3 ms·
Wow, that is crazy ambitious. Why aim for the problems of today when you can solve the problems of tomorrow. SpaceX, by now, should have enough people with str
by throwaway000002 11y ago
Wow, that is crazy ambitious. Why aim for the problems of today when you can solve the problems of tomorrow.
SpaceX, by now, should have enough people with strong applied math backgrounds to tell them, given a formal specification of the control systems on the rocket, whether what they're even trying to do is possible (within probability bounds).
I'd be interested in seeing their calculations. I just hope they're not throwing more computation at a problem that's totally dependent on how fine they can a) sense their position and momentum, and b) do something to adjust it.
- lmm 11y agoThey are very happy with the calculations - they've given presentations to this effect already, and they've successfully landed the "grasshopper" test vehicle. The issues with their previous attempts have all been mechanical problems (running out of hydraulic fluid the first time, stuck valve the second time, a structural failure earlier in flight the third time).
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoFrom that description, it sounds like there's barely enough rocket there to succeed. A sample size of 4, no statistics yet possible about whether its getting better or not? Anyway, its amazing how many stuck valves have derailed grand plans. The rover rocket static test had that problem (nuclear engine for Mars mission back in the 60s(?)) and killed that program.