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

I find it simply amazing that they now can land the 1st stage for re-use.
Things sure has come a long ways since the Apollo Missions.

Mushtang said:

I love how this picture shows just how big the Falcon 9 is when you look at the people standing under it. When it's landing on the barge it looks much smaller than this.

Click to expand...

Dang, that's pretty wild!

Catching up on a few things.....

Article on the return and upcoming flights. Next flight is Echostar 23 no earlier than Jan 26th, described as "near midnight" local time.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/01/landed-falcon-9-booster-los-angeles/

Photo at dawn Tuesday morning:





Mounted on pedestals, legs are off.

Now they must be getting quite a collection of used boosters. When are they going to re-fly one?

And some just-released images from the landing. Either it was a hell of a coincidence, or SOMEBODY deserves some bonus pay if JRTI was purposely aimed in azimuth to have the sun centered across the bow (or stern, whatever) in hopes of such artistic shots as the first two.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex

They have some serious counter weight on that crane!
I've seen cranes like that erected on site when I was doing construction.
One of the cement weights is they could put on one tractor trailer, so must be 40,000 lbs as that's the limit.
They used 10. They were setting precast wall panels on a 11 story building.
Outreach was 90'. Boom was and upsidedown L.
Outriggers were 30' out.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

Now they must be getting quite a collection of used boosters. When are they going to re-fly one?

Click to expand...

Of course they only have one used booster on the West Coast, and it may only be about a 15-20 mile drive to truck it right back to the SpaceX plant in Hawthorne.

Whoops two used boosters on the West Coast. But the other one is on permanent display at HQ (Orbcomm-2 booster that made the first successful landing, on the RTLS flight back to the Cape, on Dec 22, 2015) So, it is out of the running for reflight and has its own parking spot:




First F9 booster re-flight is targeted for Feb 22nd, launching SES-10 satellite.
Do not know which booster, but may be the one used for CRS-8 last April.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/01/...n-florida-for-launch-on-reused-spacex-rocket/

Also, Falcon Heavy is supposedly to re-use pre-flown boosters for the side boosters. Although the first FH may be 100% new. Also BTW, FH schedule/date is a sore subject with me, they have said it was going to launch 6 months later..... for 2.5 to 3 years now, never getting closer than 6 months unless they are "late" in issuing another inevitable 6 month delay. They are closer to launching it, but over time it has become obvious to me that they knew every time that they said 6 months in the past, there was no way it would fly in 6 months. Never mind the rocket, the infrastructure (all the stuff involved with 39A). They still do not have construction for the Landing Pads underway (FH needs at least one new landing pad, even if the center core lands on an ASDS barge). And while FH is currently targeted for July 2017, it also was at one time targeted for July 2016, and July 2015. So I doubt it'll fly this year.

Timely update, George. I was about to ask if anyone had any updates regarding FH.

georgegassaway said:

First re-flght targeted for Feb 22nd, SES-10 satellite. Do not know which booster.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/01/...n-florida-for-launch-on-reused-spacex-rocket/

Also, Falcon Heavy is supposedly to re-use pre-flown boosters for the side boosters. Although the first FH may be 100% new. Also BTW, FH is a sore subject with me, they have said it was going to launch 6 months later..... for 2.5 to 3 years now. They are closer to launching it, but over time it has become obvious to me that they knew every time that they said 6 months in the past, there was no way it would fly in 6 months. Never mind the rocket, the infrastructure (all the stuff involved with 39A). They still do not have construction for the Landing Pads underway (FH needs at least one new landing pad, even if the center core lands on an ASDS barge). And while FH is currently targeted for July 2017, it also was at one time targeted for July 2016, and July 2015. So I doubt it'll fly this year.

Click to expand...

If they want to make that Mars flight then they are going to want to get a couple of Falcon Heavy flights under their belt first. Of course it's totally possible that Mars will slip till next time round, but at least they have real incentive now.

georgegassaway said:

First re-flght targeted for Feb 22nd, SES-10 satellite. Do not know which booster.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/01/...n-florida-for-launch-on-reused-spacex-rocket/

Also, Falcon Heavy is supposedly to re-use pre-flown boosters for the side boosters. Although the first FH may be 100% new. Also BTW, FH is a sore subject with me, they have said it was going to launch 6 months later..... for 2.5 to 3 years now. They are closer to launching it, but over time it has become obvious to me that they knew every time that they said 6 months in the past, there was no way it would fly in 6 months. Never mind the rocket, the infrastructure (all the stuff involved with 39A). They still do not have construction for the Landing Pads underway (FH needs at least one new landing pad, even if the center core lands on an ASDS barge). And while FH is currently targeted for July 2017, it also was at one time targeted for July 2016, and July 2015. So I doubt it'll fly this year.

Click to expand...

The Heavy will fly when it's ready. Musk legitimately thinks their announced dates are feasible when they announce them. It actually is encouraging to me that they're willing to take so much flak over delays from the space fanboys in order to make sure their vehicle products are ready.

They didn't make 18 flights in 2016 either. Because they slowed down to investigate a darn-near unique problem and make sure they knew how to get back on their feet.. Super-subcooled liquid oxygen that formed slush particles and reacted with a carbon wrapped helium tank? Who's even had to do that?

Usually when a date is announced I think "Wow, that'd be cool, but that seems pretty fast....". And I know that everyone there is working their butts off to meet the goals. Can't fault them for optimism or vision. Heck the sheer number of the fanboys is pretty crazy considering their marketing budget is 0.

The next Mars opposition is July 27, 2018. A Mars trip takes about 7 months, and from what I can tell past missions have been launched about 4 months before opposition. That means the launch would need to happen around April 2018. That seems like it's a bit too soon for SpaceX. The next opposition is October 13, 2020, which seems like a more realistic goal.

In the mean time maybe SpaceX could make a few missions to the Moon. It's been a while since the U.S. has had a robotic rover on the Moon.

They just posted a four more pics on Flickr, here are two.

not quite centered, if one wanted to quibble .
Rex

It shows it being chain binded down.
Is their people on that thing when it lands?
Or do they show up from another ship shortly after it lands.
I wouldn't think it could be manned at the time of the landing for safety reasons.

Woody's Workshop said:

It shows it being chain binded down.
Is their people on that thing when it lands?
Or do they show up from another ship shortly after it lands.
I wouldn't think it could be manned at the time of the landing for safety reasons.

Click to expand...

The tugboat that tows it out to sea is a few miles from the barge during the landing. After the landing they go onto the barge to secure it before towing it back.

Never mind the "rocket" part of Falcon Heavy. As I said, looking back at how long ago they said they would launch in 6 months, and sure a stand -down on the rocket side for a flight explosion, then another stand-down for investigating a pad explosion..... that had nothing ot do with buiding infrastructure. Look at how long it took to modify 39A, which still is not ready for a FH, they had to "speed up" the snail's pace at 39A due to the loss of LC-40, in order to do single Falcon launches there (hopefully next week. But there still has not been a pad InterFace Test..... which they said they were going to do about a year ago).

Anyway, finally they are close with a lot of the pad infrastructure, But then this Landing Pad stuff came up last summer as part of the latest 6-month delay excuse. As though that was something that management "forgot" they needed in 2014 when they said they would launch in 6 months?

Nope, not buying it.

i'm sure there's various other reasons. Ranging from possibly cancelling FH altogether (due to improvements in the v 1.2 Full Thrust or whatever they are calling the latest incarnation), to cash-flow problems where they perhaps chose not to do the infrastructure work at the pace they NEEDED to do if those 6 month launch announcements were intended to be truthful.

So, THEY LIED. Flat-out LIED. There was NO WAY they could have launched FH 6 months later (the only other excuse would be horrible management, to so badly underestimate the time to get everything ready for a launch 6 months later. I find that less likely than knowing they could not do it in 6 months but lying). And so I'm really peeved about it. Realizing more and more how much lying they have been doing from so far back, given how long it has taken to get to were they are at 39A and yet still other excuses for things like landing pads that they needed just as much for an announced July 2014 launch as for a July 2017 launch. Just having the attitude that they can just say "6 months from now", and keep on rolling that down the road every 6 months, for YEARS.

Really hurts their credibility. They do so many real-world NEAT THINGS, such as landing crashes that took a string of successes to turn around public opinion, and yet they old-fashioned LIE about things they did not need to be lying about.

I know, this may be surprising to some that 'd talk this way. But this "6 months from now" FH thing really has been a straw that broke the Camel's Back thing with me. They've done it for too long, and only more recently have I realized how impossible it was for them to have done it when they first claimed they would (first time they said in 6 months).

And I never claimed to be a "SpaceX Fanboi", or that Elon Musk walks on water. There are some in that category who, if it was 2025 and FH was supposed to finally launch in 6 months, would believe it.

Now, I do want to make clear that I want SpaceX to succeed, and the 6-month garbage about FH is something I mostly keep in the FH category rather than affect how I feel about SpaceX in general (although it is part of why I take the ITS Mars stuff as little more than science fiction. And since Red Dragon NEEDS FH well....moot point so far).

I would love to be totally wrong and see FH fly in 2017. But I do not think it is going to until 2018.

I will not be posting any FH "NET" launch schedule until they finally announce a date 3 months away, or less (maybe 4 months if it was in a highly reputable source such as an NSF article). No more of this 6 months every 6 months game. Of course, anyone can feel free to post a FH launch date. But as per past history in FH launch dates, consider whether it's worth posting, why would it be any more likely to be for real, and the source. Realize sometimes the flight would be announced in January as say July, then no news until April.... so in a sense 3 months had passed by.... but then in April it officially got pushed 3 months to October..... 6 months later. So if there is no news at all and it gets to be April... past history would indicate it is morel likely that another delay announcement is due, than it is really 3 months from flying.

What SpaceX really needs...... is dozens and dozens of F-9 launches in a row without failure, payloads launched well. Successfully landing most of those boosters, and working up to getting some decent number of re-flights per booster.

Cherry on top would be to successfully recover payload shrouds, in good enough shape to re-fly after a bit of refurb as needed. Recoverable 2nd stage highly desireable, but may not be practical to do with the F9's 2nd stage (lots of ideas but so hard to do without killing a lot of payload performance). They've been working on shroud recovery, no news of any notable events in R&D or testing.

I have said, and still believe that they have lied on many occasions, however I understand why.

Although some of them may seem and arguably are a bit petty IMO, I get that they have been on thin ice many times and have had a lot of folks gunning for them. I don't think it is a stretch to say that they have had at least some of the "establishment" against them. Certainly a lot of folks in the Aerospace industry did not appear to be that thrilled with SpaceX when they first came on the scene, and some of them did not take Musk that seriously and or thought he was a bit of a naive dreamer.

So I totally get why SpaceX are putting up a facade, its a matter of survival at this stage, I would go as far as to say that a lot of it is a necessary strategic business move...but not all of it.

mpitfield said:

So I totally get why SpaceX are putting up a facade, its a matter of survival at this stage, I would go as far as to say that a lot of it is a necessary strategic business move...but not all of it.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's the truth. Having spoken to several ULA people, there's often seemingly irrational irritation (bordering on revulsion) when it comes to the X. They aren't a perfect company, and they are a business that needs to maintain its income and public interest.
Also worth considering is that, like other genius types, Musk may sometimes let the road outrun the bridge as far as vision goes.

At the end of the day (or more like the century), will people remember that the Heavy was "6 months out" for 5 years, or will they remember the contribution and push towards private and commercial spaceflight? Only history will tell.

I'm particularly interested in the Boca Chica launch site near my old hometown. It'll be cool to take a trip down to South Padre and watch a launch (in 20 years or so lol)


**addendum** I'm not a fan of Nasa Spaceflight. Their 'good' info on SpaceX has a high probability of being the result of broken NDA's by insiders.

George, could you please tell us how you really feel about FH

georgegassaway said:

Of course they only have one used booster on the West Coast, and it may only be about a 15-20 mile drive to truck it right back to the SpaceX plant in Hawthorne.

Whoops two used boosters on the West Coast. But the other one is on permanent display at HQ (Orbcomm-2 booster that made the first successful landing, on the RTLS flight back to the Cape, on Dec 22, 2015) So, it is out of the running for reflight and has its own parking spot:

First F9 booster re-flight is targeted for Feb 22nd, launching SES-10 satellite.
Do not know which booster, but may be the one used for CRS-8 last April.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/01/...n-florida-for-launch-on-reused-spacex-rocket/

Also, Falcon Heavy is supposedly to re-use pre-flown boosters for the side boosters. Although the first FH may be 100% new. Also BTW, FH schedule/date is a sore subject with me, they have said it was going to launch 6 months later..... for 2.5 to 3 years now, never getting closer than 6 months unless they are "late" in issuing another inevitable 6 month delay. They are closer to launching it, but over time it has become obvious to me that they knew every time that they said 6 months in the past, there was no way it would fly in 6 months. Never mind the rocket, the infrastructure (all the stuff involved with 39A). They still do not have construction for the Landing Pads underway (FH needs at least one new landing pad, even if the center core lands on an ASDS barge). And while FH is currently targeted for July 2017, it also was at one time targeted for July 2016, and July 2015. So I doubt it'll fly this year.

Click to expand...

Cool. Thanks for the info. Reuse is so important for their plans, I'm glad they will be trying it soon.

So... Falcon Heavy is only about six months out? Give or take?

6x6 said:

George, could you please tell us how you really feel about FH

Click to expand...

The rocket Falcon Heavy..... LOVE IT.

I'm thinking that when the FH finally comes, it won't be announced with a 3 month lead time. It will be when it's seen erected on a pad for an interface test, or a pre-flight engine check. Weeks or days lead time.

They don't really owe the space enthusiast public much. And it is pretty insulting when they put out timelines that are bogus - because we can see that the prerequisite ground work hasn't been laid. I wonder who those rosy announcements are aimed at? I'm guessing that it's neither investors, nor customers, nor geeky enthusiasts. So whose left that they would need to target with some cheery PR that's full of holes?

ThirstyBarbarian said:

So... Falcon Heavy is only about six months out? Give or take?

Click to expand...

6x6 said:

George, could you please tell us how you really feel about FH

Click to expand...

oint:

Charles_McG said:

I wonder who those rosy announcements are aimed at? I'm guessing that it's neither investors, nor customers, nor geeky enthusiasts. So whose left that they would need to target with some cheery PR that's full of holes?

Click to expand...

I'd sooner say its to benefit Musk's own ego. However, I expect that in a lot of cases, either a) he really feels its possible, in a stars-are-all-aligned sort of way, or 2) he's using "about 6 months" in a sort non-specific, general way. The way your contractor might tell you the remodel will take "two weeks", not meant to convey an actual timeline, but a vague notion that it'll be a while still. Or, I suppose, that's a fall back response if he doesn't really have a handle on what still needs to be done from his high-level view. But I doubt he's that uninformed...

The unrealistic schedule stuff is not 100% from Musk. It's from the company or from an official such as CEO Gwen Shotwell. Indeed the most recent FH delay announcements were by Shotwell beginning early last summer, about the need for more Landing Pads for FH flights.

Meanwhile, the next launch has been pushed at least 4 days.
From Chris Bergin at NSF:

SpaceX's LC-39A not quite ready for the Falcon 9 just yet. EchoStar 23 NET Jan 30 (just after midnight local time).

Click to expand...

An ironic thing about Falcon-9's needing to wait for LC-39A to be ready, is that LC-39A was supposed to be ready long before the explosion at LC-40, for use by FH (and eventually by single core F9 manned Dragon missions to ISS).

An album with a LOT of nice photos is here:

https://imgur.com/a/5KOOb

Many are high-quality photos taken of the booster at Long Beach. Here is one.

I don't think they lied, just omitted a condition. FH has never been a priority, as long as it's not a priority it will not progress very far. If some insisted they needed one then about 6 months from now they could have it ready, when they talk about 6 months what they are trying to do is get some interest in actually ordering a flight. My original point is that the Mars flight is higher up their priority list so we will hopefully see progress this year.

But don't they need the FH to get Red Dragon to Mars?

But don't they need the FH to get NRO contract$$$?

How about talking about launching astronauts with the current failure rate? I find that to be astounding.