SpaceX Falcon 9 historic landing thread (1st landing attempt & most recent missions)

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hopefully the second stage burn was all good and the X-37B has been deployed safely into orbit. Even NASAspaceflight does not have any update in that regard.

This was SpaceX's 13th flight of 2017.

16th successful booster landing, 7th at LZ-1, the other 9 on ASDS barges.

10 safe landings in a row, but IIRC the last three crashes were all risky "hot" re-entry 3-engine landings (Launching heavy satellites to GTO, leaving a lot less fuel for landing than could be attempted with a normal single engine landing burn).

Of the normal single engine landings, that's 15 in a row. The last single engine landing that failed was Jason-3 in January, 2016. It landed safely, but a leg lockout was frozen, allowing the leg to collapse and the Falcon fell over and kaboomed. And that was the only single engine landing to fail since the first success in December 2015.

Update - I've seen a reference to this being the 17th successful landing. Not sure now if it's 16 or 17.
 
Last edited:
The landing is always cool. I was hoping to see the X-37B pop off out into space, but I guess that must be classified...
 
Glad they had a good flight & landing. Now they're gonna have to put on a mad hustle to get that booster indoors before the hurricane gets there...
 
From the SpaceX Flickr page:

kcyUfZZ.jpg
 
Falcon Heavy - two months and counting.

Anyone willing to place a bet in Vegas about the Heavy launch actually happening before the New Year?

No, not before. I still say first quarter 2018. Been saying that since early this year, wishing I'd be wrong (earlier), but their infrastructure delays (bad planning) are still dragging along the calendar.


Found this on the SpaceX Facebook group. 16 successful landings...... by 14 boosters (2 reflights).

Newest --> Oldest

21457697_1379607925469909_7859564673705983846_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
With everything going on here, I had not heard about the launch. I pulled in my office's parking lot after taking care of some hurricane preparation and saw something odd in the sky. I stepped back for a better view around some trees and realized it was a rocket standing out clearly against the blue sky. At about that same moment, the white exhaust started to become visible. It was the best view of a launch that we have had from East Orlando in a very long time and a nice pick-me-up during a stressful period.
 
Is there a market for all of these used Falcon 9 boosters or are they just accumulating?

IIRC one has been reflown already, Booster B1021 which was flown for mission CRS-8 and then again for SES-10. SpaceX is probably still trying to streamline the refurb process.
 
The Falcon Heavy will be using at least two reused boosters for the side cores. I do not recall if the FH Center core will be new but would expect so since it requires much more modification than the side boosters do.

Some other landed boosters will get reflown. However there are two just left laying outdoors at the Cape, which is an odd thing to do for boosters they would be intending to refly. Some of the ones that have survived the riky "hot" re-entries, got pretty cooked, I do not recall any being mentioned as being refurbished, but then they do not announce very much. Still, I think at least one of those two, if not both, are from hot re-entries. So those may never fly again.

Also SpaceX has learned the areas that needed more protection to lessen damage and reduce refurbishment, for the upcoming "Block 5" Falcon that was announced around January as flying by late fall....... but may be early 2018.

Anyway, the launch pad interface will be different for Block 5 than for the earlier Falcons. So once the pads get upgraded for Block 5, apparently they won't be able to launch old left over Falcons. So there apparently will be some Falcons that never fly again due to pad changes, or too damaged to be worth refurbishing, or both.

However in the case of Falcon Heavy, that might only apply to the center core, since clearly they are going to be using old boosters on the sides, for awhile. Then later they could modify Pad 39A yet again to handle Block 5 side boosters. Hopefully far less time than will be needed to upgrade it as it is now to be able to handle Falcon Heavy (2 months they say. So.... probably at least 2.5 months, AFTER it has launched the next mission unless LC-40 is ready to launch the next one really really soon & 39A mods for FH can finally begin).

Image below, a second landed Falcon being lowered in place for outdoor storage somewhere at the Cape (perhaps within CCAFS). Both are Block 3's, uncertain of what the booster # or missions they flew were.

BTW - SpaceX will be constructing a refurbishment building near LZ-1, and also will be constructing a large building at Port Canaveral (where the ASDS barge JRTI is stationed) to store other landed boosters.

Z0HIsbX.jpg
 
Last edited:
I saw the video with compilations of crashes on Elon Musk's Instagram feed this morning, "How NOT to land an orbital rocket booster". Backed with the music that Monty Python used as their theme, and with a few witty captions, it showed quite a few explosions. It seems like it ended on Instagram before the video was actually over so I'm hoping it's available elsewhere soon.

Here it is
[YOUTUBE]bvim4rsNHkQ[/YOUTUBE]
 
Last edited:
Ah, GREAT to see this! Well, not that they had the crashes but those were historical facts, so why not release footage now since they've had so many successful landings (I do expect a random landing failure every once in awhile. And the Block 5 upgrade might have something lurking that only a real flight and landing will reveal, such as the iced up leg lockout)

Musk had indicated a couple of months ago they would release a "prang video" like this.
 
Last edited:
I saw the video with compilations of crashes on Elon Musk's Instagram feed this morning, "How NOT to land an orbital rocket booster". Backed with the music that Monty Python used as their theme, and with a few witty captions, it showed quite a few explosions. It seems like it ended on Instagram before the video was actually over so I'm hoping it's available elsewhere soon.
I was once standing at attention at a change of command ceremony where those directly involved in marching around during the process were marching to that tune. I had a hard time keeping a straight face, wondered how many others were having the same problem, and wondered if the music choice was made by someone who knew the somewhat inside joke. The difficulty of keeping a straight face wasn't reduced by the fact that those few involved in the marching were of significantly different heights which required the step size of the shorties to be unusually large and slightly comical.

"'The Liberty Bell' (1893) is an American military march composed by John Philip Sousa."
 
I've got the book from Apogee about the Saturn V. It goes into great detail (almost millisecond-by-millisecond) of the startup and operation of each engine and stage. Is there something similar for the Falcon/Merlin? How do the generate ullage for the returning first stage? It's in freefall for a lot of the time. Are they using the cold gas rockets for this? I'd really like detailed step-by-step details on the start/restart of the engines, too.

BTW, The Liberty Bell March is one of my favorite pieces of music. In spite of Monty Python's use, it is patriotic music rather than comedic.
 
I've got the book from Apogee about the Saturn V. It goes into great detail (almost millisecond-by-millisecond) of the startup and operation of each engine and stage. Is there something similar for the Falcon/Merlin? How do the generate ullage for the returning first stage? It's in freefall for a lot of the time. Are they using the cold gas rockets for this? I'd really like detailed step-by-step details on the start/restart of the engines, too.

BTW, The Liberty Bell March is one of my favorite pieces of music. In spite of Monty Python's use, it is patriotic music rather than comedic.

Welcome to the private sector.and the land of Proprietary Technical Information! You'll have to content yourself with whatever the leakers put on nasaspaceflight for the near future.
 
I've got the book from Apogee about the Saturn V. It goes into great detail (almost millisecond-by-millisecond) of the startup and operation of each engine and stage. Is there something similar for the Falcon/Merlin? How do the generate ullage for the returning first stage? It's in freefall for a lot of the time. Are they using the cold gas rockets for this? I'd really like detailed step-by-step details on the start/restart of the engines, too...
Unlikely there will ever be such a document. Pretty much all rocket technology is now governed by ITAR regulations that make it very difficult to publish detailed technical info. Also a lot of what SpaceX does is protected as a trade secret rather than with patents. If you patent something you have to publish it. That makes it available to foreign governments who don't always respect US patents and have a large vested interest in competing with a company like SpaceX. So they go to great lengths to keep it proprietary.

And leaking certain types of technical information could be classified as a very serious crime if you run afoul of ITAR regulations. I would not want to mess with anything that could be considered a federal crime.


Tony
 
They get "ullage" after the RCS thrusters rotate it around to prepare for the BoostBack burn.

Once the tail is facing more into the airflow (direction of coast), then the fuel settles into the bottom of the tanks. Because while it is up 65-75 km at staging (depending on payload and planned trajectory), I think there is enough thin air to cause some air drag to decelerate it. If not, then they could have some RCS thruster nozzles pointed "down" to provide ullage. Or even some internal fuel line trickery to hold a bit of fuel and oxidizer for the center engine, enough for start-up, but that begins to seem a bit Rube Goldberg-ish if it could not be done simply.

Yes, I don't know every detail on a Falcon-9. Not that SpaceX releases that much. But some are obsessed over every inch of the surface that's visible.... even if WHAT some things they see are known for a fact to be something specific or are popularly speculated to be such-and-such. :)

I suspect that when they begin the BoostBack burns, that they ignite the center engine first, as they definitely do for re-entry burns and the risky "hot re-entry" 3 engine landing burns. So the gimbaled thrust of the center engine not only steers it, but corrects when the outer 2 start to ignite (and shut down) since they may not do so evenly. If the center engine "burped" during the ignition process due to ullage issues, I do not know if that would risk damage to it (presumably at lowest throttle, around 40%). And it also uses TEA and TEB to begin reignition, which MAY work with gaseous oxygen if the % of gaseous oxygen is sufficient (by then though most of the gas is helium to keep the tanks pressurized). Otherwise, if the center engine would be OK after a burp, then its thrust would ensure ullage for itself and the outer 2 engines to ignite.

In any case, ullage is one of the biggest problems they had to solve for doing boostback burns. To get that booster flipped around so fast, fuel sloshing like crazy, yet making sure the center engine isn't starved of fuel as it ignites as the booster is STILL rotating in pitch.

And for the re-entry burns and landing burns, air drag while pointing engines-down definitely providing plenty of "ullage"
 
Last edited:
BTW, The Liberty Bell March is one of my favorite pieces of music. In spite of Monty Python's use, it is patriotic music rather than comedic.
Unfortunately, the only time I'd heard it before that change of command ceremony and even since was on Monty Python, so it was and will forever be comedic to me. Had they played Stars and Stripes Forever, different story.
 
From SpaceX twitter:

"Targeting 10/7 launch of EchoStar 105/SES-11 on a flight-proven first stage rocket booster from Pad 39A in Florida."

and

"Iridium-3 launch slated for 10/9 from Vandenberg, AFB in California—setting up back-to-back launches in early October."
 
Some cool listening if you have ~45 minutes to burn. And, a bit of insight into Falcon Heavy, among other things:

[video=youtube;tdUX3ypDVwI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdUX3ypDVwI[/video]
 
OK, two more Falcon-9 flights planned for Saturday and Monday.

SES-11/Echostar 105
October 7, 2017 (Saturday) , window opens at 6:53 PM, EDT. Falcon 9 using a reused booster (1031.2) from LC-39A at KSC. Probably an ASDS landing. Static Test firing was successful on Monday.

Iridium Next Flight 3
October 9, 2017 (Monday) at 5:37AM PDT (8:37 AM EDT, 12:37 UTC). (new booster, probably 1041) from SLC-4E at Vandenberg. Landing of first stage on ASDS is expected. No static firing yet.
 
Last edited:
They get "ullage" after the RCS thrusters rotate it around to prepare for the BoostBack burn.

Once the tail is facing more into the airflow (direction of coast), then the fuel settles into the bottom of the tanks. Because while it is up 65-75 km at staging (depending on payload and planned trajectory), I think there is enough thin air to cause some air drag to decelerate it. If not, then they could have some RCS thruster nozzles pointed "down" to provide ullage. Or even some internal fuel line trickery to hold a bit of fuel and oxidizer for the center engine, enough for start-up, but that begins to seem a bit Rube Goldberg-ish if it could not be done simply.

Yes, I don't know every detail on a Falcon-9. Not that SpaceX releases that much. But some are obsessed over every inch of the surface that's visible.... even if WHAT some things they see are known for a fact to be something specific or are popularly speculated to be such-and-such. :)

I suspect that when they begin the BoostBack burns, that they ignite the center engine first, as they definitely do for re-entry burns and the risky "hot re-entry" 3 engine landing burns. So the gimbaled thrust of the center engine not only steers it, but corrects when the outer 2 start to ignite (and shut down) since they may not do so evenly. If the center engine "burped" during the ignition process due to ullage issues, I do not know if that would risk damage to it (presumably at lowest throttle, around 40%). And it also uses TEA and TEB to begin reignition, which MAY work with gaseous oxygen if the % of gaseous oxygen is sufficient (by then though most of the gas is helium to keep the tanks pressurized). Otherwise, if the center engine would be OK after a burp, then its thrust would ensure ullage for itself and the outer 2 engines to ignite.

In any case, ullage is one of the biggest problems they had to solve for doing boostback burns. To get that booster flipped around so fast, fuel sloshing like crazy, yet making sure the center engine isn't starved of fuel as it ignites as the booster is STILL rotating in pitch.

And for the re-entry burns and landing burns, air drag while pointing engines-down definitely providing plenty of "ullage"

The second stage does an approx 3 second purge before startup. I'm guessing it could be used for ullage followed by a line purge to make sure no gas is in the line. As the first stage is pretty much the same motor it would be easy enough to do the same.
 
SES-11 / Echostar 105 launch delayed frrom Oct 7th to Oct 11th:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/915976707340828672

Now targeting October 11 for the launch of EchoStar 105/SES-11 from Pad 39A in Florida.

No reason given, no time of day yet. So, first launch of October is Iridium Next 3 set for the morning of Monday the 9th at Vandenberg.

Also BTW , Falcon Heavy has officially moved to near "end of 2017". It was silly how many fanbois held onto November ("but Elon said November!") regardless of accumulation of facts (Koreasat 5 to be launched from 39A late October, SpaceX can't start 60 days of modifications to 39A until the last launch from it, and once that 60 day is up they won't be ready to actually launch it for some time after then since it's all-new. And a 27 engine static firing nobody has ever done. Not even the 30 engined Russian N-1 did that, woeful lack of testing is a big reason it failed. I am pretty sure the 27 engine issue won't be a problem, but it's silly to expect once the pad work is done that they'll assemble it in a few days, roll it to the pad, test fire it, and that it'll be cleared for flight all in the same timeframe as typical single core Falcon-9).

I'm still figuring 1st quarter 2018.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top