Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.astro > #57538 > unrolled thread

Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX.

Started by"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com>
First post2015-12-21 13:42 -0500
Last post2015-12-22 13:17 -0500
Articles 10 — 8 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.astro

Contents

  Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:42 -0500
    Re: Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw <chakatfirepaw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 03:37 +0000
      Re: Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-12-21 21:48 -0700
      Re: Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-22 16:20 +1100
        Re: Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 15:08 +0000
        Re: Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2015-12-22 16:38 +0000
          Re: Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 09:35 -0700
      Re: Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 05:59 -0500
        Re: Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-12-22 22:15 +1100
          Re: Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:17 -0500

#57538 — Attempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX.

From"Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com>
Date2015-12-21 13:42 -0500
SubjectAttempt at a return to launch site landing by SpaceX.
Message-ID<n59h0i$47r$2@dont-email.me>
Launch with an attempt at a return-to-launch-site landing pushed back to 
today, Monday evening:

Quote:
Elon Musk Verified account
‏@elonmusk
Just reviewed mission params w SpaceX team. Monte Carlo runs show tmrw night
has a 10% higher chance of a good landing. Punting 24 hrs.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/678679083782377472

The launch will be livestreamed:

ORBCOMM-2
Science & Technology / Space ·  More details ...
Mon, Dec 21 2015 8:29 PM EST — Mon, Dec 21 2015 9:05 PM EST
http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

http://livestream.com/spacex/events/4600161

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5bTbVbe4e4


   Bob Clark

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mission to Europa could result in the most important scientific advance in 
human history, dwarfing even the Apollo missions, to discover life on 
another world. By commercial space, launch and spacecraft costs can be 
slashed by a factor of 10 or more. This would be a cost that could be 
financed privately. And at costs this low it can even be done at a profit:

Low cost Europa lander missions.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/02/low-cost-europa-lander-missions.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57539

FromRick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw <chakatfirepaw@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-22 03:37 +0000
Message-ID<n5agho$h0h$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#57538
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:42:02 -0500, Robert Clark wrote:

> Launch with an attempt at a return-to-launch-site landing pushed back to
> today, Monday evening:

An update, since no one seems to have posted it, (in ras.science at 
least):

The landing was successful and the crowd at SpaceX went nuts.

-- 
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57540

FromGreg Goss <gossg@gossg.org>
Date2015-12-21 21:48 -0700
Message-ID<dds31oF5l6lU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#57539
Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw <chakatfirepaw@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:42:02 -0500, Robert Clark wrote:
>
>> Launch with an attempt at a return-to-launch-site landing pushed back to
>> today, Monday evening:
>
>An update, since no one seems to have posted it, (in ras.science at 
>least):
>
>The landing was successful and the crowd at SpaceX went nuts.

So did the geeky political shows on MSNBC
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57541

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2015-12-22 16:20 +1100
Message-ID<dds4tmF61acU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#57539
On 22/12/2015 2:37 PM, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:42:02 -0500, Robert Clark wrote:
>
>> Launch with an attempt at a return-to-launch-site landing pushed back to
>> today, Monday evening:
>
> An update, since no one seems to have posted it, (in ras.science at
> least):
>
> The landing was successful and the crowd at SpaceX went nuts.
>

Way to go, SpaceX.

Now, how long would NASA have taken to get this to work?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57544

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2015-12-22 15:08 +0000
Message-ID<PM0005277DF9BCED4E@aca46cf7.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#57541
Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/12/2015 2:37 PM, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:42:02 -0500, Robert Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Launch with an attempt at a return-to-launch-site landing pushed back to
>>> today, Monday evening:
>>
>> An update, since no one seems to have posted it, (in ras.science at
>> least):
>>
>> The landing was successful and the crowd at SpaceX went nuts.
>>
>
> Way to go, SpaceX.
>
> Now, how long would NASA have taken to get this to work?

40 more layers of management with the rules changing out from
underneath the engineers every election...Maybe 100 years ;-)

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57545

FromDoc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com>
Date2015-12-22 16:38 +0000
Message-ID<n5bu9d$29f$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#57541
For your reference, records indicate that 
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

> Now, how long would NASA have taken to get this to work?

Probably 1973, if politics were not a factor.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57546

FromGutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-22 09:35 -0700
Message-ID<XnsA57861A2B14C6taustingmail@69.16.179.42>
In reply to#57545
Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote in news:n5bu9d
$29f$1@dont-email.me:

> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> 
>> Now, how long would NASA have taken to get this to work?
> 
> Probably 1973, if politics were not a factor.
> 
And the Air Force, even earlier, probably 1965 if the X-20 hadn't 
been canceled.

-- 
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57542

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-22 05:59 -0500
Message-ID<V1aey.26993$Gc6.11018@fx08.iad>
In reply to#57539
On 12/21/2015 10:37 PM, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:42:02 -0500, Robert Clark wrote:
>
>> Launch with an attempt at a return-to-launch-site landing pushed back to
>> today, Monday evening:
>
> An update, since no one seems to have posted it, (in ras.science at
> least):
>
> The landing was successful and the crowd at SpaceX went nuts.

This is a HUGE advance for science! You know back in the days of B-movie 
science fiction, space rockets ALWAYS landed vertically on their tails! 
FINALLY, reality has caught up with Hollywood! What a piece of work is 
man! Man can do anything!



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57543

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2015-12-22 22:15 +1100
Message-ID<ddspluFb01jU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#57542
On 22/12/2015 9:59 PM, benj wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 10:37 PM, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:42:02 -0500, Robert Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Launch with an attempt at a return-to-launch-site landing pushed back to
>>> today, Monday evening:
>>
>> An update, since no one seems to have posted it, (in ras.science at
>> least):
>>
>> The landing was successful and the crowd at SpaceX went nuts.
>
> This is a HUGE advance for science!

Huh?

This is engineering, not science.

Clearly, it's good engineering. But it's still not science.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57547

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-22 13:17 -0500
Message-ID<Vsgey.41152$Hz3.39543@fx43.iad>
In reply to#57543
On 12/22/2015 06:15 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/12/2015 9:59 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/21/2015 10:37 PM, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:42:02 -0500, Robert Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>> Launch with an attempt at a return-to-launch-site landing pushed
>>>> back to
>>>> today, Monday evening:
>>>
>>> An update, since no one seems to have posted it, (in ras.science at
>>> least):
>>>
>>> The landing was successful and the crowd at SpaceX went nuts.
>>
>> This is a HUGE advance for science!
>
> Huh?
>
> This is engineering, not science.
>
> Clearly, it's good engineering. But it's still not science.
>
> Sylvia.
>
Nah. Blowing things up real good is engineering! Getting a rocket to 
land on it's butt like a 50's sci fi movies is science! The term is 
"science fiction", not "engineering fiction", right?

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.astro

csiph-web