News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by dtquad on Sunday October 13, 2024 @10:19AM (#41828249)
MIMO and nonlinear control theories are probably some of the hardest topics in all of engineering. SpaceX control system also has to compensate for the fuel moving inside their rockets so the control algorithms probably involve some kind of fast numerical fluid simulation.

Another interesting thing SpaceX is doing is to use consumer-grade chips in triple redundancy configurations instead of using $100,000+ radiation-hardened aerospace/defense grade chips.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by alexpotato on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:28AM (#41828833)
Reminds me of the early days of Google File System.

They used trios of regular consumer grade disks/servers etc as a cluster and it looked like a single node.

They had to replace a LOT of hardware but this was still cheaper than big iron industrial grades servers.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by moffkalast on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:38AM (#41828918)
Interestingly cheap redundancy is also how life does things for the most part. Most biological organisms just replicate a lot to guarantee success, so it's clearly a good strategy and an efficient use of energy.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by szundi on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:55PM (#41829543)
Efficient as in evolution or in business: you just need to be more efficient than most of the peers
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by autonomousErwin on Sunday October 13, 2024 @10:26AM (#41828305)
I always thought the liquid sloshing would be one of the hardest to simulate (considering how chaotic fluid mechanics is). Interestingly, I think this caused the 2nd Falcon launch to fail (the LOX sloshing).
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by JorgeGT on Sunday October 13, 2024 @10:37AM (#41828398)
It is difficult, but there are modeling approaches that work, such as VoF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_of_fluid_method). Basically, in addition to velocity, pressure, temperature, etc., you store an additional scalar in each cell of your computational mesh representing the liquid's volume fraction. Then, you solve an additional equation to transport that scalar.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by s1291 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @10:47AM (#41828487)
Solving the Navier-Stokes equations numerically in 3D is very time-consuming, even on HPC clusters, not to mention the additional modeling required for multiphase flows. Your answer implies that the solutions are obtained almost instantaneously, which is not the case.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by krisoft on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:02AM (#41828606)
I think the reason these kind of simulations are fast enough is because they are very coarse and approximate. Don't think of asking how exactly the foam swirls around the individual longerons, more like a very rough estimation of which side of the tank the liquid is slumped to. Remember it doesn't have to be "exact" just close enough to be useful.

By their very nature model predictive controllers operate in a world where not everything is perfectly modelled. Engineers do their best and whatever is left is the "error" the controller is trying to deal with.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by Log_out_ on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:48AM (#41828997)
Or you compute variations ahead of time and do a situation based lookup, hoing through loops if a situation ressembles another one.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by keepamovin on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:25PM (#41829293)
Maybe they don't need to model the fluid dynamics, they just need to detect the mass movement / acceleration forces caused by it, and use those sensor inputs to inform a picture that's fed into their correction thursting.

Sort of like how you can balance a few pitchers of beer on a tray in your hand by remaining aware of the weight, even when people remove one! hahaha :)

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by m4rtink on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:56PM (#41829558)
Still if there indeed is "free" mass moving about, you need to make sure your control inputs don't make it slosh harder, so you compensate for that, so it sloshes even harder, etc - basically avoiding oscilation. :)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by keepamovin on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:30PM (#41829819)
Yeah..ah, control theory. Heh :)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by KeplerBoy on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:00AM (#41828593)
Maybe the tank is just not a large hollow structure but contains fins/compartments/whatever to restrict the sloshing motion and it's not that big a contribution to the overall motion.

If it's no stronger than a sudden wind gust, it's just something the controller has to be able to take care of without a heads-up.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by kaonwarb on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:01PM (#41829102)
These are indeed part on the solution and are known as baffles. They have risks of their own, e.g.: https://wccftech.com/baffling-baffles-musk-explains-why-spac...
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by nuancebydefault on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:21PM (#41830243)
In the first spacex rocket Musk thought that it was a good idea to not install baffles. He learned from experience that they are indeed needed.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by m4rtink on Sunday October 13, 2024 @04:35PM (#41831358)
I remember a very similar anecdote about Von Braun & the early Juno/Jupiter rockets - with someone pointing out issues with sloshing on a press conference & Von Braun brushing it off as insignificant.

Then the next launch crashed due to slosh induced oscillation - and the one rocket after that had anti-slosh baffles. ;-)

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by vocram on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:02PM (#41829110)
That’s how tanks in race cars are made. Another solution is fill the tank with some kind of sponge-like material.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by m4rtink on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:57PM (#41829563)
That would be far too heavy in this case. :)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by 486sx33 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:07PM (#41829635)
Sometimes… the baffles break off, and then become surfboard projectiles inside the tank.

More fluid dynamics

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by TowerTall on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:54AM (#41829058)
That is how they build the tank in Formula One Racing (and probably many other race cars, I guess)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by nothercastle on Sunday October 13, 2024 @10:53AM (#41828526)
They probably pre solved a bunch of scenarios and interpolate between them known solutions
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by j_maffe on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:01AM (#41828600)
That usually doesn't work for chaotic systems.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by jjk166 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:55PM (#41829545)
They don't need to solve the Navier-Stokes equations, they don't care how the fluid is actually behaving, they just need to approximate how the mass is moving within a margin of error that the control system can handle.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by WalterBright on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:41PM (#41829909)
If the computation is too difficult, another approach is build a test stand and try methods until it works.

Which is why we use wind tunnels, for example.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by JorgeGT on Sunday October 13, 2024 @06:45PM (#41832393)
Oh no, apologies if that was the impression I gave!! I actually perform CFD simulations in HPC clusters, and in fact I'm an admin of the small cluster at my research institute =)

These are indeed heavy computations. What I meant is that VoF is one additional equation to be solved besides the N-S equations (either filtered as in LES or Reynolds-averaged as in RANS), the energy equation, your turbulence model equations, and so on. Certainly, not instantaneous at all, but simply an additional "simple" model that we can hook into our current way of doing CFD.

So, my point was, sloshing is a problem that we know how to simulate, although certainly you need HPC resources. Though, looking at those 100k NVIDIA H100 Elon has, I guess they have them! :P

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by edm0nd on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:05PM (#41833855)
I'm curious, how long time wise do these type of "heavy computations" take on clusters of HPCs?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by JorgeGT on Monday October 14, 2024 @04:08AM (#41835315)
It really depends on the problem to be solved (domain size, complexity of physical phenomena such as turbulence model, heat transfer, acoustics, multiphase flows, combustion, etc., number of time steps required...). In our case we perform for instance simulations of turbomachinery acoustics that can take 3-4 weeks running in a few hundreds of CPU cores, combustion acoustics simulations that can take a week or two running in 1k-2k cores...
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by knewter on Monday October 14, 2024 @07:33AM (#41836532)
what if you had 100k H100s
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by JorgeGT on Monday October 14, 2024 @11:04AM (#41838210)
In reality few codes are capable of effectively parallelizing to so many computing processes. But, how cool would it be?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by swader999 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:49AM (#41829006)
Wouldn't it burn most of the fuel to mitigate the effect?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by sobellian on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:07AM (#41828651)
At least for the retro-propulsive landing burn, I think the modeling problem is probably aided by the high G-forces that must keep the fuel very close to the bottom of the tank. Even before re-light the booster is falling near terminal velocity (I think?), so the fuel is likely sitting at the bottom.

I think it's a huge problem when re-lighting the engines in orbit, though.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by chasd00 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:09PM (#41829159)
Iirc cold gas thrusters are used before ignition to provide some acceleration to force the fuel to the bottom of the tank.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by baq on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:11PM (#41830164)
The technical term for that is 'ullage'.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullage_motor

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by m4rtink on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:01PM (#41829586)
Also IIRC the massive main tanks in Super Heavy should be basically empty at landing & the landings propelants come from a set of small header tabks that are near the central axis of the vehicle & arr completely full. This should reduce or even fully remove sloshing issues at landing time.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by dtquad on Sunday October 13, 2024 @10:38AM (#41828404)
I think some Kerbel Space Program players have attempted to approximate the liquid sloshing as an inverted single or double pendulum problem inside the rocket that the control algorithm has to take into consideration in addition to the primary control of the rocket.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by phkahler on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:05PM (#41829125)
Maybe they just use pressure sensors to tell where the fluid is within the tank.

Even a real-time simulation should have some measurements to self correct to some degree. Otherwise it'll diverge.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by dmitshur on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:47AM (#41828986)
Has it been considered to spin the fuel via some centrifuge mechanism as a way to remove sloshing from the equation, or is that more complex/expensive/error-prone than just predicting it via simulation?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by m4rtink on Sunday October 13, 2024 @05:06PM (#41831586)
I'm thinking we will eventually end up with "active fuel management" techniques like this for in space vehicles.

Bug tanks make sense there & they might not be always full. So I can imagine all kind of interesting ways you can work with the fuel in zero go to avoid not only slosh but also the need for ullage thrusters. Eq. some programmable nozzles using in-tank gas to nudge liquid fuel blobs to move in the right direction. Or even some nets or bags that herd in the fuel in the middle of the tank + prevent it from directly touching the side, reducing boil-off or refrigeration requirements. :)

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by macinjosh on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:48PM (#41829491)
There wouldn’t be a whole lot of fuel left by the time it’s back to land so likely an irrelevant factor.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by arijo on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:49AM (#41829005)
> Another interesting thing SpaceX is doing is to use consumer-grade chips in triple redundancy configurations instead of using $100,000+ radiation-hardened aerospace/defense grade chips.

This has been known in the high availability and safety systems industry for a while and a good book to learn these reliability engineering techniques is "Reliability Evaluation of Engineering Systems".

The book is available on amazon: https://a.co/d/1nH824K

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by wildzzz on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:36PM (#41829378)
One downside of using non-rad hard parts is degradation from TID (gamma) and latch up effects. You can have chips monitoring other chips to reset whenever they latch up but TID is mostly permanent. The good thing is that TID in LEO, where SpaceX mostly operates, is relatively lower than GEO so they can get by with mostly commercial parts. It's not like the big defense contractors haven't figured out the same thing, they do fly stuff using commercial parts as well, they are just slower to adopt the same culture. SpaceX and the companies that built components using commercial parts are building the new-space industry.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by christophilus on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:06PM (#41829617)
Could you surround your components with gamma-shielding materials and get away with off-the-shelf parts deeper in space?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by gafferongames on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:12PM (#41829679)
"To block gamma rays completely, you need about 13.8 feet of water, 6.6 feet of concrete, or about 1.3 feet of lead."

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-basics#:~:text=Gamma....

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by jacobn on Sunday October 13, 2024 @03:15PM (#41830713)
Would they need to be blocked completely? Maybe a much thinner shielding would still produce a significant benefit?

(Though likely not of course ;)

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by mttch on Sunday October 13, 2024 @03:53PM (#41831002)
High energy gammas have a relatively low cross section, most are going to pass right through the chip. If you add a too little shielding, or don’t layer shielding appropriately you are going to stop more gammas but produce lower energy x-rays from the shielding, which have a higher cross section, potentially increasing your chip dose.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by orbisvicis on Sunday October 13, 2024 @10:12PM (#41833572)
Would it be possible to create a "skip" EM shield that does the opposite - increasing the energy of the gamma rays thereby reducing the likelihood of stopping them?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by nine_k on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:15PM (#41833895)
No idea how. Energies of most chemical bonds / electrons around atoms are not very high, not sufficient to emit proper gamma rays AFAICT. High-energy gamma rays are produced in nuclear reactions. While "clean" nuclear reactions that emit only gamma rays and not neutrons do exist, they are very high-energy and thus hard to initiate, and I don't think it would be easy to capture the energy of incoming gamma efficiently enough.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by orbisvicis on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @02:42AM (#41845641)
Yeah, the problem is getting the EM and M fields to interact. I'm not sure creating gamma rays would help.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by quailfarmer on Monday October 14, 2024 @01:48AM (#41834570)
Yes, you can attenuate TID effects with reasonably thin aluminum shielding
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by christophilus on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:31PM (#41829831)
A box with 1.3’ walls seems doable, actually, depending on how small the chips are. Might still be cheaper and more effective than specialized chips. But I know nothing, so am probably wrong.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by jazzyjackson on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:49PM (#41829971)
I think the trouble is such a cube would weigh 12,400 pounds (a sphere maybe more reasonable at 6,510lb - without any room for electronics inside)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=+lead+cube+with+side+le...

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by m4rtink on Sunday October 13, 2024 @04:15PM (#41831183)
IIRC the CPUs are much less susceptible to damage when powered-off ? So have a bunch of them in cold standby or even as additional pluggable modules on missions with humans on board & swap to good ones when needed? :)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by paledot on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:54PM (#41830024)
Hah, beat me to the nerd snipe. Moreover, that sphere would cost $10k to make and, at a launch price of $1500/kg, cost $4.5 million to launch into orbit.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by bboygravity on Sunday October 13, 2024 @04:02PM (#41831068)
The aim for the launch price of the entire rocket is to be around 5 million (once it's fully re-usable and in production). Basically the price of fuel and maintenance.

So something might be off with your assumption of 1500 usd / kg.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by paledot on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @10:05AM (#41848740)
Yes, it's based in the real world. This was the Falcon 9 launch price that I could come up with in the amount of time I was willing to spend on a shitpost. I agree that launch prices will continue to come down, but launchers will always be mass-constrained and launching lead spheres into orbit will never be a practical solution.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by bboygravity on Saturday October 19, 2024 @05:52AM (#41886822)
I agree.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by SmellTheGlove on Sunday October 13, 2024 @09:04PM (#41833188)
How long until they can build that massive box, stage it in orbit, and pick it up/put it down as needed?

I can't decide if I'm joking or not.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by xmprt on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:46PM (#41829949)
Lead is extremely dense so carry 1.3' walls of lead is probably more expensive than just having more redundancy or using better quality chips.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by thelittleone on Sunday October 13, 2024 @07:28PM (#41832670)
If the only thing that effectively shields these processors from radiation is lead, concrete etc (per earlier comments), what design changes / quality improvements can compensate?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by MetaWhirledPeas on Sunday October 13, 2024 @08:48PM (#41833107)
Does liquid fuel protect as well as water? Suspend the computers in the center of the fuel tank.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by persnickety on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:47PM (#41829953)
Can it even be blocked completely? Every layer of material geometrically reduces the proportion of rays going through. Or am I wrong about that?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by Filligree on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:57PM (#41830049)
No, that's correct. Of course there's still some level of reduction beyond which the gamma rays don't matter, but where you want to place it is somewhat arbitrary.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by arijo on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:17PM (#41829722)
You don't need to block gamma radiation completely to increase the electronics reliability :)

Maybe you could improve the system availability considerably by a bit of gamma radiation protection combined with some more parallelism of the components ..

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by adastra22 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:11PM (#41830160)
Usually partial blockage is worse, because you end up with a spray of secondary particles instead of a single ray.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by m4rtink on Sunday October 13, 2024 @04:16PM (#41831189)
Maybe the secondaries could be blocked by different/lighter materials ? Basically a Whipple Shield for radiation. :)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by adastra22 on Monday October 14, 2024 @01:56AM (#41834618)
Stopping power is basically correlated with mass.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by arijo on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:18PM (#41830226)
Makes intuitive sense, thanks for the insight.

A second layer blockage for the secondary particles wouldn't have to be as dense or am I missing important physics?

(I guess a lot of gamma radiation would still reach this second layer so please ignore my question :)

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by adastra22 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:20PM (#41830235)
Keep adding layers until you get to 1.3 feet of lead and it’ll work.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by arijo on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:27PM (#41830282)
haha thanks for the correction - I was under the Turtles All the Way Down mindset :)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by numpad0 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:34PM (#41830350)
Isn't that more like how you make bombs than armors more effective - with backside spalling and secondary fragmentations?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by exe34 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:56PM (#41830562)
can you block a hemisphere? the other 2pi steradians are shielded by the earth...
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by quailfarmer on Monday October 14, 2024 @01:51AM (#41834591)
This may be true for high energy particles, but the majority of TID damage is done by higher flux lower energy, for which shielding is often viable!
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by adastra22 on Monday October 14, 2024 @01:56AM (#41834615)
The point is that shielding turns a single high energy particle that would otherwise strike and probably destroy a single transistor, into a veritable spray of lower energy particles causing bit flips or worse all over the circuit. This spray of particles can be stopped... with 1.3 feet of lead shielding.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by piyh on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:47PM (#41829952)
More water in orbit sounds like a good idea to me
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by jiggawatts on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:57PM (#41830570)
Just put the electronics in the middle of the header tank.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by wojciii on Monday October 14, 2024 @01:40AM (#41834522)
I would wish you would use proper units. ;-)

But would using redundant systems separated in space connected with each other not offset the chance that they all would be affected at the same time? This is actually not rocket science .. just hard engineering and hardware/software design for redundant systems which is also usable on the ground.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by WalterBright on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:38PM (#41829889)
In reading Musk's biography,

"Hollman also found that creativity got him a long way. He discovered, for example, that changing the seals on some readily available car wash valves made them good enough to be used with rocket fuel."

"Elon Musk" by Vance pg 123

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by MPSimmons on Sunday October 13, 2024 @06:59PM (#41832503)
There's a Lowes across the street from 1 Rocket Rd in Hawthorne.

I doubt any Lowes parts made it to space, but you know some went into test articles

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by kamaal on Monday October 14, 2024 @01:34AM (#41834498)
I have seen some people who decide to keep moving forward with whatever they have at the time. Sure what they produce is way less than perfect, but what they produce is way ahead of what everybody else is doing.

Perhaps the key is to be relentless, and resourceful.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by seabass-labrax on Monday October 14, 2024 @06:55AM (#41836303)
Considering the political views of Elon Musk, it might be worth noting that his biographer is not the same Vance who is currently running for election as vice-president of the USA!
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by WalterBright on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:32PM (#41829837)
Aviation pioneered the use of redundancy in order to survive failures.

The Fukushima and Deepwater Horizon disasters show that this knowledge has not penetrated other industries.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by michaelt on Sunday October 13, 2024 @03:36PM (#41830863)
Plenty of industries know about redundancy.

But it turns out, it doesn't matter how many redundant backup diesel generators you've got if a 45-foot wave comes along and they're all left underwater.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by eecc on Sunday October 13, 2024 @04:40PM (#41831396)
... and you put all of them in the basement :/
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by nmca on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:40PM (#41830414)
Thank you very much for the reference!
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by arijo on Sunday October 13, 2024 @06:02PM (#41832071)
You're welcome :)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by m4rtink on Sunday October 13, 2024 @04:13PM (#41831166)
From an article for this I remember one more interesting side effects of this approach - the flight computer ends up as a generic x86/ARM board that the engineers can just have on their desk during development. Previously the dev boards would use the same rad hard chips and would be as expensive and scarse as flight hardware, resulting in much harder development & engineers having much less experience with the real hardware.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by prox on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:02PM (#41829109)
Just as a note, Space Engineers has a mod that accounts for fuel in the tanks and also various orbital mods. If one feels inclined to try it for themselves ;)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by serf on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:15PM (#41829698)
as someone who absolutely loves SE -- please don't.

the orbital and planetary mechanics kind of suck. They're meant to provide a decent 'arcade realism' for the sake of player/player interactions and pvp/pve.

if you want to experience fuel slosh/weight during a vertical ascent/descent go with kerbal. It models a lot of that stuff without mods -- and mods can make the model even more accurate.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by sidewndr46 on Sunday October 13, 2024 @10:36AM (#41828391)
how much liquid fuel is present when it lands? I assumed all the clouds it was giving off was it dumping fuel to make sure it was empty on landing
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by sephamorr on Sunday October 13, 2024 @10:54AM (#41828541)
Less than 5% of a full load. Any extra fuel you brought to the edge of space and back is lost performance, so substantial efforts are made to minimize this lost mass fraction.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by jccooper on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:48PM (#41829969)
That's probably venting of excess pressurants and/or an engine purge.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by arijo on Sunday October 13, 2024 @11:13AM (#41828707)
I never thought of using fluid dynamics in the rocket stabilization algorithm—maybe it's something that could be useful to prevent many of the accidents involving liquid-transport trucks
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by wildzzz on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:31PM (#41829332)
I spent 2 semesters covering controls and I barely felt like I learned anything.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by WalterBright on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:36PM (#41829379)
Reliability is not based on a system that cannot fail. It is based on a system that can survive failure.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by mrdoops on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:58PM (#41829573)
The canonical paper on handling software failures: https://erlang.org/download/armstrong_thesis_2003.pdf
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by WalterBright on Sunday October 13, 2024 @01:27PM (#41829795)
There's much more to it than the programming language.

Algorithms can be faulty as well.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by mlyle on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:25PM (#41830271)
> There's much more to it than the programming language.

Which was never claimed.

That paper is a little bit about Erlang and a whole lot about OTP and other methodology and design technique.

It is still, very much "the paper" for distributed systems, though its applicability to this particular problem is limited.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by szundi on Sunday October 13, 2024 @12:53PM (#41829525)
… or cannot fail
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by e_y_ on Monday October 14, 2024 @05:18PM (#41842138)
A system (whole) that can survive the failure of (some of the) individual parts. Up to a limit.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by mlsu on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:13PM (#41830182)
I know MPC takes a LOT of compute power. It's not like a finely tuned PID loop or even a cascade of PID loops, computationally.

Does anyone know (or have educated speculation on) what kind of hardware is running these algorithms? Like, do they have a linux machine that's running the control loops? Are we talking megabytes, gigabytes of SRAM?

I would think no -- you would definitely need hard real time for something like this. But my only experience with real time systems is in tiny MCUs with kb of SRAM. That's definitely too small for a controller like this.

Really curious about the nuts and bolts of this.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by bgnn on Sunday October 13, 2024 @04:18PM (#41831217)
It would be a real time OS running it for sure. Which one I don't know.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by mlyle on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:23PM (#41830252)
MPC doesn't need to take a ton of compute power. It all comes down to how sophisticated the underlying model is. You can have a MPC with 20 variables and run it at multiple kilohertz on a tiny microcontroller.

When you build something like this, you're torn between having a big model that represents everything and a smaller model that is easier to validate and reason about. Based on simulation, you might go for a smaller model that "knows" to stay away from operating areas where hidden variables (like really complicated tank slosh) invalidate the small model.

I doubt the actual control loop is too much processing, but it's certainly possible to build controllers with SDRAM, millions of variables of state, and hard realtime processing, though I wouldn't build it on top of preempt-rt. ;)

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by quailfarmer on Monday October 14, 2024 @01:58AM (#41834626)
They have publicly discussed using Linux with RT kernel!
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by erikerikson on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:26PM (#41830279)
I have been told by people who worked on them that you get radiation hardened aerospace/defence grade chips by backing off the clock speed about 20% to give signal stabilization slightly longer time. I can understand the population being confused about this but industry being confused seems to have more to do with regulatory capture and beaurocratic moats which SpaceX does seem to be bypassing.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by mensetmanusman on Sunday October 13, 2024 @05:10PM (#41831622)
You also have to add massive amounts (relatively) of static sink by approaches like ‘silicon on insulator’ to prevent energetic electrons from hopping into the transistor layer.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by m4rtink on Sunday October 13, 2024 @05:18PM (#41831702)
I'm sure there are many hardening processes - from the modified COTS parts, all the way to presumably much more expensive custom substrates like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_on_sapphire
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by macawfish on Sunday October 13, 2024 @02:39PM (#41830399)
People don't realize how powerful applied math (especially in the areas you've mentioned) has become. Same tools can be applied to people in the ad tech/social media.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by schiffern on Sunday October 13, 2024 @03:51PM (#41830988)

  >probably involve some kind of fast numerical fluid simulation
Sometimes even a simple approach can work here. On Apollo they developed (at the time cutting-edge) passive RC filter networks, to avoid the control system "exciting" the rocket at frequencies of the slosh/bend/torsion modes.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19700023342/downloads/19... (search for "slosh" or "shaping network")

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by gcanyon on Sunday October 13, 2024 @03:58PM (#41831038)
> control system also has to compensate for the fuel moving inside their rockets

My stepfather worked as a programmer on the Apollo program, and the thing he always talked about as his biggest accomplishment was working on the "slosh problem" -- so yeah, props to the SpaceX team for managing that landing. And props to my stepdad for managing it on hardware that was... a billion times less capable? :-)

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by kbmr on Sunday October 13, 2024 @04:56PM (#41831516)
Did he get a chance to see any of the recent SpaceX accomplishments?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by gcanyon on Sunday October 13, 2024 @06:35PM (#41832324)
Nope, died fifteen years ago.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by falconertc on Monday October 14, 2024 @07:39AM (#41836572)
I might be misremembering but I think slosh was the failure cause for one of the three failed Falcon 1 flights. It was number 11 out of a pre-flight list of top 10 most likely failure scenarios. Definitely a difficult problem.
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by 3abiton on Sunday October 13, 2024 @05:34PM (#41831833)
> MIMO and nonlinear control theories are probably some of the hardest topics in all of engineering.

I am curious but clueless about these problems, can you expand more?

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by mataslauzadis on Sunday October 13, 2024 @05:37PM (#41831862)
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by restalis on Sunday October 13, 2024 @07:43PM (#41832736)
"instead of using $100,000+ radiation-hardened aerospace/defense grade chips"

Well, that makes perfect sense considering that both the spaceport infrastructure, and the booster need to do their calculation on the ground level instead of the highly radiated environment that is space. However, for the rockets themselves, which happen to reach that harsh environment, they may use more resilient and expensive hardware in the future, after passing over the current "let it splash in the Indian Ocean" development and testing phases.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by debit-freak on Sunday October 13, 2024 @09:53PM (#41833474)
> SpaceX control system also has to compensate for the fuel moving inside their rockets so the control algorithms probably involve some kind of fast numerical fluid simulation.

Surely this isn't necessary with a small enough sensor granularity or whatever the terminology is. You can have very dumb software if it reacts quickly enough to changes in perception.

Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by noahbp on Monday October 14, 2024 @10:34AM (#41837931)
I'm not an engineer, but is there a reason why they can't french press (sans filter) the fuel toward the bottom of the tank as it empties?
Re:Starship Flight 5 [video] by e_y_ on Monday October 14, 2024 @05:53PM (#41842414)
(Not an engineer either) My understanding is that it's been done before on smaller scales but having a giant piston in the tank requires a good seal, railings to keep it straight, and overall way too much mass and rigidity. Consider that the tank walls are only a few millimeters thick.

Instead, it's more common to use gasses injected at the top of the tank to push the liquid to the bottom. Falcon 9 uses helium. Starship uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogenous_pressurization as well as small header tanks for the landing propellants.