Falcon Heavy Model - Booster Test Flight
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2018
- The side boosters executed a 20 degree roll program with a rate of 30dps, beginning at T+0.9. Initial pitch-over of the vehicle at launch was due to thrust inconsistencies between booster motors. Because of a low level coordinate transformation error in its flight software, the center core flew with poor stability, correcting roughly 20 degrees off axis for both pitch and yaw. Photos from the flight can be found here: bps.space/gallery/
For more info:
/ joebarnard
www.bps.space - Наука та технологія
![Evolution of SpaceX Rockets (NEW) [2002-2023]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_L5dXIFKWqM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Evolution of SpaceX Rockets (NEW) [2002-2023]](/img/tr.png)
Amazing work mate!
Hey Hey!! Thanks Marcus :)
*OH ITS YOU*
What are You douing here?
Dude perfect: Am I a joke to you?
Oh snap that thing can go. And nice booster Sep too.
Wow. Well executed. This takes the difficulty to a whole new level and it worked about 90% so that's impressive.
It worked! Even with the inconsistency of model rocket engines! Those boosters landing simultaneously really reminded me of the real thing. Fantastic work!
Great job!
Man, what an awesome video... and with so many data points, I know you will only be making improvements. Keep up the great work!
By far the coolest thing I will see all weekend. Bravo!
Your channel should be a 20 mln channel, not 3k definitely! You do a magnificent job!
Absolutely amazing! Going to your web site to read the details... Very impressive work!
that was one of the best video that i saw in 2018!
great job
The first of its kind, good job assembling and setting it off!
Excellent Work !!!
Impressed !!!
Great job you do! Continue! Hy from FRANCE !
DUUUUUUUUUUUDE
wait, what ?
that was the most satisfying 15 seconds I've ever seen
Can you imagine that I had already thought about this system of dropping boosters when I was a kid? Veridic! Just the push and then the only force of attraction. I see that I was in the right. Good work.
That's actually brilliant! A successful first flight if I do say so myself! Good work! :D
What an amazing Projekt ! 👍👍👍
This is frickin' cool! Nice job.
On November 29, 2017 at 7:02 am a SpaceX Starship Falcon 7 Heavy rocket launched from Regina Space Center in Houston, Maryland. This is It!
genius, that really is incredible
Nice job!
Nice test! Will the 2nd stage have its own propulsion?
I think he is planning on putting propulsion in the upper stage, as can be seen in his video here: ua-cam.com/video/gFeDrlu0OpY/v-deo.html
It does. A single SRB.
InCREDIBLE
nice stage-seperation!
this. is. SO FRAKKING COOL!!!!
WOW! It’s amazing!!!!!
Really good !
I WANT THAT LAUNCHPAD NNNOOOOOOWWW
Is there any chance that you might be going for bigger motors for longer flights? Would be interesting to see how this performs at a higher velocity. Maybe you could partner with someone who builds the bigger rockets and you do the electronics.
Yep - there are certainly plans to scale up, but it's safer and more cost-effective to refine the tech at the small scale first.
Congratulations..
I love watching as the control system places the booster assembly into vertical ascent
Did I notice a slight horizontal drift after correction?
Yep! The vehicle doesn't track downrange translation right now, only orientation. So the pitch-over just after liftoff gave it a little horizontal speed.
I'm curious, this question was likely asked answered long ago, but did you have to 2 rocket tunings, one with and one without the boosters? Is the TVC handing off to a separate subroutine or does the non-booster characterization data get read from a local file after separation? You are doing absolutely amazing work Joe!
Merhaba l, herhangi bir cevap varmı ?
Wow that is so cool
Item one on my Christmas wish list.
He made it tho
Nice!
could you put the rocket motors inside tubes and have a second ignition with a much smaller rocket motor that lands the rocket. calculating terminal velocity and altitude of when to fire might be hard but it would be cool.
Thrust vectoring? Awesome!
no. Gimballing. the motor is on a movable GIMBAL so he tilts the entire motor (instead of vectoring just the thrust like say an F22 might do) no high temp materials issues with gimbaling :-)
Congratulations! Nice flight. The floodlights on the launching pad are very cool too! Can you explain a bit more about what happened to the stability of the center core???
Looks to me like the right booster flamed out first, which caused an overcorrection from the core stage
It looked like the boosters recovered from the thrust imbalance and were fine and true right until the boosters fell away then the core itself was left flying pretty vertical and was doing well until very late in the flight and then it went way off course.
Guess it could be what he said above since it did happen pretty quick, but I agree it seems like it's later in the flight and unrelated.
It does look like the burnout timing caused the instability, but that's not what actually caused it. Generally speaking, Signal does a bunch of math right at liftoff detection to determine which way X, Y, and Z are pointed in a local and global reference frame. BUT that's not how the center core works because it starts guidance in the air, with a +20 degrees roll. It's a little hard to think about, but essentially the center core is making TVC corrections -20 degrees offset from where it should be, because of the roll program. That's not super terrible, but errors accumulate over time, which is why it only really starts to fail near burnout. Pretty simple fix, just need to make a few software changes.
Why don't you start the center core guidance on the pad and just let it pretend it's thrusting as the boosters carry it along. When the center core separates and fires, it should pick up as if it were firing the entire time. In this case it should be harmless as the engine will just gimbal with no thrust.
Though, it kinda looks like it is struggling to stay in control but good work!
Awesome! Seems like the gimble motor or programming is hyper reactive though. Maybe the weight programmed doesn't match actual? Thrust produced is higher than expected? Just spit balling, not an expert by any means. Just asking!
you should put much larger motors inside the first stage should bring it to 500-1000 feet and an extra 1000 for the second stage but thats a very cool model :)
part of the point of low and slow as he did it was to one be more interesting to watch. you can see the whole thing. at 1000feet you can't see much anymore.
second much much cheaper for power. since he has controlled stability overpower is not an issue and neither is underpower as long as he is over 1:1 and has positive control authority. the cost difference between what he did and what you suggested could be $40 to $80 more "per flight" that's a pretty big budget hit when you might have to make 20 more flights.
third. low and slow means he can get a LOT more data from watching the video playback from many angles to see what worked what did not compare with onboard captured electronic data etc... all of which is much harder to do when the rocket is a few pixels in the frame at 1000ft.
.... that thing just stabilized itself... o.O
What engines do you have in the boosters and core?
Can you do this with more bigger rockets
Wow!
Are you coupling the controllers for the two gimbals in the boostesr? Are they using the same IMU? It seems like they would be fighting each other since they develop different control terms.
All flight computers/IMUs on this vehicle are separate and they don't communicate with each other. You're correct, this means that over time the boosters will start to fight each other, but the burn times for these rockets are so low that it has no appreciable effect. Adding cross booster comms would be way over-engineering for this scale and flight profile.
@trulyengineer
So how long till we see powered descents on the boosters? ;)
So here's the thing, I constantly think I'm like 2 months away from getting propulsive landing to work. Whenever I get super close to the test date, something goes wrong and I have to reschedule or focus on something else. It kinda feels like climbing a mountain in the fog. I think I'm really close to the summit, but I actually have no idea. So to answer the question, probably two months until we get some good retro-propulsion tests? :)
So sort of like how Falcon Heavy was always 6 months away?
Precisely! It will happen soon™...
BPS.space maybe just to a single falcon 9 landing and then adapt to the heavy? Baby steps. Im actually going to be trying this as well I can send you 3d files for grid fins
Grid fins likely won't work at this scale and speed. I experimented with several designs a few months back and found lots of issues with boundary layer ingestion through the lattice. Regular planar fins will give much more control authority.
When does in land propulsive ly?
What fuel do you use?
Hey Joe.. Just curious.. What's your thrust to weight ratio on the boosters (plus sustainer mass) and then the T:W of just the sustainer?
Hey Thomas! TWR is ultra low on the boosters. I don't have the exact numbers but it's probably about 1.1-1.4 at liftoff, then just about 1 or less near the end of the boost phase. The center core has a higher TWR, probably about 1.7 since it only needs to lift itself.
Wow.. why so low? I mean I know you don't need fins.. so that part of wanting 5:1 is not needed. Are you trying to keep it low and slow to throw worst case stability at your closed loop control system?
I love low and slow flights! Even in the real time footage it stays near the ground for so long that state sep shots are super clear. Not totally about stability, but low and slow also helps that.
Oh... as it gets moving faster, do you have problems with stability? Do you tighten up your vectoring deflection as your velocity increases? Could that be the cause of your upper flight stability issues?
Yep, drag increases as the cube of velocity, so things get punishing really quickly for stability. It doesn't help stability near the end of flight, but I kept the center core under 20m/s which is pretty safe, generally speaking. Airspeed isn't the primary cause of failure there, a bit of math in the flight software is.
nice
Why does it bends its trajectory at the last burn
Wow
Tr to stabilize them
I have suggestions will you like to hear them.
Wear can you find a rocket like yours
ben burden he made it himself
Cool #💯 comment
After that booster sep,I need a change of undies.
WOWWwwwwwwwww😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱
FHM-1 Crew
Derby A. Cribck 1st spaceflight
Donald Tony 3rd spaceflight
Marcus E. Electron Only spaceflight
Muchas Eseciales Mexico 1st spaceflight who speaks English born USA
Disasters:
Derby’s stoke a car
FHM-2 Crew
Clyde Newman 7th spaceflight
Alex E. Coumbla 3rd and final spaceflight
Tush F. Ride 5th and final spaceflight
Xavier S. Milly 2nd Spaceflight
FHM-3 Crew
Xavier S. Milly 4th Spaceflight
Clyde Newman 11th and final spaceflight
Duchess A. Vigint 2nd spaceflight
Donald Tony 4th spaceflight
Oh those PID values are sad :(
3:00 it just hit the doom?????????????????? Flat earth is real!!!!!!!
Fisheye lenses prove the Earth is flat.
Ryan Clark this is a joke right
Faith in the Bible is no joke!