[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 87 KB, 1200x675, barge-landed-1920-1080.png.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7289804 No.7289804 [Reply] [Original]

Ok sci/anons start throwing your most ingenious ideas to help SPACE X (The only true space explorers) at solving this problem
>Can't say add more boosters/stabalizers/gyroscopes...

>My idea magnetic breaking at a large scale, but then again it would mess around with the gps cause of the induced magnetic fields.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhMSzC1crr0

>> No.7289840

>>7289804
>The only true space explorers
Stopped reading at this point. Isn't it a few more weeks before high schools let out?

>> No.7289841

>>7289804
Refine their landing software and continue attempting landing until the system is fully debugged. Their first failure was because of hydraulic fluid in the landing legs and the second was because they didn't have enough precision on their engine's thrust vectoring or something, if I remember correctly. They don't need magnets, they just need to perfect the system they are using.

>OP what the fuck are you talking about magnets? Nobody even knows how they work.

>> No.7289844

the main problem is they can't use a proper throttle because it has to be an efficient first stage
also gps is essentially useless for fine positioning

>> No.7289847

>>7289840
please tell me how gr8 the ISS has been, its the
biggest waste of money since the apollo program. In addition the only way they can get to the ISS is with the soyuz cap. of the russians... NASA simply died
You were right Space X isn't the only i was just throwing out there ESA and CSA are doing a fine job

>> No.7289851

>>7289844
however with magnetic breaking the only way it would mess up GPS would be after the booster enters the magnetic pipe.... so i don't know if the m.breaking works but theoretically it works according to our head of physics department...

>> No.7289852

>>7289847
>it is russian therefore inherently evil
soyuz is a great rocket family, okay.

So let's get down to business: OP are you twelve, or is this b8?

>> No.7289860

>>7289844
also it may seem like they are very close but what they are trying to do is like dropping a pen and adding little boosters to its clicker... murphies law would always screw them over, nevertheless the wind and humidity,etc and many more factors to be calculated in a small amount of time.

>> No.7289868

>>7289852
Please don't start with the bait bs I'm actually Pro-Russian.
What I meant to say is that NASA isn't doing a good enough job...
And i will always admire that the CCCP was winning the space race and still is...
(Apollo was faked (my pov))
by the way I'm not 12, but 19 (Pure and Applied Science Program/ 3rd semester)

>> No.7289921

>>7289804

Wait a decade until the technology catches up with your ambitions.

>> No.7289927

>>7289921
magnetic breaking isn't some sort of anti gravity field it's simple but my question is does it work on a large scale.
>or do you guys have a better idea...

>> No.7289942

>>7289868

>Apollo was faked (my pov)

That's your "point of view"? As in your opinion? Fuck, you people are as bad as the soccer moms and christians.

>> No.7289955

>>7289942
Couldn't make it to orbit b4 the Russians, Couldn't send first manned mission, Couldn't build 1st Satellite, Couldn't build 1st space station,
but MAGIC!! Abracadabra!!! f*** the Van Hallen Belt, Murphies Law, lets bring up some golf equipment...
lets add some lighting in there call in Stanley Kubrick (gr8 director by the way) for some help....
>America was losing, the cold war and space race...
>Used to like the old America that used to bring in smart immigrants to study and help science advance wasn't all about money (F***** Yuppees)

>> No.7290023
File: 535 KB, 484x544, 1432653442837.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7290023

>>7289955

>> No.7290027

>>7289804
They already have a fucking retrorocket with various control systems.

It's a software issue to make it work now, no need for massive hardware additions.

They'll maybe fail 1 or 2 rockets more and then perform flawless landings for a dozen.

>> No.7290045

>>7289804
>My idea magnetic breaking at a large scale, but then again it would mess around with the gps cause of the induced magnetic fields.
Leave /sci/

>> No.7290145

>>7289860
This. Top heavy.

>> No.7290171

The government is forcing them practice landings on barges in order to slow their progress.

There are billions of acres of land in the western USA that are owned by the government. used for dangerous and toxic things like military weapon testing and storage. Yet for some reason SpaceX can't get approved to test land a rocket on solid ground.

>> No.7290246

>>7289955
Notice the failure in the Soviet program was the heavy lift vehicle, they planned the exact same architecture. If you believe the Russians knew what they were doing then the Van Allen belts wouldn't pose a problem.

Also note that there were thousands of witnesses to the Saturn V. They beat the weaknesses of the soviet program.

NASA wasn't instructed to build a space station, not couldn't but didn't. Just the same as the US has a shuttle first, not because the soviets were incapable.

Shitty logic is shitty.

>> No.7290273

>>7289804
They should add a parachute to slow it down.

>> No.7290278
File: 771 KB, 4011x2326, gk175-1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7290278

use the Buran Booster design.

It is a bit over over engineering but it should be easier to make reliable landings with.

>> No.7290290

>>7290171
Because the first stage detaches from the second stage over the ocean, and the first stage only has just enough fuel to get back to the launch site and land.

It doesn't have enough fuel to get to all the empty land.

>> No.7290293

>>7290290
There is Johnson Atoll and dozens of other tiny uninhabited and useless islands that the US government owns.

>> No.7290308

>>7290293
Do they have launch sites on these atolls?

>> No.7290313

How many failed landing do you think it would take for them to give up?

>> No.7290314

>>7290293
With nothing on them.
Then you have to ship cranes, and equipment to the island, and then transport the booster by sea back to land.

With the barge, you can just tow it back to land, without having to ship a bunch of equipment to some random island.

Also, there is still the possibly that none of the islands are close enough/in suitable positions, you can put the barge wherever you want.

>> No.7290336

>>7290314
but they aren't moving. which would greatly help with the whole landing thing they are currently working on.

look at all the smaller test rockets spacex used. they all got to test the landing system on dry ground and they all worked.

>> No.7290341

>>7290313
never going to give up. their test rockets are launching commercial payloads. so they are still making money on the whole thing.

>> No.7290349

>>7289955
You, my dear anon, impress me greatly. I am awed that you made it to university, in sciences of all things.

The fact that the US made it to the Moon, is impressive. Perhaps, even, unbeleivable as you suggest. It would be if anyone had done it.

Writing as an individual who has done extensive work with US maps of the Moon, with research enabled by the US Moon programme in the 1960's and 70's, as an individual who has not only personally met astronauts who went to the surface of the Moon, but as a person who has spoken with scientists, geologists, carographers and astronomers who aided in the preperation for the flights thereto, and in the subsequent anaylsis, I feel justified in calling you a fool, or worse.

But I shall restrain myself.

>The US went to the Moon.

There is too much evidence in support of that to be taken down by as pathetic an argument as you provide to the contrary. There are many political forces that worked together, amazingly, to allow this to happen, and that they worked so well in the 60's but no longer, is sad, but certainly the case. Many issues gave the CCCP programme difficulties and setbacks, preventing, perhaps, what would otherwise have been their 'victory' over USA, I am sure if you did some investigating this would become more apparent to you, I can hook you up at a particular space history archive in the US, but my contacts in Russia are, alas more limited.

Like you, at least outwardly, I support the current Russian Space Programme's work; Soyuz is incredibly succesful, as is Progress, though I have some more recent concerns, the evidence stands that the Soyuz vehicle is highly robust. NASA probably, in my view, should not be wasting its time on groups like SpaceX, when such a more capable alternative exists to all SpaceX offers them with resupply and CCDev. But that is my potentially inflammatory take on the issue. Both agencies are unfortunatley overly influenced by the political concerns of their larger governments.

>> No.7290388

>>7290336
>but they aren't moving. which would greatly help with the whole landing thing they are currently working on.
I don't think the barge moving is that much of an issue. They've already shown they can get to the barge consistently, the only issue I can think of are waves, but the barge is fat piece of shit anyway. Plus I believe they want to use barges for Falcon Heavy as the middle core is going too fast to get back to land, so it's useful practice.

>look at all the smaller test rockets spacex used. they all got to test the landing system on dry ground and they all worked.
The test rockets were fully fueled, meaning they were heavy enough that engine could throttle to such a degree that the thrust to weight of the entire rocket could be greater than, or less than 1. The test rocket can hover, its different to an almost empty first stage.

With a Falcon 9, it has almost no fuel left. It's essentially an empty stage, so the engines are almost too powerful. The empty first stage with throttled engines has a thrust to weight ratio of 1 at the very least, it's probably more than 1, so it can't hover for a bit, and then land like the test rockets did. It's a suicide burn, the engines fire at the last possible second, so they use the least amount of fuel possible, then even with a thrust to weight greater than 1, you can still land.

The test rockets and the empty first stage are different things. The test rockets were powered through out every test, the first stage falls from space, then powers up at the last possible second. The test rocket never attempted a suicide burn. They're under different conditions, no point in comparing them.

>> No.7290435

>>7289804
basically give musk a few billion in cash and don't ask for it back, so he can test them another 50 or so times.

they just need more practice currently like >>7290341 said

either way they will just keep testing each time they have a paying mission, in the end they don't lose cash >>7290341

and once they get it working right they will save stupid amounts of cash

>> No.7291908

Been thinking. Needs accurate targetting, however a 'spiders web' catchment lines to slow and hold the thing in the final seconds of landing.
a sort of 3d version of aircraft carrier arrest systems.

>> No.7291912

They aren't space explorers, they are commercial truck drivers.

Space exploration is WAY too expensive for a private company and yields no returns.

>> No.7291933

They should use more powerful RCS, and use them to point the rocket perpendicular to the barge and kill any lateral velocity in the last moments of the landing.

They could embed their new Draco engines and use them as last-resort RCS.

>> No.7291961

>>7289841
this
the system is fine, they're just going from 0 to 100 and need to slowly make it better

>one goofy idea to counter high waves if you put several merlin engines on the barge itself so it can lift off and "hover" for thirty seconds or so to "catch" the landing rocket. the merlins keep the barge completely level and in place despite any wind

>> No.7292664

>>7290349
Fucking this. Thanks anon

>> No.7292753

>>7290290
Their plan is to launch from their new facility in Texas and land the boosters in Florida

>> No.7292785

>>7291933
The RCS is okay, it was software delayed that botched the landing in OP.

>> No.7292877

>>7289955
Sure is summer in here, what is this your first time posting on the 4chinz?

>> No.7292942

>>7291912
Space Mining.

One platinum group metal asteroid has more easily refined metal in it then can ever be mined on earth.

>> No.7292960

put gum onthe bottom.

>> No.7293361

>>7289804
a big muhfuckin net

>> No.7293383

>>7291912
>no returns
wut. Dem astroids be packing some mean minerals bruh. rare earth metals aren't so "rare" out in space.

>> No.7293402

>>7289860
>it may seem like they are very close but what they are trying to do is like dropping a pen and adding little boosters to its clicker... murphies law would always screw them over
It's seems like they're very close because they are very close. Grasshopper took off and landed successfully every time. F9Rdev did the same except for the failure of one non-redundant sensor (something they would never depend on for a working flight), which triggered a flight termination.

They've only made two barge landing attempts. Both impacted on the barge, which is remarkable. The first one failed because the hydraulic fluid for the fins ran out a few seconds early, so it couldn't steer and needed a large rocket-powered divert maneuver. They fixed this issue by increasing the supply of fluid to give them more margin. The second one failed only because of a sticky throttle, which they intend to fix.

There's no reason to think they aren't going to be routinely successful at landing, especially once they switch from barge landings to a larger landing pad on solid ground.

>> No.7293524

>>7289804
A parachute? Works for Nasa. I dont understand why they are trying to do funky UFO style rocket powered landings.

>> No.7293572

>>7293524
lower cost and turn around time.

>> No.7293613

>>7293524
parachute wont work because the rocket will drift too much. You never use parachutes if you want a precise landing on to something.

>> No.7293621

>>7293524
>A parachute? Works for Nasa.
The space shuttle solid rocket boosters didn't fly as high or as fast, were extra-rugged because of the solid fuel (the whole fuel tank was also a combustion chamber), and their reuse didn't save money.

It only "worked for NASA" in a narrow technical sense, just as the space shuttle was technically a reusable launch vehicle, even though it was more expensive per flight than an expendable would have been.

>I dont understand why they are trying to do funky UFO style rocket powered landings.
Why do airliners have landing gear, instead of deploying parachutes and splashing down in the ocean or lake?

If it lands this way, they can just refuel it, restack it, and send it up again. That's the end goal for them.

>> No.7294033

>>7293383
won't asteroid mining be a lot less effective when the price for those precious metals drops enormously fast because their value comes mainly from their rareness

>> No.7294068

it seems like it just needs to take an accurate vector to the landing pad. every time it approaches the landing pad it makes drastic corrections much too late and fucks itself up. the grasshopper test rocket never had to deal with high winds or a whole lot of lateral movement.

obviously the sea and wind are much too dynamic an environment for it's programmed method. my idea is to conduct more tests with a large amount of wind sensors and very accurate movement tracking of the pad.

i would like to see a full scale test done with a totally stationary landing pad.

>> No.7294088

>>7294068
from my knowledge it's supposed to go down next to the pad and then swing over. i think they don't want to risk completely trashing their pad

>> No.7294181

>>7293383

They aren't called rare metals because they are actually rare you fucking idiot

>> No.7294185

>>7292942

space mining is not space exploration...

>> No.7294330

does anyone know (and have a link as to) why the second landing failed? "excess lateral velocity", yeah, but why? slow response programming? wind? useless RCS thrusters?
In the videos it looks like the RCS are not effective enough. The RCS thrusters only start working right before the landing, it seems like, and not like 50 meters above ground, where the oscillations are starting.

>> No.7294333

>>7293524
Parachutes are heavy. No precision landing. No lanidng on land. Landing in the ocean = ruined stage.

>> No.7294335

>>7294330
In the video, for example, the rocket starts going sideways at 5 seconds, while the RCS is only engaged at like 7 seconds.

>> No.7294366

>>7291961

inverse skycrane? I like it. but not really feasible.

how about - a flying umbilical. a fuel hose that flies up to the rocket and supplies it with extra fuel for a bigger RCS boost to prevent tumbling.

>> No.7294369

>>7293613
>>7294333

there are controlled parachutes. you don't need to use the circular type. we have computers and shit you know.

a human can land on a dime, a rocket should be able to land on a barge.

>> No.7295134

>>7294068
>it seems like it just needs to take an accurate vector to the landing pad. every time it approaches the landing pad it makes drastic corrections much too late and fucks itself up.
Attempt 1: fins ran out of hydraulic fluid
Attempt 2: throttle was sticking

Both were simple mechanical failures. Third attempt is likely to succeed.

>> No.7295594

>>7289840
I got out yesterday.

>> No.7295742

>>7294033
Only for minerals that are precious for their rarity, like diamonds and shit people wear. But some minerals are valuable because they are useful, like palladium, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element , etc...