search results matching tag: lander
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds
Videos (48) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (7) | Comments (83) |
Videos (48) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (7) | Comments (83) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
We've landed on a comet!
The harpoons didn't actually fire.
At around 8:45 a.m. PST, ESA said the lander’s harpoons did not fire, meaning that Philae is not anchored to the comet. Without being firmly attached to the ground, the worry is that the lander may fall off. ESA is now looking at options to refire the harpoons. -wired
ESA twitter msg
https://twitter.com/esaoperations/status/532575061543485440
Top 20 Arcade Games 1975 to 1979 - MAMECADE
Top Games I remember (in no specific order)
Galaga
Defender
Stargate (Defender)
Tac Scan
Tempest
Tron
Pac Man
Missile Command
Dig Dug
Joust
Journey (yes, based after the Band)
Centipede
Pengo
Gauntlet
Lunar Lander
Not For Astronauts...
If they did, they're be a Guinness sponsorship on the side of their lander and their Ishtronauts would have bats or clubs as part of their gear
My main gripe is the Irish flag on the Astronaut's arm. Ireland can't go moonin'. Sheeeeet. Ever'body no's that boi'.
Not For Astronauts...
But selenites would develop acute sensitivity to acoustic vibrations transmitted through the regolith. Good luck bunny hopping back to the safety of you lander, Lander Calrissian.
Rocket Launches High into the Air and Lands Vertically
>> ^chingalera:
Tubby little bastard..Used to seeing rockets all slim n sexy-Looks like some lozenge taking-off and landing.
Remember the Lunar Lander arcade game all you old geeks? Dropped many a 4-bits on that one!
Loved that game. Here's an updated version.
http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/lunar-lander
Rocket Launches High into the Air and Lands Vertically
Tubby little bastard..Used to seeing rockets all slim n sexy-Looks like some lozenge taking-off and landing.
Remember the Lunar Lander arcade game all you old geeks? Dropped many a 4-bits on that one!
Soon, rockets will land on their thrusters
>> ^lurgee:
many quarters lost playing that game. >> ^Krupo:
Anybody else have a flashback to playing Lander while watching this?
That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw this. Damn that game was hard!
http://youtu.be/L-GBq2X1wpg
Soon, rockets will land on their thrusters
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^charliem:
Pretty sure John Carmack (of Doom fame) was one of the lead software engineers on this project.
Your thinking of Armadillo Aerospace, which lost out slightly to this company, Masten Space Systems, in the NASA and Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X Prize in 2009 for the level 2 test. Armadillo Aerospace won the level one test, but the second level was a million bucks to the $350k of the first.
Was this the company that got several tries for the contest were Armadillo Aerospace only got one?
Armadillo Aerospace's vehicle could of made another attempt, but they decided against it because of a burned through engine nozzle, and rolled the vehicle at takeoff that caused other damage. Rockets ain't easy!
Soon, rockets will land on their thrusters
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^charliem:
Pretty sure John Carmack (of Doom fame) was one of the lead software engineers on this project.
Your thinking of Armadillo Aerospace, which lost out slightly to this company, Masten Space Systems, in the NASA and Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X Prize in 2009 for the level 2 test. Armadillo Aerospace won the level one test, but the second level was a million bucks to the $350k of the first.
Was this the company that got several tries for the contest were Armadillo Aerospace only got one?
Soon, rockets will land on their thrusters
Mission control will play like the Lunar Lander game.
Soon, rockets will land on their thrusters
many quarters lost playing that game. >> ^Krupo:
Anybody else have a flashback to playing Lander while watching this?
NASA Tour of the Moon
moon 1.1.2 patch notes
-lunar lander and rover added for realism.
-Dark side finally completed due to increased exploration.
moon now working as intended
-god
Soon, rockets will land on their thrusters
Anybody else have a flashback to playing Lander while watching this?
Soon, rockets will land on their thrusters
>> ^charliem:
Pretty sure John Carmack (of Doom fame) was one of the lead software engineers on this project.
Your thinking of Armadillo Aerospace, which lost out slightly to this company, Masten Space Systems, in the NASA and Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge X Prize in 2009 for the level 2 test. Armadillo Aerospace won the level one test, but the second level was a million bucks to the $350k of the first.
Challenges of Getting to Mars
Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. Though I guess by the way you've framed your questions you think I'm insane. The success rate of the balloon method is not bad. And getting two rovers down from a single launch is also something that's been successful. I don't think it's that unreasonable to consider that two rovers like Spirit and Opportunity could carry complementary gear, meet up and connect.
You're right that we don't send landers to Mars very often - that's why it's important to build on successful technologies with a proven track record of success to maximise our chances.
Thanks for the link - I've reviewed a lot of this stuff too though I appreciate more information even if it is delivered with a heavy dose of condescension.
Egos and personalities involved in science? Why would I ever think that - everything we do or say or write comes from a completely rational base right?
>> ^Fletch:
@dag
Are humans supposed to bounce across the surface in a balloon when/if we ever send a manned mission? Do you think that success or failure of this landing precludes learning anything from it? We don't get to send landers to Mars very often, so the opportunity for testing new procedures and techniques has to be taken when it can. Every little thing is done for a reason. If you think it's the result of "personalities and nerd egos", there are hundreds of books, TV specials, and documentaries out there that detail just about everything NASA has ever done, from inception to success or failure, as well as the people and personalities involved, that I think will change your mind. Here's a good place to start. Great book.
Assuming you are serious...
The success rate of Mars missions is not good. On top of that are budget and launch window considerations. Are you really suggesting that TWO separate pieces be launched, have them both fly 150 million miles to Mars, enter orbit, BOTH successfully land (and land close enough they can find each other), find each other, and then connect somehow to make one rover just so they can use ballons? Really? Talk about complicated... It would take an incredibly huge nerd ego to even ATTEMPT to sell that idea. Even a single launch with two pieces on board would rely on the success of two completely separate and complicated landings and a meet-up before the rover mission could even begin. This also means the weight of each half of the rover would have to be reduced so two separate landing systems can be included. Less room for instruments. Less science. Anyhoo, this system is not so different from the previous rovers. They weren't just dropped from a parachute. The atmosphere is too thin for a parachute alone. RAD (rocket assisted descent) motors brought the rovers to a near dead stop about 50 feet above the surface and they were released. This landing also calls for more precision, as the landing zone is much more specific.