Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

The scrub last night means we have a potential triple-header. It's 2 calendar days (not for mountain and pacific time zones!), but launch #1 this afternoon @ 5:30 Eastern, then #2 @ 7:30 Eastern, then launch #3 @ 1:05 Eastern.

3 Falcon 9 launches in a 6 hour, 25 minutes span.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, zolotiyeruki said:

My impression is that the exhaust gases from SS don't cause SH to *decelerate*, since the core engines stayed lit during separation. Rather, they reduce SH's acceleration.

5 hours ago, Terwin said:

I was under the impression that stage 2 pushed hard enough on stage 1 that it experienced rearward acceleration, likely causing the contents of both tanks to slosh forward.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that Ryan's simulation is based on very rough approximations of accelerations gleaned from the videos we've all seen, the fluid he used for modeling purposes is water, not LOX, and fluid simulations almost always fall short, because chaos and the fuzziness of strange attractor space

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm in a place where I can't listen to the audio.  What's the premise of the grid fin speculation? 

That the grid fins can actually exert some control authority during separation due to exhaust impingement.

 

Also:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm in a place where I can't listen to the audio.  What's the premise of the grid fin speculation? 

You know how the SpaceX boosters can steer themselves with gridfins, going through the air. What if we used the air from the SS during the hot staging to flip it around? Same idea as using a leaf blower and then covering it with your hand then pulling one side of your hand off.

Edited by GuessingEveryDay
dang, got ninja'd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler

 

Hope this doesn't affect their burn accuracy significantly, but really don't know enough about it. 

I'd guess they hadn't the opportunity to test the optics of the star tracking in real orbital conditions until now if developed in-house.  And if purchased, maybe the brochure exaggerated a smidge

"...Initially, the star tracker information was numerically conditioned slightly differently than we anticipated. We were expecting a one-in-a-thousand numerical tolerance and received a number more like two and three in a thousand. So, Nova-C’s navigation system rejected the star tracker data."

Edited by darthgently
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...