cool
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
791–800 of 926 posts
Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
#792Earlier quoted context omitted.
The damage to the ASDS might be more of a problem. Depending on how badly it was damaged, it might not be available to catch other cores that could have landed otherwise
It look cool to have them land on their own, but wouldn't it be much cheaper to use parachutes and drop them in the ocean !? Either way they are going to take them apart down to each bolt and then reassemble again to make sure there are no faults. You don't simply fill it up and relaunch.
SpaceX goal with the Falcon 9 is to be able to land, simply check the core (the engine gets more complicated checkups), and to have it back on the launchpad within of a few days or weeks.
Arianespace (a major european launch company, known for the Ariane 5) has developed their own new engine concept for reusability, which is designed to be restarted unlimited times. Once Prometheus flies, they’ll not only have a reusable rocket comparable to the Falcon 9, but one that can fly, land, be refueled without checkup, and immediately fly again.
SpaceX also aims for that in the long run, but not in the Falcon 9 series itself.
Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
#793"That core booster approached the platform as planned, but it unfortunately hit the water going 300 MPH and was lost, because some of its return engines failed to light" https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/06/spacex-landed-two-of-its-t...
I'm kind of glad they had something fail. That means maybe they learned something new to improve the next shot.
The rocket ran out of engine igniter fluid. It had enough to light the centre engine, but not the two side engines.
That seems to imply they were trying to do a 3-engine landing, which they tested recently in the 'failed to expend the rocket' incident. This might explain why they miscalculated the igniter requirement since they don't have much experience with 3-engine landings.
Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
#794"Third burn successful. Exceeded Mars orbit and kept going to the Asteroid Belt." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/961083704230674438
Damnit Elon!
But I guess that's one way of saying he had ∆v to spare...
Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
#795Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep - Titanium is notoriously difficult to work with.
So difficult that the SR-71 leaked fuel before starts and had to be re-fueled right after take-off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Fuel
The Blackbirds leaked because they had engineered gaps to allow for heat expansion.
Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
#796Earlier quoted context omitted.
Space rockets are 1960s technology, so I think we entered that era 50 years ago.
The goal back then was to make things possible. Right now, especially with SpaceX shaking the competition up a bit, the process is making things cheaper, which enables space access for uses that have been cost-prohibitive in the past. However, I guess cubesats and tiny launchers are just as much a part of that development as SpaceX' work on reusability. And the landing shots are just damn cool.
Ok, so Musk is basically doing the job of the Chinese companies of the past: producing cheaper copy of other people's inventions.
And yet, some call him "visionary" or "genius" :)
Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
#797It seems SpaceX has even perfected its tests to the point that their simulations are doing an amazing job at predicting real life situations. Great job on spaceX. Today History was made, and the new generation of children is inspired to choose space-focused careers
Even the modeled exhaust in the rendering looked almost identical to reality. Top minds.
Yes, there were two or three moments during the livestream when my mind literally said "nah, they spliced in that promo video from few days ago; this can't be real".
Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
#798Earlier quoted context omitted.
The centre core is significantly strengthened to cope with the additional load from the side boosters. It also has slightly different aerodynamic properties because of the fixed struts that hold the boosters in place. Either of these could have affected the landing. They'll collect data and fix it.
It ran out of fuel. There was enough to relight the centre engine but not the 3 outer engines required to complete the landing.
It didn't actually run out of fuel. It didn't have enough of the hypergolic mix used to ignite the engines (triethylaluminium & triethylborane that causes the green flash sometimes seen at ignition) and only one of the three engines needed for the landing burn re-lit.
Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
#799It's so Kerbal Space Program. First Space-X built the Falcon 1, with one Merlin engine. Then the Falcon 9, with 9 Merlin engines in a circle with one in the center. Then the Falcon Heavy, with three Falcon 9 boosters side by side. Next maybe a bigger Falcon Heavy, with five Falcon 9 boosters in an X pattern.
Yup. Sad they abandoned asparagus staging (AKA. fuel crossfeed), though. That would be Full Kerbal.
Re: SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches
#800Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh ok, cool. I guess I thought it was more autonomous than that by the name. Watching the other boosters land was really impressive.
I think it's just fuel saving for the ship rather than lack of autonomy
More time than fuel I think. The droneship has precision-manoeuvring thrusters, not engines that would let it move at any significant speed.