KarelXWB wrote:SpaceX released a photo of the recovered booster:
That looks hawt....
Tugg
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
KarelXWB wrote:SpaceX released a photo of the recovered booster:
"Now, we could fail," he said, during a September 2011 event at the National Press Club, transcribed at the time by CollectSPACE. "I'm not saying we are certain of success here, but we are going to try to do it. We have a design that on paper, doing the calculations, doing the simulations, it does work. Now we need to make sure those simulations and reality agree because generally, when they don't, reality wins."
KarelXWB wrote:Issue is that for most launches the second stage won't have enough fuel left for a reentry burn. The first Falcon Heavy launch may be able to recover the second stage because it won't have a payload, thus having enough fuel left for another burn.
Tugger wrote:Video of the landing posted to Instagram yesteday
Tugg
Francoflier wrote:Tugger wrote:Video of the landing posted to Instagram yesteday
Tugg
That looks a lot more civilized than the first few attempts where the booster seemed to be slamming onto the deck hapazardly.
I know they have more fuel to play with on these lower energy missions, but it still seems like a lot of work has been done.
And it still looks like a mighty barbecue under there...
AirlineCritic wrote:Wow... that's a surprising amount of soot throughout the craft. Obviously we don't know whether this is something that is easily cleaned up with a wet cloth or did some actual damage.
DfwRevolution wrote:They also started finding assembly hardware with no part numbers and no record in the Bill of Material. I'm guessing that would be things like shims and consumables.
WIederling wrote:The early Space-X landings all show high combined vector ( vertical and horizontal displacement ) approach.
Francoflier wrote:Unless they somehow save a big chunk of the (2nd) stage's fuel for a loooong deceleration burn.
maxter wrote:I seem to recall a relatively recent Tweet from Elon that he was expecting a 24 hour turnaround eventually.
aviationaware wrote:When comparing to the STS, I think a lot of the cost of refurbishing the STS was incurred by the heat shield - correct me if I am wrong. Since Falcon 9 does not enter orbit, this is of no concern for it.
iamlucky13 wrote:AirlineCritic wrote:Wow... that's a surprising amount of soot throughout the craft. Obviously we don't know whether this is something that is easily cleaned up with a wet cloth or did some actual damage.
Soot or charring. I think a lot of the latter. Clean up isn't the concern so much, but heat affects on the aluminum and softer parts like hydraulic seals or electrical insulation are.
This was a fairly hot landing. They've known for a while GTO launches would be difficult to design for re-use of.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:iamlucky13 wrote:AirlineCritic wrote:Wow... that's a surprising amount of soot throughout the craft. Obviously we don't know whether this is something that is easily cleaned up with a wet cloth or did some actual damage.
Soot or charring. I think a lot of the latter. Clean up isn't the concern so much, but heat affects on the aluminum and softer parts like hydraulic seals or electrical insulation are.
This was a fairly hot landing. They've known for a while GTO launches would be difficult to design for re-use of.
Remember the engine uses RP1/LOX so there's plenty of carbon in the kerosene. My understanding is that's where all the blackening comes from.
iamlucky13 wrote:Soot should get distributed in a feathered out manner along the stage, but note the distinct line dividing darkened and white areas in photos of the recovered stages. It is at the transition between the relatively warm kerosene tank and the extremely cold liquid oxygen tank. The darkening resumes, although lighter in tone, further up the stage, well above the level of oxygen in the tank at the time of entry. I'm fairly certain this is the result of charring, where as the LOX tank is cold enough to avoid most of the charring.
zanl188 wrote:Excellent video today of the first stage return. An advantage of the classified nature of the mission and corresponding lack of video coverage of second stage burn.
A clip of SpaceX testing the center core for the first Falcon Heavy launch system, which is expected to launch later this year. The firing took place at SpaceX's test facility in McGregor, Texas.
Francoflier wrote:Isn't the center core (and the outer ones for that matter) very closely related to the Falcon 9 first stage, if not almost identical?
Francoflier wrote:Isn't the center core (and the outer ones for that matter) very closely related to the Falcon 9 first stage, if not almost identical?
It's nice to see some progress, but I assume this probably wasn't the most critical test of the program... Firing all three stages together is going to be the one to watch.
“Falcon Heavy is one of those things that. at first, sounded easy,” Musk said Thursday. “We’ll just take two first stages and use them as strap-on boosters. Actually, no, this is crazy hard, and it required the redesign of the center core and a ton of different hardware.
“It was actually shockingly difficult to go from a single-core to a triple-core vehicle,” Musk said.
ThePointblank wrote:No recovery of the 1st stage due to the weight of payload and the high orbit launch.
Francoflier wrote:ThePointblank wrote:No recovery of the 1st stage due to the weight of payload and the high orbit launch.
Congrats to SpaceX on another job well done.
These 'suicide' missions sound like the perfect opportunity to use already-flown hardware. Is SpaceX considering or offering this already, or do clients choose whether they want a 'second-hand' launcher?
moo wrote:so they are fueled to a slightly lower pressure,.
tommy1808 wrote:moo wrote:so they are fueled to a slightly lower pressure,.
Since fuel is liquid pressure plays pretty much no role. You mean they are filled a little less?
best regards
Thomas
KarelXWB wrote:SpaceX wheeled out the first refurbished Dragon capsule. Will be launched on the upcoming CRS-11 mission, currently scheduled for June 1.
moo wrote:SpaceX has a busy few months coming up, if all launches remain vaguely on schedule -
June 1st - CRS 11 (Kennedy Space Center)
June 15th - BulgariaSat 1 (Kennedy Space Center)
Late June - IntelSat 35e (Kennedy Space Center)
June 29th - Iridium Next 11-20 (Vandenberg Air Force Base)
July - SES 11/EchoStar 105 (Cape Canaveral)
July - Koreasat 5A (Kennedy Space Center)
July - Formosat 5 (Vandenberg Air Force Base)
August 1st - SpaceX CRS 12 (Cape Canaveral)
8 launches planned for just 2 months.
JetBuddy wrote:KarelXWB wrote:SpaceX wheeled out the first refurbished Dragon capsule. Will be launched on the upcoming CRS-11 mission, currently scheduled for June 1.
Was refurbishing the Dragon capsules part of the plan from the beginning, or is this something that is expected to save even more money? I wonder how much work goes into refurbishing them.
casinterest wrote:moo wrote:SpaceX has a busy few months coming up, if all launches remain vaguely on schedule -
June 1st - CRS 11 (Kennedy Space Center)
June 15th - BulgariaSat 1 (Kennedy Space Center)
Late June - IntelSat 35e (Kennedy Space Center)
June 29th - Iridium Next 11-20 (Vandenberg Air Force Base)
July - SES 11/EchoStar 105 (Cape Canaveral)
July - Koreasat 5A (Kennedy Space Center)
July - Formosat 5 (Vandenberg Air Force Base)
August 1st - SpaceX CRS 12 (Cape Canaveral)
8 launches planned for just 2 months.
Any ideas on when the Heavy will be launched? Everyone has been posting about Jul -Sep
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:JetBuddy wrote:KarelXWB wrote:SpaceX wheeled out the first refurbished Dragon capsule. Will be launched on the upcoming CRS-11 mission, currently scheduled for June 1.
Was refurbishing the Dragon capsules part of the plan from the beginning, or is this something that is expected to save even more money? I wonder how much work goes into refurbishing them.
From memory it was always part of the plan. For the first lot of supply missions NASA specified in the contract each mission was to use a new build capsule. I expect they're now confident enough in the process that they're willing to go with a refurb.
KarelXWB wrote:ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:JetBuddy wrote:
Was refurbishing the Dragon capsules part of the plan from the beginning, or is this something that is expected to save even more money? I wonder how much work goes into refurbishing them.
From memory it was always part of the plan. For the first lot of supply missions NASA specified in the contract each mission was to use a new build capsule. I expect they're now confident enough in the process that they're willing to go with a refurb.
The first Dragon flew to the ISS in 2012, why did SpaceX wait 5 years to refurbish the first Dragon?
Trololzilla wrote:"NASA Considering Using Pre-flown SpaceX Rockets for Cargo Flights"
http://www.space.com/37083-nasa-conside ... ckets.html
Pretty big vote of confidence in SpaceX and their reusable rocket technology as well as potentially large cost savings for everyone involved if this comes to fruition.
JetBuddy wrote:Congrats SpaceX! Nailed it again! Perfect landing of 1st stage booster, and using a refurbished Dragon capsule from 2014 launch to resupply the ISS.. absolutely amazing.
moo wrote:They used the structural frame, thats it - everything else was stripped out and replaced.
o0OOO0oChris wrote:
So I take your "only used the structural frame"- statement with a grain of salt. Do you have a source for that statement?