Jump to content

The Universe


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, budmiester1 said:

Everything seem to be going to plan so apart from the booster engines failing to light on the return but they seem pretty upbeat about it all so far.

And looks like both parts blew up on re-entry, probably automatically destroyed because of lost control, but another big step. Doubt it will be landing humans on Earth or the Moon until 2030 earliest though, which will put back NASA's return to the moon by a few more years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

And looks like both parts blew up on re-entry, probably automatically destroyed because of lost control...

Seems not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Can you imagine having to work with this Berger cūnt? 

 

Actually, I can, because I do.

Well done Wilson, now that you've burnt the office down we can use what we've learnt to stop you doing it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Space X reminds me of the Soviet N1 which was their answer to the Saturn V. 

N1.jpg.9b73d52e28d4e03bddba0635ec9b618f.jpg

The N1 had 30 small engines whereas the Saturn V had 4 bloody big ones. Apparently if he'd lived Soviet rocket designer Sergiy Korolev (a hero of mine) wouldn't have used so many little engines. Trying to get 30 rocket engines to function altogether with the vibrations each engine creates is a bit tricky and the N1 wasn't particularly successful. 

I'm no rocket scientist so I'm wondering why Space X are bothering with lots of little engines instead of having less but bigger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tamthebam said:

 

I'm no rocket scientist so I'm wondering why Space X are bothering with lots of little engines instead of having less but bigger. 

Taken from an interview 

Spoiler

The company's development of the Falcon 9 rocket, with nine engines, had given Musk confidence that SpaceX could scale up to 27 engines in flight, and he believed this was a better overall solution for the thrust needed to escape Earth's gravity. To explain why, the former computer scientist used a computer metaphor.

"It’s sort of like the way modern computer systems are set up," Musk said. "With Google or Amazon they have large numbers of small computers, such that if one of the computers goes down it doesn’t really affect your use of Google or Amazon. That’s different from the old model of the mainframe approach, when you have one big mainframe and if it goes down, the whole system goes down."

For computers, Musk said, using large numbers of small computers ends up being a more efficient, smarter, and faster approach than using a few larger, more powerful computers. So it was with rocket engines. "It’s better to use a large number of small engines," Musk said. With the Falcon Heavy rocket, he added, up to half a dozen engines could fail and the rocket would still make it to orbit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Taken from an interview 

  Hide contents

The company's development of the Falcon 9 rocket, with nine engines, had given Musk confidence that SpaceX could scale up to 27 engines in flight, and he believed this was a better overall solution for the thrust needed to escape Earth's gravity. To explain why, the former computer scientist used a computer metaphor.

"It’s sort of like the way modern computer systems are set up," Musk said. "With Google or Amazon they have large numbers of small computers, such that if one of the computers goes down it doesn’t really affect your use of Google or Amazon. That’s different from the old model of the mainframe approach, when you have one big mainframe and if it goes down, the whole system goes down."

For computers, Musk said, using large numbers of small computers ends up being a more efficient, smarter, and faster approach than using a few larger, more powerful computers. So it was with rocket engines. "It’s better to use a large number of small engines," Musk said. With the Falcon Heavy rocket, he added, up to half a dozen engines could fail and the rocket would still make it to orbit.

 

So Strachan was wrong- pack Scotland with lots of little men and if one goes wrong the rest will work! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I can't get my head around the fact that NASA scientists have managed to remotely repair Voyager 1, a broken 50 year old space probe that's currently 15 Billion miles away.  Voyager stopped working around 6 months ago and it takes 2 days for a signal sent to return back to earth.  Apparently they've reprogrammed it to allow the 2 remaining functioning onboard computers to take the workload of the 3rd broken computer.  I sometimes mix up the tv remotes, so this level of skill goes way beyond my comprehension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...