Space X - Dragon Launch Today
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
It's because the media are essentially ignorant and do not understand these matters.
A "significant" event to a media person is finding out that their telephone has been hacked.
That of course is because a media person did the hacking; it makes it very important. A "significant" event to a media person is finding out that their telephone has been hacked.
Onwards and upwards for SpaceX I guess then - get the manned flight in the bag and all of a sudden, Obama's NASA strategy starts to look quite sensible.
davepoth said:
That of course is because a media person did the hacking; it makes it very important.
Onwards and upwards for SpaceX I guess then - get the manned flight in the bag and all of a sudden, Obama's NASA strategy starts to look quite sensible.
Indeed. Cut back NASA spending for routine stuff, and open up competition for commercial stuff. Where does this leave the imaginative stuff re: Mars, and so on? Will it give more scope for NASA to work on those big projects?Onwards and upwards for SpaceX I guess then - get the manned flight in the bag and all of a sudden, Obama's NASA strategy starts to look quite sensible.
PS, The moonbase thing seems to have been about for years now, and they seem to be pushing that Discovery show on the subject whenever I tune in to NASA TV. Is something tangible happening with that, or is it just more pie in the sky?
The really interesting one will be when it comes back in to land under it's own thrusters "Super Draco", which is of course the target design of the dragon capsule.
That will be something nobody has seen before and a whole lot more immediate (and visually exciting) than an "empty" capsule gently floating down to splashdown at sea...
Especially as they are planning on using them as the launch abort system - so a major step for a manned mission.
Congrats to all at Space-X - Personally I think even the abort was handled very very well, and for them commercially cannot be a bad thing - even if you stick your half billion pound satellite on one of our rockets - we have the level of control necessary to handle it safely (as opposed to the shuttle light the blue touchpaper and retire attitude of the SRB's)..
Simes.
That will be something nobody has seen before and a whole lot more immediate (and visually exciting) than an "empty" capsule gently floating down to splashdown at sea...
Especially as they are planning on using them as the launch abort system - so a major step for a manned mission.
Congrats to all at Space-X - Personally I think even the abort was handled very very well, and for them commercially cannot be a bad thing - even if you stick your half billion pound satellite on one of our rockets - we have the level of control necessary to handle it safely (as opposed to the shuttle light the blue touchpaper and retire attitude of the SRB's)..
Simes.
TheHeretic said:
davepoth said:
That of course is because a media person did the hacking; it makes it very important.
Onwards and upwards for SpaceX I guess then - get the manned flight in the bag and all of a sudden, Obama's NASA strategy starts to look quite sensible.
Indeed. Cut back NASA spending for routine stuff, and open up competition for commercial stuff. Where does this leave the imaginative stuff re: Mars, and so on? Will it give more scope for NASA to work on those big projects?Onwards and upwards for SpaceX I guess then - get the manned flight in the bag and all of a sudden, Obama's NASA strategy starts to look quite sensible.
PS, The moonbase thing seems to have been about for years now, and they seem to be pushing that Discovery show on the subject whenever I tune in to NASA TV. Is something tangible happening with that, or is it just more pie in the sky?
The current Falcon 9 isn't really big enough for that job, but the Falcon Heavy is due to fly before the end of the year, which has the capability to loft 53 tons into LEO
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/falcon-heav...
That article also clears up the "crack" issue on the Dragon capsule in the picture; the heat shield is disposable, and I guess it cracked as it cooled quickly when it hit the water.
dodgyviper said:
Is that a large crack in the capsule?
Nope - that's where the parachute shroud lines run between the 'chute compartment in the base of the capsule and their attachment point at the top. In flight they are covered by a panel of the thermal insulation, which is then ripped off when the 'chutes deployMartG said:
Nope - that's where the parachute shroud lines run between the 'chute compartment in the base of the capsule and their attachment point at the top. In flight they are covered by a panel of the thermal insulation, which is then ripped off when the 'chutes deploy
Ah that explains it - thanks for clarifyingSome decent video of the splashdown here
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/shuttle_station/index.h...
I hope the live coverage of these spashdowns improves.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/shuttle_station/index.h...
I hope the live coverage of these spashdowns improves.
Coal powered 2004 eMac. Still going but yeah, probably flash. Get the lap top out later.
To be fair, if it was manual, who was on the end of the lens and in what manner I suppose. Same for auto. But you would thing they would have had some practice and guidance from the pros. OK, practising on a splash down is not easy when they do not happen every day but framing up for the event is not rocket science.
Not meaning to be harsh. I would probably fudge it beyond all recognition.
To be fair, if it was manual, who was on the end of the lens and in what manner I suppose. Same for auto. But you would thing they would have had some practice and guidance from the pros. OK, practising on a splash down is not easy when they do not happen every day but framing up for the event is not rocket science.
Not meaning to be harsh. I would probably fudge it beyond all recognition.
TheHeretic said:
jmorgan said:
Me Mac don't want to play. What is wrong with it?
The dreaded flash? It was pretty crappy camera work. Never saw the splashdown, as he was zoomed in too much. I think the filming was a credible effort overall. The live feed was pretty poor however with far too much breakup and pixellation. That side definitely needs improving.
If you think back to the Apollo splashdown coverage, which was 40 odd years ago, the spacecraft was only picked up from a camera at sea level - sitting on the recovery carrier - which is a much more stable platform than a moving aircraft.
The earliest point of the re-entry they managed to get was the reefing of the three main parachutes - and they had years of practice. These guys managed to follow the capsule all the way from just before drogue release - which I thought was quite impressive.
TheHeretic said:
The live film at the time looked like it was done via a Nokia from the mid 90's. Weird how you can get crystal clear imagery from it in orbit, but such crappy pictures from its landing.
Not weird at all. The whole point of this project is that the budget is relatively small - much smaller than what it would be if NASA themselves were running it. In this case, whilst in orbit and attached to the ISS, they had access to the full communications and technical backup that goes with a full international, multi-government sponsored space project which includes access to the TDRS communication satellites and ground based links.
During the re-entry phase they were more or less runnning the show themselves. Notice that virtually all the shots showed the Spacex control room rather than Mission Control, Houston. The links were much more basic and pared back. The important thing to the Spacex controllers would have been telemetry data showing that all the various sequences needed for a successful recovery were carried out on time and correctly. Images were a low priority.
I'm sure the image side of things will improve over time.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff