Starship Flight 7

The number of SpaceX video clips that I know are "actual things really happening" which still activate the involuntary "Sci-Fi / CGI effect" neurons in my brain is remarkable.

replies(1): >>42733772 #

bigiain ◴[17 Jan 25 03:24 UTC] No.42733772{4}[source]▶

>>42733525 #

Yeah. I know that feeling.

That tower catch. That _had_ to be a new version of Kerbal, right? The physics looked good, but there's no way that was real...

replies(1): >>42733952 #

mrandish ◴[17 Jan 25 04:04 UTC] No.42733952{5}[source]▶

>>42733772 #

Indeed. The one that still flips a bit in my brain is the two Falcon rockets landing in unison side by side. I'd say it was high-end CGI except no director would approve an effects shot of orbital rockets landing in such a perfect, cinematically choreographed way.

It would just be sent back to ILM marked "Good effort, but too obviously fake. Rework to be more realistic and resubmit."

replies(2): >>42734139 #>>42734145 #

1. TMWNN ◴[17 Jan 25 04:37 UTC] No.42734139{6}[source]▶

>>42733952 #

Seeing a rocket land vertically goes against almost 70 years of what we "know" about rockets. Falcon 9 rockets landing on legs seem unnatural enough; now we have a rocket, the size of a 20-story building, landing on chopsticks.

There are lots of vertical-landing rockets ... in science fiction, and only before Sputnik in 1957. Once actual space programs came about and lots of engineers understood just how difficult landing a rocket is compared to launching it, they all went away. Fictional vehicles became more and more complex to make them "realistic" (that is, consistent with real spacecraft on the news), or just didn't bother with the details at all and went to quasi-magic technologies like in Star Wars and Star Trek.

SpaceX is taking us to the future by going with something from the past.

replies(2): >>42735143 #>>42737134 #

2. pyrale ◴[17 Jan 25 08:03 UTC] No.42735143[source]▶

>>42734139 (TP) #

Not to rain too much on your harping, but the DC-X program did vertical landing 30 years ago.

replies(2): >>42735389 #>>42736974 #

3. dotancohen ◴[17 Jan 25 08:50 UTC] No.42735389[source]▶

>>42735143 #

Yes, and that was all the experimental program did. No humans on board, no payloads, no orbit, not even suborbital as they stayed close to the ground.

The Falcon 9 puts humans into orbit then turns around and lands not far from the launch tower. It's then brought in for maintenance and a few weeks later launching again - some of them have done 20 flights.

replies(1): >>42739428 #

4. eecc ◴[17 Jan 25 12:47 UTC] No.42736974[source]▶

>>42735143 #

Nice, what happened of it?

replies(1): >>42739318 #

5. perilunar ◴[17 Jan 25 13:07 UTC] No.42737134[source]▶

>>42734139 (TP) #

SpaceX landing and catching boosters is amazing, but landing rockets is not new: all the Apollo LMs, indeed everything ever landed on the Moon was done with "vertical-landing" rockets.

6. pyrale ◴[17 Jan 25 16:08 UTC] No.42739318{3}[source]▶

>>42736974 #

It happened at about the time budgetary winter happened for the us space budget, so there was no follow-up on the demonstrator.

7. pyrale ◴[17 Jan 25 16:14 UTC] No.42739428{3}[source]▶

>>42735389 #

You’re comparing an experimental program that lasted 6 years with a company founded 22 years ago. How many payload flights did space-x do 6 years into its existence?

replies(1): >>42741831 #

8. dotancohen ◴[17 Jan 25 18:45 UTC] No.42741831{4}[source]▶

>>42739428 #

No, you made that comparison two posts up. I just replied to you ))

↑