SpaceX has released footage of the April 14 landing attempt from the CRS-6 First Stage Tracking Cam:



Footage from a tracking camera that followed the first-stage of the Falcon 9 during a landing attempt. The footage starts at about 10 km in altitude. Falcon 9 first stage approached the drone ship “Just Read the Instructions” in the Atlantic Ocean after successfully launching the Dragon spacecraft during the CRS-6 mission to the International Space Station on April 14. More info:

http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/06/24/why-and-how-landing-rockets

Post-launch analysis has confirmed the throttle valve as the sole cause of this hard landing. The team has made changes to help prevent, and be able to rapidly recover from, similar issues for the next attempt, which will be on our next launch—the eighth Falcon 9 and Dragon cargo mission to the space station, currently scheduled for this Sunday.

The video is from the Soyuz-TMA 16M spacecraft docking with the Russian Mini Research Module 2 (MRM2) “Poisk” on the zenith node of the Service Module “Zvezda”. (Just in case you were planning to visit, and wanted to know where to park.)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/soyuz-tma-16m-historic-one-year-expedition/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/A36.jpg

It might help to start with what the Backplane Pathfinder actually is - it's a non-flight replica of the Webb telescope’s center backplane (that link has more info and pictures).

Chamber A allows simulating the cold environment the real telescope will face in space, and is the same vacuum chamber where Apollo spacecraft were tested.

Now, to answer your question: They are testing the test procedures for the real telescope! (source: NASA). I realise that doesn't exactly answer your question, but I haven't found details of the actual tests they plan to run... so as a distraction, here are some more images - http://jwst.nasa.gov/images_backplane.html

Since we're talking about things that hover over specially-prepared floors, we might as well talk about gas film levitation (think: air hockey) that can be used to levitate very heavy objects on a smooth floor. It's used to test spacecraft docking in earthbound laboratories, for example. I'm sure someone's tried a skateboard-like platform at some point. This mag-lev system is pretty cool however, as is the shiny copper floor.

I can name a couple spacecraft that have gone further than Mars. Several even.

Unless they're only counting manned craft.

Reminds me of the inflatible spacecraft from sluggy.com - http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/20081124

Gravity uses existing technology, existing spacecraft, existing spacesuits.

Interstellar uses make believe technology, make believe spaceships, make believe space suits, make believe calamity, make believe killer sandstorms, make believe space planets and plenty more hokey bullshit.

S'ok if you want space opera for 2 hours but I like my sci-fi more believable.

I just saw the slingatron as you posted it a while back (the video you posted was private, but the link worked). While an interesting idea, they did seem to ignore a few things, most importantly the value of air resistance at sea level (or near it).
The issue is this...normal space vehicles travel at slow (relative) speeds when in the lower atmosphere, this limits drag and friction caused by air resistance. When spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere they must do so carefully, at specific angles and speeds, in order to avoid too much friction or they'll burn up (no matter what you make them of) or bounce off. When they are at high speeds, it is in extremely low air pressure, and vice versa.
This slingatron plan puts the craft at maximum speed in maximum air pressure. That's going to cause massive shock loads on the craft from turbulence, and also major friction and heat. I get the feeling those are insurmountable issues that ruin this plan.
A better plan I've heard of is basically a giant electro magnetic rail gun (cyclotron or straight linear accelerator) that is sealed and vacuumed as close as possible to 'empty'. If such a device could have it's exit point high enough (say, out the top of Mt Everest) it MIGHT avoid most of those pitfalls, along with the massive G load caused by spiral track acceleration (coupled in some slingatron drawings to an even higher G load 'launch ramp' at track end).
Just a thought for a tech minded 'buddy'. Enjoy.

Are those the spaceships by the guy who did the Spacecraft 2000-2100 and Spacewars books back in the 80's?

Your video, Virgin Galactic Spacecraft Reaches 71k Feet on Third Flight, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 10 Badge!

@Chairman_woo, they claim it's easier to use - they would. It's certainly different and is based around context-sensitive commands. I've seen some of the UI in another video (edit: Trading and Mining, I think, I don't remember when but it's worth watching the whole video anyway) and I believe it works something like when you've selected (by pressing the 'target' key when aiming at it) one of your mining ships and you aim at an asteroid, the 'use' button will tell the captain to mine that.

As I recall, doing this in previous X games was something like going through a menu to select the mining ship, going through a menu to select 'mine', then going through a menu to select an asteroid, then quitting that menu to check the name again because you forgot, and then going through a menu to select an asteroid.

I was very dubious about only being to fly a single spacecraft (yes, literally one ship the whole game - I didn't believe it when I first read it either) but I've been impressed by it's implementation. I wouldn't say I'm 100% convinced, but I'm prepared to hear them out as it were. One very good ship is better than 10,000 crap ones but this rather breaks down if it's not a very good ship.

As far as I know, ever manned spaceflight has has windows. Even the very first one had 3 portholes:
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2011/04/19/vostok-spacecraft/

It stands to reason that companies like SpaceX will collaborate with NASA and share technology, I guess we will see other spacecraft that use similar designs and innovations soon. SpaceX are focused on commercial incentives, whereas NASA are focused on scientific objectives so the overall purpose of these capsules will differ enough to warrant changes to a common design.

Would make more sense to combine efforts imo, come up with a vehicle that offers the best of both commercial and scientific interests.

>> ^enoch:

>> ^Payback:
Fan made? Paramount re-did TOS episodes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series#Remastered

when i first came across this remastered series i remember it was a couple of dudes.
oh well.guess i remembered wrong.
thanks for the correction @Payback.


Oh, it's still awesome. I guess it WAS technically two dudes, by the way...

Under the direction of Star Trek producer David Rossi and long-time Star Trek technical consultant Mike Okuda, the visual and special effects were recreated to give Star Trek: The Original Series a more authentic feel and modern look. Special attention was given to such elements as the Enterprise, alien planets and their images depicted from space, planets seen from orbit, alien spacecraft, and technology such as computer readouts, viewscreen images, phaser beams, etc.

>> ^shuac:

Might I suggest a name for the first spacecraft?
The Nostromo.


Thank You, shuac.

I can't believe I've never heard of this book before.
It's on my list now.