cubinator Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 37 minutes ago, Hysterrics said: Yeah, I do too. But it's exciting to hear the hosts and crowd cheer. True, and mission control doesn't really talk much. I think I'll switch back to the "talky" webcast for the next launches. Or maybe I can have both running so I can look at the rocket feed even when they're not showing it on the narrated one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptRichardson Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Motokid600 said: I've been trying to wrap my head around this. Last night during EJ's stream a Space X employee stated that Falcon saw the low thrust on one of the radial engines and shut them both down early to prevent offset thrust forcing the center engine to do the rest of the work and due to gravity loses ran out of fuel a few feet above the ground. What I can't figure out is how that made for a hover. I would think two engines shutting down early would prevent Falcon from slowing down at all and crashing on the deck. Even one Merlin has enough TWR to lift the rocket back up into the air at the landing weight of an F9. So, coupled with a miscalibration of the landing speed regime... it couldn't really figure out what to do and got 'stuck', then ran out of gas, then gooped with fire, and lots of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewas Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 7 hours ago, Motokid600 said: I've been trying to wrap my head around this. Last night during EJ's stream a Space X employee stated that Falcon saw the low thrust on one of the radial engines and shut them both down early to prevent offset thrust forcing the center engine to do the rest of the work and due to gravity loses ran out of fuel a few feet above the ground. What I can't figure out is how that made for a hover. I would think two engines shutting down early would prevent Falcon from slowing down at all and crashing on the deck. Maybe the low thrust was an instrumentation problem, and Falcon corrected for a nonexistent problem and wound up too slow to get to the bargebefore it ran out of oxidizer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 All in all the fact that it came as close as it did on one engine is still incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 20 minutes ago, andrewas said: Maybe the low thrust was an instrumentation problem, and Falcon corrected for a nonexistent problem and wound up too slow to get to the bargebefore it ran out of oxidizer. We lack sufficient details to know this. Right now it appears there was a miscoomunication between the actuall falling rate and the thrust actuators, this then ultimately allowed the oxygen to lose adequate pressure to control the fall rate. There has been alot of confusion, the first word was that the vehicle did not survive, but apparently it did survive, there was question that it fell over, but apprently it didn't fall over. The video revealed that there was over forcing of the landing stuts, corroborated by the claim there was structural failure inside the air frame and the engines had been flattened a bit, the last of which is expected, and the failure of the frame might be expected, so the vehicle did survive is salvagable but not in any position to be reused, it is now a set of data points in an engineering experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 The stream is now up Blue's YT channel, the actual webcast should start in about ten minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugix Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 How long till launch? I need to know cause I'm also watching formula 1 and don't want to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, hugix said: How long till launch? I need to know cause I'm also watching formula 1 and don't want to choose. About twenty minutes. EDIT: The webcast is now live. Edited June 19, 2016 by Kryten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 8 minutes ago, Kryten said: About twenty minutes. EDIT: The webcast is now live. 31 minutes, roughly from when this post is posted. They haven't shown the guys ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Bit of delay apparently due to high temperatures, liftoff now planned for about 14:35UTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hysterrics Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 On 6/17/2016 at 2:22 PM, cubinator said: Or maybe I can have both running so I can look at the rocket feed even when they're not showing it on the narrated one. http://spacex.yasiu.pl/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) Ah, so the suicide burn failed ? Too early burn ? Gotta thumbs up for them though. It's not KSP when MechJeb will take care of that thing (and mostly spends just too much fuel). Edited June 19, 2016 by YNM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 So this rocket is flying for the fourth time? Impressive, although it's not experiencing nearly as much stress as the Falcon 9. What's the TWR of the booster at landing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 This is a very deep-throttle engine, minimum vehicle T/W is somewhere below 1. It's demonstrated the ability to hover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, Kryten said: This is a very deep-throttle engine, minimum vehicle T/W is somewhere below 1. It's demonstrated the ability to hover. Cool. It sounds like it doesn't have a gimbal either, they're saying they use the fins for stability all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 It definitely does gimbal, you can see it if you look at vids of NS landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, Kryten said: It definitely does gimbal, you can see it if you look at vids of NS landing. Ok, cool. I wouldn't want to try landing a non-gimballing engine, even with fins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 T - 5 minutes, heads up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordFerret Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Hope this works, live link... https://youtu.be/EI-tGVFg7PU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) Guess the rocket shape is unfortunate... EDIT : also, this video proves that space is nearby. Apogee and the camera can still track the shape of the rocket. 2nd EDIT : really, capsules rocks that "hard" during parachuting ? Edited June 19, 2016 by YNM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, YNM said: 2nd EDIT : really, capsules rocks that "hard" during parachuting ? It gets buffeted by progressively thicker layers of the atmosphere, and the (typically pretty fast) high altitude winds. And the tiny drogues don't add more than the most basic stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordFerret Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 That capsule landing looked pretty hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glaran K'erman Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) I really enjoyed that. 1 minute ago, LordFerret said: That capsule landing looked pretty hard. Yea, you heard they were testing a failure of one the three mains right? I hope the eggs didn't break. Edited June 19, 2016 by Glaran K'erman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I feel like if the capsule was flatter, it would be more stable during reentry. That or there could be some small airbrakes at the very top to keep it pointed mostly downwards. Right now, it would be an awfully dizzying flight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Streetwind said: It gets buffeted by progressively thicker layers of the atmosphere, and the (typically pretty fast) high altitude winds. And the tiny drogues don't add more than the most basic stability. Hmm, but Apollo, Orion and Soyuz doesn't rock that hard... EDIT : Ah, explained by Kryten. EDIT 2 : More research, ESA astronauts described Soyuz landings like "roller coaster". So I guess this is normal. Guess that's why SpaceX wanted powered landings. Edited June 19, 2016 by YNM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts