Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting zanl188 (Reply 3): Any pix of what's left of the trunk. I imagine they had to send divers after it. |
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8): This clears the way for SpaceX to bid on US DoD contracts for satellite launches. Congrats to the SpaceX team for this. |
Quoting N328KF (Reply 9): Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8): This clears the way for SpaceX to bid on US DoD contracts for satellite launches. Congrats to the SpaceX team for this. It comes with an asterisk -- that asterisk is that SpaceX can only bid on 1/3rd of the launches until Falcon Heavy is operational. |
Quote: about 10 seconds before landing, a valve controlling the rocket’s engine power (thrust) temporarily stopped responding to commands as quickly as it should have. As a result, it throttled down a few seconds later than commanded, and—with the rocket weighing about 67,000 lbs and traveling nearly 200 mph at this point—a few seconds can be a very long time. With the throttle essentially stuck on “high” and the engine firing longer than it was supposed to, the vehicle temporarily lost control and was unable to recover in time for landing, eventually tipping over. [...] Post-launch analysis has confirmed the throttle valve as the sole cause of this hard landing. The team has made changes to help prevent, and be able to rapidly recover from, similar issues for the next attempt, which will be on our next launch—the eighth Falcon 9 and Dragon cargo mission to the space station, currently scheduled for this Sunday. |
Quote: Even given everything we’ve learned, the odds of succeeding on our third attempt to land on a drone ship (a new one named “Of Course I Still Love You”) are uncertain, but tune in here this Sunday as we try to get one step closer toward a fully and rapidly reusable rocket. |
Courtesy: SpaceX |
Quoting zanl188 (Reply 17): Tagging on here from the Grasshopper thread... SpaceX's Grasshopper (by ZANL188 Dec 25 2012 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) The Falcon 9 booster landing last night is about one of the coolest things I've seen done in the space yet! Congrats SpaceX! |
Quoting Tugger (Reply 12): Also if you are interested a very fun little read with insights into the craziness that existed at the start of SpaceX is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...acex/ |
Quoting maxter (Reply 21): Dumb question I know but... Do you think there is any on-board video of the return flight which has not been made public yet, or did SX not have one due the night operations or some other reason... |
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 22): There is supposedly some jawdropping footage of the whole S1 ascent, staging, boost back and landing: http://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/679399307271892992 http://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/s...36641 |
Quoting maxter (Reply 24): Any idea how many of the next few missions have the capability (fuel reserves, trajectory etc.) to permit more of these return flights. |
Quoting maxter (Reply 24): I'm also wondering if the legs are made for the return missions specifically at this early stage eventually being used for all or do they have a stock of non-landing leg fitted boosters. |
Quote: SpaceX hopes to make history again on Jan. 17 by landing a Falcon 9 rocket on a drone ship at sea after launching a payload into orbit. SpaceX confirmed to NBC News that it would be making the attempt; the news was earlier reported by space journalist Charles Lurio on Twitter. This launch will take off from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, carrying NASA's Jason-3 satellite. Jason-3 carries instruments to monitor the ocean's surface, collecting information about circulation patterns and perhaps rising sea levels. |
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 37): I always thought they should spring for a semi submersible, but they'd be harder to move around. |
Quoting angad84 (Reply 38): Landings can be planned based on payoads, with the lighter missions doing a full RTB and the heavier ones dropping onto the platform to be retreived later. |
Quoting moo (Reply 39): The issue with that is that with a movable platform you have a much greater potential scope for heavy burns than you do with a fixed platform - need more payload thrust (longer first stage burn) but also a first stage landing? Means either more fuel overall, which is a diminishing return, or move the landing platform further down range so the first stage doesnt have such a great return-to-base burn, meaning less fuel needed. Wind issues to deal with on the return burn? A fixed platform means more fuel needed to burn, while a movable platform means you can take advantage of that wind. Etc etc etc. |
Quoting moo (Reply 39): |
Quoting angad84 (Reply 40): Quoting moo (Reply 39): The issue with that is that with a movable platform you have a much greater potential scope for heavy burns than you do with a fixed platform - need more payload thrust (longer first stage burn) but also a first stage landing? Means either more fuel overall, which is a diminishing return, or move the landing platform further down range so the first stage doesnt have such a great return-to-base burn, meaning less fuel needed. Wind issues to deal with on the return burn? A fixed platform means more fuel needed to burn, while a movable platform means you can take advantage of that wind. Etc etc etc. Good points all. And it looks like it wasn't the motion that was the problem at all, but the fact that one of the legs didn't lock. Musk says a landing on shore would've probably failed too. |
As mentioned before, ship landings are needed for high velocity missions. Altitude & distance don't mean much for orbit. All about speed.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 17 Janvier 2016
Ship landings are not needed for flexibility or to save fuel costs. Just not physically possible to return to launch site
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 17 Janvier 2016
If speed at stage separation > ~6000 km/hr. With a ship, no need to zero out lateral velocity, so can stage at up to ~9000 km/h.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 17 Janvier 2016
Quoting angad84 (Reply 40): And it looks like it wasn't the motion that was the problem at all, but the fact that one of the legs didn't lock. Musk says a landing on shore would've probably failed too. |
Quoting francoflier (Reply 46): However, that's the second time they seem to miss on a good landing for a relatively minor detail which was known and easy to fix. |