If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   SpaceX scores 100 points with 1x difficulty touchdown on Atari Lunar Lander   (npr.org) divider line 61
    More: Spiffy, SpaceX, Naval Station Norfolk  
•       •       •

7284 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Aug 2013 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-15 12:39:37 PM
1x? Psh. 2x & 5x are where it's at.

/you just destroyed a 100 megabuck lander
 
2013-08-15 12:40:43 PM
They've conducted this same test before, or at least one very similar.  Still pretty impressive, though.
 
2013-08-15 12:51:10 PM
 
2013-08-15 01:22:35 PM
It was a great game but whenever I got close to landing it, Leo would press the button marked "Abort" and twenty Right to Lifers would appear and protest the landing.
 
2013-08-15 01:23:06 PM
Yeah that's pretty damn cool.

All hail Hank Scorpio Elon Musk!
 
2013-08-15 01:24:12 PM
Yeah, that newest version of MechJeb is pretty damn good
 
2013-08-15 01:25:30 PM

nekom: They've conducted this same test before, or at least one very similar.  Still pretty impressive, though.


Yeah, they previously did a regular vertical take off and landing. This one includes steering the rocket to the side.
 
2013-08-15 01:26:00 PM
Yeah, but how many parsecs does it need to make the Kessel Run?
 
2013-08-15 01:26:08 PM
Not his department...

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-15 01:28:26 PM
DC-X did it  back in the '90s.
 
2013-08-15 01:29:16 PM
Pffft...

www.hardcoregaming101.net

/seriously though... AWESOME!
 
2013-08-15 01:29:39 PM
Nice Werner Von Braun reference!  "Our job is to make ze rockets go UP, where they come down..."

He also said something to the effect that a project he was being asked to head was "Like trying to have a baby in one month by having Nine women Pregnant".
 
2013-08-15 01:39:08 PM

give me doughnuts: DC-X did it  back in the '90s.




The program didn't run very long tho. Grasshopper should be soon matching the number of test flights he dc-x had.
 
2013-08-15 01:41:11 PM

bmwericus: Nice Werner Von Braun reference! "Our job is to make ze rockets go UP, where they come down..."


He aimed at the stars... but sometimes hit London.
 
2013-08-15 01:45:51 PM
And on that day, no Kerbals were sacrificed.....
 
2013-08-15 01:48:24 PM
Neat.

In the mean time, NASA's big accomplishment this month is figuring out people like tasty food.
 
2013-08-15 01:52:01 PM

way south: give me doughnuts: DC-X did it  back in the '90s.

The program didn't run very long tho. Grasshopper should be soon matching the number of test flights he dc-x had.


No billionaires willing to put their own money into it, sadly.
 
2013-08-15 01:53:12 PM

Theaetetus: http://www.atari.com/arcade/lunar_lander#!/arcade/atari-promo


Jesus, what a terrible fricking version of Lunar Lander. Lots of fancy updated graphics and sound, but terrible control.

Here, try this instead.
 
2013-08-15 01:57:31 PM
Check out the gimbals on that baby. Whoa.
 
2013-08-15 02:02:09 PM

give me doughnuts: DC-X did it  back in the '90s.


true...but it wasn't ten stories high either
 
2013-08-15 02:04:21 PM
I look forward to grasshopper doing the swan dive from several miles up.

Here is DC-X doing it back in '95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o
 
2013-08-15 02:08:38 PM
My kerbals have done that a bunch of times. Usually after discovering how much heat is generated by a Mainsail at full burn.

"Sh*t, bring it back, we gotta grab more ice!"
 
2013-08-15 02:13:27 PM

mr lawson: give me doughnuts: DC-X did it  back in the '90s.

true...but it wasn't ten stories high either



Again, a sad lack of altruistic billionaires. The 1/3 scale model was proving the design worked. All that was lacking was the political will ($$) to keep the program going.
 
2013-08-15 02:13:55 PM
Anyone else think Elon Musk is the IRL analog of S. R. Hadden? Or is that too general a comparison to be useful?
 
2013-08-15 02:14:25 PM
Hey, where's Quanto?
I wanna hear how this is a waste of time and money and ultimately meaningless
 
2013-08-15 02:19:28 PM

LoneVVolf: My kerbals have done that a bunch of times. Usually after discovering how much heat is generated by a Mainsail at full burn.

"Sh*t, bring it back, we gotta grab more ice!"


When stuff like that happens I just deploy the chute put it in a spin and watch the firewrorks. Sometime I'mm just ignite all the engines and then jettison them.  It's a good thing nobody lives near the Kerbal Launch Facility.
 
2013-08-15 02:25:39 PM

give me doughnuts: mr lawson: give me doughnuts: DC-X did it  back in the '90s.

true...but it wasn't ten stories high either


Again, a sad lack of altruistic billionaires. The 1/3 scale model was proving the design worked. All that was lacking was the political will ($$) to keep the program going.


No Buck Rogers, no bucks.
 
2013-08-15 02:28:47 PM

give me doughnuts: mr lawson: give me doughnuts: DC-X did it  back in the '90s.

true...but it wasn't ten stories high either


Again, a sad lack of altruistic billionaires. The 1/3 scale model was proving the design worked. All that was lacking was the political will ($$) to keep the program going.



DC-X was cool, but remember it wasn't a practical platform.  More of a proof of concept, the concept being rocket powered VTOL.  It wasn't part of a spacefaring system.

The grasshopper is the reusable first stage of an existing 3 stage orbital rocket system - the Falcon.  It also is designed to scale to the second stage that flies much faster and is much harder to bring back to earth intact.
 
2013-08-15 02:35:22 PM
 
2013-08-15 02:36:45 PM

Fluid: nekom: They've conducted this same test before, or at least one very similar.  Still pretty impressive, though.

Yeah, they previously did a regular vertical take off and landing. This one includes steering the rocket to the side.


still hasn't gotten old though. Can't wait until they lift their first payload with this system
 
2013-08-15 02:56:48 PM
Pretty hard to believe it has been less than a year since the first three second hop....
 
2013-08-15 03:02:19 PM

brimed03: Anyone else think Elon Musk is the IRL analog of S. R. Hadden? Or is that too general a comparison to be useful?


He made another, but kept it secret so the religious terrorists wouldn't get to it and Jodie Foster would still be able to take a ride instead of robotron.

Seriously the end of that movie kind a pissed me off.  That they're sittin there in a committee room writing off Jodie's trip as a hallucination completely avoiding two important parts
1.  There were 17 hours of static on the recorder
2.  The wormhole almost sucked a farking ship into it while shining all flashy in the center and being recorded on about a bajillion cameras.

I can see ignoring number 1 but number 2.  HOLY FARK those politicians are so deaf dumb blind and stupid that the testimony of the whole ship's crew plus the countless footage they have of the event was just ignored.  Or.. they're covering it up.  The point stands though.  Fire the machine up again and send another hapless radio astronomer through it.
 
2013-08-15 03:29:12 PM
If they are planning for expendable rockets, why all the hullaballoo about rockets that can take off and land vertically?
 
2013-08-15 03:33:11 PM

theresnothinglft: brimed03: Anyone else think Elon Musk is the IRL analog of S. R. Hadden? Or is that too general a comparison to be useful?

He made another, but kept it secret so the religious terrorists wouldn't get to it and Jodie Foster would still be able to take a ride instead of robotron.

Seriously the end of that movie kind a pissed me off.  That they're sittin there in a committee room writing off Jodie's trip as a hallucination completely avoiding two important parts
1.  There were 17 hours of static on the recorder
2.  The wormhole almost sucked a farking ship into it while shining all flashy in the center and being recorded on about a bajillion cameras.

I can see ignoring number 1 but number 2.  HOLY FARK those politicians are so deaf dumb blind and stupid that the testimony of the whole ship's crew plus the countless footage they have of the event was just ignored.  Or.. they're covering it up.  The point stands though.  Fire the machine up again and send another hapless radio astronomer through it.


The project was much too expensive to build a third one after the world saw it blow up with no real tangible results.
Also, read the book. The way it ended is much better.

/but god I hated reading that book.
 
2013-08-15 03:46:32 PM

Macular Degenerate: If they are planning for expendable rockets, why all the hullaballoo about rockets that can take off and land vertically?


It's all part of his incremental plan.

Build regular expendable rockets now.
Improve your manufacturing capabilities, generate cash flow.
Use the engines and fuselages you've developed to buiid a return-to-landing-pad first stage.
Then do a return-to-landing-pad 2nd stage.  If it turns out not to be feasible, you still have a perfectly fine expendable 2nd stage.
 
2013-08-15 03:48:18 PM

OnlyM3: Neat.

In the mean time, NASA's big accomplishment this month is figuring out people like tasty food.


Actually, NASA's Johnson Space Center is working on a somewhat similar vehicle: http://morpheuslander.jsc.nasa.gov/
 
2013-08-15 04:05:29 PM
Meh, I've done that.
spacebison.com
 
2013-08-15 04:32:26 PM

SirEattonHogg: Not his department...

[upload.wikimedia.org image 822x1162]


Once they go up
who cares where the come down...

Well done sir!
 
2013-08-15 04:41:23 PM
"The Navy and NASA are testing out how they'll recover astronauts once they splash down in the ocean following future missions to deep space, something a Navy crew hasn't had to do in nearly 40 years."

Question: why can't the capsule come down on land, like the Russians have been doing for nearly 60 years?
 
2013-08-15 04:42:05 PM
That was very cool, but I couldn't help but think of the scene in The Aviator where Hughes figures out why the airplanes in his movie aren't breathtaking, then realizes he needs clouds for perspective.
 
2013-08-15 04:50:41 PM

puckrock2000: "The Navy and NASA are testing out how they'll recover astronauts once they splash down in the ocean following future missions to deep space, something a Navy crew hasn't had to do in nearly 40 years."

Question: why can't the capsule come down on land, like the Russians have been doing for nearly 60 years?


Because the Russians (and Kazakhs) have umpty-million acres of totally flat, totally empty land, at latitudes matching the orbital inclination of their stations.  We don't.
 
2013-08-15 04:50:58 PM

LoneVVolf: My kerbals have done that a bunch of times. Usually after discovering how much heat is generated by a Mainsail at full burn.

"Sh*t, bring it back, we gotta grab more ice!"


That cracked me the f*ck up.
 
2013-08-15 04:53:23 PM
Just wondering how this cost ultimately compares with things like stratolaunch.  Disposable stages, but ultimately burns way less fuel per payload weight to orbit.  There must be a crossover where if your payload is heavy enough the cost of the motors becomes negligible.   Pretty much guaranteed for human missions, I'm thinking.

Still it would be nice to have this technology for landing at arbitrary sites post-reentry.
 
2013-08-15 05:00:28 PM

puckrock2000: "The Navy and NASA are testing out how they'll recover astronauts once they splash down in the ocean following future missions to deep space, something a Navy crew hasn't had to do in nearly 40 years."

Question: why can't the capsule come down on land, like the Russians have been doing for nearly 60 years?


because the Russians have vast swaths of flat land that are almost completely uninhabited that they can aim a spacecraft at with minimal risk to those on land. Remember that these things are going VERY fast, and since the capsules are largely uncontrolled bricks (compared to the Shuttle, anyway, which was a brick in its own right), any error early on during reentry could mean landing as much as 250 miles away from the intended target. (citation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Atlas_7) Most of the U.S.'s middle country has towns or mountains within a 250-mile radius of any point, so for the sake of safety, I'm sure it was determined that water-based landings were the way to go early on until they could get a better understanding of the atmospheric variables on each trip. I understand the engineering required to come down over land has improved much over the years, though, so perhaps more modern spacecraft could be brought down with a much higher degree of precision nowadays, and indeed most even in the 60's were within only 5 miles of target. I still don't want one aiming for the next county over, though, if you don't mind.
 
2013-08-15 05:11:08 PM
Sopwith was harder, things shoot back.
cf.geekdo-images.com
 
2013-08-15 05:15:32 PM
John Carmack and ARmadillo Aerospace basically did this back in 2004.

See "flying crayon" 4th from the bottom..

http://armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/Gallery/Videos

(also see Bomb Pop :P  )
 
2013-08-15 05:34:04 PM

theresnothinglft: brimed03: Anyone else think Elon Musk is the IRL analog of S. R. Hadden? Or is that too general a comparison to be useful?

Seriously the end of that movie kind a pissed me off.


   The book was better.  Not nearly as cheesy.

HOLY FARK those politicians are so deaf dumb blind and stupid [snip]  Or.. they're covering it up.

   Cover-up in the book.  They knew something happened.

Fire the machine up again and send another hapless radio astronomer through it.

   The aliens said it was a one-time trip only, wouldn't work again until we'd advanced as a species.
 
2013-08-15 05:45:12 PM

radiumsoup: puckrock2000: "The Navy and NASA are testing out how they'll recover astronauts once they splash down in the ocean following future missions to deep space, something a Navy crew hasn't had to do in nearly 40 years."

Question: why can't the capsule come down on land, like the Russians have been doing for nearly 60 years?

because the Russians have vast swaths of flat land that are almost completely uninhabited that they can aim a spacecraft at with minimal risk to those on land. Remember that these things are going VERY fast, and since the capsules are largely uncontrolled bricks (compared to the Shuttle, anyway, which was a brick in its own right), any error early on during reentry could mean landing as much as 250 miles away from the intended target. (citation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-Atlas_7) Most of the U.S.'s middle country has towns or mountains within a 250-mile radius of any point, so for the sake of safety, I'm sure it was determined that water-based landings were the way to go early on until they could get a better understanding of the atmospheric variables on each trip. I understand the engineering required to come down over land has improved much over the years, though, so perhaps more modern spacecraft could be brought down with a much higher degree of precision nowadays, and indeed most even in the 60's were within only 5 miles of target. I still don't want one aiming for the next county over, though, if you don't mind.


To expand on that a bit, back in the 60s when manned programs were in their infancy and the cold war was still going on, the Mercury flight path in general was chosen so that it was over friendly (or at least neutral) countries as much as possible. NASA chose to avoid the entire eastern bloc (and the USSR) and took a route over Africa, the Indian ocean, and Austrailia. Since they were avoiding the largest last mass on Earth, it became likely that if something went wrong and the capsule had to de-orbit early, they'd be landing in something wet. So the capsule was designed for a water landing, although it was capable of coming down on land IIRC.

Remember, at 18,000 mph, every second of error translates to missing the landing zone by 5 miles.
 
2013-08-15 06:25:03 PM
Darth_Stimpy

>>>> OnlyM3: Neat.
>>>> In the mean time, NASA's big accomplishment this month is figuring out people like tasty food.

Actually, NASA's Johnson Space Center is working on a somewhat similar vehicle:

While that's interesting, all they're saying is "we might do...", which is nowhere near as impressive as "we just did..."

NASA's other big accomplishment this week (I read about after posting my first NASA jab) is losing Kepler ~3.25 years earlier than planned.

Nice work boys.
 
2013-08-15 06:28:00 PM

give me doughnuts: DC-X did it  back in the '90s.


Sure, and Harrier jets have been doing it for decades, too.

Now compare the mass of those vehicles with a Falcon 9 first stage...
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report