SpaceX did it

[TheDestinatus]

Mankind will never colonize space. VR will by the "great filter" and we will remain on earth.

Until 2075 when the Chinese invade the US and we kill ourselves with nukes. True fact.

[Deleted]

Until 2075 when the Chinese invade the US and we kill ourselves with nukes. True fact.

Thanks, had to caffeinate my lungs anyway.

[lockedout]

Well, seeing as there are no people involved...

Did you even read what I quoted?

[Hypasonic]

gif didn't last long enough to see it fall (potentially)

[Reeve]

gif didn't last long enough to see it fall (potentially)

There's a video that goes much much longer. It doesn't fall.

Here's some video from the rocket, btw:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/718605741288894464

Apparently it was high winds too.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Musk seems like he's almost fictional

too good to be true

There's a reason why Robert Downey Jr based his portrayal of Tony Stark on him.

Elon Musk is the real world Iron Man.

[Reeve]

The thing I'm wondering about right now is this. When the space shuttle launches, it's fire going every fucking where:



When a Falcon 9 launches, it's this super tight little plume:



Is the tighter plume better at ensuring all of the energy is pushing in the same direction so that it's more efficient? If so, how does the Falcon 9 manage that?

[Skroe]

The thing I'm wondering about right now is this. When the space shuttle launches, it's fire going every fucking where:


When a Falcon 9 launches, it's this super tight little plume:
[/img]

Is the tighter plume better at ensuring all of the energy is pushing in the same direction so that it's more efficient? If so, how does the Falcon 9 manage that?

It's due to the shape of the Merlin 1Ds nozzle. And yes, it is in part to be efficiency driven at low altitudes, where the most thrust (and fuel) is needed.

To illustrate why, take a look at an old diagram from Linear Aerospike engines (like the XRS2200) that was designed specifically to have a smaller plume as you noticed.








Shuttle SRBS had a very flared exhaust nozzle + skirt (which were gimbaled).

The SLS 5 segment SRB has a new nozzle + Aft Skirt for higher performance.

[zorkuus]

A rocket landing from the space to a landing pad floating in the sea.

For a second there I though it was falling into the ocean.

[Masark]

The thing I'm wondering about right now is this. When the space shuttle launches, it's fire going every fucking where:

When a Falcon 9 launches, it's this super tight little plume:

I'd say the difference is probably due to 2 factors

1. The Shuttle is a heck of a lot bigger, and so are the engines. The Shuttle Orbiter, tank and boosters collectively mass about 2000 tonnes. A Falcon 9 FT comes in at about 550 tonnes. The SSMEs+boosters produced 17,750kN of thrust, vs, 6806kN for the Falcon 9 FT.

2. The Falcon 9's engines are a lot closer together. The entire rocket is 3.66m in diameter. The Shuttle's 3 main engines are stuffed in about that diameter, but then you've got the pair of solid boosters (each of which is approximately the size of a Falcon 9, though shorter), which are separated by the external tank, which is over 8m in diameter.

[Payday]

It's due to the shape of the Merlin 1Ds nozzle. And yes, it is in part to be efficiency driven at low altitudes, where the most thrust (and fuel) is needed.

Weren't the Shuttle Main Engines technically more efficient than Merlins (Staged combustion > gas generator)? Higher Isp and less wasted fuel? Negated by the SRBs? Plume notwithstanding.

[-Zait-]

So fucking cool, I love these companies.

[Osmeric]

Is the tighter plume better at ensuring all of the energy is pushing in the same direction so that it's more efficient? If so, how does the Falcon 9 manage that?

The space shuttle had two big solid boosters on the sides, spread wide apart. The exhaust from these were loaded with aluminum oxide particles and as a result glowed fiercely.

The exhaust from the Falcon's Merlin engines has much less solid/liquid material in it (basically, just some soot). The engines are also closely bunched together.

- - - Updated - - -

Weren't the Shuttle Main Engines technically more efficient than Merlins (Staged combustion > gas generator)? Higher Isp and less wasted fuel? Negated by the SRBs? Plume notwithstanding.

They had higher Isp, but using hydrogen as the fuel in a first stage is a really bad idea, because its density is so low. The first stage is dropped very early in the launch, so the exponential part of the rocket equation doesn't have a chance to really kick in. Being able to pack more kilograms of fuel into the tanks (and make the turbopumps on the engines smaller, as they have to pump less volume to high pressure) ends up being better than achieving a higher Isp.

It also helps that RP-1 (the hydrocarbon fuel) is much cheaper than liquid hydrogen, and much easier to handle.

Their big rocket beyond the Falcon Heavy will burn methane instead of RP-1. Methane is even cheaper.

On upper stages, hydrogen may make more sense. Boeing has a group doing some crazy stuff on advanced upper stages that would work well with propellant depots and extraterrestrial propellant manufacture. They're ahead of SpaceX on this.

[Purpleisbetter]

in b4 the "spaceX is fake"and "the earth is flat" comments!

[oxymoronic]

Thankfully there is at least companies still interested in space exploration, since governments seems to have decided to focus less and less on it.

But yes, good stuff, the future of affordable space travel is looking better by the ... uhm... year I guess xD

whats the point when we signed a dumb treaty saying u cant own celestial bodies... the same idiots that signed that failed to realize earth is just another celestial body to another planet.

[Reeve]

in b4 the "spaceX is fake"and "the earth is flat" comments!

The Earth is definitely not flat. Eratosthenes measured a curve in the surface of the Earth a couple thousand years ago. Since then, of course, we've discovered the Earth's curvature is not constant, but varies, such that the actual shape is as follows:

[Masark]

Their big rocket beyond the Falcon Heavy will burn methane instead of RP-1. Methane is even cheaper.

On upper stages, hydrogen may make more sense. Boeing has a group doing some crazy stuff on advanced upper stages that would work well with propellant depots and extraterrestrial propellant manufacture. They're ahead of SpaceX on this.

I'm fairly sure "extraterrestrial propellant manufacture" is something SpaceX has in mind for the Raptor engine. Methane is also pretty easy to make extraterrestrially and Musk has been talking about Mars for close to a decade now.

We should see in September what they're up to in that regard.

[oxymoronic]

The Earth is definitely not flat. Eratosthenes measured a curve in the surface of the Earth a couple thousand years ago. Since then, of course, we've discovered the Earth's curvature is not constant, but varies, such that the actual shape is as follows:

lol endus gonna be mad, showing pictures of his toothbrush like that.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing I'm wondering about right now is this. When the space shuttle launches, it's fire going every fucking where:



When a Falcon 9 launches, it's this super tight little plume:



Is the tighter plume better at ensuring all of the energy is pushing in the same direction so that it's more efficient? If so, how does the Falcon 9 manage that?

obvious isnt it, ones a bic other is a torch liter.

[Svisalith]

that works both ways? The rocket could have been resting on those legs prior to take off and retract on take off. Play the vid backward they become landing legs activated on landing.

The rocket weighs about 550 tons at takeoff and the first stage (shown) weighs about 30-40 tons when landing. The landing legs are designed for use on landing only, otherwise they'd have to support 14x more weight.

[Not Againnn]

next stop, mars