Is like a model of lunar eagle moon landing but is more importante that to be people human control eagle that to be controled by computer because people can take decisions for life and computer he must be obdiciente no take decision life never for all of every time computer so can used with slave server no more that these and Tankyou very mutch for every team airbone for vídeo.
Manuel Bastos Same thing with the water barriers here in the Netherlands, these barriers are 100% computer automated with weather forcasts etc. taken into calculation. Why? Becouse when a manager of these barriers sees that his house might be in trouble he can shut down the whole port of Rotterdam costing millions a day. Even tho there shouldnt be any danger. Great to see these things being made! Good Game JPL.
Long live the Xombie! First time I saw it years ago at FAR I thought it was going to crash since it came down so quickly but slowed down to a gentle landing. What a great job for the Masten team. I wonder how many flights/time the Xombie has.
All this was done via machinery? The automanous landing and recalculation? That is incredible! It was pretty cool to see just how far the engine was allowed to 'gimble'.
That was brilliant. Maybe you should aim for an autonomous moon landing, where there is no human input between telling the rocket to launch and the rover reporting it's on the moon and waiting for instructions.
So my big question is this: Since G-FOLD clearly picked an existing VTOL pad to land on, was the system programmed with a preselected menu of alternate landing sites, or did it use some sort of sensor system to select one entirely autonomously? I mean, it's a hell of an achievement already, and I'm quite impressed--I'm just curious if it's able to select alternate landing sites based on what it "sees" using various sensors, or if it's constrained to preplanned sites. I understand that the latter is a much simpler task, and a useful step towards being able to select a new site fully autonomously; I just feel that the sensor-based site selection algorithm would be critical in a "real world" application of the technology, given the limitations of orbital imaging and radar mapping that saw Neil Armstrong have to divert over a mile from his target landing site due to a boulder field that didn't show up on any of the imaging that the landing site was selected with. Since such limits will always remain--the resolution of more modern mapping systems may be higher, but there's always a limit--I suspect that the only way to truly select a safe "unprepared" landing site (i.e., not a cleared landing pad at an established base) would be from the lander itself during the late phases of flight. Great work, though--even if it's "only" selecting from a preprogrammed menu of alternates, it's amazing how well you guys got it to work! Have a jar of peanuts on me. ;D
1. How many CPUs R onboard the Xombie? What R they? 2. Can G-Fold be also used for unmanned gliders & planes returning from space? Thanks. Great Demonstration!
Does the system have the ability to designate it's own new landing site in the event of an emergency or does it rely strictly on input from human operators? Great job. Looking forward to seeing more on this project.
Awesome! Brilliant landing. This is the sort of stuff I want to do (assuming I ever get out of college). What sort of majors go into the rocketry for this? Physics? Engineering?
Does this mean that EVERY NASA Unmanned Probe landing on Earth and Celestial bodies did not have a program on board it like G-Fold and it was a land or Die Scenario?
Does G-Fold KNOW the second landing site is clear of Humans and living animals? Were there a number of alternative landing sites pre-set to choose from? If G-Fold cannot determine a suitable alternate landing site with a successful landing does it destroy itself then or what? Proceed with original landing?
It surprises me that this is something new! Wouldn't many of the unmanned soft landing missions to other planets have had something like this? Like the recent Chinese mission to the moon??
Don't know about the Chinese mission, but for landers like Curiosity: no. They pick a large, safe area so even if there are deviations they still touch down at a safe location. One of the big innovations with Curiosity was active steering during descend to compensate deviations from the calculated trajectory. This allowed them to reduce the size of the landing ellipse which made it possible to pick more interesting landing sites. There definitely has been automated steering, but actively making decisions is another level of complexity.
***** If you're just dropping stuff into an ocean or landing on a runway, then there is almost no importance in looking for an alternative landing site, because there are none. With the Buck Rogers style landings you can probably find a landing site pretty easy, as long as it is away from a city. so.. it's a more recent problem to have to solve.. I would think.
***** People have been driving cars (on earth) for even much longer than that, and we're only now getting around to figuring out how to teach computer how to do that...
***** It took us 40 years to automate one of the most impressive feats of piloting by one of the best pilots that has ever walked on this planet. Neil was an amazing test pilot. Extremely intelligent, extremely skilled and an excellent decision maker. It is no coincidence that he was the one to first land on the moon. Could we have done it earlier if we wanted to? Absolutely. Just keep in mind that the amount of computing power required to do this kind of situational analysis is very high. The black bird pretty much flew itself but it was packed with computers. Having a lander with enough processing power on board to do this kind of thing would have been very costly in the past. Keep in mind that Curiosity, a pinnacle of human engineering, has less processing than your average sub 200$ smartphone these days. We're not talking about a mainframe making these calculations, we're talking about smartphone-levels of processing power which also has to keep the craft level, analyze telemetry, control the thrusters while crunching the numbers for the new landing site. In space everything is much much harder. The processing power is so low because how space affects chips. These things need to get tested for all kinds of scenarios, from freezing colds to burning heats, radiation, etc... Not to mention the software involved and how absolutely flawless it needs to be when you're landing a multi-billion dollar spacecraft. It takes time...
I sure hope that that they only use imperial measurements for the purpose of the audience. I would hate to think that a high tech company would not have been metricized by now.
do you realize a lot of the parts subcontracted are built in the united states where they do use imperial system? so it's not a matter of what you want to use because inevitably you will run into both systems here in the u.s. so you have to be just as comfortable in imperial, metric, guassian, SI, heaviside-lorentz, curvilinear, cartesian and many other. understanding the relations between units, coordinates, precision and everything else is more important than a single arbitrary system and to cry for everyone to conform to you is what is absurd childish and ignorant of the real situation. units often make use of various symmetries in different situations so a metric system's usefulness may diminish in certain situations favoring some other system, its all relative to the work at hand.
They build much better rockets these days. Back in the old days videos like this would always be highlighted with several explosive failures. Now all they do is succeed and not blow up. It's almost disappointing.
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
I can't believe people still don't believe NASA deserves more funding. I love you guys keep up the work!
Better than Elon's HyperPoop.
@@77Avadon77 You have never seen the Falcon 9 or Starship land huh.....
@@danield2785 that has nothing to do with what I said
#space #technology *****
Rock on, Rocketeers! See Masten Space Systems and JPL demonstrate next-gen landing technology.
ohhh... O.O!!!! good
Extraordinary! How much should I pay to work there? :)
Congratulations to the team!
Was Ben Brockert there? Will he be posting some aditionnal footage of it?
Far better use of the term "next-gen" than what is applied to video game consoles, in my opinion.
I thought this blew up last year? Or was that Xero...
Really nice application of computer calculation and thrust vectoring.
Very cool!
This should definitely make landings much safer when the original flight plan doesn't go to expectation.
Great work!
Impressive... Congrats, folks.
Is like a model of lunar eagle moon landing but is more importante that to be people human control eagle that to be controled by computer because people can take decisions for life and computer he must be obdiciente no take decision life never for all of every time computer so can used with slave server no more that these and Tankyou very mutch for every team airbone for vídeo.
Manuel Bastos
Same thing with the water barriers here in the Netherlands, these barriers are 100% computer automated with weather forcasts etc. taken into calculation.
Why?
Becouse when a manager of these barriers sees that his house might be in trouble he can shut down the whole port of Rotterdam costing millions a day. Even tho there shouldnt be any danger.
Great to see these things being made! Good Game JPL.
So fucking beautiful! That landing, the speed, we are finally getting there my friends.
Long live the Xombie! First time I saw it years ago at FAR I thought it was going to crash since it came down so quickly but slowed down to a gentle landing. What a great job for the Masten team. I wonder how many flights/time the Xombie has.
Those go-pro cameras took some amazing footage
Thanks for the ride I felt like I was in the captain's seat I'll take a ticket
That's an amazing idea! I'm surprised it hasn't been tried out until now!
Fantastic, JPL done it again.
All this was done via machinery? The automanous landing and recalculation? That is incredible! It was pretty cool to see just how far the engine was allowed to 'gimble'.
Which KSP mod is this? Looks rad.
They are just using mechjeb on the rocket.
@@CachorroPodre noobs
using kOS and K-Fold script. Or kRPC linked to Python with G-Fold script.
github.com/oyster-catcher/BoosterGuidance
Well done Jack Parsons Laboratory!
Incredible! Congratulations guys!
that's a good job right there. you guys made that look easy, well done.
Can anyone link a paper on this algorithm, it looks interesting. Thanks.
www.researchgate.net/publication/258676350_G-FOLD_A_Real-Time_Implementable_Fuel_Optimal_Large_Divert_Guidance_Algorithm_for_Planetary_Pinpoint_Landing
@@kyleskompinski legend
@@kyleskompinski Thanks Man!! Really appreciate it
thats awesome!
NASA should have paid attention to this experiment
Very well done guys. Makes my laser research and development project look like child's play.
That was brilliant.
Maybe you should aim for an autonomous moon landing, where there is no human input between telling the rocket to launch and the rover reporting it's on the moon and waiting for instructions.
9 inches out. Pah
Seriously, what a monumental job.
So my big question is this: Since G-FOLD clearly picked an existing VTOL pad to land on, was the system programmed with a preselected menu of alternate landing sites, or did it use some sort of sensor system to select one entirely autonomously?
I mean, it's a hell of an achievement already, and I'm quite impressed--I'm just curious if it's able to select alternate landing sites based on what it "sees" using various sensors, or if it's constrained to preplanned sites. I understand that the latter is a much simpler task, and a useful step towards being able to select a new site fully autonomously; I just feel that the sensor-based site selection algorithm would be critical in a "real world" application of the technology, given the limitations of orbital imaging and radar mapping that saw Neil Armstrong have to divert over a mile from his target landing site due to a boulder field that didn't show up on any of the imaging that the landing site was selected with. Since such limits will always remain--the resolution of more modern mapping systems may be higher, but there's always a limit--I suspect that the only way to truly select a safe "unprepared" landing site (i.e., not a cleared landing pad at an established base) would be from the lander itself during the late phases of flight.
Great work, though--even if it's "only" selecting from a preprogrammed menu of alternates, it's amazing how well you guys got it to work! Have a jar of peanuts on me. ;D
For humanity and science!
Keep it up, boys!
Shock diamonds are a girl's best friend. See them first at 2:03.
Incredibly cool. Rockets do Rock
Love those nozzle aiming servos, in that tight control loop. Twitch twitch.
1. How many CPUs R onboard the Xombie? What R they?
2. Can G-Fold be also used for unmanned gliders & planes returning from space?
Thanks. Great Demonstration!
That is so amazing!to be able to direct it like that congratulations!!!!
Cool es un jet pack?
El nuevo diseño q piensan mandar a marte!
Cool
Good job guys! Very impressive!
This is awesome!
Does the system have the ability to designate it's own new landing site in the event of an emergency or does it rely strictly on input from human operators? Great job. Looking forward to seeing more on this project.
It relies on external input. The Xombie test vehicle doesn't have the sensors to find new ones on its own.
Feet? Really? Still?
this america we keep our culture
Go Masten!
Impressive work!
So is the algorithm partially based upon a PID system? Also does it take outside factors like wind into account when planning its descent trajectory?
Very cool! It's like a miniature version of SpaceX's grasshopper.
@AloshaScience
This is incredible
How does that get a thumbs down? That's amazing
I was just reading about Elmer Sperry and his work on feedback in technology. What he could do with todays tech.
Awesome! Great job!
This was totally awesome
Nice Job!
Awesome! Brilliant landing. This is the sort of stuff I want to do (assuming I ever get out of college). What sort of majors go into the rocketry for this? Physics? Engineering?
Aerospace
Yay for JPL
Does this mean that EVERY NASA Unmanned Probe landing on Earth and Celestial bodies did not have a program on board it like G-Fold and it was a land or Die Scenario?
Pretty much. That's one of the reasons why most Mars probes have relied on parachutes and airbags for landing.
one word... Awesome
Great work!!
why dont put on practice before SpaceX?
Do Russian Capsules already have similar to G-Fold installed, or are they piloted right to the ground by Humans or is it again a land or die scenario?
Neither. The Soyuz uses parachutes and last minute braking thrusters. It has no divert capability at that stage.
Does G-Fold KNOW the second landing site is clear of Humans and living animals? Were there a number of alternative landing sites pre-set to choose from? If G-Fold cannot determine a suitable alternate landing site with a successful landing does it destroy itself then or what? Proceed with original landing?
G-Fold is just the algorithm that's used to calculate how to get to the new landing spot. It has nothing to do with finding and selecting that site.
Very impressive !
That was so great.
just one jet engine... incredible...
Which arm board mcu was bting used n at what mhz?
Well done!!!!!
It surprises me that this is something new! Wouldn't many of the unmanned soft landing missions to other planets have had something like this? Like the recent Chinese mission to the moon??
Don't know about the Chinese mission, but for landers like Curiosity: no. They pick a large, safe area so even if there are deviations they still touch down at a safe location. One of the big innovations with Curiosity was active steering during descend to compensate deviations from the calculated trajectory. This allowed them to reduce the size of the landing ellipse which made it possible to pick more interesting landing sites.
There definitely has been automated steering, but actively making decisions is another level of complexity.
Niosus Well I guess the part I have the problem with is that it took 40 years to automate what Neil Armstrong did manually in 1969.
***** If you're just dropping stuff into an ocean or landing on a runway, then there is almost no importance in looking for an alternative landing site, because there are none. With the Buck Rogers style landings you can probably find a landing site pretty easy, as long as it is away from a city.
so.. it's a more recent problem to have to solve.. I would think.
***** People have been driving cars (on earth) for even much longer than that, and we're only now getting around to figuring out how to teach computer how to do that...
***** It took us 40 years to automate one of the most impressive feats of piloting by one of the best pilots that has ever walked on this planet. Neil was an amazing test pilot. Extremely intelligent, extremely skilled and an excellent decision maker. It is no coincidence that he was the one to first land on the moon.
Could we have done it earlier if we wanted to? Absolutely. Just keep in mind that the amount of computing power required to do this kind of situational analysis is very high. The black bird pretty much flew itself but it was packed with computers. Having a lander with enough processing power on board to do this kind of thing would have been very costly in the past. Keep in mind that Curiosity, a pinnacle of human engineering, has less processing than your average sub 200$ smartphone these days. We're not talking about a mainframe making these calculations, we're talking about smartphone-levels of processing power which also has to keep the craft level, analyze telemetry, control the thrusters while crunching the numbers for the new landing site.
In space everything is much much harder. The processing power is so low because how space affects chips. These things need to get tested for all kinds of scenarios, from freezing colds to burning heats, radiation, etc... Not to mention the software involved and how absolutely flawless it needs to be when you're landing a multi-billion dollar spacecraft. It takes time...
bad ass
So it's an Estes rocket?
Impressive, but what caused the diversion? Was there something purposely 'wrong' with the original landing site?
They set out to test the diversion system, so there wouldn't have been much point to it they didn't divert.
Yes exactly, I'm just wondering when it would come into action when it's not under test conditions. i.e. what triggers it
maso0n
Presumably that would come down to the the external sensors on the final spacecraft. Remember, Xombie is just a test stand
good job
Color me impressed. Wow.
what a better name than Xombie?
thats pretty awesome
That is awesome
awesome, this is freakin awesome :)
oh man that's awesome
Wow, actual context for once, ye'll get the hang of it yet
Electric linear actuators!
fricken awesome
I sure hope that that they only use imperial measurements for the purpose of the audience. I would hate to think that a high tech company would not have been metricized by now.
do you realize a lot of the parts subcontracted are built in the united states where they do use imperial system? so it's not a matter of what you want to use because inevitably you will run into both systems here in the u.s. so you have to be just as comfortable in imperial, metric, guassian, SI, heaviside-lorentz, curvilinear, cartesian and many other. understanding the relations between units, coordinates, precision and everything else is more important than a single arbitrary system and to cry for everyone to conform to you is what is absurd childish and ignorant of the real situation. units often make use of various symmetries in different situations so a metric system's usefulness may diminish in certain situations favoring some other system, its all relative to the work at hand.
amazing.
Xombie. I like that.
great!
That was cool
A cavalcioni, potrà essere un'ottimo veicolo per Marte
Awesome
Sweet!
A-mazing...
Skynet, yo.
Nice
9 inches! Come on guys, you can do better than that.
Nice....
sweet.
DA FUTURE IS HEA!!
Look like a UFO
wow !!!
better than mechjeb
I wan't to be a rocket scientist :(
رائع
What's so fantastic about this again ?
Didn't this technology exist back in the 60s when 'we' 'went' to the 'moon' ?
They build much better rockets these days. Back in the old days videos like this would always be highlighted with several explosive failures. Now all they do is succeed and not blow up. It's almost disappointing.
We can do that now because of what they did then. :)
LOL, Its Tiny! Sooo Cute!
like a boss
Some KSP shit here
Whooooo...
Nice work. Now get metric.
way koooooool
And we couldn't even make a hole or dust cloud on the moon with the lunar lander's jet blasts!? - Maybe they had some kind of anti gravity machine?
dalek 0.1