Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
Colonel Panic wrote:Looking forward to watching it.

One quick question; on the recent rocket launch to Mars I noticed in the foreground a large tank with the words "OXYGEN - NON FLAMMABLE LIQUID" on it. That seems an oxymoron to me. How can that be?

I would guess it is because you can't burn oxygen?

edited to show a link,oxygen%20will%20feed%20the%20flames.
Probably something to do with being me being fifty years older ( and there being so much greater automation in the flight profile now), but it seemed to me that the NASA TV coverage was a fraction the quality of the Apollo missions.

This evening seemed to comprise long periods of watching of c. thirty people monitoring PC screens in an office, accompanied by a 2 person voiceover with very little comms or on-board camera relay - eventually giving way to grainy footage of the final descent and splashdown.

Space X put up a superb achievement with this mission but their tv audience engagement opportunity was a far cry from the 1960-70s NASA heyday.
malcolmfrost wrote:I agree but then it was Cold War politics, now it’s business! SpaceX and Elon don’t need public engagement.

They need engagement with their customers, potential customers and their customers' customers.
NASA in particular need engagement with the American public to help keep their funding. If I was running PR for NASA I'd be expecting to be fired. Or I'd be very pi55ed off with SpaceX or whoever organised the coverage. One way or another that was a gift of a publicity opportunity totally wasted.
Miscellaneous liked this
Bill McCarthy wrote:Was one of the crew who pulled the BRS a Cirrus owner !

Ah well funny you should say that. I had the same thought.
One of the reasons that in the 1960s the Americans chose to recover the space capsules by splashing into the sea was that they feared that an uncontrolled, ballistic descent which was completed by parachute could end up pretty much anywhere and even in the relatively thinly populated USA, the risk of killing people on the ground was too high. The Russians had an even more thinly populated Siberia, and perhaps different priorities so they went for landing on Terra Firma.