Lukaszenko

Could also be that indeed this is some 1-in-a-million-thing that everybody's been overlooking since the 50s and eventually it had to happen, and SpaceX simply drew a short straw. Happened many times in the airline industry, where nobody could foresee it until it actually happened. The fact that they're having trouble figuring this out could very well indicate what I just said. Such a case would certainly be less damaging to SpaceX's reputation than "oh we forgot to plug in the ground cable".

Wouldn't it make sense then to place that duct where the engine pieces are likely to hit? (if it actually improved the plane's and/or peoples' likelihood of surviving)

You can tell a lot actually. Fatigue stress cracks look different than something failing due to overstress. Or compression. Or an explosion. Or getting stressed in a completely different manner than its used in (such as due to an explosion). How fast the failure occurred also results in different looking debris. There's so many clues left behind even when the debris is barely recognizable. Remember, information cannot be destroyed. Except in a black hole...and even that's debatable I think.

Either the booster blew up, in which case it's not giving 4g, or when they hit the "abort" button, the booster simultaneously turns off. In this post-moon-landing-rockets-returning-and-landing-by-themselves era, this shouldn't be too hard to conceptualize and implement.

...and? Did it work?

Oooh I don't know about that man. That thing is not going to stay in orbit very long...you know, the whole action/reaction thing

I don't. Damn video games are like drugs to me; it's best to stay away altogether. Maaaybe if it's some mindless game that I can finish in a couple sittings and put away for good. But, after KSP, I'm afraid to risk playing anything.

If I taped 50 bottle rockets together, would I set a new record?

The poster above me.

"Re-using space vehicles will help slow the proliferation of debris, which has become a substantial risk to space exploration." Uhhh...that's their understanding of why they're trying to reuse rockets?

Is there a relativistic equivalent of the Oberth effect? Oberth makes your rocket more effective due to classical physics equations. When approaching C, surely the efficiency rises even faster than can be explained by Oberth...

So let's examine this. What would happen if Coca Cola claimed that they are better than General Motors because they were the first to make Sprite? You wouldn’t want to jump in and call foul? Because that’s exactly what happened here, and why this discussion is even taking place. Nobody was saying one is better than the other until BO themselves tried to say it. So it’s not a question of fanboism, it’s a question of A trying to make themselves look better at the expense of B, despite half-assing whatever it was that B was doing. BO basically jumped out of the sidelines in front of a marathon runner, and started celebrating that they crossed the finish line first. Even if I hate the marathon runner, I’ll probably still come to his defense. And probably so would you. And why do I need rocket building credentials to see that an orbital launch system is more impressive than a suborbital one? You’re seriously claiming they are on the same level?

Yes, they were first at flying the Wright Flyer. But the fact that they were working on the Wright Flyer at the same time as SpaceX was working on the Concorde, and flew it only a couple months before the Concorde, is precisely what makes their "first" so much less impressive.

It keeps being brought up in these discussions that the Falcon 9 1st stage is suborbital, but I fail to see the relevance of this. Seriously…who cares? It is part of a system used to launch something into orbit. As such, it is not meant to nor will it ever work by itself. It’s like comparing a slingshot to an AK47...they’re both just about as effective by themselves. It’s only in combination with their bullets that their differences really start to show. The point is that the most expensive scrapped part of launching something into orbit, is being recovered (and eventually reused). Whether this part itself goes into orbit, to the moon and back, leaves the atmosphere, or never even so much as leaves the ground is a red herring.

I don't think whether it's an actual mission or a test is all that relevant here. What is relevant, is that one rocket puts a payload in orbit, and the other doesn't. That difference is so huge that it's quite literally astronomical. Once you're in orbit, you're half-way to anywhere. But, you have to get to orbit. Not close, not almost there, not even 99% there, because anything less than a stable orbit, and you're coming back. And New Shepherd is nowhere near significantly close to orbit to be even worth discussing. Yet.

It can't be that impossible where I would say "never". If we can have video from almost directly below a rocket launch, or even from the inside of a Tokamak, I'm sure we can have one of a rocket landing. For that matter, why do we even need radio waves?

Everybody else keep seating on edge when watching these things, thinking that this time it will blow up for sure? And then every small spark, flame, smoke, detail means "yup, it's gone...damn." I still like watching airplanes taking off/ landing, but it just doesn't have the edge-of-your-seat excitement of a SpaceX rocket launch. I wonder if the risk is half the reason, especially since I can't help thinking that so much is riding on a SpaceX rocket (beside the actual payload).

...so it looks like they bring the periapsis even lower than zero. Not surprised, I didn't expect a direct translation from the Kerbal world here.

Basically when the rocket exceeds the exhaust's velocity, the rocket gains MORE energy than the total chemical energy in the propellant. The efficiency goes past 100%.

I don't understand, is the webcast starting in 1 minute or is the rocket already taking off??

What does that mean "payload to Pluto"? As in, land on Pluto? Send there on a Hohmann? By way of 40 gravity assists? Because New Horizons did none of those, and I think when we're talking differences of decades (or even centuries?) they need to be a bit more specific.

You're saying that "theoretical ... yes" there is a maximum, or "theoretical ... yes" you can raise ISP without bound? I understand that the exhaust will never reach the speed of light...it will just start to gain more and more mass at some point as you pump more and more energy into it. But that would still continue to increase the ISP, no?

Might be a bit off topic, but is there a theoretical maximum ISP you can get from a rocket engine? Can you, for example, just keep pumping more and more energy into the ions of an ion engine, raising their exhaust velocity and ISP without bound?

I can't understand why acceleration is not taken into account when calculating the greatest stress on a vessel. A rocket accelerating at 100 gs in vacuum will be experiencing more stress than one going Mach 3 through thin atmosphere, I imagine.