Why I really appreciate the Kerbal players here

[RocketBlam]

You're the only group of people I know who understand why the SpaceX first stage landing is an entirely different deal than the Blue Origins landing, because you understand how much different "in space" is from "in orbit".

I don't have to explain it to you. You all know already.

Edited December 22, 2015 by RocketBlam

[Temstar]

You don't work for SpaceX do you?

[RocketBlam]

Nnnope... sure don't.

[Dafni]

I hear you. It is indeed quite refreshing when you can talk the space talk without having to explain very basic stuff first.

[Snarfster]

Before KSP I thought I knew orbital mechanics, with a calculator.

After a good number of hours crashing into things, getting lost in space and who knows what kind of mishaps, my understanding has massively improved.

I'll leave this here.

[Farex]

But of course. It's an entirely different kind of flying... all together.
 

[selfish_meme]

Actually neither goes to space, the SpaceX one has to slow down because it is boosting the second stage towards orbit so it had horizontal velocity to lose and it had to wait for the launchpad to catch up

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, Farex said:

But of course. It's an entirely different kind of flying... all together.
 

It's an entirely different kind of flying.

[Starhawk]

1 hour ago, Farex said:

But of course. It's an entirely different kind of flying... all together.
 

It's an entirely different kind of flying.

[softweir]

1 hour ago, selfish_meme said:

Actually neither goes to space, the SpaceX one has to slow down because it is boosting the second stage towards orbit so it had horizontal velocity to lose and it had to wait for the launchpad to catch up

The OP's point is that the payload got to space.

[selfish_meme]

50 minutes ago, softweir said:

The OP's point is that the payload got to space.

It maybe, its not what he said though, so how can I or you know what he meant. It doesn't matter though, regardless we all know that it is very different to lob a capsule straight up as opposed to putting a bus in orbit.

[Red Iron Crown]

2 hours ago, selfish_meme said:

Actually neither goes to space, the SpaceX one has to slow down because it is boosting the second stage towards orbit so it had horizontal velocity to lose and it had to wait for the launchpad to catch up

Both go to space, they both cross the Karman line.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Yes, the difference is in the mass, payload mass delivered to separation, and the horizontal velocity attained before returning, most of all.

[NecroBones]

7 hours ago, Temstar said:

You don't work for SpaceX do you?

I saw on the Space subreddit recently that there was a job opening at SpaceX that we could all aspire to.   I feel fairly confident that even though I work in a technical field, that's probably the only job there that I'd be qualified for.

 

As an aside, XKCD's "What If" article about the difference between SPACE and ORBIT is really, really good to share with people when they don't get the difference, in terms of velocity:  Orbital Speed

 

Also this goes into the differences a bit between the two rockets:

 

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by NecroBones

[Farex]

What I don't understand is why rocket *scientists* still use the imperial system, in presentations even. It's highly impractical and does not follow a logic whatsoever, just arbitrarily defined nonsense for measurement for use during the colonial times of the british people.

Is there actually a benefit for using the imperial system in science? <- this is a serious question, because I just don't get it.

 

@GoSlash and Starhawk

 
 

[Snarfster]

The way I always understood that, it's due to the maritime origin of travel.

Ships -> Aircraft -> Spacecraft.

[pincushionman]

1 hour ago, NecroBones said:

I saw on the Space subreddit recently that there was a job opening at SpaceX that we could all aspire to.   I feel fairly confident that even though I work in a technical field, that's probably the only job there that I'd be qualified for. …

I love how even that position has ITAR requirements.

[swjr-swis]

4 hours ago, Starhawk said:

It's an entirely different kind of flying.

And stop calling me Shirley.

[NecroBones]

15 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

And stop calling me Shirley.

Roger, Roger. Vector, Victor.

[Sean Mirrsen]

1 hour ago, NecroBones said:

As an aside, XKCD's "What If" article about the difference between SPACE and ORBIT is really, really good to share with people when they don't get the difference, in terms of velocity:  Orbital Speed

As an aside to that aside, I consider that the worst article of the entire What If series. For the reason that it took one facet of the questions mentioned, and ran with it without answering the actual questions.

Indeed two of the three questions listed imply having to control the speed of reentry, and the first question explicitly proposes slowing down. So naturally the entire article is devoted to saying how going into space means going fast, and no word on whether slowing down would be a valid way of avoiding the need for a heatshield.

[lordlundar]

3 hours ago, Farex said:

What I don't understand is why rocket *scientists* still use the imperial system, in presentations even. It's highly impractical and does not follow a logic whatsoever, just arbitrarily defined nonsense for measurement for use during the colonial times of the british people.

Is there actually a benefit for using the imperial system in science? <- this is a serious question, because I just don't get it.

 

@GoSlash and Starhawk

 
 

Well there was an effort to switch to metric in the 90's (or late 80's can't remember which) as the first step in converting the entire United States to metric. To say the effort didn't pat out well is a bit of an understatement. Remember the mars climate orbiter? How because of a conversion error it ended up buried into the mars surface instead of orbiting? yeah, similar cases. Between the mistakes and bureaucracy it was deemed such a colossal failure that NASA went back to straight imperial and it stopped the conversion project entirely.

[Red Iron Crown]

13 minutes ago, lordlundar said:

Well there was an effort to switch to metric in the 90's (or late 80's can't remember which) as the first step in converting the entire United States to metric. To say the effort didn't pat out well is a bit of an understatement. Remember the mars climate orbiter? How because of a conversion error it ended up buried into the mars surface instead of orbiting? yeah, similar cases. Between the mistakes and bureaucracy it was deemed such a colossal failure that NASA went back to straight imperial and it stopped the conversion project entirely.

NASA is fully metric internally now, has been since 2007. They only use Imperial for public presentations to US audiences.

[swjr-swis]

37 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

NASA is fully metric internally now, has been since 2007. They only use Imperial for public presentations to US audiences.

Hmm. So they are bigger on the inside than on the outside...?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, RocketBlam said:

You're the only group of people I know who understand why the SpaceX first stage landing is an entirely different deal than the Blue Origins landing, because you understand how much different "in space" is from "in orbit".

I don't have to explain it to you. You all know already.

I'd like this if I hadn't exceeded 25...

[Mighty1]

4 hours ago, Farex said:

What I don't understand is why rocket *scientists* still use the imperial system, in presentations even. It's highly impractical and does not follow a logic whatsoever, just arbitrarily defined nonsense for measurement for use during the colonial times of the british people.

Is there actually a benefit for using the imperial system in science? <- this is a serious question, because I just don't get it.

 

@GoSlash and Starhawk

 
 

Of course there is. Just look how great it worked for the Mars Climate Orbiter.