Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Blue Canary
Posts: 9311
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:38 pm
Location: [Redacted]

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Blue Canary » Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:22 am

:shock:

I wasn't expecting the double landing, I think I may have damaged my lungs gasping when I saw them in the same window
Ha! Truly unbelievable. I had to rewind it and watch it three times. It was balletic.

The crystal-clear images of the car and Starman in orbit with Bowie ( <3) playing... Looked fake or like a commercial. You had to remind yourself it was really happening.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Shyster » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:16 am

The things SpaceX has done, and the relatively short amount of time it has done them in, cannot be understated. SpaceX is completely changing the way space is done. It's going to be interesting to see what the legacy companies like ULA and Arianespace can do to respond. Both of those companies are in the process of developing new rockets (the Vulcan and the Ariane 6, respectively) that could arguably be considered obsolete on arrival. Both will be traditional "throw away everything" designs with no reusable parts. While both companies do have superb records of reliability, they aren't known for being inexpensive, and it's unlikely that either will be able to compete with SpaceX on cost even with their new vehicles that are theoretically supposed to be cheaper than their existing products. SpaceX today just demonstrated a vehicle that can carry more than twice as much mass as anything ULA or Arianespace can offer, and almost certainly at less cost.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Shyster » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:20 am

Oooh. Pretty.

Image

Viva la Ben
Posts: 11089
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:08 pm
Location: Location: Location

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Viva la Ben » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:21 am

Musk’s roadster overshot the orbit of Mars and is now heading to the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11555
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby robbiestoupe » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:18 am

Musk’s roadster overshot the orbit of Mars and is now heading to the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
Those mundane details...

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11555
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby robbiestoupe » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:20 am

The things SpaceX has done, and the relatively short amount of time it has done them in, cannot be understated. SpaceX is completely changing the way space is done. It's going to be interesting to see what the legacy companies like ULA and Arianespace can do to respond. Both of those companies are in the process of developing new rockets (the Vulcan and the Ariane 6, respectively) that could arguably be considered obsolete on arrival. Both will be traditional "throw away everything" designs with no reusable parts. While both companies do have superb records of reliability, they aren't known for being inexpensive, and it's unlikely that either will be able to compete with SpaceX on cost even with their new vehicles that are theoretically supposed to be cheaper than their existing products. SpaceX today just demonstrated a vehicle that can carry more than twice as much mass as anything ULA or Arianespace can offer, and almost certainly at less cost.
All good points. Considering SpaceX designs and manufactures over 90% of their equipment, they are moving towards having a monopoly on the commercial space market.

Next, on to the BFR. With 42 Raptor engines, their next rocket with be the mother of all rockets.

Viva la Ben
Posts: 11089
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:08 pm
Location: Location: Location

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Viva la Ben » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:19 am

If you didn’t see this...

robbiestoupe
Posts: 11555
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:27 pm

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby robbiestoupe » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:42 am

If you didn’t see this...

At the 1:07 mark, you can see a flash across the screen right before it went blurry. I wonder if that was the main core.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Shyster » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:04 pm

Of all the dozens and dozens of amateur videos out there of the boosters landing, I think this one is the best. Based on what you can see, the cameraman has to be on top of one of the buildings of the Delta IV pad at SLC-37, which I would assume means he's either a ULA employee or someone who would otherwise have access to that facility. SLC-37 is approximately two miles north of the SpaceX landing pads at the former SLC-13.

Volume warning!


tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:19 pm

OUT-STANDING

I've only ever heard sonic booms twice in my life - once was the Space Shuttle flying over Santa Monica on reentry, the other was Chuck Yeager in an F-16 at the Edwards AFB airshow - but both times the craft were far enough away that you only heard *pop*pop* not *BOOM*BOOM*.

That probably would've made me poo a little.

BigMck
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:09 pm
Location: At the mall watching Paul Blart.

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby BigMck » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:05 pm

Found this one to be very interesting:

The Incredible Sounds of the Falcon Heavy Launch (BINAURAL AUDIO IMMERSION)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoQqNyRL8Y

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:42 pm

Favorite comment on that video: Rocket scientist talking about rocket science.

Query for the space nerds: Is there an actual engineering utility to recovering the boosters the way they do? When I first heard about them basically reversing the rockets back down to the ground, I honestly did not think that was a solvable problem. Now, it's kinda everyday for them.... in fact, the two boosters in yesterday's test had previously been used on other missions and recovered. So they've got that bit fairly well sorted.... but is it strictly necessary? Is there an advantage? Is it just for show?

Also, the down-looking camera on the boosters shows the SpaceX logo on the pad. It would be neat if they could work on their guidance and control system so that the logo was upright in the frame. :wink:

Kaiser
Posts: 5389
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:35 pm
Location: In these uncertain times

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Kaiser » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:18 pm

I assume you would be thinking of parachutes as another way? Having them do a powered descent instead lets them determine the landing spot, instead of being at the whim of the atmosphere and wind, and putting it on land makes it a gajillion times easier to drive it back to the launch site.

The shuttle boosters couldnt really do this because they worked with the orbiter and orange tank to lift everything, but the F9 is the entirety of the non orbital craft, and can use its own systems to maintain balance. Couple that with Spacex kicking ass on the guidance problems involved with precision de-orbibiting, and youve got a very convenient way to recover the vehicle.

Edit- i imagine at some point SpaceX will have their own launch facility, and who knows what else they'll be able to implement to make it even better.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:46 pm

Oh, make no mistake.... if the only reason they pursued that method was because it looks frickin' badass, I'd be fine with it. But it's nice to know there's an actual engineering problem being solved.

Is this method any more or less costly than the old parachute method? Parachutes was really the only alternative that came to mind when I thought about it. I had considered some Rube Goldberg 'glider' type situation, but that doesn't seem practical or even preferable.

Viva la Ben
Posts: 11089
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:08 pm
Location: Location: Location

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Viva la Ben » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:52 pm

I read that the parachute system put the boosters under more stress in different directions as they rapidly deploy. The boosters essentially undergo force in one direction with the retrorocket.

BigMck
Posts: 1292
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:09 pm
Location: At the mall watching Paul Blart.

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby BigMck » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:52 pm

What is even more amazing is on the free fall to Earth, there is enough unspent fuel to slow them to a manageable level to actually land safely.

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Shyster » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:06 pm

There are multiple reasons. First, salt water is highly corrosive and would do bad things to the Merlin engines and other parts of the booster. Being solid rockets, the shuttle SRBs were mostly big steel tubes, and they didn't have the complicated plumbing and exotic materials involved in liquid engines like the Merlin 1D. And while the shuttle SRBs were reused, each of them had to be completely taken apart, carefully and thoroughly cleaned, and put back together. Dunking a Merlin engine in ocean water would at best require a complete disassembly for cleaning, and at worst it might outright ruin the engine. Either way, the amount of maintenance would run counter to SpaceX's goal of rapid reuse with virtually no significant refurbishment.

Second, the Falcon 9 itself partly depends upon pressurization for its structural integrity. As mentioned by Viva la Ben, If forces are applied in ways that the rocket isn't designed to support, it could buckle or rupture the booster, and a rupture would cause a loss of structural integrity. A rocket descending under a parachute could hit the water at all sorts of unexpected angles, or even get dragged along the surface. Wind would be an even bigger problem for an attempted land landing; you couldn't guarantee that the vehicle would come straight down onto its landing legs. When SpaceX was doing the early landing tests, they soft-landed multiple Falcon 9 boosters in the ocean. Even if the boosters managed to splash down softly, they often still broke up from tipping over or from the forces imparted by waves. They're designed to be strong up and down, but they are vulnerable to forces like bending or twisting.

Third, parachutes of sufficient size to show a Falcon 9 booster for a soft landing would be big and heavy. The ones on the shuttle SRBs were huge. Those would significantly impact the vehicle's payload. I believe the fuel/oxidizer needed for the boostback, entry, and landing burns might actually weigh less than a parachute system would.

SpaceX is eventually hoping to get the landing precision to the point where the landing legs are no longer necessary; the booster will land directly back on its launch mounts. At that point you just crane up another second stage, fuel up, and launch again.

Arianespace is evaluating a system called Adeline where after staging the back of the booster with the engine and electronics would detach and fly back to land horizontally on a runway using a pair of wings and maybe even some deployable propellers. So you'd need new fuel tanks for each launch, but you'd be able to reuse the engine(s), avionics, and engine mounts/gimbals—basically all of the expensive stuff. ULA has proposed a somewhat similar system where the engine structure for the upcoming Vulcan rocket would detach and deploy a big parafoil. A heavy duty helicopter with a hook system would "catch" the parafoil on the way down. Both companies have said that those systems wouldn't be ready until 2025 at the earliest.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby tifosi77 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:14 am

Third, parachutes of sufficient size to show a Falcon 9 booster for a soft landing would be big and heavy. The ones on the shuttle SRBs were huge. Those would significantly impact the vehicle's payload. I believe the fuel/oxidizer needed for the boostback, entry, and landing burns might actually weigh less than a parachute system would.
This was the essence of my initial question. I'm surprised the fuel weighs less than a chute system.
SpaceX is eventually hoping to get the landing precision to the point where the landing legs are no longer necessary; the booster will land directly back on its launch mounts. At that point you just crane up another second stage, fuel up, and launch again.
This is bonkers to me. I gather their goal is to be able get to the point of relaunching within an hour of recovery.

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19676
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:25 am

I lost track of the other stage they tried to recover - I saw the two boosters land, but what about the center stage?

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Shyster » Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:01 pm

I lost track of the other stage they tried to recover - I saw the two boosters land, but what about the center stage?
I was supposed to do a three-engine landing burn, but only the center engine lit, which meant that it slammed into the water going something like 300 mph. According to Elon:
"The center one lit but the outer two did not and that was not enough to slow the stage down. Apparently it hit the water at 300 miles per hour and took out two of the engines on the drone ship.

We've got the footage. It sounds like some pretty fun footage, so if the cameras didn't get blown up as well then we'll put that up for, ya' know, a blooper reel. We weren't going to use that center core [again] anyway."

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19676
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:20 pm

Ah, thanks. A blooper reel! I love it. :lol:

Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Shyster » Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:17 pm

If anyone hasn't seen it already, SpaceX already put out a blooper reel of prior failed landings:


Silentom
Posts: 18138
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:00 pm
Location: NTP66 lied about watching the game.
Contact:

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Silentom » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:42 am


Shyster
Posts: 13091
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby Shyster » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:35 pm

SpaceX has a launch scheduled for 6:17 a.m. PST tomorrow from SLC-4E at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The primary payload is the Paz Earth-observation satellite for the Spanish military. Paz will also be used for ship tracking and weather forecasting for commercial customers. A secondary payload is two test satellites for SpaceX's proposed "Starlink" constellation of space-based Internet satellites. Selling broadband Internet through Starlink is one of the proposed ways for SpaceX to obtain the requisite funding for its Mars ambitions.

The first-stage booster for this mission previously flew the Formosat-5 mission in August of last year. I believe it's an older Block 3 design, and like other recent Block 3 missions my understanding is that SpaceX is going to let it splash down and not be recovered. SpaceX is trying out a new model of payload fairing on this launch, and they are trying to recover the fairings. SpaceX has a ship with a huge-ass net mounted on top that's going to try to catch the fairing. Pictures here:

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-fairin ... giant-net/

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19676
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Shyster's thread of Spaaaace.

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:15 am

Standing down today due to strong upper level winds. Now targeting launch of PAZ for February 22 at 6:17 a.m. PST from Vandenberg Air Force Base.
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/966313372814749701

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Beveridge, Bing [Bot], genoscoif, Morkle, MrKennethTKangaroo and 113 guests