Watching the video, when the rocket lifted-off, it stood on a couple small risers. When it landed, the risers were gone. Did someone run out there and grab them?
Despite the other comments, the landing spot is clearly the same as where it took off. Take a screenshot at 0:09 and one at 0:48 and you can see that it's most certainly the same pad. The camera has moved slightly to the left on the landing, that's all.
Video three and four clearly show it lands a little bit away from the risers. Same pad, but only 1/2 comments--not mine--suggested it was a different pad.
This is Taiki site, so either within the circular pad at (42.500394123580, 143.43589082745), or maybe from the end of 08R to neighboring Interstellar Tech pad area?
I can't tell whether you're agreeing or disagreeing, or something else. You said exactly what I said in response to the comment where I said it. Can you clarify?
I don't think they moved or were taken. It appeared that the rocket took off from the corner of the pad and landed in the center, with one camera angle for the corner launch and one camera angle for the central landing. So, I assume the risers are still exactly where they were, they're just outside of the camera frame.
If you look at the landing shot, you can see that towards the corner are some markings for previous risers which were used for previous launches (or markings for future risers for future launches). The risers it launched from this time are just in a different corner.
Taking another look, I see four little rectangles that seem to match the risers close to the camera at the landing, but far from the rocket. I think they may have actually retracted. That would be neat.
It makes more sense than someone going out and grabbing them during the short flight. Those things would need to be sturdy and attached to not melt or blow away during the launch, and they would be hot.
edit: If you open up the first image on the submission and look to the left of the crane, you can see what look like the risers. They do seem to come out of the ground. You can see the same trees as the landing shot.
edit: I didn't realize the page had more videos under the Download button. I was wrong about the rectangles, but you can definitely see it's landing in a different spot in the onboard video (#3). You can still see the risers when it lands.
One of the most mind bending facts I tell people, even sailors, is that sailboats are not limited to sailing at the true windspeed. Sails are wings, not bags. In fact, a boat's top speed is directly dictated by its ability to point into the wind (assuming, for example, the boat is not physically limited by it's displacement hull speed, as in the case of hydrofoils). The consequences of this simple truth are manifest.
First, consider the edge case where the sail is acting as a bag when you're sailing downwind. As the boatspeed approaches the true windspeed, the apparent windspeed falls to 0 and the sail will luff. In this specific case, the boat can not go faster than the wind.
Now consider the boat cutting across the wind at a 90 angle. When the boat starts moving, the wind comes 90 degrees off the bow. As the boat increases speed, the apparent wind shifts closer to the bow. Apparent wind is just vector addition of true wind and boat wind. If the boat achieves the same speed as the true wind, then the apparent wind is sqrt(2) ~ 1.4x faster than the true wind. More wind means more power, so with that additional wind, it can go faster. Continuing the example, as the apparent wind increases, it appears closer and closer to the bow. Eventually the sail will stall and produce less lift. This is the point where the boat will go no faster.
The slowest point of sail is directly downwind. In a race, it is often much faster to gybe back and forth rather than ever go directly downwind. When a boat goes directly downwind, their boat speed cancels out the true wind. In the strangest case, if a high performance boat going faster than the speed of wind (say, on a broadreach) goes directly downwind, the apparent wind will appear to be coming head on. They've effectively gone 'into irons', yet they're facing 180 degrees off true wind.
If you ever get the chance, you should see the SailGP boats race. Their sails are almost always hauled fully in, even downwind. The other thing is that they gybe downwind because to go directly downwind would be to stall. In effect, these boats can achieve multiple times the true wind speed, but so long as they aren't pointed directly into, nor directly away from the wind.
Into the irons/in irons being a dead sailing area, where boat is head on into the wind (wind's eye). A lot of people get surprised that you can sail upwind as well.
> What if, for example, tariffs incentivize technology development that allows hydroponic wine - making previously unviable land suddenly productive?
This is a variant of the Import Substitution idea. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a great track record. Instead of investment in innovation, sheltered industries tend to become less competitive and increasingly reliant on the shelter granted to them. Indeed, even if innovation occurs, it often becomes very hard to undo the sheltering once it’s no longer needed.
Far better to allow countries with comparative advantage in growing grapes to use their land to make wine compared to investing in hydroponics. The irony of that very example is the vertical farming sector has recently learned this very lesson and is undergoing a market realignment after hopes of improved productivity have been found to be less than expected.
Vancouver, IMO, is a far better developed city than Seattle. Vastly better transit, denser, more walkable neighbourhoods, and just overall very thoughtfully developed.
It’s just an enormous shame it’s become grossly unaffordable— on an income adjusted basis, it’s more expensive than the Bay Area. That, and the weather, although the summers are perfect IMO.
8km really isn’t too bad. Millions of people do the 8 week couch2 5k program, once you’re at 5km/half hour, scaling to 8km is easy, like a couple more weeks tops.
Also, running (rather, jogging) isn’t terrible aerobically taxing, if you can’t keep up a convo, you’re running too hard.
Once you’re used to running, it’s an insanely efficient way to create a calorie deficit. Not the most glamorous exercise, but cheap, easy, requires no significant equipment and most all, incredibly time efficient.
> I didn't want to buy a checkbook, stamps, and envelopes just for this one bill.
How much is a checkbook? My bank (FRB, RIP :( ) gave me, for free, like 8 years ago, an enormous box of checks that I have hardly made a dent in.
Domestic postage is like $0.69, envelopes are, what, couple bucks for a box of 50? Amortized over a couple years, you aren’t looking at more than a dollar or two/month.
Either send a bunch of post dated checks at once or set a calendar reminder to send a new one each month. Either way, I don’t really see a market here
reply