14 replies on “Commercial Crew Partner Videos Released”

  1. Speaking as someone who edits video, and who tests the hard/software, those are some of the crappiest compositions I’ve seen in a long time; outdated segments, overbearing audio, poorly composed, etc. etc. Junior High level stuff. 

      1. So Jeff,
        You think he is wrong, that theses videos are actually well done?or…
        You think only painters can critique paintings? 

        I’m not sure which answer would be the most troubling.

      2. Jeff, these works are awful. AWFUL! You don’t need to be an expert to see this. I can judge a botched plumbing job without being a plumber.

        Lots of fast cuts and post-zooms can’t cover up a lack of talent at all levels. Pity they’ve taken something as exciting as rocket launches and turned it into the out-takes from a Michael Bay film.

        And since you feel it necessary for us to ‘prove’ our expertise – I’ve worked in the field for 20 years, with 5 as a university professor and 15 in industry.

        Judge my expertise by looking at my work here: –

        http://www.paulkirwan.com.au

        Yuck, yuck, yuck. Frankly, if I had pointed my students at a reel of stock footage and asked them to produce a 30-second cut, I would have failed them for producing something this bad. And yes, I do feel qualified to make this statement.

        Paul Kirwan aka AstroDork.

  2. Anyone ever try and watch more than one or two of those NASA “slugs” that are used as filler on NASA TV? Now that’s bad video. NASA TV needs help across the board. Also, why are many of its sit down interviews conducted with headsets rather than lavalier mics? I get the idea that it’s about a mission control “look and feel”, but c’mon. 

    One doesn’t have to make vids to know these posted here were put together too quickly. For example, I’m not sure that Space X intends to use Canada Arm II and berthing on its manned missions, etc.

    Music is over the top, etc.

    At a run time of only ~1:00 each -seems like some PR thing for a presentation to some busy decision maker(s).

  3. These videos were made in what I think of as “MTV Video Mode” — if you change the scenes fast enough, the content and its quality don’t really matter because nobody sees anything long enough to determine any detail.  Plus, you distract the viewer’s attention by putting things out of order, which causes him/her to spend time and thought thinking, hey, that’s out of order! instead of watching the video.  I think they could have done so much better for the time and money spent, but maybe this was a low priority job handed off to someone with no relevant experience.  Another wasted opportunity, unfortunately, because, I think, simple things like short videos can be the “hooks” that catch the outsiders and perhaps make them a little more interested in NASA and space.

    Steve

  4. Folks:

    Bring ’em on!

    What? Only five? Come on, America, you can do better than that!

    But… spacecraft are the easy part of this game. Except for re-entry, space is a pretty benign environment. Thrust levels are low, thermal conditions are well understood and navigation is more akin to the pace of a sail boat, not a high performance jet (or car, for that matter). Pressure vessels are being made of carbon, aluminum and composites. Lots of innovation going on in that department. No worries. Hope they all make it to orbit.

    New launch vehicles, though, have not been developed at the same pace. The only two indigenous launch vehicles with any chance of being human rated are the Delta IV and the Falcon 9. All the others have foreign built hardware or solid rocket motors.

    I think that with the recent test of the Spacex Merlin 1d, it’s pretty safe to say that America makes the best kerolox rocket motors on the planet now. The RS-68 just got an upgrade recently too (I’ve always liked that motor and based many of my launcher designs on them). Couldn’t the venerable Centaur stage become a player in crew launch outside of just the Atlas V? How about a dual RL-10 Centaur on a Delta Heavy or Falcon 9/Heavy? If spacecraft makers are considering multiple launchers for their vehicles, like Boeing is, why not multiple choices for upper stages for launch vehicles too. A dual Centaur on a Falcon Heavy would rock!

    Seems like we’re building the cars, but not the locomotives to our orbital railway line here.

    tinker

    1.  

      … Couldn’t the venerable Centaur stage become a player in crew launch
      outside of just the Atlas V? How about a dual RL-10 Centaur on a Delta
      Heavy or Falcon 9/Heavy? If spacecraft makers are considering multiple
      launchers for their vehicles, like Boeing is, why not multiple choices
      for upper stages for launch vehicles too. A dual Centaur on a Falcon
      Heavy would rock!

      Launch vehicles are been done.  We need to get on with the next stage.  The inspace stage.  Stages to get the spacecraft from LEO to lunar orbit, Mars orbit or the proposed EML spacestation.

      1.  Andrew:

        I’m with you on that. Spacecraft that never ‘hit air’ and stay in space are even easier then ones with a re-entry system. Friction weld a Dragon capsule to its trunk, put a bulkhead at the other end and let a hatch in the bottom of the capsule. A nice two compartment spacecraft for on-orbit transfer and stuff.

        tinker

        1.  Tinker:

          That is an interesting idea.  A manned vehicle.

          I was expecting someone to make a space tug by attaching a docking port to the front of a Centaur.

          1. Andrew:

            Until we master H2/LOX storage in space, the Centaur is useless as anything but an Earth escape stage or such. Until then, we’ll have to go with hypergolics and hot or cold gas thrusters.

            Useless unless you re-purpose that Centaur stage. Take my ‘Welded Dragon’ above and friction weld it to a 12 foot diameter Centaur stage. Now put bulkheads between the Dragon’s pressurized trunk and the centaur stage and another between the Centaur’s two tanks. They can be replaced with hatches during on orbit outfitting. Oh, put bulkheads on the inside of the Centaur’s tanks to cover the many windows we’ll let into it too.

            Launch that combo on top of a Falcon Heavy with the second Falcon stage replaced with this Dragon/Centaur stack. What you get on orbit is a four compartment spacecraft over fifty feet long once the Centaur’s tanks are purged and outfitted. Put a second Dragon service section with Draco around the RL-10 at the rear and you’d have Space Shuttle like maneuvering control as well.

            Command and control in the Dragon capsule. Airlock, life support and plumbing in the pressurized trunk. Living quarters and lab in the Centaur tanks.

            You could even use a ‘stock’ Dragon (not welded to the trunk) and simply separate, flip and then dock with a hatch on the trunk. That way you still have a ‘life boat’ capable of re-entry and it could still be launched crewed too!

            This idea isn’t new either. They used to call it the ‘wet lab’ methodology. NASA even considered it for Skylab way back when.

            The ‘wet lab’ Dragon I describe above could be done with a standard Falcon second stage but the tanks would be considerably smaller.

            Just tinkerin’;

            tinker

          2.  For trips to lunar orbit and EML spacestations Dragon and Orion have sufficient room.

            If you are going to Mars adding things like bulkheads and windows is way beyond our inspace modifications abilities.  They would have to be performed on Earth, which means the room cannot be used a a cryogenic fuel tank.  Buy a room designed for occupation with life support, cupboards and lighting such as a Bigelow module.

            We still need an inspace stage able to push the craft from LEO to EML.

  5. I have to agree with Doc Mordrid and Steve and others.  Not only were they poorly produced, they were not particularly informative, they didn’t say much about the projects, and bringing them in at one minute each (including the intro graphic and the NASA meatball tag) did little to educate anyone.  I would have liked to have seen at least five minutes worth of the most current video or animations illustrating the strengths of each system.  In particular, the Dream Chaser construction video was pretty compelling but there just wasn’t that much included.

  6. I’m pretty sure NASA had to travel back to 1985 to get such poor-quality graphics for the intros to these videos.

    Aside from the terribly bad graphics at the start and end, the rest seems to be old video produced by the companies involved, but chopped up with quick out-of-order cuts for no apparent reason other than to make things harder to follow.

    The SpaceX video, for example, uses some really old video clips from when SpaceX still planned to use a tower LAS instead of the integrated Super Dracos.

    Is the point of these videos to enhance support for commercial space by showing NASA itself is so incompetent they can’t even produce a decent video clip?  If so, well done — I’m more convinced than ever that NASA can botch even the simplest of tasks.

Comments are closed.