Astronomy / The Universe

[ri Alban]

19 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

Socrates knew the score.

 

Some player, liked a smoke or two.

[deesidejambo]

For those interested very clear sightings of the ISS.     Tomorrow at 5:15 look south and you will se it from West to East coming through Orion.

 

Second sighting at 6:50.

[Ulysses]

4 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Well i never started it.

 

 

 

You did.  You asked an irrational question that has no place in a scientific discussion, and you don't even know how and why it has no place.

 

I know you have a fascination for this stuff, and that's great.  I also know that you sometimes post interesting links to scientific research and findings, and that's also great.  But you do the people who do all that research a disservice when you ask questions like "what if science doesn't know all there is to know?", because your question assumes that these people don't already know that science doesn't know everything. 

 

But they already know that.

 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

I'm sorry but I don't buy human calculations on the age of the universe, because we don't have the means to see the whole current universe to make such a leap of faith.

 

 

What did you think of John Gribbin's The Universe: A Biography when you read it?

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

Socrates knew the score.

 

 

 

He did indeed. 

[ri Alban]

11 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

What did you think of John Gribbin's The Universe: A Biography when you read it?

I'll let you know.

[John Gentleman]

16 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Of course, but what if said particles that created the expansion are now extinct. What do we do? Keep guessing.

No. Scientists will continue to research the subject. That's the purpose of the Large Hadron Collider. They're trying to re-create the very earliest moments in our universe and understand "what happened".

I hope they discover something because, at the moment, we theoretically shouldn't even be around to debate the topic. Nor should everything else we observe.

Clearly, there's something not quite right with the standard model of physics.

[Sidelight]

18 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I'm fine, alfajambo.  Thanks for asking.

 

Quoting Carl Sagan to me is always a winning strategy.  I own 12 of his books, including Pale Blue Dot.  He's a hero of mine, so I'll rarely if ever challenge what he's written.

 

If you think that the Big Bang model is wrong, a career in astrophysics awaits you.  The last time I checked, most cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists have fallen for it.  Go get 'em.  

 

 

The origin of the BB is a faith based belief.

After this comes a serious of fudge factors, hypothetical entities, unobserved and unmeasured, formed in the imagination. Their needed existence allows the theory to continue. Inflation, dark matter, dark energy are the obvious ones cited.

It doesn’t account for galaxies stars and planets. How did these solid objects form? The truth is at the moment science can only guess.

As a theory of origin, to be used as the basis for a ‘scientific’ world view, the BB falls well short.

[zoltan socrates]

1 hour ago, alfajambo said:

The origin of the BB is a faith based belief.

After this comes a serious of fudge factors, hypothetical entities, unobserved and unmeasured, formed in the imagination. Their needed existence allows the theory to continue. Inflation, dark matter, dark energy are the obvious ones cited.

It doesn’t account for galaxies stars and planets. How did these solid objects form? The truth is at the moment science can only guess.

As a theory of origin, to be used as the basis for a ‘scientific’ world view, the BB falls well short.

 

[John Gentleman]

1 hour ago, alfajambo said:

The origin of the BB is a faith based belief.

After this comes a serious of fudge factors, hypothetical entities, unobserved and unmeasured, formed in the imagination. Their needed existence allows the theory to continue. Inflation, dark matter, dark energy are the obvious ones cited.

It doesn’t account for galaxies stars and planets. How did these solid objects form? The truth is at the moment science can only guess.

As a theory of origin, to be used as the basis for a ‘scientific’ world view, the BB falls well short.

There's no guesswork involved. The 'objects' we observe in the night skies coalesced from gases and other matter due to gravity. We can (and do) observe this, real time, with optical telescopes.

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, alfajambo said:

The origin of the BB is a faith based belief.

 

No, it's a scientific theory based on physics and tangible evidence. Of course it accounts for galaxies, stars and planets. What are you on about?

 

It's not just a fanciful story somebody pulled out of their arse and wrote down in a book, like Genesis.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Ray Gin

[ri Alban]

17 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

What did you think of John Gribbin's The Universe: A Biography when you read it?

Is In the beginning, and Schrödinger's cat worth a read?

[Ray Gin]

 

[Justin Z]

The cute part about religious nutjobs when it comes to science is that they are so arrogant and entitled that they feel this constant need to make everything about them. The Big Bang/Inflationary Cosmology, theories based on sound reasoning and principles, are great examples. The scientists who have developed and refined these theories were not doing so because they were "out to get" Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or any other fairy story about the origin of humankind. They're just following the evidence where it leads and coming up with ideas about what that evidence might mean. Yet we've seen these people referred to as "evolutionary scientists" multiple times in this thread alone.

 

While it's true that Evolution by Natural Selection is probably the most robustly supported scientific theory in existence, with mountains more evidence than, for example, current theories about gravity (something we can all observe quite easily), it has f^*^ all to do with astronomy. So why conflate the Big Bang with evolution? Because it's a godless conspiracy against the fairy tales.

 

The reality of course is that science and scientists aren't even taking them or their superstitions into account, because they have much better things to spend their time on.

[Sidelight]

3 hours ago, John Gentleman said:

There's no guesswork involved. The 'objects' we observe in the night skies coalesced from gases and other matter due to gravity. We can (and do) observe this, real time, with optical telescopes.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/galaxy3.htm

 

[Maple Leaf]

5 hours ago, alfajambo said:

The origin of the BB is a faith based belief.

After this comes a serious of fudge factors, hypothetical entities, unobserved and unmeasured, formed in the imagination. Their needed existence allows the theory to continue. Inflation, dark matter, dark energy are the obvious ones cited.

It doesn’t account for galaxies stars and planets. How did these solid objects form? The truth is at the moment science can only guess.

As a theory of origin, to be used as the basis for a ‘scientific’ world view, the BB falls well short.

 

Not true.  The Big Bang is a scientific theory.  Here is a copy-and-paste definition of a theory:

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

As you can see, there is nothing to do with faith. " ... a well-substantiated explanation ... " and  " ... a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed ..." etc.

 

If you have an alternative hypothesis to the BB theory, with a body of well-substantiated facts to support it, I would appreciate you sharing it with us.

 

 

[Sidelight]

8 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Not true.  The Big Bang is a scientific theory.  Here is a copy-and-paste definition of a theory:

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

 

As you can see, there is nothing to do with faith. " ... a well-substantiated explanation ... " and  " ... a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed ..." etc.

 

If you have an alternative hypothesis to the BB theory, with a body of well-substantiated facts to support it, I would appreciate you sharing it with us.

 

 

The origin of the BB is a faith based belief.

Inflation, dark matter, dark energy are hypothetical entities.

Without the insertion of these imagined entities into the model the theory is not credible.

 

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

35 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

The origin of the BB is a faith based belief.

Inflation, dark matter, dark energy are hypothetical entities.

Without the insertion of these imagined entities into the model the theory is not credible.

 

 

 

 

I notice how you carefully avoided this part of my post:

 

"If you have an alternative hypothesis to the BB theory, with a body of well-substantiated facts to support it, I would appreciate you sharing it with us."

 

As a layperson (I assume that you are not an astrophysicist), your rejection of a scientific theory is mildly interesting, but nothing more.  What would be really interesting is to hear your alternative hypothesis.  You could make yourself famous.

[Ray Gin]

1 hour ago, alfajambo said:

The origin of the BB is a faith based belief.

Inflation, dark matter, dark energy are hypothetical entities.

Without the insertion of these imagined entities into the model the theory is not credible.

 

 

A scientific theory is a completely different beast from a faith-based belief like the existence of God. There is reason and solid logic involved. Like the recently discovered Higgs Boson particle and missing matter - we knew they were there, it made absolute sense for them to be there, we just couldn't detect them. Now we have. 

 

The good thing about science is it doesn't just come up with a story and leave it at that. It doesn't just leave things down to faith. There's no "oh this idea sounds nice let's just believe this forever". It will seek out the evidence to conclusively prove or disprove its theories - we're not going to just give up on trying to prove or disprove that dark matter and dark energy exist just because somebody came up with the idea of them and wrote it down.

 

No scientist will ever answer the question "how do we know that the Big Bang happened" with "You've just got to have faith", which is all that religion has to go on.

 

 

[Ulysses]

12 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I'll let you know.

 

Cheers.  It's a cracking read.

 

What did you think of Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You: A Guide To The Universe?  Marcus Chown wrote it about 10 years ago.

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Is In the beginning, and Schrödinger's cat worth a read?

 

In Search of Schrödinger's Cat?  I liked it.  I find Gribbin a lot more accessible than, for example, Hawking.

 

There are two (at least) In The Beginning books, but I've only read one.  Gribbin and Chown have collaborated to write a couple of novels as well.

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

A scientific theory is a completely different beast from a faith-based belief like the existence of God. There is reason and solid logic involved. Like the recently discovered Higgs Boson particle and missing matter - we knew they were there, it made absolute sense for them to be there, we just couldn't detect them. Now we have. 

 

The good thing about science is it doesn't just come up with a story and leave it at that. It doesn't just leave things down to faith. There's no "oh this idea sounds nice let's just believe this forever". It will seek out the evidence to conclusively prove or disprove its theories - we're not going to just give up on trying to prove or disprove that dark matter and dark energy exist just because somebody came up with the idea of them and wrote it down.

 

No scientist will ever answer the question "how do we know that the Big Bang happened" with "You've just got to have faith", which is all that religion has to go on.

 

 

 

 

The power of science is in its willingness to be unsure of itself, and to look for evidence to improve or disprove its theories.

 

Anyone who says "we know all there is to know" is wrong.  Sincere, possibly, but wildly and hopelessly wrong.

[The Future's Maroon]

Becoming my favourite thread on the forum this. Not anywhere near knowledgeable on the subjects to comment on them, but fascinating read all the same.

 

I have even been looking up a few documentaries on the subjects....which are really enjoyable too.

Edited February 5, 2018 by The Future's Maroon

[Ray Gin]

9 minutes ago, The Future's Maroon said:

Becoming my favourite thread on the forum this. Not anywhere near knowledgeable on the subjects to comment on them, but fascinating read all the same.

 

I have even been looking up a few documentaries on the subjects....which are really enjoyable too.

 

Highly recommend "Into the Universe" with Stephen Hawking, "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" with Neil deGrasse Tyson and "Wonders of the Universe" with Brian Cox.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Ray Gin

[The Future's Maroon]

1 hour ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Highly recommend "Into the Universe" with Stephen Hawking, "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" with Neil deGrasse Tyson and "Wonders of the Universe" with Brian Cox.

Thanks, will do....?

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, The Future's Maroon said:

Becoming my favourite thread on the forum this. Not anywhere near knowledgeable on the subjects to comment on them, but fascinating read all the same.

 

I have even been looking up a few documentaries on the subjects....which are really enjoyable too.

Carl Sagan's Cosmos, which was also a TV series, is outstanding.  One of the best books I've ever read.

 

As mentioned above, Neil deGrasse Tyson is excellent.  I'm currently reading his "Astrophysics for People in a Hurry", which I recommend.

 

Lawrence Krauss is possibly the best theoretical physicist alive.  He has a book called "The Greatest Story Ever Told ... So Far", which I also recommend, but I found it to be a bit of a slog.

 

Those, plus Ray Gin's recommendations, should keep you going for a while. 

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

In Search of Schrödinger's Cat?  I liked it.  I find Gribbin a lot more accessible than, for example, Hawking.

 

There are two (at least) In The Beginning books, but I've only read one.  Gribbin and Chown have collaborated to write a couple of novels as well.

 

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Cheers.  It's a cracking read.

 

What did you think of Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You: A Guide To The Universe?  Marcus Chown wrote it about 10 years ago.

You're giving me too much homework Uly, ffs one at a time.

[John Gentleman]

17 hours ago, alfajambo said:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/galaxy3.htm

 

Of course there are many questions that remain unanswered. What is the nature of 'dark matter'? What's the role of black holes at the centre of spiral galaxies? What's driving the expansion of the universe?......

None of these unanswered questions change the fundamentals. To make a planet/star/galaxy/cluster you only need two ingredients:

Matter + Gravity

https://jwst.nasa.gov/galaxies.html

[Ray Gin]

10 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

Carl Sagan's Cosmos, which was also a TV series, is outstanding.  One of the best books I've ever read.

 

As mentioned above, Neil deGrasse Tyson is excellent.

 

The deGrasse Tyson Cosmos series I mentioned above is an updated version of Carl Sagan's one.

 

[deesidejambo]

If clear tonight perfect ISS sighting.     Look south-west at 6:00.    You won’t miss it.

[maroonlegions]

Ignoring all the usual sad trolls who jump at the chance to take these threads off topic , get a life ffs. 

 

And who by now still fail to see that  i dont give a feck what  they say or how they spin it here is Elon Musk and its quest for Mars. 

 

SpaceX's Biggest Rocket Ever Is About to Launch Elon Musk's Red Tesla to Mars;

But will it explode? We can all watch live to find out!

 

 

The rocket – the biggest and most powerful system SpaceX has ever built – will carry Musk's red 2008 Tesla Roadster. The colourful stunt is meant to demonstrate how the company might someday help deliver people and other payloads into space.

 

 

Those who want to watch the drama unfold can tune in to the livestream of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy launch on Tuesday afternoon. The launch is scheduled to occur between 1:30 and 4:30 pm ET, though there is always a chance of delays.

[Sidelight]

19 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

A scientific theory is a completely different beast from a faith-based belief like the existence of God. There is reason and solid logic involved. Like the recently discovered Higgs Boson particle and missing matter - we knew they were there, it made absolute sense for them to be there, we just couldn't detect them. Now we have. 

 

The good thing about science is it doesn't just come up with a story and leave it at that. It doesn't just leave things down to faith. There's no "oh this idea sounds nice let's just believe this forever". It will seek out the evidence to conclusively prove or disprove its theories - we're not going to just give up on trying to prove or disprove that dark matter and dark energy exist just because somebody came up with the idea of them and wrote it down.

 

No scientist will ever answer the question "how do we know that the Big Bang happened" with "You've just got to have faith", which is all that religion has to go on.

 

 

Can I begin by stating that I don’t subscribe to any phoney discord that may exist between science and religion.

Now, it’s not my style to discuss my lack of talent publicly – This board is populated with many highly intelligent, better qualified and better informed individuals than myself. Your present company included I am sure. So one time only.

My background is in electronics and physics, university and career. All that really means is that I know next to nothing about very little. I subscribe to the truism that the older I get the less I know.

Speaking strictly from a naturalistic view, before time and energy and space/the vacuum of space were created what existed? Before the singularity exploded on to the scene, what was? Planck Time. A time we know nothing about. Cause and effect, here cause is a faith based belief.

To quote Planck. ‘Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realises that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'  - Max Planck

You may be familiar with Hawking’s book ‘The Grand Design’. Here he states: “Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create it’s self out of nothing.”

I hope that you can realise the contradictory nature of his conclusion. “Because gravity exists...”

Naturalism suggests that mathematical laws all by themselves are responsible for the universe and life.  However theories and laws do not bring energy/matter into being.

Professor Tom Mcleish FRS, very recently appointed to Chair of Natural Philosophy at York University, Department of Physics, highlighted this past Monday evening during his guest lecture at Heriot Watt, the flourishing of science during the 16^th and 17^th centuries.

And what did he conclude?  That men like Galileo, Kepler and Newton, were convinced that the laws of nature reflected the influence of a divine law giver.  That a fundamental theme of Christianity is that the universe was constructed according to rational, intelligent design and that belief in God does not hinder science and discovery, it positively encourages it. The inference which populates the streets of urban myth, namely that scientists don’t subscribe to the God hypothesis is simply false.

“Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view”. - Max Planck

 

[Ray Gin]

1 minute ago, alfajambo said:

And what did he conclude?  That men like Galileo, Kepler and Newton, were convinced that the laws of nature reflected the influence of a divine law giver.  That a fundamental theme of Christianity is that the universe was constructed according to rational, intelligent design and that belief in God does not hinder science and discovery, it positively encourages it. The inference which populates the streets of urban myth, namely that scientists don’t subscribe to the God hypothesis is simply false.

“Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view”. - Max Planck

 

 

Who created God? Where did God come from? Dreaming up a supernatural being as a creator answers nothing.

 

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

"Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

- Stephen Hawking

[Sidelight]

6 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Who created God? Where did God come from? Dreaming up a supernatural being as a creator answers nothing.

 

"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."

"Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

- Stephen Hawking

There are highly intelligent, eminent scientists who would differ from this view.

[Ray Gin]

Just now, alfajambo said:

There are highly intelligent, eminent scientists who would differ from this view.

 

And there are highly intelligent, eminent scientists who would agree.

 

Now, back to where God came from...?

[Bordeaux 03]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

Ignoring all the usual sad trolls who jump at the chance to take these threads off topic , get a life ffs. 

 

And who by now still fail to see that  i dont give a feck what  they say or how they spin it here is Elon Musk and its quest for Mars. 

 

SpaceX's Biggest Rocket Ever Is About to Launch Elon Musk's Red Tesla to Mars;

But will it explode? We can all watch live to find out!

 

3 Falcon 9s returning to Earth, including 1 on a droneship, is one of the craziest things I've read. I know they are proven individually, but it's still mental.

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, alfajambo said:

Can I begin by stating that I don’t subscribe to any phoney discord that may exist between science and religion.

Now, it’s not my style to discuss my lack of talent publicly – This board is populated with many highly intelligent, better qualified and better informed individuals than myself. Your present company included I am sure. So one time only.

My background is in electronics and physics, university and career. All that really means is that I know next to nothing about very little. I subscribe to the truism that the older I get the less I know.

Speaking strictly from a naturalistic view, before time and energy and space/the vacuum of space were created what existed? Before the singularity exploded on to the scene, what was? Planck Time. A time we know nothing about. Cause and effect, here cause is a faith based belief.

To quote Planck. ‘Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realises that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'  - Max Planck

You may be familiar with Hawking’s book ‘The Grand Design’. Here he states: “Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create it’s self out of nothing.”

I hope that you can realise the contradictory nature of his conclusion. “Because gravity exists...”

Naturalism suggests that mathematical laws all by themselves are responsible for the universe and life.  However theories and laws do not bring energy/matter into being.

Professor Tom Mcleish FRS, very recently appointed to Chair of Natural Philosophy at York University, Department of Physics, highlighted this past Monday evening during his guest lecture at Heriot Watt, the flourishing of science during the 16^th and 17^th centuries.

And what did he conclude?  That men like Galileo, Kepler and Newton, were convinced that the laws of nature reflected the influence of a divine law giver.  That a fundamental theme of Christianity is that the universe was constructed according to rational, intelligent design and that belief in God does not hinder science and discovery, it positively encourages it. The inference which populates the streets of urban myth, namely that scientists don’t subscribe to the God hypothesis is simply false.

“Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view”. - Max Planck

 

You're almost certainly better educated than me, so don't hide your light under a bushel.

 

You ask, before time, energy and space were created, what existed?  That question almost answers itself ... nothing existed.  Everything started, including time,  with the explosion of the singularity.  That's a concept that is practically impossible for the human mind to comprehend because of how we evolved.  Understanding nothingness is not necessary for our survival.  The concept is not dissimilar to the Creation myth in Genesis: If God created the universe out of nothing, what existed before Creation and what did God do with His time?  Obvious answer ... nothing.

 

As for Galileo et al, I'm sure they were men of God, but that was then.  Prior to the 19th century, I'm sure most scientists believed in a god .  But a survey I read about a year ago indicated that a mere 7% of today's scientists believe in a deity.  The question posed by the organisers of the survey was ... "Why is that percentage so high?"

 

  

[maroonlegions]

4 hours ago, Bordeaux 03 said:

 

3 Falcon 9s returning to Earth, including 1 on a droneship, is one of the craziest things I've read. I know they are proven individually, but it's still mental.

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, Bordeaux 03 said:

 

3 Falcon 9s returning to Earth, including 1 on a droneship, is one of the craziest things I've read. I know they are proven individually, but it's still mental.

A dummy in a spacesuit in a car. Too much money to burn. Some advertising.

[maroonlegions]

The first test flight of Falcon Heavy is targeted for Tuesday, Feb. 6th at 1:30 PM ET from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. When Falcon Heavy lifts off, it will be the most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor of two.

With the ability to lift into orbit nearly 64 metric tons (141,000 lb)---a mass greater than a 737 jetliner loaded with passengers, crew, luggage and fuel--Falcon Heavy can lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy, at one-third the cost.

Falcon Heavy draws upon the proven heritage and reliability of Falcon 9. Its first stage is composed of three Falcon 9 nine-engine cores whose 27 Merlin engines together generate more than 5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, equal to approximately eighteen 747 aircraft. Only the Saturn V moon rocket, last flown in 1973, delivered more payload to orbit. Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.

You can watch the test flight live below and find out more about the launch in our press kit.

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

The first test flight of Falcon Heavy is targeted for Tuesday, Feb. 6th at 1:30 PM ET from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. When Falcon Heavy lifts off, it will be the most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor of two.

With the ability to lift into orbit nearly 64 metric tons (141,000 lb)---a mass greater than a 737 jetliner loaded with passengers, crew, luggage and fuel--Falcon Heavy can lift more than twice the payload of the next closest operational vehicle, the Delta IV Heavy, at one-third the cost.

Falcon Heavy draws upon the proven heritage and reliability of Falcon 9. Its first stage is composed of three Falcon 9 nine-engine cores whose 27 Merlin engines together generate more than 5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, equal to approximately eighteen 747 aircraft. Only the Saturn V moon rocket, last flown in 1973, delivered more payload to orbit. Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.

You can watch the test flight live below and find out more about the launch in our press kit.

 

Earlier today I was wondering how the Falcon Heavy compared to the mighty Saturn 5 of Apollo fame, and your post provided the answer.

 

The Falcon Heavy produces 5 million pounds of thrust at lift-off, compared to 7.5 million pounds by Saturn 5.  Saturn was 50% more powerful, almost 50 years ago.  Incredible!! 

[Cade]

 

 

[logie green]

a-m-a-z-i-n-g

[gjcc]

That was incredible. 

 

Musk and his pals can land two boosters upright and on target, from space, completely simultaneously. yet I still can't get the key in the lock from point blank after a few pints. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by gjcc
Autocorrect

[Cade]

Still waiting for confirmation of the landing of the third Falcon 9 main booster.

[maroonlegions]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Earlier today I was wondering how the Falcon Heavy compared to the mighty Saturn 5 of Apollo fame, and your post provided the answer.

 

The Falcon Heavy produces 5 million pounds of thrust at lift-off, compared to 7.5 million pounds by Saturn 5.  Saturn was 50% more powerful, almost 50 years ago.  Incredible!! 

[maroonlegions]

18 minutes ago, gjcc said:

That was incredible. 

 

Musk and his pals can land two boosters upright and on target, from space, completely simultaneously. yet I still can't get the key in the lock from point blank after a few pints. 

[Armageddon]

Total game changer tonight, SpaceX has advanced the future scale of space exploration by 20 years and saved billions in doing so.

[tian447]

There is now a ****ing car in space. 

 

It's just absolutely incredible to think that one day he woke up and decided that's what he was going to do. 

 

Brilliant

[Jeff]

19 minutes ago, tian447 said:

There is now a ****ing car in space. 

 

It's just absolutely incredible to think that one day he woke up and decided that's what he was going to do. 

 

Brilliant

 

I'm excited for when they decide to stick one of those robot sex dolls up there