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

[jmattingly13]

Forget the volcano, Elon needs to buy an Island and launch/land his fleet from under his pool, like Thunderbirds "SpaceX are Go"

Reacquire Kwaj?

 

[marcusSRG]

Perhaps eventually they'll get this to the point where it's safe enough to launch off the coast near Houston, TX, and land the first stage in an open area of Florida or Georgia depending on what orbit they're trying to reach.

You mean a coastal "open area" right? No way FAA'd let them fly that thing back over land to an inland landing pad, no matter how proven. But it would be cool...

 

[BLKKROW]

You mean a coastal "open area" right? No way FAA'd let them fly that thing back over land to an inland landing pad, no matter how proven. But it would be cool...

I think it is certainly a possibility. Think about it, SpaceX has a contract to shuttle astronauts to the ISS on the Dragon V2. I think this alone means the first stage and Dragon V2 will soft land, on land. No pun intended.

 

[marcusSRG]

I think it is certainly a possibility. Think about it, SpaceX has a contract to shuttle astronauts to the ISS on the Dragon V2. I think this alone means the first stage and Dragon V2 will soft land, on land. No pun intended.

I'm not saying that "soft landing on land" won't happen...it likely will happen and I hope it does. But Mushtang's comment seemed to infer an inland landing pad, i.e. NOT located right by the coast. I highly doubt the FAA would let a fueled rocket, burning it's engines fly back to an inland landing pad. That would almost certainly mean flying over populated areas.

 

[BLKKROW]

I'm not saying that "soft landing on land" won't happen...it likely will happen and I hope it does. But Mushtang's comment seemed to infer an inland landing pad, i.e. NOT located right by the coast. I highly doubt the FAA would let a fueled rocket, burning it's engines fly back to an inland landing pad. That would almost certainly mean flying over populated areas.

I agree it would be as close to the coast, away from populated areas.

 

[jmattingly13]

I'm not saying that "soft landing on land" won't happen...it likely will happen and I hope it does. But Mushtang's comment seemed to infer an inland landing pad, i.e. NOT located right by the coast. I highly doubt the FAA would let a fueled rocket, burning it's engines fly back to an inland landing pad. That would almost certainly mean flying over populated areas.

The FAA already lets aluminum cylinders full of fuel fly over populated areas. While it's reasonable to assume they won't be landing rockets inland anytime soon, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they could allow inland landings in the next 50-100 years. (Why anyone would necessarily want to do this is a bit beyond me, but certainly feasible.)

 

[marcusSRG]

The FAA already lets aluminum cylinders full of fuel fly over populated areas. While it's reasonable to assume they won't be landing rockets inland anytime soon, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they could allow inland landings in the next 50-100 years. (Why anyone would necessarily want to do this is a bit beyond me, but certainly feasible.)

I'll give you 50-100 years. I was speaking more towards our general lifetime. I'll be 80 in 50 years! Planes don't carry liquid oxygen though...a very volatile difference in aircraft and liquid fueled rockets.

 

[bobkrech]

I'm not saying that "soft landing on land" won't happen...it likely will happen and I hope it does. But Mushtang's comment seemed to infer an inland landing pad, i.e. NOT located right by the coast. I highly doubt the FAA would let a fueled rocket, burning it's engines fly back to an inland landing pad. That would almost certainly mean flying over populated areas.

It's already happened. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have been doing it for some time in Texas. These current launches from the Cape and offshore recoveries are test flight. Once the system is proven, recoveries on land won't be a big deal, however SpaceX has to prove it by doing a series of successful recoveries in isolate areas.

I think a lot of folks here are neglecting the whole purpose of recovering the rocket. The customer doesn't care whether or not SpaceX recovers their booster. All they care about is their satellite being successfully launched into LEO for the agreed upon contact price. Period. These are commercial launches, and SpaceX has a fixed price contract to launch a certain number of payloads to Space Station for a certain price. SpaceX is a business and the object of the business is to make a profit on each and every launch. As these launches are fixed price contracts, any money saved goes directly into profit. SpaceX has developed a cost model for their space launch business and believes that they can make more money by recovering and recycling the booster. The premises in their model may or may not be correct, and these test flights will prove or disprove their model.

There are no technical barriers to recovering and recycling a launch vehicle. NASA did this with the Space Shuttle for 3 decades, but I think most economists would agree that the cost model used to justify the program had many underestimated and unanticipated costs, so the principal problem is economic not technical. Furthermore SpaceX has shown they can recover booster rockets at their Texas facility. The unanswered question is can this be done economically and routinely in a relatively uncontrolled scenario and that is the big unknown.

The commercial space launch budget is competitive and tight. A Falcon 9 launch costs $61,000,000 according to the SpaceX launch brochure. While the individual costs are not broken down, the bottom line is the cost of booster recovery and the recycling cost of the Falcon 9 rocket must be less than the cost of a single use Falcon 9 rocket, or SpaceX looses money. Finding out what these cost are is the real goal of these test recoveries.

The Space Shuttle was an amazing piece of technology, possible the most complicated vehicle every assembled, but it was not inexpensive to operate. During the Shuttle era, NASA had to maintain a fleet of (3) 170' ships, several large barges, and (2) 747 shuttle transport jets for 30 years. These expenses were fixed costs independent of the number of launches per year, and would not have been necessary if the launch vehicles were not reusable. The shuttle main engines had to be torn down, inspected and rebuild after each launch even though the original design life cycle called for 5 launches between rebuilding. The shuttle solid boosters were fueled in Utah, trained to Louisiana, and barged to the Cape where they were stacked and launched. They were then recovered by barge and brought back to the cape for wash down and greasing, barged to Louisiana where they were degreased, inspected and rerounded, and then trained back to Utah for reloading. IMO this was a large expense to incur simply to recycle a steel motor casings......and these examples are only a few of the more obvious items that made the Shuttle so expensive to operate. The Shuttle was a fabulous technical success, doing everything asked of it and more, but was an economic disappointment in that the projected cost were grossly underestimated.

Since the performance based COTS launch program starts with a clean slate, SpaceX is free to used the most cost effective launch system that can be build, however SpaceX is operating in uncharted territory as this has not been done before. SpaceX is operating on a very tight self-imposed budget that is about half that of their more traditional established competitors. They have already shown they can get the job done. Their next step is to demonstrate they can get rich doing it, and that means making a commercial profit within the their contracted budgetary constraints.

Bob

 

[mpitfield]

It's already happened. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have been doing it for some time in Texas. These current launches from the Cape and offshore recoveries are test flight. Once the system is proven, recoveries on land won't be a big deal, however SpaceX has to prove it by doing a series of successful recoveries in isolate areas.

I think a lot of folks here are neglecting the whole purpose of recovering the rocket. The customer doesn't care whether or not SpaceX recovers their booster. All they care about is their satellite being successfully launched into LEO for the agreed upon contact price. Period. These are commercial launches, and SpaceX has a fixed price contract to launch a certain number of payloads to Space Station for a certain price. SpaceX is a business and the object of the business is to make a profit on each and every launch. As these launches are fixed price contracts, any money saved goes directly into profit. SpaceX has developed a cost model for their space launch business and believes that they can make more money by recovering and recycling the booster. The premises in their model may or may not be correct, and these test flights will prove or disprove their model.

There are no technical barriers to recovering and recycling a launch vehicle. NASA did this with the Space Shuttle for 3 decades, but I think most economists would agree that the cost model used to justify the program had many underestimated and unanticipated costs, so the principal problem is economic not technical. Furthermore SpaceX has shown they can recover booster rockets at their Texas facility. The unanswered question is can this be done economically and routinely in a relatively uncontrolled scenario and that is the big unknown.

The commercial space launch budget is competitive and tight. A Falcon 9 launch costs $61,000,000 according to the SpaceX launch brochure. While the individual costs are not broken down, the bottom line is the cost of booster recovery and the recycling cost of the Falcon 9 rocket must be less than the cost of a single use Falcon 9 rocket, or SpaceX looses money. Finding out what these cost are is the real goal of these test recoveries.

The Space Shuttle was an amazing piece of technology, possible the most complicated vehicle every assembled, but it was not inexpensive to operate. During the Shuttle era, NASA had to maintain a fleet of (3) 170' ships, several large barges, and (2) 747 shuttle transport jets for 30 years. These expenses were fixed costs independent of the number of launches per year, and would not have been necessary if the launch vehicles were not reusable. The shuttle main engines had to be torn down, inspected and rebuild after each launch even though the original design life cycle called for 5 launches between rebuilding. The shuttle solid boosters were fueled in Utah, trained to Louisiana, and barged to the Cape where they were stacked and launched. They were then recovered by barge and brought back to the cape for wash down and greasing, barged to Louisiana where they were degreased, inspected and rerounded, and then trained back to Utah for reloading. IMO this was a large expense to incur simply to recycle a steel motor casings......and these examples are only a few of the more obvious items that made the Shuttle so expensive to operate. The Shuttle was a fabulous technical success, doing everything asked of it and more, but was an economic disappointment in that the projected cost were grossly underestimated.

Since the performance based COTS launch program starts with a clean slate, SpaceX is free to used the most cost effective launch system that can be build, however SpaceX is operating in uncharted territory as this has not been done before. SpaceX is operating on a very tight self-imposed budget that is about half that of their more traditional established competitors. They have already shown they can get the job done. Their next step is to demonstrate they can get rich doing it, and that means making a commercial profit within the their contracted budgetary constraints.

Bob

Great post Bob. I was hoping you would shed some insight into the industry on this one.

I was going to start another related post regarding Congresses mandate to NASA to repurpose the warehoused Space Shuttle engines for the new launch vehicle, but this seems as good as place as any for anyone to provide insight to this. Is this Congress just being bureaucratic, which will have a negative impact on the new NASA launch vehicle or is this a sensible idea?

 

[georgegassaway]

You mean a coastal "open area" right? No way FAA'd let them fly that thing back over land to an inland landing pad, no matter how proven. But it would be cool...

It's already happened. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have been doing it for some time in Texas. These current launches from the Cape and offshore recoveries are test flight. Once the system is proven, recoveries on land won't be a big deal, however SpaceX has to prove it by doing a series of successful recoveries in isolate areas.

What Marcus was referring to, apparently, was to fly from place A to place C, flying over (human) populated place B. The Blue Origin and SpaceX test flights in Texas have all been within a designated vertical "box" that the FAA does not allow them to fly out of, either horizontally or vertically.

IIRC the SpaceX McGregor site has only ever been used for flights up to 1 kilometer. That may mean their waiver is up to 5,000 feet at least. The McGregor site is not that "wide", so when the F9R rocket started to have a control problem it needed to be destroyed before it started to build up a ballistic path outside of the area ( IIRC the onboard system automatically destructed it when the problem was detected as too serious to keep flying).

The Blue Origin site is wider and they get much higher waivers for their flights. Though they have only made a handful of flights and not anything since their rocket crashed a few years ago. No visible signs that part of their program has progressed any since.

Anyway, for the SpaceX launches with landings back at or near the launch site, those sites will need to be coastal sites. not sites inland where they would be flying over populated areas. It will be decades before rocket launches, and VTOL landings, are perfected, reliable, and routine enough to even pretend to compare that with passenger airliners.

I do take note that SpaceX is looking to have a coastal launch site in Texas (I have not kept up with those plans). So any reference to possible SpaceX launches into space from Texas would be from the coast, not McGregor which is hundreds of miles inland

This issue is going to be a tricky one for the Dragon-2 spacecraft to be cleared to land at the Cape/KSC. Because the orbital track will bring it over Florida. If there was any significant error to cause an "undershoot" of the ballistic path, it could end up in a populated area. But the more likely error would be to overshoot, if say an engine shut down too early, landing in the Atlantic. The shuttle was able to do pinpoint landings due to its gliding ability. But after the Columbia disaster, pieces raining down onto Texas and Louisiana, only very rarely did any more missions come on a WNW to ESE path over the United States, most came in from WSW to ENE, so if another reentry breakup occurred, only a small area of Florida might be hit, and nobody cared much about Cuba or other southern countries it flew over in the last few hundred miles.

- George Gassaway

 

[marcusSRG]

Thank you, George. Lots of great information that I wouldn't have been able to provide. Also, the flight profile I'm referring to would be returning from space (or close to it, wherever the first stage separates). The test vehicles referenced above never flew that high, AFAIK.

And great points as well, Bob. COST is the main idea behind all of this!

 

[rocketguy101]

I do take note that SpaceX is looking to have a coastal launch site in Texas (I have not kept up with those plans). So any reference to possible SpaceX launches into space from Texas would be from the coast, not McGregor which is hundreds of miles inland

- George Gassaway

according to NSF, that would be Brownsville TX https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/07/spacex-roadmap-rocket-business-revolution/

 

[jmattingly13]

according to NSF, that would be Brownsville TX https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/07/spacex-roadmap-rocket-business-revolution/

They've already broken ground in Brownsville. They also have a lease at Spaceport America in NM to do higher-altitude F9R testing. As for the F9R test flight detonation, that was an issue with a blocked sensor, not straying out of the waiver zone. SpaceX has been pretty good at controlling exactly where their rocket is in flight.

 

[luke strawwalker]

Great post Bob. I was hoping you would shed some insight into the industry on this one.

I was going to start another related post regarding Congresses mandate to NASA to repurpose the warehoused Space Shuttle engines for the new launch vehicle, but this seems as good as place as any for anyone to provide insight to this. Is this Congress just being bureaucratic, which will have a negative impact on the new NASA launch vehicle or is this a sensible idea?

Well, the shuttle program left over quite a few flight capable SSME's when it was completed, as well as a good number of usable shuttle SRB casing segments. It makes sense to use these components rather than letting them rot in a warehouse somewhere, or sit gathering dust on the back end of museum pieces (the SSME's on the orbiters were removed and replaced by "simulations" for the museum displays of the retired orbiters). There's still a large number of F-1's sitting in storage in Redstone Arsenal (Marshall Space Flight Center) in Huntsville, AL, dating back from Apollo. It's a crying shame that these engines weren't used (though they are donating components for the efforts to revive the F-1 engine in a new, low cost design called F-1B).

The SLS is planned to use the RS-25E, which is to be a redesigned, lower cost, single-use only version of the RS-25D, which was the spec of the SSME's when the shuttle program was retired. Supposedly there will be some large savings by eliminating the parts of the design that allow for rebuilding and reuse, through simplification of the design, less touch labor and more automated manufacturing and assembly techniques, lower life expectancy (only having to last a single flight and being expended, the components can be designed to a lower margin of safety that would be required for reusable components, or of cheaper materials, or both... or the engine can be built "as-is" for the most part, and run the components at higher pressures and thrust levels, which would quickly 'burn out' the parts and make them non-reusable, unlike the shuttle engines. Since they're being expended anyway (dumped into the Indian or South Pacific Oceans with the SLS core, if it ever actually flies) what does it matter if the engines are "burned out" when they complete their firing-- they'll only be used once and they only need to have an operational lifetime to safely complete about a 10 minute burn from the pad to almost-orbital velocity.

The problem is, SLS is going to have an EXTREMELY low flight rate, even if it becomes an operational system and the 'cornerstone of NASA's manned exploration programs for the next several decades' as planned... SLS will ONLY be flying ONCE about every 2-3 years, according to even NASA's most optimistic (current) flight plans. Remember what Bob was saying about the shuttle expenses accruing whether or not the thing flew?? This will be DOUBLY SO with SLS. It's these sort of "overhead costs" or "programmatic costs" that are going to kill SLS, even more so than shuttle. Granted, shuttle had a large "standing army" of support and technical personnel required to operate, recover, and refurbish the vehicle, as well as process, stack, integrate payloads, and launch it. SLS is supposedly going to make do with a much smaller workforce, in that no recovery and refurbishment of the vehicle is necessary, but you'll still have an army of support, program, management, processing, stacking, integration, testing, and launch personnel, so the savings aren't going to be THAT huge. The fact that you're still going to have SRB's, the launch vehicle core, and the spacecraft/payload means you're STILL going to have several "programs" within the SLS program itself... just as shuttle had the orbiter program, the SRB program, and the ET program, SSME program, etc. all within the STS program itself, plus payloads (which were usually farmed out to other programs, like ISS, but there was a LOT of "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" between the shuttle program and the ISS program, as costs were shuffled between the two depending on which was the most woefully short of cash or facing setbacks, delays, and additional costs during various phases of those programs). In addition, for the 130 tonne version of SLS, an all-new LH2 large ascent upper stage (second stage), most likely powered by 3-4 J-2X engines, and an all-new Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (CPS) for in-space propulsion of the exploration payloads (of which there are currently NONE other than Orion at the present time) which will be powered by a higher specific impulse, lower thrust and dry weight engine (probably an RL-10 successor-- J-2X was optimized for ascent propulsion for Ares I before it was scrapped, so while its thrust is considerably higher than the old J-2 and J-2S upon which it was based, the J-2X has a lower specific impulse to gain that thrust, and heavier dry weight than its predecessors... both things which KILL its performance for the role of in-space propulsion... the higher thrust isn't necessary for in-space propulsion, and the lower fuel efficiency and higher engine dry weight detract from payload capability pound for pound in terms of extra weight of propellants, structures, and equipment). SO, SLS will have not only an SRB program and core LV program, but the SSME/RS-25 program, like shuttle did, but in addition will have a second-stage program (if its ever approved and developed), a J-2X engine program (for the second stage propulsion system), a CPS program, and an engine program for CPS as well, in addition to the Orion program and whatever mission-specific payloads/modules that have to be funded, designed, developed, tested, manufactured, and flown. When you figure up these costs, along with the infrastructure costs to maintain the capabilities and personnel at the various facilities manufacturing parts for the SLS, supporting its manufacture, testing, transport, integration, and launch across the country, and then dividing that by the one launch every 2-3 years of the SLS program, that means that every SLS launch will bear the costs of MULTIPLE YEARS of infrastructure supporting costs per flight... where shuttle flew (for most of its history, barring the stand-downs after the Challenger and Columbia disasters) several times per year, and bore only a fraction of those yearly costs (divided by the number of flights per year). This alone is going to make SLS THE SINGLE MOST EXPENSIVE LAUNCH SYSTEM EVER CONCEIVED. That's why I don't expect SLS to survive long term...

If SpaceX can successfully demonstrate even a reusable first stage, and lower their costs even more than their already small costs compared to the domestic competition, then NASA's uber-expensive behemoth is going to look like a too-expensive dinosaur in short order. The simple fact is, that SLS really isn't even needed... Even NASA themselves are saying that a Mars mission (supposedly for which the SLS is being developed) will require at least six launches of SLS to build up the spacecraft stack in low Earth orbit before it can be launched to Mars. There's no real reason to think that it COULDN'T be done by 8-12 Falcon, Delta IV, Atlas V, and whatever else launches just as easily and without requiring a nearly $40 billion dollar well-over-a-decade effort to get even the first 70 tonne version of SLS to the pad, to say NOTHING of the additional development effort required (and funding of course) to build the upper stages required for the 130 tonne version. I didn't even mention the 53 tonne capability currently being developed in Falcon Heavy (since it hasn't flown yet). Assuming it is successful and flies as advertised, SLS will DEFINITELY be an over-expensive dinosaur.

Then there's the fact that the existing shuttle SRB casings are a FINITE supply. There's enough for about a half-dozen to a dozen test and early operational launches (if that many even ever occur). Since the semi-successful Ares I-X test flight a few years ago (which succeeded mostly in proving that they couldn't recover the SRB-casing first stage in reusable condition, due to partial parachute failures and the massive, extra-long five-segment casing (with a dummy weight simulator fifth segment) was bent and flattened too much to be reused. Once Ares I was canceled, and considering the heavy weight and difficulties with the recovery system, it was decided for SLS that the five-segment Ares I first stage SRB casings would NOT be recovered, but flown without the heavy parachutes and simply expended after each flight-- allowed to tumble back into the ocean, impact, and sink to the bottom of the Atlantic. NASA has even sold off their recovery ships, and retooled one for a camera platform. Once those existing steel shuttle SRB casings are flown and destroyed, that's it... there won't be any more. The tooling to manufacture them was destroyed decades ago. This will REQUIRE that the SLS program will have to find funding for an Advanced Booster Program to replace the expended shuttle casings, or be cancelled, since it cannot fly without boosters, even in the 70 tonne Version 1. This will most likely come down to an all-new solid rocket booster, probably the "Black Knight" expendable carbon-filament wound ASRB from ATK, or an all-new F-1B powered "Pyrios" ALRB from Dynetics/Rocketdyne. It's also possible that some other large high-thrust first stage engine could be a contender at that point-- say the liquid methane-powered RD-180 replacement that Blue Origin is developing for the Air Force for a new/modified version of Atlas V... The point is, this alone will be a BILLION DOLLAR PLUS development project taking about a decade to complete... in addition to all the other programs that SLS will require in order to perform the mission it's being "designed for".

SO, yes, if ANY of this makes sense at all, reusing the existing SSME's for SLS first stage propulsion until they're all expended makes the most sense of anything that's going on...

Later! OL JR

 

[Mushtang]

SO, yes, if ANY of this makes sense at all, reusing the existing SSME's for SLS first stage propulsion until they're all expended makes the most sense of anything that's going on...

If I was in charge I'd spend money developing the F-1B and use that on the SLS.

 

[luke strawwalker]

If I was in charge I'd spend money developing the F-1B and use that on the SLS.

If *I* were in charge, I'd have done what the RAC-2 study suggested and dump SLS altogether. RAC-2 showed that the least recurring cost/lowest sustainment cost rocket would be a large monolithic kerosene powered first stage using a cluster of large liquid kerosene engines, topped by a large second stage powered by liquid hydrogen engines, topped by an in-space propulsion stage powered by a single liquid hydrogen engine. Sound familiar?? IOW, a modern day clone of Saturn V!

The only thing really lacking is the F-1B, and Dynetics (bought by Rocketdyne IIRC) is working on it on their own nickel. Five of those under a 10 meter core (or even the 8.4 meter SLS/Shuttle ET size core to use existing tooling) would be doable, and since J-2X already exists, it wouldn't be too much additional work to build a second stage structure for it (tankage and thrust structure). Cluster four or five of those and you'd have something... a very capable LEO rocket, that could be used with the iCPS stage (Delta IV upper stage, basically) until the full CPS was ready. Ditch the stupid SRB's and bulky LH2 first stage/core stage propulsion and use kerosene for the first stage and LH2 for upper stages where it belongs.

Either that, or build a new 6.6 meter core stage powered by a pair of F-1B's. Pair it with a large J-2X powered upper stage into a "regular" and "heavy" configuration like Delta IV... the "regular" version would be an excellent crew launch vehicle and capable of launching "medium" payloads using the single first stage and the upper stage, make it configurable to use a single upper stage engine or pair of upper stage engines (depending on the payload) and you have a launch vehicle with excellent safety numbers (single staging event, two engines on the first stage, single engine on the upper stage) while not sacrificing payload capability for unmanned launches. For heavy payloads, strap three of the cores together for SIX F-1B's firing at liftoff, lofting the large version (four or five engine) upper stage with the (i)CPS atop it with whatever payload is required. More complicated than the "Saturn V Clone" BUT a lot more flexibility there as well, and higher apparent flight rates for the heavy versions by using more cores, while keeping the vehicle costs reasonable when a Saturn V class booster isn't needed (and safer for manned flights).

There are a LOT smarter and more efficient ways to go than SLS... in fact, it's about the worst thing possible on those two counts...

Later! OL JR

 

[georgegassaway]

Some info I had not posted before, Musk said the hydraulic fluid ran out a whole minute before the landing (about 45-50 seconds or so before the engine ignited for the landing). So, no aerodynamic steering for a minute, and perhaps the grid fins stuck in a non-neutral position.

And now for some NEW news just in......

Photos finally released. Attached are two, then a posting on NSF that has links to these and others.

Yeah…. as I indicated before, I didn't buy that darkness and fog were the reasons why there was no video. Lying like that makes SpaceX look bad. How can they be believed about other more important things in the future when they screw around with the truth like that? These look pretty darned clear and well lit to me….

Really wish it had worked. Probably will do it next time.

It's late and I was about to call it a night, so I'm just posting this for now.

- George Gassaway

From the first post of this page:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36326.1460

"Direct links to full-size images in order they were tweeted:

"Before impact, fins lose power and go hardover. Engines fights to restore, but … "
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7c7SPiCYAAmPZo.jpg:orig

"Rocket hits hard at ~45 deg angle, smashing legs and engine section "
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7c73oaCQAA7V-j.jpg:orig

"Residual fuel and oxygen combine"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7c9o7CCMAA7vyP.jpg:orig

"Full RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) event. Ship is fine minor repairs. Exciting day!"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7c-iRaCYAAPxQ9.jpgrig"

 

[jmattingly13]

Somebody's rocket has got an attitude problem...

Instead of complaining about SpaceX not really wanting to distribute this media (why would the want to and why should they), could we focus on how cool it is to successfully navigate a giant wet noodle full of propellant from stage separation through high-speed conditions to reach a small barge bobbing out in the middle of the ocean?

 

[jmattingly13]

Pad abort at the Cape was supposed to be in November (2014) and inflight abort was supposed to be at Vandy in January (2015). Of course, CRS-5 was originally slated for December, so who knows. For some reason, I thought in-flight abort was supposed to happen before Jason (also at Vandy), but that's slated for March 31, which makes me think that even though Jason will inevitably get pushed back, in-flight abort will happen after that. Then add on the typical SpaceX delays and I wouldn't be surprised to not see Dragon v2 until the second half of 2015.

@ThirstyBarbarian - some updates on pad abort for Dragon v2: SpaceX is shooting for 10 Feb-10 May at the Cape and some unspecified time after that for in-flight abort at Vandenberg.

https://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/01/15/spacex-plans-pad-abort-test-cape/

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

@ThirstyBarbarian - some updates on pad abort for Dragon v2: SpaceX is shooting for 10 Feb-10 May at the Cape and some unspecified time after that for in-flight abort at Vandenberg.

https://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/01/15/spacex-plans-pad-abort-test-cape/

Thanks for this. It's good to see some hints of progress. I wonder if the test at Vandenberg is something the public would be able to see. I live in CA but have never watched a launch from Vandenberg. I don't think it's as easy as watching launches at the Cape.

 

[boomtube-mk2]

They ran out of hydraulic fluid?

Is this a case of save a penny and lose it all?

Or was it a case of attempting to save an ounce and lose it all?

When I drive cross country I don’t pull into a filling station and put in a partial tank of gas because my “Calculations” tell me that 6.237 gallons will be juuuuuuuuust enough to get me where I want to go.

 

[Zebedee]

Video:

https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK

Boomtube - more like they were trying something almost completely new and just underestimated. I would guess they didn't want to over estimate since the primary mission goal was to get stuff to orbit and adding extra weight for this recovery test could negatively impact that goal.

 

[Ravenex]

I understand every pound of weight is a concern... but I would have put in a good margin. ran a couple of real flights, took the maximum used and added a percentage.

 

[Zebedee]

I understand every pound of weight is a concern... but I would have put in a good margin. ran a couple of real flights, took the maximum used and added a percentage.

Good margin on what though?

The only testing they've been able to do so far involved a 1km hop and a bit of maneuvering - this was orders of magnitude more complex and the worst case scenario is that it drops into the ocean or crashes like this.

 

[jmattingly13]

Thanks for this. It's good to see some hints of progress. I wonder if the test at Vandenberg is something the public would be able to see. I live in CA but have never watched a launch from Vandenberg. I don't think it's as easy as watching launches at the Cape.

I can answer this one. There's no way you're getting on base for the launch (all of base gets evacuate) and the mountains do a pretty good job of blocking out anything in the Lompoc Valley region. You can kind of see SLO and Pismo from SLC-4, but not really well, so if you watched from there, you would see the light, but not a whole lot of resolution. If you want to be practically right under the flight path, Jalama Beach would be pretty good, but I don't know if the state evacuates that. I think the Vandenberg launch schedule has some suggested viewing locations. Otherwise, the weather there is usually pretty abysmal. Especially in the summer. "May Gray, June Gloom, No-Sky July, and Fogust," so if in-flight abort is over the summer, the weather may not want to cooperate. Also, since they're just doing in-flight abort, I don't know if they'll launch south like most flights out of Vandy or west like the DoD missile tests conducted there.

 

[jmattingly13]

Video:

https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK

Boomtube - more like they were trying something almost completely new and just underestimated. I would guess they didn't want to over estimate since the primary mission goal was to get stuff to orbit and adding extra weight for this recovery test could negatively impact that goal.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I can answer this one. There's no way you're getting on base for the launch (all of base gets evacuate) and the mountains do a pretty good job of blocking out anything in the Lompoc Valley region. You can kind of see SLO and Pismo from SLC-4, but not really well, so if you watched from there, you would see the light, but not a whole lot of resolution. If you want to be practically right under the flight path, Jalama Beach would be pretty good, but I don't know if the state evacuates that. I think the Vandenberg launch schedule has some suggested viewing locations. Otherwise, the weather there is usually pretty abysmal. Especially in the summer. "May Gray, June Gloom, No-Sky July, and Fogust," so if in-flight abort is over the summer, the weather may not want to cooperate. Also, since they're just doing in-flight abort, I don't know if they'll launch south like most flights out of Vandy or west like the DoD missile tests conducted there.

That's kind of what I figured. Thanks.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

The Vine video is awesome!

Here's a nice little article featuring the video and talking about the tweets and images released by SpaceX.

https://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/01/16/spacex_booster_crash_video_and_pictures.html

I agree with the author. This was not a failure --- it was a near success! And I also agree that Musk's tweets and other communications on these events are funny, tongue-in-cheek, and lighthearted. It's serious business, obviously. But he finds some humor in the situation.

I also think it's very cool that SpaceX releases this kind of footage at all. I'm not concerned it takes a few days. A lot of companies would never let you see something like this for fear of having it characterized as a "failure," which is exactly what we've seen happen. It takes some confidence to let this stuff out. And for space junkies, it is AWESOME!

Like the article says, turn up the volume. HOLY WOW!

 

[boatgeek]

I understand every pound of weight is a concern... but I would have put in a good margin. ran a couple of real flights, took the maximum used and added a percentage.

I agree with you 100%. It just happens that this was the first real flight, the one where you find out what you didn't know.

 

[luke strawwalker]

I agree with you 100%. It just happens that this was the first real flight, the one where you find out what you didn't know.

Yep, it's the "unknown unknowns" that get you.

Terrific first attempt!

OL JR