SpaceX Tuesday...
Discussion
ash73 said:
Your mindset is the exact reason why there's so much s
tty software out there full of bugs. Either you don't do software development, or you've been doing it wrong for 20 years. Which is it?
I'm a racecar engineer. I build racing cars. There is potential of death if my pre-test prep fails to work adequately (same as SpaceX if they have a manned flight), my mindset and preparation is based around that fact. The testing we do should work 100%. The vast majority of tests i carry out are for shakedown and bedding in purposes. I'd never send a car on track with any doubt that it wasn't built properly, you tend to find small issues with driver interface with the controls under load that you cant pick up in a static scenario pre these tests, such as seat fitting or position of pedals because every driver has unique issues to resolve around their physicality. You also work on chassis and aero balance by adjustments to the package.tty software out there full of bugs. Either you don't do software development, or you've been doing it wrong for 20 years. Which is it?If i sent a car out on track and it failed in a test, i would be very unhappy about it. Having it 100% reliable during a test is the goal, to not do that is a failure. Your suggestion that if a test goes 100% well its a failure is absurd.
I'm well aware of how software is often s
tty, i worked in IT as a Unix system admin and then Oracle DBA for 9 years and spent many a night updating critical systems with patches due to poor pre release testing. Not every industry is as stty as software developers at doing the job properly. Space X and critical systems of that nature have multiple backup systems and their software will be tested to be 100% before launch, what's most likely to fail is the mechanical systems because that cant be tested to full load and its bleeding edge technology people never stop learning with. Even with a perfect system failures can happen due to unforeseen issues, the Space Shuttle program gives plenty of evidence of that. The goal of these programs is 100% perfect testing, if they achieve that they wont look at it as a failure.
annodomini2 said:
Congrats to SpaceX!
The twin landing was awesome!!!
On the Core failure, I personally think something went wrong with the fuel re-distribution (the side boosters share fuel with the core before they separate).
2 Reasons:
1. It would appear the Core ran out of fuel.
2. The side boosters were dumping fuel during their decent.
The core didn't run out of fuel per se - it ran out of the fuel ( triethylboron ? ) used by the igniters to light the enginesThe twin landing was awesome!!!
On the Core failure, I personally think something went wrong with the fuel re-distribution (the side boosters share fuel with the core before they separate).
2 Reasons:
1. It would appear the Core ran out of fuel.
2. The side boosters were dumping fuel during their decent.
annodomini2 said:
Congrats to SpaceX!
The twin landing was awesome!!!
On the Core failure, I personally think something went wrong with the fuel re-distribution (the side boosters share fuel with the core before they separate).
2 Reasons:
1. It would appear the Core ran out of fuel.
2. The side boosters were dumping fuel during their decent.
Are you talking about the maneuvering jets rather than dumping fuelThe twin landing was awesome!!!
On the Core failure, I personally think something went wrong with the fuel re-distribution (the side boosters share fuel with the core before they separate).
2 Reasons:
1. It would appear the Core ran out of fuel.
2. The side boosters were dumping fuel during their decent.
MartG said:
Vertical landing rockets go back way before Thunderbirds - e.g. Robert Heinlein included them in a novel in 1947
Well what we are talking about is VTVL rockets.....wasn't the Lunar module one of them and how about the DCX whilst not a success clearly demonstrated the thinking behind reusable and as I have said before given technology has moved on it makes it much easier, I haven't knocked Musk or the falcon just pointed out that the technology was being worked on before Space X. So whilst some applauding has to go to Space X for succeeding its wrong not to recognise that its not as an original Idea some beleive. and why lob any junk into space. Eric Mc said:
God almighty - see the negative in everything why don't you. You really are a bit of a disgrace.
Start your own thread and stop polluting this one.
Whats so negative about applauding preceding developments unless you have a blindfold and earplugs and do not wish to see what developments were before this one?Start your own thread and stop polluting this one.
Whilst it may annoy you (hopefully) why not try reading the positive power of negative thinking you may find it enlightening.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take...
Toaster said:
Eric Mc said:
God almighty - see the negative in everything why don't you. You really are a bit of a disgrace.
Start your own thread and stop polluting this one.
Whats so negative about applauding preceding developments unless you have a blindfold and earplugs and do not wish to see what developments were before this one?Start your own thread and stop polluting this one.
Whilst it may annoy (hopefully) you why not try reading the positive power of negative thinking you may find it enlightening.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take...
A pen, a computer.. Paper.
Jeez get a grip
Toaster said:
Whats so negative about applauding preceding developments unless you have a blindfold and earplugs and do not wish to see what developments were before this one?
Whilst it may annoy you (hopefully) why not try reading the positive power of negative thinking you may find it enlightening.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take...
When someone launches a new car, do you similarly insist that they should applaud the triumphs of every previous vehicle manufacturer all the way back to the inventor of the wheel ?Whilst it may annoy you (hopefully) why not try reading the positive power of negative thinking you may find it enlightening.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take...
When Intel announces an new CPU do you insist they give credit to everyone back to Faraday ?
Toaster said:
Well what we are talking about is VTVL rockets.....wasn't the Lunar module one of them and how about the DCX whilst not a success clearly demonstrated the thinking behind reusable and as I have said before given technology has moved on it makes it much easier, I haven't knocked Musk or the falcon just pointed out that the technology was being worked on before Space X. So whilst some applauding has to go to Space X for succeeding its wrong not to recognise that its not as an original Idea some beleive. and why lob any junk into space.
And is all based on ideas by Von Braun, Newton, Copernicus.... What's your point? MartG said:
When someone launches a new car, do you similarly insist that they should applaud the triumphs of every previous vehicle manufacturer all the way back to the inventor of the wheel ?
When Intel announces an new CPU do you insist they give credit to everyone back to Faraday ?
Don't blame me you said "Vertical landing rockets go back way before Thunderbirds - e.g. Robert Heinlein included them in a novel in 1947", so I was just responding to your post with some real life achievements what on earth was wrong with that! When Intel announces an new CPU do you insist they give credit to everyone back to Faraday ?
Toaster said:
Well what we are talking about is VTVL rockets.....wasn't the Lunar module one of them and how about the DCX whilst not a success clearly demonstrated the thinking behind reusable and as I have said before given technology has moved on it makes it much easier, I haven't knocked Musk or the falcon just pointed out that the technology was being worked on before Space X. So whilst some applauding has to go to Space X for succeeding its wrong not to recognise that its not as an original Idea some beleive. and why lob any junk into space.
You really aren't coming across well here. There is a difference (quite a big one) between an 'idea' and actual implementation. Just because someone's had the 'idea' of a car, doesn't make building a Formula One vehicle any easier, or require any less testing, shakedown and analysis. And something like the Falcon makes an F1 car look like a hobby horse. This is stuff right at the edge of materials science, manufacturing tolerances and digital control systems.You've already had explained the stuff about 'junk' in space. But just to add to the other comments that having used a dummy load, bringing it back to earth was not technically an option. Whilst you've picked up on the articles that have brought up the amount of 'junk' in low earth orbit (which is true, in so much as we've put quite a few satellites up there and haven't yet got a policy about removing them at end of life), what you haven't understood is that the Tesla is heading off into open space, nowhere near the areas where we might eventually have to think about picking up our litter.
I'm more than happy to criticise Musk when he edges towards the hype and nonsense end of the spectrum, but in this case SpaceX have moved the game on, and provided an inspiring show in the process. My son and I sat and watched and discussed the launch live - he may yet live to see the beginnings of humans colonising beyond our planet thanks to steps like this. That's pretty damn cool.
MartG said:
annodomini2 said:
Congrats to SpaceX!
The twin landing was awesome!!!
On the Core failure, I personally think something went wrong with the fuel re-distribution (the side boosters share fuel with the core before they separate).
2 Reasons:
1. It would appear the Core ran out of fuel.
2. The side boosters were dumping fuel during their decent.
The core didn't run out of fuel per se - it ran out of the fuel ( triethylboron ? ) used by the igniters to light the enginesThe twin landing was awesome!!!
On the Core failure, I personally think something went wrong with the fuel re-distribution (the side boosters share fuel with the core before they separate).
2 Reasons:
1. It would appear the Core ran out of fuel.
2. The side boosters were dumping fuel during their decent.
The centre Merlin 1-D engine in the cluster of 9 on the core ("middle") Falcon 9 of the Falcon Heavy actually started properly and slowed the Falcon 9 to ~300mph, but there are supposed to be 3 restarted engines during a landing like this, not just one. It wound up going too fast.
The two outer engines of the Falcon 9 failed to restart and the system ran out of TEA-TEB trying to get them to do so.
Interestingly, the Falcon 9 was still broadly on target compared to plan - it landed circa 300ft from the droneship, but it was moving far too fast to land safely.
For anyone wondering, yes, TEB is the same green flame stuff the SR-71 Blackbird used to do in-air engine restarts.
The TEA bit is Triethylaluminum - there's a TEA/TEB mixture carried on board.
Putting TEA/TEB into the motor in the presence of oxygen (like, the oxidier coming out one of the Merlin engines under the Falcon 9) causes a very hot reaction which is how the stopped rocket is reignited.
The central core not landing safely due to something as minor as this is actually very good news. They were startlingly close to a complete success rather than only an overwhelmingly good result, which is what they got.
If this was NASA, they've have spent 30x as much, they'd not have tried to recover anything and if the block of concrete had made low earth orbit, it'd have been considered a success, and completely ignored by everyone outside of NASA.
Loskey said:
That will good place to watch. :-)
I live in Lake Mary so less then an hour away. Going to get to Playalinda beach before it opens. Hope i beat the crowd
Hope you had a good view and got home in good time, it took me just under 3 hours door-to-door, a mate of mine saw it from Jetty Park and it took him 5 hours to get home (he only lives round the corner from me)!I live in Lake Mary so less then an hour away. Going to get to Playalinda beach before it opens. Hope i beat the crowd
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff