• Space X is attempting to land Falcon 9 on Jan 6th: 50% chance success
    125 replies, posted
They better be careful what shirts they wear to the post landing interview
[QUOTE=InsanePyro;46897636]They better be careful what shirts they wear to the post landing interview[/QUOTE] Yeah, there's bound to be shitty journalists more fixated on clothing choices than technological prowess.
Honestly, they should all wear "sexist" shirts just to piss on all those terrible people who gave that one guy a very bad time
this shirt [img]http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0537/4221/products/SFWpornnew.jpg?v=1405508701[/img]
[QUOTE=DrDevil;46853478]Actually a chance of 50% can be interpreted as a completely unforseeable outcome, as this has never been attempted before.[/QUOTE] Doesnt NASA mostly only do things with a 1% chance of failure or less?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46901401]Doesnt NASA mostly only do things with a 1% chance of failure or less?[/QUOTE] The 50% thing was not real. It was just something someone said, there was no calculation behind that percentage. And NASA doesn't land autonomous rockets on autonomous boats.
Is there any footage of the hard landing?
[QUOTE=nomad1;46901751]Is there any footage of the hard landing?[/QUOTE] Apparently not, apparently it was foggy and dark.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46901401]Doesnt NASA mostly only do things with a 1% chance of failure or less?[/QUOTE] Well if the rocket had a 50% chance of exploding, they wouldn't launch, which is why the launch was delayed due to technical issues. However, this was a secondary objective. This is the 5th cargo mission they've launched and they have that down by now. Landing the first stage under its own power is something that has not been done before so it's still an experimental landing. That is why they decided to land it in the ocean instead of at the fancy space complex. You need to start somewhere.
[url]http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36326.msg1314252#msg1314252[/url] Some pictures of the damaged barge returning to port.
so they said it had hydrolic fluid for 90% of the ride down, it was the last 10% that ran out of fluid. litterally ran out of hydrolic fluid just before landing, good news is they said the next one will already have 50% more fluid
What? You mean [B]hydraulic[/B] fluid?
[QUOTE=cartman300;46908597]What? You mean [B]hydraulic[/B] fluid?[/QUOTE] the landing grid fins and gimble systems and landing legs run off of hydraulics, the system isn't a closed-loop since it only needs to run for a few minutes and shedding weight is the point of rockets and yes i miss-spelt it, don't be that guy
Well sorry but that was a legit question, first time to hear that word and google didn't pop up any results so i had to make sure.
[QUOTE=Sableye;46908668]the landing grid fins and gimble systems and landing legs run off of hydraulics, the system isn't a closed-loop since it only needs to run for a few minutes and shedding weight is the point of rockets and yes i miss-spelt it, don't be that guy[/QUOTE] The legs are lowered with helium. Once lowered they cannot go back up without help. The hydraulic fluid used in the system is actually the kerosine propellant. It's an open system because it comes from a tank pressurized with nitrogen(the tank they're making 50% bigger) and it drains out into the main engines to be used as propellant after running through the hydraulic system. Once the small tank set aside for fin control is drained, it cannot be refilled during the flight, hense it runs out. The engines are gimballed in the same manner I think, except that fuel is taken from the main tank and doesn't run out. (unless the whole thing runs out in which case being able to gimble isn't going to help you.)
[QUOTE=OvB;46908825]The hydraulic fluid used in the system is actually the kerosine propellant. It's an open system because it comes from a tank pressurized with nitrogen(the tank they're making 50% bigger) and it drains out into the main engines to be used as propellant after running through the hydraulic system. Once the small tank set aside for fin control is drained, it cannot be refilled during the flight, hense it runs out. The engines are gimballed in the same manner I think, except that fuel is taken from the main tank and doesn't run out. (unless the whole thing runs out in which case being able to gimble isn't going to help you.)[/QUOTE] i believe kerosene is only used as fluid for the engine gimball system. the fins probably use some other fluid. also where did you hear that nitrogen is being used anywhere? the tanks are pressurized with helium. maybe the cold-gas thrusters? to my knowledge those are used only to re orient the stage for boostback
[QUOTE=Porkychop~;46909046]i believe kerosene is only used as fluid for the engine gimball system. the fins probably use some other fluid. also where did you hear that nitrogen is being used anywhere? the tanks are pressurized with helium. maybe the cold-gas thrusters? to my knowledge those are used only to re orient the stage for boostback[/QUOTE] From this guy: [url]http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/7771/why-does-the-falcon-9-consume-hydraulic-fluid[/url] F9 uses nitrogen for RCS. Hard to find anything that has any real solid evidence for any of it though.
Elon has tweeted photos of the landing [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/I8KqPkz.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/t8vuVos.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/egPv7Z7.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/HAwJhZD.png[/IMG] [URL="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/with_replies"]https://twitter.com/elonmusk/with_replies[/URL]
Fins losing power seems like a non trivial fix. Can't wait for the next test to be a success!
[QUOTE=Abaddabadon;46945014]Fins losing power seems like a non trivial fix. Can't wait for the next test to be a success![/QUOTE] Actually, it's pretty trivial. The solution literally is just to add more fuel.
In the tweets before that he mentions they got some good frames "begging to be released." You can tell he's as excited as we are.
they already had planned to use more hydraulic fluids for the next launch (end this month) before this one even launched, so I'm really wondering how it will go next launch.
"Rapid Unexpected Disassembly" is such a good phrase
Close, but no cigar. This time. [url]https://t.co/JowUE6a1D7[/url] I can't stop watching this video.
[QUOTE=OvB;46947263]Close, but no cigar. This time. [url]https://t.co/JowUE6a1D7[/url] I can't stop watching this video.[/QUOTE] I was like "huh, so that's what close in landing rockets means" Confirms what he said earlier, hyrdolics ran out and the rocket landed off axis too fast, I thought they were using monopropelent rcs to help orient it though
[QUOTE=Sableye;46947332]I was like "huh, so that's what close in landing rockets means" Confirms what he said earlier, hyrdolics ran out and the rocket landed off axis too fast, I thought they were using monopropelent rcs to help orient it though[/QUOTE] They use the N2 thrusters to flip it around for the boost back burn but they aren't effective at the speeds and aero-loads of descent, so they use the grid fins for that.
[QUOTE=OvB;46947263]Close, but no cigar. This time. [url]https://t.co/JowUE6a1D7[/url] I can't stop watching this video.[/QUOTE] When he said they recovered some frames, I didn't think he meant a decent quality video. Wow. It really is quite mesmerizing
So how fast did it slam into the barge?
[QUOTE=Soukuw;46950744]So how fast did it slam into the barge?[/QUOTE] I haven't heard any official word, but from the video and the Falcon 9 dimensions, looks like 15-25m/s. Very hard to tell, and I'm just eyeballing it, but that's consistent with this sort of failure.
[QUOTE=OvB;46947263]Close, but no cigar. This time. [url]https://t.co/JowUE6a1D7[/url] I can't stop watching this video.[/QUOTE] Woah, shit they nearly nailed it. Wonder how much damage the barge took, though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.