mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Lounge (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   What "weed need" is a space mission! (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17609)

Uncwilly 2020-12-09 20:21

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;565794]Did they reschedule that?[/QUOTE]
Currently SpaceX's YT channel is showing 38 minutes until their start.
[YOUTUBE]ap-BkkrRg-o[/YOUTUBE]

KEP 2020-12-09 21:29

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;565794]Did they reschedule that?[/QUOTE]

Not that early, as my message could imply and now unfortunantly a delay, so if it happens at 22:40 UTC, it sure will be too late for me to watch. Dang, we were so close :cry:

James Heinrich 2020-12-09 22:55

Certainly worth a watch if you missed it!

Uncwilly 2020-12-09 23:30

Link to today's test.
[url]https://youtu.be/ap-BkkrRg-o?t=6445[/url]

storm5510 2020-12-09 23:52

What was it that this vehicle was supposed to do? It did not turn out very well from the looks of it. :confused:

Uncwilly 2020-12-10 00:25

[QUOTE=storm5510;565808]What was it that this vehicle was supposed to do? It did not turn out very well from the looks of it. :confused:[/QUOTE]
It was supposed to land in the same orientation as it took off. It ran into low fuel pressure. The belly first fall was as planned. The flip to tail end down was as planned. It just didn't slow enough.

diep 2020-12-10 00:40

From what i wrote to someone on my chat regarding starship sn8.

I design CNC machines
i act as if i know something about hardware design
i do not understand why starship sn8 has inside 1 tube 3 rocket engines
1 shuts down and 2 continue to steer it then moveable in the tube
from engineering viewpoint seen that looks clumsy.

Why not use 1 engine that's moveable?
a) much cheaper
b) easier to bugfix
c) more efficient

James Heinrich 2020-12-10 01:04

[QUOTE=diep;565814]Why not use 1 engine that's moveable?[/QUOTE]Previous tests were 1-engine versions. The final version will be (I believe) a 6-engine design.

Uncwilly 2020-12-10 01:12

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;565815]Previous tests were 1-engine versions. The final version will be (I believe) a 6-engine design.[/QUOTE]But only the three that you saw today will be steerable. The other 3 will be optimized for vacuum. Having large engines causes them to be more expensive than a straight scaling would lead you to believe. Also, 1 engine with the thrust of those 3, would no be able to throttle down enough to land. With the Falcon9, they use 9 engines to launch, but only 1 during the landing. And even then they have to wait until very late to use it, otherwise the nearly empty booster would start flying up again.
More small engines allow the craft to loose 1 and still make it to orbit.

storm5510 2020-12-10 02:48

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;565811]It was supposed to land in the same orientation as it took off. It ran into low fuel pressure. The belly first fall was as planned. The flip to tail end down was as planned. It just didn't slow enough.[/QUOTE]

I watched the latter part of the video. The liftoff seemed slow. I wondered what all the engine misbehavior was about. It definitely hit the ground too hard. I have seen a few of the Falcon 9 first stage landings. Amazing stuff considering how fast it falls.

Dr Sardonicus 2020-12-10 02:50

[QUOTE=storm5510;565808]What was it that this vehicle was supposed to do? It did not turn out very well from the looks of it. :confused:[/QUOTE][quote=Elon Musk]Fuel header tank pressure was low during landing burn, causing touchdown velocity to be high & RUD[sup]†[/sup], but we got all the data we needed!

Even reaching apogee would've been great, so controlling all way to putting the crater in the right spot was epic!![/quote][sup]†[/sup][b]R[/b]apid [b]U[/b]nscheduled [b]D[/b]isassembly

:missingteeth: :missingteeth: :missingteeth:


All times are UTC. The time now is 07:57.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.