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.

(NinePlanets.org)   Jiminy Crickets. Grasshopper flies 744 meters straight up, lands safely back from where it launched. Bonus, RC Helicopter records everything, close up   (nineplanets.org) divider line 66
    More: Cool, grasshoppers, crickets, communications satellites, International Space Station  
•       •       •

4098 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Oct 2013 at 10:17 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-13 09:16:17 PM
very cool
 
2013-10-13 10:21:19 PM
Nice graphics.
 
2013-10-13 10:23:37 PM
It looks like a giant ...
 
2013-10-13 10:31:14 PM
That is awesome.
 
2013-10-13 10:34:04 PM
THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO
 
2013-10-13 10:34:40 PM
I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?
 
2013-10-13 10:44:42 PM

gnosis301: It looks like a giant ...


content6.flixster.com

Same thing I was thinking of!
 
2013-10-13 10:45:06 PM

Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?


My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.
 
2013-10-13 10:45:49 PM

Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?


If they can get clearance to launch a rocket, I'm sure they can get permission to put a camera up in the immediate airspace of it.
 
2013-10-13 10:51:42 PM

RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.


That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.
 
2013-10-13 10:52:49 PM
I still think that thing looks like it should be trying to infect an E. coli cell the size of an aircraft carrier. Still pretty awesome regardless.
 
2013-10-13 10:55:57 PM

Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?


To clarify before becoming Mrs. O'Leary's cow in this thread, I don't mind anyone flying them anywhere so long as they don't cut someone up, cause property damage or are used for sinister purposes (e.g. private eyes).  Just curious about usage and the law.
 
2013-10-13 11:01:26 PM

Sugarbombs: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.


The FAA gave them clearance for the rocket, I imagine they also cleared them for a UAV as well.
 
2013-10-13 11:02:48 PM

RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.


When I saw this footage a week or so ago on SpaceX' website, I'm pretty sure I read that it was a real helicopter that shot the footage

/I could be wrong
 
2013-10-13 11:04:22 PM
FAB, Elon, F.A.B.
 
2013-10-13 11:05:47 PM

iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.

The FAA gave them clearance for the rocket, I imagine they also cleared them for a UAV as well.


That's the problem... they can't legally do that for commercial purposes until 2015.  They can turn a blind eye and PR around the issue, but they can't clear it.  Were it a NASA multicopter and branded as a NASA video, things might be different.  But nobody at NASA right now would be cleared to touch a joystick for work purposes right now.
 
2013-10-13 11:05:52 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

When I saw this footage a week or so ago on SpaceX' website, I'm pretty sure I read that it was a real helicopter that shot the footage

/I could be wrong


i.imgur.com

It is a hexacopter. (In fact, it's a hexaflexacopter put together by Elon Musk's daughter.)
 
2013-10-13 11:06:46 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

When I saw this footage a week or so ago on SpaceX' website, I'm pretty sure I read that it was a real helicopter that shot the footage

/I could be wrong


You mean manned helicopter because a remote controlled helicopter is real.
 
2013-10-13 11:11:26 PM

max_pooper: MaudlinMutantMollusk: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

When I saw this footage a week or so ago on SpaceX' website, I'm pretty sure I read that it was a real helicopter that shot the footage

/I could be wrong

You mean manned helicopter because a remote controlled helicopter is real.


Yes, that's what I meant

/feel better now?
 
2013-10-13 11:14:35 PM

Sugarbombs: iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.

The FAA gave them clearance for the rocket, I imagine they also cleared them for a UAV as well.

That's the problem... they can't legally do that for commercial purposes until 2015.  They can turn a blind eye and PR around the issue, but they can't clear it.  Were it a NASA multicopter and branded as a NASA video, things might be different.  But nobody at NASA right now would be cleared to touch a joystick for work purposes right now.


Which, in the end, is moot, because the FAA doesn't have to classify this as a Commercial flight. It's not carrying any passengers, and SpaceX is not a commercial carrier.

Quit concern trolling.
 
2013-10-13 11:20:45 PM

Sugarbombs: iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.

The FAA gave them clearance for the rocket, I imagine they also cleared them for a UAV as well.

That's the problem... they can't legally do that for commercial purposes until 2015.  They can turn a blind eye and PR around the issue, but they can't clear it.  Were it a NASA multicopter and branded as a NASA video, things might be different.  But nobody at NASA right now would be cleared to touch a joystick for work purposes right now.


From the FAA website:
If I fly a UAS for business purposes, such as new technology development, am I required to get approval from the FAA?
Yes. There are presently two methods of gaining FAA approval for flying UAS: Special Airworthiness Certificates - Experimental Category (SAC-EC) for civil aircraft, and Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft.


So...not illegal as long as you get the proper authorization.
 
2013-10-13 11:22:59 PM
iq_in_binary:
Which, in the end, is moot, because the FAA doesn't have to classify this as a Commercial flight. It's not carrying any passengers, and SpaceX is not a commercial carrier.

Quit concern trolling.


Yes they are, that's the whole point.

http://www.spacex.com/missions
 
2013-10-13 11:34:07 PM

farking_texan: iq_in_binary:
Which, in the end, is moot, because the FAA doesn't have to classify this as a Commercial flight. It's not carrying any passengers, and SpaceX is not a commercial carrier.

Quit concern trolling.

Yes they are, that's the whole point.

http://www.spacex.com/missions


Show me where it says they've carried cargo or passengers for fare.

Until then, they're not commercial flights, and SpaceX isn't a commercial carrier.
 
2013-10-13 11:38:59 PM
iq_in_binary:

Show me where it says they've carried cargo or passengers for fare.

Until then, they're not commercial flights, and SpaceX isn't a commercial carrier.


Uhhh, I just gave you a list of cargo missions.  They've sent two of them to the space station.
 
2013-10-13 11:40:03 PM

iq_in_binary: farking_texan: iq_in_binary:
Which, in the end, is moot, because the FAA doesn't have to classify this as a Commercial flight. It's not carrying any passengers, and SpaceX is not a commercial carrier.

Quit concern trolling.

Yes they are, that's the whole point.

http://www.spacex.com/missions

Show me where it says they've carried cargo or passengers for fare.

Until then, they're not commercial flights, and SpaceX isn't a commercial carrier.


you mean like this cargo flight right here: http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-launches-first-official - cargo-resupply-mission-space-station
 
2013-10-13 11:40:48 PM

iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.

The FAA gave them clearance for the rocket, I imagine they also cleared them for a UAV as well.

That's the problem... they can't legally do that for commercial purposes until 2015.  They can turn a blind eye and PR around the issue, but they can't clear it.  Were it a NASA multicopter and branded as a NASA video, things might be different.  But nobody at NASA right now would be cleared to touch a joystick for work purposes right now.

Which, in the end, is moot, because the FAA doesn't have to classify this as a Commercial flight. It's not carrying any passengers, and SpaceX is not a commercial carrier.

Quit concern trolling.


fark you, I made it quite clear that I don't care; I'm only curious about the law, its extent, and its interpretations thus far.

You may log off of Fark and go back to farking dead babies.

/iq_in_binary should really spend more time on reading comprehension than farking dead babies.
//tagged as such
 
2013-10-13 11:41:04 PM

amindofiron: iq_in_binary: farking_texan: iq_in_binary:
Which, in the end, is moot, because the FAA doesn't have to classify this as a Commercial flight. It's not carrying any passengers, and SpaceX is not a commercial carrier.

Quit concern trolling.

Yes they are, that's the whole point.

http://www.spacex.com/missions

Show me where it says they've carried cargo or passengers for fare.

Until then, they're not commercial flights, and SpaceX isn't a commercial carrier.

you mean like this cargo flight right here: http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-launches-first-official - cargo-resupply-mission-space-station


For NASA no less!

Still no commercial flights in US airspace anywhere on that list.
 
2013-10-13 11:43:18 PM
images.wikia.com
 
2013-10-13 11:45:02 PM
www.skyecam.com

Range limited and about the size of Shaquille O'Neil's shoebox, it's not an issue to fly anyplace you could fly an RC plane, so you can shut up about the UAV aspect.

The Buck Rodgers landing is a profligate use of fuel. At least lifting body designs use aeronautic effects and don't have to carry as much  fuel to make their landings, if any. I think it'll be easier for the time being to develop manufacturing and designs that are easier and cheaper to crank out. If nothing else they've ace their lunar and mars landers.
 
2013-10-13 11:45:23 PM

iq_in_binary: amindofiron: iq_in_binary: farking_texan: iq_in_binary:
Which, in the end, is moot, because the FAA doesn't have to classify this as a Commercial flight. It's not carrying any passengers, and SpaceX is not a commercial carrier.

Quit concern trolling.

Yes they are, that's the whole point.

http://www.spacex.com/missions

Show me where it says they've carried cargo or passengers for fare.

Until then, they're not commercial flights, and SpaceX isn't a commercial carrier.

you mean like this cargo flight right here: http://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-launches-first-official - cargo-resupply-mission-space-station

For NASA no less!

Still no commercial flights in US airspace anywhere on that list.


SpaceX is a private company, NASA is a customer.  They've launched commercial flights from US airspace as recently as a few weeks ago.  You are wrong, its OK to admit it.
 
2013-10-13 11:47:40 PM

NeoCortex42: Sugarbombs: iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.

The FAA gave them clearance for the rocket, I imagine they also cleared them for a UAV as well.

That's the problem... they can't legally do that for commercial purposes until 2015.  They can turn a blind eye and PR around the issue, but they can't clear it.  Were it a NASA multicopter and branded as a NASA video, things might be different.  But nobody at NASA right now would be cleared to touch a joystick for work purposes right now.

From the FAA website:
If I fly a UAS for business purposes, such as new technology development, am I required to get approval from the FAA?
Yes. There are presently two methods of gaining FAA approval for flying UAS: Special Airworthiness Certificates - Experimental Category (SAC-EC) for civil aircraft, and Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft.

So...not illegal as long as you get the proper authorization.


There we go... thanks for that.  Looks like Ted Turner can't use one to release a flying documentary on bison but Elon Musk can use one to QC a rocket, given a waiver certificate.

/that Trappy guy is still screwed
 
2013-10-13 11:53:53 PM
Wow. Awesome gaming graphics.

/Off to order 'grasshopper'.

//people think its fake
 
2013-10-13 11:55:59 PM

Sugarbombs: NeoCortex42: Sugarbombs: iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.

The FAA gave them clearance for the rocket, I imagine they also cleared them for a UAV as well.

That's the problem... they can't legally do that for commercial purposes until 2015.  They can turn a blind eye and PR around the issue, but they can't clear it.  Were it a NASA multicopter and branded as a NASA video, things might be different.  But nobody at NASA right now would be cleared to touch a joystick for work purposes right now.

From the FAA website:
If I fly a UAS for business purposes, such as new technology development, am I required to get approval from the FAA?
Yes. There are presently two methods of gaining FAA approval for flying UAS: Special Airworthiness Certificates - Experimental Category (SAC-EC) for civil aircraft, and Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft.

So...not illegal as long as you get the proper authorization.

There we go... thanks for that.  Looks like Ted Turner can't use one to release a flying documentary on bison but Elon Musk can use one to QC a rocket, given a waiver certificate.

/that Trappy guy is still screwed




From BoT:
Commercial air carrier: An air carrier certificated in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 121 or 127 to conduct scheduled services on specified routes. These air carriers may also provide nonscheduled or charter services as a secondary operation.

As of right now SpaceX is not designated as a commercial carrier by the FAA. They've been granted resupply missions by NASA but given the nature of the missions are not considered to be Commercial Flights for which the FAA cannot authorize until 2015. Now, when DragonRider starts flying and civilians are able to buy tickets, then we'll have something to debate over. Show me in the FAR where rockets going straight up constitutes a commercial flight.
 
2013-10-14 12:08:21 AM
iq_in_binary:
From BoT:
Commercial air carrier: An air carrier certificated in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 121 or 127 to conduct scheduled services on specified routes. These air ...


Geezis.  This is commerce.  Fine, you "win".
 
2013-10-14 12:11:55 AM

iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: NeoCortex42: Sugarbombs: iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.

The FAA gave them clearance for the rocket, I imagine they also cleared them for a UAV as well.

That's the problem... they can't legally do that for commercial purposes until 2015.  They can turn a blind eye and PR around the issue, but they can't clear it.  Were it a NASA multicopter and branded as a NASA video, things might be different.  But nobody at NASA right now would be cleared to touch a joystick for work purposes right now.

From the FAA website:
If I fly a UAS for business purposes, such as new technology development, am I required to get approval from the FAA?
Yes. There are presently two methods of gaining FAA approval for flying UAS: Special Airworthiness Certificates - Experimental Category (SAC-EC) for civil aircraft, and Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft.

So...not illegal as long as you get the proper authorization.

There we go... thanks for that.  Looks like Ted Turner can't use one to release a flying documentary on bison but Elon Musk can use one to QC a rocket, given a waiver certificate.

/that Trappy guy is still screwed

From BoT:
Commercial air carrier: An air carrier certificated in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 121 or 127 to conduct scheduled services on specified routes. These air ...


Where does "commercial air carrier" come into it?  The FAA says that, in general, you can't fly a UAS for business purposes unless you get approval to conduct certain tests.
 
2013-10-14 12:14:40 AM

Sugarbombs: To clarify before becoming Mrs. O'Leary's cow...


Too late.
 
2013-10-14 12:20:24 AM

meanmutton: iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: NeoCortex42: Sugarbombs: iq_in_binary: Sugarbombs: RoyBatty: Sugarbombs: I like everything they're trying to do, but isn't it illegal to use a UAV for commercial purposes in the US until 2015?

My guess is a) it's their own land and b) once you've cleared the airspace for your 10-story rocket it's a small episilon of effort to clear it for your UAV as well.

That makes sense in the spirit of things but laws are laws, and the UAV looks like it's above 700 ft putting it in the strict definition of FAA airspace.  Ted Turner's one of America's largest landowners but I don't think he'd be able to shoot a nature documentary on his holdings and sell it.  This video is essentially a commercial.

The FAA gave them clearance for the rocket, I imagine they also cleared them for a UAV as well.

That's the problem... they can't legally do that for commercial purposes until 2015.  They can turn a blind eye and PR around the issue, but they can't clear it.  Were it a NASA multicopter and branded as a NASA video, things might be different.  But nobody at NASA right now would be cleared to touch a joystick for work purposes right now.

From the FAA website:
If I fly a UAS for business purposes, such as new technology development, am I required to get approval from the FAA?
Yes. There are presently two methods of gaining FAA approval for flying UAS: Special Airworthiness Certificates - Experimental Category (SAC-EC) for civil aircraft, and Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft.

So...not illegal as long as you get the proper authorization.

There we go... thanks for that.  Looks like Ted Turner can't use one to release a flying documentary on bison but Elon Musk can use one to QC a rocket, given a waiver certificate.

/that Trappy guy is still screwed

From BoT:
Commercial air carrier: An air carrier certificated in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 121 or 127 to conduct scheduled services on specified routes ...


Except that they didn't fly a UAS for commercial purposes. And they did get approval. This WAS a test, remember?
 
2013-10-14 12:30:16 AM

iq_in_binary: Except that they didn't fly a UAS for commercial purposes. And they did get approval. This WAS a test, remember?


Maybe you missed my question in the giant quote.  Here it is again:  Where does "commercial air carrier" come into it?  The FAA says that, in general, you can't fly a UAS for business purposes unless you get approval to conduct certain tests.

You seem focused on "commercial".  The FAA says you can't fly a UAS for business purposes except for certain tests.  What does "commercial" have to do with it and why your weird fixation on it?
 
2013-10-14 12:36:55 AM

meanmutton: iq_in_binary: Except that they didn't fly a UAS for commercial purposes. And they did get approval. This WAS a test, remember?

Maybe you missed my question in the giant quote.  Here it is again:  Where does "commercial air carrier" come into it?  The FAA says that, in general, you can't fly a UAS for business purposes unless you get approval to conduct certain tests.

You seem focused on "commercial".  The FAA says you can't fly a UAS for business purposes except for certain tests.  What does "commercial" have to do with it and why your weird fixation on it?


Pedantry.
 
2013-10-14 12:40:32 AM

meanmutton: iq_in_binary: Except that they didn't fly a UAS for commercial purposes. And they did get approval. This WAS a test, remember?

Maybe you missed my question in the giant quote.  Here it is again:  Where does "commercial air carrier" come into it?  The FAA says that, in general, you can't fly a UAS for business purposes unless you get approval to conduct certain tests.

You seem focused on "commercial".  The FAA says you can't fly a UAS for business purposes except for certain tests.  What does "commercial" have to do with it and why your weird fixation on it?


Because they are getting cleared for all these tests specifically because they are not a commercial carrier. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to perform any of them, at all. They wouldn't have been able to run this test.

As for the hexacopter drone, they DID get approval. What is your weird fixation on "business purposes?"
 
2013-10-14 12:40:40 AM

wildcardjack: [www.skyecam.com image 648x417]

Range limited and about the size of Shaquille O'Neil's shoebox, it's not an issue to fly anyplace you could fly an RC plane, so you can shut up about the UAV aspect.

The Buck Rodgers landing is a profligate use of fuel. At least lifting body designs use aeronautic effects and don't have to carry as much  fuel to make their landings, if any. I think it'll be easier for the time being to develop manufacturing and designs that are easier and cheaper to crank out. If nothing else they've ace their lunar and mars landers.



I was reading that SpaceX's position is that the fuel is cheap compared to the cost of the rocket so they would rather drag the extra fuel up to the ISS and back down rather than build a new rocket, but also that they may never use this capability and are just exploring it.
 
2013-10-14 12:58:41 AM
Still waiting for the parachute add-on.

Deploy chutes, then cut loose and engage rockets for landing. A certain amount of rocket engine is used to steer the chutes in precise decent.

/Cool Mars accessory.
//Make compatible fuel and refuel for bare bones liftoff.
 
2013-10-14 01:05:04 AM
Meanwhile, on Duna...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-14 01:45:53 AM
Now THAT is astronomy news.

Are you paying attention, NASA? No artist's interpretations, no impossible distances rendering the observations meaningless, no astrogeology: just straight up raw footage of the machines in action with clear goals that have nothing to do with anything but putting men on the freakin' moon again.
 
2013-10-14 01:45:55 AM
pft, Try getting to duna on a nuke engine that is longer than your landing struts. then come talk.
 
2013-10-14 01:47:42 AM

Cpl.D: Meanwhile, on Duna...

[i.imgur.com image 850x478]


Dude, as much fun as I had in KSP, THAT takes some dedication.

Like, you haven't been laid in years kind of dedication.
 
2013-10-14 04:37:48 AM
I cannot imagine the engineering logistics in that beast. Truly awesome stuff there. Now, practically, it isn't really built for Earth based launches. However....very practical with lunar or asteroid operations.

Can I order one?
 
2013-10-14 07:00:53 AM

amindofiron: meanmutton: iq_in_binary: Except that they didn't fly a UAS for commercial purposes. And they did get approval. This WAS a test, remember?

Maybe you missed my question in the giant quote.  Here it is again:  Where does "commercial air carrier" come into it?  The FAA says that, in general, you can't fly a UAS for business purposes unless you get approval to conduct certain tests.

You seem focused on "commercial".  The FAA says you can't fly a UAS for business purposes except for certain tests.  What does "commercial" have to do with it and why your weird fixation on it?

Pedantry.


This thread really got derailed by an Aspie's simple questions.
 
2013-10-14 07:35:54 AM
TFA is about a hovering rocket, half a mile in the sky.  And you guys get in a pissing match about what waivers and permits they need for their RC camera copter.
 
2013-10-14 08:47:50 AM

RoyBatty: wildcardjack: [www.skyecam.com image 648x417]

Range limited and about the size of Shaquille O'Neil's shoebox, it's not an issue to fly anyplace you could fly an RC plane, so you can shut up about the UAV aspect.

The Buck Rodgers landing is a profligate use of fuel. At least lifting body designs use aeronautic effects and don't have to carry as much  fuel to make their landings, if any. I think it'll be easier for the time being to develop manufacturing and designs that are easier and cheaper to crank out. If nothing else they've ace their lunar and mars landers.


I was reading that SpaceX's position is that the fuel is cheap compared to the cost of the rocket so they would rather drag the extra fuel up to the ISS and back down rather than build a new rocket, but also that they may never use this capability and are just exploring it.


SpaceX's position is that landing like this requires no additional equipment beyond what was already on the booster -- even the weight of the lifting body landing configuration wastes more fuel than is needed for a soft landing.

This is a testing model of a "flyback" first stage and they are most definitely going to use this capability -- they used it on the last launch.  The booster successfully killed its velocity, re-entered the lower atmosphere, and survived under full control until it approached the water but had too much roll and "centrifuged" enough fuel away from the pumps that the engine shut down before simulated "landing" in the water was complete.

After the next two launches (where they sold the full fuel capacity in the launch deal) they are going to routinely use this tech to recover their first stage boosters... eventually for quick refueling and relaunch (at a discount, at first).  Eventually this could save something like 75% of the cost of a launch.

Then they try the same thing with the SECOND stage (bringing it back from orbit) which will be the real biatch.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 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