/sci/ - Science & Math

2015: Year of SpaceX

>>7012699
another frame from a different camera

>>7012699
kaboom, indeed

Mfw
>Full RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) event

>https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/556105370054053889
>At least it shd explode for a diff reason.

You just went full Kerbal.

Breddy gud, Falcon 9/10, better luck next time.

Heres a gif

>>7013000
Welp I guess ios doesn't let you upload gifs

Try this http://i.imgur.com/QHgmaQI.gifv

I still wonder if it made a desperate last-minute rocket-powered maneuver just to impact on target, after the steering fins failed just a little too early for it to be on the right line to attempt a proper landing.

Because I bet that even with the steering fins failed, it could have come to a "soft landing" at sea level, as they've done before a couple of times without fins, but they prefer to impact on target rather than land softly nearby, for the purposes of working toward FAA clearance for flyback to a landing pad near the launchpad.

so close

>>7012699
Video released...on Vine...
https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK

>>7013162
Best.
Development.
Program.
EVER!!!

>>7013162

You can see the grid fins in a frozen state.

After the hydraulic fluid for them ran out the first stage tried to gimbal itself to the pad using rocket thrust alone.

Also the fact that it was coming in so fast means those grid fins stopped working fairly long before the touch down so it was probably way off course by the time it re-engaged the Merlin engines.

Just like Musk guessed, the first attempt would be 50/50, but the next attempt seems far more likely to succeed.

Musk confirmed for real life Tony Stark.

>>7013162
That's an awesome video clip. I'm so glad they're sharing it.

It does look like they prioritized impact with the barge over coming to a stop at 0 altitude. That's a desperation maneuver to catch the edge.

>>7012699
Nice one OP. Thx.

>hit the landing pad but fins ran out of fuel

Fuck. Somehow it's more annoying that it didn't work when it was so close. Like dropping one mark on a test because you missed a minus sign.

>>7013162
"F-9"
"Hit! You sunk my autonomous barge!"

Will they ever get it right? I feel like they're going to run out of money before they ever reach their goal of successful commercial space travel.

>>7013593

Depends on what aims for space travel they choose to priortize.

>>7013593
They're going to get it right one of these days but it seems like even when they do it will have proved to be an unsustainable financial disaster. But it will have learn some things and developed some more modest techniques that will be commercially used for generations to come. That's always been NASA's real purpose; that's just hard to sell to congress.

>>7013593

>I feel like they're going to run out of money before they ever reach their goal of successful commercial space travel.

Is that their goal?

I thought their goal as a company was to make money by putting payloads into space like their share holders expect them to?

>>7013612
>it seems like even when they do it will have proved to be an unsustainable financial disaster

Anon #7013612 has spoken.

Someone email Elon and inform him of this economic analysis so he stops all R&D immediately.

>>7013621
SpaceX is a private company. They answer to no one. Their goal is to colonize Mars. Everything else is a step to achieve that. They give zero fucks about making money unless it is to help them colonize Mars.

>>7013593
the great thing about SpaceX is that they're already a successful commercial launcher. They have low prices even as an expendable rocket.

Any other company would just stop development and reap the profits, but Elon is going a step further. He is attempting stage reuse because he has a higher goal than just cheap satellite launch. He wants to bring the whole industry standard lower to enable whole new markets and goals, like large satellite swarms, in orbit assembly, and eventually regular interplanetary travel for Mars settlement.

>>7013621
>make money like share holders expect
SpaceX isn't public yet, and their private investors are all rich space geeks like Elon.

>>7013656

>They answer to no one.

Except the shareholders who own the company and demand a profit...

>>7013651
Everyone knows fringe technology is rarely if ever profitable and never on-budget at first. It's no big secret.

>>7013665
There are no shareholders.

>>7013665
>shareholders
You might want to look up what a private business is, mate. It has an owner, but he answers only to the law and can do whatever he wants with his money as long as it's not illegal.

>>7013665
average /sci/ poster, everybody

>>7013706
>lol capitalism is so greedy xD they only care about shareholders occupy wallstreet!!!
>Lol what do you mean private company?

>>7013621
>I thought their goal as a company was to make money by putting payloads into space like their share holders expect them to?
Although it's a for-profit business, it's not a publicly traded corporation. They aren't bound by law to act as profit-obsessed sociopaths, they're just not bound by law from taking a profit.

>>7013593

They won't be running out of money. They're a healthy and thriving company. They sell plenty of rocket flights and are well positioned to sell more. Each flight is a free attempt at recovery. The next one has a good shot for success.

why does this guy talk like a Vietnamese preteen

okay, so what exactly was it supposed to do?

land straight up and down?

has this -ever- been accomplished?

>>7013983
only on test flights
* DC-X
* Armadillo Aerospace
* Masten Space Systems
* and SpaceX's own Grasshopper

but nothing that has put things into orbit. SpaceX is the first.

>>7012990

at least he has a good sense of humor

Have I not been keeping track or was this a second launch?

Last week he said there was no good video.

>>7013665
There are no "shareholders." It's a private company, not a publicly traded one.

>>7013593
A this stage SpaceX is already providing substantially cheaper launches than its competitors. They're making money this way. The primary goal of the launch was successful and this test was a step forward for a successful landing.

>>7014234

They almost certainly threw it through some post-processing in order to make the landing more visible. Just like they did when they landed it in water.

>>7012699
SpaceXtraFail

>>7013593
>first time they've done this
>WILL THEY EVER GET IT RIGHT?!?!

>>7014234
It's the first launch. A second launch is occurring 2-3 weeks from now.

Yea, Musk just btfo everyone and announced his 4,025 unit satellite constellation venture.

>>7013162
that needs to be a webm

Why were they trying to land the rocket on a barge? What is the advantage over landing on the ground?

>>7016799

They want to land on land but the FAA won't let them until they can prove their system is reliable. There is also the added bonus on not needing as much fuel, so some flights will require a barge if they want to reuse the first stage.

>>7014083
>SpaceX is the first.
Not exactly.

>>7016799
As other anon said, it was to prove that they won't fuck shit up if it misses. Looks like it was a good call.

But now they want to use it for Falcon Heavy. FH first stage has three sections, and two of them break off like a stage separation, while the center one keeps going. But only one of those is going to head back to land (I guess they don't want two first stages both trying to land next to each other at the same time), and the third section will be too far to get back to land. So the plan with FH is to have two barges.

Also they eventually want to refuel on the barge to fly back to land. That should be interesting.

>>7012699
>>7012797
>>7012800
>>7013000
>>7013014
My personal favorite is the middle frame. Just look at how the explosion and light are peering through the crack.

>>7016864
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wNveCyyu3s

>>7013013
>after the steering fins failed
I don't get it
one would think they'd double and triple check everything vital to prevent such a fuckup occuring for such a stupid reason

>>7014083
not to mention NASA's morpheus lander

>>7020307
frankly I don't get how the fuck the hydraulic system could have run out of hydraulic fluid?

Are just venting it to the atmsosphere? the fuck man?

but even then, holy shit, they were able to hit the landing pad without the steering fins, that's actually something else

>>7020307
idk man, atleast they didnt let their crew pods blow up like nasa did.

>>7020586
Because it's an open-loop system. The stuff needed to keep the fluid around for a four minute ride isn't worth its weight or complexity. And from what I hear, the "hydraulic fluid" is just more RP-1 fuel.

>>7015146
>musk will never throw you onto the bed and mount you
>he will will never whisper in your ear as you moan and cum beneath him "You love this, don't you, you ULA slut."
>you will never feel his massive Falcon pulse and cum in you as he tells you of his plans for satellite constellations and trips to Mars

IN MUSK WE TRUST

>>7020586
>>7020634
They used a special pressurized fuel container for the RP-1 "hydraulic fluid", after use its fed into the engine.

>>7020724
Seventy thousand keks.

>>7020579
you mean the one that blew up on one of the earliest launch/land attempts and they just buried the project?

>>7020724
>>7020748

>musk finally cums inside you and pulls out
>as you lovingly slurp at and clean his dick off, he whispers "You Ariannesluts really aren't worth 60 dollars a pop. I'll give you 15 instead."
>you shudder and cum hands free as this future visionaries words and humiliation turn you on more than anything else

>>7020754
>Buried the project
What are you talking about? They've made great progress in precision landing flights.

>>7020634
>>7020745
WAT. Why don't they just use some nice electric actuators? It'll be much more reusable than hydraulics. I thought SpaceX had the balls to use innovative tech.

>>7020762
Probably heavier and more failure points.

>>7020756
i've literally seen _nothing_ of morpheus since the explosion

>>7020764
electrical actuators, like the type used in robots are super reliable and have MTBFs of 100,000 hrs.

Shit, I need to get my crochety old actuators professor on twitter so he can blast Elon musk on hydraulics. He hates hydraulics so much that he wants to make them obsolete.

>>7020779
I'm gonna go with it's difficult to generate/store power on a rocket stage.

>>7020779
they still sound heavier, and need electricity to run, which is itself several failure points

>>7020776
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3D9m5zhhF8&feature=youtu.be

2 seconds in google

>>7020754
>you mean the one that blew up on one of the earliest launch/land attempts and they just buried the project?
>i've literally seen _nothing_ of morpheus since the explosion


>people like this post on /sci/

Since apparently you only learn about things by watching short youtube clips instead of reading about the subject like a normal human being, here are some videos for you.

You fucking imbecile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3D9m5zhhF8

https://www.youtube.com/user/MorpheusLander/videos


The project was a success in testing various fuels and software that will be applicable for future missions on the moon and mars.

>>7013593
>tfw $1Billion investment from Google and co.

>>7014083
Apollo Lunar Descent Stage.

>>7020762
>I thought SpaceX had the balls to use innovative tech.
SpaceX has the common sense to not experiment with unproven tech on key components for miniscule gains.

>much more reusable than hydraulics
Considering that the engine gimballing is hydraulic, I can't see much to be gained there.

>>7022188
It didn't put anything into orbit, especially Earth orbit. It only took things out of lunar orbit.

>>7013206
>Musk confirmed for real life Tony Stark.
Yeah. He is.
If there's going to be one billionaire visionary genius in our generation, it's him.

>>7022188
There had been, and have been many descent stages apart from Apollo. That is nothing new! What Spacex did, was launch something to Earth orbit, then land that first stage back to Earth, to a precisely determined location! No chance to overshoot the target. Hit or miss; they hit it!

What do you think Musks real goal is /sci/?

>>7023287
>What do you think Musks real goal is /sci/?

To create as many haters on /sci/ and Russia and use their tears to develop a new endless fuel source to power humanity for the rest of eternity.

>>7023287
He's stated his goal. Lower overall launch costs to the point where Mars settlement is feasible. SpaceX was started because he tried conceiving of a "Mars greenhouse" demonstration, and found that almost all the expense was in launch and transit. In his opinion, lowering costs requires reusable stages. Only recently has he given up on the goal of second stage reuse.

Part two of this goal is the development of the Raptor methane fueled engines, because methane is an easier fuel to generate on Mars for the return journeys.

Why does musk work his employees into a grave?

Lack of funding?

Sure he pays them good money,but if he burns them out he can't retain talent

>>7023364
>Only recently has he given up on the goal of second stage reuse.
>development of the Raptor methane fueled engines, because methane is an easier fuel to generate on Mars
Raptor is about higher specific impulse, cheaper fuel, cheaper engines, more powerful engines (to make a larger vehicle feasible), and better reusability, in part to enable second stage reuse. It'll be an all-around improvement over the Merlin, with the possible exception of thrust-to-weight.

They didn't give up on second stage reuse (Elon has recently stated that they could have made it work on Falcon Heavy), they just decided it would make more sense to pursue starting with the development of the Raptor engine.

It's actually debatable whether methane or a type of kerosene would be easier to generate on Mars. While the chemical process is a bit easier, methane takes twice as much hydrogen per unit mass as kerosene, so they'd need to collect more water to make the same amount of fuel. Methane is, however, an order of magnitude cheaper on Earth than rocket-grade kerosene is.

>>7023447
They're trying to ramp up operations quickly, and it takes time to train skilled workers.

Above the level of skilled factory floor workers, there is no substitute for a combination of talent and familiarity with the problem. You simply can't hire two key engineers each working 40 hours a week to replace one key engineer working 80 hours per week.

People work like mad at startups. SpaceX is still a startup.

Who wakes up and says "I want to work at NASA" still these days?

Is NASA worried about loosing their employees?