Personal computing discussed
Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned
Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....
I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.
Heiwashin wrote:I just wish i could see video of the rocket slamming water at 300 mph. That must be spectacular.
Captain Ned wrote:You mean "rapid unscheduled disassembly.""How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster". Plenty of splodey.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Captain Ned wrote:You mean "rapid unscheduled disassembly.""How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster". Plenty of splodey.
Heiwashin wrote:I just wish i could see video of the rocket slamming water at 300 mph. That must be spectacular.
On 6 February 2018, the central core of the first Falcon Heavy attempted landing on Of Course I Still Love You. There was not enough TEA-TEB igniter in the central core so only one of the three engines ignited during the landing burn. The core hit the water near the drone ship at over 300mph and was destroyed. The central core was not intended to be reused due to it being from an older version, so the loss was not significant.
trackerben wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7uQ8OWiheM&feature=youtu.be
Extended Cut - The Incredible Sounds of the Falcon Heavy Launch - (BINAURAL AUDIO IMMERSION)
just brew it! wrote:Question: Is a Tesla large enough to be tracked, like they track asteroids whose orbits cross that of Earth's?
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Listened to that last night. SED is a great show; Destin is fantastic.
The audio was pretty representative of being there. Obviously you have to turn your headphones up to the point of pain to full recreate the experience. Lol
Kougar wrote:Heiwashin wrote:I just wish i could see video of the rocket slamming water at 300 mph. That must be spectacular.
No kidding, but it makes me wonder... surely they signaled the rocket to avoid the barge in the first place. If it had hit any part of the ship it would have been a total loss of the barge. Which really isn't a barge at all, it's a full ship with four station keeping engines and extra launch equipment onboard. They had advanced warning that the rocket engines didn't reignite.
notfred wrote:Previous fails include running out of hydraulic fluid (it's an open loop system) and running out of propellant on an energetic launch.
notfred wrote:Running out of igniter stuff (TEA/TEB) is weird, they've done the landings plenty of times before without issues so why should it have a problem on Heavy?.
notfred wrote:Running out of igniter stuff (TEA/TEB) is weird, they've done the landings plenty of times before without issues so why should it have a problem on Heavy?
trackerben wrote:Listened to it this morning before work first with headphones then with the Advent's and Infinity's turned up; very satisfying.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7uQ8OWiheM&feature=youtu.be
Extended Cut - The Incredible Sounds of the Falcon Heavy Launch - (BINAURAL AUDIO IMMERSION)
Kougar wrote:It has been stated the main core was an older revision core. As an older revision it may have been one of the concerns addressed in newer models. Either way, because it was an older model core Musk indicated they had no future use for it even if it had landed intact.
It is also possible they simply didn't add enough ignitor fuel to the tanks. Remember that with some of the landing incidents when the cores ran out of hydraulic fluid it wasn't a capacity issue. The hydraulic tanks aren't filled to full capacity, SpaceX was only adding as much hydraulic fluid as they thought they could get away with. It may have been a similar decision with the re-ignitor fuel since the main core has to burn longer and achieve a higher altitude.
Looking for Knowledge wrote:When drunk.....
I want to have sex, but find I am more likely to be shot down than when I am sober.
Heiwashin wrote:So what's the fix?
notfred wrote:Someone's been busy in Photoshop, may I present the Falcon 9 Super Heavy
ludi wrote:Everything on a rocket is an iterative cost/mass optimization. Somebody calculated the fluid level too close to the line, so now they've got to increase the volume and review the impact on the fuel requirements and/or payload capability at takeoff.
just brew it! wrote:ludi wrote:Everything on a rocket is an iterative cost/mass optimization. Somebody calculated the fluid level too close to the line, so now they've got to increase the volume and review the impact on the fuel requirements and/or payload capability at takeoff.
To elaborate on that a bit, every additional pound of weight requires additional fuel to lift it. And additional fuel to lift the additional fuel. Which eats into the payload capacity. So there's a pretty strong incentive to cut things as close as possible, especially for stuff that doesn't endanger the primary mission.
Buub wrote:Moar rockets! .... and cowbell!
DancinJack wrote:Just some cost quotes I saw today.
Per Musk on Twitter, Falcon Heavy is roughly 150M per.
Per Tory Bruno (ULA CEO) Delta IV Heavy is roughly 350M per.
notfred wrote:DancinJack wrote:Just some cost quotes I saw today.
Per Musk on Twitter, Falcon Heavy is roughly 150M per.
Per Tory Bruno (ULA CEO) Delta IV Heavy is roughly 350M per.
That $150M for Falcon Heavy is for fully expendable i.e. everything thrown away in to the ocean. For the more normal case of 2 side boosters recovered and only the centre core lost the cost is about $95M.
notfred wrote:Someone's been busy in Photoshop, may I present the Falcon 9 Super Heavy