Recommended Posts

Sums it up rather well - from the government end. OTOH SpaceX's Elon Musk is a visionary who wants to use commercial launch to pay for his dream of going to Mars.

That is why SpaceX has the Falcon X and Falcon XX super-heavy and Merlin 2 engine concepts, and also why Dragon was designed for beyond Earth orbit from the get-go; why else use a heat shield capable of re-entering at almost 40,000 mph? Not at all necessary if low orbit was the ultimate goal.

good signs, but how long till we get to Mars on Musk's funding? No, as sad as that is, this calls for government intervention on a global scale. it's time to pool efforts across space agencies. Private industry can help and contribute, they can take over LEO for sure and even further, but going to Moon/Mars/Asteroids etc should be a public concern, not something left to corporations. Especially since none of these enterprises are big enough to sustain such massive undertakings. if you told me GE or Wal-Mart or Foxxcon are going into space exploration then yeah sure, but SpaceX...i'm not convinced, those guys need government funding to literally get off the ground.

GE is in aerospace. Not as a launcher, but certainly as a satellite component manufacturer including solar panels. WalMart is a retailer, not a manufacturer of technologies.

The best way forward is exemplifed by NAUTILUS-X; NASA etc integrating commercial technologies like Bigelow's into beyond Earth orbit (BEO) missions. An evolved Dragon could be the return vehicle and stripped down provide the basis for a lander using their vertical landing thrusters, and Ad Astra could supply VASIMR plasma propulsion modules. Poof.

On the other hand, SpaceX and Carnegie-Mellon university have sheduled the launch of a lunar rover on a Falcon 9 in a couple of years. Like most big Earth telescopes, the funding will be private. If had been around a block 2 Falcon 9 could have flown both Mars rovers in a single launch.

UPDATE:

Falcon 9 Heavy has been renamed to Falcon Heavy. By the time it flies in 2012 Falcon Heavy will have the largest mass to orbit of any launcher in the world.

Falcon Heavy Demo Flight: 2012

Location: Vandenberg Space Launch Complex 4-East (former Titan IV pad)

Dimensions -

Height: 56.4 meters (180 feet)

Width: 11.5 meters (38 feet)

Depth: 3.6 meters (12 feet)

Fairing: 5.2 x 13.9 meters (17.06 x 45.6 feet)

Engines - (all but Raptor use kerosene/LOX)

1st stage: 27 Merlin 1's (9 per core)

2nd stage: 1 MVac (Merlin 1 vacuum, re-startable)

Future 2nd stage: 1 Raptor hydrogen/LOX (higher performance)

Performance -

Thrust: 15 million Newtons (3.375 million lb/ft)

Mass to LEO: 32,000 kg (70,548 lbs)

Mass to GTO: 19,500 kg (42,990 lbs)

LEO = Low Earth Orbit

GTO = Geostationary Transfer Orbit

Falcon Heavy

falconheavy2011-1.jpg

Fairing (1/4 section)

falcon9-fairing.jpg

used Wal-Mart as an example...they have far greater resources than all space organizations and companies in the world combined. plus don't forget they buy Weyland-Yutani by the events of Alien Resurrection...

thanks for the Space X update. looks nice but i've already made it clear i'm disappointed with this tech. i know there's forward movement and i understand what you describe as the way ahead is likely the best we're going to get in the near future, but still....i feel all of this should have been done decades ago. well, no crying over spilled milk, must be positive...i'm hoping Curiosity will be a big one for NASA and that by this time next year we'll be clearer on the details of an upcoming manned Mars mission...one can hope like i often say.

  • 4 weeks later...

Interesting quote from NASA administrator (former astronaut & USAF General) Charles Bolden in Aviation Week -

>

?NASA does not need a 130-metric-ton vehicle, probably before the next decade,? Bolden says. ?We know we?re going to need it if we?re going to an asteroid, and we?re definitely going to need it if we?re talking about going to Mars. But we will take a lesser capability in an earlier heavy-lift system so that we can get the job done. . . It means some of the traditional rocket companies (read:Lockheed & Boeing) that want to sell me a 130-metric-ton vehicle but don?t want to evolve it, they may lose because there is some other company that wants to give me the capability that I need right now that can be evolved to what I need down the road.?

>

That sure sounds like he's talking about SpaceX's evolvable Falcon X/Falcon X Heavy/FalconXX archetecture. The first need for a 130+ metric ton launcher would boil down to the NAUTILUS-X deep space exploration ship. That is what we need to go to Mars'and beyond.

The moon is a dead end, we've been there and there isn't any need to keep going there. only as part of a long term space expansion project where a moon base with deep space launching as an inbetween. right now where we need to go is Mars, a moon base would potentially come long after that as the need arises. it if does.

the moon's not a dead end, but i agree Mars is the priority. if i had to choose, i take Barsoom any day of the week. however, the moon has lots of promise. ideally we can start settling both at about the same time.

The moon is a dead end, we've been there and there isn't any need to keep going there.....

I disagree. The moon could be very valuable. A lot of work has gone into ISRU, in situ resource utilization, and much of this work has been done for the moon and Mars.

* a staging area with just enough gravity for long term crew health but low enough for easy departure to an L2 space dock.

* imagery shows lots of water in polar craters, which can be broken diwn into hydrogen & oxygen using solar power. This would be far easier than launching it from Earth for deep space missions originating at L2.

Basically, using ISRU all you'd need to launch from Earth is a bit of CO2 instead of much larger volumes both both fuel and oxidizer - which would likely be a toxic mix of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.

The hydrogen would partly be fuel for VASIMR, the oxygen for the crews, and the rest as missiin resources; the CO2 would be added with the remaining hydrogen & processed using solar power to provude methane and oxygen fuel for landers and pods. XCOR has done a lit of work for NASA on the methane engines for this.

Even the astronauts agree the moon is a dead end, going there again doesn't bring us anywhere further, it just repeats what we did 50 years ago.

yeah it could be usefull for a deep space stagign area, as I said, but before that's even an issue, we need to do exploration missions to mars to see if we even need it. and for those, we don't need a moon base.

All the moon talk the agencies and government is doing, it's simply to placate the people who are telling the government to get back into space, since the moon is cheaper than Mars, but ultimately the money they spend going there woudl be wasted for the missions they would be doing. and the money would be far better spent on going somewhere useful, i.e. Mars.

SOME astronauts think Mars first, and some say a more complete exploration of the Moon is in order. Besides, most are not geologists or planetary scientists but "mission specialists" or engineers and in no position to judge science goals. It's like asking a NYC taxi driver or automotive engineer about the geopogy or archaeology of Manhattan.

All we've been to id the equitorial latitudes on the lit side - and even then only ONE geologist made the trip and ZERO planetary scientists. That's hardly a complete analysis.

it should be moon and Mars more or less concurrently. the moon is priceless as a mining outpost, tourism destination, research/proving grounds and even storage. like i said, forced to choose one i'd go with Mars obviously, but i would never insult Luna by referring to her as a dead end...Doc said it, what we've done there so far is like Columbus sighting Florida from Cuba and deciding to go back cause North America was a dead end. it doesn't make sense. i see your point regarding placating the pro-space crowd with cheaper missions, but it doesn't change what the moon has to offer.

The far left rocket is the 360' tall Saturn V moon rocket.

The rest are SpaceX's proposed roadmap. The expected announcement would be for Falcon Heavy, previously the Falcon 9 Heavy.

FH would itself be able to orbit the largest payload of any post-shuttle launcher - previous estimates were 32 metric tons in standard form & more with a hydrogen 2nd stage.

NASA's administrator has made statements that hint he's interested in Falcon X & Falcon X Heavy.

Without knowing details beyond the raw thrust that's hard to calculate. First we's have to know the stage masses (can guesstimate that) and the speed at which main engine cutoff occurs (not so easy.)

Just running a raw lb/f/sec to Imperial HP through the number cruncher gives ~19,000, but that sounds low.

Regarding the announcements - there are already rumors beyond the obvious Falcon Heavy data -

Construction at Vamdenberg

A multi-launch customer (CONAE? [Argentina])

Raptor LH2 stage info

Multi-large satellite bus

We'll see on the 5th, but Gwynne Shotwell's also appearing at Space Access on tbe 7th, so info may come over 2 days.

heh heh i have a feeling something's afoot...the success of both MESSENGER and Starbust seems to have reinvigorated NASA. i think we're going back to the moon this decade!

HawkMan, i hear you, but i'm so desperate for something i'll take gimped moon missions. besides, they're not talking about the same old, read the NASA materials, same for ESA, China, Russia, and JAXA...all talking about moon bases and permanent habitation. remember the technology is a lot better and cheaper now. even your run of the mill space program can get a moon base up and running now with ease, it's just a matter of getting the politicos to fork over the funding.

plus, let me quote Contact: little steps Ellie, little steps...we have to get back up to running speed before we go flying, our space programs have stagnated long enough. i think the realization that space exploration is basically one endless growth industry for the whole world is starting to sink in. or it could just be this beer i'm drinking.

*** MEDIA ADVISORY ***

SpaceX: Something Big Is Coming

Elon Musk to Hold Press Conference in Washington Tuesday

WASHINGTON ? Elon Musk, CEO and Chief Technology Officer of Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), will hold a press conference on Tuesday, April 5th at the National Press Club in Washington to discuss his company?s latest venture.

EVENT:? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to Talk About the Next Big Thing

TIME:? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 11:20 AM

DATE:? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Tuesday, April 5th, 2011

LOCATION:? ? ? ? ?National Press Club, Zenger Room

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, DC 20045

Can?t make it in person?

The press conference will be webcast live at:

http://www.visualwebcaster.com/spacex

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!