SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

Post by warfangle » Fri, May 06, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

justifier wrote: post #225

lmm wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA reused every engine (not just the first stage) of an orbital payload delivery system, many times, 30 years ago. Runway rather than barge but that's not really an important difference. (The exciting part will be much cheaper refurbishment than the STS. But SpaceX haven't actually delivered on that component yet)

> Runway rather than barge but that's not really an important difference. it is an important difference when you look beyond earth the moon, mars, and any future site that has yet to send robots to pave a runaway that is: 4,500 meters long, 91 meters wide, and 40 centimeters thick(o); will necessarily be vertical take off and landing (o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Landing_Facility

Post by aerovistae » Fri, May 06, 2016, 4:54 PM UTC

gist wrote: post #325

aerovistae wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely incorrect. The question to ask is, why are they bothering to land at sea? And, if you had done any cursory research instead of just announcing that SpaceX is making a PR grab because it sounded good to you, you would have read in the abundantly available explanations that this launch was to geostationary transfer orbit, rather than low earth orbit. GEO is a lot, lot higher than LEO, which means the rocket…

> So it's not plausible to get all the way back to the launch site. I never said return to the launch site. I said return to land. > if you had done any cursory research instead of just announcing that Unnecessary to speak that way in order to make your point unless you are trying to specifically make someone feel bad for voicing their thoughts.

Post by fit2rule » Fri, May 06, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

Kratisto wrote: post #328

david-given wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're getting downvoted into oblivion, but yeah, that's basically how I feel. Cultural differences, I'm sure, because I'm not USian; but every time I see it on the youtube videos it makes me deeply uncomfortable.

I'm an American, and I'm just wondering why it makes you uncomfortable? Does chanting at sporting events make you uncomfortable as well? edit: Reply button showed up finally

Post by maxerickson » Fri, May 06, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

thrownear wrote: post #280

odonnellryan wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry. We are living in a period where mediocrity and even complete fraudulent stuff is hailed as profound and "amazing". Like what? Even the transistor is pretty damn amazing. It's fine to be critical, but let yourself get excited sometimes too.

>Like what? Look around. If you don't see it already, I won't be able to make you see. And what does the transistor has to do with the period we live in? I mean, right now, not 50 years earlier. >It's fine to be critical, but let yourself get excited sometimes too. Do you know why landing a rocket in salt water is bad. I mean, do you really, really know? From Spacex subreddit.. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comment…

Post by SFJulie » Fri, May 06, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

larrydag wrote: post #188

zupreme wrote: post #115

I remain confused about why SpaceX is getting so much fanfare and praise. What have they accomplished that NASA didn't already accomplish during the Apollo missions? I know SpaceX is doing it all more cost effectively, because we have better technology, but have they actually accomplished anything tangible that NASA didn't a generation ago?

As an Engineer I might be a little biased but I see this is a massive achievement. We are seeing a paradigm shift in space exploration with the rise of the influence of the private sector. Space exploration used to be the domain of government entities. That is gone now. I believe we are seeing a new age of exploration not seen since the 15th and 16th centuries of discovering the "new" world. These new space companies…