|
Barnsy posted:Surely having all that weight land on the engines is just going to smash them up? Surely they will have to develop some sort of legs, what to land on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXdjxPY2j_0
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Barnsy posted:Surely having all that weight land on the engines is just going to smash them up? It has landing legs.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:It has landing legs. http://www.space.com/25597-spacex-reusable-rocket-falcon9r-video.html Its too cool for words.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.space.com/25597-spacex-reusable-rocket-falcon9r-video.html Uh, how much fuel is wasted on doing that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Uh, how much fuel is wasted on doing that? Fuel is .03% of the cost of a rocket. If they can get the engines back for the cost of a few thousand gallons of RP-1, it is a deal, it's a steal, it's the sale of the fuckin' century.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
But if you use so much fuel doing that that you can't provide enough thrust to the upper stages to get it anywhere then whats the point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Uh, how much fuel is wasted on doing that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But if you use so much fuel doing that that you can't provide enough thrust to the upper stages to get it anywhere then whats the point? It's entirely possible that they've designed the system such that it can put payload into orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But if you use so much fuel doing that that you can't provide enough thrust to the upper stages to get it anywhere then whats the point? Turns out, they thought of that, and they can do the mission, like they just did, and still fly the rocket back, like they just came scary-close to doing. Now, it is still an unknown as to how refurbishable the engines will turn out to be. But they already test-fire and re-light the engines successfully, so I suspect it is going to be a whole lot more reusable than our last reusable rocket ship. Depends on the mission. If you need the extra thrust, you pay for a throwaway, or you buy a bigger rocket. If you don't (and many, many missions don't) then theoretically, and amazingly close to in practice, you can lose a bit of maximum performance, and get a second, third, or 40th use out of the expensive parts. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But if you use so much fuel doing that that you can't provide enough thrust to the upper stages to get it anywhere then whats the point? It put a payload in orbit during this test, this was the end result of the ISS resupply mission.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's entirely possible that they've designed the system such that it can put payload into orbit. No poo poo, however the question is what payload into what orbit. This is obviously be less capable per mass than an expendable first stage and need much more engine power to do the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But if you use so much fuel doing that that you can't provide enough thrust to the upper stages to get it anywhere then whats the point? The rocket is specifically designed to deliver its rated payload while leaving enough fuel for the flyback maneuver. Customers who have a heavier payload can opt to dip into that reserve to get it to orbit, at higher cost (since the rocket will fall into the ocean instead of being reused.) Getting 10 flights out of a rocket instead of one will reduce the per-launch costs significantly. Currently, the Atlas 5 costs about $13,000 per pound of payload to low Earth orbit. Falcon 9 already has that beat at ~4,000 per pound, but with full reusability SpaceX has stated they're aiming to get under $1,000, and possibly as low as $500.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:The rocket is specifically designed to deliver its rated payload while leaving enough fuel for the flyback maneuver. Customers who have a heavier payload can opt to dip into that reserve to get it to orbit, at higher cost (since the rocket will fall into the ocean instead of being reused.) Aren't there a lot of launches that are lots of little satellites/experiments/etc that get loaded onto one rocket and all shot up at the same time? I suppose that wouldn't work for something that absolutely had to be in a specific orbit, but if you just need X hours of weightlessness do do a test, it seems like you could share some space with other tests that need to do the same thing. The point of all that being, you could put slightly fewer of the same tests on one rocket, launch it, recover the engines, and launch a second flight at a savings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.space.com/25597-spacex-reusable-rocket-falcon9r-video.html Holy poo poo that is amazing
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Aren't there a lot of launches that are lots of little satellites/experiments/etc that get loaded onto one rocket and all shot up at the same time? I suppose that wouldn't work for something that absolutely had to be in a specific orbit, but if you just need X hours of weightlessness do do a test, it seems like you could share some space with other tests that need to do the same thing. A lot of the time there's a main payload, like a big communications sat, and then some of the extra unused payload mass is used for cubesat storage and deployment. The cubesats get spit out once the rocket is in orbit but before the main payload gets sent to a geosynchronous orbit or whatever, so the space around it doesn't get all clogged up with tiny expendable satellites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Aren't there a lot of launches that are lots of little satellites/experiments/etc that get loaded onto one rocket and all shot up at the same time? I suppose that wouldn't work for something that absolutely had to be in a specific orbit, but if you just need X hours of weightlessness do do a test, it seems like you could share some space with other tests that need to do the same thing. A Falcon 9 can huck a Dragon capsule, which is not small, up to the ISS, and then get pretty close to sticking the landing on a 300' barge in the Atlantic 8 minutes later. So "is it enough" is an answered question. If you need more than that, feel free buy two launches, or pay XXX% more for a disposable. As I understand it, the 3 core Falcon Heavy is projected to be able to get two cores back, but the payload penalty for getting the 3rd one, which is hauling some considerable rear end and way high by the time it is done, is such that they probably won't do it much. Related, SpaceX is looking to vertically integrate the satellite business in a big way. This is all 10-15 years out, but they want to put up a 4000+ satellite constellation, and with that kind of scale, they are going to be doing assembly line manufacturing, not coachbuilding like the existing satellite market. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:If you need more than that, feel free buy two launches, or pay XXX% more for a disposable. As I understand it, the 3 core Falcon Heavy is projected to be able to get two cores back, but the payload penalty for getting the 3rd one, which is hauling some considerable rear end and way high by the time it is done, is such that they probably won't do it much. Although, there's been rumors that they may land the center core on a barge and haul it back that way. Uses a lot less fuel than a full flyback. Even if they don't, it still saves 2/3 the build cost of the total 1st stage so it's worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:No poo poo, however the question is what payload into what orbit. This is obviously be less capable per mass than an expendable first stage and need much more engine power to do the same thing. Overall, this means you can do the return at a minimal additional weight cost, and since the Falcon 9 is already one of the lightest rockets (in terms of the percentage of its loaded mass that is structure and engine versus fuel) they can spare the weight for the legs and grid fins. Now with more pics:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsK97xVCLrw And this is why engine-out capability is good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEERZ0-0yG4 Alereon fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
I'm just going to leave this here, 7 plane formation landing. https://vimeo.com/71747995 EDIT: now with 100% more embedding Kilonum fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:I'm just going to leave this here, 7 plane formation landing. That is a sufficiently tight formation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
vessbot posted:You mean in operational training usage or as a museum piece? As in "operational"... Full motion, tracking course on map with pantograph, everything...
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:The rocket is specifically designed to deliver its rated payload while leaving enough fuel for the flyback maneuver. Customers who have a heavier payload can opt to dip into that reserve to get it to orbit, at higher cost (since the rocket will fall into the ocean instead of being reused.) If they’re going to write‐off the first stage, maybe they can use one that’s already flown several times and is nearing end‐of‐life anyway, reliability demands permitting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Nazi Concorde, from New York to San Francisco in two hours. Heads up: it's a Phillip K. Dick novel and it gets meta as gently caress, moreso than many of his other works. It's good, but mere alt-history it ain't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Diamond is pretty much dead as a company these days. After the disaster of the DJet program bankrupting the company (and a failed sale to a Middle East wealth fund) they've said that they will attempt to fulfill their order backlog and that's it, and there is quite a bit of doubt that they will even be able to do that. I figured they'd be in dire straits after Thielert went belly up. My alma mater had signed papers to buy a dozen DA-42s and lease another dozen or so (or something like that) to replace our aging fleet of Seminoles. Seemed like a good bird, the only gripe the pilot students had was they couldn't paint invasion stripes on them because the difference in temperature across them would cause the wings to crack. I think one, maybe two birds got delivered when Thielert poo poo the bed, and rumor was the admin was scrambling to fill the gap with whatever newer Seminoles they could get their hands on. I know that was still an issue when I graduated, but looks like it got cleared up, according to the website my school has the DA42s with the Lycomings instead of the fancy diesel engines they were hoping for originally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
And they make aero diesels through a subsidiary now. Too bad about their lovely financials, the 42 looks cool as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:And they make aero diesels through a subsidiary now. Too bad about their lovely financials, the 42 looks cool as gently caress. Yeah, I read that; but considering what happened when Thielert filed for insolvency (Diamond revoking warranty for all equipped aircraft), I'd probably stick with the Lycoming engines as I don't think they're going anywhere quite yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Holy poo poo that is amazing Here's the slightly less amazing result from last test:  Midjack posted:Heads up: it's a Phillip K. Dick novel and it gets meta as gently caress, moreso than many of his other works. It's good, but mere alt-history it ain't. Exactly 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Here's the slightly less amazing result from last test: No need to gif those still images, the video was released: https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Midjack posted:Heads up: it's a Phillip K. Dick novel and it gets meta as gently caress, moreso than many of his other works. It's good, but mere alt-history it ain't. My favorite is that (IIRC, its been a few years,) several characters within the novel are reading a popular alt-history novel, about the allies winning WWII. Its meta as gently caress. But yes, go into it expecting a Phillip Dick story that just happens to use alt-history as a setting, and not Harry Turtledove, and you (probably) won't be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:My favorite is that (IIRC, its been a few years,) several characters within the novel are reading a popular alt-history novel, about the allies winning WWII. Its meta as gently caress. Trutthfully I put down Man in the High Castle about 100 pages in. It was taking it's sweet time to get to anything interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Trutthfully I put down Man in the High Castle about 100 pages in. It was taking it's sweet time to get to anything interesting. I guess you just have to like Dick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I guess you just have to like Dick. who among us doesn't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Barnsy posted:Is there a reason they don't just parachute it into the water and then pick it up? Seems less demanding than getting it to land on a tiny platform using rockets. If they rinse it off quickly corrosion shouldn't be a problem. Something that wasn't answered yet (or at least I didn't see it): parachutes are loving heavy. And complicated. And you have way, way less landing accuracy. So they're just not that good compared to a powered landing as it turns out. Also lol at the 'rinse it off quickly'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Looks like the big anit-UAV push that the FAA and pilots' union are undertaking has very little to do with safety. They are worried about losing money. They should have thought about adapting UAVs into their business model 10 years ago instead of lobbying the government to shut down entrepreneurs and tech that's here to stay. http://www.suasnews.com/2015/01/33886/man-vs-drone-some-pilots-fight-back-against-robots/ quote:In an unfolding battle over U.S. skies, it’s man versus drone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Looks like the big anit-UAV push that the FAA and pilots' union are undertaking has very little to do with safety. They are worried about losing money. They should have thought about adapting UAVs into their business model 10 years ago instead of lobbying the government to shut down entrepreneurs and tech that's here to stay. They couldn't have adopted UAVs into their business model 10 years ago because as actual licensed pilots and companies they'd have to follow FAA regulations and drones can't do the entire "see and avoid" thing now let alone 10 years ago. If the FAA comes down hard on someone without a pilot's license oh well, but these real survey companies would go out of business if they did the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Looks like the big anit-UAV push that the FAA and pilots' union are undertaking has very little to do with safety. They are worried about losing money. They should have thought about adapting UAVs into their business model 10 years ago instead of lobbying the government to shut down entrepreneurs and tech that's here to stay. Of course they are, but there needs to be some kind of legislative framework that still has to be hashed out. Simple stuff, like anti collision lights at a minimum, wouldn't cost anything to implement. A way of identifying the equipment owner would be handy too, for when some idiot drone operator thinks it would be funny to buzz a flight deck on approach (seriously, people still fire lasers at approaching flight deck windows practically daily). That one is a lot more difficult without a transponder, but a drone-spec one could probably be developed for not much more than a few hundred dollars. A drone pilot license category isn't a bad idea either. Just a written test would do, it would act as a barrier to at least total fuckwits operating the things. Also it's the FAA, a massive and conservative government agency. If they've moved an inch toward progress in the next 10 years, count that as a victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
You see, my issue with the drone business is that it seems the overwhelming opinion coming from them is "we don't want BIG GUBBMINT interfering in our precious business with all their rules, stifling our creativity abloobloobloo  "Everyone in aviation already works within largely the same framework...why should anyone else get an exception?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
MrChips posted:You see, my issue with the drone business is that it seems the overwhelming opinion coming from them is "we don't want BIG GUBBMINT interfering in our precious business with all their rules, stifling our creativity abloobloobloo They're DISRUPTING THE MARKET therefore the rules do not apply, no you shut the gently caress up dad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
MrChips posted:
The field itself (although granted better in the States than elsewhere) does tend to stifle development and even participation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
MrChips posted:You see, my issue with the drone business is that it seems the overwhelming opinion coming from them is "we don't want BIG GUBBMINT interfering in our precious business with all their rules, stifling our creativity abloobloobloo My impression in that a better functioning world, we would have already sorted this poo poo out, creating regulatory steps for drones that vary from "none" (for those RC helicopters the source sells) to "treat it like a manned aircraft" (a drone with the same capabilities as a manned aircraft, and therefore needs a licensed pilot operating it.) You could have steps between those two based on airframe capability - or maybe weight - and how much poo poo you'd actually need to know to be a responsible operator. For these steps you could also write commonsense rules like "don't operate near airports, fuckwit" and "keep it below 500 ft if you are beneath a class C drone." This of course would require people to a) be adults and b) not be trying to game regulations for advantage to your particular industry. Also I guess c) government competence Still, DISRUPTION. Turns out my hydrogen drone airships don't need no gubbermint regulation 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 20:40
|
|
