-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Damn weather. It looks like they would have pulled it off if the conditions would have allowed for it. Here a picture they posted to twitter:
SpaceX on Twitter:
SpaceX on Twitter:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bradleybang
Member
In an ideal world (never exists), could they plan heavy launches in winter with no plans for stage recovery and in summer do lighter launches with better conditions for landing?
Norbert
TSLA will win
Of course the easy solution is to do it on land, eventually. But I think the idea of an airborne drone ship (Merlin-powered) is triple cool. (See Elon's twitter feed.)
Bradleybang
Member
Yes, land is eventual...once tests are proven to work.
Merlin directed drone seems to add cost and risk.
On second thought, why not use parachute in addition to the legs and have the merlin drone control the parachute angle, speed and target?
Merlin directed drone seems to add cost and risk.
On second thought, why not use parachute in addition to the legs and have the merlin drone control the parachute angle, speed and target?
wcalvin
Member
Parachutes are fine for landing somewhere but for landing on a target? Consider that the wind strength is decreasing and often changing direction during the final descent. Parachute has lots of surface area compared to a rocket; if you use correction thrusts, you have to drag the chute along with you.
Can't wait for Elon to announce a toroid-shaped airbag that deploys to stabilize and cushion.
Yet water is such a natural cushion; why not saltwater proof the engine after engine shutdown? My guess is that what they are really concerned with is thermal stresses when cold water hits hot engine (such a nice setup for fractures). Three big airbags in a camera shutter arrangement could keep most water at a distance until pickup in twenty minutes; might have to spin the rocket while in the water to assure uniform cooling around the circumference.
Last edited:
Kalud
Active Member
I really enjoyed seeing the stage 1 separation and controlled side thrusters to make the stage 1 turn over for re-entry. At 18m52s approx in the launch video
DSCOVR Launch - YouTube
The process is described here in the concept video: Falcon Heavy | Flight Animation - YouTube
DSCOVR Launch - YouTube
The process is described here in the concept video: Falcon Heavy | Flight Animation - YouTube
Mr Musk's Twitter noted the stage landed within 10m of its target. Is that close enough for a safe droneship landing? Does anyone know how large the Read The Instructions platform is?
Regarding terrestrial landings: what are the logistics of Location of Takeoff-------->Location of Stage 1 Landing? Presumably a rocket that takes off from Cape Canaveral cannot have its primary stage come down also at Cape Canaveral.
Regarding terrestrial landings: what are the logistics of Location of Takeoff-------->Location of Stage 1 Landing? Presumably a rocket that takes off from Cape Canaveral cannot have its primary stage come down also at Cape Canaveral.
hockeythug
Active Member
The barge's landing deck is about 90 by 50 meters(or 300 feet by 170 feet). Even more impressive it was in 20kts of wind with gusts in the upper 20's.
Last edited:
Not really. F9 is a bit too small. In the commercial business, delaying a launch by a few months could mean loss of promised service, not to mention tens of millions in lost on-orbit revenue.
I think that once landing and reuse of the first stage is somewhat reliable, they will probably start to offer two launch prices. If you want a cheap launch, you have to agree that they can defer the launch if there is no chance of recovering the booster. If you want it to go as soon as possible on your schedule, and not theirs, you have to pay more. I think they'd have plenty of customers who are prepared to pay more for that guarantee, but SpaceX gets to keep the premium even if they also get to keep the booster. Maybe there would be a price difference for "new" versus "refurbished" boosters, too.
Liability will be increased on the lower priced "reused" boosters for many years until SpaceX can show that those boosters are just as reliable. I would think liability will increase for every reuse too. It's going to be a long haul of decades to determine the long term use. At some point SpaceX will have a failure. I can see that the price drop will allow for less expensive and more experimental satellites. Right now satellites are unbelievably expensive high tech devices. With a lower cost to orbit you can make something much more cheap and pay a lower price to get it up there.
I also think you can change your thinking on taking pieces into orbit and assembling them there. In the current system you really need to build bigger and bigger rockets to bring all of your stuff into orbit all at once. How about a super satellite? How about a super Mars rocket built in 6 large segments and fueled by 4 more launches carrying nothing but fuel. The point I am making is that reusability changes the dynamic that everyone has worked under since we've gotten into space. The ISS is an example of what I'm trying to convey. It is incredibly expensive because of the number of launches it took to get all the materials there. The falcon heavy could have brought everything needed to build the current ISS at 1/100 the cost?
CliffG
Member
It's not clear whether the rocket is landing by GPS, or whether the drone ship has some terminal guidance beacons on it. If the latter then it would be more accurate if the ship were actually present.
Just to expand further on what other replies suggested, the landing deck is indeed 300 feet long by 170 feet wide. The legspan of the rocket is approximately 70 feet according to this article from space.com. So if the rocket misses the target length-wise it can miss by up to 115 feet (300/2 - 70/2) and still catch the deck. If it misses width-wise it could miss by up to 50 feet (170/2 - 70/2). If it misses both length-wise and width-wise it could miss by a total amount somewhere between 50 feet and 115 feet.
This is assuming the 70 foot legspan is a diameter of 70 feet. If that is the case then depending on how much the rocket is "turned" when it lands it could potentially allow it to miss by even a few feet more than calculated and still allow all of the landing legs to catch the deck.
Regardless, if they are hitting within 10 meters (~33 feet) of the target then that is CLOSE ENOUGH to land on the deck.
Also, the name is Just Read The Instructions.
Someone please check my calculations.
Thanks for the link. Some scratchings follow:
* The January Falcon 9 flight attempted to land its First Stage on Just Read The Instructions (see, Claytorj? I just read the name, this time
) when it was 600 km downpath from Cape Canaveral. *from the link, the following: "SpaceX has designed the first stage of its Falcon 9 rocket to fly back to the launch site and land using leftover propellant."
* I'm envisioning a rocket's trajectory, with First Stage separating, and somehow turning 180º and getting back to Ground Zero. Wow - it does seem like a lot of work (=fuel). Not so much as to negate the cost-savings, but am wondering at what cost with respect to rocket's ultimate throw-weight (as reflected in the percentage of fuel that must be devoted to that maneuver vs flipping a payload to where it's gotta go)?
If SpaceX launched from south Texas, the stage 1 recovery would be in the Gulf of Mexico, which has much calmer seas.
SpaceX will upgrade the ASDS:
SpaceX To Upgrade Drone Ship For Next Falcon Landing Attempt | Space content from Aviation Week
It was damaged trying to get in position for the last attempt.
SpaceX To Upgrade Drone Ship For Next Falcon Landing Attempt | Space content from Aviation Week
It was damaged trying to get in position for the last attempt.
SpaceX Gets "Partial Win" in Blue Origin Patent Dispute
It seems SpaceX will get the rights to land a rocket on the ASDS.
It seems SpaceX will get the rights to land a rocket on the ASDS.
Similar threads
