Remember the reporters asking what was holding DC-X up? They couldn't see the rocket exhaust.
I sneaked inside of the Rotary Rocket the last time I was in Mojave. Someone left the bottom hatch ajar. But there wasn't a way to climb up to the cockpit from in there. Lots of pigeon droppings and it's used to hold the equipment for the multimedia kiosk nearby. Sad to see.
I learned an important lesson from Open Source, and it applies to SpaceX too: Things work a lot better if you just give the engineers the freedom to do engineering.
I think that in government projects and in most larger companies we tend to devalue the technical people in favor of the nontechnical. And we don't give them much power to actually run things. And then we wonder why efficiency is so low.
It has certainly given me ideas for how to run my own company.
Yes, but what engine were they flying in F9R and Grasshopper? Both of those were lighted up for the entire flight and didn't bounce around.
We wish you luck, but if it breaks, dont come crying to us over it.
The history of mobile operating systems shows that your preferred strategy is a losing strategy. Users DO come crying over it, and developers cry twice as much. J2ME was basically Android 0.1 and took this approach - it was just a bunch of API specs and then phone vendors could license different implementations, write their own, etc.
J2ME sucked. I know this because I tried to write apps for it. Literally every freaking phone had its own unique combination of stupid, obvious bugs that rendered key APIs unusable without enormous piles of hacks. J2ME developers theoretically wrote Java, but often used a C style macro preprocessor because so many hacks required different source code to handle.
Android learned from J2ME and took a different approach - one single reference implementation that everyone builds off and is not pluggable except in very small, tightly controlled ways. You can modify the reference implementation to your hearts content unless you want access to the Play Store, in which case you have to pass the "Compatibility Test Suite" for core OS functionality, and for some other kinds of things that are impossible to unit test (e.g. Maps quality), agree to ship the Google implementation. This saves developers from J2ME hell making users and developers happy, and still lets manufacturers tweak things that aren't covered by the CTS, like reskinning things.
I see no evidence the EU has any understanding of the delicate balancing act Android represents, or the history of mobile phone operating systems. I fear this will be yet another bull-in-china-shop scenario. On the other hand, if Google are doing things like what Microsoft used to do by saying "if you sell any Google-services phone you cannot sell any non-Google-services phone" then that'd be a problem that is correctable without hurting developers.
The final approach is at 250 m/s. If I have this right, they'd be going about that fast if they started falling from zero velocity at 3 KM, ignoring air resistance. So, whatever parachute you use has to get you much lower and slower than that, and so precisely positioned above the barge that you can do the rest on the rocket.
Now, ULA plans to revive the Rogalo Wing from Gemini and combine it with the mid-air retreival from Corona, so this might not be completely absurd.
Sorry.
I guess then you were not so lucky as to have rocket scientists in the family. I guess I'm not unlike many techies my age, whose dads worked in aerospace. My dad worked on the lunar module at Grumman. My father in law worked in the blue cube for Lockheed.
People think of me an the Open Source guy. But I have been getting space spoon-fed to me since before first grade.
It's still slowing down during the last rocket length. That is really cutting it close, yes. I think the goal is to use an absolutely minimal fuel expenditure. The current configuration is not capable of landing after a GTO insertion. When they were considering doing the test for the DISCOVR flight, they were not going to have enough fuel for the normal recovery sequence, and were planning to delete the subsonic decel burn and come up to the barge at 1 KPS rather than the leisurely 250 m/s.
Armstrong did punch out of an LM trainer before that mission. It crashed and burned. They say that afterward, he went back to his office and quietly did some paperwork.
Well, it did what SpaceX was paid for reliably, which was to send the Cargo Dragon up to ISS in an expendable rocket. All of the NASA demo and supply flights they have done have been successful.
Recovery is so far a secondary and private mission of SpaceX, and Musk did say it had less than a 50% probability of success for this attempt (but a 75% to 80% probability of success for the year).
Me, I'm damned impressed that they can bring that thing from 78 miles high and suborbital speed, and touch the landing gear down on the barge at an acceptable descent rate. I think this is pretty good for the second try and they'll nail it soon enough.
So you're saying it wasn't hyper quantum sticktation of the flux attitude gimble during the multiphasic delay sequence?
Damn, I should write science fiction. Or maybe I could work for the media. Both string scientific sounding words that mean absolutely nothing.
I'm thinking they need to figure out a better way rather than landing it vertical. Maybe when they get it that close, they could do some sort of net capture, rather than hoping it will stay upright. It would solve some of the more delicate problems. That could create all kinds of new problems though.
Just look for one that says "Fallout Shelter"
If you think that's bad, read some of the comments to nontechnical news site articles on the recovery failure. Ignoramuses whining "how much of my taxes did this failure use". They aren't even smart enough to realize that it launched the Dragon to ISS successfully, and that NASA isn't footing the bill for recovery attempts. It's really enough to kill one's sympathy for the common man.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov