FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18      Non-Film Score Discussion: The SpaceX rocketship    FIRST   PRIOR   1 2 3 4    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Apr 14, 2015 - 7:13 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) That's a shame. Did the stage get anywhere near again, or was it wide of the mark? Edit: I've just read it hit hard again and maybe tipped over. They need to rethink something. Maybe the rocket engines need to hover the stage before touchdown while the barge is about to roll through the horizonal. The barge platform surface needs to talk to the stage guidance software - a sort of "meatball" for vertical landings. Of course, they must have already considered this important point, but, maybe they need to "soften" the edges. Seems they got everything to work right up to "touch down". It's pretty amazing this rocket blasts into low Earth orbit, falls back down, rights its self, and lowers slowly onto a small prearranged platform. Doesn't it seem like a shape issue? A long skinny cylinder is top heavy. Getting the thing to balance on it's end and stay upright seems unlikely with its current design. It needs longer wider landing legs that deploy from the sides of something.    Posted:   Apr 14, 2015 - 11:41 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) The DM always seems to have lots to say about anything involving "science." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3038853/SpaceX-lands-rocket-barge-Elon-Musk-confirms-Falcon-landed-hard-survival-groundbreaking-experiment.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3040949/Watch-SpaceX-rocket-EXPLODE-Atlantic-Incredible-footage-reveals-Falcon-9-booster-s-failed-landing-ocean-barge.html Well, one thing seems clear - the rocket stage is a single unit whose dimensions are probably non-negotiable. We don't know why the two attempted pad landings failed. There was mention of a hydraulic fluid problem back in January on the first attempt. You can see from the pics the rocket gets ever so close to the landing target. The problem seems to be one of damping the actual touchdown. Perhaps they need to put the ends of the legs on coasting wheels or energy dissipating skids and have it spin around the vertical axis with some kind of extendible set of mass balances that open out horizontally at the top end or middle of the cylinder? Give it some rigid longitudinal stability to try and stop the toppling moment. You know, the spinning ballerina/skater solution. Edit: it appears the Falcon 9 already has an additional design feature, which consists of 4 grid fins which can be unstowed and vectored piecemeal for precision landings - at least on land. My suggestion above was specifically to help counter a pitching/rolling deck. http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/12/16/x-marks-spot-falcon-9-attempts-ocean-platform-landing    Posted:   Apr 15, 2015 - 9:14 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Great pictures and article. I thought it had extra fins this time around. I know they want to land this thing flat on the surface, but perhaps they can design a cradle for it to land into, to prevent the rocket from tipping over?    Posted:   Apr 15, 2015 - 2:21 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) So much for spinning the rocket to land, not to mention the question of the fins: http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/falcon-9-rocket-question There is a high level of interest and speculation. I've always believed that no matter how difficult or intractable a problem appears on the outside, there is always a shortest distance solution just waiting to be surfaced. I do still wonder if SpaceX really is concerned about recovering the launch stage vehicle. What actually matters is the reliability of the spacecraft system to do what it was contracted to do. Since that is not the problem, then there is no problem. The show can go on.    Posted:   Apr 16, 2015 - 7:25 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Jesus they get a billion dollars for 12 launches?! That's saving money? Anyway I am sure they want the reusable rocket to work because they have other clients in mind other than NASA, so if they can cut costs the better for the CEO and board members. (Though it doesn't necessarily mean they cut prices to the customers) I would like to know if the extra fuel needed for landing the first stage is really cost effective. The rocket is heaver on liftoff than it needs to be because of the extra fuel, and how much fuel does it burn (in dollars) for the return home?    Posted:   Apr 16, 2015 - 8:32 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) I've been checking out the SpaceX website, too. Their Dragon 2 capsule/spacecraft would actually land ON EARTH without deployment of parachutes. They intend it to be able to touchdown just like the LEM did on the surface of the moon under the thrust of it's own engines, which only fire to slow down based on pre-calculated efficiency curves. Indeed, the ship is designed to be so general-purpose that it could fly to the moon and land there, if the mission profile existed for it. I don't know if it would be capable of lifting off the moon and flying back to earth without tanking up either while on the moon's surface or when back in orbit over the moon. It's capabilities would knock everything that came before it to whack if it ever becomes real-world operational. It does seem to be a somewhat fanciful vehicle, however, as far as SpaceX is concerned, it's just a matter of time before the reality of their all-purpose vehicle prevails. Their ambition is truly off the scale. Sol, you should have noticed that SpaceX has a very specific ethos: which is to simplify and streamline everything it does to the bare knuckle without sacrificing efficiency or reliability in any way whatsoever. Their design solutions are meant to solve several problems at a single stroke. In short, their philosophy is to optimise, optimise, optimise with a view to maximise, maximise, maximise. There's never been a can-do attitude like this is the whole history of the world. We'll just have to wait and see if their enthusiasm hits a brick wall.    Posted:   Apr 16, 2015 - 10:20 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Sol, you should have noticed that SpaceX has a very specific ethos: which is to simplify and streamline everything it does to the bare knuckle without sacrificing efficiency or reliability in any way whatsoever. Their design solutions are meant to solve several problems at a single stroke. In short, their philosophy is to optimise, optimise, optimise with a view to maximise, maximise, maximise. There's never been a can-do attitude like this is the whole history of the world. We'll just have to wait and see if their enthusiasm hits a brick wall. Well I hope that is the case. I'm all for cutting needless expenses and doing things as economically as possible. My concern however is privatization simply means all the money goes to the CEO and board members and the employees get shafted.And I have not seen a cost analysis of how much this saves NASA, (AKA The tax payers). Also when we are talking about today's business philosophy of maximizing profits at all costs, it usually leads to cutting (safety) corners. There's another company that lost the bid from Space X, but are (anyway) developing a mini shuttle that only needs to sit on top of a single stack. First it will fly as an unmanned cargo ship, but eventually use it as a shuttle for astronauts. It will land on a runway like the bigger shuttle did and be reusable.    Posted:   Dec 21, 2015 - 7:06 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Those crazy guys at SpaceX finally nailed the bullseye. I got to the screen just in time to see it live, with all the drama of a night landing. A great big orange ball of flame resolved to the rocket touching down in the vertical. No unsteady surface of the sea, plenty of ground effect from the launch base and no apparent glitches. I guess congratulations are in order for completion of this mission's objectives, both parts (a) and (b). http://www.spacex.com/webcast/    Posted:   Dec 21, 2015 - 7:45 PM     By:   Metryq   (Member) In golden age sci-fi it was taken for granted that bullet-shaped rockets would simply land on their fins, nice and neat.    Posted:   Dec 21, 2015 - 8:06 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) I had thought maybe we'd see a noticeably slower descent, but no, it only requires the minimum expenditure in both time and fuel. Question is will SpaceX retire this vehicle as an historic relic or do they splash on some paint and send it back "up" to press home their philosophy?    Posted:   Dec 21, 2015 - 8:59 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) Wow the roar from the crowd was spine tingling. Even more than the last few Mars landings. They proved it's possible. Now that got to show it's really reusable and economical.    Posted:   Dec 22, 2015 - 3:00 AM     By:   Heath   (Member) I have to admit the idea of a made in Hollywood, Flash Gordon, Destination Moon styled actual rocketship breaks free with what has been my former notions of what the capabilities of a launch vehicle should be. Indeed. It's a tad disappointing that the retro-cheesy "rocketship" designs I remember from that early 80 mini series The Martian Chronicles might be the type to go to Mars after all. Sheesh... even "It: The Terror From Beyond Space" is starting to look accurate! Although somehow I still doubt they'll be firing Colt 45s and throwing grenades INSIDE the ships. It's all a far cry from this!    Posted:   Dec 22, 2015 - 12:35 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Don't forget it's not the whole of the original rocket that comes back to the pad - just most of it. I never thought the classic 50s sci-fi configuration would ever for one moment be viable for a real-life operational vehicle. SpaceX have undoubtedly set a new standard, however, there must be a limit on the size of rocket that can be handled in this way. We've yet to see how extensive the life of a Falcon 9 first stage booster can really be. Even if they get two for the price of one, that's an enormous advantage in capability. It's highly doubtful that every part of a participating first stage could be fit for purpose a second time round, so there would be a substantial cost in time and effort checking out everything to ensure the hardware is a go for a re-run. I've been wondering why the test with the barge was not concluded successfully. There must be more surface wind at sea, because the moving sea surface has to drag the air mass along with it more than occurs overland. Also, the rocket's ground proximity radar has to work better overland because the pulses are returned by a solid and not a liquid - can you imagine how hard it must be for a doppler system to make sense of the peaks and troughs of surface waves? It seems Musk may have had to make a case for justifying a landing on solid ground. We all saw the machine get very close to the barge and that may be why Dragon was allowed to make the landing attempt on an actual pad. I think SpaceX will continue to refine their automated rocket landing algorithms and now that they have earned their breather, will go for a barge landing at some point in the future just to educate the nay-sayers.    Posted:   Jan 17, 2016 - 11:13 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Anyone interested in seeing today's Falcon 9 launch and attempted barge landing for the Jason-3 mission, it is imminent and can be experienced via this live-stream: http://gizmodo.com/watch-as-spacex-launches-new-ocean-satellite-and-attemp-1753411190 Edit: it's 19:10 GMT here and it doesn't look good for the barge landing. The Falcon 9 found the target, however, a preliminary SpaceX report indicates a hard touchdown damaged one of the landing legs. If something has gone drastically wrong, then undoubtedly SpaceX want to diagnose every evolution the rocket made prior to disseminating any visual feedback from the landing attempt. The good news is SpaceX have a satisfied customer. The Jason-3 payload looks set for a nominal orbit.    Posted:   Jan 17, 2016 - 1:37 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) I heard before the launch waves were very high. Why are they landing on floating barges anyway? Space technology requires optimal conditions for launching and landing.    Posted:   Jan 17, 2016 - 1:42 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) It's all a far cry from this! Love the Eagle. Though odd it has a rounded crew compartment while the rest of the ship is squarish. Still a classic design.    Posted:   Jan 17, 2016 - 2:39 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) The earth's atmosphere is, perhaps, the best testy environment for hardware evaluation there is. Getting the rocket down in a variety of circumstances is a prerequisite for certifying the machines as suitable for a wider range of operational circumstances. Maybe they need to use the thrust of at least 4 engines to land on a sea platform. 3 on the outside fixed to thrust downwards and one in the center to gimbal the rocket when required? Another thing: does the Falcon 9 have at least a couple of large internal counter rotating wheel masses that can be turned on as it approaches the earth's surface? The idea is to spin them up and have them make the space-frame less susceptible to toppling around the center of gravity via the principle of gyroscopic stability. Any sideways gusts would tend to push the entire stack sideways while remaining rigidly upright. The central engine can then gimbal to push against the gust in order to return the stack to the required touchdown point. One wheel mass can be positioned at the top of the stack and another somewhere close to the centre of mass. The principle is simple enough. The rotating wheels of a bicycle don't require enormous weight to keep you upright while riding along. In this instance the wheel masses would rotate inside the stack just like a fan (cross-sectionally), only in opposite directions to one another at exactly the same speed to cancel out any adverse internal torque - they'd need to be highly synchronized. I'd be surprised if the Falcon 9 did not include even a rudimentary system of internal balances to attempt to keep it rigidly vertical when closing in to the landing zone.    Posted:   Jan 18, 2016 - 9:02 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Spectacular failure.    Posted:   Jan 19, 2016 - 8:33 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) I've just seen the footage. The landing was fine by the look of things, outstanding even - one of the landing legs gave way when it was clear the stage had settled onto the barge surface platform much more smoothly than achieved previously. What a shame. Enormously frustrating, more than anything else, because SpaceX seems to have solved the problems that bugged the sea-bourne landings last year only for a stupid mechanical joint failure to scupper this last solid attempt.    Posted:   Jan 19, 2016 - 8:44 AM     By:   Last Child   (Member) Parachutes on top, airbags at the bottom, done. Where's my 10 grand consultants fee?     Non-Film Score Discussion: The SpaceX rocketship    << < 1 2 3 4  > >>  Go to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.