Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab
-
@Bones said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kirwan said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
Seriously mind-blowing.
Just looks like a video game. Unreal eh.
Yup, fake as fuck
Unreal version 5.3, can't tell the difference
-
@BerniesCorner we should direct it towards the nuclear incinerator that is the sun 😬
-
@stodders said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@BerniesCorner we should direct it towards the nuclear incinerator that is the sun 😬
Play some Kerbal Space Programme and find out how hard it is to get into the sun. My kids became experts in orbital mechanics.
Strong recommend
-
-
-
@voodoo i think because a lot (most?) people just dont understand how big an achievement it is, i know my first thought was land on the pad seemed more impressive
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@voodoo i think because a lot (most?) people just dont understand how big an achievement it is, i know my first thought was land on the pad seemed more impressive
Really? Just eyeballing between the two, one has a tolerance of tens of metres landing on a big concrete circle.
Catching it on the tower obviously requires more accuracy.
The more I think about it, the stranger that sentence is. When else have we seen something the size of a building be caught out of the air?
We’ve all seen things land before.
-
@Kirwan said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
Really? Just eyeballing between the two, one has a tolerance of tens of metres landing on a big concrete circle.
Would be good to understand what the tolerance is for the catch setup - there must be far more going on in physics terms.
Land vertically: don't melt surface, be vertical enough or you'll fall over and explode, probably. That's if you don't catch fire.
Caught by tower: got to be vertical enough AND at the right speed AND not too close to one arm or the other AND not suffer catastrophic damage from the arms themselves AND the tower has to stand up to the weight AND the arms have to "fire" at the right time because too early OR too late is a journey to Destination Fucked.
I think the vertical bit was the amazing part to begin with - putting a rocket in reverse, almost - which is why it is probably less amazing now. I reckon it is still pretty tricky tho.
-
How about an extreme project to use the Sun's gravitational lensing to image extra-solar planets with 10 to 25km surface resolution.
Gravity telescope to image exoplanets
A futuristic technique conceptualized by Stanford scientists could enable astronomical imaging far more advanced than any present today.
-
@Tim said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
How about an extreme project to use the Sun's gravitational lensing to image extra-solar planets with 10 to 25km surface resolution.
Gravity telescope to image exoplanets
A futuristic technique conceptualized by Stanford scientists could enable astronomical imaging far more advanced than any present today.
That's amazeballs
-
@nzzp What's that plume emittance from the booster after it separates from starship and descends to earth.
-
@NTA said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kirwan said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
Really? Just eyeballing between the two, one has a tolerance of tens of metres landing on a big concrete circle.
Would be good to understand what the tolerance is for the catch setup - there must be far more going on in physics terms.
Land vertically: don't melt surface, be vertical enough or you'll fall over and explode, probably. That's if you don't catch fire.
Caught by tower: got to be vertical enough AND at the right speed AND not too close to one arm or the other AND not suffer catastrophic damage from the arms themselves AND the tower has to stand up to the weight AND the arms have to "fire" at the right time because too early OR too late is a journey to Destination Fucked.
I think the vertical bit was the amazing part to begin with - putting a rocket in reverse, almost - which is why it is probably less amazing now. I reckon it is still pretty tricky tho.
The arms hardly make contact with the starship as it's caught. Bloody amazing.
Anyone who's done computer programming can see that each program iteration is a relentless improvement on the previous versions. This thing is going to get better and better. Wow. -
@Kirwan said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@Kiwiwomble said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@voodoo i think because a lot (most?) people just dont understand how big an achievement it is, i know my first thought was land on the pad seemed more impressive
Really? Just eyeballing between the two, one has a tolerance of tens of metres landing on a big concrete circle.
Catching it on the tower obviously requires more accuracy.
The more I think about it, the stranger that sentence is. When else have we seen something the size of a building be caught out of the air?
We’ve all seen things land before.
too each their own and as a say i have read what everyone has been saying so so realise how impressive it is but yeah, at first glance a reusable booster returning to earth and landing perfectly vertically was truly amazing to me, maybe my amazement gauge was just recalibrated after seeing that so seeing something very similar happen but without the need to balance to the same degree didn;t seem as crazy
-
@BerniesCorner said in Space - Spacex, NASA, Rocket Lab:
@nzzp What's that plume emittance from the booster after it separates from starship and descends to earth.
presume you mean this?
I don't know! But guessing (in the Fern way), I presume it's water vapour from slowing down (aerobraking)
-
yeah. We need to find out.
I'm fascinated by the whole thing.
Apparently it's fine margins of getting this reuseability rocket thing working as the earth's gravity is so strong. Liftoff from the Moon and Mars is a piece of piss in comparison. -
When's Musk's green hydrogen car coming. Possible game changer for all.
