4 ms·

>An airplane would probably cope much better. LOL. Yeah sure, so the plan is to have something traveling at 800kph somehow intercept a falling rocket stage, ca

>An airplane would probably cope much better. LOL. Yeah sure, so the plan is to have something traveling at 800kph somehow intercept a falling rocket stage, catching it in a web or whatever and start dragging it along and somehow land safely afterwards? Thanks man, you made my day :D

Rebelgecko 5y ago
C-130s (like the planes that were used for retrieving objects dropped from satellites) are fine flying at 200kph, no need to max out their speed.
- refulgentis 5y ago
  To their point, I'm not sure how well a carefully controlled slow descent and catch interplays with an object that can never be in place, in fact, it needs to be at 200 kph. Sounds much less safe.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    It works great. This story isn’t notable for the recovery method. It is notable because of what is being recovered (a reusable rocket booster).
    - refulgentis 5y ago
      No, it doesn't. Lol.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  From wikipedia, it can land on as low as 120km/h. (That thing can be really slow, it's impressive.) Still, I expect an empty second stage rocket to weight little enough that one can get by with a smaller plane, that can fly slowly due to its little weight, instead of sheer engineering feat.
mulmen 5y ago
The first mid-air recovery of CORONA spy satellite film canisters by a C-119 Flying Boxcar fixed-wing aircraft was performed in 1960. This is a well understood capability. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoverer_14 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoverer_14
- mkl 5y ago
  And even earlier for (much larger) jet-powered target drones: 1955.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  There is absolutely NO comparison, in terms of mass, momentum and similar related forces, between a "film canister" and the first stage of a rocket. But common sense is quite uncommon nowadays.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    > LOL. Yeah sure, > But common sense is quite uncommon nowadays. I see on your page you say "I take pride on behaving righteously and honestly". Don't forget also: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tapland 5y ago
Yes. It's not a new thing. The Wikipedia article even has pictures for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_retrieval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_retrieval https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/

Rebelgecko 5y ago

C-130s (like the planes that were used for retrieving objects dropped from satellites) are fine flying at 200kph, no need to max out their speed.

refulgentis 5y ago
To their point, I'm not sure how well a carefully controlled slow descent and catch interplays with an object that can never be in place, in fact, it needs to be at 200 kph. Sounds much less safe.
- mulmen 5y ago
  It works great. This story isn’t notable for the recovery method. It is notable because of what is being recovered (a reusable rocket booster).
  - refulgentis 5y ago
    No, it doesn't. Lol.
marcosdumay 5y ago
From wikipedia, it can land on as low as 120km/h. (That thing can be really slow, it's impressive.) Still, I expect an empty second stage rocket to weight little enough that one can get by with a smaller plane, that can fly slowly due to its little weight, instead of sheer engineering feat.

mulmen 5y ago

The first mid-air recovery of CORONA spy satellite film canisters by a C-119 Flying Boxcar fixed-wing aircraft was performed in 1960. This is a well understood capability. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoverer_14 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoverer_14

mkl 5y ago
And even earlier for (much larger) jet-powered target drones: 1955.
moralestapia 5y ago
There is absolutely NO comparison, in terms of mass, momentum and similar related forces, between a "film canister" and the first stage of a rocket. But common sense is quite uncommon nowadays.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  > LOL. Yeah sure, > But common sense is quite uncommon nowadays. I see on your page you say "I take pride on behaving righteously and honestly". Don't forget also: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tapland 5y ago

Yes. It's not a new thing. The Wikipedia article even has pictures for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_retrieval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_retrieval https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/