Quote from: Nomadd on 03/21/2015 02:35 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/21/2015 12:19 pmWhy am I reading pages of posts about pins? Because you know that people can only understand how something works by undersanding the most basic details. The great engineers aren't the ones who memorized the manual the best. They're the ones who understand the machine at the gut level because they know how it works down to the pins and switches. At least, that's my take after a barrel sized mug of beer in a Tunisian bar and grill.That's cool. But this thread is about the thread title and the article. Perhaps we could concentrate on that here and not get into a few people going on about pins!
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/21/2015 12:19 pmWhy am I reading pages of posts about pins? Because you know that people can only understand how something works by undersanding the most basic details. The great engineers aren't the ones who memorized the manual the best. They're the ones who understand the machine at the gut level because they know how it works down to the pins and switches. At least, that's my take after a barrel sized mug of beer in a Tunisian bar and grill.
Why am I reading pages of posts about pins?
You also keep telling me that it's impossible to be done, cannot be done, because it's not how it's done today.That's where we differ.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/21/2015 03:43 pmYou also keep telling me that it's impossible to be done, cannot be done, because it's not how it's done today.That's where we differ.No, for the falcon 9, the second stage will always control the first stage because that is the more efficient, safer and less risky way of doing. They have no plans of doing any other way. First stage guidance system is only for recovery and not ascent.
I'm done arguing about it, we'll live and see. I'll just note that this was but one of several approaches I've outlined to help achieving what you dismiss offhand as impossible.
I got all kinds of reasons, most poor (we always did it that way) and few good (asynch trigger/level). In the end, the connectors had no conductors (optical), solved some ground loop issues, and added the equivalent of several hundred more conductors beyond the the original few more.
Time for a poll? 2 Reuses? 5? 10? 20+? 100+?
Engine electronics for the Merlin 1B in Falcon 9 have been simplified down to just three boxes that are responsible for all digital and analog activity. Each set of engine electronics is essentially a self contained plug and play module, dealing with its own activity in accordance with high level commands issued by the flight computer on the upper stage. The only wires between the stage and each engine are an Ethernet cable and a power cable.
In my engineering background I would opt for the 2nd scenario. Stage separation is a critical event. The engines do not need to be switching and validating data source at that time. They should be tied to the 1st stage, which takes its direction from the second so long as the Ethernet connection remains intact, seamlessly defaulting to its own instruction set once stage 2 no longer overrides them.
And what about this? It sure looks a lot like SpaceX landing pads, at least to me. But why three?
hmmm....