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

the rocketry show
Wildman Rocketry
Shop deals on ebay
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
ThirstyBarbarian said:
Well, if you don’t get the joke, then that’s too bad. But completely deconstructing it would really ruin the enjoyment for others, and revealing the methods used for writing the joke would be giving away too much tradecraft. But I can tell you the main four elements of comedic theory employed in this particular joke. There is the element of surprise. There is the drawing of a connection between two incongruous and seemingly unrelated ideas. There is an opportunity for the audience to feel superior to the subject of the joke. And there is misbehavior, but in a socially sanctioned form — the mockery of politicians.
Click to expand...

Thirsty-

When I grow up I wanna be just like you.

:clap::rofl::clap::rofl::clap::rofl::clap::rofl::clap::rofl:
 
So, they missed, learned from it, better luck next time. Ok.

But what if the fairing lands on the bridge of the ship and crushes people? Seems kinda risky. Surprised it's not a robotic ship, at least for the landing time.
 
I was able to see the launch from down here in San Diego for a few seconds. Once it got above the rooftops in my neighborhood I could see the flame of the booster riding up on the column of white smoke, but then it all disappeared. It was already getting pretty bright daylight by then.

I had the launch video streaming on my phone. It was just after MAXQ when it vanished, but I think with the broadcast delay it was more likely at MECO. I wasn't able to get any good pics.

It was fun to see it go up, but not nearly as dramatic as the December late twilight launch. That one I could see the 2nd stage burning while the thruster jets on the booster blew smoke rings spinning it around and then lighting its motor for the reentry burn. Got a good pic of that one.

20171222_173245.jpg

Marc_G said:
So, they missed, learned from it, better luck next time. Ok.

But what if the fairing lands on the bridge of the ship and crushes people? Seems kinda risky. Surprised it's not a robotic ship, at least for the landing time.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that too and agree it seems risky. But it's unlike SpaceX to leave something to chance or be dangerous. They must have figured out something to keep from squishing the wheelhouse and/or sinking the boat.
 
Tony, did you do that Photoshop?

They’ll try larger parachutes next time.

Article about the fairing recovery attempt:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/s...ocket-fairing-with-a-giant-net-on-a-big-ship/

spacex-mr-steven-fairing-boat.jpg


In the image of the ship, there is a steel structure between the front of the net and read of the bridge. If the fairing just missed over the front of the net (or the ship missed the fairing, unclear if the ship is passive or active during the catch attempt but I presume passive as in an aircraft carrier), then it would hit that structure, maybe some of the antennas. I do note that there are lines running to/from that structure, and to the arms holding the net attachments, so that structure is serving another purpose but it my also be for protection given those vertical angles posts at the upper area (I don’t have time right now to Google for old Mr Steven photos to see if it had that structure before SpaceX hired them)

Keep in mind the fairing halves are built as light as possible while also being strong enough to withstand Max-Q forces when the halves are clamped together. Mass of the whole fairing about 4200 pounds, so about 2100 for a half.
 
georgegassaway said:
Tony, did you do that Photoshop?

They’ll try larger parachutes next time.

Article about the fairing recovery attempt:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/22/s...ocket-fairing-with-a-giant-net-on-a-big-ship/

spacex-mr-steven-fairing-boat.jpg


In the image of the ship, there is a steel structure between the front of the net and read of the bridge. If the fairing just missed over the front of the net (or the ship missed the fairing, unclear if the ship is passive or active during the catch attempt but I presume passive as in an aircraft carrier), then it would hit that structure, maybe some of the antennas. I do note that there are lines running to/from that structure, and to the arms holding the net attachments, so that structure is serving another purpose but it my also be for protection given those vertical angles posts at the upper area (I don’t have time right now to Google for old Mr Steven photos to see if it had that structure before SpaceX hired them)

Keep in mind the fairing halves are built as light as possible while also being strong enough to withstand Max-Q forces when the halves are clamped together. Mass of the whole fairing about 4200 pounds, so about 2100 for a half.
Click to expand...

Some more details on the Mr. Steven here: https://www.seatranmarine.com/vessels-1/mr-steven It did not have the framework when the company picture was taken. Their top speed is something like 23-26 knots (25-28 mph). In theory, the fairing could be programmed to follow a track line and the Mr. Steven could also run that line, adjusting speed to catch the fairing. That would be an ... exciting ... maneuver, but certainly possible and perhaps the safest way to do it. In a perfect world, both would be running at the same speed, so relative to the ship, the fairing would just be falling slowly out of the sky. In the imperfect world we live in, it would be more complicated but maybe that's why the ship is manned. Mr. Steven also has a dynamic positioning system (similar to the ASDS, although with different machinery). It can theoretically maintain station with a single piece of machinery out of commission. Mr. Steven was built to keep station at a drilling rig while people, cargo, and fuel/water were delivered by crane, so it's probably a decent system. They could probably also hack that system to keep the boat under the fairing as it descends. If the chute was too small on this attempt, then they may have seen that the fairing was going too fast for them to catch safely, so they bailed out one direction or the other.

That framework is not going to stop a 2100-lb object moving with any kind of speed. also, there's an easy path for the fairing to jump the front of the net and still get below the framework and nail the pilothouse. I suspect the framework is to keep the chute out of the radars and such.
 
It’s floating so high that it’s hard for me to imagine that it’s displacing 250 gal of water. But I suppose there’s very little sense of scale in the frame of the picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 
Charles_McG said:
It’s floating so high that it’s hard for me to imagine that it’s displacing 250 gal of water. But I suppose there’s very little sense of scale in the frame of the picture.
Click to expand...

As regards "Gilligan's Fairing", I purposely made Gilligan (Bob Denver) look bigger than scale, just so he'd be more recognizeable. The fairing is about 17 feet across, that would be about THREE Gilligans across! Yep, just googled, Bob Denver was 5 foot 8, so three times that is 17 feet.

What I found to be most surprising is that the air vent holes in the fairing should allow water to gush in and, well, not sink to the bottom but get swamped and float bouyantly due to the sound supression insulator panels and other low density stuff.

The thing is even with a landing that soft in water, seawater ruins the fairing for reuse. So that is wh they need a dry landing. So while it is possible they could have added some sort of simple one-way valves to let the air vent out on ascent but not let water in for an ocean landing, why bother? Unless they wanted to mitigate the problems with getting a "wet landed" fairing half onboard a ship more easily by sitting high with no water inside, rather than being swamped.
 
Last edited:
georgegassaway said:
Tony, did you do that Photoshop?...<snipped for brevity>.
Click to expand...
Yes, I couldn't resist. My son got a kick out of it. I like your version better - a lot more humor seeing Gilligan in there.

Mine is also obviously not to scale, neither of the items would really be visible otherwise. But all's fair in Photoshop!

I thoroughly enjoy this thread and I realize I broke my promise to stay out of it. But as I said, I couldn't resist the fairing image. Thanks for keeping all of us who are interested up to date.


Tony
 
[video=youtube;HIjlDeIN_r8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIjlDeIN_r8[/video]
 
28166388_10155495353833510_2566237880306710219_n.jpg

So I know this is not Space X Per Se, but it is my 17th month old daughter. She has mastered the barge landing.

We have named our barge, "Funny It Worked Last Time."

Some of you will get the reference.
 
Hispasat 30W-6 launch has been reset for "VERY late Wednesday night".

That's my phrase for saying just after Midnight, 12:34 AM Eastern Time March 1st (Thursday).
For those to the west of Eastern Time Zone, it's Wednesday night Feb 28th. For example 11:24 PM Feb 28th Central Time.

NET March 1 2018 at 0034 EST/0534 UTC on Falcon 9 from SLC-40 at Cape Canaveral.
Payload mass is about 6mT.
Drone ship landing will be attempted.
Click to expand...

That launch mass to a GTO orbit will use so much fuel that the F9 booster will have so little left that it will have to try a "hot landing", with minimal re-entry burn and a 3 engine landing. So, a high risk landing.

Here is an article on NSF about the static test firing, and outdated reference to the launch date. Main reason for this is for info about the Satellite and Falcon it's flying on. Also some neat generic info on test firing.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/02/falcon-9-static-fire-slc-40-hispasat-30w-6/

Also, this page from Hispasat's website with specific info on the satellite:
https://www.hispasat.com/en/satellite-fleet/future-satellites/hispasat-30w-6

hispasat-1f__2.jpg
 
Last edited:
SpaceX's Prototype Internet Satellites Are Up and Running

https://www.space.com/39785-spacex-internet-satellites-starlink-constellation.html

Starlink (satellite constellation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)

Musk has publicly acknowledged this business reality, and indicated in mid-2015 that while endeavoring to develop this technically-complicated space-based communication system he wants to avoid overextending the company and stated that they are being measured in the pace of development.[25] Nevertheless, internal documents leaked in February 2017 indicate that SpaceX expects more than US$30 billion in revenue by 2025 from its satellite constellation while revenues by its launch business are expected to reach US$5 billion in the same year.[26][27]

The Internet communication satellites are expected to be in the smallsat-class of 100-to-500 kg (220-to-1,100 lb)-mass, which are intended to be orbiting at an altitude of approximately 1,100 kilometers (680 mi). Initial plans as of January 2015 were for the constellation to be made up of approximately 4000 cross-linked[25] satellites, more than twice as many operational satellites as were in orbit in January 2015.[5]

The satellites will employ optical inter-satellite links and phased array beam forming and digital processing technologies in the Ku- and Ka-band according to documents filed with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).[30][31] While specifics of the phased array technologies have been disclosed as part of the frequency application, SpaceX enforced confidentiality regarding details of the optical inter-satellite links other than that they will utilize frequencies above 10,000 GHz.[32]

The satellites would be mass-produced, at much lower cost per unit of capability than existing satellites. Musk said "We’re going to try and do for satellites what we’ve done for rockets."[33] "In order to revolutionize space, we have to address both satellites and rockets."[5] "Smaller satellites are crucial to lowering the cost of space-based Internet and communications."[9]

So what’s SpaceX doing that’s different?

SpaceX’s idea is to put its satellites into much lower orbit than usual, in order to cut the latency of the services. A typical internet satellite in geostationary orbit is more than 22,000 miles above ground. According to SpaceX’s FCC filings, the company wants to put its Starlink satellites in low Earth orbit, between 684 and 823 miles in the air.

The issue there, of course, is that bringing the satellites closer to the ground means each satellite can only cover a much smaller patch of territory than would otherwise be possible. So in order to provide competitive coverage, SpaceX will need a lot of satellites that all talk to one another.

And that’s the plan. Elon Musk’s company wants to initially deploy 800 satellites in low Earth orbit, in order to cover “initial U.S. and international coverage.” Then it wants to throw over 7,000 more into the sky at “Very Low Earth Orbit” (VLEO, in this case around 211 miles up) to fill in the blanks as needed.

SpaceX document to FCC about the experiment:

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=185534&x

The first phase of testing will include two satellites: Microsat-2a and Microsat-2b. These two satellites are intended to be launched as early as 2017. Both of these satellites will be deployed in one mission aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle into an orbital plane of 514 km circular at 97.44 degrees inclination. After insertion, the satellite orbits will be raised to the desired mission altitude of 1125 km circular. The designed lifetime of each satellite is six months. If this lifetime is exceeded, SpaceX plans to continue operation until such time as the primary mission goals can no longer be met, at which point the spacecraft will be deorbited. Both Microsat-2a and Microsat-2b are identical in their construction and operation.

The primary structure for the Microsat-2a and -2b test spacecraft will be a box design measuring 1.1m x 0.7m x 0.7m and carries the spacecraft flight computer, power system components, attitude determination and control components, propulsion components, GPS receiver, and broadband, telemetry, and command receivers and transmitters. The primary bus is mounted on the payload truss system, which also carries communications panels, inter-satellite optical link transmitters and receivers, star trackers, and a telemetry antenna. There are two 2x8 meter solar panels. Each demonstration spacecraft has a total mass of approximately 400kg.

The attitude of each spacecraft is 3-axis stabilized, and is dynamically controlled over each orbit to maintain attitude position for two pointing modes of operation: broadband antenna (antennas to nadir for testing) and solar array (solar arrays facing sun for charging). Power is provided by solar panels designed to deliver sufficient power at the predicted end of spacecraft life to not impair any test objectives. The Thermal Control System ensures that components are kept within operational temperature ranges.
 
Hispasat launch will likely be DELAYED.

SpaceX has "requested" the range for Thursday, even though there is also a launch that day of an Atlas-V (with the GOES-S weather satellite), at 5:32 PM.

The info I went with was a site that "assumed" they'd get approval for using the range on the same day. Well, they have not so far.

from Emre Kelly of Florida Today: Appears there will only be one launch on Thursday: #AtlasV with #GOESS. Launch of SpaceX #Falcon9 with #Hispasat still working for Eastern Range approval.
Click to expand...

So, while not technically certain, looks like it won't happen late Wednesday night. With currently no other date.

UPDATE - posted by Chris Bergin on NSF:

SpaceX e-mail to the media notes Falcon 9 is now ready for launch, but that they are currently waiting for a launch date to be approved by the Eastern Range for the Hispasat 30W-6 mission.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

K
My Level 2 Attempt - a Diurnal Flight of "Nocturnal Missions"
Replies
5
Views
603
kjhambrick
K
alexzogh
Huntsville Saturn 1b was scrapped
Replies
7
Views
565
CalebJ
CalebJ
INFX_TryHard
Astrorizzicist - My attempt at a mostly 3D printed L2 capable rocket
Replies
29
Views
2K
thzero
T
Switch
SpaceX Falcon Heavy Build 3.0 (1:90 Scale, BT-60 tubes)
Replies
6
Views
2K
Switch
Switch
Switch
SpaceX Falcon Heavy Build 4.0 (1:65 Scale, BT-70 tubes) - a work in progress...
2 3
Replies
79
Views
9K
Switch
Switch

Latest posts

Back
Top