zolotiyeruki Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Here's my question: why don't SpaceX put a second craft out there with a camera to catch the landings? Or a quadcopter, or *anything*? I don't think I've ever seen a droneship landing where the video feed *didn't* cut out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said: Here's my question: why don't SpaceX put a second craft out there with a camera to catch the landings? Or a quadcopter, or *anything*? I don't think I've ever seen a droneship landing where the video feed *didn't* cut out. They did have a drone on some of the early landings, but basically it’s expensive, a potential risk, and not entirely necessary for “science” sake now that the landing campaign has matured. I think we will see much better landing footage once StarLink starts coming online, and they’re no longer reliant on a wobbly satellite dish on the drone ship for the feed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delay Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 I just realized this, while re-watching the Orbcomm-2 launch: ...Looks a little bit like KSP on the background monitor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) 17 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: I can hear the pre-launch checks now. "Propulsion?" "Propulsion is Go." "GNC?" "We're Go." "Retro?" "And proud of it too!" Edited January 11, 2019 by KSK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAL59 Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said: They did have a drone on some of the early landings, but basically it’s expensive, a potential risk, and not entirely necessary for “science” sake now that the landing campaign has matured. I think we will see much better landing footage once StarLink starts coming online, and they’re no longer reliant on a wobbly satellite dish on the drone ship for the feed. If the first stage hits the drone on the way down, it's missing the landing barge anyway, so what's the risk? I don't know anything about StarLink--does it somehow not require directional antennas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 16 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said: If the first stage hits the drone on the way down, it's missing the landing barge anyway, so what's the risk? I don't know anything about StarLink--does it somehow not require directional antennas? It doesn’t, that’s the point. It’s like GPS, but for internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Oooh, the person who painted this is such a great artist, hmmmm, i wonder who made it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 hour ago, DAL59 said: Honestly this film is AMAZING in the fact that it gets a lot of stuff right about space travel, even implying a nuclear engine, showing an EVA with some sort of (not very realistic) thruster movement while on EVA, weightlessness while in space, and a few other cool things. So what, you ask? This was 1950. 3 years after the first pictures from space, 7 years before the first satellite. 19 years before the first moon landing. While it doesn't get everything right, and some of the other aspects could use some work, it's definitely worth a watch. We have it on DVD, actually! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Honestly this film is AMAZING in the fact that it gets a lot of stuff right about space travel, even implying a nuclear engine, showing an EVA with some sort of (not very realistic) thruster movement while on EVA, weightlessness while in space, and a few other cool things. So what, you ask? This was 1950. 3 years after the first pictures from space, 7 years before the first satellite. 19 years before the first moon landing. While it doesn't get everything right, and some of the other aspects could use some work, it's definitely worth a watch. We have it on DVD, actually! I have seen a few people make fun of this movie, because it ''looked stupid''. I geuss the future of mankind will 'look stupid' i geuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rus-Evo Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 I have a Starship question. The render of BFR a few months ago showed this ship with 7 engines. But if it only needs 3 to land, and as second stages typically only have 1 or 2 engines, why does BFR/Starship have 7 rather than 3 engines? I wouldn't have imagined it would need 7 for lunar lift off, but could be wrong of course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: Honestly this film is AMAZING in the fact that it gets a lot of stuff right about space travel, even implying a nuclear engine, showing an EVA with some sort of (not very realistic) thruster movement while on EVA, weightlessness while in space, and a few other cool things. So what, you ask? This was 1950. 3 years after the first pictures from space, 7 years before the first satellite. 19 years before the first moon landing. While it doesn't get everything right, and some of the other aspects could use some work, it's definitely worth a watch. We have it on DVD, actually! If you're looking for realistic old sci-fi movies, you can't beat Frau im Mond by Fritz Lang, from 1929. Hermann Oberth was a technical advisor, and it was accurate enough that it was banned in Germany due to similarities to the V-2 project. It missed some critical things, like the fact that there isn't air on the moon, but the overall design of the rocket is pretty believable, and it invented the countdown before liftoff. My current profile photo is from it. Fair warning: The longest restored version is 200 minutes long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Rus-Evo said: I have a Starship question. The render of BFR a few months ago showed this ship with 7 engines. But if it only needs 3 to land, and as second stages typically only have 1 or 2 engines, why does BFR/Starship have 7 rather than 3 engines? I wouldn't have imagined it would need 7 for lunar lift off, but could be wrong of course! Mostly for backup / maybe higher TWR because they can. Seriously, they need to have engine out capability here. Edited January 11, 2019 by ThatGuyWithALongUsername Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said: If the first stage hits the drone on the way down, it's missing the landing barge anyway, so what's the risk? I don't know anything about StarLink--does it somehow not require directional antennas? I think it’s more a risk of the drone wandering into the active landing area. It may be a small risk, but it’s also one with very little reward— SpaceX already knows what a landing booster looks like, not much technical knowledge to be gained there anymore. And yes, like @sh1pman said, StarLink will use an “omnidirectional” phased array antenna, so it should be much more vibration resistant. 18 minutes ago, Rus-Evo said: I have a Starship question. The render of BFR a few months ago showed this ship with 7 engines. But if it only needs 3 to land, and as second stages typically only have 1 or 2 engines, why does BFR/Starship have 7 rather than 3 engines? I wouldn't have imagined it would need 7 for lunar lift off, but could be wrong of course! At landing, the Starship will be nearly empty— don’t need a lot of thrust there. The hopper needs enough thrust to lift itself plus all the fuel it needs to reach altitude and become nearly empty, all with no real payload. The “real” Starship, at booster sep, will be mostly fuel, and a lot of it, plus dozens of tonnes of payload, hence the need for a lot more engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: I think it’s more a risk of the drone wandering into the active landing area. And getting melted. Wouldn’t it look absolutely awesome? “What’s it like, having an orbital booster land on you?” broadcasted live. Edited January 11, 2019 by sh1pman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Wouldn’t it look absolutely awesome? “What’s it like, having an orbital booster land on you?” broadcasted live. Unless... that is what happened to BulgariaSat, and why we’ll never see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 57 minutes ago, Rus-Evo said: I have a Starship question. The render of BFR a few months ago showed this ship with 7 engines. But if it only needs 3 to land, and as second stages typically only have 1 or 2 engines, why does BFR/Starship have 7 rather than 3 engines? I wouldn't have imagined it would need 7 for lunar lift off, but could be wrong of course! Super Heavy (the booster) will accelerate Starship to about the same velocity as the F9 booster does the F9 stage 2, something like 2.1-2.5 km/s. So Starship, like F9 S2, will in fact be supplying most of the delta v to the stack to reach orbit. The 7 engines are primarily to get the thing to orbit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 Well... that’s disheartening... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 33 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Well... that’s disheartening... Well, looks like the remaining employees will have to get used to work as much as their boss does at Tesla. Something like 120 hours a week, if I remember correctly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 Their business model for the near future has them doing less work for the same number of launches because of reuse. Most launches will be reflights. Even with Starship, it’s a different set of people (engineers) vs production staff. I have to imagine most who are leaving would be production staff working on F9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 Is this cutting now non-essential (Or not as essential as before) employees due to the increasingly proven F9 rocket? And I also suppose this means it'll be a more selective company when hiring new employees. Or at least, most new employees from here on out will be sent towards Starlink or BFR/Starship, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razark Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 Well, there goes my idea for if I get furloughed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 https://qz.com/1521906/elon-musks-spacex-is-laying-off-10-of-its-workers/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 Costs is important, i think elon may be outdoing himself. meanwhile at NASA "Steve, get ready to transfer all plans of Falcon 9 once spaceX goes bankrupt." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.