SpaceX just landed another rocket out on the ocean (after it launched a satellite called JCSat). This is the 2nd time they landed at sea. But it’s still very significant because the orbit needed for this satellite required a high velocity and the rocket was left with far less fuel to attempt landing. So this landing had a low chance of success. “JCSat is pushing the envelope as a very hot and fast mission” I was quite surprised to see it softly touch down!
Launch at 1:21am
Long exposure photo of the launch (click for full size)
Rocket, 5 seconds after touching down on the unmanned drone ship.
On drone ship in daylight.
SpaceX … Like a Boss…. (worlds 1st landing at sea on Apr 8 2016) post #2 contains some background on SpaceX.
so…right now they just launch satellites into orbit and return?
i wonder how long till they do a moon mission… THAT would be cool, and a definite huge step for them to “match” NASA past accomplishments.
GOD himself help me? i have constant arguments with one guy who falls for the whole “NASA moon mission was a fake” thingy… I always wished someone would put SOMEthing on the moon, that could be seen from earth by a telescope… so i could show it to him… lol
Anything you would be able to see with a dinky little backyard telescope (or even a very expensive personal telescope) would have to be so huge that’s it not really practical. Especially considering the only point of placing a huge object on the moon is to try to satisfy crackpots. And if you did succeed in convincing them about the moon landing, they would just move on to something else. They have a high level of suspicion and paranoia and need an outlet for it. There is no end to conspiracy theories.
I have a little bit of suspicion and paranoia at times. I can see how some conspiracy theories could be alluring and the right people will be taken over by them.
Nasa did leave retroreflectors on the moon that we can bounce lasers off of.
Yea, except no one has done it before. Returning a first stage rocket to on earth, landing under it’s own power after an orbital launch (to geosynchronous transfer orbit no less). Not even nasa.
Nasa had the space shuttle (now retired) but it required an massive fuel tank that was lost with each launch. Plus two solid rocket boosters. And the cost of each launch and refurbishing the shuttle afterwards was massive. Costs so high that nasa has abandoned reusable launch vehicles. Nasa’s plans for the SLS do not include any re-usability.
But do not get me wrong! Nasa is awesome. Who else has a bunch of rovers on mars? Including the 900 kg (2,000 lb) car sized Curiosity. No other space agency comes close to nasa’s success rate.
As if that would help
I remember vividly a National Geographic program where they showed a group making a crop circle while explaining how they did it. I mean the design and making. After the circle was made they asked ” experts” to investigate it.
“Experts” concluded this is real alien stuff.
They told it was made by humans, how and showed the footage.
Despite that the experts STILL were convinced it were aliens and that the footage and story were a coverup
Can’t wait for space x and Tesla to make an electrical rocket now that should improve our cells now wouldn’t it ROFLOL joke
[Crazy Paranoia Mode]
Clearly the CIA planted chips in their computers to fake that signal! The only way to prove it would be to see something on the moon with our own eyes.
After running a metal detector over our faces to check for CIA chips implanted in our eyes!
QUOTE
Nasa did leave retroreflectors (link is external) on the moon that we can bounce lasers off of.
ENDQUOTE
Yeah, i always brought up the laser reflector experiments performed as a graduate level university exercise in instrumentation… his response? “oh… a computer screen SAYS it detected it… that doesnt prove anything!”
i showed him, i dont remember, maybe it was hubble or another orbiting telescope? had pictures of either the trail of moon footprints, or, maybe it was the lunar lander it could photograph… once again? he explained it as “doctored photos”.
===
it all starts to resemble the “flat earth” conversations, lol… the “best” i get out of him? is that we “probably” made it to the moon “much later”, and that we faked the original one.
among his (many) “arguments) is that the radiation is so HUGE, that the spacesuits should enable people to walk into ”nuclear reactors”… when i argue with him? his accusation is that “i dont know anything about radiation belts”. (which is true)… B-U-T… i told him that i TEND to think that “doctor Van Allen HIMSELF would be trusted, since they NAMED the vanallen radiation belts after him”, and proceeded to show him youtube videos of Dr. Van Allen explaining how the belts and the moon shot worked…
===
people watch these conspiracy “documentaries” and think they have all this “highly technical knowledge” about shadows and light and stuff… and they really dont.
===
it wouldnt be HALF as bad? but… the guy i am talking about? hes OTHERWISE fairly well educated, level headed… its out of character for him to fall wholeheartedly into stuff like this… its weird and out of character.
Simple. Dust follows a ballistic trajectory in the absence of an atmosphere.
As Heinlein described it, a little explosive at the bottom of a tube filled with finely powdered black pigment throws the powder through a stencil at the top of the tube — it goes out, and falls back onto the face of the Moon ….
What Space X is doing is truly incredible. I hope they make it to mars.
Its amazing level of technology that we take for granted to ease our everyday lives. But the truth is we still don’t understand what makes gravity work, what makes our conscience minds tick or even what’s lurking at the bottom of our oceans.
That’s a very different rocket, the video you link there is Bezos’s “Blue Origin” — a rocket that pops up and back down.
It carries far more fuel for the payload, because it doesn’t use any fuel to attain orbit, sideways, around the planet.
So it doesn’t have to slow down after inserting a satellite into orbit at high speed — no braking, no heat problems.
That’s why Bezos’s “Blue Origin” can hover — it’s a big tank full of fuel, with lots to spare — it’s not hot, and it’s not fast.
Neat idea for “space tourist” use. I don’t know if they have any path toward actually putting something into orbit.
This is why we have politics, irrationally denying anything they don’t want to hear, making up stuff to fit preconceived conclusions and finally racism/discrimination (the last one is not always related to conspiracy type theory thinking, its just an extra “bonus”).
1+ Hank.
I was resisting the urge to comment on Blue Origin.
I did have respect for Blue Origin, right up until Bezos tweeted Congrats “Welcome to the club!”. Twitter promptly tore into him. Of course I’m sure Musk is no sweetheart either. But SpaceX is doing real launches, putting commercial payloads into GTO orbit, resupplying the international space station, all while seriously undercutting other launch companies. SpaceX is in a whole other league.
There is a what-if.xkcd on reaching space vs actually achieving orbit.
If they reach the point they have launch barges that can move around carrying the rocket to the ideal spot to launch, they’ll have an added business opportunity, because the closer to the equator you launch, the cheaper it is to get the satellite into geosyncronous orbit.
I was wondering if EM would buy the surplus aircraft carrier Britan was getting rid of a few weeks ago, but apparently no.
