If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Amateur video of the perfect Falcon Heavy booster landings. ~puts on tinfoil hat~ Almost too perfect   ( youtube.com) divider line
    More: Cool, Heavy booster landings, Falcon, Falcon Heavy booster  
•       •       •

3275 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Feb 2018 at 6:05 PM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-02-07 03:39:09 PM  
That's so beautiful it makes me want to cry and I don't care who knows it
 
2018-02-07 03:50:01 PM  
God, that's incredible.
 
2018-02-07 04:00:16 PM  
We're lucky to be alive in a time where this happens.
 
2018-02-07 04:03:29 PM  
Beautiful.
A little whibble whobble on the far rocket.
Nice save.
 
2018-02-07 04:04:41 PM  
Great video!
 
2018-02-07 04:09:34 PM  
The 'official' video makes it look like they landed nearly instantaneously.
INSANE! SpaceX Falcon Heavy Side Boosters Landing Simultaneously at Kennedy Space Center
Youtube u0-pfzKbh2k


I know, perspective...
 
2018-02-07 04:14:23 PM  
I'll admit, I didn't know much about this when I saw that it was going to stream live yesterday.
I always liked watching rockets launch and the car was a nice touch.
But, when they showed the boosters coming down, I was thinking, "oooh, get to see the splash down!"

When the rockets fired and then they landed my mind was blown.
 
2018-02-07 04:15:48 PM  

BunkyBrewman: The 'official' video makes it look like they landed nearly instantaneously.
[YouTube video: INSANE! SpaceX Falcon Heavy Side Boosters Landing Simultaneously at Kennedy Space Center]

I know, perspective...


It also misses the twin sonic booms. That was a bit of audio bliss to go along with the amazing technical achievement.
 
2018-02-07 04:16:16 PM  

darthaegis: I'll admit, I didn't know much about this when I saw that it was going to stream live yesterday.
I always liked watching rockets launch and the car was a nice touch.
But, when they showed the boosters coming down, I was thinking, "oooh, get to see the splash down!"

When the rockets fired and then they landed my mind was blown.


I've watched every launch that was publicly available to view all of my adult life and it blows my damn mind too.  This one, the power it had, the double landings, THE ABSOLUTE MADMAN, HE PULLED IT OFF JESUS!
 
2018-02-07 04:36:25 PM  
That looks like the old Saturn launch complex in the foreground.  Nice.
 
2018-02-07 05:02:14 PM  

BunkyBrewman: The 'official' video makes it look like they landed nearly instantaneously.
[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/u0-pfzKb​h2k?start=23]

I know, perspective...


No, it would make sense. They separated and fell at the same time. Something something Galileo something Tower of Pisa.
 
2018-02-07 05:21:44 PM  
That will never get old.
 
2018-02-07 05:30:34 PM  
But afterwards ....

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 06:18:45 PM  
Tinfoil hat trifecta now in play!
... or is it?

mephox: BunkyBrewman: The 'official' video makes it look like they landed nearly instantaneously.
[YouTube video: INSANE! SpaceX Falcon Heavy Side Boosters Landing Simultaneously at Kennedy Space Center]

I know, perspective...

It also misses the twin sonic booms. That was a bit of audio bliss to go along with the amazing technical achievement.


The Incredible Sounds of the Falcon Heavy Launch (BINAURAL AUDIO IMMERSION) - Smarter Every Day 189
Youtube ImoQqNyRL8Y
 
2018-02-07 06:22:14 PM  
Wow.

Like wowwow
 
2018-02-07 06:27:48 PM  
media.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 06:38:34 PM  
That really does look like something out of a science fiction movie; gives me goosebumps and the sound was an awesome addition!
 
2018-02-07 06:42:34 PM  

Short Victoria's War: Tinfoil hat trifecta now in play!
... or is it?

mephox: BunkyBrewman: The 'official' video makes it look like they landed nearly instantaneously.
[YouTube video: INSANE! SpaceX Falcon Heavy Side Boosters Landing Simultaneously at Kennedy Space Center]

I know, perspective...

It also misses the twin sonic booms. That was a bit of audio bliss to go along with the amazing technical achievement.

[YouTube video: The Incredible Sounds of the Falcon Heavy Launch (BINAURAL AUDIO IMMERSION) - Smarter Every Day 189]


That was fantastic! Thank you
 
2018-02-07 06:54:20 PM  
Too bad they had a mis-fire on the core's landing. Apparently SpaceX was trying for another three-engine landing, but only one lit and it hit the water hard.

Easily as exciting as the first Mercury orbital mission.
 
2018-02-07 07:02:41 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 07:05:06 PM  

natazha: Too bad they had a mis-fire on the core's landing. Apparently SpaceX was trying for another three-engine landing, but only one lit and it hit the water hard.

Easily as exciting as the first Mercury orbital mission.


As I said in the live thread, a little failure isn't a bad thing necessarily, especially when it doesn't fark the whole mission and no one is hurt.  You learn something from failures.  Oooooh, DON'T do that, I see.
 
2018-02-07 07:09:54 PM  
I used to watch old sci-fi serials with my gramps before he passed away. Those old black and white ones from way before we could even think about launching into outer space. One of the tricks they always pulled when showing the rockets landing was to just reverse the footage of the takeoff. Half the time they wouldn't even take the time to fix the exhaust billow and just have it get sucked back into the engine somehow.

That landing reminded me exactly of that. Who know the 40's and 50's would get it right eventually. Well except for the exhaust obviously. But still!
 
2018-02-07 07:20:41 PM  

cretinbob: That's so beautiful it makes me want to cry and I don't care who knows it


I cried a little, and I didn't even want to.
 
2018-02-07 07:21:45 PM  
I have tears in my eyes watching this and I am not exactly a science/pace nerd.

Thanks, Subby!
 
2018-02-07 07:28:55 PM  

natazha: Too bad they had a mis-fire on the core's landing. Apparently SpaceX was trying for another three-engine landing, but only one lit and it hit the water hard.

Easily as exciting as the first Mercury orbital mission.


Something like 300 km/hr

Apparently the debris did a number on the drone boat, too.
 
2018-02-07 07:52:08 PM  

nekom: natazha: Too bad they had a mis-fire on the core's landing. Apparently SpaceX was trying for another three-engine landing, but only one lit and it hit the water hard.

Easily as exciting as the first Mercury orbital mission.

As I said in the live thread, a little failure isn't a bad thing necessarily, especially when it doesn't fark the whole mission and no one is hurt.  You learn something from failures.  Oooooh, DON'T do that, I see.


2 out of 3 ain't bad!

I will admit, when the fairing opened exposing the Tesla and the dummy to space with Earth in the background and Life on Mars playing... I wouldn't say I teared up... but I came damn close. That was amazing.
 
2018-02-07 08:16:04 PM  

natazha: Too bad they had a mis-fire on the core's landing. Apparently SpaceX was trying for another three-engine landing, but only one lit and it hit the water hard.

Easily as exciting as the first Mercury orbital mission.


Wow, I thought I was one of the few to care about the first Mercury orbital mission...

nasa.govView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 08:41:34 PM  

mongbiohazard: nekom: natazha: Too bad they had a mis-fire on the core's landing. Apparently SpaceX was trying for another three-engine landing, but only one lit and it hit the water hard.

Easily as exciting as the first Mercury orbital mission.

As I said in the live thread, a little failure isn't a bad thing necessarily, especially when it doesn't fark the whole mission and no one is hurt.  You learn something from failures.  Oooooh, DON'T do that, I see.

2 out of 3 ain't bad!

I will admit, when the fairing opened exposing the Tesla and the dummy to space with Earth in the background and Life on Mars playing... I wouldn't say I teared up... but I came damn close. That was amazing.


Olde Pharte(TM) here - as in Eisenhower was prez when I was born and I remember watching John Glenn's Mercury flight. And the Lunar landings. And the first shuttle launch. And ... you get the picture. :P

Apollo 11 is obviously the most incredible one of all, but what we saw yesterday is solidly in the #2 spot. To have so many views simultaneously in HD was mindboggling. A11 was overwhelming because of the historical significance and will only be exceeded if/when we land on Mars.

But yesterday was breathtaking. The amazing video speaks for itself, and the sound was as well. I haven't heard that level of "crackling motors" since the last Saturn 5 launch, and the joyous cheering from the SpaceX employees as each milestone was reached was a beautiful thing - such passion! You didn't hear that for A11 because stodgy white shirt & black tie NASA.

I think that launch will always be right behind A11. I spent hours last night watching the live HD feed of Starman casually cruising along in his Tesla. It was surreal compared to the grainy B&W images from Tranquility Base.
 
2018-02-07 08:45:31 PM  
I wonder why they don't use solid rocket boosters akin to what was used for the Shuttle. I know they can't be throttled but they are simple and give more thrust for the same weight and can be recovered for reuse. Maybe it's SpaceX had one design so reusing that design is cheaper.
 
2018-02-07 09:00:35 PM  

Befuddled: cheaper


This is why. There are lots of practical reasons for and against solid boosters, but SpaceX is primarily  interested in driving down the cost of launch. That often means doing things that are suboptimal performance wise, but more efficient cost-wise. This is the core argument behind their approach to reusability.

Besides, as far as liquid boosters go, kerosene is pretty much an optimal boost phase fuel source. Shuttle was an entirely different beast.
 
2018-02-07 09:13:22 PM  

Befuddled: I wonder why they don't use solid rocket boosters akin to what was used for the Shuttle. I know they can't be throttled but they are simple and give more thrust for the same weight and can be recovered for reuse. Maybe it's SpaceX had one design so reusing that design is cheaper.


From what I've been reading there's multiple reasons.

One is the segmented manufacturing required for solids, which contributed to the Challenger failure.

Another is economy of scale - it's cheaper to produce large numbers of the same part/assembly rather than unique products

Another is engineering/material stresses. Apparently the stresses the stack experienced during Max-Q were mostly coming from the boosters, so they needed to throttle back - the central core runs at 100% the entire time.
 
2018-02-07 09:14:15 PM  
Man I knew they came down hot but I didn't know it was *that* hot. Anyone know how many g's the boosters experience during the landing burn?
 
2018-02-07 09:21:23 PM  

chasd00: Man I knew they came down hot but I didn't know it was *that* hot. Anyone know how many g's the boosters experience during the landing burn?


One of the better tables folks have calculated. The whole thread (well, whole site) is worth a read, but that'll give you a ballpark idea. Part of this landing burn was 3 engine, so about 5-ish Gs, give or take.
 
2018-02-07 09:52:35 PM  

natazha: Too bad they had a mis-fire on the core's landing. Apparently SpaceX was trying for another three-engine landing, but only one lit and it hit the water hard.

Easily as exciting as the first Mercury orbital mission.


Considering the expectation was the whole thing blowing up destroying the launch pad in the process I think they can live with an engine misfire on the core rocket while trying to land on a farking dime in the Atlantic Ocean.
 
2018-02-07 10:05:04 PM  

Valiente: [media.giphy.com image 200x254]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-07 10:11:36 PM  

gingerjet: natazha: Too bad they had a mis-fire on the core's landing. Apparently SpaceX was trying for another three-engine landing, but only one lit and it hit the water hard.

Easily as exciting as the first Mercury orbital mission.

Considering the expectation was the whole thing blowing up destroying the launch pad in the process I think they can live with an engine misfire on the core rocket while trying to land on a farking dime in the Atlantic Ocean.


They did pretty good aiming at the dime. That booster wrecked some engines on the barge, so it was pretty close despite not being fully operational... but then, I don't know if the rocket had switched to a miss-the-barge mode.
 
2018-02-07 10:14:49 PM  
Is that the old Apollo launch hardware in that empty field?

/abandon in face

chasd00: Man I knew they came down hot but I didn't know it was *that* hot. Anyone know how many g's the boosters experience during the landing burn?


That's probably not information they share.
 
2018-02-07 10:21:48 PM  

arrogantbastich: [img.fark.net image 384x288]


I don't know why, but punching the alien makes me laugh over and over. Normally I hate that kind of thing.
 
2018-02-07 10:51:30 PM  
I was impressed with how clean the ascent was.  With Apollo and the shuttles, you always had this column of smoke.  With SpaceX, nothing.  Mostly steam coming off the launch pad, but after that, nothing.
 
2018-02-07 10:57:52 PM  

Flt209er: Befuddled: cheaper

This is why. There are lots of practical reasons for and against solid boosters, but SpaceX is primarily  interested in driving down the cost of launch. That often means doing things that are suboptimal performance wise, but more efficient cost-wise. This is the core argument behind their approach to reusability.

Besides, as far as liquid boosters go, kerosene is pretty much an optimal boost phase fuel source. Shuttle was an entirely different beast.


There's an additional aspect you aren't thinking of.  What he's really trying to do is colonize Mars and in addition have human flight to any planet.  In his long speech (over an hour) you can find on youtube outlining his plans for Mars etc, you will find that the single most important thing making such a thing possible is the ability of a rocket that can land, get refueled and take off again.  The recoverable solid rocket boosters don't meet that requirement.  His basic plan for manned mission and station on Mars is abbreviated thusly:
1. Shoot stuff to Mars successfuly.
2. Shoot nuclear reactor and some gear to Mars.
3. Use energy from reactor to process the thin atmosphere into fuel stored in tanks which have been sent (some robotics obviously required).  Thus an interplanetary gas station. Cold temperatures make it easier to store liquid state of gaseous fuels.
4. Send living shelter and gear.
5. Send people who assemble living shelter and other stuff.
6. Send people home in refueled rocket.
7. Repeat steps 4 though 6 as necessary and send plants.
8. Send the boring machine.  (or possibly this is part of step 4) because solar radiation would kill people.  Use machine to make Genesis tunnel (ala Star Trek III).  Tunnel system can be air locked, artificially lighted, and easily climate controlled.  Plenty of water available in frozen state that can be processed out and used in underground system.

In his video he talks much of 'first principals' of engineering.  To this point he points out the rather obvious.  What is absolutely required?
1. Oxygen
2. Water
3. Food
4. Shelter
5. Two way transportation.
 
2018-02-07 11:47:39 PM  

Lava Lamp Repairman: Befuddled: I wonder why they don't use solid rocket boosters akin to what was used for the Shuttle. I know they can't be throttled but they are simple and give more thrust for the same weight and can be recovered for reuse. Maybe it's SpaceX had one design so reusing that design is cheaper.

From what I've been reading there's multiple reasons.

One is the segmented manufacturing required for solids, which contributed to the Challenger failure.

Another is economy of scale - it's cheaper to produce large numbers of the same part/assembly rather than unique products

Another is engineering/material stresses. Apparently the stresses the stack experienced during Max-Q were mostly coming from the boosters, so they needed to throttle back - the central core runs at 100% the entire time.


I also wonder if public persona plays a bit of a part..   Anyone who saw and knows why the Challenger blew up... Any time we see those farking SRB's we're reminded of what caused it..

Even seeing mockups of the SLS.. I always see them and think "fark those SRBs" and think of the Challenger..

/I know they've been upgraded etc
//PTSD with SRBs and explosions
 
2018-02-08 12:19:10 AM  

Lava Lamp Repairman: Befuddled: I wonder why they don't use solid rocket boosters akin to what was used for the Shuttle. I know they can't be throttled but they are simple and give more thrust for the same weight and can be recovered for reuse. Maybe it's SpaceX had one design so reusing that design is cheaper.

From what I've been reading there's multiple reasons.

One is the segmented manufacturing required for solids, which contributed to the Challenger failure.

Another is economy of scale - it's cheaper to produce large numbers of the same part/assembly rather than unique products

Another is engineering/material stresses. Apparently the stresses the stack experienced during Max-Q were mostly coming from the boosters, so they needed to throttle back - the central core runs at 100% the entire time.


IIRC the segmented construction of the boosters was political not engineering driven. Politically they had to be made in a senators home state to get his buy in, which meant they had to be transported which meant by train which meant they had to be built in sections. It would have been faster, easier, better and cheaper to build them on site near the launch pad but politics....
 
2018-02-08 12:19:36 AM  

indy_kid: I was impressed with how clean the ascent was.  With Apollo and the shuttles, you always had this column of smoke.  With SpaceX, nothing.  Mostly steam coming off the launch pad, but after that, nothing.


It's winter. The cold air is probably drier -- but when the rocket heats up the cold air, it indeed gets rather dry. So maybe a lot of the water vapor in the exhaust got absorbed rather quickly.
 
2018-02-08 01:01:21 AM  

WelldeadLink: indy_kid: I was impressed with how clean the ascent was.  With Apollo and the shuttles, you always had this column of smoke.  With SpaceX, nothing.  Mostly steam coming off the launch pad, but after that, nothing.

It's winter. The cold air is probably drier -- but when the rocket heats up the cold air, it indeed gets rather dry. So maybe a lot of the water vapor in the exhaust got absorbed rather quickly.


They might also be using a different fuel chemistry.  I'm assuming there have been advancements in rocket fuel over the past 50 years.  At least I really hope there have been.  The shuttle also used solid fuel boosters, I think Falcon is all liquid fuel.
 
2018-02-08 01:39:40 AM  

JesterJoker55: I used to watch old sci-fi serials with my gramps before he passed away. Those old black and white ones from way before we could even think about launching into outer space. One of the tricks they always pulled when showing the rockets landing was to just reverse the footage of the takeoff. Half the time they wouldn't even take the time to fix the exhaust billow and just have it get sucked back into the engine somehow.

That landing reminded me exactly of that. Who know the 40's and 50's would get it right eventually. Well except for the exhaust obviously. But still!


Comet TV is rerunning an old 1958 - 1959 B&W TV series called Men Into Space.  They run three episodes a weekend, one Saturday morning and two on Sunday.  It was basically a commercial for the space program, so they tried to play it straight, and it worked.

I've been recording it.  It's better than I expected.  They actually *tried* to get the science right!

They didn't always *succeed* at that.  It was before Gagarin flew in space, after all, and only barely after Sputnik went up.  And each episode had a budget of $50,000.  So they goofed at times.

But they had no aliens.  No flying Buck Rogers-looking ships to other planets on one chemically fueled stage.  None of that shiat.

They showed them building a permanent space station to facilitate future missions.  Using three-stage boosters to reach orbit.  Making the first moon landing.  Having a moon mission have an 'oops' on the way there and almost not come back.  Setting up a permanent moon base.  Americans cooperating with and providing aid to the British and Russian programs.  Recovering an unmanned sample-return mission from Venus.  Rendezvousing with and studying asteroids.  Experimenting with disposal of nuclear waste in the Sun.  And getting ready for the first manned mission to Mars...

Any of this sound familiar?

I guess in those days, the projected reality looked exciting enough that they didn't feel the need to embellish it.

Was it a perfect show?  Hell, no.  It had its cringeworthy moments.  But a lot fewer of them than you might think.  The people that made 'Men Into Space' have damn little to be ashamed of.

Col. Ed McCauley would have been proud of Tuesday's Falcon Heavy mission.
 
2018-02-08 03:36:07 AM  
I watch these vids and I seriously feel like I am watching short clips of some scifi movie.  Farking awesome, beautiful, fantastic, amazing, and on and on and on!
 
2018-02-08 03:40:30 AM  
I came. Again.
 
2018-02-08 03:45:28 AM  

brandent: What he's really trying to do is colonize Mars and in addition have human flight to any planet.


You're not wrong. But understand that colonizing mars is the goal of BFR, not Falcon. Falcon, and other associated projects like Starlink, are means of funding BFR development. Thus, economics. Falcon is truly optimized for cost which, to my knowledge, has never happened before in the history of rocketry. So, to your original question of why he doesn't go with solids? It's easier and cheaper to simply size up and overpower the vehicles he already has.

Right now, as of yesterday, Falcon can service all commercial markets (and introduce a couple that don't really exist yet, like direct GEO insertion for all-electric sats) as well as most government missions. And all while recovering everything but the second stage. Makes things cheap. And Musk is right about his " game over" comment. Vehicles like Ariane 6, SLS, and Long March 9 will be obsolete before they ever fly; because a falcon launch, or even multiple falcon launches, will be cheaper than any of them. Nearest competitor will be New Glenn; and that's really it.
 
2018-02-08 04:10:55 AM  

Glockenspiel Hero: natazha: Too bad they had a mis-fire on the core's landing. Apparently SpaceX was trying for another three-engine landing, but only one lit and it hit the water hard.

Easily as exciting as the first Mercury orbital mission.


Wow, I thought I was one of the few to care about the first Mercury orbital mission...

[nasa.gov image 850x850]


Damn, using the fuel tank ullage/pressurant gas for the last orbit or so was a genius move.
 
2018-02-08 05:13:48 AM  

cretinbob: That's so beautiful it makes me want to cry and I don't care who knows it


Goosebumps and tears of joy when I watched the livestream. Not ashamed of it.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report