- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SpaceX Just Launched Falcon Heavy
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:27 pm to ThatMakesSense
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:27 pm to ThatMakesSense
Elon 
The best gif ^
The best gif ^
1
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:29 pm to ThatMakesSense
I didn't watch the launch this afternoon. I was watching Israel's moon lander slam into said moon at about 2,100 mph.
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:31 pm to When in Rome
I made this one but not from today's footage.
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:38 pm to Jobu93
quote:
Which leads me to wonder if they sacrifice the boosters to increase burn time for higher pushes for bigger payloads.
They do. If you need an orbit or a payload that will not leave enough extra fuel in the boosters or core to allow them to make it to a landing site or a barge, SpaceX won't attempt a landing and the rocket is just lost into the ocean. I don't know if SpaceX charges more for launches that don't give them any possibility of recovering the rockets.
The rockets' fuel tanks are a fixed size. Landings at sea are attempted when the fuel required for the mission profile only leaves room for enough extra fuel in the tank to make it to the barge (remember, they can move the barge wherever it needs to be to catch a rocket), but not room for enough fuel to make it to a landing pad. The landing pad doesn't move around on the waves, making it much easier to stick the landing on solid ground. Fuel is cheap and, if possible, SpaceX would much rather just put more fuel in the rocket to make it back to land if they have the space in the tanks to do that.
This post was edited on 4/11/19 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:44 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
I was watching Israel's moon lander slam into said moon at about 2,100 mph.
That sucks. Was hoping they'd make it. But by my conversion it was only going about 313 mph when it "landed".
ETA: Technically, Israel did land on the moon.
This post was edited on 4/11/19 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:49 pm to ThatMakesSense
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:56 pm to LSU Fan SLU Grad
Did they try to catch the fairings with the giant net this time?
Not 100% sure. They recaptured all the rockets, for the first time. I saw the fairings deploy but no video as far as recapturing. I'm guessing no.
Not 100% sure. They recaptured all the rockets, for the first time. I saw the fairings deploy but no video as far as recapturing. I'm guessing no.
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:57 pm to ThatMakesSense
I just think it's funny yall think that's real
Posted on 4/11/19 at 6:58 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
I just think it's funny yall think that's real
Posted on 4/11/19 at 7:03 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
I just think it's funny yall think that's real
The satellite was for communications in the Middle East and some other parts of the World.
I'm sure that will set you off as well.
Posted on 4/11/19 at 7:20 pm to ThatMakesSense
You guys are so gullible/naive. 
Posted on 4/11/19 at 7:21 pm to Jobu93
quote:
Yep. It has a longer burn time thusly going further. It can’t make it back.
Which leads me to wonder if they sacrifice the boosters to increase burn time for higher pushes for bigger payloads. But that would take away the kickass landings.
Besides fuel there are other expendables. They use a open circuit hydraulic system for engine gimbals and other things that are moving by mechanical means. Instead of hydraulic fluid returning to a reservoir like is common practice, it is just jettisoned from the craft as it is used, so that has to be factored into mission length. The first attempt at landing a SpaceX booster that failed to land on the barge was due to running out of fluid a few feet before touch down. Several of my son's college classmates work as engineers at SpaceX, everytime I see one I ask lots of questions.
Posted on 4/11/19 at 7:29 pm to ThatMakesSense
Anywhere to see the full ship landing?
Posted on 4/11/19 at 7:34 pm to crewdepoo
That video was badass.
Posted on 4/11/19 at 8:16 pm to HailToTheChiz
Missed it. Not seeing the landing in the video.
Posted on 4/11/19 at 8:31 pm to ThatMakesSense
My freedom boner is raging.
Posted on 4/11/19 at 8:50 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:Me too. Last telemetry showed it dropping about 300 mph, but it was still going sideways about 950 m/s.
Was hoping they'd make it. But by my conversion it was only going about 313 mph when it "landed".
SPLAT.
This post was edited on 4/11/19 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 4/11/19 at 8:55 pm to ThatMakesSense
Remember that guy who compared Musk to Elizabeth Holmes the other day?
Posted on 4/11/19 at 11:55 pm to HailToTheChiz
Why the fck did the video shut out on the most difficult landing. I’m not one to believe in conspiracy theories but I need to see video soon
Posted on 4/12/19 at 6:34 am to crewdepoo
quote:
Why the fck did the video shut out on the most difficult landing. I’m not one to believe in conspiracy theories but I need to see video soon
My God...... Communication issues caused by an active rocket only feet away from the transmitter.
Never mind the fact that you had PERFECT video of the two side boosters landing which was also witnessed by hundreds from the viewing area.
Go back to your flat earth YouTube channel
This post was edited on 4/12/19 at 6:35 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News