271–280 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's quite a lens, assuming the sound is correctly synchronized with the image.
That's my thought. I counted about 12 seconds between initial explosion and the sound hitting the camera, which puts it at roughly 2.88km away. Edit: Helps if I multiply properly. 12 seconds * 340m/s == 4080m.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's quite a lens, assuming the sound is correctly synchronized with the image.
It's pretty easy to mate an interchangeable lens camera (DSLR, Micro Four Thirds, etc) with a small telescope. There are standard adapters for it. That basically gives you the telephoto lens to rule all telephoto lenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they offer discounts to payloads on test flights
It wasn't a test flight. The "hot fire" test is conducted on every rocket shortly before launch.
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/30/technology/spacex-rocket-reu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were no personal injuries, so I can't really be sad about a piece of electronics.
On any project like that many engineers involved will have invested more than regular hours and pushed their work life balance - losing it all a couple of days from launch into space - that's harsh dude
Here's good video of the test/failure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ#t=1m10s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it go faster the second time around, since they've already validated the design?
The design might be the "easy" part, these are 6 tons of one off highly specialized components with a huge lead time. Each component is custom and built for order by a contractor the lead time on some of them can be years simply because there aren't that many companies that design and build space systems. That combined with the fact that they need to go to each subcontractor and ask them to bid again after Spacecom f…
Why not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like SpaceX just killed multiple deals for this company. Could someone who knows about this kind of stuff (I assume this subset of the population is small) comment on whether there is recourse against SpaceX for losing the payload?
For crying out loud, have you never heard of insurance? All satellite launches are insured and contingencies like this are allowed for in contracts because rocketry is an inherently risky endeavor. I know HN is a tech rather than a business community but the concept of insurance is an elementary one and something every literate adult should be aware of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The design might be the "easy" part, these are 6 tons of one off highly specialized components with a huge lead time. Each component is custom and built for order by a contractor the lead time on some of them can be years simply because there aren't that many companies that design and build space systems. That combined with the fact that they need to go to each subcontractor and ask them to bid again after Spacecom f…
> there is no way the insurance payout is anywhere near the actual cost of the satellite Why not?
:-(
Looks like they had a payload go with it. Sad. > "SpaceX confirm Amos-6 was aboard the Falcon 9 and was lost in the explosion." https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/77135388623807283...
What's sad about it? They have insurance, it's just hardware. Nobody died or was even injured, so it's merely an invoncenience.
Nope.
>Elon Musk has stated that because the rocket didn't intentionally ignite for launch, the loss of payload is not covered by launch insurance.