SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
Beati Dogu said:
As rocket aficionado Scott Manley pointed out, "The last time this many rocket engines fired on a single vehicle was the N-1 and we all know how successful that was."
The giant Soviet N-1 moon rocket had 30 engines on its first stage and all 4 launches ended badly.
The Soyuz/R7 has 20 main engines and 12 smaller ones all firing at lift off. The giant Soviet N-1 moon rocket had 30 engines on its first stage and all 4 launches ended badly.
They are verniers - which kind of shows how "old tech" the R7 design is. The main engines on the R7 don't gimbal, so directional changes are dome using the verniers.
But the still have to have all 30 motors burning at lift off - which is a pretty impressve thing to do - and to do it as reliably as they do as well.
The original Atlas also used verniers.
But the still have to have all 30 motors burning at lift off - which is a pretty impressve thing to do - and to do it as reliably as they do as well.
The original Atlas also used verniers.
Beati Dogu said:
As rocket aficionado Scott Manley pointed out, "The last time this many rocket engines fired on a single vehicle was the N-1 and we all know how successful that was."
The giant Soviet N-1 moon rocket had 30 engines on its first stage and all 4 launches ended badly.
Wasn't the main issue with the N-1 really the rushed and botched development (not aided by Korolev's death - terminal hemorrhoids, poor bloke) rather than the number of engines?The giant Soviet N-1 moon rocket had 30 engines on its first stage and all 4 launches ended badly.
I'm looking forward to watching it land as well - Three times over within a few minutes hopefully .
Current heavy lift champ the Delta 4 Heavy is always impressive (especially the fiery launch), but the Falcon Heavy will have much more power and will be able to take a larger payload to orbit. They're about the same height as each other and have the same tri-core configuration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCy401hkXuk
Poor Korolev really had a tough life. Not helped by being thrown in the Gulag system for 6 years by the Soviet regime.
Current heavy lift champ the Delta 4 Heavy is always impressive (especially the fiery launch), but the Falcon Heavy will have much more power and will be able to take a larger payload to orbit. They're about the same height as each other and have the same tri-core configuration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCy401hkXuk
eharding said:
Wasn't the main issue with the N-1 really the rushed and botched development (not aided by Korolev's death - terminal hemorrhoids, poor bloke) rather than the number of engines?
Yes, but they also treated the rockets as works in progress and expected to lose a few before they got it right.Poor Korolev really had a tough life. Not helped by being thrown in the Gulag system for 6 years by the Soviet regime.
eharding said:
Wasn't the main issue with the N-1 really the rushed and botched development (not aided by Korolev's death - terminal hemorrhoids, poor bloke) rather than the number of engines?
The fact that Korolev wasn't around to bash heads together and stop all the infighting that was going on at the time in the Soviet space programme was a major factor.But trying to get all those engines working together and iron out all the resonance issues proved too difficult.
How exciting its very similar to the Delta IV, that makes a loud noise lots of whooshing sounds and big clouds of steam on lift of as well.
Don't get me wrong as its all very exciting when one of these things go off to see one or the other launch in person will be a fantastic sight and experience.
Don't get me wrong as its all very exciting when one of these things go off to see one or the other launch in person will be a fantastic sight and experience.
Toaster said:
Sounds exactly like the Space X approach to landing a booster on a barge.....how enterprising comrade 
Yeah they certainly took that approach. You can do as many computer models as you like, but there's no substitute for practical experience.From practice "landings" in the sea, to the world's largest anti-ship missile to "oh so close, but the leg collapsed" to nailing 17? landings in a row. As shown by SpaceX themselves here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ&t=...
They even deliberately landed an already re-used one in the Pacific last month because they didn't want it back.
The next Falcon 9 to fly will likely be test fired on Friday or Saturday at SLC-40.
WIth a launch on Tuesday 30th, carrying the SES-16 / GovSat-1 satellite.
It's a pre-flown rocket (formerly NROL-76 last May), and since it's an older version (1.2) they're going to dunk this one in the ocean too.
The landing ship's next job is the centre stage of the Falcon Heavy.
WIth a launch on Tuesday 30th, carrying the SES-16 / GovSat-1 satellite.
It's a pre-flown rocket (formerly NROL-76 last May), and since it's an older version (1.2) they're going to dunk this one in the ocean too.
The landing ship's next job is the centre stage of the Falcon Heavy.
Falcon 9 static fire completed, so on to Tuesday for the launch. 16:23-18:37 EST (21.23-23,37 UK time).
With pre-flown boosters like this, they're refurbed, but not sent to Texas for test firings. Instead they give them a longer test fire of around 7 seconds on the pad.
The payload customer, SES, will be sweating it after nearly losing SES-14 on yesterday's Ariane launch. The upper stage of which limped into a lower orbit than planned. Despite this, SES will be able to get the satellite to the correct position using its own propulsion.
With pre-flown boosters like this, they're refurbed, but not sent to Texas for test firings. Instead they give them a longer test fire of around 7 seconds on the pad.
The payload customer, SES, will be sweating it after nearly losing SES-14 on yesterday's Ariane launch. The upper stage of which limped into a lower orbit than planned. Despite this, SES will be able to get the satellite to the correct position using its own propulsion.
Got to think of the fishies.
I'm sure if it could have landed it back at Vandenberg, they would have tried. Unfortunately older rockets like this one couldn't do that with the fight parameters it had. The forthcoming Block 5 ones will be able to though. A landing pad was built for them at Vandenberg last year.
There's a rumour that the Pacific drone ship was also unavailable at the time (23rd December). Apparently they'd cannibalised parts from it to fix the Atlantic drone ship which had been fire damaged after the successful Falcon 9 landing on 13th October (not the rocket's fault). Damage included to the "Roomba" deck robot and one of the four azimuth thrusters that are used to keep it in the same position. They got it home and had to rapidly fix it in order to go out again to pick up another Falcon 9 on 30th October. The Falcon Heavy was supposed to launch in December, so they kept it operational for that.
Now again, they're going to sacrifice Tuesday's Falcon 9 first stage, so they can try to catch the Falcon Heavy's centre section.
I'm sure if it could have landed it back at Vandenberg, they would have tried. Unfortunately older rockets like this one couldn't do that with the fight parameters it had. The forthcoming Block 5 ones will be able to though. A landing pad was built for them at Vandenberg last year.
There's a rumour that the Pacific drone ship was also unavailable at the time (23rd December). Apparently they'd cannibalised parts from it to fix the Atlantic drone ship which had been fire damaged after the successful Falcon 9 landing on 13th October (not the rocket's fault). Damage included to the "Roomba" deck robot and one of the four azimuth thrusters that are used to keep it in the same position. They got it home and had to rapidly fix it in order to go out again to pick up another Falcon 9 on 30th October. The Falcon Heavy was supposed to launch in December, so they kept it operational for that.
Now again, they're going to sacrifice Tuesday's Falcon 9 first stage, so they can try to catch the Falcon Heavy's centre section.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff