User Panel
|
|
View Quote That's a neat trick. |
|
Quoted:
What are those satellites for? View Quote 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/ |
|
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. "Would let them", not "Will let them". |
|
View Quote Wow - is that a multi-exposure of the launch in the background, and the landing in the foreground? |
|
Quoted: Yeah, we were talking about the barge landings. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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 |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Yeah, we were talking about the barge landings. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. 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. |
|
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
Quoted: Wow - is that a multi-exposure of the launch in the background, and the landing in the foreground? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Wow - is that a multi-exposure of the launch in the background, and the landing in the foreground? |
|
Quoted:
Long exposure. Launch is the long burn. Reentry burn is the short upper one. Landing burn is the short one contacting the ground. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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). |
|
|
Quoted:
:sigh: Musk took a LOT of money from the govt for SpaceX and Telsa.. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
100% Mission Success! by a private sector company! Take that Vladimir!! Obama! Money well spent. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Long exposure. Launch is the long burn. Reentry burn is the short upper one. Landing burn is the short one contacting the ground. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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? |
|
Quoted:
:sigh: Musk took a LOT of money from the govt for SpaceX and Telsa.. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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. |
|
Quoted:
Money well spent. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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" |
|
wow.... and in the beginning they said they fueled the thing a few minutes before launch....
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
wow.... and in the beginning they said they fueled the thing a few minutes before launch.... View Quote 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. |
|
View Quote Jeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. |
|
The 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. |
|
Quoted:
Jeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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. |
|
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 |
|
Quoted: 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" View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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. |
|
Quoted:
Kerbal Space Program, the most advanced rocket development suite ever developed. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
KSP design wins again! I know what KSP is, what does a game have to do with this? |
|
|
|
Quoted: I know what KSP is, what does a game have to do with this? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: KSP design wins again! I know what KSP is, what does a game have to do with this? |
|
Quoted:
Jeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Jeff Bezos seems like a bit of a tool. That's not exactly news. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
Quoted: 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/ |
|
Quoted: Scale, automation, and potential cost savings. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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? |
|
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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. |
|
Quoted: 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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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 |
|
|
Quoted: The part that lands is sub orbital. All first stages are sub orbital. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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. |
|
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).
|
|
Quoted: 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 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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. |
|
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.
|
|
Quoted:
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!" View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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? |
|
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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote Factor this in with the new propulsion system. |
|
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.