User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:28:08 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:28:18 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:29:11 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are those satellites for? GPS tracking devices and telemetry for SCADA systems and such.. Like what employers put in their vehicles or remote oil well monitoring. http://www.orbcomm.com/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:29:48 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
KSP design wins again! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:29:57 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They just did. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Makes you wonder why they even fucked around with the barge landings. I don't think the government would let them do a landing on shore. "Would let them", not "Will let them". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:30:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryWow - is that a multi-exposure of the launch in the background, and the landing in the foreground? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:30:45 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, we were talking about the barge landings. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Makes you wonder why they even fucked around with the barge landings. I don't think the government would let them do a landing on shore. Yeah, we were talking about the barge landings. OK |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:31:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: KSP design wins again! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:32:19 PM EDT
[#9]
We're number one!!!!! Pretty awesome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:33:13 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:35:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, we were talking about the barge landings. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Makes you wonder why they even fucked around with the barge landings. I don't think the government would let them do a landing on shore. Yeah, we were talking about the barge landings. They succeeded in that. They repeatedly hit their target. The explosions where small meaning nearby facilities won't be damaged. And the Barge landings were a whole lot more difficult. For one they had to slew to the side just before landing with the barge because they targeted for it not to hit the barge if the last engine burn failed. Their last landing attempt probably would have been successful if not for that extra lateral movement. They don't need to do that for the land landing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:37:39 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Makes you wonder why they even fucked around with the barge landings. I don't think the government would let them do a landing on shore. Yeah, we were talking about the barge landings. OK They had to prove to the Air Force (Range Safety) that they could at least come close. They hit the barge twice and the AF gave they the go ahead to land on CCAFS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:38:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 100% Mission Success! by a private sector company! Take that Vladimir!! Obama! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:38:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow - is that a multi-exposure of the launch in the background, and the landing in the foreground? Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow - is that a multi-exposure of the launch in the background, and the landing in the foreground? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:43:28 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Long exposure. Launch is the long burn. Reentry burn is the short upper one. Landing burn is the short one contacting the ground. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wow - is that a multi-exposure of the launch in the background, and the landing in the foreground? I think it is a composite of 2-3 long expsures. A four minutes exposure should be quite a bit brighter (unless they are using something like 25 or 50 ISO). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:44:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They had to prove to the Air Force (Range Safety) that they could at least come close. They hit the barge twice and the AF gave they the go ahead to land on CCAFS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:45:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
:sigh: Musk took a LOT of money from the govt for SpaceX and Telsa.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
100% Mission Success! by a private sector company! Take that Vladimir!! Obama! Money well spent. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:50:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Long exposure. Launch is the long burn. Reentry burn is the short upper one. Landing burn is the short one contacting the ground. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wow - is that a multi-exposure of the launch in the background, and the landing in the foreground? You did not take that picture (in Obama's voice). If you took that, SpaceX would surely like it. It appears that if you knew where to look you would have seen the re-entry burn. Did you see it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:51:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
:sigh: Musk took a LOT of money from the govt for SpaceX and Telsa.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
100% Mission Success! by a private sector company! Take that Vladimir!! Obama! Well at least he's giving real results that will be steps forward for the USA unlike the massive FSA we fund. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:52:52 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Money well spent. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
100% Mission Success! by a private sector company! Take that Vladimir!! Obama! Money well spent. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile We spend so much money on stupid, entitlement inspired bullshit. This where this kind of money should be going in the first place, truly advancing the human race with the US leading the way. Also this bit about Elon warmed my heart 
'Musk is a self-described American exceptionalist and nationalist, describing himself as "nauseatingly pro-American". According to Musk, the United States is "[inarguably] the greatest country that has ever existed on Earth" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:56:30 PM EDT
[#21]
wow.... and in the beginning they said they fueled the thing a few minutes before launch....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 10:59:38 PM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:00:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
wow.... and in the beginning they said they fueled the thing a few minutes before launch.... Liquid oxygen. Once it is out of uninsulated tanks it wants to boil off rapidly so they fuel anything using cryogenic liquids just before launch. When these boil off you lose the oxidizer or fuel, but you also ice the spacecraft and launch structure if they sit long enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:05:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryJeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:09:14 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. Quote HistoryThe article did a good job of pointing out the difference in scales between the two achievements. Bezos should be proud of what Blue Origin has done, but it's not in the same league as SpaceX. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:09:47 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. I'm an Amazon addict and God bless him, but...yeah. The dude really is a tool. And he was a tool long before those comments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:13:26 PM EDT
[#27]
 Falcon 9 at the point where the largest amounts of aerodynamic pressure was being applied on the rocket.  The moment the first stage booster landed back on Earth. Loud cheers and chants of 'USA, USA' could be heard in the control room. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3369783/WATCH-LIVE-Falcon-9-liftoff-SpaceX-successfully-launches-reusable-rocket-land-Earth-one-piece.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:17:17 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We spend so much money on stupid, entitlement inspired bullshit. This where this kind of money should be going in the first place, truly advancing the human race with the US leading the way. Also this bit about Elon warmed my heart 'Musk is a self-described American exceptionalist and nationalist, describing himself as "nauseatingly pro-American". According to Musk, the United States is "[inarguably] the greatest country that has ever existed on Earth" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 100% Mission Success! by a private sector company! Take that Vladimir!! Obama! Money well spent. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile We spend so much money on stupid, entitlement inspired bullshit. This where this kind of money should be going in the first place, truly advancing the human race with the US leading the way. Also this bit about Elon warmed my heart 'Musk is a self-described American exceptionalist and nationalist, describing himself as "nauseatingly pro-American". According to Musk, the United States is "[inarguably] the greatest country that has ever existed on Earth" He also is completely dependant on the government teat for his projects. Lockmart has repeatedly done engineering far more impressive than this and we all love to hate them. Most of the coolest and most impressive work Lockheed has done can't be talked about openly. Landing a sub orbital rocket powered pogo stick vertically is cool but far from the most impressive thing a private company has done with public money. How is this dramatically different from what Apollo 11 did to get to the surface of the moon? Oh I know that was 50 years ago, using computing power of a modern toaster and the astronauts flew it by hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:31:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kerbal Space Program, the most advanced rocket development suite ever developed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
KSP design wins again! I know what KSP is, what does a game have to do with this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:32:11 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:32:48 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is this dramatically different from what Apollo 11 did to get to the surface of the moon? Oh I know that was 50 years ago, using computing power of a modern toaster and the astronauts flew it by hand. Scale, automation, and potential cost savings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:33:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know what KSP is, what does a game have to do with this? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: KSP design wins again! I know what KSP is, what does a game have to do with this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:36:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Jeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. That's not exactly news. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:39:11 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:40:30 PM EDT
[#35]
So now when we abort ICBM launches, they will be able to just land back in their silos?
 Seriously though, this is an achievement straight out of sci-fi. Absolutely amazing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:40:52 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:43:13 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: KSP design wins again! I know what KSP is, what does a game have to do with this? https://xkcd.com/1356/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:43:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Scale, automation, and potential cost savings. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How is this dramatically different from what Apollo 11 did to get to the surface of the moon? Oh I know that was 50 years ago, using computing power of a modern toaster and the astronauts flew it by hand. Scale, automation, and potential cost savings. So that would be a scale down right? Educate me...how is this more of a cost savings than parachuting them into the water? Can these be immediately refueled and reused or do they need to be disassembled and inspected...etc? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:44:29 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryHe also is completely dependant on the government teat for his projects. Lockmart has repeatedly done engineering far more impressive than this and we all love to hate them. Most of the coolest and most impressive work Lockheed has done can't be talked about openly. Landing a sub orbital rocket powered pogo stick vertically is cool but far from the most impressive thing a private company has done with public money. How is this dramatically different from what Apollo 11 did to get to the surface of the moon? Oh I know that was 50 years ago, using computing power of a modern toaster and the astronauts flew it by hand. Is it really fair to call it a sub-orbital rocket? The first stage is sub-orbital because of the very thing that makes it so incredibly awesome. The ability to launch, deliver a payload (the second stage), and land again. But it is capable of putting objects in orbit. Spacex is getting paid to do exactly that with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:48:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it really fair to call it a sub-orbital rocket? The first stage is sub-orbital because of the very thing that makes it so incredibly awesome. The ability to launch, deliver a payload (the second stage), and land again. But it is capable of putting objects in orbit. Spacex is getting paid to do exactly that with it. Quote HistoryQuoted: He also is completely dependant on the government teat for his projects. Lockmart has repeatedly done engineering far more impressive than this and we all love to hate them. Most of the coolest and most impressive work Lockheed has done can't be talked about openly. Landing a sub orbital rocket powered pogo stick vertically is cool but far from the most impressive thing a private company has done with public money. How is this dramatically different from what Apollo 11 did to get to the surface of the moon? Oh I know that was 50 years ago, using computing power of a modern toaster and the astronauts flew it by hand. Is it really fair to call it a sub-orbital rocket? The first stage is sub-orbital because of the very thing that makes it so incredibly awesome. The ability to launch, deliver a payload (the second stage), and land again. But it is capable of putting objects in orbit. Spacex is getting paid to do exactly that with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:50:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That and ya know...they flew it to the moon to try it the first time. Haha. So that would be a scale down right? Educate me...how is this more of a cost savings than parachuting them into the water? Can these be immediately refueled and reused or do they need to be disassembled and inspected...etc? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: How is this dramatically different from what Apollo 11 did to get to the surface of the moon? Oh I know that was 50 years ago, using computing power of a modern toaster and the astronauts flew it by hand. Scale, automation, and potential cost savings. So that would be a scale down right? Educate me...how is this more of a cost savings than parachuting them into the water? Can these be immediately refueled and reused or do they need to be disassembled and inspected...etc? What are you referring to? Look at the size of the LEM vs stage 1 of the Falcon 9. Salt water is bad. I'd imagine they will conduct a thorough inspection until they have a solid understanding of what the launch and landing process does to their hardware. Musk and his company are smart people that are gaining experience with every launch. Reusability is the way ahead. Also, here are several hours worth of reading, if you'd like: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:52:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm beyond astonished. I watched the first stage of a fucking space rocket LAND ITSELF ON A CONCRETE PAD for reuse. Live. Holy. Shit. 'Murica. Yeah, even seeing it live it's hard to believe that was real 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:52:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The part that lands is sub orbital. All first stages are sub orbital. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He also is completely dependant on the government teat for his projects. Lockmart has repeatedly done engineering far more impressive than this and we all love to hate them. Most of the coolest and most impressive work Lockheed has done can't be talked about openly. Landing a sub orbital rocket powered pogo stick vertically is cool but far from the most impressive thing a private company has done with public money. How is this dramatically different from what Apollo 11 did to get to the surface of the moon? Oh I know that was 50 years ago, using computing power of a modern toaster and the astronauts flew it by hand. Is it really fair to call it a sub-orbital rocket? The first stage is sub-orbital because of the very thing that makes it so incredibly awesome. The ability to launch, deliver a payload (the second stage), and land again. But it is capable of putting objects in orbit. Spacex is getting paid to do exactly that with it. Sure...but it is important to distinguish the difference in what SpaceX has done and what, say, Bezos (sp) has done. THe SpaceX launch was a full size rocket that had a final stage achieve orbit. The Bezoz one had no part achieve orbit. As everyone knows that has played KSP, there is a huge, huge difference in size to the two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2015 11:56:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Elon is a dick, but at least he's our dick. He also is completely dependant on the government teat for his projects. Lockmart has repeatedly done engineering far more impressive than this and we all love to hate them. Most of the coolest and most impressive work Lockheed has done can't be talked about openly. Landing a sub orbital rocket powered pogo stick vertically is cool but far from the most impressive thing a private company has done with public money. How is this dramatically different from what Apollo 11 did to get to the surface of the moon? Oh I know that was 50 years ago, using computing power of a modern toaster and the astronauts flew it by hand. I don't discredit Lockmart, or Boeing, or any of the other greats that have come before. They have done some incredibly impressive engineering work, and where we are today as an industry comes from standing on their shoulders. The difference, IMO, comes from Musk's vision. SpaceX consistently goes after high risk ventures because they aren't just pursuing a contract, they're chasing this internal dream. I don't see that in most of today's big aero guys, who act simply as contractors. Musk has used government money to make his projects go certainly. I can't really fault him for that, as it's an effective means to his end. Part of his vision though is to make space travel an economically sustainable process that doesn't rely on gov't money. If he can use gov't money to accomplish that goal, I say more power to him. From a technical viewpoint, tonight's events are extremely impressive but certainly they don't exceed the technical challenges posed by Apollo 8, 11, STS-1 or any of the other crowning achievements in space. It's what tonight COULD represent: a whole new era of low cost orbital launch services. We've had a lot of false dawns in space: Apollo 11, STS-1, and the New-Space boom back starting with the X-Prize cup that fizzled out. It might be the same tonight, but I certainly hope not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2015 12:01:54 AM EDT
[#45]
It's a bit of a fluff piece, but these articles are worth reading IMO. They give you a look into what Musk is trying to do (or at least what he wants you to think he is trying to do).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2015 12:02:10 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What are you referring to? Look at the size of the LEM vs stage 1 of the Falcon 9. Salt water is bad. I'd imagine they will conduct a thorough inspection until they have a solid understanding of what the launch and landing process does to their hardware. Musk and his company are smart people that are gaining experience with every launch. Reusability is the way ahead. Also, here are several hours worth of reading, if you'd like: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How is this dramatically different from what Apollo 11 did to get to the surface of the moon? Oh I know that was 50 years ago, using computing power of a modern toaster and the astronauts flew it by hand. Scale, automation, and potential cost savings. So that would be a scale down right? Educate me...how is this more of a cost savings than parachuting them into the water? Can these be immediately refueled and reused or do they need to be disassembled and inspected...etc? What are you referring to? Look at the size of the LEM vs stage 1 of the Falcon 9. Salt water is bad. I'd imagine they will conduct a thorough inspection until they have a solid understanding of what the launch and landing process does to their hardware. Musk and his company are smart people that are gaining experience with every launch. Reusability is the way ahead. Also, here are several hours worth of reading, if you'd like: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html My overall point was that yes this was cool, but we went from kitty hawk to the moon in 60 years and we are getting all excited about landing a rocket in a very similar manner to what NASA did in the 60s, except the computers where ancient, the vehicle traveled 300k miles (or whatever) in the space environment and the astronauts hand flew the vehicle....and oh yeah...it was on the moon! Yes the stage 1 is much bigger, and stability is much harder to achieve than with the LEM but it's been 50 years. This is no moon landing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2015 12:02:26 AM EDT
[#47]
Very very cool, been a long time since any exciting space news. Nice to see the enthusiasm from the crowd there on the live shots.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2015 12:02:51 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm gonna go ahead and be a massive buzzkill and point out that Space-X has a pretty bad reputation as a place to work. Ridiculous hours, unrealistic expectations, low pay, poor benefits, very high turnover, and it's all justified by saying "but look at all the cool stuff you're doing!" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That was fantastic! Kiss our ass, Putin! I would love to work for Space-X. Bet it would be a hell of a lot more fun than those years at NASA were. I'm gonna go ahead and be a massive buzzkill and point out that Space-X has a pretty bad reputation as a place to work. Ridiculous hours, unrealistic expectations, low pay, poor benefits, very high turnover, and it's all justified by saying "but look at all the cool stuff you're doing!" On the plus side it didn't cost the taxpayer anything Did it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2015 12:09:44 AM EDT
[#49]
Yes, it is no moon landing. That was a great achievement, but I think that the possibilities that this unlocks are going to be more revolutionary than the moon landings. 45 years on and what have the moon landings really done to change how we approach space (and I am literally talking about the moon landings, not the Apollo program).
For the last 58 years we have generally been putting stuff into space in the same way with the vast, vast majority of the spacecraft being lost/destroyed/expended during the mission. Shuttle was too damn expensive to be feasible. This will change that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2015 12:15:56 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, it is no moon landing. That was a great achievement, but I think that the possibilities that this unlocks are going to be more revolutionary than the moon landings. 45 years on and what have the moon landings really done to change how we approach space (and I am literally talking about the moon landings, not the Apollo program). For the last 58 years we have generally been putting stuff into space in the same way with the vast, vast majority of the spacecraft being lost/destroyed/expended during the mission. Shuttle was too damn expensive to be feasible. This will change that. Factor this in with the new propulsion system. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
