SpaceX Falcon Heavy: The Landing with 2 Sonic Booms. Simply awesome.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: animatorsteve

let us face facts..these rocket programs are basically 100 year old tech..or worse.

It is obvious something else entirely should be explored.

Feels like we are being played for fools by billionaires with toys.

What is your idea?

Until YOU have ideas, it's the other players turn.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: animatorsteve

let us face facts..these rocket programs are basically 100 year old tech..or worse.

It is obvious something else entirely should be explored.

Feels like we are being played for fools by billionaires with toys.

Based on what information? That NASA is simply too expensive and wasting billions overbudget. Postponing too many launches. Barely getting any budget by the goverment. While SPACEX is all about re-usable rockets and boosters. The spectrum of cost regarding NASA vs SpaceX is simply unbelievable. But its real. NASA made it way too expensive. They have achieved quite a bit, but I would like em to rely on SpaceX instead of Russians and EU when it comes to launching stuff to ISS, and beyond.



He truly thought it was a 50/50 for the test launch to succeed. Theyve come a long way.

a reply to: Reverbs

this launxh had me almost in tears.

my child like wonder came back for the first time in 20 years.

im excited.



the little geek who got beat up is living his dream, and ours.

I havn't been this inspired in my life time.

It is a wonderful thing

the only trouble I see as a rocketeer is the return to Earth by the two boosters.....

Really just that close-up of the smut end of the boosters barreling back in so cool......but the burn close-up....really now

I hope I'm wrong to think it was fake all the way lame to the max.....just that close-up of the tails spittin fire .....the smoke puff at the time of flaps down.....that's the main discrepancy......looks like a model at that point....hope I'm wrong....it's too friggin late in the game to be showing that tail at burn and stabilizer deployment to landing configuration. and have to camera shot of the tail traveling past the point of seeing up the nozzles.....and it's like passing on by but the camera is not having to focus since it's a friggin model type look yea

a reply to: GBP/JPY

The public had views of the landing, so they weren't models -- unless they were full-sized models of rockets falling from the sky and then landing ;-)

Here is an amateur (or near-amateur) video of the launch and booster landing. I believe the maker of this video is (former?) member of ATS "ngchunter", who is an avid amateur astronomer and telescope photographer.

The middle to the end of the video includes the boosters landing:

I think the landing of the boosters look odd to us because we really don't have much experience knowing what a booster landing should look like.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

thank you sir



I finally saw the speed brake panels that flop out.....ok cool


editt I finally saw the top had speed brakes.....cool ok....speed brake panels

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: GBP/JPY

The public had views of the landing, so they weren't models -- unless they were full-sized models of rockets falling from the sky and then landing ;-)

Here is an amateur (or near-amateur) video of the launch and booster landing. I believe the maker of this video is (former?) member of ATS "ngchunter", who is an avid amateur astronomer and telescope photographer.

The middle to the end of the video includes the boosters landing:

I think the landing of the boosters look odd to us because we really don't have much experience knowing what a booster landing should look like.

Well the boosters dont reach space, no? They're just slowing down from falling in the atmosphere.

The boosters are probably way lighter due to all the fuel that was used during launch.

Still playing Devils advocate, not seeing how the position is being properly stabilized. Astronomy live's vid does look fakish near the end but could be real.

originally posted by: Xenogears
Astronomy live's vid does look fakish near the end but could be real.

Maybe. But again, it might look fake only because we have nothing to compare it to.

Besides, as I mentioned, the public can watch these land. So it’s not something that’s prime for faking.

I mean, if you can land a fake rocket, then you may as well just land a real one.

yes. empty....and those speed braking panels on the nose......

drop t in like an umbrella!

a reply to: Xenogears

Youre not playing devils advocate. Youre playing stupid. And youre doing a good job at it. Fake? Jesus FKN Christ.

originally posted by: Christosterone
The Space Shuttle blows this garbage away...

I can’t understand why spaceX is being so lauded for accomplishing nothing more than 1950s NASA.

We would be back on the moon in 2020 had the Constellation program not been cancelled...

Does anyone seriously believe Musk is anywhere near man-rating a rocket??

Give me a break...

Also, spaceX is being almost entirely subsidized by taxes..

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills watching people jump up and down over his rockets(which can’t carry astronauts)

-Chris

So you think the space shuttle could get to mars or the moon?

Ok then.

originally posted by: Christosterone
a reply to: Zaphod58

How about they man-rate a rocket and we will talk when they send men to orbit [and back]...

Your getting "Launch Vehicle" and "Crew Vehicle" mixed up.

The Rocket (whether it be a Delta V, Falcon 9, Arianne, Atlas, Falcon Heavy, Proton, or SLS) is just a launch vehicle. For the most part, the human-rated part of that would be a crew capsule put atop one of those.

Granted, and having said that, there is some testing that needs to go into human-rating the launch vehicle itself (or mainly the launch vehicle/crew capsule combo) such as reliability and the aerodynamics of the combination of the crew capsule and whatever launch vehicle is used, but the human-rating the crew capsule itself is separate from human-rating the launch vehicle (or the launch vehicle/crew capsule combo).

SpaceX is close to human-testing their Dragon V2 crew capsule, but the human-rating of the Dragon V2 has little or nothing to do with the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle test. Boeing is also close to human-testing the CST-100. Both SpaceX Dragon V2 and Boeing's CST-100 will probably launch humans within the year.

But like I said, the testing of the launch vehicle is not the same as human-rating the crew capsule.

For example, NASA's planned Orion crew vehicle is designed to launch atop an Delta V or an Atlas V Launch vehicle. SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle would need a little reconfiguration to fit NASA's Orion, but it, too, could be used -- as could SpaceX's Falcon Heavy.

SpaceX's crew version of their Dragon Capsule is set to be put atop a Falcon 9, but theoretically it could be reconfigured to launched by a rocket in the Delta family or Atlas V launch vehicles.

Boeing's manned test of the CST-100 is set to be put atop an Atlas V, but it can be configured to be launched by a Delta IV or Falcon 9.

originally posted by: Jungian
a reply to: Xenogears

Youre not playing devils advocate. Youre playing stupid. And youre doing a good job at it. Fake? Jesus FKN Christ.

Difficult to fake but not impossible. Seems pretty impressive and difficult to land heavy rockets back down on a landing pad. One would imagine it would take multiple sources of strong propulsion from multiple sides working simultaneously with carefully timed computer control to stabilize such a thin tall structure on its way down, perhaps not seeing well, but that's not what I'm seeing.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Xenogears
Astronomy live's vid does look fakish near the end but could be real.

Maybe. But again, it might look fake only because we have nothing to compare it to.

Besides, as I mentioned, the public can watch these land. So it’s not something that’s prime for faking.

I mean, if you can land a fake rocket, then you may as well just land a real one.

The public can watch a magician disappear the statue of liberty or levitate mid air. Doesn't mean he actually levitated or disappeared the statue.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Jungian
a reply to: Xenogears

Youre not playing devils advocate. Youre playing stupid. And youre doing a good job at it. Fake? Jesus FKN Christ.

Difficult to fake but not impossible. Seems pretty impressive and difficult to land heavy rockets back down on a landing pad. One would imagine it would take multiple sources of strong propulsion from multiple sides working simultaneously with carefully timed computer control to stabilize such a thin tall structure on its way down, perhaps not seeing well, but that's not what I'm seeing.

Then you aren't looking closely enough.

The Falcon has 8 reaction control system (RCS) thusters (two groups of 4 thrusters each) on the sides of the upper part of the vehicle. The RCS thrusters use compressed nitrogen to fine-tune the attitude of the rocket.

It also has 4 adjustable grid-fins that create a controlled aerodynamic drag in order to stabilize and steer. The grid fins are tilted and turned in strategic ways to help create a stable descent.

Lastly, the rockets at the bottom are also steerable, which can also be used to stabilize the long thin mass above it. And being at the bottom of the long thin mass is helpful...for example, think of the steerable thrusters as being like how you can balance a broomstick in your palm by moving your palm around.

Here is a video that shows the nitrogen RCS thrusters and grid-fins:

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Xenogears
Astronomy live's vid does look fakish near the end but could be real.

Maybe. But again, it might look fake only because we have nothing to compare it to.

Besides, as I mentioned, the public can watch these land. So it’s not something that’s prime for faking.

I mean, if you can land a fake rocket, then you may as well just land a real one.

The public can watch a magician disappear the statue of liberty or levitate mid air. Doesn't mean he actually levitated or disappeared the statue.

So the public watched two rocket-looking things land. Let's suppose for the sake of your argument that they were not the same rockets that they saw go up, but instead they were some dummy rockets. Even if that were so, the fact remain that two rocket-like things (whether they were the same ones that went up or some dummy version of the ones that went up) were able to land.

I mean, if they are fake rockets or real rockets, it seems to me they were still able to be dropped out of the sky and land.

...Unless you are saying nothing actually landed, and what people saw was all some advanced holographic projection or something. If that's the argument (i.e., that a hologram is indistinguishable from the real thing), then I have no response because by that definition "real" and "fake" are indishtiguishable.