I’m unable to access the site at your link (blocked at work). Can you tell me what it’s saying?
I didn’t think the scary tricks were supposed to start until Thursday…
Jurvetson built a scale model, and flew it at a Tripoli event. Timing was off on the ignition of the three engines, and it went…awry. He posted a picture of it yawing over at Flickr.
Sounds like a scary photo. The Delta IV-Heavy has the same issues without the possibility of saving the mission if an engine failed for any reason.
Gotta watch those HPR motors, tricky to light them all simultaneously.
It is rocket science after all …
Scale models can be much harder to control than the real thing. OTOH, imagine the feeling of looking the real thing nose to nose. OTGH, will the real thing react fast enough to the control software and what delay do the sensors bring? Three cores, regardless of scale, bring in a whole new list of potential instabilities.
Funny though, I just assume SpaceX can handle it.
Living here in Waco I about had a heart attack when I saw the headline. I kept asking myself how the heck I had missed that report up until when I actually followed the link and saw what it was. I wonder how many people scattered or hit the deck in response to that beastie coming at them…
@Greg: Likewise, although I live on the left coast. Also it took me a few seconds looking at that first picture to understand that wasn’t a real test launch.
And what roystgnr said. Thanks Rand! I’m fully awake now.
If the first pic (where it’s seen pretty much nose-on) were of a full size SLS rocket as seen from the launch site viewing stands, it would be, in the white house’s parlance of the Obamacare rollout, “a minor glitch”. 🙂
If I were building such a model, I’d be tempted to tilt the outboard engines so they thrust through the model center of gravity.
not a bad idea to cant the motors, but, the CG is probably somewhat aft,
and that may be a fairly steep angle, unless you can get the motors with nozzles
canted some 30 degrees, outboard.
there will still be some risks if the motors aren’t in plane, you might get some
funny roll forces.
Good ideas. The CG would be moving upward as propellant was consumed (assuming multiple stages or a significant payload weight), but maybe less so if the ignition of the central core was delayed.
I’ve seen contradictory information on if the Russian R-7 uses delayed ignition.
My bad. My comment above assumed a “real” rocket, and Peterh’s and dn-guy’s were about a solid-fuel “model.”
actually, it’s kind of funny,
in a conventional liquid rocket, the CG tends to move aft, while in a model solid
the CG tends to move forward because the estes motors are
end burning.
Now in a big solid, like a Trident or MX, the CG doesn’t move much at all
because the motors are center burning.
A simpler solution than trying to get the outboard motors right is to replace them with sparklers and only have the center engine provide any real thrust.
Neat! Looks like that Proton rocket flight where they installed the up-down sensors backwards.
I’m unable to access the site at your link (blocked at work). Can you tell me what it’s saying?
I didn’t think the scary tricks were supposed to start until Thursday…
Jurvetson built a scale model, and flew it at a Tripoli event. Timing was off on the ignition of the three engines, and it went…awry. He posted a picture of it yawing over at Flickr.
Sounds like a scary photo. The Delta IV-Heavy has the same issues without the possibility of saving the mission if an engine failed for any reason.
Gotta watch those HPR motors, tricky to light them all simultaneously.
It is rocket science after all …
Scale models can be much harder to control than the real thing. OTOH, imagine the feeling of looking the real thing nose to nose. OTGH, will the real thing react fast enough to the control software and what delay do the sensors bring? Three cores, regardless of scale, bring in a whole new list of potential instabilities.
Funny though, I just assume SpaceX can handle it.
Living here in Waco I about had a heart attack when I saw the headline. I kept asking myself how the heck I had missed that report up until when I actually followed the link and saw what it was. I wonder how many people scattered or hit the deck in response to that beastie coming at them…
@Greg: Likewise, although I live on the left coast. Also it took me a few seconds looking at that first picture to understand that wasn’t a real test launch.
And what roystgnr said. Thanks Rand! I’m fully awake now.
If the first pic (where it’s seen pretty much nose-on) were of a full size SLS rocket as seen from the launch site viewing stands, it would be, in the white house’s parlance of the Obamacare rollout, “a minor glitch”. 🙂
If I were building such a model, I’d be tempted to tilt the outboard engines so they thrust through the model center of gravity.
not a bad idea to cant the motors, but, the CG is probably somewhat aft,
and that may be a fairly steep angle, unless you can get the motors with nozzles
canted some 30 degrees, outboard.
there will still be some risks if the motors aren’t in plane, you might get some
funny roll forces.
Good ideas. The CG would be moving upward as propellant was consumed (assuming multiple stages or a significant payload weight), but maybe less so if the ignition of the central core was delayed.
I’ve seen contradictory information on if the Russian R-7 uses delayed ignition.
My bad. My comment above assumed a “real” rocket, and Peterh’s and dn-guy’s were about a solid-fuel “model.”
actually, it’s kind of funny,
in a conventional liquid rocket, the CG tends to move aft, while in a model solid
the CG tends to move forward because the estes motors are
end burning.
Now in a big solid, like a Trident or MX, the CG doesn’t move much at all
because the motors are center burning.
A simpler solution than trying to get the outboard motors right is to replace them with sparklers and only have the center engine provide any real thrust.
Neat! Looks like that Proton rocket flight where they installed the up-down sensors backwards.