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 5    NEXT   LAST   Last Post   Posted:   Jan 20, 2016 - 3:16 AM     By:   Rick15   (Member) Parachutes on top, airbags at the bottom, done. Where's my 10 grand consultants fee? Brilliant!    Posted:   Feb 22, 2016 - 8:08 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Major Tim Peake offers a great presentation on the principle of gyro-stabilisation, made even more demonstrable in the zero-g environment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35421348 Edit: this is not exactly about the SpaceX Falcon 9 in this instance, but the ISS. I've just used the thread as a matter of convenience because the demo is actually very instructive. I would, however, argue mildly about one point with Major Tim. Any gyroscope is not a "toy," especially the one he used in the demo    Posted:   Mar 5, 2016 - 8:08 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) I suppose it is well known by now the SES-9 launch, hampered with multiple launch delays, finally got away from the pad and delivered it's payload into the intended orbit. The attempted landing on the Atlantic stationed barge has, apparently, resulted in failure. The Falcon 9, as has happened so many times before, made it to the landing platform but touched down too hard. I haven't been able to see any footage from the scene anywhere yet, although I'm none too keen on seeing it hit, tip over and then explode. I'd really like to see the thing land so it can be recovered. I've read that the purpose-built rocket engines serving the Falcon 9 can't actually hover the rocket due to certain limitations. I'm not sure what the reason for that could be, however, it must make any kind of landing a particularly difficult proposition. Next time round, perhaps?    Posted:   Mar 5, 2016 - 9:27 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) I suppose it is well known by now the SES-9 launch, hampered with multiple launch delays, finally got away from the pad and delivered it's payload into the intended orbit. The attempted landing on the Atlantic stationed barge has, apparently, resulted in failure. The Falcon 9, as has happened so many times before, made it to the landing platform but touched down too hard. I haven't been able to see any footage from the scene anywhere yet, although I'm none too keen on seeing it hit, tip over and then explode. I'd really like to see the thing land so it can be recovered. I've read that the purpose-built rocket engines serving the Falcon 9 can't actually hover the rocket due to certain limitations. I'm not sure what the reason for that could be, however, it must make any kind of landing a particularly difficult proposition. Next time round, perhaps? Not sure what happened. The "live" feed was inexplicably cut off just when it was supposed to land. It's my understanding the rocket missed the platform altogether, and "landed" into the ocean. Though I am not certain of this.    Posted:   Mar 5, 2016 - 9:56 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Not sure what happened. The "live" feed was inexplicably cut off just when it was supposed to land. It's my understanding the rocket missed the platform altogether, and "landed" into the ocean. Though I am not certain of this. I think maybe SpaceX like to check the footage obtained whenever anything appears more likely to go wrong with a "live" broadcast before passing it on for public consumption, just so they can make a prior determination of what actually went wrong. If the landing had proceeded in such a way the Falcon 9 1st stage looked certain to touch down intact, their censor would probably have let the feed continue without break. Elon Musk appears to have said the rocket hit the drone ship pad hard . . . again. I'm a little surprised they even bother to land on the barge in the Atlantic during the winter, or during periods when the sea is likely to be rough. If the rocket has a greater chance of crashing in such cases then wouldn't it be cheaper to just let it hit the sea? Every time a landing goes wrong, the clean-up bill can't be insubstantial. It seems to me, SpaceX has to bother with recovery attempts with every launch because that is their commitment, come hell or high water.    Posted:   Mar 5, 2016 - 10:26 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Not sure what happened. The "live" feed was inexplicably cut off just when it was supposed to land. It's my understanding the rocket missed the platform altogether, and "landed" into the ocean. Though I am not certain of this. I think maybe SpaceX like to check the footage obtained whenever anything appears more likely to go wrong with a "live" broadcast before passing it on for public consumption, just so they can make a prior determination of what actually went wrong. If the landing had proceeded in such a way the Falcon 9 1st stage looked certain to touch down intact, their censor would probably have let the feed continue without break. Elon Musk appears to have said the rocket hit the drone ship pad hard . . . again. I'm a little surprised they even bother to land on the barge in the Atlantic during the winter, or during periods when the sea is likely to be rough. If the rocket has a greater chance of crashing in such cases then wouldn't it be cheaper to just let it hit the sea? Every time a landing goes wrong, the clean-up bill can't be insubstantial. It seems to me, SpaceX has to bother with recovery attempts with every launch because that is their commitment, come hell or high water. Just an assumption, but I would assume the barge landings are mandated for safely reasons until they perfect the technique. If the rocket was wildly off course or bounced on landing it could propel itself towards a land based structure that would be far more disastrous. A misfire in the middle of the ocean is much safer. Though I agree I think landing on a moving object seems counter constructive and immensely harder. As you stated each failure also means damage or loss of the platform as well.    Posted:   Mar 5, 2016 - 10:50 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Just an assumption, but I would assume the barge landings are mandated for safety reasons until they perfect the technique. If the rocket was wildly off course or bounced on landing it could propel itself towards a land based structure that would be far more disastrous. A misfire in the middle of the ocean is much safer. Though I agree I think landing on a moving object seems counter constructive and immensely harder. As you stated each failure also means damage or loss of the platform as well. I had wondered if SpaceX obtained a special one-off dispensation for the successful December landing, and that landing at sea is not actually a choice. If it is, then they are supremely tenacious in the persistent way they have grappled with this problem. In this latest example, there has been suggestion the landing was going to be next to impossible because the Falcon 9's heavy payload required it to be released at a higher velocity than normal. The 2nd stage needed more assistance from the 1st stage engines and fuel store to enable it to reach a higher orbit.    Posted:   Mar 5, 2016 - 11:08 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Just an assumption, but I would assume the barge landings are mandated for safety reasons until they perfect the technique. If the rocket was wildly off course or bounced on landing it could propel itself towards a land based structure that would be far more disastrous. A misfire in the middle of the ocean is much safer. Though I agree I think landing on a moving object seems counter constructive and immensely harder. As you stated each failure also means damage or loss of the platform as well. I had wondered if SpaceX obtained a special one-off dispensation for the successful December landing, and that landing at sea is not actually a choice. If it is, then they are supremely tenacious in the persistent way they have grappled with this problem. In this latest example, there has been suggestion the landing was going to be next to impossible because the Falcon 9's heavy payload required it to be released at a higher velocity than normal because the 2nd stage needed more assistance from the 1st stage engines and fuel store to enable it to reach a higher orbit. I wondered if that was a one off too because I was very surprise they did a ground base landing and questioned why they weren't doing that all along. Personally I prefer the mini shuttle carrier another company is working on. They lost the bid for human transport, but will be able to use it for cargo missions. It just sits on top of a stack on take offs, but lands like the previous shuttles.    Posted:   Mar 5, 2016 - 11:12 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Steve Austin strikes back!    Posted:   Mar 5, 2016 - 11:13 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Steve Austin strikes back! Yep! LOL    Posted:   Apr 8, 2016 - 11:12 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) CRS-8 Dragon is on the pad, awaiting launch in just a few hours: http://www.spacex.com/webcast    Posted:   Apr 8, 2016 - 11:21 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) CRS-8 Dragon is on the pad, awaiting launch in just a few hours: http://www.spacex.com/webcast Cool thxs for the reminder!    Posted:   Apr 8, 2016 - 2:55 PM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) Missions accomplished (well, part b before part a). Edit: The rocket landed off centre on the platform, so hopefully, it will stay right where it is until it can be handled back onto dry land. Congratulations to all those young folks at SpaceX.    Posted:   Apr 8, 2016 - 4:41 PM     By:   Solium   (Member) Yep success! The barge was rocking quite a bit, hopefully the rocket won't fall over. It's pretty crazy seeing a split screen and on one side you see the upper stage continuing it's burn into orbit and on the other screen the first stage already landed on the ground. Edit: Video of landing. http://www.space.com/32517-spacex-sticks-rocket-landing-sea-dragon-launch.html    Posted:   Apr 10, 2016 - 8:35 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) The CRS-8 Dragon capsule has successfully berthed with ISS, so I guess that means the mission is more or less done. There is the formality of bringing it back to earth in about 1 month's time, which will close CRS-8. This is the first time I've noticed that even in space, traditional port (red) and starboard (green) navigation lights are useful to determine which side of the vehicle is presenting itself. In the images you can see the red (left) side of the vehicle while the glow of the green (right) side of the vehicle is reflected off the spacecraft surface: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/iss-crs-8-dragon-arrival-flawless-launch/    Posted:   Apr 10, 2016 - 9:03 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) The CRS-8 Dragon capsule has successfully berthed with ISS, so I guess that means the mission is more or less done. There is the formality of bringing it back to earth in about 1 month's time, which will close CRS-8. This is the first time I've noticed that even in space, traditional port (red) and starboard (green) navigation lights are useful to determine which side of the vehicle is presenting itself. In the images you can see the red (left) side of the vehicle while the glow of the green (right) side of the vehicle is reflected off the spacecraft surface: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/iss-crs-8-dragon-arrival-flawless-launch/ I didn't realize this launch had a return capsule. Is this the first time they are testing such a craft for safe re-entry? I assume this is the same crafted that will eventually be used to bring astronauts to and from ISS.    Posted:   Apr 10, 2016 - 9:11 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) They've done it before, Sol; getting in those hours of experience. The clean look of the Crew Dragon spacecraft interior is in stark contrast to the heavily panelled Apollo consoles. Just take a look: http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon As you can see, even piloting a spacecraft is done in W-I-D-E-S-C-R-E-E-N.    Posted:   Apr 10, 2016 - 9:27 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) Neat! I somehow missed this info. The insides are crazy! Looks like something out of a modern Sci Fi movie. I do worry a bit about no control surfaces. If you have a software glitch and your screens go out, then what? If you have physical buttons and switches you can possibly repair things on the spot. Remember the Moon landing where one of the astronauts accidentally broke the switch that ignites the LEM engine for assent? He was able to fire the engine by sticking a ball point pen into broken switch slot! Or they would have been stranded on the Moon and died.    Posted:   Apr 10, 2016 - 9:49 AM     By:   Grecchus   (Member) The standard engineering practice is to have backups for all major control systems. There must have been a lot of research into the ergonomics of hand held control devices etc. Just as an aside, when I'm using the Orbiter simulator, I find it easier to simply push the keyboard buttons to control an imaginary spacecraft - it works quite nicely for translational and rotational evolutions. It would not surprise me if major hardware contributors have contingencies such as this for the real thing, in case all else fails. There's nothing like a good old reliable ASCII keyboard. Edit: I believe it was Buzz who stuck the ballpoint into the broken circuit breaker that enabled the LEM ascent engine to fire.    Posted:   Apr 10, 2016 - 12:51 PM     By:   Metryq   (Member) Solium wrote: I do worry a bit about no control surfaces. If you have a software glitch and your screens go out, then what? If you have physical buttons and switches you can possibly repair things on the spot. Everything, except very small aircraft, use "fly-by-wire" systems these days. That means even a physical control, like a joystick, has no mechanical linkage to the item being controlled. It's all electronics. Ever hear of Apollo 13? LOST MOON by Lovell and Kluger covers a lot more detail than the movie. We've come a long way since the Apollo DSKY and associated flight systems. But even back then they needed the computer up and running to actually fly. That bit in SPACE COWBOYS about flying the shuttle without any electronics at all is pure nonsense. In fact, post-carburetor cars won't run without their electronics, either.     Non-Film Score Discussion: The SpaceX rocketship    << < 1 2 3 4 5  > >>  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.