Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Falcon 9 explodes after liftoff


Ghostsof1915

Recommended Posts

The rocket was so powerful that it blasted right out of orbit which wasn't supposed to happen. I believe it can put a 70 ton payload in orbit which means it can put a Boeing 737 Max in orbit, but not with passengers, luggage and a full fuel load. 

 

Here's the source.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/opinions/elon-musk-has-launched-a-breathtaking-new-space-age-seymour/index.html

 

Here's the quote. When I run the numbers the 737 can't be fully fueled.

 

We speak of a $90 million booster system, you understand, with reusable components, capable, by some estimates, of carrying a fully loaded, totally booked Boeing 737 jet liner with room enough for a couple more Tesla sedans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aliboy said:

Did the third one come down and land? Was it supposed to or did it blast out of orbit with the rest of the payload?

Only 1 engine on the centre-core fired (You need 3 minimum) so it missed the floating landing pad and went into the water. 

 

*edit*  The reason why the engines cut out is because it ran out of propellant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LordCanuck said:

at 300 mph and it took out the barge it seems. 

Pieces of it went onto the deck.  It missed the barge.

 

https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/06/spacex-falcon-heavy-center-core-lost/

Quote

Elon Musk said on a conference call with reporters that the launch "seems to have gone as well as one could have hoped with the exception of center core. The center core obviously didn't land on the drone ship" and he said that "we're looking at the issue." Musk says that the core ran out of propellant, which kept the core from being able to slow down as much as it needed for landing. Because of that, the core apparently hit the water at 300MPH, and it was about 100 meters from the ship. "It was enough to take out two thrusters and shower the deck with shrapnel," Musk said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LordCanuck said:

yah i know but it did damage the barge. hope the video from the barge gets released or exists. lol

I wonder what propellant the thrusters use.  Looks like they're going to have to fit a bit more of it into the rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SabreFan1 said:

I wonder what propellant the thrusters use.  Looks like they're going to have to fit a bit more of it into the rocket.

Well they wernt going to reuse any of these rockets anyways, there going on to gen 5 which are fully reuseable rockets. the Gen 3s and 4s will be mothballed or used up and dumped.  ran too low on fuel to relight its engines, they had fuel to burn but the starter fuel was out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LordCanuck said:

Well they wernt going to reuse any of these rockets anyways, there going on to gen 5 which are fully reuseable rockets. the Gen 3s and 4s will be mothballed or used up and dumped.  ran too low on fuel to relight its engines, they had fuel to burn but the starter fuel was out. 

I'm curious on the type of propellant used that actually needed a separate starting burn.  I'll have to look it up later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 420since1974 said:

Am I correct in thinking that landing the two boosters was an incredible feat?

 

It's too bad that the central core did not land safely.

 

Is it true that these launches cost only 10% of NASA efforts due to the reusable components?

Yes, except NASA's SLS rocket when it becomes available in 2-3 years will lift more than the Falcon Heavy, but when SpaceX comes out with their BFG rocket shortly after that, it will be the most powerful rocket ever built.  The BFG will cost roughly 10-15% of a NASA launch as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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