Can someone explain what the rocket was trying to do? Was it trying to correct itself to land vertically thrusters-first? I also don't understand how it got in that particular trajectory either from this vine.
SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
101–110 of 279 posts
Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
#102Great video. Exploding rockets and failed attempts give plenty to talk about and get excited about. But Spacex have already launched a rocket and landed it in a similar way as they are doing here. Ok, so they are flying it somewhere else, GPS'ing, and landing it somewhere else. I enjoyed the video but ... just seems like a small progression in the grand scheme of things. Cool, but no cigar. This time.
It looks like a small progression, but it failed. Rocket science is hard! Remember, no one has ever done this before.
Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
#103Maybe OP, but if Elon Musk makes actual technical contributions to his companies, I'd be super impressed.
Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was probably the engine gimbaling and thrusting up to attempt to correct but was just unable to due to the fins not being around the whole descent.
Not only were the fins unable to move, the position they were stuck in was a very unhelpful position.
Yes, and could speculate that the main engine fired 'wrongly' because the control code didn't take into account that the fins were locked.
Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
#105The amount of nay sayers in this thread is too damn high.
Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
#106Can someone explain what the rocket was trying to do? Was it trying to correct itself to land vertically thrusters-first? I also don't understand how it got in that particular trajectory either from this vine.
Because the fins were locked, they might have thrown off the control code.
Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
#107Can someone explain what the rocket was trying to do? Was it trying to correct itself to land vertically thrusters-first? I also don't understand how it got in that particular trajectory either from this vine.
It ran out of hydraulic fluid and could not control itself properly.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/553963793056030721
Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
You joke but a future were corporations control ICBMs to their advantage is a realistic worry.
I'm trying, but not succeeding, to imagine a non-fiction situation where a corporation has any business advantage in owning and/or controlling an ICBM. Can you expand on your comment? What would a corporation do with this, other than to perhaps implement same day delivery of packages around the globe?
Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
#109Sorry for sounding like such a fanboy, but during my 40 years on this earth, I have never been more impressed with a human being. The guy is pushing the envelope on perhaps the most difficult engineering/technological endeavor ever attempted by a private company - and he's making it look cool and futuristic. As if that wasn't enough, he's doing this in two different industries simultaneously. I'm not saying he can do…
What about the privatization of space technology from a political standpoint? You see nothing problematically evil there?
From a political standpoint, privatization of space is probably for the best. Some people are automatically fearful of anything a private company does as if government entities were beyond reproach. There's probably nothing evil that Musk could do in space that a government couldn't do. Privatization in this case should have the effect of diffusing access to space which I should think was an overwhelmingly good thing. Unless you expect him to pull a Moonraker, I don't really see the problem.
Also consider, a lot of what happens in space is already accomplished through private companies. Lockheed and Boeing already launch most US military satellites. SpaceX really is just another launch company. They provide competition for government monopolies. That's probably a good thing.
Re: SpaceX: “Close, but no cigar. This time”
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only were the fins unable to move, the position they were stuck in was a very unhelpful position.
Yes, and could speculate that the main engine fired 'wrongly' because the control code didn't take into account that the fins were locked.
Hm, if I was the guy designing the control loop on that thing (not gonna happen in real world, but bear with me), I would definitely take into account the fins position - the real position, not the one I want them to be in.
Not that it would have helped anyway in this case.