- Last post
- 201 Responses
Honestly this idea of trying to land a thin ass, tall rocket on a platform by controlled descent seems like the dumbest idea ever. How is this ever going to be reliable? Look at thing wobble, just as you would expect. There has got to be a much better way to do this.
Even if they can get this nutty idea to work most of the time, it seems like people are gonna die at some point trying this unless the top can be launched off if it starts tipping over.
- they do it to learn something. of course there is better safer technology around, they are just pushing the limits.uan
- Im sure, but it just seems ludicrous to me. Defies all common sense.CygnusZero4
- These are smart ppl, Im sure theres a good reason for what theyre doing, I just cant think of it lol.CygnusZero4
- if they manage to land that thing on a tiny spot in the ocean, they pretty much have the technology to land anything anywhere.uan
- Im sure they might get lucky and nail it one time, but do you really see this as ever being reliable?CygnusZero4
- Seems different than Apollo. They were doing things that made sense. This makes no sense at all though.CygnusZero4
- the difference to Apollo might be they are doing the experiments in public. The successful Apollo mission was brought into space by a Saturn V (not 1) rocketuan
- It does look a little unnerving, watching it wobble. But we all hope this is just the first step.formed
- I think the point, Cygnus, is to find something better than the old shuttle, which you have to fly in like a plane.monospaced
- But mostly so he can land on other planets that you can't fly in. Also it helps with balance of payloads in our atmosphere, and ultimately costs.monospaced
"I don't understand it; it's a dumb idea".
It's a shame you're so limited in your appreciation of it, because it's a venture that stems directly from something close to your own heart, Cygnus, namely — computer games.
ok, i'm slightly oversimplifying here, but it's certainly true for the likes of John Carmack's space efforts, wherein he realised a long time ago that the processing power available to simulate physical environments and response loops in software and computer games were as, if not more, complex than that a 'simple' (says he) and largely quantifiable real world environment could throw him.
They say that half of the heads in SpaceX are programmers and software engineers, not the mechanical-pencil wielding atomic-thumping engineers of the space race days.
Presumably smarter minds than ours have put a lot more consideration and, more importantly, millions of their dollars, behind their conviction.
And if you still think this is all crazy, you should check out what ULA's response has been...
There are smarter people in the world than us - best let them get on with it, I say.
Also, just to clarify - they're currently only testing return and recovery on the first stage of the rocket. Perhaps in future they might recover further stages.
The meat package you're concerned about stays at the top of the rocket and gets hoyed into space, as intended (well, will do once they get their rocket human rated).
Ok so the point of this is to launch people into space, send them on their way, then bring this back to Earth to be reused. I get all that, what I dont get is the way they are trying to accomplish this, but firing a rocket at the bottom of a very tall and thing structure, while its descending.
Picturing this in my head before I ever saw them try this, I envisioned it wobbling and toppling over, and thats exactly what keeps happening. I get that there is very smart people trying to make this work, but the possibility is there that it will never work, because the idea itself it doesnt seem feasible at all.
I just have to believe there has got to be a better way to do this. Im not getting paid to sit around all day and come up with idea, but what theyre trying right now is not something I would get hung up on for too long before starting to experiment with other methods. Just like NASA, its not impossible for SpaceX to head down the wrong path. All Im saying is what they are trying seems super crazy and silly to me.
- Consider trying to land on a planet without our atmosphere, and it makes a lot more sense.monospaced
- I imagine this is a small step to find efficiencies in refueling until we can stop relying on this here on Earth and move the whole process offworld.zenmasterfoo
- Also, not only is it feasible, they're really close to perfecting it, and have actually landed it successfully.monospaced
- Until that time we need to stop wasting so much ($$) on unrecoverable rockets and repurpose what we can as often as possible (i.e., land them)zenmasterfoo
- THe whole point of this is to make it repurposablemonospaced
Watch the video I posted on the previous page, particularly the manoeuvring of the main rocket, and the wee thrusters at the top of the stack, and the extent of control available in the last seconds before it undoes itself.
You're right, perhaps it is a pointless cause.
I'd bet it's not though.
Looking at the comments on the crash vid, someone said its like trying to balance a pencil on your finger and will never be reliable, even if they can figure out how to make it work, there will be many times when it just wont work due to the shape of the vehicle, tall and thin.
It seems like people invest millions into an idea and get so hung up on trying to force it to work, that admitting it wasnt a great idea becomes impossible for them.
the one complicating aspect of all this is the droneship, or rather the swell and oceanic gusts it's subject to. I'd wager it would be a lot easier to achieve on terra firma where all the reference points on the ground are absolutely static and expected to be so after a successful landing.
- I think thats the ultimate goal, not to do this on the ocean.CygnusZero4
- Makes you wonder though, theres plenty of places on land to test this. So why arent they?CygnusZero4
- They launch from Florida and there aren't many available land masses to the east they could do. They've secured a landing pad from the air force for the future.detritus
- Also, they started with land testing, just not from live sub-orbital launches. https://www.youtube.…detritus
- And as if by magic..
Btw I think Musk is a genius. He isnt a guy that got lucky, fell into some money and started up some random business. Hes trying to find ways to move humanity forward which is pretty amazing, but hes not the only one running SpaceX. Its a big company now and there are investors. For them to find out they dumped fortunes into this, and for them to just realize this idea isnt working and they have to start over on something else, that wont sit well with anyone, so I just hope they are pushing on with this crazy idea because they actually think they can make it work, and do it reliably, not for political reasons.
A guy in the comments said this. Is this not possible? Lots of people saying trying to land this thing verticle is bananas so some of the people have some alternate ideas.
"Can't they devise some kind of spider web like catching system? Or a giant cushion, on which the rocket can just fall the last few feet? Bet a recovery could then be made even in heavy seas..."
- or a gig ass parachute like they already use on their smaller applications and land it in the desert and not a small ass target like an expensive ocean platformmoldero
- parachute will only work if there's an atmosphere to provide drag, and that's not the case on most planetsmonospaced
- i see penis and vaginaset
Aye, I was thinking about something like a sling or a harness that could pop around and envelope the top, or something, once landed, however..
there are two main reasons not to:
• it really should just be able to work on its own
• as mono keeps pointing out, all of this dev has an eye on mars, where there can be no expectation of infrastructure at the landing site
- true, but in the meantime, they could fucking reuse the rockets with a simpler system already, and keep investigating structureless ways..ESKEMA
- they could improve it until the net would not be needed anymore.ESKEMA
- Sure, i suspect they just think they're a lot closer to a successful attempt, is all.detritus
- I think they are too.. That landing was really close on the spot...ESKEMA
Perhaps not exactly the right thread for this, but Jeff Bezos' somewhat secretive rocket company, Blue Origin, released a well-produced reel showing one of the development test flights.
The rocket itself looks fucking cool, if quite dildo-like...
That was cool.
And the replay
THE WHY AND HOW OF LANDING ROCKETS
That controlled descent was successful, but about 10 seconds before landing, a valve controlling the rocket’s engine power (thrust) temporarily stopped responding to commands as quickly as it should have. As a result, it throttled down a few seconds later than commanded, and—with the rocket weighing about 67,000 lbs and traveling nearly 200 mph at this point—a few seconds can be a very long time. With the throttle essentially stuck on “high” and the engine firing longer than it was supposed to, the vehicle temporarily lost control and was unable to recover in time for landing, eventually tipping over.
...third attempt this Sunday
- what happened??inv
- Looked like it blew up.islandbridge
- I think it blew. Need to rewind, but there was some weirdness no the nose around MaxQ, a wee while before.. whatever happened.detritus
- Around 1:14, when the noise interference kicks in, there are two bright points on the nose cone.detritus