Status of Falcon 1 Flight 4 First Stage?
Rick Jones
more down to earth question - what was the fate of the first stage of
flight four? Did it have 'chutes etc? Was there an attempt at
recovery?
rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Damon Hill
news:gbr3fi$dbe$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com:
> So, while our gaze is skyward after the Falcon 1 Flight 4 launch, a
> more down to earth question - what was the fate of the first stage of
> flight four? Did it have 'chutes etc? Was there an attempt at
> recovery?
Details are sketchy; Musk reportedly said that thermal protection needs
some improving which implies no recovery was made. Hopefully more details
will be forthcoming. Reusability of at least some of the flight hardware
would be icing on the cake.
--Damon
Rand Simberg
Rick Jones <rick....@hp.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>So, while our gaze is skyward after the Falcon 1 Flight 4 launch, a
>more down to earth question - what was the fate of the first stage of
>flight four? Did it have 'chutes etc? Was there an attempt at
>recovery?
It was not recovered, nor was there any attempt. It didn't have
sufficient thermal protection. SpaceX says that the next flight may.
Rick Jones
> Details are sketchy; Musk reportedly said that thermal protection
> needs some improving which implies no recovery was made.
A kg here, a kg there :)
> Hopefully more details will be forthcoming. Reusability of at least
> some of the flight hardware would be icing on the cake.
Indeed.
rick jones
wasn't able to watch the launch live - would have thought he was a
jinx because was able to watch the launches for flight 2 and 3 live,
but cannot recall seeing flight 1 live :)
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
Damon Hill
> So, while our gaze is skyward after the Falcon 1 Flight 4 launch, a
> more down to earth question - what was the fate of the first stage of
> flight four? Did it have 'chutes etc? Was there an attempt at
> recovery?
The limited (almost non-existant) details of how SpaceX plans to
recover and reuse flight hardware doesn't help; a parachute and some
thermal protection material is one thing, but exposing a lot of
sensitive machinery (and especially the internals of a rocket engine)
to salt water implies a degree of 'hardening' and maybe limits
what can be usefully--read: reliably--reused.
I get the impression this is not the highest priority, nor is it
trivial if the effort can significantly cut costs.
We'll just have to wait for the details to emerge. Or submerge.
--Damon
Pat Flannery
Damon Hill wrote:
>
>> So, while our gaze is skyward after the Falcon 1 Flight 4 launch, a
>> more down to earth question - what was the fate of the first stage of
>> flight four? Did it have 'chutes etc? Was there an attempt at
>> recovery?
>>
>
> Details are sketchy; Musk reportedly said that thermal protection needs
> some improving which implies no recovery was made. Hopefully more details
> will be forthcoming. Reusability of at least some of the flight hardware
> would be icing on the cake.
>
You'd think they would want to get it back just to have a good look at
how the Merlin engine held up on the flight.
I don't know how deep the water is where the first stage fell, but if it
was fairly shallow and you could find the stage fairly easily, I would
probably send divers out to recover what was left of it so I could get a
look at the engine.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Rick Jones wrote:
>
> wasn't able to watch the launch live - would have thought he was a
> jinx because was able to watch the launches for flight 2 and 3 live,
> but cannot recall seeing flight 1 live :)
>
Did they even broadcast flight 1 live?
Pat
Pat Flannery
Damon Hill wrote:
>
> The limited (almost non-existant) details of how SpaceX plans to
> recover and reuse flight hardware doesn't help; a parachute and some
> thermal protection material is one thing, but exposing a lot of
> sensitive machinery (and especially the internals of a rocket engine)
> to salt water implies a degree of 'hardening' and maybe limits
> what can be usefully--read: reliably--reused.
>
NASA did studies for recovery of Saturn I and Saturn V first stages back
in the early 1960s.
They subjected electronics and some engines to several hours of
saltwater exposure, then flushed them thoroughly with freshwater,
followed by dipping them in alcohol and letting them dry.
The components seemed to handle that fairly well.
Pat
Rick Jones
I don't actually remember. I suppose if they didn't then I still
_could_ be a jinx for SpaceX :)
rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
Jochem Huhmann
> The limited (almost non-existant) details of how SpaceX plans to
> recover and reuse flight hardware doesn't help; a parachute and some
> thermal protection material is one thing, but exposing a lot of
> sensitive machinery (and especially the internals of a rocket engine)
> to salt water implies a degree of 'hardening' and maybe limits
> what can be usefully--read: reliably--reused.
>
> I get the impression this is not the highest priority, nor is it
> trivial if the effort can significantly cut costs.
I think that may change with Falcon 9, alone the nine turbopumps would
be worth quite a bit, although you most probably wouldn't use the
nozzles for anything serious again. They may well have had other things
to care for up to now anyway.
By the way, I liked the "F9" T-shirt one guy in the webcast was wearing,
seems to be quite a great place to work. The full 40 minutes webcast
including Elon Musk saying a lot of "umm... Yeah!... mindblowing... umm"
is available at:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE
I'm really glad it worked out finally. Well done, SpaceX! Now on to F9
and Dragon...
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Damon Hill
news:leednUw2xe541XzV...@posted.northdakotatelephone:
There was a brief glimpse of liftoff; I can't recall if the rocketcam
video was live.
--Damon
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>Damon Hill wrote:
>>
>>> So, while our gaze is skyward after the Falcon 1 Flight 4 launch, a
>>> more down to earth question - what was the fate of the first stage of
>>> flight four? Did it have 'chutes etc? Was there an attempt at
>>> recovery?
>>>
>>
>> Details are sketchy; Musk reportedly said that thermal protection needs
>> some improving which implies no recovery was made. Hopefully more details
>> will be forthcoming. Reusability of at least some of the flight hardware
>> would be icing on the cake.
>>
>
>You'd think they would want to get it back just to have a good look at
>how the Merlin engine held up on the flight.
They might, if the cost of doing that didn't exceed the value of the
information thus obtained.
OM
wrote:
>The full 40 minutes webcast
>including Elon Musk saying a lot of "umm... Yeah!... mindblowing... umm"
>is available at:
>
>http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE
...Yeah, but the two talking heads - the blonde and the baldy - need
lessons on how to keep coverage momentum going when nothing's
happening on screen. Dead air is a BIG no-no, kids.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
nx1...@hotmail.com
> NASA did studies for recovery of Saturn I and Saturn V first stages back
> in the early 1960s.
> They subjected electronics and some engines to several hours of
> saltwater exposure, then flushed them thoroughly with freshwater,
> followed by dipping them in alcohol and letting them dry.
> The components seemed to handle that fairly well.
Would you please provide a link to these studies, and also exactly
what condition were the recovered S-1 and S-1C stages in when they
were recovered. I also remember reading some years ago that these
first stages were also recovered because they were structurally robust
enough to float after splashing down hence became a navigation hazard
to shipping.
Damon Hill
83aa97...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
I don't recall them ever being recovered intact; without parachutes
their impact velocity would have severely damaged them. I do recall
an occasional Titan II stage afloat, but severely bent.
--Damon
Rick Jones
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:38:05 +0200, Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> >The full 40 minutes webcast
> >including Elon Musk saying a lot of "umm... Yeah!... mindblowing... umm"
> >is available at:
> >
> >http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE
It was all the more surprising given how much more eloquent he was
when addressing the troops. A bit of stage fright I suppose.
> ...Yeah, but the two talking heads - the blonde and the baldy - need
> lessons on how to keep coverage momentum going when nothing's
> happening on screen. Dead air is a BIG no-no, kids.
FWIW, I believe "the blond" as you describe her was Diane Murphy, VP
Marketing Communications.
rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Jobert
Dr J R Stockton
>, Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:46:06, OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> posted:
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:38:05 +0200, Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The full 40 minutes webcast
>>including Elon Musk saying a lot of "umm... Yeah!... mindblowing... umm"
>>is available at:
>>
>>http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQhtMrUQlE
>
>...Yeah, but the two talking heads - the blonde and the baldy - need
>lessons on how to keep coverage momentum going when nothing's
>happening on screen. Dead air is a BIG no-no, kids.
Better to have people who understand what is going on than leave it all
to professional presenter-smoothies or to Simberg types. If there's
nothing significant to say, say nothing.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
OM
<rick....@hp.com> wrote:
>FWIW, I believe "the blond" as you describe her was Diane Murphy, VP
>Marketing Communications.
...Ah. A marketing bimbo. Much is explained.
OM
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Better to have people who understand what is going on than leave it all
>to professional presenter-smoothies or to Simberg types. If there's
>nothing significant to say, say nothing.
...Doesn't work that way in broadcasting. Dead air is a major no-no,
because dead air = viewers changing the channel. it's that simple, and
there's no excusing it. Even when you have technical difficulties, you
slap up a slide, make an announcement in stentorian overtones, and
play some muzak while the engineers shit bricks trying to figure out
why the bastards at the microwave relay switched your feed. Take it
from someone who grew up heavily exposed to the behind-the-camera side
of the business - they needed to keep talking and rerunning the clip
until something happened, no excuses.
Pat Flannery
Damon Hill wrote:
>> Would you please provide a link to these studies, and also exactly
>> what condition were the recovered S-1 and S-1C stages in when they
>> were recovered. I also remember reading some years ago that these
>> first stages were also recovered because they were structurally robust
>> enough to float after splashing down hence became a navigation hazard
>> to shipping.
>>
>
> I don't recall them ever being recovered intact; without parachutes
> their impact velocity would have severely damaged them. I do recall
> an occasional Titan II stage afloat, but severely bent.
>
>
They never did actual recoveries, just studies on how seawater immersion
would affect individual components and how to best clean and dry them
after recovery.
If Saturn V had had a longer service life, it might have been developed
into a booster with a reusable first stage.
Provisions for the reuse of the Saturn I first stage got far enough
along that structural provisions for them were retained on the first
test vehicles according to this: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturni.htm
Here's a drawing of the first stage descending into the sea under
parachutes, further cushioning its landing velocity by the use of
landing rockets: http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/j/juno5rec.jpg
In this drawing, the stage glides into a landing under a Rogallo
parawing: http://history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/Images/fig032.jpg
Here's another drawing showing info on how the recoverable Saturn V
first stage would have worked:
http://history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/Images/fig268.jpg
The one showing the inside of the Lox tank had to do with cushioning the
landing; the stage was to descend nose-first toward the water under its
parachutes, and once it had stabilized the front dome of the Lox was to
be jettisoned and holes blown in the sides of it at its base. On impact
with the water the water would compress the air inside the tank, which
would shoot out the base holes like a giant pneumatic shock absorber.
The Mercury capsule used a somewhat similar system with the perforated
landing bag that deployed between the bottom of the capsule and the
heatshield before landing.
On wonders how much these concepts owed to Wernher von Braun's Colliers
ferry rockets which were also supposed to have booster stages that were
recovered at sea via parachuting them in nose-first with final impact
being cushioned by landing rockets.
Pat
Jochem Huhmann
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:31:22 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Better to have people who understand what is going on than leave it all
>>to professional presenter-smoothies or to Simberg types. If there's
>>nothing significant to say, say nothing.
>
> ...Doesn't work that way in broadcasting. Dead air is a major no-no,
> because dead air = viewers changing the channel. it's that simple, and
> there's no excusing it. Even when you have technical difficulties, you
> slap up a slide, make an announcement in stentorian overtones, and
> play some muzak while the engineers shit bricks trying to figure out
> why the bastards at the microwave relay switched your feed. Take it
> from someone who grew up heavily exposed to the behind-the-camera side
> of the business - they needed to keep talking and rerunning the clip
> until something happened, no excuses.
This surely is conventional wisdom and there's nothing wrong with it. On
the other hand I'd rather have someone who knows what he (or she) is
talking about and just shuts up when there's nothing to say than someone
doing everything right while having no clue at all.
Dr J R Stockton
>, Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:07:29, OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> posted:
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:31:22 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Better to have people who understand what is going on than leave it all
>>to professional presenter-smoothies or to Simberg types. If there's
>>nothing significant to say, say nothing.
>
>...Doesn't work that way in broadcasting. Dead air is a major no-no,
>because dead air = viewers changing the channel. it's that simple, and
>there's no excusing it. Even when you have technical difficulties, you
>slap up a slide, make an announcement in stentorian overtones, and
>play some muzak while the engineers shit bricks trying to figure out
>why the bastards at the microwave relay switched your feed. Take it
>from someone who grew up heavily exposed to the behind-the-camera side
>of the business - they needed to keep talking and rerunning the clip
>until something happened, no excuses.
For a commercial entertainment channel. with nothing but profit in mind,
there's a little to be said for your point of view.
But not in this case, a transmission put out for the benefit of those
who are really interested, and where the periods of uncertainty cannot
possibly last more than a few tens of seconds. We had a continuously
active picture, more visually interesting than the middle third of the
second-stage burn, and enough sound to indicate that audio was
available.
If it was actually copied to an ordinary TV channel, the sort which has
advertisements etc., then it is the channel which should have inserted
something to keep the morons happy.
OM
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If it was actually copied to an ordinary TV channel, the sort which has
>advertisements etc., then it is the channel which should have inserted
>something to keep the morons happy.
...Sorry, but you're totally in the wrong here. Whether it's morons or
PhDs, dead air is a major faux pas. A no-no. A blunder. An inertia
killer. I worked in broadcasting, son. I *know* how the business
works, whether its See-BS excitement or Pee-BS sominex. Dead air is a
show killer, and trying to defend it is just playing "Argument
Clinic". I don't play that game.
David M. Palmer
<om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:59:42 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >If it was actually copied to an ordinary TV channel, the sort which has
> >advertisements etc., then it is the channel which should have inserted
> >something to keep the morons happy.
>
> ...Sorry, but you're totally in the wrong here. Whether it's morons or
> PhDs, dead air is a major faux pas. A no-no. A blunder. An inertia
> killer. I worked in broadcasting, son. I *know* how the business
> works, whether its See-BS excitement or Pee-BS sominex. Dead air is a
> show killer, and trying to defend it is just playing "Argument
> Clinic". I don't play that game.
This wasn't broadcasting. This was a live feed from a rocket into
space. If they have nothing worth saying at a particular instant, then
they shouldn't say it.
Likewise, when I give a scientific talk, I don't have background music
punctuating my words and there's no dramatic sting when I show the
conclusions slide.
Did you see one of those experimental broadcasts of a football game
where they didn't have two morons yakking at each other when you're
trying to watch? If I watched football, that would be the type of
football I would watch, if they still did it, which they don't because
they have people like you yelling SHAME!!! when they do. (And because
the people who do like watching football tend to agree with you. Go
figure.)
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:59:42 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If it was actually copied to an ordinary TV channel, the sort which has
>>advertisements etc., then it is the channel which should have inserted
>>something to keep the morons happy.
>
>...Sorry, but you're totally in the wrong here. Whether it's morons or
>PhDs, dead air is a major faux pas. A no-no. A blunder. An inertia
>killer. I worked in broadcasting, son. I *know* how the business
>works, whether its See-BS excitement or Pee-BS sominex. Dead air is a
>show killer...
I gotta agree with you on this. I spent nearly a decade in
broadcasting, and other than saying "the F word" or bad-mouthing a
sponsor on the air, dead-air is one of the worst things you can have.
What I find hard to believe is that they didn't have some sort of
"filler" material standing by for those moments (which you knew were
going to happen).
If you're waiting a couple of seconds for data to come in, say so.
Suddenly staring intently at your laptop screen just makes it look
like Something Bad just happened, and you're not sure how to tell us.
Tell us something about the tracking equipment. Was it all
ground-based, or did they have planes in the air?
Give us an interesting bit o' trivia about the rocket (Maybe one of
those "At launch, 90% of the weight of the rocket is fuel and
oxidizer" kinds of things).
The rocket is 21m tall, and the highest point on the entire atoll is
only 10m, so if you were on the top of the rocket, you'd be about 35'
above the highest point of land. Maybe it's just me, but I find stuff
like that at least a little interesting.
Geez, explain to people who might not know why you're launching from
an atoll out in the middle of the Pacific. Not everybody who was
watching knows that an equitorial launch site means you get to orbit
using less fuel, and why.
take care,
Scott
OM
<dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>This wasn't broadcasting. This was a live feed from a rocket into
>space.
...Bullshit. They ran it as if it were a network news feed, with two
anchors.
>If they have nothing worth saying at a particular instant, then
>they shouldn't say it.
...You miss the point entirely. Commentary is necessary for a feed
like that. When the downlink is lost, the commentators are necessary
to help bridge the gap. These two clods were looking dumbfounded and
clueless. Shit, even Jules Bergman at his worst never stumbled like
that.
>Likewise, when I give a scientific talk, I don't have background music
>punctuating my words and there's no dramatic sting when I show the
>conclusions slide.
...You're not broadcasting. You can't compare your talk with the
Falcon 1 coverage, and you're retarded for doing so. You're giving a
talk in front of a small, specified audience that's there to be
educated and *not* entertained. The Falcon 1 feed is there for both
purposes - entertainment and education. In other words, it gave the
Buck Rogers while showing the bucks weren't wasted for a change.
>Did you see one of those experimental broadcasts of a football game
>where they didn't have two morons yakking at each other when you're
>trying to watch?
...Son, I *directed* one of those experiments four times for two
football seasons in high school as part of an experiment to see
whether announcers were needed. We even cut off the audio feed when
the stadium announcers started yakking. Then we got test audiences
together of two hundred each, different racial mixtures and social
lifestyles. We made damn sure there was at least five jocks in the
bunch. In each trial, only the jocks managed to figure out what was
going on, and even then there was confusion about certain plaus and
penalties because of the camera angle - such hits would have been
caugnt and reported by an anchor.
> If I watched football, that would be the type of
>football I would watch, if they still did it, which they don't because
they have people like you yelling SHAME!!! when they do. (And because
>the people who do like watching football tend to agree with you. Go
>figure.)
...only dumb jocks have a chance to figure out what'sgoing on because
is there environment. the rest of the popiulation gets caught in the
shit.\
Time's enough, end of line...
Anthony Frost
OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:24:34 -0600, "David M. Palmer"
> <dmpa...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >This wasn't broadcasting. This was a live feed from a rocket into
> >space.
>
> ...Bullshit. They ran it as if it were a network news feed, with two
> anchors.
>
> >If they have nothing worth saying at a particular instant, then
> >they shouldn't say it.
>
> ...You miss the point entirely. Commentary is necessary for a feed
> like that. When the downlink is lost, the commentators are necessary
> to help bridge the gap. These two clods were looking dumbfounded and
> clueless. Shit, even Jules Bergman at his worst never stumbled like
> that.
As another ex-broadcaster I agree with this. The first couple of flights
were covered with just the cameras at the site, ambient noise and the
launch crew audio which was fine. For the third and fourth flights
they've decided to go with talking heads and for whatever reason to use
two people who apparently have no experience being talking heads. Being
a head marketroid may mean you can handle a rehearsed presentation, it
doesn't mean you're any good at filling gaps in a live broadcast.
I pin a lot of the blame on the director as well. When you know your
talent isn't up to filling you need to make sure you've always got
something else you can cut away to, could be a wide shot of the
assembled staff, stick a camera in the launch control room, anything.
You don't cut to a camera showing nothing but two grinning blank faces
who are saying nothing.
Anthony
Dr J R Stockton
>, Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:37:34, OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> posted:
>On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:59:42 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If it was actually copied to an ordinary TV channel, the sort which has
>>advertisements etc., then it is the channel which should have inserted
>>something to keep the morons happy.
>
>...Sorry, but you're totally in the wrong here. Whether it's morons or
>PhDs, dead air is a major faux pas. A no-no. A blunder. An inertia
>killer. I worked in broadcasting, son. I *know* how the business
>works, whether its See-BS excitement or Pee-BS sominex. Dead air is a
>show killer, and trying to defend it is just playing "Argument
>Clinic". I don't play that game.
Obviously you're really a media loudmouth, with no experience, or no
remaining memory of, what technical people want.
Elon Musk is smarter than you : he knows that he's not, at SpaceX, in
the business of providing public entertainment for the mindless riff-
raff (which is where the haunted fish-tank (Ack: TW (Sir)) money is).
AIUI, he put on the Vice President of Marketing and Communications and
someone, possibly more technical, whose position I did not catch. If
he'd wanted anything else, he could have put a borrowed goldfish-bowl on
the table for your sort to watch. Anything more would have been a waste
of resources.
Your sig still looks silly.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
marika
"David M. Palmer" <dmpa...@email.com> wrote in message
news:011020082124343528%dmpa...@email.com...
> Did you see one of those experimental broadcasts of a football game
> where they didn't have two morons yakking at each other when you're
> trying to watch?
Thank God for boyfriends. This give them something to help them make the
adjustment and keep their self-esteem up. --I figured it had to be some
sort of painful situation. Good for you for realizing an escape was in your
best interests before her health just blew up.. Stress can be so malignant
mk5000
"He whistles and he runs
Saw you in distraction of
Sleeping slow despair
Bursting in a rapture"--interpol, a time to be small
OM
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Obviously you're really a media loudmouth, with no experience, or no
>remaining memory of, what technical people want.
...John, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're
not trolling just *this* once, and fill you in on some background that
most people around here already know:
1) I grew up around the TV industry. Most of this came about due to
the fact that the local kids show host was a good friend of the
family, and two of the engineers were as well. I spent quite a few
summers around there in my early teens getting to know the business at
the local See-BS station.
2) I interned for the same station in my senior year of high school,
and was asked to do the same thing again the following summer while I
was in college. I wound up splitting the difference with the Muzak
franchise downstairs for the same reason I took the internship in the
first place - the general manager was a *very* old friend of my family
and LBJs - and the Muzak job *paid*.
3) From 1989-1992, I was a video engineer, graphics designer, and IT
manager for the same station, and worked quite a bit of production.
The number of programs I worked on during that time would be too long
to list here in detail, but between news programs, sporting events,
live broadcast coordination, public affairs programs, and even being a
standby fill-in weather guy, there was a lot of experience there that
made my internships pale by comparison.
...Trust me, son. I *KNOW* TV. I know how it works, inside and out.
About the only thing I can't do is *fix* a TV, and that I leave to my
best friend in the world who worked with me at that same station and
is a trained and qualified TV repair crook. So making that lame-assed
accusation that I don't have any clues about the TV industry is pure
and utter bullshit on your part. If anything, it makes *you* look like
a troll, and a clueless one at that.
>Elon Musk is smarter than you :
...Regarding online payment systems, I won't argue there. Rocketry,
probably. The TV industry? Without actually talking to the man, I
seriously doubt it. And even then, unless he's worked in the business,
knowledge does *NOT* equal expertise nor experience.
>he knows that he's not, at SpaceX, in
>the business of providing public entertainment for the mindless riff-
>raff (which is where the haunted fish-tank (Ack: TW (Sir)) money is).
>AIUI, he put on the Vice President of Marketing and Communications and
>someone, possibly more technical, whose position I did not catch.
...Having a marketing degree/position does *NOT* mean you know how to
host a TV program. In fact, my own experience is that it usually means
you're *NOT* qualified. Again, standing in front of a small select
crowd is not the same as getting in front of 100,000 viewers you can't
see. I've been there in radio, so I know.
>If he'd wanted anything else, he could have put a borrowed goldfish-bowl on
>the table for your sort to watch.
...*MY* sort? Boy, are we grasping for straws or what here, John?
>Anything more would have been a waste of resources.
...No more than responding to your retarded attempts to defend
ineptitude.
>Your sig still looks silly.
...And your mother wears coast guard flippers.
...On a side note, let's talk credentials. Just what are you
supposedly a "doctor" of? Scatology?
OM
wrote:
>As another ex-broadcaster I agree with this.
...Which no doubt casts you as being someone who knows nothing about
the subject. At least according to "Dr. John's" notion of how
broadcasting works.
...On a side note, where was your experience at?
>I pin a lot of the blame on the director as well. When you know your
>talent isn't up to filling you need to make sure you've always got
>something else you can cut away to, could be a wide shot of the
>assembled staff, stick a camera in the launch control room, anything.
>You don't cut to a camera showing nothing but two grinning blank faces
>who are saying nothing.
...One thing I did sort of get was that there may not have been a
director per se as we know it. There may have been an IT guy switching
feeds on a computer, but that's about it. It's also possible that the
bald guy with the notebook was doing the feed switching himself. I
need to look at the feed again and see if either of them had anything
resembling an IFB in their ears. One of them might have had one of
those earbuds so they could listen to the controller's loop, but those
aren't IFB plugs. Those are different beasts altogether.
Anthony Frost
OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:12:57 +0100, Anthony Frost <Vu...@vulch.org>
> wrote:
>
> >As another ex-broadcaster I agree with this.
>
> ...Which no doubt casts you as being someone who knows nothing about
> the subject. At least according to "Dr. John's" notion of how
> broadcasting works.
>
> ...On a side note, where was your experience at?
Started out with the BBC in the VT department at TV Centre in London,
and moved to a regional ITV station in their central technical area
running VT, telecine and suchlike.
> >I pin a lot of the blame on the director as well. When you know your
> >talent isn't up to filling you need to make sure you've always got
> >something else you can cut away to, could be a wide shot of the
> >assembled staff, stick a camera in the launch control room, anything.
> >You don't cut to a camera showing nothing but two grinning blank faces
> >who are saying nothing.
>
> ...One thing I did sort of get was that there may not have been a
> director per se as we know it. There may have been an IT guy switching
> feeds on a computer, but that's about it. It's also possible that the
> bald guy with the notebook was doing the feed switching himself.
Could be, although there were times it looked like neither of them knew
they were actually on air. Given amateur presenters they'd probably have
been better off using a traditional floor manager to keep things flowing
a bit better.
The ITV station still used in vision continuity announcers, I have happy
memories of helping with final interviews where the candidates would be
stuck in the pres studio and given a copy of the evenings listings. The
transmission controller would give them a couple of minutes then explain
he wanted them to fill for one minute. As soon as the candidate nodded
he'd fire up the lights, give them a 5 second count and start the clock.
Most people just can't avoid the goldfish expression for the first few
seconds.
Anthony
are
> ...
> Provisions for the reuse of the Saturn I first stage got far enough
> along that structural provisions for them were retained on the first
> test vehicles according to this:http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturni.htm
> Here's a drawing of the first stage descending into the sea under
> parachutes, further cushioning its landing velocity by the use of
> landing rockets:http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/j/juno5rec.jpg
> On wonders how much these concepts owed to Wernher von Braun's Colliers
> ferry rockets which were also supposed to have booster stages that were
> recovered at sea via parachuting them in nose-first with final impact
> being cushioned by landing rockets.
A few weeks ago I was browsing through the 15 February 1960 issue of
Aviation Week & Space Technology and came across an article entitled
"Saturn Booster Recovery System Detailed." It describes the parachute
system.
Several 'chutes would open just after the S-I stage reached apogee.
Eight solid-propellant retros would fire just before impact. As Pat
says, shades of Collier's.
The article reports that impact velocity would be too high to permit
complete re-use of the S-I stage. Important components, notably the
engines, however, would be salvageable. Toward the end, however, the
article partially contradicts itself by stating that the retros would
result in a "theoretical" impact velocity of zero.
This article was published just about a year and a half before the
first Saturn flight. It's tantalizing how we came to early re-
usability. Of course, at the flight rates actually realized for
Saturn boosters, re-usability would not have been economic. But if
the S-I stage had become the workhorse that it might have, boosting
manned missions, comsats to geosynch and planetary probes....
On the subject of Saturn nostalgia (I know, I know, it makes go blind
or something else horrible; I really should stop :-)), I've been
looking for a copy of a Chrysler/North American proposal for a Saturn
IB/Service Module booster. Justin Wigg mentioned it in this news
group and 2001 and apparently supplied copies to several people.
Would anybody have a copy available?
Pat Flannery
are wrote:
> Several 'chutes would open just after the S-I stage reached apogee.
> Eight solid-propellant retros would fire just before impact. As Pat
> says, shades of Collier's.
>
IIRC, both the first and second stages of the Colliers rocket were
designed to be recovered that way.
It's a follow-on to the recoverable first stage of the wartime A9/A10
concept.
In that case the conventional parachute was to be opened at
exoatmospheric height by inflating radial ribs in it via compressed gas.
By the time the Ferry Rocket was designed, the amount of heating that
such a booster's stages would encounter during free-falling back into
the atmosphere was realized... the chutes were to be made out of woven
metallic mesh... that certainly wouldn't be light to carry on the rocket.
Pat
Eric Chomko
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 20:59:42 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
>
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >If it was actually copied to an ordinary TV channel, the sort which has
> >advertisements etc., then it is the channel which should have inserted
> >something to keep the morons happy.
>
> ...Sorry, but you're totally in the wrong here. Whether it's morons or
> PhDs, dead air is a major faux pas. A no-no. A blunder. An inertia
> killer. I worked in broadcasting, son. I *know* how the business
> works, whether its See-BS excitement or Pee-BS sominex. Dead air is a
> show killer, and trying to defend it is just playing "Argument
> Clinic". I don't play that game.
It depends on if you're doing a demo to an audience at a trade show or
watching actual mission operations. On the one hand dead-air time is
bad and in the latter case too much chatter only makes things worse.
I'd say SpaceX's spiel is somehwere in the middle. Dead-air space is
not a killer but then again you don't want people thinking they are
watching paint drying. (I.e. Bored out of their minds!).
Ever sit in on 12 hours of mission ops? The whole thing can be
summerized in highlights that lasts about 30 seconds!
>
> OM
> --
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
Eric Chomko
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:45:58 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
>
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Obviously you're really a media loudmouth, with no experience, or no
> >remaining memory of, what technical people want.
>
> ...John, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're
> not trolling just *this* once, and fill you in on some background that
> most people around here already know:
I gotta jump in on this one!
>
> 1) I grew up around the TV industry. Most of this came about due to
> the fact that the local kids show host was a good friend of the
> family, and two of the engineers were as well. I spent quite a few
> summers around there in my early teens getting to know the business at
> the local See-BS station.
So this gives you creds for being a space historian? Your ignorance is
showing. You spout what someone that knew someone at NASA told you.
> 2) I interned for the same station in my senior year of high school,
> and was asked to do the same thing again the following summer while I
> was in college. I wound up splitting the difference with the Muzak
> franchise downstairs for the same reason I took the internship in the
> first place - the general manager was a *very* old friend of my family
> and LBJs - and the Muzak job *paid*.
In other words another Texas crook.
> 3) From 1989-1992, I was a video engineer, graphics designer, and IT
> manager for the same station, and worked quite a bit of production.
> The number of programs I worked on during that time would be too long
> to list here in detail, but between news programs, sporting events,
> live broadcast coordination, public affairs programs, and even being a
> standby fill-in weather guy, there was a lot of experience there that
> made my internships pale by comparison.
>
> ...Trust me, son. I *KNOW* TV. I know how it works, inside and out.
Which doesn't translate to sqaut when it comes to ground ops. Do you
have ANY experiece is space operations? Anything?
> About the only thing I can't do is *fix* a TV, and that I leave to my
> best friend in the world who worked with me at that same station and
> is a trained and qualified TV repair crook. So making that lame-assed
> accusation that I don't have any clues about the TV industry is pure
> and utter bullshit on your part. If anything, it makes *you* look like
> a troll, and a clueless one at that.
He never said you didn't know anything about TV. He questioned your
technical knowledge related to space operations, flight dynamics,
rocketry and orbital mechanics and here you go on bragging about being
a technician in the radio, televsion and film industry. Wow, you know
how to hook up RCA jacks that are red and black. Whoppie!!!!
> >Elon Musk is smarter than you :
>
> ...Regarding online payment systems, I won't argue there. Rocketry,
> probably. The TV industry? Without actually talking to the man, I
> seriously doubt it. And even then, unless he's worked in the business,
> knowledge does *NOT* equal expertise nor experience.
So his rockets can be fine and his ground ops fine but since he can't
demo his products to your standards you rail on about it. Man, this
thread sort of sums up a lot about you, all fluff and no substance!
Pretty package but crap at the core. If that isn't an American failing
I sure as heck don't know what is.
>
> >he knows that he's not, at SpaceX, in
> >the business of providing public entertainment for the mindless riff-
> >raff (which is where the haunted fish-tank (Ack: TW (Sir)) money is).
> >AIUI, he put on the Vice President of Marketing and Communications and
> >someone, possibly more technical, whose position I did not catch.
>
> ...Having a marketing degree/position does *NOT* mean you know how to
> host a TV program. In fact, my own experience is that it usually means
> you're *NOT* qualified. Again, standing in front of a small select
> crowd is not the same as getting in front of 100,000 viewers you can't
> see. I've been there in radio, so I know.
Yep an RTVF major if ever I saw one. I bet the Aerospace enginners,
EEs and other real engineers used to beat you up and steal your lunch
money, and that's whats made you so bitter. Fess up!!!!
> >If he'd wanted anything else, he could have put a borrowed goldfish-bowl on
> >the table for your sort to watch.
>
> ...*MY* sort? Boy, are we grasping for straws or what here, John?
Faux engineer vs. a real one. RTVF is the last refuge for a failed
engineer, you scoundrel!
> >Anything more would have been a waste of resources.
>
> ...No more than responding to your retarded attempts to defend
> ineptitude.
Wow, true irony in action here.
Eric
OM
wrote:
>the chutes were to be made out of woven
>metallic mesh... that certainly wouldn't be light to carry on the rocket.
...Which begs the question as to whether there's been any tests with
chutes made of such material.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
OM
wrote:
>In message <hooae45ol7at1soq2...@4ax.com>
> OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
>Started out with the BBC in the VT department at TV Centre in London,
>and moved to a regional ITV station in their central technical area
>running VT, telecine and suchlike.
...If there was one other TV place I'd take over KTBC in its prime, it
would be the BBC. I've been getting into a lot of BBC programs - that
which survived the 2" purgings - as well as picking up a lot of the
behind-the-scenes and technical advisories that have popped up on
YouTube. I can see the benefits of state-supported TV as well as the
advantages of our own free broadcast system, and a synthesis between
the two could have easily prevented the 2000 channels of crap we have
on cable now. Seriously, do we need 40 sports channels, or that many
in spanish? But then again, isn't BBC Wales broadcast in Welsh? ;-)
>Could be, although there were times it looked like neither of them knew
>they were actually on air. Given amateur presenters they'd probably have
>been better off using a traditional floor manager to keep things flowing
>a bit better.
...To do a proper broadcast - even a streaming one - you have to have
a minimum production crew to take the production monkey off the
anchor(s) back(s). That means a director, a sound person, and
*possibly* a floor manager if the director isn't in the same room as
the anchor desk. Oh, and unless the camera is fixed, someone behind it
to point the damn thing and keep the focus soft so you don't see the
news bimbo's crow's feet. Add an engineer to the mix - you always need
an engineer - and that's a minimum of five people. That's the smallest
number I've ever done a program with, and if there's any CG involved
for crawls or weather maps, for example, then you've got a sixth
person involved. Again, I'd love to talk to whoever did their
streamcast so I can find out how bailing wire and duct tape it was.
>The ITV station still used in vision continuity announcers,
...That was somthing I always loved about BBC. There you had that
low-tech chroma-key globe - replaced with a cow for the Rutland
broadcasts - while a pommy announcer explained what was coming up on
the night's program. Despite the prim-and-proper sound, it gave the
BBC a bit more personality than US networks had after NBC dropped the
Laramie Peacock in 1971.
>I have happy
>memories of helping with final interviews where the candidates would be
>stuck in the pres studio and given a copy of the evenings listings. The
>transmission controller would give them a couple of minutes then explain
>he wanted them to fill for one minute. As soon as the candidate nodded
>he'd fire up the lights, give them a 5 second count and start the clock.
>Most people just can't avoid the goldfish expression for the first few
>seconds.
...Hell, I've even seen 20-year veterans stumble like that. But
nowhere near as bad as the 30-second delays as we saw in this
streamcast. On the other hand, this somehow triggered a really funny
memory from the past that I think only you and I would get the irony
of:
...Back when CNN was just starting out - before "CNN2" showed up,
which eventually became Headline News - the local NBC affiliate
started running live news updates every 30 minutes during the
commercial breaks. When NBC started airing their own news talk shows
overnight, the station stayed on 24/7, and the news updates were
scaled down to where everything was controlled using two people: the
master control operator and the overnight engineer. Sound was fixed,
camera was locked down, and whoever the poor dipshit who was low
newsgeek on the totem pole got stuck with sitting in front of the
camera and reading from a paper script - the damn camera didn't even
have a teleprompter.
...One night, about 4am, this one bimbo - name forgotten, but
remembered for the fact that she couldn't do her makeup so it didn't
look like she was sunburned badly! - sat down to do her update. The
way it worked was that the MC Operator would announce over the
building PA a 15-second warning so anyone going into the newsroon
would know to keep quiet, and the anchor would get ready. This time,
tho, she apparently wasn't paying attention, and was reading a copy of
some fashion magazine. The MCO played the intro audio cart, volume
went up, and the only thing you heard was her flipping the pages while
she was clueless that she was live on the air. Volume goes down, and
apparently the MCO got on the PA and shouted at her to wake her ass
up, because she damn near jumped up out of her seat in surprise while
the magazine went into orbit! Then she started looking for her
one-page script, which apparently had joined the magazine into orbit.
The last thing we saw was her slamming her fist down on the desk as
the MCO thankfully went back to the NBC program. Thankfully the sound
was still down, because from the lip reading the word "FUCK!" was
fairly obviously uttered at a very loud level!
This happened on a Friday night. We didn't see her on the air again
starting the next week...
Anthony Frost
OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:04:59 +0100, Anthony Frost <Vu...@vulch.org>
> wrote:
>
> >In message <hooae45ol7at1soq2...@4ax.com>
> > OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
>
> >Started out with the BBC in the VT department at TV Centre in London,
> >and moved to a regional ITV station in their central technical area
> >running VT, telecine and suchlike.
>
> ...If there was one other TV place I'd take over KTBC in its prime, it
> would be the BBC. I've been getting into a lot of BBC programs - that
> which survived the 2" purgings - as well as picking up a lot of the
> behind-the-scenes and technical advisories that have popped up on
> YouTube.
http://www.vtoldboys.com/ might be of interest to you. During my time
there we had occasional "What's on this tape" sessions. The tape library
had not long moved over to a computer index and there were a number of
items were the index card had gone walkies, a lot of them were mundane
stuff but every once in a while we'd find something thought to be long
gone.
> I can see the benefits of state-supported TV as well as the
> advantages of our own free broadcast system, and a synthesis between
> the two could have easily prevented the 2000 channels of crap we have
> on cable now. Seriously, do we need 40 sports channels, or that many
> in spanish? But then again, isn't BBC Wales broadcast in Welsh? ;-)
Telly Welly mostly moved over to S4C 20 years ago though BBC Wales still
does a fair bit of Welsh Language programming for them. Not having to
worry about advertisers does help a lot, I doubt Patrick Moore would
have managed 50 years of The Sky At Night or Blackadder would have got
a second series in a purely commercial environment and not having the
pressure to reach 100 episodes for syndication concentrates the quality
for things like Fawlty Towers.
> >Could be, although there were times it looked like neither of them knew
> >they were actually on air. Given amateur presenters they'd probably have
> >been better off using a traditional floor manager to keep things flowing
> >a bit better.
>
> ...To do a proper broadcast - even a streaming one - you have to have
> a minimum production crew to take the production monkey off the
> anchor(s) back(s). That means a director, a sound person, and
> *possibly* a floor manager if the director isn't in the same room as
> the anchor desk. Oh, and unless the camera is fixed, someone behind it
> to point the damn thing and keep the focus soft so you don't see the
> news bimbo's crow's feet. Add an engineer to the mix - you always need
> an engineer - and that's a minimum of five people.
I did start wondering if it was almost company policy, try things with
the minimum you think you can get away with then add back some extra to
cover what broke the last time. Still, at least they knew to shut up
with a couple of minutes to go to launch rather than the NASA PAO habit
of jabbering all over everything so you can't hear what's going on.
Anthony
Dr J R Stockton
>, Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:07:24, OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> posted:
>On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:45:58 +0100, Dr J R Stockton
><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Obviously you're really a media loudmouth, with no experience, or no
>>remaining memory of, what technical people want.
>
>...John, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're
>not trolling just *this* once, and fill you in on some background that
>most people around here already know:
>
> ... ... ... ...
Correction : proven windbag media loudmouth.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
David M. Palmer
<Vu...@vulch.org> wrote:
> Could be, although there were times it looked like neither of them knew
> they were actually on air. Given amateur presenters they'd probably have
> been better off using a traditional floor manager to keep things flowing
> a bit better.
Given that the worst thing that happened on this launch of a previously
unsuccessful rocket was that the webcast had some dead air, I think
that it was a pretty good day for SpaceX.
kT
> In article <e1825fe84f%Vu...@kerrier.vulch.org>, Anthony Frost
> <Vu...@vulch.org> wrote:
>
>> Could be, although there were times it looked like neither of them knew
>> they were actually on air. Given amateur presenters they'd probably have
>> been better off using a traditional floor manager to keep things flowing
>> a bit better.
>
> Given that the worst thing that happened on this launch of a previously
> unsuccessful rocket was that the webcast had some dead air, I think
> that it was a pretty good day for SpaceX.
It was the best rocketcam webcast of all time.
Even better than the night launch of the Delta IV Medium, where the
finger of flame snaked up the side and everyone thought it was gonna
blow right there just leaving the pad. That's a hard act to beat too.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>> the chutes were to be made out of woven
>> metallic mesh... that certainly wouldn't be light to carry on the rocket.
>>
>
> ...Which begs the question as to whether there's been any tests with
> chutes made of such material.
>
I dug out my copy of "Across The Space Frontier" to check up on more
details of the system...the chute is made out of woven _steel_ wire
mesh, and is 217 feet in diameter when fully deployed... as I said, this
ain't going to be light.
The chute deploys circumferentially from the base of the stage and is
supported by shroud lines attached to the stage's front, which appear to
have some sort of shock absorbing sections like bungee cords or springs
near their base.
It also deploys right after stage separation at 24.9 miles and 5, 256
mph and starts slowing the stage down immediately to keep its apogee as
low as possible, and it reaches a maximum altitude of 40 miles before
beginning to descend.
The first stage impacts the ocean 189 miles from the launch site, its
final descent velocity being cut to zero by firing ten solid-fueled
landing rockets mounted in its nose when it is 150 feet above the sea,
which generate a total of 2,730 tons of thrust for two seconds (that's
54,600 pounds thrust each BTW - does anyone know of a existing solid
rocket from that time period that generates that thrust? I thought they
might be Nike boosters, but those generate far more thrust, and the
Aerobee booster generates far less thrust than that. )
No data on how high the second stage reaches before it begins to descend
under its parachute, but separation speed is 14,364 mph, and its chute
is 75 feet in diameter.
Back to the recoverable Saturn V, I found this in my copy of "Frontiers
Of Space". The recovery options for the first stage were investigated by
Boeing on behalf of Marshall Space Flight Center, and included fixed
wings, parachutes, hydrogen filled balloons, drag brakes, ballutes,
paragliders, and rotary systems of spinning parachutes.
They finally settled on a water landing system using drag brakes and
parachutes (as shown in the earlier post's artwork).
After separation, a reaction control system would get the booster
properly aligned for reentry, and it would survive reentry heating via
ablative thermal protection material covering the exterior of the
forward Lox tank dome.... this gets jettisoned at around 500 feet above
the ocean so the pneumatic shock absorption system can work, and is
probably the only non-reusable part.
Assuming 60 Saturn V launchings over a ten year period (figure out the
likely crew of Apollo 55 sometime ;-) ), total savings were estimated
at $500 million if each booster could be launched a minimum of three times.
Saltwater corrosion would be dealt with in various ways... the exterior
of the booster would be covered in a epoxy resin paint that would
protect it for up to 15 days after landing, and although some switches
and gauges would need replacement, most of the electronics could get
flushed out with freshwater and alcohol and be reused if they were
properly sealed.
Total mass of the recovery system was to be 48,700 lbs.
Pat
Anthony Frost
OM <om@up_yours_elfritz_you_nazi.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:39:01 +0100, Anthony Frost <Vu...@vulch.org>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >http://www.vtoldboys.com/ might be of interest to you.
>
> ...Bookmarked. Looks like Mark Wade's site is going to have
> competition for occupying my spare time now. Site looks rather deep,
> which is not a bad thing at all!
:-)
> * About 50 reels were nothing but commercial backups recorded in
> proper sequence. Take an entire day's commercials, make two copies of
> them played in their exact sequence, with a 30-second black between
> each commerical break, and have them ready for the next day's
> broadcast. This wound up being easier than taking small reels and
> having four 2" monsters tied up just for commercials and two extra
> guys swapping tapes - sometiimes *during* breaks!
We used RCA TCR-100s for comms at the ITV station, 2 minutes of quad
tape in a box, belt held 22 of them and they were loaded alternately on
two vertical decks based on the TR-70. 15 second cycle time, so 10
second comms only allowed at top and tail of the break. We started
compiling two or three breaks ahead as they became more unreliable and
eventually moved to Ampex D2 based digital systems.
>
> * Quite a bit of NASA coverage. Gemini 12, Apollo 4, one of the Saturn
> I launches - no audio, so I'm not sure which one it was - and, of
> course, the A11 landing. All See-BS coverage.
Dragging vaguely back on topic... One space event I worked on at the
Beeb was the first shuttle launch. Due to the postponement of the launch
the booking for the studio in TV Centre had run out, there wasn't
another one free anywhere in London, and the closest one that could be
found was in BBC Bristol. Unfortunately they had no spare VT capacity so
it landed up with me, a colleague and the most junior PA from the
production team in London and everyone else 120 miles away in Bristol.
I think we got a day or two overtime so the poor girl didn't have to
deal with multiple engineers and I got to be the London technical
advisor (I think I'd been overheard talking about the launch in VT
Control (4050, We've got the men if you've got the money) a week or so
before) as well as putting together a bunch of programme inserts and
network promos. Immense fun being allowed to just get on with it at our
junior level, and it all worked.
>
> * Quite a bit of raw news footage. This was stuff that was film
> chained from the 16mm news cameras they used in the 60's, and dumped
> on tape almost in a kinescope process. This wound up being faster than
> swapping the film chain out, and the tape was far less prone to
> breaking.
>
> * And a whole bunch of other assorted crap, like community access
> shows, some religious programs, and one reel loaded withi "Woody
> Woodpecker" cartoons. We ported over what was worth saving, and bulked
> the reels. The whole process of ~300 reels took 11 of those 14 months.
> Fun, but it was also tadamount to lifting weights - those 2" reels
> aren't exactly light.
> >Not having to
> >worry about advertisers does help a lot,
>
> ...Agreed. Here in the US, it's quantity above quality unless the
> quality isn't detected right off the bat in the ratings.
>
> [thinks]
>
> ...I was about to observe that the BBC never had anything like
> "Dancing with the Stars", but you guys *did* have "Bullseye", right?
Got to have a bit of Bully, let's see what you could have won...
Strictly Come Dancing I suspect is the equivalent over here, not sure if
it's your revenge for Pop Idol/American Idol or just the latest
installment of our revenge for something. Nobody wants to pay me to
watch poor TV these days, cheapness is favoured over experience, so I
don't know how they compare.
Anthony
Dr J R Stockton
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 11:43:31 +0100, Dr J R Stockton> ...So, rather than accept the accurate word of *two* TV professionals,
> you'd rather resort to insulting me.
There is no reason to believe that media professionals are
intelligent; indeed, you demonstrate the contrary. You're just not
smart enough, in the profession, to realise it.
In that Webcast, the Falcon signal was lost gor about a minute.
During that time, the presenters continued to pass on all available
information, without distracting trivialities. That is what the
technically-competent part of the audience will have wanted.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Posting with Google.
Mail: J.R.""""""""@physics.org or (better) via Home Page at
Web: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/>
FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ....|
OM
<J.R.St...@physics.org> wrote:
>There is no reason to believe that media professionals are
>intelligent; indeed, you demonstrate the contrary. You're just not
>smart enough, in the profession, to realise it.
...John, I'm going to show you how intelligent I am.
<PLONK>
...There. You obviously want to play "Argument Clinic" on this.
Doesn't work with me, you've been around here long enough to know that
by now.
Bottom Line: You've lost, now begone!
Dr J R Stockton
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Dr J R Stockton
> ...There. You obviously want to play "Argument Clinic" on this.
> Doesn't work with me, you've been around here long enough to know that
> by now.
I don't believe that you have enough self-control for that - you've
caught Simbergitis. And your sig is still ludicrous.
kT
> On Oct 6, 6:04 am, OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Dr J R Stockton
>
>
>> ...There. You obviously want to play "Argument Clinic" on this.
>> Doesn't work with me, you've been around here long enough to know that
>> by now.
>
>
> I don't believe that you have enough self-control for that - you've
> caught Simbergitis. And your sig is still ludicrous.
At least you are rational enough to recognize that.
There may be hope for you after all.
(Is that a euphemism?)
Rand Simberg
J R Stockton <J.R.St...@physics.org> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Oct 6, 6:04 am, OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Dr J R Stockton
>
>
>> ...There. You obviously want to play "Argument Clinic" on this.
>> Doesn't work with me, you've been around here long enough to know that
>> by now.
>
>
>I don't believe that you have enough self-control for that - you've
>caught Simbergitis.
Whatever that means.
Eric Chomko
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away, Dr
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >On Oct 6, 6:04 am, OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:30:33 -0700 (PDT), Dr J R Stockton
>
> >> ...There. You obviously want to play "Argument Clinic" on this.
> >> Doesn't work with me, you've been around here long enough to know that
> >> by now.
>
> >I don't believe that you have enough self-control for that - you've
> >caught Simbergitis.
>
> Whatever that means.
I think it means an inflammation of that part of the brain that is not
used.