linuxgurugamer Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 34 minutes ago, insert_name said: that actually increases the chances that youtube will show you it in your recommended feed Are you joking? If not, then why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said: Are you joking? If not, then why? no, because that means it is controversial, and you might show it to someone to discuss it, leading to more ad revenue for youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, insert_name said: no, because that means it is controversial, and you might show it to someone to discuss it, leading to more ad revenue for youtube. For what it counts if you see something pop up in your recommend videos you can select "Not Interested." It'll get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Lets bring this back on topic shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Why would SpaceX withhold video footage? Are there certain trade secrets they don't want competitors getting hints of? For instance why is it we haven't gotten the full onboard ride footage on that booster? Why only the last seconds? What about the video from the barge? We only got a glimpse of that during the landing. They had no issue showing it on previous attempts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Back on topic? Sure! I wonder if Elon Musk and his SpaceX crews have finished downloading KSP 1.1 yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor of the Titan Squid Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 I don't get how they intend to make the core stage fly back to the launch site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 Just now, Emperor of the Titan Squid said: I don't get how they intend to make the core stage fly back to the launch site. Check the video above, it already did 12 minutes ago, Motokid600 said: Why would SpaceX withhold video footage? Are there certain trade secrets they don't want competitors getting hints of? For instance why is it we haven't gotten the full onboard ride footage on that booster? Why only the last seconds? What about the video from the barge? We only got a glimpse of that during the landing. They had no issue showing it on previous attempts. My guess continues to be, they know more about it than us, there's probably a very good reason why they're not... and if they're doing it right, we won't know that reason until they want us to. Now if you'll excuse, I have a crinkle in my tinfoil hat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 18 minutes ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said: I don't get how they intend to make the core stage fly back to the launch site. They don't. It makes no sense in terms of turnaround. It takes 2 days to ship the stage back to Port Canaveral. It would take longer than that to checkout the rocket, refuel, and relaunch. It would also need major modifications to the barge, to the rocket and a dedicated supply ship and crew. If they ever got to the point where saving two days in the turnaround process became important, it would be easier to simply increase the number of stages and barges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) 35 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Check the video above, it already did My guess continues to be, they know more about it than us, there's probably a very good reason why they're not... and if they're doing it right, we won't know that reason until they want us to. Now if you'll excuse, I have a crinkle in my tinfoil hat... Don't think I'm hinting towards any kind of forgery here that is not the case. It just baffles me because space needs as much good publicity as it can get. The reason has to be that the footage I mention reveals something they don't want competitors ( *cough*Blue Origin ) to see. What else could it possibly be? I think about it and we didn't get that full onboard footage on the early Shuttle launches either, so... In time maybe when this landing practice becomes more common. There still technically "experimental". Guess I answered my own question 40 minutes ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said: I don't get how they intend to make the core stage fly back to the launch site. 14 minutes ago, Nibb31 said: They don't. It makes no sense in terms of turnaround. It takes 2 days to ship the stage back to Port Canaveral. It would take longer than that to checkout the rocket, refuel, and relaunch. It would also need major modifications to the barge, to the rocket and a dedicated supply ship and crew. If they ever got to the point where saving two days in the turnaround process became important, it would be easier to simply increase the number of stages and barges. Check this out if you haven't already. It's absolutely absurd how quickly the core shuts down after booster sep. Doesn't look too practical on all, but the lightest of payloads. Edited April 19, 2016 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 @Motokid600 that is for when all 3 cores RTLS, per the vid title. for core stage DPL, it would burn much longer. In actual news, F9-023 is at (or nearly at) LC39A for its 3-4 months of testing before re-flight in June-July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 43 minutes ago, DarthVader said: @Motokid600 that is for when all 3 cores RTLS, per the vid title. for core stage DPL, it would burn much longer. I know, but would such a thing ever happen? To have the core come back? Because if the core burns for much longer itd have to go for the barge, no? Whats DPL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, Motokid600 said: I know, but would such a thing ever happen? To have the core come back? Because if the core burns for much longer itd have to go for the barge, no? Whats DPL? I'm guessing Downrange Platform Landing, also called a "Droneship" landing. (since SpaceX cannot legally call it a barge anymore. Thanks Bezos!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Motokid600 said: Don't think I'm hinting towards any kind of forgery here that is not the case. It just baffles me because space needs as much good publicity as it can get. The reason has to be that the footage I mention reveals something they don't want competitors ( *cough*Blue Origin ) to see. What else could it possibly be? I think about it and we didn't get that full onboard footage on the early Shuttle launches either, so... In time maybe when this landing practice becomes more common. There still technically "experimental". Guess I answered my own question Check this out if you haven't already. It's absolutely absurd how quickly the core shuts down after booster sep. Doesn't look too practical on all, but the lightest of payloads. They have three 'falcon' to recover you want sufficient enough distance so you can have independent crews in the land back areas. Its practical in the sense that they are not going so fast the stage is diificult to recover but enough distance that they don't interfere. The video, cheesey, sorry not my cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Nibb31 said: They don't. It makes no sense in terms of turnaround. It takes 2 days to ship the stage back to Port Canaveral. It would take longer than that to checkout the rocket, refuel, and relaunch. It would also need major modifications to the barge, to the rocket and a dedicated supply ship and crew. If they ever got to the point where saving two days in the turnaround process became important, it would be easier to simply increase the number of stages and barges. That is the time it takes today (first try), when spacex not even have scheduled and planned its logistics on that matter. By the way, that can be easily solved with my fixed solid sea platform proposal, which also reduce the cost of faring recovery and increase the chance of stage recovery in any weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 12 minutes ago, Rakaydos said: I'm guessing Downrange Platform Landing, also called a "Droneship" landing. (since SpaceX cannot legally call it a barge anymore. Thanks Bezos!) That's not how patents work. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted April 19, 2016 Share Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) *whistles*.... Engine cozies!! Edited April 20, 2016 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basto Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 3 hours ago, Motokid600 said: *whistles*.... Engine cozies!! ...this is why SpaceX uses such a "skinny" rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 And that shows how strong their rocket is, able to lie sideways only supported at the ends. I don't think there are many rockets that can do that, without support in the middle. I wonder if they pressurize it for extra strength? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukaszenko Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 7 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: And that shows how strong their rocket is, able to lie sideways only supported at the ends. I don't think there are many rockets that can do that, without support in the middle. I wonder if they pressurize it for extra strength? It's also empty, with all the heavy bits at the bottom. The middle just has to support its own weight. I doubt that it can do this trick fully loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 This isn't anything unusual for the F9. They are built sideways, stored sideways, shipped across the continent sideways on a truck, prepared for flight sideways, have their payload integrated sideways, and get rolled onto the pad sideways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 I realize that it's empty and also SOP, and that it's just light tankage in the middle. I just think it's unusual that there is no support in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 the stage would not break in the middle, is a lot more robust than that. If you can place all the weight in the extremes (edges) of the trailer, then you just need wheels under those points, which decrease the friction and it is easier to move and turn. It has enough wheels to not break the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts