Agree. And assuming the Falcon Heavy flies as planned, there isn't much justification for SLS either. For the price of a single launch, you could fly at least 2 or 3 Falcon Heavies, and end up putting more mass on orbit. Since we're pretty experienced with rendezvous and docking, there's less need for such high throw-weight, even for large, complex missions.

And eventually, SpaceX will come out with their new super-heavy (based on the Raptor engine) which will outclass SLS anyway, as they announced back in 2012. I reckon SLS will fly a few times (at most) and then be retired.

If you just want to see how it works, scroll down to the video at the end. They don't really explain it very well in the text.

Actually, there is a fairly simple solution that can be done in a couple of decades, and has the bonus side effect of producing megatons of food in some of the more impoverished regions of the world. The trick is to convert semi-arid and arid grasslands into productive grazing lands for herbivores by using Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing which is described in detail (with stunning before/after photos) by Allan Savory in this TED Talk.

In a nutshell: MIRG simulates the "mobbing, mowing, and moving" behavior of large herds of herbivores in nature, where herds "mob together" for protection from predators, and move constantly to find fresh pasture. Following in their wake is a swath of "disturbed" pasture, which has just been aerated by hoof prints and fed with a rich load of fertilizer. This spurs a blaze of regrowth in the grasses, which replaces root mass which had earlier been shed (many plants shed root mass when cropped, to preserve the root-shoot ratio). Thus, every time herbivores graze a piece of land, they sequester a large amount of carbon into the soil, and actually increase the health and the depth of the topsoil.

Obviously, there's quite a bit more to this story, including earthworks to harvest and retain water, permaculture design to optimize ecosystem health and productivity, etc. But hopefully this will be enough to get the gears turning...

There's nothing wrong with open space, and nothing in permaculture argues against it. Grasslands are ideal for grazing livestock of various kinds... anything from chickens to rabbits, cows to kangaroos... And with Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing (MIRG) you can use these open spaces to sequester carbon and create new topsoil.

If you set it up right, it really takes very little input, a few hours a week to a few hours a day, depending on how intensive you want to get. If you just want to feed your family, a few hours a week. If you want to earn $50k per year per acre, it's more like a full time job.

Just to emphasize this point: With the amount of land you're talking about, you could easily feed a large family, in abundance, indefinitely, for free.

I would look at alternatives to having a "lawn" in the first place. In almost any climate, there are a lot more productive ways to use your land than raising an eternal crop of stuff you just cut and throw away. Put that surface area to work, harvesting solar energy in some way, even if it's nothing more than composting your grass clippings to feed a backyard garden.

Also, look into "integrative" housing design, which means a more holistic approach based on first principles, rather than tweaking the status-quo with than latest gizmos. For example, if you spend enough on insulation, you might not need a heater in winter, and end up with a lower total capital cost. Or by including a water feature, combined with appropriate shading and ventilation, you could reduce your summer A/C bills by 90 percent, and thus save a bundle on the A/C capacity to install. There are lots of people preaching this sort of thing, but the most prominent voice among them is probably Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute.

As for your lawn look into permaculture. There's a ton of stuff on YouTube about this, and numerous blogs, groups, etc... Basically, you can set up your yard to be a "food forest" that naturally produces food, year round, at no cost and with very little maintenance. Checking out this trend will be very worth your time.

Hm... not sure how that link got mangled... here's the right one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Motors

This.

When you consider that there are now over 1600 billionaires, how many of them are "using their powers for good" to the degree that Musk does? Sure there's the Gates Foundation, and other philanthropic efforts, there's the Tata Motors guy in India... some VC guys like Khosla... But out of 1600 people, what a tiny percentage of them even show up on the radar screen, let alone those who are doing "cool stuff" with their immense wealth and power.

If every billionaire used his wealth like Musk does, I wouldn't mind this staggering inequality so much. Sadly, Musk is more an exception than the rule.

$4.9 billion? That's nothing compared to the Koch brothers. They got more than twice that amount.

Yes and no... Yes, they are competing in the same market; No, they are not "joined at the hip" with the rest of them. Yes, they do business with many, but SpaceX is not yet "assimilated" into the BORG. And as a privately held company, it's much easier to resist that pull. Elon has been quite clear on this. He won't do a SpaceX IPO until he's certain the company is going to Mars, with or without him.

More to the point, I would argue that membership in the MIC would imply a disposition toward warfare befitting a military contractor. I don't see that coming from SpaceX anytime soon. They have their own agenda, and lunching satellites helps them pay for that agenda. I'd wager that if the Air Force put out a bid request for a new fleet of ICBMs, SpaceX would take a pass on that project.

Actually, eliminating grade levels is an idea with some pedigree. One-room country schools may have had grades but they didn't matter much. Older kids helped younger kids and everybody learned stuff. There's also a chain of schools that was started back in the 60's, can't remember the name off hand, it was something like "Sutter Valley School". Anyway, their belief is that play is the natural learning state for children. You don't need a curriculum, you just need minimal supervision and resources to answer questions and do projects. Children will naturally do what they need to learn how to get along in the world, including the 3 R's, without any prodding from adults.

There's a really interesting lecture on this by a psychologist, Peter Gray, whose own son attended such a school: The Biology of Education - How Children Learn Through Self-Directed Play and Exploration

I would apply the old open-source aphorism to this as well. It may take time for the wheels of justice to move in your favor, but at least there is still a reasonable expectation of movement in that area.

Hmm... sorry, this has been happening for many years already... back to the 80s... This is nothing new.

This seems more like basic-level stuff... learning from your mistakes. That strikes me as the sort of thing that would be "hardwired" in everything from nematodes to primates. Why is this news?