one way ticket with auctioned sea tugs on each side to a permanent home in Blue water. That ship would never again come home because of regulation. It would stay in Blue water until it dies a sacrificial 700 million dollar 1956 lamb of living off our grandfathers achievements
Another side benefit with 2 tugs and the Big U, it could tow the rig around the world too.

McLary | 12. lokakuu 2016

Why do you guys keep encouraging this idiot?

dsvick | 12. lokakuu 2016

"Why do you guys keep encouraging this idiot?"

I'm done, I don't even understand his last three posts, something about lambs living with our grand parents, and launching rockets from oil rigs for 16 cents, and buying a boat that will never see land ...

mike.e | 12. lokakuu 2016

@McLary: I've considered about posting a couple times, but thought better of it.

sp_tesla | 12. lokakuu 2016

Any guess how many AI are OP?