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

rharshberger said:

However all the parts are easily and relatively cheaply replaceable in the even one is damaged aka modular construction, a purpose designed structure would require custom building, and repairing each time it was damaged would be more time consuming.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the modular construction aspect. It makes a lot of sense to do it that way, especially on a chartered barge. Oddly, having a rental/purchased generator container that someone else has already integrated will make it far easier to rebuild and repair in the event of damage. You go back to the people you got the first one from and get another one. If it's not off the shelf at the dealership you're at, it's probably available one or two states over and will just plug in. A custom job like that is probably harder to replace because nothing about it is standard.

manixFan said:

While we may think of our posts as all fun and games, there are real people who designed and built that barge. For someone to make such disparaging remarks about it just seemed really unnecessary, especially when it has preformed exactly as designed - it has delivered every rocket back to port safely.


Tony

Click to expand...

Whether it has performed exactly as designed is an interesting question. It has delivered the booster back to port, so it did fulfil it's original mission. As George mentioned, one of the thruster legs wasn't folded up like normal when it came in this time, and they are having to pull those containers off for repair/replacement as we speak. We don't really know what happened, but IF there was a fire, it came from inside one of the containers. The landing video posted above shows that the rocket was nowhere near the ends of the barge when it landed. Going back to the car analogy, if your car delivered you to work, but ran on three cylinders for the last mile and died just as you pulled into the parking spot, did it work exactly as designed?

manixFan said:

Hmm, the barge ship has never failed, so tell me what the couple hundred K for reliability would do? The thing catches flaming hot rockets that have dropped down from space and you are upset they are missing a decal? I'm sure that would have made a difference.

I sent a link to this to my son who works at SpaceX. Obviously he knows what really happened and why things are they way they are. It would be interesting to be there when he and his co-workers read your rant. I'm sure they'd love to get your opinion on how to make it better. But they may want to know how much experience you have designing rocket-catching autonomous barges.


Tony

Click to expand...

True, I don't have much experience designing rocket catching barges. I do have 20 years of experience designing boats (and barges), and have been the responsible project engineer for several barge sealifts carrying cargoes costing a few hundred million and up. I work for the company that has been in business for over a century and owns the largest US-flag fleet of tugs and barges. So I do actually know what I'm talking about. I'd be happy to have a discussion about the quality vs. price tradeoffs of Thrustmaster vs. Schottel Z-drives, parts sourced offshore vs. domestic, etc.

Look, SpaceX does some really cool stuff that nobody else does. I am thrilled that they can land a rocket on a barge and I give them huge props for that. But they also do a lot of things the hard way because they don't take advice from subcontractors who have been in their business for decades. At some point, quick and dirty and cheap will come back to bite you, especially at sea. I suppose what it really comes down to is that the working parts of the barge that make those spectacular landings possible look like they've been neglected in favor of the shiny parts. I've seen that happen many times in my career, and it never ended well long term.

shreadvector said:

There was a disturbance in the kitchen.......

Click to expand...

My son has banned me from any more postings in this thread (thread only, not TRF) or he revokes my special privileges as his SpaceX dad. But before I sign off I want to say no matter how much someone thinks can be inferred from some photos off the internet it is only that, inference. Years of experience in an industry doesn't make anyone an expert when something is used for a completely novel use or as to the cause of a specific incident. To claim they are doing it quick and dirty after previous comments shows a continued dislike for their approach. To an outside observer it could easily be construed as though someone has a vested interest in proving they did it wrong. From remarks it's clear the company with 100 years of experience isn't running the barges. Some might infer that drives specific comments.

There are many stories in the technical press how if SpaceX had listened to companies with decades of experience in their field they would have never gotten off the ground. They were told so many times that what they wanted to do simply was not possible, or were presented with such completely ridiculous proposals from the biggest names in the industry that they had to do many things themselves. So sometimes years of experience just means doing it the same way it has always been done without seeing the potential for what might be.

Other than voicing his displeasure with the delay in the FH launch, George seems to have tried really hard to stick to the facts as much as possible. Because of that much of this thread has been very enjoyable. Maybe there should be a separate 'editorial' thread for SpaceX to prevent this thread from being derailed.


Tony

Good grief….. I don’t post for a day and things run off the rails.

In some science fiction movie, one could imagine a built-from-scratch ship designed precisely for rockets like Falcon-9 boosters to land on. It would look fabulous. Then take that sci-fi landing she and build it in the real world….. from scratch, would take 3 to 5 years (or more). And then after the first rocket crashed into it and tore the crap out of it, it might take 6 to 12 months to fix that ship.

SpaceX did it by some of the more practical means possible. A lot of you forget that originally they were going to have the Falcon’s land by parachute….. until they realized so many practical problems (Mass of chutes, landing accuracy, descent rate, etc) and that landing under thrust was more practical.

Once they decided to go for powered landings, then they needed something to land on. They were not going to build anything from scratch. In part, too many years. Also, it was all a big experiment/gamble. It might not work out, in which case a custom ship would be of no use.

So, they leased a huge barge and had “wings” added to make the width larger. Mounted equipment to it in a modular way, shipping containers certainly are at home aboard ships and barges. The did other modifications to the barge, adding blast walls, azipods, generators, Hydraulic pumps, fuel, and so on. Stuff that a dumb barge doesn’t have. That mounted it at the two ends of the barge. Over time, they made few changes.

And the original MARMAC 300 series barge, the ASDS named Just Read The Instructions, was retired, replaced by Of Course I Still Love You, using a newer MARMAC barge. And then for West Coast landings, SpaceX leased another MARMAC barge, renamed that one Just Read The Instructions, and re-mounted the outer “wings” that had been removed from the original JRTI. In both cases, the Azipods were upgraded, bigger and more powerful than the original. They have made other mods as well.

For OCISLY, they added a “garage door” that pivots horizontally, for the “Roomba / Octograbber”.

So basically the MARMAC 300 series barges have been the foundations for a VERY flexible and modifiable “ship”. Does it really matter that key components are mounted inside of modified shipping containers, or rented equipment? Does the ROCKET care what it looks like? No. Why should anyone complain what it looks like? IT WORKS. And if a rocket crashes into it, or a fire breaks out, or something else goes badly, it’s a heck of a lot easier to have the access to fix and replace things than if it was designed and built to be some custom thing that looks at home in some Sci-Fi move.

As for rented equipment that might get damaged or knocked overboard, what does it matter how THAT looks before it was destroyed or knocked overboard? It’s still gone, and SpaceX would no doubt be paying for replacement of anything that gets damaged.destroyed/lost. Again, SpaceX doe NOT even own those barges! They are leasing them, and pay enough in the lease for permission to modify them. But if a crashing Falcon literally sank a barge, does anyone really need to see a contract to believe that SpaceX would have to pay for it? Or maybe that’s covered by some special insurance that SpaceX would be paying for. I can't imagine some owner of say a generator not having a contract to guarantee payment if their generator got wiped out or lost. But then again since the ASDS concept proved itself, no longer an experiment, I wonder why the heck would SpaceX keep leasing an easily replaced thing like a generator and not buy their own (I do not recall reading about who may own/lease such onboard equipment as that, compared to SpaceX outright buying it. Other than leasing the barges).

So, enough of that, the design of the ASDS and the gear on it.

Found the image showing removal of the big container:
https://i.imgur.com/kF6wcTX.jpg



As to what happened last week, well, SpaceX isn’t saying. There seems to be talk in the “L2” part of NSF, but that’s the $80 a year “insider” area, which I don’t have access to. Enough little drabs leaking thru to pretty much confirm there was SOME kind of fire, if not necessarily just where or what caused it. Applying Occam’s Razor , would point to something happening related to the landing or very shortly after.

My first indication of something awry was seeing a photo posted by Chris B. (owner of NSF), which had a caption “Pray for Roomba”. Showing some crew on deck and the opened “garage door” and Roomba/Octograbber not looking very good. Then seeing other mention elsewhere about a fire. That made me think possibly landing exhaust flame got past the garage door somehow, worst case if the door came open for any reason. That may NOT be what happened. But something definitely did happen. They did not remove all that equipment, or come back with a dead azipod dragging in the water, if things were OK.

Now, Koreasat-5 is still set for NET of October 30th. But for OCISLY to leave port in time to catch that booster on the 30th, it will need to leave around the 26th, maybe 27th. So all that stuff they removed, they have to fix, replace, reinstall, and be ready to leave in less than a week. Thanks to the modular nature and the way the ASDS is built/designed, that may indeed be possible. A lot depends on how much of the stuff in those containers is customized inside, how much is standard "off the shelf" stuff they can get quickly, and if they had the foresight to have spares for the most critical parts already on hand (IIRC, the upgraded Azipods they now use are NOT that common, do not recall if anyone indicated SapceX boght any spares or only bought 8 for the two ASDS's. But I suspect that "dead" Azipod was likely not damaged itself.

Will be interesting to see photos near the dock by early to middle next week to show progress on fixing/replacing anything.

DAllen said:

Click to expand...

Curb Your Enthusiasm.

manixFan said:

My son has banned me from any more postings in this thread (thread only, not TRF) or he revokes my special privileges as his SpaceX dad. But before I sign off I want to say no matter how much someone thinks can be inferred from some photos off the internet it is only that, inference. Years of experience in an industry doesn't make anyone an expert when something is used for a completely novel use or as to the cause of a specific incident. To claim they are doing it quick and dirty after previous comments shows a continued dislike for their approach. To an outside observer it could easily be construed as though someone has a vested interest in proving they did it wrong. From remarks it's clear the company with 100 years of experience isn't running the barges. Some might infer that drives specific comments.

There are many stories in the technical press how if SpaceX had listened to companies with decades of experience in their field they would have never gotten off the ground. They were told so many times that what they wanted to do simply was not possible, or were presented with such completely ridiculous proposals from the biggest names in the industry that they had to do many things themselves. So sometimes years of experience just means doing it the same way it has always been done without seeing the potential for what might be.

Other than voicing his displeasure with the delay in the FH launch, George seems to have tried really hard to stick to the facts as much as possible. Because of that much of this thread has been very enjoyable. Maybe there should be a separate 'editorial' thread for SpaceX to prevent this thread from being derailed.


Tony

Click to expand...

I'll write one back and bow out of this subthread.

In theory, I have a conflict of interest because my company could be working for SpaceX. Whether you believe it or not, that didn't play into what was said above at all, except that if I was working for SpaceX I would have said it directly to them (probably in slightly more diplomatic language). I don't know if SpaceX operates the barge themselves or contracts it out. They do contract out the tug assists, and I have seen tugs that I helped design working the assist jobs.

JFK had a plaque on his desk with a fishermen's prayer: "Oh God, thy sea is so large and my boat is so small." The sea is a very unforgiving place, and people who don't respect its power almost always regret it in the long run. Maintenance issues sneak up, especially if you don't keep stuff painted. I agree that SpaceX is successful because they didn't listen to "you can't do that." I'd like to think that they would listen to an expert in their field who offers to help them make it better. Just to be clear, I'm not making that offer, but I know others have.

Like I said above, I don't have any problem with the modular design. That's smart. I don't have any problem with the first barge being a conversion or a scrappy engineering job. They needed to get it done quickly and they did. Now that they're operating the second and third barges and are clearly in this for the long haul, I'm surprised that they aren't looking ahead to how they're planning to do this job for the next couple of decades. Maybe they are and there's a fancy new ship on the horizon that's so deep in an NDA that nobody knows about it. I think that's unlikely given how information flows on the waterfront, but it's possible.

SpaceX plans to phase out the Falcon-9 (and FH) eventually with "BFR" (Big...Falcon.. Rocket). Although the BFR has changed design few times, as well as the second stage, to the point that given so many past announcements and changes and schedule slips, that I'm not expecting their next generaiton vehicle to be "frozen" in design yet. Indeed after announcing the upper stage last month, with two small rocket engines for landing vertically, they added a third landing engine 3 weeks later! And the second stage has two small stubby wings (for a lifting reentry, not for gliding to a horizontal landing) with no aerodynamic surfaces for yaw stability (imagine a space shuttle orbiter with way smaller wings and no vertical tail). So I do not understand how that will be stable aerodynamically in yaw, and expect they'll revise the shape yet again as they have so many times before (Also it still needs to "flip" to a tail-first precision aerodynamic descent for vertical landing descent, which requires aerodynamic surfaces that the deployable grid fins provide for Falcon-9).

And they say they'll have that flying in 5 years! Yeah, right - 2 words: Falcon Heavy.

Anyway, long as they can raise the money (that's a big question mark) I'm sure they'll come up with a BFR of some kind. But it'll probably look somewhat different, and probably more like 10 years than 5 years.

Whenever, due to the size and mass, they will certainly need something a lot bigger to land on in the ocean, if BFR's booster ever were to do an ocean landing. But that booster is so big, their plans are for it to do an RTLS and land back at the launch pad. Indeed they even say they plan for it to literally land ON THE PAD that it took off from. Well, the precision for doing that kind of landing awaits a lot of testing, probably with some future Falcon-9 boosters trying to land on a simulated launch pad platform.

So in any case, SpaceX's BFR probably won't do any ocean landings. Now, they have made claims of doing "suborbital hops" with the second stage by itself, to land near cities. Well, never mind the regulatory issues with ballistic rockets coming down over other countries, for safety and sonic boom reasons the most likely landing options would be to land at sea, not on land. From New York to London? Travel from NYC to an ASDS off the coast, launch from there, hop across the Atlantic, land on an ASDS on the WEST coast of England, then get transported from that ASDS onto the UK via boat or helicopter, and eventually get to London. Not exactly the "30 minute trip" SpaceX is talking about. So I take the talk of sub-orbital hops of passengers (true passengers wanting to go from A to B fast, not space tourists) , or cargo, with a grain of salt. Theoretically possible. But then a Mach 3 SST is very possible, but there's no market for it, and it would cost a heck of a lot less to fly on a Mach-3 SST than a suborbital rocket. Anyway, if they really REALLY were to do that, then they'd need something bigger than the Marmac 300 type barges, and there are larger ones. Possibly something custom, but morel likely a bigger barge or converted floating oil rig. But I just take that passenger/cargo suborbital hop thing as a "we COULD in theory do this" fantasy.

In the nearer term, SpaceX has their own launch facilities they are developing near Brownsville, Texas (Boca Chica). Might even build and launch/Land BFR there, no announcement on where they will build (or fly) BFR. Progress there has been slow, and estimates of when the first Falcon will fly from there remind me a lot of how Falcon Heavy estimates were for years..... every 6 months it's delayed 6 months. At any rate, assuming they do get it online to launch Falcon 9's, they will need an ASDS for that site as well. So most likely they will have a third operational ASDS to be developed. I would figure though that it's more likely to be another modified barge than something built custom. But it would almost certainly have another round of improvements added to it. And whatever they do for upgrading that, they may do with the other two ASDS's.

As it is, it would be good to have a third ASDS available anyway. In case JRTI or OCISLY was seriously damaged and needed months of repair (as happened with OCISLY when a Falcon coming on from a "hot" re-entry ran out of fuel high up and smashed a huge hole into the deck). Although a spare ASDS would be more practical for OCISLY at the Cape. With the wings added, the ASDS's are too wide to go thru the Panama Canal, requiring a very long and rough seas trip around South America (When they sent the second version of JRTI (MARMAC 303) to the Pacific, the wings were not attached yet, so it fit thru the canal). Cost of a 3rd (spare) ASDS would be a lot cheaper than the cost of one Falcon Booster that can be reused, that might have to be flown expendable with a damaged ASDS unavailable and schedule pressure not to wait weeks/months. So that would be a good thing for them to add soon, when the block 5 Falcons start flying in early 2018 (those are supposed to be able to fly 10 times before needing major refurbishment). And then that spare would become the Boca Chica ASDS eventually (More practical to swap ASDS's between the Cape and Boca Chica in a pinch, than to swap with the West Coast).

Bottom line, the ASDS's as-is work fine. SpaceX claims they won’t be flying Falcon-9’s after a few more years - I find that hard to believe but certainly with plans like that they have no incentive to make up new special ASDS’s. Only reasons to do upgrades are to make them easier/cheaper/more reliable to operate, and to be able to repair/swap out components due to damage. Now, maintenance would fall under easier/cheaper/reliable, so whatever aspects of the current design have any inherent maintenance problems that cost money/time/reliability (or eventually failure if not addressed), they'd have good reason to address that. Some of which have been visible fixes/upgrades, while no doubt there's been other upgrades that are not noticeable from photos.

Now I'm really confused. I was assuming (there I go, making an *** of you and me ) that SpaceX was going to keep launching F9s to ISS and LEO pretty much indefinitely, with FH for GTO payloads so they don't have hot re-entries and can re-use more first stages. That would basically let them take all of ULA's and perhaps some of Ariane's commercial business plus half or so of the military/NASA business. That would give them a nice income stream to fund the BFR and subsidize eventual trips to Mars. Are they then going to try to push all F9 flights onto FH? Doesn't that cost more for the light stuff? Also, Blue Origin is working hard on the New Glenn, which would compete with FH on the high end and could probably compete nicely on price since it's reusable as well.

I am definitely on thin ice where business strategy comes in, but I can't wrap my brain around it. I can't tell if that's my brain's fault or the plan's fault.

mayhap something like Project Habakkuk for the larger birds
Rex

A post by David Wilde on Space Hipsters. Leaving Port Canaveral on a cruise ship, he got two pics as the ship sailed by the SpaceX dock. One of the Falcon itself, and one of OCISLY.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101604836507051&set=pcb.1634126486632228&type=3&theater

Enlarged crop below seems to show that they have replaced all three containers, especially the big one with stair access. Certainly look nice and clean, so either new or they did a really fast repaint job while repairing the old ones.

boatgeek said:

Now I'm really confused. I was assuming (there I go, making an *** of you and me ) that SpaceX was going to keep launching F9s to ISS and LEO pretty much indefinitely, with FH for GTO payloads so they don't have hot re-entries and can re-use more first stages. That would basically let them take all of ULA's and perhaps some of Ariane's commercial business plus half or so of the military/NASA business. That would give them a nice income stream to fund the BFR and subsidize eventual trips to Mars. Are they then going to try to push all F9 flights onto FH? Doesn't that cost more for the light stuff? Also, Blue Origin is working hard on the New Glenn, which would compete with FH on the high end and could probably compete nicely on price since it's reusable as well.

I am definitely on thin ice where business strategy comes in, but I can't wrap my brain around it. I can't tell if that's my brain's fault or the plan's fault.

Click to expand...

I don't see them phasing out Falcon-9's and FH's in favor of BFR anytime soon, even if they say so. Even if they want to claim they'll have BFR flying in 5 years. Pretty much the "Boy who cried Wolf" on that one, except for the near cult-like fans and aerospace media that eat up any press release without taking practical reality into consideration. And I already did that myself by waving off SpaceX raising the $$ to do all of this, as a "given". It's NOT a given they can raise the $ to do this anytime soon (if ever), but that's the price of admission for taking the trip down that rabbit hole.

It's the silly stuff like claiming they will launch passengers suborbitally for "30 minute trips" from city to city, in a practical and economically viable manner, that really hurt their credibility, IMHO.

Improve the Falcon-9's. Prove that Block 5 really can fly 10 times without refurbishment, and can fly another 10 times between major refurbishments. THAT's the kind of realistic near term goals they need to have. If they can't prove they can do that with F9, BFR is doomed, because a key part of their economical plan is to fly the crap out of the BFR's to amortize the cost of building them and not need to build very many.

georgegassaway said:

It's the silly stuff like claiming they will launch passengers suborbitally for "30 minute trips" from city to city, in a practical and economically viable manner, that really hurt their credibility, IMHO.

Click to expand...

[video=youtube;j4KR4-TN-Yo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4KR4-TN-Yo[/video]

An article on NSF about the fire:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/repairs-asds-ses-11-booster-landing/

Repairs taking place on SpaceX drone ship following SES-11 booster landing

SpaceX’s drone ship “Of Course I Still Love You” is undergoing repairs at Port Canaveral following the return of Falcon 9 booster B1031.2 after launching the SES-11 satellite. While the touchdown was nominal, a post-landing incident resulted in a short fire at the aft of the ship, which also damaged the robot that was to be used to secure the booster. The fire was quickly extinguished.

[snippage]

With the SpaceX webcast returning its focus to the primary mission of the second stage flight towards the eventual deployment of the satellite, post-landing procedures were taking place onboard the ASDS (Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship).

The exact series of events is unclear, but it is understood the booster leaked some of its residue RP-1 fuel, which flowed along the deck of the ASDS and pooled near the containers at the aft of the drone ship.

The booster then continued post-landing operations, designed to safe the booster ahead of crews boarding the ship to complete the safing process ahead of the trip back to port.

At some point shortly after landing there was an ignition of the pooled RP-1, likely via the purging of the Triethylaluminum-Triethylborane (TEA-TEB) that is used as the first stage ignitor. This has to be purged as part of the safing procedures for allowing crew near the rocket.

Fire hoses – staged on the deck of the ship – quickly doused the fire. However, the garage containing the robot – nicknamed “Roomba” or “OctaGrabber” (among other names) – was caught in the fire and damaged.

This was confirmed by the lack of the robot in view under the rocket during the ASDS’ return to Port.

Engineers instead secured the booster with jacks, which they have previously utilized before the robot was designed to secure the booster in place without the need of a human presence.

The robot also removes the need to weld hardware to the deck of the ship.

Click to expand...

So, that's how it happened. Not the landing itself, but during the post-landing purging.

I am really surprised though that they do not have the Falcon's TEA-TEB ignition fluids vent/purge during the landing burn. After all, after igniting the center engine for landing (or engines for a 3-engine "hot" landing), there is no need to have any onboard anymore.

georgegassaway said:

An article on NSF about the fire:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/repairs-asds-ses-11-booster-landing/



So, that's how it happened. Not the landing itself, but during the post-landing purging.

I am really surprised though that they do not have the Falcon's TEA-TEB ignition fluids vent/purge during the landing burn. After all, after igniting the center engine for landing (or engines for a 3-engine "hot" landing), there is no need to have any onboard anymore.

Click to expand...

I would expect this could mess with engine performance during the most critical stage of the flight. Also perhaps they want to have a reserve for an abort? At the very least you would want to run tests on this proceedure first.

SpaceManMat said:

I would expect this could mess with engine performance during the most critical stage of the flight. Also perhaps they want to have a reserve for an abort? At the very least you would want to run tests on this proceedure first.

Click to expand...

Abort to where? If it's coming down, with the final burn started, there's nowhere to abort to and no fuel to do more than just slow down to approximately zero speed. Abort could at best be "adjust trajectory to miss the barge area" but by this time again the torch is already lit.

Maybe they don't want to run out of fuel.....

Sent from my SM-G950U using Rocketry Forum mobile app

SpaceX will want to be very careful about getting RP-1 out on deck. Even if they don't light it off, the Coast Guard takes a very dim view of oil in the water. If nothing else, there's a lot of fines and cleanup costs. If USCG thinks that they've done it deliberately, there's felony charges. Not reporting an oil spill is an even worse felony charge.

I'm not at all saying that the RP-1 spill was deliberate, just that USCG might say it was.

SpaceManMat said:

I would expect this could mess with engine performance during the most critical stage of the flight.

Click to expand...

If the remaining TEA-TEB was still injected into the engine(s), yes, that could be a problem. But I was thinking more of a "dump" outside of the engines, in some area heat-proofed well enough for some extra heat not to be a problem.

Don't know how much of a problem leaked RP-1 has been in the past. A few times after landing, some visible low intensity flames for a few seconds. The valves should be cutting off the flow of RP-1. So this seems to have been unusual.

Also "lucky" for the Falcon, that most of the RP-1 apparently flowed away from the Falcon, towards the corner before it lit off. If the RP-1 had stayed mostly under the Falcon, it might have damaged the Falcon a lot (sure, the engines, base, and to a limited extent the tanks could take a lot of heat from a diesel fire, but the deployed carbon-composite legs can't, eventually one would lose strength and let the Falcon fall over). There no doubt was SOME fire under the Falcon, when the TEA-TEB purge ignited the RP-1 that was still under it, then igniting the rest of the RP-1 elsewhere on deck, but apparently not a lot of fire under it (or everything else was just so easily damaged by fire).

Never thought of this before, but if it is true that the RP-1 flowed to that corner, where Octagrabber/Roomba was located, why would the deck be tilted that way? Because the Octagrabber is so heavy, and the rest of the components on the ASDS are apparently spread out pretty evenly. They COULD address that by having less ballast water in the barge's tanks in that area, or add ballast water to the opposing corner area (there's something like 32 ballast compartments, IIRC). But that is a reason that comes to mind why the deck would not be level (on average, never mind ocean swells), the mass of Octagrabber in the very corner that the RP-1 flowed towards.

OK, rethought the above regarding ballast tanks. If they adjusted ballast to account for Octagrabber mass for landing, then once Octagrabber rolls out to get under the Falcon, the ASDS ballast would be unbalanced. In theory the deck crew could re-pump the ballast water, but for one I don't know how practical that is for them to do at sea to begin with. And for the other, a big reason for Octagrabber is NOT to require a crew to go onboard anyway, especially with bad ocean conditions. I did look again at a photo of the Falcon on deck, and while it did not land dead center, its mass is not towards that corner (towards an opposing side), so the offset mass to cause deck tilt would be the Octagrabber, not the Falcon.

"Graboid" was already taken.....

georgegassaway said:

Never thought of this before, but if it is true that the RP-1 flowed to that corner, where Octagrabber/Roomba was located, why would the deck be tilted that way? Because the Octagrabber is so heavy, and the rest of the components on the ASDS are apparently spread out pretty evenly. They COULD address that by having less ballast water in the barge's tanks in that area, or add ballast water to the opposing corner area (there's something like 32 ballast compartments, IIRC). But that is a reason that comes to mind why the deck would not be level (on average, never mind ocean swells), the mass of Octagrabber in the very corner that the RP-1 flowed towards.

OK, rethought the above regarding ballast tanks. If they adjusted ballast to account for Octagrabber mass for landing, then once Octagrabber rolls out to get under the Falcon, the ASDS ballast would be unbalanced. In theory the deck crew could re-pump the ballast water, but for one I don't know how practical that is for them to do at sea to begin with. And for the other, a big reason for Octagrabber is NOT to require a crew to go onboard anyway, especially with bad ocean conditions. I did look again at a photo of the Falcon on deck, and while it did not land dead center, its mass is not towards that corner (towards an opposing side), so the offset mass to cause deck tilt would be the Octagrabber, not the Falcon.

Click to expand...

The barge probably has a little list (side to side slope) and trim (end to end slope) built in with either the weight of the stuff in those containers or water in ballast tanks. Unless the Roomba weighs several tons, it probably won't move a barge that size very much. I could hack together a guess of how much it would shift if people are interested. It would be based on a bunch of rash assumptions, but it would be fairly close. The list or trim may be deliberate to help water from rain or spray clear off of the deck.

You can move ballast at sea, and moving ballast via remote control isn't all that hard. The last deck cargo barge I designed had all of the ballast valves controlled centrally. Hooking that kind of system up to Bluetooth (or whatever) wouldn't be hard for people that can autonomously land a rocket. That said, ballast water comes with a lot of paperwork (thanks, zebra mussels) now. The ASDS has it easier than some boats because they always come back to the same port, but it's still a pain in the butt to stay on top of it. This is another area where it's easy to pick up fines and not too hard to get a felony if you don't do it right.

Marc_G said:

Abort to where? If it's coming down, with the final burn started, there's nowhere to abort to and no fuel to do more than just slow down to approximately zero speed. Abort could at best be "adjust trajectory to miss the barge area" but by this time again the torch is already lit.

Click to expand...

Im thinking if center engine fails - light 2 others and get the falcon out the way of the barge.

Anyway a much easier solution (for now) is to do a visual inspection before dumping the TEA-TEB

So...... when is the next launch?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Rocketry Forum mobile app

Koreasat 5A, NET October 30th (Monday), Pad 39A at the Cape.

Launch window opens at 3:34 PM EDT, so should have a good lighting for the ASDS landing of the booster.

Seems the post-fire repairs to OCISLY have gone well, so it probably will be ready to leave port in time for the booster to land on it.

Static Firing is scheduled for tomorrow, the 26th. If that goes well, then the 30th may become official.



After THAT, the mysterious "Zuma" launch from 39A, NET Nov 15 (Apparently some sort of U.S. classified Spy-Sat).

Total of 6 more launches planned for this year, but one of those is FH "Late December", so I figure more like 5 may happen this year.

They've done 15 flights so far this year, so if they do get in 5 more, that'll be 20, which would be 250% more than their best year (8).

For Falcon-9, number of launches per year:
2010: 2
2011: 0
2012: 2
2013: 3
2014: 6
2015: 7 (one failed - CRS-7 2nd stage burst before staging)
2016: 8 in 8 months (then AMOS 6's Falcon blew on the pad & no more flights for 2016
2017: 15 and counting

Source for above numbers and manifest schedule list: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.0

georgegassaway said:

Total of 6 more launches planned for this year, but one of those is FH "Late December", so I figure more like 5 may happen this year.

They've done 15 flights so far this year, so if they do get in 5 more, that'll be 20, which would be 250% more than their best year (8).

Source for above numbers and manifest schedule list: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.0

Click to expand...

While SpaceX has had a fantastic year, they've still only averaged a little over one launch per month (1.5). As you've said, November and December are so full of holidays, etc. that not much typically gets done or it gets done more slowly than usual. I'd be surprised if they could keep up their average and get one or two more launches but seriously doubt that it's even possible to get in more than three or four even figuring in launches from Vandenburg. I'd love to be wrong though.

Static Test for Koreasat-5 was good, so launch is set for Oct 30th.

Peartree said:

While SpaceX has had a fantastic year, they've still only averaged a little over one launch per month (1.5). As you've said, November and December are so full of holidays, etc. that not much typically gets done or it gets done more slowly than usual. I'd be surprised if they could keep up their average and get one or two more launches but seriously doubt that it's even possible to get in more than three or four even figuring in launches from Vandenburg. I'd love to be wrong though.

Click to expand...

Yeah, of the 5 (leaving out FH), one has no NET date. it is "Hispasat 1F", to be launched at the Cape : https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43435.0

It is listed simply as "Q4", meaning 4th Quarter. Normally, any launch listed with a "quarter" ballpark date, would have some more specific NET date by the time that quarter has been reached (26 days into Q4).

I'm suspecting that possibly the "Zuma" launch that was added out of the blue may have taken Hispasat's place in line.

Once the Zuma mission is launched from 39A, then 39A is down for final FH upgrades and the eventual FH launch....whenever.

SLC-40 is supposed to finally be ready, after the AMOS-6 pad explosion, for CRS-13 on Dec 4th. So in theory Hispasat could fly in mid-late December from SLC-40. But that would mean SLC-40 really is ready by early December, there's no significant slips in the NET date for CRS-13, and they have an actual Falcon launch vehicle ready by then (even re-flown Falcons need new upper stages, new fairings, and some refurbishment time). So, that "Zuma" mission might also have taken over Hispasat's Falcon (unknown if Zuma was long-planned with its own booster, and they just did not announce it would fly until recently. Or if it has been rushed for launch for some reason and bumped it's way onto someone else's intended booster). And, yes, the holidays tend to enable launch date slips more often than the rest of the year. So, Hispasat has a chance of flying in 2017, but it'll be tight (this also assumes that Hispasat itself is ready for launch soon, that the satellite is ready (or nearly so) and waiting for a rocket ride)

So, more likely 4 more launches this year, for 19.

18-19 launches would be more than all other US orbital launches for 2017, combined, IIRC. Also IIRC more than Russia. I think China has about as many scheduled, so we'll see on Jan 1st who had the most.

OK, found a source for info on launches for 2017, my IIRC's were a bit off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_in_spaceflight



So far, the US has the most at 23 (SpaceX launching 15 of them), Russia second at 17. With SpaceX 2 launches behind Russia.

China, only 10, and only 8 were completely successful.


LATE UPDATE for Koreasat Launch - The ASDS barge Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY) was towed out of port before sunset Thursday. So it has time to get in position far downrange for the F9 booster to land on it Monday the 30th .

Launch of Koreasat 5A is GO for tomorrow (Monday Oct 30th). Launch window opens at 3:34 PM EDT.

Weather at launch is 90% favorable. Weather at the ocean landing site not so good, NW winds 15 to 20 kt. Seas 8 to 13 ft in W swell. They've landed the booster successfully in worse, IIRC.

As for right now, no link to a webcast. Here's SpaceX's website link that should have it once they post it: https://www.spacex.com/webcast


Florida Today article: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/...-9-set-launch-korean-satellite-ksc/806155001/

I watch all my SpaceX launches in real time here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/ouramazingspace

may not get this one back-

damn - they did it