Recommended Posts

This is going to be very cool. First US launch of astronauts in a decade? First US capsule launch of astronauts in????

About damn time!!!

 

WL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got the kids on the couch and we're and watching the Discovery channel coverage. Hope the launch isn't scrubbed due to weather or technical issues and that everything goes safely throughout. 

Of course they are showing all the previous Falcon 9 failures. So the kids just asked if it blows up if they will show that on TV... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Slick470 said:

Got the kids on the couch and we're and watching the Discovery channel coverage. Hope the launch isn't scrubbed due to weather or technical issues and that everything goes safely throughout. 

Of course they are showing all the previous Falcon 9 failures. So the kids just asked if it blows up if they will show that on TV... 

 

 

Launch broadcast is on a delay of about 10 seconds. It's weird when I have been watching the NASA feed waiting for liftoff and when you look out he window its already gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gangbusters said:

Launch broadcast is on a delay of about 10 seconds. It's weird when I have been watching the NASA feed waiting for liftoff and when you look out he window its already gone.

Doesn't surprise me. I'm interested in a lot of the background bits to show the kids. The Discovery coverage is really over produced, but it has a lot of good stuff mixed in with the fluff. The kids think rockets are cool, but I'm hoping this gets them excited about space like I was when I was a kid. My 8 year old daughter is now the age I was when the Challenger was lost. She loves math and science, so maybe... The little guy is almost 5 and he likes anything that is loud and goes fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching. Astonished at the difference in the suits. Talk about futuristic comfort! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Point Break said:

Watching. Astonished at the difference in the suits. Talk about futuristic comfort! 

Lots of reasons for the new suits but one big one was the need to be able to manipulate the touch screens in the new capsule.  The older suits don't register on them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCPAN2 coverage began at 3.  Just turned the DVR on, as I have an appointment at 4:15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody know of a feed that has the audio and video feeds without either the happy talk (and twitter got god's sake) on the NASA feed not the interruption of all the "explainers" on the ABC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FoolOnTheHill said:

Anybody know of a feed that has the audio and video feeds without either the happy talk (and twitter got god's sake) on the NASA feed not the interruption of all the "explainers" on the ABC?

 

I watched CSPAN2 just now for a minute, and it included the NASA peoples comms, I think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, silent bob said:

Is that Huell Howser?

Not likely

Huell Burnley Howser (October 18, 1945 – January 7, 2013) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All touch screen makes me nervous, I’d at least want a fake yoke if things got frisky :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Launch scrubbed due to weather.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, back to the RPT Saltmine....see y'all on Saturday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does weather hinder a start? Please give me a hint...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carp.  go fish, see y'all Saturday.

Weather? biggest and 1st disaster was the shuttle Challenger - due to cold affecting the o-rings in the boosters. There is a lot riding on this and obviously prefer clear skies so it's visible all the way - I had noticed earlier the storm clouds overhead.  Sort of like maybe you don't race when thunderstorms are moving in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Astronauts have been sitting there for a while...

"Uh, I kinda need to hit the head guys.."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Knut Grotzki said:

Why does weather hinder a start? Please give me a hint...

Heavy atmosphere, just like a plane flying through clouds bumpy except this is an accelerating rocket much faster than a plane 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Latadjust said:

Astronauts have been sitting there for a while...

"Uh, I kinda need to hit the head guys.."

They have been Tweeting and placing a take out at Carabba’s on their way home.. this is 2020 not Tang and AOK days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, Guess we all check in on Saturday the 30th.  Oh well....

Edited by craigjoh
can't type

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Latadjust said:

Astronauts have been sitting there for a while...

"Uh, I kinda need to hit the head guys.."

They don't need to "hit the head"... The head is in the suit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

They have been Tweeting and placing a take out at Carabba’s on their way home.. this is 2020 not Tang and AOK days

Mmmm, Tang

 

 

and Space food sticks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Knut Grotzki said:

Why does weather hinder a start? Please give me a hint...

This abort was called due to potential lightning. Imagine all that liquid oxygen...

Once I was playing with discharges while setting up my old boat. I could conduct 3/4 inch long arcs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn.....two perfectly good Bloody Mary's wasted.............well............maybe not exactly "wasted". :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Point Break said:

Damn.....two perfectly good Bloody Mary's wasted.............well............maybe not exactly "wasted". :rolleyes:

Practice for Saturday 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a picture of wifey, and the capsule back when she was working for Elon and Co.

dragon 2.JPG

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are very careful of lightening after Apollo 12.

Lightning struck the Saturn V 36.5 seconds after lift-off, triggered by the vehicle itself, discharging down to the Earth through the ionized exhaust plume. Protective circuits on the fuel cells in the service module (SM) detected overloads and took all three fuel cells offline, along with much of the command and service module (CSM) instrumentation. A second strike at 52 seconds knocked out the "8-ball" attitude indicator. The telemetry stream at Mission Control was garbled. However, the Saturn V continued to fly normally; the strikes had not affected the Saturn V instrument unit guidance system, which functions independently from the CSM.

The loss of all three fuel cells put the CSM entirely on batteries, which were unable to maintain normal 75-ampere launch loads on the 28-volt DC bus. One of the AC inverters dropped offline. These power supply problems lit nearly every warning light on the control panel and caused much of the instrumentation to malfunction.

There were other worries later.

Initially, it was feared that the lightning strike could have caused the explosive bolts that open the Command Module's parachute compartment to fire prematurely, rendering the parachutes useless which would have made safe return impossible. The decision was made not to share this with the astronauts since there was little that could be done to verify or resolve the problem if it existed. The parachutes deployed and functioned normally at the end of the mission.

 

(nicked from wikipedia)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

If they had a twenty minute longer launch window they might have launched today.

The problem Is the ISS orbit, you need to launch on time or not make it there. We really need some good orbital engines that are fuel efficient.  

The shuttle had the same issue with ISS launches.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, peragrin said:

If they had a twenty minute longer launch window they might have launched today.

The problem Is the ISS orbit, you need to launch on time or not make it there. We really need some good orbital engines that are fuel efficient.  

The shuttle had the same issue with ISS launches.

 


Trouble is, if you develop more efficient engines, they'll just add more payload -- and you're back to square one again.  ;)

I was glued to the radar an hour before the scrub. I really thought there was going to be a weather window.  So close....

But damn, launching in the afternoon this time of year is really a crap-shoot. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, White Lightning2 said:

First US capsule launch of astronauts in????

48 years?

Last Saturn 5 launch was that long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

48 years?

Last Saturn 5 launch was that long ago.

July 15, 1975 - A Saturn 1B launched with an Apollo command module to rendezvous with Soyuz 19.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone think it took a while to get the hatch open after scrubbing?

Involved tech getting into that receptical with long snips/tweezers, then the screwdriver and then the large ratchet.

And of course there was the guy with the torch to light up the receptical for the tool tech.

Just looked fiddly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, madrat said:

Did anyone think it took a while to get the hatch open after scrubbing?

Involved tech getting into that receptical with long snips/tweezers, then the screwdriver and then the large ratchet.

And of course there was the guy with the torch to light up the receptical for the tool tech.

Just looked fiddly.

Yeah, that looked hinky. Lots of body english that didn't point to a well practiced procedure. And there was a series of promises to the astronauts about getting the hatch open RealSoonNow. The NASA/ SpaceX commentators were explaining about the need to equalize pressures. 

Guessing that some do-funky didn't work as expected to dump pressure, and they had to resort to Plan B. They've got a couple of days to fugger it out.  However, you'd think from the days of Apollo I, they'd have the ability to get the hatch opened quickly to enable an emergency unassing. 

If this was the Boeing capsule, I'd be worried. SpaceX has a different ethos.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

Heavy atmosphere,

The clouds are actually lighter.  That's why they're up there. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bplipschitz said:

The clouds are actually lighter.  That's why they're up there. . .

Not really. The visible part of the cloud, being liquid water, is much much heavier than the air it is in. It got up there as a gas and by being dragged as a small droplet. But we digress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, El Boracho said:

Not really. The visible part of the cloud, being liquid water, is much much heavier than the air it is in. It got up there as a gas and by being dragged as a small droplet. But we digress.

What the hell -- let's digress -- the launch isn't until Saturday.  What I was getting at is that humid air is less dense than dry air.

I'd like to hear more of what you know about water vapor vs droplets, cloud formation, etc.  Sounds like it could be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bplipschitz said:

What the hell -- let's digress -- the launch isn't until Saturday.  What I was getting at is that humid air is less dense than dry air.

I'd like to hear more of what you know about water vapor vs droplets, cloud formation, etc.  Sounds like it could be interesting.

 

Are you sure about that?  Common sense would think humid air to be more dense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Are you sure about that?  Common sense would think humid air to be more dense?

Yep.  Water vapor is less dense air.  It displaces some of the air, making the bulk solution (if you will) less dense.  Now to be sure, temperature has a greater effect on air density than water vapor, but it's still true. Poke around on the web -- there's a lot of good resources on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

BB and others - for a quick reference, here's a link to an article that talks about how humidity impacts density altitude. 
https://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-technique/tip-week/correcting-density-altitude-humidity/

 

The article is about testing for density altitude.  It's been 18 years so I took flying lessons in a 152, but I don't ever recall this term coming up?  Please 'splain further, Lucy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, bplipschitz said:

What the hell -- let's digress -- the launch isn't until Saturday.  What I was getting at is that humid air is less dense than dry air.

I'd like to hear more of what you know about water vapor vs droplets, cloud formation, etc.  Sounds like it could be interesting.

Perfect poorly defined subject for endless debate :-) You are correct. I'm being nitpicky. The visible part of the cloud is liquid water. Which is denser than air. But the entire cloud might be said to include the associated humid air, which is clear and invisible. The tiny droplets are heavy and falling. But falling very slowly because Reynolds Number? Falling slower than the rising, light, humid air. That is the end of my ready knowledge. Here is a NASA link:

Why Don’t Clouds Fall Out of the Sky?

Why Bravo Bravo and others commonly say that humid air is "heavy"...I don't know...feels heavy to the body in a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

The article is about testing for density altitude.  It's been 18 years so I took flying lessons in a 152, but I don't ever recall this term coming up?  Please 'splain further, Lucy?

Density altitude is a means to calculate aircraft performance.  It impacts engine performance ( H20 displaces O2 molecules in a given volume of air, thus making less O2 available for stoichiometric combustion) and the lower density also effects lift.  So - your aircraft engine will make more power and wings will generate more lift on a cold dry day than it will on a hot, humid day.   

Looking at the link I posted, I apologize - I grabbed the wrong one to offer a quick explanation: 
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/45095/does-the-dew-point-affect-density-altitude

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, El Boracho said:
52 minutes ago, bplipschitz said:

What the hell -- let's digress -- the launch isn't until Saturday.  What I was getting at is that humid air is less dense than dry air.

I'd like to hear more of what you know about water vapor vs droplets, cloud formation, etc.  Sounds like it could be interesting.

Perfect poorly defined subject for endless debate :-) You are correct. I'm being nitpicky. The visible part of the cloud is liquid water. Which is denser than air. But the entire cloud might be said to include the associated humid air, which is clear and invisible. The tiny droplets are heavy and falling. But falling very slowly because Reynolds Number? Falling slower than the rising, light, humid air. That is the end of my ready knowledge. Here is a NASA link:

Why Don’t Clouds Fall Out of the Sky?

Why Bravo Bravo and others commonly say that humid air is "heavy"...I don't know...feels heavy to the body in a way.

Well, here in STL in August it feels like a wet, hot, heavy Golden Retriever wrapping around you, which is perhaps why "common sense" would make one think that humid air is denser.

Thanks for the response!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Density altitude is a means to calculate aircraft performance.  It impacts engine performance ( H20 displaces O2 molecules in a given volume of air, thus making less O2 available for stoichiometric combustion) and the lower density also effects lift.  So - your aircraft engine will make more power and wings will generate more lift on a cold dry day than it will on a hot, humid day.   

Looking at the link I posted, I apologize - I grabbed the wrong one to offer a quick explanation: 
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/45095/does-the-dew-point-affect-density-altitude

 

 

Then why do  people get kits for cars that infect air into their intake manifold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Then why do  people get kits for cars that infect air into their intake manifold?

Then why do  people get kits for cars that infect water into their intake manifold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pressure altitude is a basic air density on a standard day. If you are at DIA on a standard day the pressure altitude will read 5,430', same as the field elevation.  Higher temps reduce the air density and to a lesser extent humidity with more humid air reducing density.  Pressure.  Density altitude is pressure altitude corrected for temp and humidity. 

Impact as discussed above is that lower pressure air contains less air molecules of air.  Combustion requires the proper ration of fuel and air so less air molecules means less fuel and less power.  Lift from a wing is the result of air molecules accelerating over an airfoil with lower pressure on the longer (upper surface).  Less air density means less air molecules and less lift so the true airspeed required to create enough lift to fly increases.  

Density altitude is interesting at sea level when most aircraft have plenty of performance margin.  Performance is better on a cold dry day and poorer on a hot and humid day.  Where it becomes critical is on a hot day in the high desert or the mountains when adequate performance becomes a lot less and a good airplane requires significantly longer takeoff roll and exhibits a slower climb rate and a marginal airplane simply can't fly.  

 

I got my lesson in density altitude on August afternoon taking of in a heavy A-4 with full internal and external fuel from El Paso (elevation about 4,000' and temp in the low 100's)  As a salty Navy pilot, i didn't calculate density altitude and just started my take off roll.  Well that 4,000' field elevation became an 8,000' density altitude that day and the takeoff roll became a lot longer than I expected and the mountain off the end of the runway kept getting bigger as I struggled to climb out.  As they say, I learned about flying from that.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rasputin22 said:

Then why do  people get kits for cars that infect water into their intake manifold?

You quoted me, but no answer????????????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

pressure altitude is a basic air density on a standard day. If you are at DIA on a standard day the pressure altitude will read 5,430', same as the field elevation.  Higher temps reduce the air density and to a lesser extent humidity with more humid air reducing density.  Pressure.  Density altitude is pressure altitude corrected for temp and humidity. 

Impact as discussed above is that lower pressure air contains less air molecules of air.  Combustion requires the proper ration of fuel and air so less air molecules means less fuel and less power.  Lift from a wing is the result of air molecules accelerating over an airfoil with lower pressure on the longer (upper surface).  Less air density means less air molecules and less lift so the true airspeed required to create enough lift to fly increases.  

Density altitude is interesting at sea level when most aircraft have plenty of performance margin.  Performance is better on a cold dry day and poorer on a hot and humid day.  Where it becomes critical is on a hot day in the high desert or the mountains when adequate performance becomes a lot less and a good airplane requires significantly longer takeoff roll and exhibits a slower climb rate and a marginal airplane simply can't fly.  

 

I got my lesson in density altitude on August afternoon taking of in a heavy A-4 with full internal and external fuel from El Paso (elevation about 4,000' and temp in the low 100's)  As a salty Navy pilot, i didn't calculate density altitude and just started my take off roll.  Well that 4,000' field elevation became an 8,000' density altitude that day and the takeoff roll became a lot longer than I expected and the mountain off the end of the runway kept getting bigger as I struggled to climb out.  As they say, I learned about flying from that.....

Excellent explain, good stuff. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

why would you want to infect your manifold?

Did my fumble fingers misspell?  Very likely. injected, not infected...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Did my fumble fingers misspell?  Very likely. injected, not infected...

Probably that damn auto misspell. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:
30 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

You quoted me, but no answer????????????????????

why would you want to infect your manifold?

pippe fuckere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Point Break said:

Excellent explain, good stuff. Thanks

Well ... Pressure altitude is the local atmospheric pressure expressed in funny units, not density.

Density altitude is the local atmospheric density in funny units.  It is density that is linear with dynamic pressure which is, in turn, linear with lift, so density altitude will have a strong effect on take-off performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

these are the uniforms for space x...  holy fuck..  it's like a bad sci-fi movie

 

aQd8XLz_460swp.webp

The guys on the AC boats are more geared up than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

You quoted me, but no answer????????????????????

Because he asked another question, Go back up and read it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billy backstay said:

 

Then why do  people get kits for cars that infect air into their intake manifold?

Cool air intakes. Cool air is denser and has more oxygen, allowing you to burn more fuel and make more horsepower.

Those pod filters that people put in there cars suck hot air from the engine bay actually sometime rob you of power, but they look and sound cool so there is that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, See Level said:

The guys on the AC boats are more geared up than that.

Yes, because if shit happens, the AC guys have a chance of surviving.  These guys just need to stay in the air-conditioned, fully automated room.  Rail meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the weather is right we can see the launches from our house. Hopefully it’s a go for this weekend 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

these are the uniforms for space x...  holy fuck..  it's like a bad sci-fi movie

 

aQd8XLz_460swp.webp

Leisure suits in space.

 

main-qimg-ecb36de3ff2f90adcb6e56eef876b1

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, See Level said:

The guys on the AC boats are more geared up than that.

Those are fully rated vacuum suits. 

While not replacing an Eva suit for long missions they could be used to do work outside of the as station.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, billy backstay said:

 

Then why do  people get kits for cars that infect air into their intake manifold?

I'm not aware of those, BB - I can't answer that.  Water injection?  That's intended to help cool the combustion chamber to prevent detonation, allowing the engine to survive on pressures & A/F mixtures that it otherwise might not.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, astro said:

Rail meat.

The modern version of "spam in a can".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bplipschitz said:

The modern version of "spam in a can".

Well we have autonomous cars, so there is nothing those guys could do other than change the view on the touch screens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us not fortunate enough to know or be pilots, think about times you've been on a flight that has gone through cumulous clouds (or, pay attention to the next flight that does).  The very first business flight I was ever on, we took off into a bunch of disperse cumulous clouds.  Every time we went through one, the plane dropped a very noticeable amount.  That's because the clouds, being full of water vapor, were less dense than the air and provided less lift as mentioned above by @Innocent Bystander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, slap said:

Leisure suits in space.

 

main-qimg-ecb36de3ff2f90adcb6e56eef876b1

I agree...I came here to post the same conclusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, astro said:

Well we have autonomous cars, so there is nothing those guys could do other than change the view on the touch screens.

On a good day your correct, but there are some manual backup systems.

https://iss-sim.spacex.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can watch it from my back yard, when you see so many, it's not a big deal. Liked the shuttle. would shake the whole ground.

I have a friend who grew up around here, said in the beginning you could get bets if the rocket would blow up are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

k0py6w%5B1%5D.jpg

I mentioned in another thread that none of Dreade’s images have been showing up on my browser for quite some time. Now WTF, of all images suddenly this one does; no shit, this is as bad as “The Pic That Shall Not Be Named”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, WhoaTed said:

I mentioned in another thread that none of Dreade’s images have been showing up on my browser for quite some time. Now WTF, of all images suddenly this one does; no shit, this is as bad as “The Pic That Shall Not Be Named”. 

Don't get me wrong or anything, this pick is rather bad, but it has nothing on that Santa pic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong rocket launch thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WhoaTed said:

I mentioned in another thread that none of Dreade’s images have been showing up on my browser for quite some time. Now WTF, of all images suddenly this one does; no shit, this is as bad as “The Pic That Shall Not Be Named”. 

There’s a reason why I don’t mind not seeing his posts. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a kid, I always thought the space shuttle was the coolest machine in the world. I never got to see a launch (they just so happened to scrub every time my family was in the area on vacation) and always regretted it.

 

Now as an adult I can recognize the failings of the shuttle. It cost 20 times more than the Falcon 9 ($65m for a new F9 vs. $1-2 bil. per-launch cost across whole shuttle program.) The shuttle carried barely 5 tons more cargo than the Falcon (22 tons F9 expendable vs. 27 tons shuttle) but risked a minimum crew of 4 every time it launched even routine cargo. It killed two complete crews. Even less forgivable, the crew of the Challenger were alive and conscious after launch failure, and instead died on impact. Soyuz, a 60-year-old vehicle, has had 3 successful launch aborts, saving the crew each time. I cannot fathom the arrogance that went into building the shuttle--a vehicle with only 3 abort landing sites, no launch escape mechanism, and which never was asked to perform a launch abort. Crew Dragon instead has something like 50 potential landing sites and successfully completed an abort test, see article here: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/05/examining-crew-dragons-launch-abort-modes-and-splashdown-locations/

 

I'm too young for the successes of Apollo, and am just old enough to remember the Columbia disaster and shuttle cancellation. I'm excited that, for the first time in my short life, it feels like the US is actually taking a rational step into space. Even if this rocket goes kaboom and the crew aborts this rocket will have done something the space shuttle never could manage--failing without killing everyone aboard.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We do not want to run highly chilled liquid oxygen through a warm pump".  Yup, they are rocket scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interior looks like a Strom Trooper transport ship of the First Order.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see a Saffer helping to make America great again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool and great coverage of "Bob and Doug Go To Space!"  was hoping to see the stage 1 land but the video showed right after (unless this is all faked like those moon landings).  Plan on watching them dock it in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a sports car, there sure seemed to be a lot of leg room in that ship! I remember the Mercury and Gemini astronauts had to almost be shoe horned into their capsules.

Pretty cool that all the controls and monitoring were done by touchscreens. I remember someone saying the computing power of the Gemini and  Apollo capsules equalled about that of an 80s vintage pocket calculator. Now we're up to flying smart phone power.

I got a chill watching it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Very cool and great coverage of "Bob and Doug Go To Space!"  was hoping to see the stage 1 land but the video showed right after (unless this is all faked like those moon landings).  Plan on watching them dock it in the morning.

Everybody knows the earth is flat.   This "round earth" bullshit is just deception by the Illuminati........

cecb457ce68c2effa90480a7ba282818.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the launch go off???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Did the launch go off???

Floating around up there as I type.