Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 41
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
All today's birthdays', congrats!
kg7bz (68)
steve516 (31)


Next birthdays
05/16 kg7bz (68)
05/16 steve516 (31)
05/17 Finn Hammer (72)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

SpaceX Crashes.

Move Thread LAN_403
Patrick
Mon Jan 18 2016, 11:48PM Print
Patrick Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
Ive been looking for info on the number of crashes of the reusable vertical landing one. Successful versus unsuccessful numbers. Ive been reading all the news media articles, but of course when it comes to technology, the media spoon feeds the masses info - even they don't understand.
Back to top
...
Tue Jan 19 2016, 05:54AM
... Registered Member #56 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:02AM
Location: Southern Califorina, USA
Posts: 2445
So far there has been 1 success, as to the number of failures it depends on how you count. There have been a total of 21 launches of the Falcon 9, so you could say that there have been 20 failures but that would be disingenuous since they only even tried to land about half of them, in fact they did not even have the landing legs attached until the 9th flight.

There were also the Grasshopper, which was a modified Falcon 9, which was a test bed for the landing systems. That one flew 8 times with increasing heights each time, with the final flight reaching a height of about a half a mile, all with successful recoveries.

Most of the flight data is publicly available through their press releases, and details about the failures are usually released via tweet a few hours after a failed launch or recovery. There is a nice summary on wikipedia at Link2

The thing that I would like is a bit more advance warning before launches take place, I think you are supposed to follow their twitter to listen for launch updates but that requires sifting through the rest of their publicity. At least the coverage they have of their launches, in my opinion, is a fair bit better than the shuttle launches were, especially considering that until nasa started streaming nasa tv online in the mid 2000's you either had to have one of the C-band satellite receivers (the bigass 10ft dishes) to get the over-the-air broadcasts or hope that your local cable provider carried the channel that showed launches.
Back to top
Carbon_Rod
Tue Jan 19 2016, 08:21PM
Carbon_Rod Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155
As a company, they primarily rely on secrecy to protect their industrial designs.
This ensures that:
1. They will usually be 3 years ahead of anybody else technologically
2. The huge legal cost can be reallocated into design expenses
3. Given 1 & 2 , like JPL they do not publish 99% of their accomplishments

A reusable launch stage is very difficult to model as the mass is always decreasing, and has partially filled liquid propellants sloshing around the tank baffles. Its the kind of control problem that gives Engineering physics people nightmares.

I was impressed they managed to get it to work once.
wink
Back to top
Patrick
Wed Jan 20 2016, 07:57PM
Patrick Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639
Carbon_Rod wrote ...

A reusable launch stage is very difficult to model as the mass is always decreasing, and has partially filled liquid propellants sloshing around the tank baffles. Its the kind of control problem that gives Engineering physics people nightmares.

I was impressed they managed to get it to work once.
wink

yeah I was drawing the same conclusions over the past year or so. they must have ultra high speed - ultra sophisticated control models. even then, theyd have trouble keeping up with the unwanted changes. That's a lot of inertia to be standing straight up and down, and not have it be tilt-happy

I'm just wondering how much mass-fraction theyre losing as on orbit payload, due to this recovery and reusability business model.

Also the DC-X had a pyramid shape, with that wide base. I'm sure that made it more stable. Mr. Musk doesn't have that advantage.
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.