Falcon Heavy (RLV) Test Flight

[LAGC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c

Actual footage begins at 08:00 -- this was originally live streaming coverage from earlier today.

Or skip straight to the launch @ 29:30.

[imanaknut]

Watched it live earlier today. Put a smile on my face to see that beauty lift off, and then watch the two boosters do a perfect side by side landing back at the Cape. Too bad about the main booster, but the important part is the Falcon Heavy did it's thing and put a Tesla convertible into orbit.

[Full Otto]

Those boosters coming back are pretty cool

[l921428x]

With all the crap going on here I was looking forward to watching the the launch.
Some how I have fallen out of favor and the stream just kept buffering.

Missed it. Thank you for the link I will watch it now.

Oh my that was just BEAUTIFUL.

[stevelyn]

Those boosters coming back are pretty cool

Yes they are. Watching them drop out of the sky and fire for a landing made me realize that the cool sci-fi, space themed shows and movies that I remember watching growing up, showed rockets landing vertical on planets or moons at the time when NASA was using Saturn Vs. Today another science-fiction concept has become science fact. Too bad they lost the center core.

[l921428x]

I remember screaming at Columbia to go!!!!!!

I watched the LAGC thread not with wonder but with admiration.

[Krupski]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSwFU6tY1c

Actual footage begins at 08:00 -- this was originally live streaming coverage from earlier today.

Or skip straight to the launch @ 29:30.



The second stage engine is awesome to look at with it's radiation cooled nozzle extension glowing orange hot. The temperature streaks also clearly show the outer injector film cooling pattern.

Honestly though, I HATE seeing a private company flying vehicles that NASA should be flying. How about giving NASA some more money and a little less to crap like "the arts" and welfare?

What would we do if Musk wasn't a rocket enthusiast and didn't form SpaceX? Depend on the Russians for everything?

Even now, WE can't even send an American to the ISS without buying a ride from Russia.

NASA put America on the moon and put America first, way above any other country in science, manufacturing and technology and now the government thumbs their nose at them as our tech lead slowly dissolves and fades away.

Pisses me off to no end.

[Krupski]

Those boosters coming back are pretty cool



It does make sense to recover them (they DO cost quite a bit!) rather than dump them in the ocean, but this also lowers the total payload that they can place in orbit.

They need to save some propellant for the return burn and landing, whereas NASA launch vehicles used a thing called "PU (propellant utilization) shift" which slowly modified the fuel to oxidizer mixture ratio in a burning stage in order to simultaneously deplete both tanks at the same time. If they didn't do that, they would have a low level sense shutdown with quite a bit of unused oxidizer or fuel left in a tank... dead weight carried up for nothing.

The very minor performance penalty of running slightly off-optimal mixture ratio was more than offset by the gain of not carrying hundreds of liters of unused dead weight up.

[imanaknut]

As a son of the space age I am glad to see someone other than NASA putting stuff into space. NASA served it's purpose when it was deemed the government was the only entity that had rights to "outer space". Unfortunately they stepped on themselves many times when they wouldn't listen to engineers and outside personnel.

As examples:
Don't launch the shuttle in cold weather as the booster seals can't handle the cold.

Boeing offered to build and partly fund the ISS by building non-manned launch vehicles that would use the shuttle main engines and only require six or seven launches to lift all parts of the space station. NASA said no which required many more than six shuttle flights.

Don't spent the time and money to test the shape of the Hubble Space Telescope primary mirror. Already behind time and over budget. Yeah that turned out well.

Sure there will be a learning curve for any new space launch company, but in the end this is one instance where diversity is good, and the competition will leap-frog us back into the new space age.

[JTHunter]

I wish SpaceX all the luck in the world, for a variety of reasons.

But, there is one caveat to remember - the more "parts" there are, the easier it is to screw up. The more "complex" things are, the more they can fail.

With a total of 27 engines, what do you think will happen if one pump on one engine goes out? What happens if one engine burns a tiny hole in its combustion chamber?

[imanaknut]

I wish SpaceX all the luck in the world, for a variety of reasons.

But, there is one caveat to remember - the more "parts" there are, the easier it is to screw up. The more "complex" things are, the more they can fail.

With a total of 27 engines, what do you think will happen if one pump on one engine goes out? What happens if one engine burns a tiny hole in its combustion chamber?

I thought about that too. The Saturn 5 only had 5 main engines which still requires a tremendous amount of precision. I wondered about 27 engines all having to start within a split second and throttle up and down without complaint. The reason the main booster did not land successfully on the off shore platform is that not all engines restarted as needed for a safe landing.

Is there a time limit before release of the Falcon Heavy that one engine not up to snuff will cause a launch abort and remain on the pad? That has happened once that I know of on the Space Shuttle, where the main engines lit but launch was aborted and they were shut down safely. What about 27 engines?

[imanaknut]

Added: Went to the Space X website and this booster was designed to be able to still make orbit with more than one engine failure. Evidently it carries enough fuel to allow the other engines to burn longer in the event of an engine out. Of course this added fuel is at the expense of payload, and the number of engine failures to still make orbit is also based on payload.

I believe the Saturn 5 was designed so that there was just enough fuel for each stage to do it's job. Zero extra fuel translated into a heavier payload ability.

Such is the game of space travel.

[Krupski]

Don't spent the time and money to test the shape of the Hubble Space Telescope primary mirror.


There were two Hubble mirrors built... one by Kodak as a backup and the primary by Perkin-Elmer.

Both are top notch companies. The problem with the Perkin-Elmer mirror was that the alignment of the optical test jig was a bit off. I don't think NASA is or was equipped with a full optics laboratory to re-test the mirror upon arrival (they barely get enough $$$ for their primary work). Sadly, the Kodak mirror IS perfect and it still sits on the ground.



Don't launch the shuttle in cold weather as the booster seals can't handle the cold.

Morton-Thiokol engineers TOLD NASA that it was too cold. NASA management overruled them.


Sure there will be a learning curve for any new space launch company, but in the end this is one instance where diversity is good, and the competition will leap-frog us back into the new space age.

"Competition" will lead to cutting corners and more loss of life and vehicles. Spaceflight is one place where there should be no "competition". Give NASA the funds they need and let them do it RIGHT.

[Krupski]

I wish SpaceX all the luck in the world, for a variety of reasons.

But, there is one caveat to remember - the more "parts" there are, the easier it is to screw up. The more "complex" things are, the more they can fail.

With a total of 27 engines, what do you think will happen if one pump on one engine goes out? What happens if one engine burns a tiny hole in its combustion chamber?



Depends. Loss of one engine's thrust due to sensors shutting it down will probably have almost no effect. The rest should have more than enough margin to make the delta-V requirements.

However, a catastrophic engine loss (translation: explosion) would result in the loss of the entire vehicle. If a future booster were manned, the launch escape system would fire and pull the astronauts to safety.

[Krupski]

Added: Went to the Space X website and this booster was designed to be able to still make orbit with more than one engine failure. Evidently it carries enough fuel to allow the other engines to burn longer in the event of an engine out. Of course this added fuel is at the expense of payload, and the number of engine failures to still make orbit is also based on payload.

I believe the Saturn 5 was designed so that there was just enough fuel for each stage to do it's job. Zero extra fuel translated into a heavier payload ability.

Such is the game of space travel.

That is indeed true. The first stage was simply meant to shove the spacecraft up above the atmosphere and on the way to orbit and used careful calibration to ensure simultaneous fuel and oxidizer use (although it was not actively controlled), but the second stage and third stage both used that "Propellant Utilization" system I mentioned above.

Since liquid hydrogen needs to constantly vent, there was a limited time that the third stage (S-IV-B) plus spacecraft could remain in earth orbit before doing the translunar injection burn (usually this was only TWO earth orbits or about 180 minutes). After that there would not be enough hydrogen fuel left to complete the TLI burn. That's what you could call "just enough fuel".

An early unmanned test of a Saturn-V placed the vehicle in orbit after the loss of TWO second stage engines. Since two engines were out, they were not using any propellant, which allowed the other three to burn longer and achieve (almost) the same result although the Instrument Unit (guidance) had a hell of a time figuring out what to do and the final seconds of that launch ended with the spacecraft pointed BACKWARDS and doing a retrograde burn to slow down!

[Krupski]

I thought about that too. The Saturn 5 only had 5 main engines which still requires a tremendous amount of precision. I wondered about 27 engines all having to start within a split second and throttle up and down without complaint. The reason the main booster did not land successfully on the off shore platform is that not all engines restarted as needed for a safe landing.

Is there a time limit before release of the Falcon Heavy that one engine not up to snuff will cause a launch abort and remain on the pad? That has happened once that I know of on the Space Shuttle, where the main engines lit but launch was aborted and they were shut down safely. What about 27 engines?


Actually, the engines are probably started in a staggered pattern (for example, the Saturn V first stage started the center F-1 first, then two opposite engines, then the other two, about 125 milliseconds (1/8 second) apart to avoid the mechanical shock to the structure of going from 0 to 7.5 million pounds of thrust all at once.

The Space-X (heavy) ignition sequence probably starts some engines at the same time in all three sections at once, then some more, then the rest. When the computer verifies thrust good on all of them, away she goes (or does a pad abort if one or more DON'T start properly).

BTW, did you know that the F-1 engine (Saturn-V first stage) had a 100% success rate? Not one failure and not one pad abort in the whole program!

[davepool]

Screw rockets, build the space elevator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

[Krupski]

Screw rockets, build the space elevator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

There is no materials known (not even carbon nanotubes) that are strong enough to support their own weight that large (tall), let alone a cargo.

[Justin]

This video gives you a real appreciation for the rocket booster recovery.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

[imanaknut]

There were two Hubble mirrors built... one by Kodak as a backup and the primary by Perkin-Elmer.

Both are top notch companies. The problem with the Perkin-Elmer mirror was that the alignment of the optical test jig was a bit off. I don't think NASA is or was equipped with a full optics laboratory to re-test the mirror upon arrival (they barely get enough $$$ for their primary work). Sadly, the Kodak mirror IS perfect and it still sits on the ground.




Morton-Thiokol engineers TOLD NASA that it was too cold. NASA management overruled them.



"Competition" will lead to cutting corners and more loss of life and vehicles. Spaceflight is one place where there should be no "competition". Give NASA the funds they need and let them do it RIGHT.

My father was project manager for the Hubble at Perkin Elmer. Every part that they built that was installed into the main optical assembly had to be tested by his procedures and if passed, installed and tested again as an assembly. The only part of that telescope that was not tested per his procedures was the main mirror. It was NASA that told him not to test it, they were over budget and weeks behind so the money and time saved was more important.

The real reason that the mirror was ground slightly off spec was a fleck of paint came off one of the screw heads that held the measuring device in place. The mirror was ground in a light tight chamber based on light being bounced off it's surface and the reflection time determining the shape. With the exposed screw, the light bounced off the mirror, then off the exposed screw and back onto the mirror and into the measuring device. This added light bounce threw the measure off very slightly, but with the size of the mirror and the size of the telescope it made for a slightly out of focus picture.

The person in charge of the mirror grinding found the exposed screw head, repainted it and told nobody. If he had said something, of if NASA had let my father test the mirror we wouldn't have needed COSTAR.

This is very possibly the first time the truth has been published. My father was sworn to secrecy, and when the Senate held their hearings, his security clearance was raised high enough that congress could not call him and hence NASA kept it quiet that they were the primary reason that a flaw was introduced into an otherwise amazing piece of equipment. As my father is no longer on this earth, I feel it is ok to spill it.

Again, this is first hand information as it was my father who helped build the Hubble and not something I heard or read on the internet.

[Full Otto]

I just caught a NOVA episode a few days ago about Hubble
I enjoyed it
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/invisible-universe.html

They mentioned toward the end that a new one is in the works that is going to be placed out past Mars I believe

[Krupski]

My father was project manager for the Hubble at Perkin Elmer. Every part that they built that was installed into the main optical assembly had to be tested by his procedures and if passed, installed and tested again as an assembly. The only part of that telescope that was not tested per his procedures was the main mirror. It was NASA that told him not to test it, they were over budget and weeks behind so the money and time saved was more important.

The real reason that the mirror was ground slightly off spec was a fleck of paint came off one of the screw heads that held the measuring device in place. The mirror was ground in a light tight chamber based on light being bounced off it's surface and the reflection time determining the shape. With the exposed screw, the light bounced off the mirror, then off the exposed screw and back onto the mirror and into the measuring device. This added light bounce threw the measure off very slightly, but with the size of the mirror and the size of the telescope it made for a slightly out of focus picture.

The person in charge of the mirror grinding found the exposed screw head, repainted it and told nobody. If he had said something, of if NASA had let my father test the mirror we wouldn't have needed COSTAR.

This is very possibly the first time the truth has been published. My father was sworn to secrecy, and when the Senate held their hearings, his security clearance was raised high enough that congress could not call him and hence NASA kept it quiet that they were the primary reason that a flaw was introduced into an otherwise amazing piece of equipment. As my father is no longer on this earth, I feel it is ok to spill it.

Again, this is first hand information as it was my father who helped build the Hubble and not something I heard or read on the internet.


Wasn't that during Administrator Bolden's "Better-Faster-Cheaper" era?

[Krupski]

I just caught a NOVA episode a few days ago about Hubble
I enjoyed it
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/invisible-universe.html

They mentioned toward the end that a new one is in the works that is going to be placed out past Mars I believe


There is the James Webb Telescope (named after the second NASA administrator (served from 1961 to 1968)).

The telescope, when launched, will be placed at a point called "L2" (LaGrange point 2) which is one of several LaGrange locations around earth where the gravity of the earth and sun cancel out and create true zero-G spots where a satellite can orbit the point in a stable manner without using any propellant.

The SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) sits at L1 which is between the earth and the sun. The L2 point sits BEHIND the earth. Therefore, the James Webb telescope uses the earth as a huge, permanent sun shield.

LaGrange Points
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Lagrange_points2.svg/563px-Lagrange_points2.svg.png


If all works well, the JWST will be able to see about twice the distance of Hubble, and in more wavelengths.

The primary mirror consists of many individual hexagons made of beryllium (a very light and strong metal) plated in gold (to efficiently reflect infrared radiation to the detectors). The segments are connected to actuators and can be individually focused under computer or manual control. The mirror is 6.5 meters in diameter (21.5 feet) compared with Hubble's 2.4 meters (8 feet).

I think someday NASA should place a HUGE telescope on the moon. Stable platform, no distorting air, constantly rotates giving a 360 degree view of the universe. Only problem would be protecting it from the monthly day and night temperature swings of +250 degrees F to -250 degrees F!

[Krupski]

Screw rockets, build the space elevator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator


Here's a puzzle for everyone:

We all know that several hundred miles above the earth's surface the air pressure is virtually zero (a "vacuum") and would suck any air out of an open container.

So, imagine a hypothetical 100 mile long "pipe", one end on the earth's surface and the other end 100 miles up in "space".

Would the low pressure - virtually a vacuum - suck air up into the pipe and eventually make the entire earth a vacuum?

Please explain your answer.

[imanaknut]

Here's a puzzle for everyone:

We all know that several hundred miles above the earth's surface the air pressure is virtually zero (a "vacuum") and would suck any air out of an open container.

So, imagine a hypothetical 100 mile long "pipe", one end on the earth's surface and the other end 100 miles up in "space".

Would the low pressure - virtually a vacuum - suck air up into the pipe and eventually make the entire earth a vacuum?

Please explain your answer.

Thanks for a great laugh!!! Never thought of the imaginary elevator that way, and a good way to think about it. Very interesting.

[JTHunter]

Here's a puzzle for everyone:

We all know that several hundred miles above the earth's surface the air pressure is virtually zero (a "vacuum") and would suck any air out of an open container.

So, imagine a hypothetical 100 mile long "pipe", one end on the earth's surface and the other end 100 miles up in "space".

Would the low pressure - virtually a vacuum - suck air up into the pipe and eventually make the entire earth a vacuum?

Please explain your answer.

Sorry Krupski but that won't work. The reason there is a "vacuum" in space is because of gravity. Gravity causes matter to coalesce and "atmosphere" is matter - just very light matter. The "gravity well" formed by any planet, in this case Earth, would pull matter towards its bottom. The only way a space elevator could use air pressure to get its payload to space is to pump it in under extremely high pressure at the bottom and force the capsule upwards.
Unfortunately, there probably isn't anything available at this time strong enough to hold that high a pressure that can overcome gravity.

[Full Otto]

I've been working on an idea for a while now

http://i63.tinypic.com/984ocz.jpg

So far the only payoff was reimbursement to my neighbors livestock

[Krupski]

Thanks for a great laugh!!! Never thought of the imaginary elevator that way, and a good way to think about it. Very interesting.


Sorry Krupski but that won't work. The reason there is a "vacuum" in space is because of gravity. Gravity causes matter to coalesce and "atmosphere" is matter - just very light matter. The "gravity well" formed by any planet, in this case Earth, would pull matter towards its bottom. The only way a space elevator could use air pressure to get its payload to space is to pump it in under extremely high pressure at the bottom and force the capsule upwards.
Unfortunately, there probably isn't anything available at this time strong enough to hold that high a pressure that can overcome gravity.



I guess you both missed the point. The "trick" question (which, believe me, DOES stump a lot of people) had to do with whether or not the low pressure at altitude would suck air up from the bottom of the pipe. It wasn't a "space elevator" question.

Anyway, the answer is that nothing would happen because the mass of the air inside the pipe would hold it in place same as the air outside the pipe.

Kinda like putting a straw into a glass of water. Nothing would happen.

[Krupski]

I've been working on an idea for a while now

http://i63.tinypic.com/984ocz.jpg

So far the only payoff was reimbursement to my neighbors livestock


Cool! Made it to orbit yet? :)

[l921428x]

I guess you both missed the point. The "trick" question (which, believe me, DOES stump a lot of people) had to do with whether or not the low pressure at altitude would suck air up from the bottom of the pipe. It wasn't a "space elevator" question.

Anyway, the answer is that nothing would happen because the mass of the air inside the pipe would hold it in place same as the air outside the pipe.

Kinda like putting a straw into a glass of water. Nothing would happen.

I might be off here but ain't that called gravity?