Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on April 16, 2015, 12:10:08 pm
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32330383
Almost got it, bit more practice needed.
Also, am I alone in half expecting a Kerbal to fly past the camera in the last few seconds?
-
Definitely not too terrible of a landing failure. A lot less embarrassing than some of my own in KSP. :p
Kerbals: Teaching us that rocket science is hard, and things like to explode.
-
From what i briefly gathered, apparently a landing leg failed, eventually causing the propellant tanks to rupture?
-
It's hard to tell from just a video, but it does look like the thing was swinging just a little too fast to the right (from the cameras perspective) when contact was made, which could have damaged the leg, or simply caused the whole platform to start tilting, which would have magnified the effect.
Edit, the problem is, I think, that whilst it is safer to land on a water-bound platform it's also much, much harder, the thrust will actually push the surface you aim to land on away from you as you descend, which adds some difficult variables to the equation.
-
It swings quite a lot before touching down. They do have to improve their algorithms / hardware.
It still *is* impressive that the thing was almost landing there. From the ****ing space station all the way down to us. That's ****ing amazing. When I first watched that SpaceX render about their rockets landing on land I was like "Yeah that's quite the idea and that's ****ing awesome, but I'll probably just watch this unfold in 2020, 2025...". Boy was I wrong. These guys don't play at work!
-
It swings quite a lot before touching down. They do have to improve their algorithms / hardware.
Actually, a lot of that is a planned maneuver. They're trying to do the bulk of the maneuvering away from the platform in order to avoid heat damage to the platform, only swinging over when they're actually ready to cut the engine and drop the vehicle.
-
If they tried it on land then it would've been more stable surely?
Downthrust on unstable (floating) platform equals unstable landing?
-
Problem is that there are apparently no usable facilities for landing near the flight path they're taking.
Also this thing about them not having landings quite down yet.
-
It still *is* impressive that the thing was almost landing there. From the ****ing space station all the way down to us. That's ****ing amazing.
I agree that it's amazing, but this part doesn't really go anywhere near the space station. It's the first stage of the launch vehicle - after it separates from the second stage and payload, those continue to orbital insertion, while the first stage falls towards the recovery zone.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Falcon_9_First_Stage_Reusability_Graphic.jpg)
I think they need to add (more powerful) lateral thruster system to arrest sideways movement and to prevent it from toppling over. Either that, or build some sort of actuation hardware that can move the landing pad to match the rocket's sideways movement exactly, and then dampen it slowly to prevent topplage.
-
Ah, so that movement was actually designed? That's even more impressive!
-
I'm sure there is a reason for it, but why weren't jettisonable chutes used for initial deceleration, surely that would have weighed less than the fuel required for the same manouvre? I'm assuming it's either because of steering issues, as in you, you can't steer the thing while the chutes are open, or because the atmosphere isn't dense enough at that altitude to produce the necessary deceleration?
-
Problem is that there are apparently no usable facilities for landing near the flight path they're taking.
That's a fair point.
Also this thing about them not having landings quite down yet.
Needs more mechjeb
-
MechJeb Auto-land has killed more of my Kerbals than doing it manually, especially on the Mun, it doesn't seem to realize that 70 m/s is not a good speed to be doing when you hit the ground.... :(
-
It landed, just fell on it's side shortly after. Pretty great for landing a really long skinny cylinder.
-
It swings quite a lot before touching down. They do have to improve their algorithms / hardware.
Actually, a lot of that is a planned maneuver. They're trying to do the bulk of the maneuvering away from the platform in order to avoid heat damage to the platform, only swinging over when they're actually ready to cut the engine and drop the vehicle.
No, Luis is correct (or in the ballpark). According to a now-deleted tweet by Elon Musk, a sticky valve caused lag in the control system (similar to pilot-induced oscillation).
Additionally, a last-minute swing over the platform would actually cause more heat damage, since the flame would be in contact with the surface longer. (The platform is quite resilient against heat damage in any case.)
because the atmosphere isn't dense enough at that altitude to produce the necessary deceleration?
That's the correct answer. Chutes are only useful after you've already entered the atmosphere and slowed down.