SpaceX F9 - 6th Reuse - SES 16/GovSat - SLC-40

[ggr]

So far, everything has gone nominally. You could hear in the background that SpaceX had the booster do all the burns needed for a recovery. However, there was no ASDS to land on. So the booster completed a successful water landing. Which means the booster is destroyed when it topples over and waves break the booster apart.

100% success. Payload deployed as expected. If something goes wrong at this point it is on SES and GovSat1.

Next up is the Falcon Heavy launch on the 6th. The weather is looking good for that launch as well.

Interesting. About halfway between MaxQ and MECO, someone on the launch audio said "Recovery vessel has AOS" (acquisition of signal). So something was out there. Maybe they are trying to recover the fairings, rather than the booster. Or maybe it was just there to watch the non-landing.

 

[ggr]

Nice
If a person can fly an F-16 with one wing. Falcon can fly home too. Or are the engines flooded?

"Off by one" error.

 

[Grendal]

Interesting. About halfway between MaxQ and MECO, someone on the launch audio said "Recovery vessel has AOS" (acquisition of signal). So something was out there. Maybe they are trying to recover the fairings, rather than the booster. Or maybe it was just there to watch the non-landing.

Yes. The ship that was parked near the landing zone to collect the data from the expected water landing and destruction. That's what AOS was about. Now the ship will be co-opted to try and recover the booster.

Hopefully the ship got video of the successful water landing.

Both GoSeeker and GoSearcher were out there. The speculation is that one of them was focused on acquiring the water landing data while the other was probably trying to recover the fairings.

 

[ecarfan]

Holy crap! The booster survived the water landing:

I think Elon was also surprised.

Hopefully seas will be calm for that 200 mile tow!

 

[e-FTW]

I think Elon was also surprised.

Hopefully seas will be calm for that 200 mile tow!

I know! That was a cool surprise to see that tweet! We’ve not seen anything of those tests before:
Elon Musk on Twitter

 

[Nikxice]

I assume that the prolonged exposure to salt water ended this boosters flying career. If the tow job is a success I expect there will be plenty of parts SpaceX will want to check out. If the inspection tear down isn't too extreme, I wonder if Elon would consider donating this beast to the KSC Rocket Garden?

 

[Grendal]

I assume that the prolonged exposure to salt water ended this boosters flying career. If the tow job is a success I expect there will be plenty of parts SpaceX will want to check out. If the inspection tear down isn't too extreme, I wonder if Elon would consider donating this beast to the KSC Rocket Garden?View attachment 277326

Didn't KSC already get the SES-10 booster for the garden? If not, then that is a great idea.

 

[jkn]

Another successful mission !! Go SpaceX.

Everyday Astronaut is giving a lot of speculative reasons for why the booster is not recovered, but he forgot to mention the one reason that makes the most sense. ASDS is parked for FH center core recovery which is more important than a Block 3 recovery.

Perhaps they tested shorter re-entry burn or none and did not expect it to survive.

 

[Brass Guy]

Perhaps they tested shorter re-entry burn or none and did not expect it to survive.

Well I do remember hearing "Stage 1 reentry burn has started" in the video, so it was not omitted.

 

[mongo]

Perhaps they tested shorter re-entry burn or none and did not expect it to survive.

From Elon's Twitter, it used a 3 engine final landing burn.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I know! That was a cool surprise to see that tweet! We’ve not seen anything of those tests before:
Elon Musk on Twitter

So, why the 3-engine burn?

Softening the landing to reduce drone ship or pad refurbishment costs?
Risk reduction?
Leg re-use?
Stage 1 booster scrap?
Showing off?

 

[jkn]

So, why the 3-engine burn?

Softening the landing to reduce drone ship or pad refurbishment costs?
Risk reduction?
Leg re-use?
Stage 1 booster scrap?
Showing off?

Less propellant is needed. Risk is higher, because burn is started at low altitude.
Dry mass: 22.1t
Thrust 3*420 kN

Over 5 g deceleration (ignoring air resistance). With 5g: 0.57 s from 100 km/h to 0 in 8 meters.

 

[mongo]

So, why the 3-engine burn?

Softening the landing to reduce drone ship or pad refurbishment costs?
Risk reduction?
Leg re-use?
Stage 1 booster scrap?
Showing off?

3 engine burn is higher delta v and shorter burn time. So if reliable, they can land using less fuel, and/or from higher speeds. Less missions would require an expendable core.
They had tried a 3 engine landing onto a drone ship previously, but it did not go well.

 

[Electroman]

Mongo thanks for that link. It seemed like the rocket was hovering or a very slow descent in the last 50 meters.

 

[Kipernicus]

Good that they are not littering in the ocean

 

[Mike1080i]

Didn't KSC already get the SES-10 booster for the garden? If not, then that is a great idea.

I read here that the SES-10 booster may be placed somewhere near the SpaceX LCC right outside the South Gate of CCAFS. However, I was just there last weekend and saw no evidence of any prep work on the grounds to support that so far.

 

[Grendal]

The floating booster is apparently still being towed into port. It was being towed for the last four days by Go Searcher (a tugboat used by SpaceX for recovery and ocean operations) when the booster seems to have been handed off to another ship to bring in earlier today. That freed up Go Searcher to move out and coordinate with Go Seeker for FH operations.

At some point we'll probably get a picture of this booster coming in to port.

 

[ecarfan]

The floating booster is apparently still being towed into port. It was being towed for the last four days by Go Searcher

The booster is likely very difficult to tow due to massive hydrodynamic drag.

 

[ecarfan]

Update: the booster was declared a “hazard to navigation” and was sunk...by the USAF. See Air Force Strike Takes Out SpaceX’s Floating GovSat Booster « AmericaSpace

SpaceX expected this booster to disintegrate on impact and sink. It didn’t. Since it could not be “safed” following the usual procedures it was definitely a hazard to navigation. I never understood why SpaceX was going to attempt to tow it back to shore. There was no plan to reuse it. Exposure to saltwater would cause extensive damage to just about everything.

The USAF has declined to comment. SpaceX has not yet issued a statement.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Update: the booster was declared a “hazard to navigation” and was sunk...by the USAF. See Air Force Strike Takes Out SpaceX’s Floating GovSat Booster « AmericaSpace

SpaceX expected this booster to disintegrate on impact and sink. It didn’t. Since it could not be “safed” following the usual procedures it was definitely a hazard to navigation. I never understood why SpaceX was going to attempt to tow it back to shore. There was no plan to reuse it. Exposure to saltwater would cause extensive damage to just about everything.

The USAF has declined to comment. SpaceX has not yet issued a statement.

"Hi. It's Elon. Remember that booster that landed on the water? No, no, not the Falcon Heavy one. Yeah, thanks. Anyway the previous one that surprisingly ended up floating instead of breaking. Yeah, that one. Well, you know how we were going to tow it back to shore to take a look at it? OK, so we've been trying and it's proving to be harder than we first thought ... ha, yeah, funny ... so we really need to get rid of it instead. Right, a big metal tube floating around, not good. So, we were wondering if you could, er, help solve the problem ... OK, great, great. Thanks. Yeah, would have been nice. Maybe next time."