Register here

Author Topic: SpaceX (general discussion)  (Read 228817 times)

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
SpaceX (general discussion)
« on: September 24, 2011, 04:10:28 pm »
Thanks to Clark Lindsey for posting a link to this FAA document: 

Draft Environmental Assessment for Issuing an Experimental Permit to SpaceX for Operation of the Grasshopper Vehicle at the McGregor Test Site, Texas - September 2011

and for pulling out the following extracts:

Quote from: http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=32669#c
2.1.1 Grasshopper RLV
2.1.1.1 Description

The Grasshopper RLV consists of a Falcon 9 Stage 1 tank, a Merlin-1D engine, four steel landing legs, and a steel support structure. Carbon overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs), which are filled with either nitrogen or helium, are attached to the support structure. The Merlin- 1D engine has a maximum thrust of 122,000 pounds. The overall height of the Grasshopper RLV is 106 feet, and the tank height is 85 feet.

The propellants used in the Grasshopper RLV include a highly refined kerosene fuel, called RP- 1, and liquid oxygen (LOX) as the oxidizer. The Grasshopper RLV has a maximum operational propellant load of approximately 6,900 gallons; however, the propellant loads for any one test would often be lower than the maximum propellant load. Even when the maximum propellant load is used, the majority of the propellant would remain unburned and would serve as ballast to keep the thrust-to-weight ratio low.

p.13:

SpaceX anticipates that the Grasshopper RLV program would require up to 3 years to complete. Therefore, the Proposed Action considers one new permit and two potential permit renewals

p.15:

The FAA/AST has assumed that SpaceX would conduct up to 70 annual suborbital launches of the Grasshopper RLV under an experimental permit at the McGregor test site. This estimation is a conservative number and considers potential multiple launches per day and potential launch failures.

To support the Grasshopper RLV operations, SpaceX proposes to construct a launch pad and additional support infrastructure at the McGregor test site

p.16:

2.1.1.3 Flight Profile (Takeoff, Flight, and Landing)
The Grasshopper test program expected to be conducted under an experimental permit would consist of three phases of test launches, which would be performed in the sequence detailed below. SpaceX would repeat tests under each phase as necessary until SpaceX is ready to proceed to the next phase. Multiple test launches could occur each day during daytime hours only, and would be consistent with SpaceX’s lease with the City of McGregor. For example, SpaceX is prohibited from conducting engine tests between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. per SpaceX’s lease with the City of McGregor.

Launch Phases 1 and 2: Below-controlled-airspace VTVL
The goal of Phase 1 is to verify the Grasshopper RLV’s overall ability to perform a VTVL mission. During a Phase 1 test, the Grasshopper RLV would be launched and ascend to 240 feet AGL and then throttle down in order to descend, landing back on the pad approximately 45 seconds after liftoff. The Grasshopper RLV would stay below Class E Airspace (700 feet AGL). In Phase 2, there would be slightly less propellant loaded, a different thrust profile, and the maximum altitude would be increased to 670 feet, still below Class E Airspace. The mission duration during Phase 2 is again approximately 45 seconds.

Launch Phase 3: Controlled-airspace VTVL (maximum altitude)
The goal of Phase 3 is to verify the Grasshopper RLV’s ability to perform a VTVL mission at higher altitudes and higher ascent speeds and descent speeds. To achieve this, the maximum mission altitude would be increased from 670 feet incrementally up to 11,500 feet. The altitude test sequence likely would be 1,200 feet; 2,500 feet; 5,000 feet; 7,500 feet; and 11,500 feet. The maximum test duration would be approximately 160 seconds. The Grasshopper RLV would land back on the launch pad.

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2011, 01:15:35 am »
nice find, FutureSpaceTourist

but i wounder for Wat they need the Grasshopper RLV ?
they abandon the First stage recuperation on Falcon 1 and 9 series

so is this test for rocket decent landing, for a Lunar or Mars lander stage ?
or is SpaceX testing for SSTO as replacement for Falcon 1 series ?

 
I love Strange Technology

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2011, 11:13:00 am »
SpaceX has now released more details of their RLV plans as part of Elon Musk's talk today at the National Press Club: http://www.spacex.com/npc-luncheon-elon-musk.php

The following animation shows a fully-reusable version of a Falcon 9. The first stage appears to use its engines to slow its descent (no obvious heat shield) before making a powered vertical landing. The second stage orients itself so that it re-enters top first with a heat shield before again making a powered vertical landing.



I've seen a quote attributed to Elon Musk saying that on paper they believe the RLV numbers close and that Grasshopper is part of establishing whether or not that's true in practice. He also said it's an approach he's had in mind for some time (I assume years).
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 11:17:43 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2133
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2011, 11:36:16 am »
The video is just amazing - 2001 made real ! The second stage reentry, heatshield first, reminds me of the Kistler K-1.
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2011, 12:15:53 pm »
  He also said it's an approach he's had in mind for some time (I assume years).

It's an old, old scheme. Chrysler proposed a similar system for Mercury-Redstone, to make a cheap astronaut trainer. And there's the Douglas SASSTO and reusable S-IVB concepts.

I love it!
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2011, 02:08:04 pm »
That looks very sci-fi.  ???

I can't imagine it is effective payload wise, as it has to carry plenty of fuel to make a controlled decent the way it does. Has anything like this been done in real life?
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2011, 09:39:07 pm »
In terms of payload I wonder whether new versions of the Merlin engine, which would enable increased payload, are key to carrying the extra fuel, landing gear etc ? The Merlin 1D can also be throttled.

When Elon says the numbers close (in theory) I guess there must be an acceptable customer payload left!

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2012, 07:03:28 am »
Elon Musk on SpaceX’s Reusable Rocket Plans.
SpaceX is hard at work trying to design rocket parts that can fly themselves back to the launchpad for reuse. We talked to founder Elon Musk about how far the company’s designs have come.
February 7, 2012 6:00 PM
By Rand Simberg
Quote
The key, at least for the first stage, is the difference in speed. "It really comes down to what the staging Mach number would be," Musk says, referencing the speed the rocket would be traveling at separation. "For an expendable Falcon 9 rocket, that is around Mach 10. For a reusable Falcon 9, it is around Mach 6, depending on the mission." For the reusable version, the rocket must be traveling at a slower speed at separation because the burn must end early, preserving enough propellant to let the rocket fly back and land vertically. This also makes recovery easier because entry velocities are slower.
However, the slower speed also means that the upper stage of the Falcon rocket must supply more of the velocity needed to get to orbit, and that significantly reduces how much payload the rocket can lift into orbit. "The payload penalty for full and fast reusability versus an expendable version is roughly 40 percent," Musk says. "[But] propellant cost is less than 0.4 percent of the total flight cost. Even taking into account the payload reduction for reusability, the improvement is therefore theoretically over a hundred times."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023

 For the current version of the Falcon 9 with a 10,000 kg capability to LEO was made reusabe, this would mean its payload is reduced to 6,000 kg. According to SpaceX though the price per kilo would reduce because it would be reused.
 SpaceX though is moving to a larger version the Falcon 9 v1.1. On its website SpaceX now gives the specifications for the new Falcon 9 version:

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

 The new version will have a payload capability of 13,150 kg to LEO. Oddly though, it still gives on that page the price for the current F9, $54 million. I don't know if they mean to keep the price the same for the larger version or not.
 The reusability would come into play when the new version is in use; so assuming a 40% payload reduction, the payload to LEO for the reusable F9 v1.1 would be 7,890 kg.
 The key question is of reusability of the engines. Can SpaceX make them reusable at low cost? While watching the retrospectives on Neil Armstrong on NASA TV, they show images of him as a X-15 pilot. This reminded me we actually had reusable rocket engines from the very earliest days of manned rocket-powered flight. The XLR-99 engine used on the X-15 was reusable for 20 to 40 times before overhaul, after which it could be reused again:

XLR-99.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/xlr99.htm

 The 3 copies of the X-15 aircraft flew for a total of 199 flights. Can you imagine how expensive that program would have been if an entire new X-15 aircraft had to be used for each flight?

  Bob Clark

 

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2012, 11:22:19 pm »
Some nice photos of grasshopper at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/7971310054/in/set-5956/. It's big!

Looks like they're getting ready to fly it soon?

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1307
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2012, 07:11:16 am »
Beautiful stuff, but perhaps someone can educate me.  Why the desire for powered vertical landing for all stages?  Wouldn't some kind of parachute make more sense in terms of weight, perhaps small drogues for initial deceleration and descent and a paraglider for controlled landing at a particular point?  While emininetly cool and obviously a factor in simplifying operations, I just don't see the essential advantage of powered descent over a parachute/steerable paraglider typle operation.  It also seems very creepy for manned operation--presumably there would be some sort of backup parachute?
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2012, 07:23:29 am »
The objective is a soft landing with minimal work to be done to reuse the stage. If you use a parachute, you still need a rocket engine to provide a soft landing on land. You could splash it into the ocean, but then you'd have seawater everywhere (i.e. you'll need to disassemble and clean everything) and the splashdown might damage the engines.

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1307
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2012, 01:21:41 am »
Thanks for the reply, but I am still not sure I buy it.  Retractable wheels or skids could allow soft landing on a runway (in a horizontal attitude, of course).  You could even imagine a football-field-size inflatable mattress (think stuntmen or the experiments with rubber decks for aircraft carriers) or a large net (think small UAV recovery) as alternatives.  I just don't see how the "balancing on a bowling ball" technical challenge and the need to carry so much extra fuel are really justified.
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline greedo

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2012, 11:18:21 am »
@Mole


Think of it in terms of working with the engineering and technology required for landing on Mars, and it fits with Musk's long term goals.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2012, 11:56:02 am »
A horizontal landing would mean strengthening the fuselage which eats into the payload margin.

I'm sure they've done the calculations to compare the weight impact of parachutes vs. powered landing.

Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2012, 07:05:29 am »
Beautiful stuff, but perhaps someone can educate me.  Why the desire for powered vertical landing for all stages?  Wouldn't some kind of parachute make more sense in terms of weight, perhaps small drogues for initial deceleration and descent and a paraglider for controlled landing at a particular point?  While emininetly cool and obviously a factor in simplifying operations, I just don't see the essential advantage of powered descent over a parachute/steerable paraglider typle operation.  It also seems very creepy for manned operation--presumably there would be some sort of backup parachute?
Work has shown that the actual mass difference between parachutes and powered landing are very similar. Keeping in mind the added mass for steerable para-chute/glider, control system and added vehicle mass for strengthing to accomodate the new loads. (On average a steerable para-chute/glider system masses around 1.5 to 2.0 times that of a "standard" canopy)
 
Further, a powerd landing allows a "zero-zero" touchdown where doing so with a parachute is more difficult, especially in any type of surface winds.
 
We also need to keep in mind that Space-X is currently using "parachutes" for recovery but hasn't gotten a stage to reenter intact :)
 
The Super-Draco abort/landing system will continue to fly a "back-up" parachute capable of landing the Dragon capsule itself until Space-X feels confident enough in the system to pull it.
 
Thanks for the reply, but I am still not sure I buy it.
You didn't, Musk did  ;)
 
Seriously, they have done the "math" here and feel that a powered landing makes better operational and economic sense than and unpowered landing.
 
Quote
Retractable wheels or skids could allow soft landing on a runway (in a horizontal attitude, of course).  You could even imagine a football-field-size inflatable mattress (think stuntmen or the experiments with rubber decks for aircraft carriers) or a large net (think small UAV recovery) as alternatives.  I just don't see how the "balancing on a bowling ball" technical challenge and the need to carry so much extra fuel are really justified.
Let me expand a bit on what I said earlier vis-a-vis the alternatives.
 
First of all you need to take into consideration that they are planning on using "boost-back" in the flight plan. This means the (one or multiples) rockets are going to be used to slow the first stage down and boost it back towards the launch site. This is going to reduce the control and reentry issues for the booster stage significantly and since you're already planning on multiple restarts and enhanced throttleability it makes more sense to trade in parachutes for propellant mass for a controlled landing.
 
Secondly a powered landing approach and landing zones is much smaller as the lander is considered much more "under-control" than a parachute/para-wing run in to landing. Recall that with a Falcon-9-Heavy at least two of the boosters will be landing within seconds of each other, while this is done (horizontally) in rapid sequence at any airport this also assumes a tightly controlled sequence of events (pilot/ground-control) AND a self-powered (jet-engines) vehicle capable of "clearing" the runway for the next flight all by itself. Imagine having to have a ground-crew trying to hook up to and tow a recently landed booster stage with a second one already on final approach :)
 
And that "assumes" a horizontal landing which as noted would require much more modification and mass for "dual" axis (vertical/horizontal) operations! Also keep in mind that the stage WANTS to be "vertical" because of the mass of the engines at one end. This would tend to especially impact (no pun intended) horizontal parachute/para-wing landing as the CG/CB is so far aft on the booster and where the attachement points and line-control components would have to be located.
 
The idea(s) of a huge airbag and soft surfaced landing pad would be unworkable from an operational stand point as well. These still impose large "side/horizontal" landing loads on the vehicle even if they work perfectly and the booster guidance system works nominally. (I'll say the largest "UAV" I've seen use an airbag was a cruise missile and it required a mid-air snatch by a helicopter to achieve the needed accuracy to land exactly on the bag. A couple of feet to either side and it would roll as the bag deflated and be wrecked. Now imagine trying to do this with parachutes and a 90' tall booster rocket :) )
 
So the booster would have to STILL be heavily modifed to resist the loads of any of the suggested methods and even then... Well, take a cardboard tube, wrap it in aluminum foil, (to represent the rockets "skin" surface) then attach a weight to one end and drop it on a pillow or foam pad from a couple inches up a half-dozen times. Every wrinkle and dent in the foil is a possible point of damage in the tankage of the booster, every time it lands on or partially on the "weight" the full mass of the empty booster just "touched-down" on a single engine bell and/or it's control system. You begin to see the maintenance nightmare this would be.
 
Vertical powered touch down allows precise control descent and landing in the same orientation and along the same stress lines as the original vertical take off. Landing legs absorb any final energy and prevent the booster from falling over or damaging the vulnerable tanks and engines. Finally the whole "balancing-on-a-bowlingball" act has been shown to be a pretty much a whole lot easier and controlable that many people assumed it was. From the Lunar Module, thru the DC-X/Xa to the number of small company VTVL experiments has pretty conclusivly shown that its simply NOT the "issue" many people thought it was. The advantages of vertical landing toward reaching simple "gas-and-go" operations are numerous enough to outweigh (sorry again no pun intended) the payload hit(s) of propllant equipment mass to do it.
 
IMHO if you seriously do the "trades" on it and run some basic BOTE calculations I think it really tends to show the truth that Spacecraft are NOT Airplanes and Airplanes are NOT Spacecraft...
 
Randy

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1307
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2012, 12:23:48 pm »
All very helpful, Randy, thanks.
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2012, 11:26:41 pm »
Grasshopper has done a very brief initial hop. Blink and you'll miss it!


RGClark

  • Guest
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2012, 12:12:10 am »
 The new Falcon 9 v1.1 will have its engines arranged in an octagonal arrangement:

Untested Rocket Boosts SpaceX Revenue Nearly $1 Billion.
By Amy Svitak
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
September 17, 2012
Quote
...Another change, she says, involves the rocket's nine Merlin 1D engines, which will be positioned in an octagonal configuration, rather than the “tic-tac-toe” placement on the current Falcon 9.
“You actually want the engines around the perimeter at the tank, otherwise you are carrying that load from those engines that are not on the skin,” she says. “You've got to carry them out to the skin, because that is the primary load path for the launch vehicle."
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_17_2012_p40-495349.xml&p=2

 See this thread on NasaSpaceflight for how this engine arrangement might look:

SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28882.msg956757#msg956757

 This could have another advantage in that the octagonal arrangement of the engines makes possible the use of an aerospike in the center, if the center engine is removed.
 This would give the first stage engines Merlin Vacuum type performance, raising the Isp from the ca. 311 s of the Merlin 1D to the ca. 340 s of the Merlin Vacuum.
 This would result in a marked improvement in payload.


  Bob Clark

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2012, 11:19:53 am »

 This could have another advantage in that the octagonal arrangement of the engines makes possible the use of an aerospike in the center, if the center engine is removed.
 This would give the first stage engines Merlin Vacuum type performance, raising the Isp from the ca. 311 s of the Merlin 1D to the ca. 340 s of the Merlin Vacuum.
 This would result in a marked improvement in payload.

Wrong for multiple. Not for a first stage booster and also in this case.  Another case of an armchair rocket scientist who doesn't know what what he is talking.

A.  The loss of thrust from the missing engine would reduce performance by much more than the gain
B.  The added mass of the aerospike would offset performance
C.  There is no basis/data/proof for the claim that the final ISP would be 340.
D.  The aerospike would make the vehilce incompatable with the existing launch pad and associated infrastructure.

There is no advantage to the suggested change

RGClark

  • Guest
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2012, 12:23:46 am »

 This could have another advantage in that the octagonal arrangement of the engines makes possible the use of an aerospike in the center, if the center engine is removed.
 This would give the first stage engines Merlin Vacuum type performance, raising the Isp from the ca. 311 s of the Merlin 1D to the ca. 340 s of the Merlin Vacuum.
 This would result in a marked improvement in payload.

Wrong for multiple. Not for a first stage booster and also in this case.  Another case of an armchair rocket scientist who doesn't know what what he is talking.

A.  The loss of thrust from the missing engine would reduce performance by much more than the gain
B.  The added mass of the aerospike would offset performance
C.  There is no basis/data/proof for the claim that the final ISP would be 340.
D.  The aerospike would make the vehilce incompatable with the existing launch pad and associated infrastructure.

There is no advantage to the suggested change

 For A.) that would depend on the degree that the aerospike increases the Isp. You would also reduce dry mass on the reduced engine mass. For an aerospike engine formed from multiple chambers arrayed around a central spike, you also don't use full nozzles. The greatly shortened nozzles will also reduce dry mass.
 Prior studies on aerospikes showed close to optimal performance for a given engine chamber pressure by using the aerospike:

THRESHOLD.
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne's engineering journal of power technology.
Nozzle Design.
by R.A. O'Leary and J. E. Beck, Spring 1992

http://www.pwrengineering.com/articles/nozzledesign.htm


  Bob Clark

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2012, 06:42:12 am »

 This could have another advantage in that the octagonal arrangement of the engines makes possible the use of an aerospike in the center, if the center engine is removed.
 This would give the first stage engines Merlin Vacuum type performance, raising the Isp from the ca. 311 s of the Merlin 1D to the ca. 340 s of the Merlin Vacuum.
 This would result in a marked improvement in payload.

Wrong for multiple. Not for a first stage booster and also in this case.  Another case of an armchair rocket scientist who doesn't know what what he is talking.

A.  The loss of thrust from the missing engine would reduce performance by much more than the gain
B.  The added mass of the aerospike would offset performance
C.  There is no basis/data/proof for the claim that the final ISP would be 340.
D.  The aerospike would make the vehilce incompatable with the existing launch pad and associated infrastructure.

There is no advantage to the suggested change

 For A.) that would depend on the degree that the aerospike increases the Isp. You would also reduce dry mass on the reduced engine mass. For an aerospike engine formed from multiple chambers arrayed around a central spike, you also don't use full nozzles. The greatly shortened nozzles will also reduce dry mass.
 Prior studies on aerospikes showed close to optimal performance for a given engine chamber pressure by using the aerospike:

  Bob Clark

Wrong again.  More regurgating internet engineering nonsense. 
Your premise was just to remove the center engine and use the remaining 8 in an aerospike.
It is ludrious to think just because they made a octocal engine arrangement it is more conducive to aerospike


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2013, 02:48:58 pm »
On Thursday, 07/03/2013, SpaceX did their latest Grasshopper test and flew to 80m:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=2Ivr6JF1K-8#!

Yesterday, in a keynote interview at the South by Southwest (SXSW) conference in Austin, Texas, Elon Musk said:

Quote from: http://www.newspacejournal.com/2013/03/09/more-on-grasshoppers-johnny-cash-hover-slam-test/
What you saw there was essentially testing the terminal guidance and landing capability of the rocket. With each successive test, we want to go higher and further and improve the technology to the point where we’re doing transitions all the way through hypersonic and back, hopefully later this year.

Hypersonic flight that lands ... that'll be quite a video!

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #22 on: April 21, 2014, 12:16:30 pm »
Falcon 9 1st stage hovers over the Atlantic ocean after boosting the Dragon capsule to the ISS on Sunday.  Vehicle is hovering around 9 meters above the water.  There is a video at the Spacex Youtube website showing the Falcon 9R (re-useable) undergoing first powered hover flight.  Boeing and Lockheed are probably quoting Inigo Montoya about now:  "I wonder if he's using the same wind we are using?"
 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2014, 01:26:51 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2014, 04:09:39 pm »
Falcon 9 1st stage hovers over the Atlantic ocean after boosting the Dragon capsule to the ISS on Sunday.  Vehicle is hovering around 9 meters above the water.

As sferrin pointed out, that's not even close to an accurate description of that photo (wrong flight, wrong side of the continent, and very wrong altitude... it's not hovering above water, but Way Up There restarting an engine). And so, inquiring minds want to know: where did *your* description come from? Seems odd that it would be so wrong and yet so specific.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2014, 02:52:14 am »

My bad.  I did an image search for a water landing of the Falcon 9 and this picture showed up.  I had never seen it before and assumed it was for Sunday.  The caption mentioned the specifics on hovering.


Spacex doesn’t release its’ photos right away (and they don’t have to since this is privately funded).  This is what comes of not wanting to wait for the official release.  Elon Musk had tweeted that the booster had indeed made a successful re-entry and this picture dovetailed with that.  Lesson learned.  Official release or multiple sources.


Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2014, 06:02:15 am »
Boeing and Lockheed are probably quoting Inigo Montoya about now:  "I wonder if he's using the same wind we are using?"

Why?  There hasn't been any real break through yet.  Boeing and Lockheed are very secure.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2014, 06:40:20 am »
Boeing and Lockheed are probably quoting Inigo Montoya about now:  "I wonder if he's using the same wind we are using?"

Why?  There hasn't been any real break through yet.  Boeing and Lockheed are very secure.

Let them rest on their laurals.  More market for SpaceX when (not if) they get the machine humming.
 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline VH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2014, 03:14:06 pm »
Once SpaceX gets the details worked out for their first stage recovery process and starts to do it on land no one will be able to touch them on cost. I am looking forward to SpaceX's next evolution.


Private space is showing it is the way to go. And it is made in America to boot.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #29 on: April 22, 2014, 06:30:44 pm »
Once SpaceX gets the details worked out for their first stage recovery process and starts to do it on land no one will be able to touch them on cost. I am looking forward to SpaceX's next evolution.

I could see lobbyist-fed politicians outlawing land recoveries, "for the children". 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #30 on: April 22, 2014, 06:51:21 pm »
1.  Once SpaceX gets the details worked out for their first stage recovery process and starts to do it on land no one will be able to touch them on cost. I am looking forward to SpaceX's next evolution.


2. Private space is showing it is the way to go.

3.  And it is made in America to boot.

1.  Not a given, and highly unlikely

2.  SpaceX is no different than ULA.  More than 1/2 of the development cost of the Dragon and Falcon 9 was funded by NASA.  Conversely, Boeing and Lockheed internally funded higher percentages of the Delta IV and Atlas V development.

3.  So is Delta IV



Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #31 on: April 22, 2014, 06:52:47 pm »

Let them rest on their laurals.  More market for SpaceX when (not if) they get the machine humming.

Who said they are resting

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2014, 07:10:02 pm »

Let them rest on their laurals.  More market for SpaceX when (not if) they get the machine humming.

Who said they are resting

Perhaps you could direct me to evidence that they're not?  (Hardware, not powerpoints.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline mkellytx

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2014, 08:24:25 pm »

Let them rest on their laurals.  More market for SpaceX when (not if) they get the machine humming.

Who said they are resting

Perhaps you could direct me to evidence that they're not?  (Hardware, not powerpoints.)


Scott,


You are in fact right they are resting and talking down the competition making all kinds of excuses, from what I've observed.  Additionally, they are (IMO) overconfident that if the competition has to meet their requirements that their costs will be the same.  When that starts to look iffy the excuse is that they're a privately held company and don't have to make a profit. 


FWIW once upon a time I worked said program and even reviewed some new entrant criteria.  Suffices to say quite a bit of the establishment (blue suits included) don't believe the boys from Hawthorne can do what they're claiming they can.  Caveat, my experience is a few years dated, but recent convos with some folks indicate things haven't changed much.  Guess we'll know more by the end of the year.


Cheers

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2014, 05:49:52 am »

Perhaps you could direct me to evidence that they're not?  (Hardware, not powerpoints.)


Common avionics, common processes, common factory, common payload adapters, common upperstage engine, and eventually common upperstage.

The above post is also wrong, the info is dated. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2014, 08:11:17 am »

Perhaps you could direct me to evidence that they're not?  (Hardware, not powerpoints.)


Common avionics, common processes, common factory, common payload adapters, common upperstage engine, and eventually common upperstage.

Nothing groundbreaking about that.  In fact I'd argue that they're incurring needless expense by keeping both the Delta and Atlas lines running. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2014, 01:31:41 pm »
Video from Spacex Channel Youtube website.
 
 

 
 

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2014, 01:48:33 pm »
Interesting.  Are they pulsing the main engines to produce low controlled thrust?
Bill Walker

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2014, 11:20:02 am »
No, they are not.

Next attempt at landing will happen on a barge.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 681
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2014, 11:36:05 am »

Am I missing something? Soft landing a reusable first stage seems like a rather big deal, and yet this is the first time I have heard SpaceX actually accomplished this. Kinda odd that it hasn't been plastered all over the usual news rags.

It is strange to think that if they had just re-calibrated expectations on the delta clipper and made it a "first stage", we would have been here long ago....

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2044
  • I am not actually here.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2014, 12:05:17 pm »

Am I missing something? Soft landing a reusable first stage seems like a rather big deal, and yet this is the first time I have heard SpaceX actually accomplished this. Kinda odd that it hasn't been plastered all over the usual news rags.

It is strange to think that if they had just re-calibrated expectations on the delta clipper and made it a "first stage", we would have been here long ago....


Delta Clipper was originally funded by SDIO (through the SSRT program) to be a technology demonstrator for a reusable first stage for launching ballistic missile targets.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2014, 12:06:47 pm »
Kinda odd that it hasn't been plastered all over the usual news rags.

Not really. SpaceX success features a few things that work *against* it being newsworthy:
1) It's an example of American exceptionalism/ingenuity
B ) It's an example of private enterprise succeeding where government has not
iii) It's a success for the One Percent
Δ) It's not a success for the likes of Gubmint-Entrenched MegaBloatCorps
∞) No Kardashian involvement
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sublight is back

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 681
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2014, 12:10:56 pm »

Am I missing something? Soft landing a reusable first stage seems like a rather big deal, and yet this is the first time I have heard SpaceX actually accomplished this. Kinda odd that it hasn't been plastered all over the usual news rags.

It is strange to think that if they had just re-calibrated expectations on the delta clipper and made it a "first stage", we would have been here long ago....


Delta Clipper was originally funded by SDIO (through the SSRT program) to be a technology demonstrator for a reusable first stage for launching ballistic missile targets.

Jerry Pournelle said his original idea for the Delta Clipper was a low cost  Single-Stage-To-Orbit spacecraft.

Offline Machdiamond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2014, 01:27:17 pm »
In my opinion these sea landing trials don't make the news yet because the unspecialized media fails to grasp the historical significance and engineering feat that they represent.
This will change when the first landings will occur at Cape Canaveral (or some other place).

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2014, 09:01:41 pm »

Am I missing something? Soft landing a reusable first stage seems like a rather big deal, and yet this is the first time I have heard SpaceX actually accomplished this.

Minor correction here, but this is now the second time they've successfully done a soft landing; the only issue is that last time the video was so terrible (either an error with the camera / recording, or a poor feed back to base) that if SpaceX hadn't said it worked, you wouldn't have been able to tell. The new video isn't that great either due to frost (which might be part of why the media hasn't covered the story), but it was still far better than the last video and will get better later in time.

Expect the barge landing to get far more exposure.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #45 on: July 29, 2014, 04:22:56 pm »
Am I missing something? Soft landing a reusable first stage seems like a rather big deal, and yet this is the first time I have heard SpaceX actually accomplished this. Kinda odd that it hasn't been plastered all over the usual news rags.

It is historic and huge deal indeed, and it is second time, first time was with CRS-3 rocket. First stage is about 70% of the rockets costs. And that is purely economics, never mind the awesomesause of bringing back first stage from about 100 km height and mach 8 or so down to 0 m/s.

Minor correction here, but this is now the second time they've successfully done a soft landing; the only issue is that last time the video was so terrible (either an error with the camera / recording, or a poor feed back to base) that if SpaceX hadn't said it worked, you wouldn't have been able to tell. The new video isn't that great either due to frost (which might be part of why the media hasn't covered the story), but it was still far better than the last video and will get better later in time.

Ahem, i guess you havent seen the crowd-sourced fixed one.

In my opinion these sea landing trials don't make the news yet because the unspecialized media fails to grasp the historical significance and engineering feat that they represent.
This will change when the first landings will occur at Cape Canaveral (or some other place).

Agreed.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #46 on: July 29, 2014, 05:02:56 pm »
Minor correction here, but this is now the second time they've successfully done a soft landing; the only issue is that last time the video was so terrible (either an error with the camera / recording, or a poor feed back to base) that if SpaceX hadn't said it worked, you wouldn't have been able to tell. The new video isn't that great either due to frost (which might be part of why the media hasn't covered the story), but it was still far better than the last video and will get better later in time.

Ahem, i guess you havent seen the crowd-sourced fixed one.


I saw it; and it's attached here for others:



But I don't think that many news companies would run with that kind of footage; you can tell that the rocket fires and that there's steam, but you can't tell what speed it touches down at. Coupled with the fact that much of the public won't know who SpaceX is (technologically / financially & in terms of their view on space travel), you could expect people to doubt the story, especially considering that the rocket was destroyed before they could recover it.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #47 on: July 29, 2014, 05:06:30 pm »
Eh, no, that is not the video. The one you posted was fixed by SpaceX themself as much as they could/had time to.

I will repeat, crowd sourced video. It was a huge task:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34597.0

And the final video:


Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2014, 12:40:57 am »
Ah, I'd never seen or heard about that one.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #49 on: January 16, 2015, 10:20:40 am »
Picture of the landing attempt on the barge from the last Spacex Dragon launch.
According to Musk, grid fins ran out of gas and folded up, engines tried to compensate and failed and then they too ran out.  Next attempt will add more fuel reserves.
This is actually a better "fail" than I had imagined.  I was thinking "world record JDAM drop" but this is a pretty good first try.
 
 

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2015, 10:27:58 am »
And here's the video of it's rapid unscheduled disassembly   ;D

Contrary to what you'd expect, I'm now more confident in their next attempt after watching that.

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #51 on: January 16, 2015, 01:20:59 pm »
The simple fact that they hit the barge, in the dark, is a major accomplishment.  I look forward to the next attempt.
Bill Walker

Offline Demon Lord Razgriz

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 188
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2015, 07:44:50 pm »
Looks to me the rocket thought it was an F-14 landing on the deck of a carrier! XD

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2015, 12:49:39 am »



it came close yes, BUT
to fast and wrong angle and it look like the flight computer try compensate it to late
I love Strange Technology

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2015, 08:52:12 am »
Picture of the first stage booster re-entry from Wednesday's launch.  Doesn't say how high up at this point but I am guessing it was fairly low.  The booster wound up maintaining vertical orientation before finally ditching into the water.  Rough seas prevented a barge landing attempt.
On the video of the launch itself, there were clear images of the first stage booster firing its' vernier rockets to separate and orient the stage showing a controlled separation and attitude control rather than just a toss off.
 

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #55 on: February 15, 2015, 07:25:39 am »
Picture of the first stage booster re-entry from Wednesday's launch.  Doesn't say how high up at this point but I am guessing it was fairly low.  The booster wound up maintaining vertical orientation before finally ditching into the water.  Rough seas prevented a barge landing attempt.
On the video of the launch itself, there were clear images of the first stage booster firing its' vernier rockets to separate and orient the stage showing a controlled separation and attitude control rather than just a toss off.

Re-entry burn starts at ~70km and ends at ~40km. So not low at all. And camera work + weather was exceptional for the DSCOVR launch.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #56 on: February 16, 2015, 06:32:24 am »
Picture of the first stage booster re-entry from Wednesday's launch.  Doesn't say how high up at this point but I am guessing it was fairly low.  The booster wound up maintaining vertical orientation before finally ditching into the water.  Rough seas prevented a barge landing attempt.
On the video of the launch itself, there were clear images of the first stage booster firing its' vernier rockets to separate and orient the stage showing a controlled separation and attitude control rather than just a toss off.

Re-entry burn starts at ~70km and ends at ~40km. So not low at all. And camera work + weather was exceptional for the DSCOVR launch.



You are correct about the re-entry burn altitude.  In fact, you can see grid fin deployment right after separation in the video.  However, there is a second landing burn and I mistook the photo for that.

Regarding weather, here is the statement from the SpacEx website:

While extreme weather prevented SpaceX from attempting to recover the first stage, data shows the first stage successfully soft landed in the Atlantic Ocean within 10 meters of its target.  The vehicle was nicely vertical and the data captured during this test suggests a high probability of being able to land the stage on the drone ship in better weather

Weather at the launch site was great (as evidenced by the clarity of the separation images).  Weather at the landing location out at sea was not.


Note 3:50 time mark






Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2015, 07:02:31 am »
Quote
In fact, you can see grid fin deployment right after separation in the video.  However, there is a second landing burn and I mistook the photo for that.

Hmm, no. What you see in the video are the N2 RCS. Gridfind deployment happens some minutes after MECO1 and it happens *together* with re-entry burn.

In the case of DSCOVR launch: After MECO1 S1 continues to travel upwards to peak altitude of 130-140 km. Then it starts to fall downwards and re-entry burn starts at ~70km, at which point gridfins deploy. The last burn is the landing burn which starts around 2km above surface so indeed, fairly low.

Now in previous cases they did a boostback burn ~30seconds after peak altitude. With DSCOVR there was no boostback.

Also to be picky there is no "second landing burn" :P . There is a boostback, re-entry burn and a landing burn. Calling re-entry burn "first landing burn" so to speak is not accurate, so imho one should stick to boostback, re-entry, landing.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 07:07:27 am by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #58 on: February 16, 2015, 08:56:24 am »
What are these?  They show up at 3:50-3:51 and weren't there until then.  They are not rocket plumes.









Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #59 on: February 16, 2015, 09:32:53 am »
I think you're looking at exhaust from the cold gas thrusters on the first stage.  They push the first stage clear of the second stage exhaust plume and then pitch it around to an engine-first attitude for the boost-back and retro burns.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2015, 09:49:59 am »
Indeed, these are some sort of thrusters artifacts. For one thing we know for sure they don't deploy til re-entry and secondly they are tiny compared to S1. One would never be able to see them 100km+ up and significant downrange.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2015, 02:42:01 pm »
Well you may be right.  However, looking at 3:46 now I think I see the same white spots but with much reduced size/brightness which correlates to stowed/deployed fins.  However, this is arguing over fuzz.  Unless/until a rocket cam video is released I can't assert anything more than speculation.


Offline Machdiamond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2015, 03:46:56 pm »
The fins are firmly stowed at that time.
No need for a rocket cam or speculate. If you are interested to follow this more closely, I recommend you check the forum at nasaspaceflight.com.
There are sections dedicated to SpaceX with highly knowledgeable participants, some of whom are actually working on the thing.
--Luc
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 03:50:29 pm by Machdiamond »

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #63 on: February 16, 2015, 04:06:37 pm »
Well you may be right.  However, looking at 3:46 now I think I see the same white spots but with much reduced size/brightness which correlates to stowed/deployed fins.  However, this is arguing over fuzz.  Unless/until a rocket cam video is released I can't assert anything more than speculation.

Quote
Hydraulics are usually closed, but that adds mass vs short acting open systems. F9 fins only work for 4 mins. We were ~10% off.
- Elon Musk.

It takes longer than 4 min from MECO1 to landing. IE they deploy at a later point.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #64 on: February 16, 2015, 04:29:21 pm »
The timeline below says that the grid-fins deploy just after T+3 minutes.  Stage separation was at T+2:48, so the fins should come out no earlier than 12 seconds after the staging.

http://www.spaceflight101.com/dscovr-mission-updates.html

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #65 on: February 16, 2015, 06:23:41 pm »
Sigh. And that is wrong because:

a - There is zero logical reason to use them then
b - Elon Musk said nope.
c - There is no source for that claim
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #67 on: April 14, 2015, 01:37:00 pm »
Well another landing attempt.  Spacex twitter says first stage landed on drone ship but came down too hard and didn't survive.  Hopefully they will release a video.  Even in failure they will learn so the next try should go better especially if they collected telemetry from the vehicle flight control system.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #68 on: April 14, 2015, 10:46:51 pm »
Well another landing attempt.  Spacex twitter says first stage landed on drone ship but came down too hard and didn't survive.  Hopefully they will release a video.  Even in failure they will learn so the next try should go better especially if they collected telemetry from the vehicle flight control system.

Not exactly ...

Quote
Looks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/588082574183903232
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #69 on: April 15, 2015, 12:50:12 am »
first video about the landing attempt

I love Strange Technology

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #70 on: April 15, 2015, 03:57:36 am »
Well another landing attempt.  Spacex twitter says first stage landed on drone ship but came down too hard and didn't survive.  Hopefully they will release a video.  Even in failure they will learn so the next try should go better especially if they collected telemetry from the vehicle flight control system.

Not exactly ...

Quote
Looks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/588082574183903232

Benefit of a later posting.  Here is what I saw:
 
"Ascent successful. Dragon enroute to Space Station. Rocket landed on droneship, but too hard for survival." 
 
Later posts then added the video and additional commentary.
 
Looks like they are getting close.  They need to fine tune lateral positioning higher up so they don't have to do those corrections at the last moment.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #71 on: April 15, 2015, 05:10:48 am »
Might be easier if they weren't trying to hit a moving target.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #72 on: April 15, 2015, 05:11:26 am »
Looks like it was still oscillating quite a bit at touchdown. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #73 on: April 15, 2015, 05:12:32 am »
Might be easier if they weren't trying to hit a moving target.

Are you saying the drone is under way rather than station keeping in one spot?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #74 on: April 15, 2015, 05:18:37 am »
Might be easier if they weren't trying to hit a moving target.
And why do you think the barge was moving? There were barely any wind and barely and waves. ~0.9m waves and ~6m/s winds. It is supposed to hold a position and it held it just fine. There was a small issue with control lag;

Quote
Looks like the issue was stiction in the biprop throttle valve, resulting in control system phase lag. Should be easy to fix.

A still pic;

Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #75 on: April 15, 2015, 05:23:19 am »
"Stationkeeping" isn't stationary -- typical dynamic positioning keeps the platform within is a few meters of its target.  The barge is moving around a bit to maintain station, and it's heaving and pitching a bit due to wave action.  All of that movement adds complexity to the landing task.  It's not insurmountable, but it's a set of factors that would not be at play in the original Grasshopper test vehicle.
 
 

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #76 on: April 15, 2015, 05:26:33 am »
...and it still has nothing to do with this. If this particular test was on land chances are it would have been the same outcome, assuming that it tipped over this time because of "overcorrection" due to sticky valve rather than stepping outside of the barge with a leg or two.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #77 on: April 15, 2015, 07:13:18 am »
The scale of the movement seen in the video is way more than anything required for platform movement.   The slow oscillatory movement of the flight vehicle is classical performance with large phase lag somewhere in the control loop.  A sticky control valve would indeed produce what we see here.
Bill Walker

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #78 on: April 15, 2015, 08:59:33 am »
Fair enough.  I wasn't trying to say that this failure was due to platform movement, but it does seem to add (in general) an extra layer of complexity to an already complex problem.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #79 on: April 15, 2015, 09:02:07 am »
Fair enough.  I wasn't trying to say that this failure was due to platform movement, but it does seem to add (in general) an extra layer of complexity to an already complex problem.

Obviously SpaceX thinks the benefits outweigh the issue of complexity.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #80 on: April 15, 2015, 09:29:59 am »
Their initial videos showed a landing on dry land.  I had assumed that the barge was mandated as a safety issue during testing, to keep potential crashes away from KSC's launch facilities. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #81 on: April 15, 2015, 09:36:20 am »
Their initial videos showed a landing on dry land.  I had assumed that the barge was mandated as a safety issue during testing, to keep potential crashes away from KSC's launch facilities.

Could be just a way to avoid red tape while doing the risky tests, like you say.  (It does reduce the fuel requirement as well though as the thing doesn't have to fly all the way back.)  All things considered, maybe it's easier landing on a barge in the approximate unguided landing area than trying to fly it all the way back for a ground landing.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2015, 09:38:47 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #82 on: April 15, 2015, 01:17:28 pm »
There is one million reasons why they are doing it on barge instead of land first, they are fairly obvious.

Let me underline their obviousness by the full video of the landing that became available just now;



RCS on top worked so hard, so hard...
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #83 on: April 15, 2015, 01:33:07 pm »
Video is private now.   :(

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #84 on: April 15, 2015, 01:47:09 pm »
They might have set it to private, but they couldn't beat Flanker... Downloaded it in 1080p before it got taken down. Linky;

http://www.filedropper.com/crs-6firststagelanding

(yes, it is safe)
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #85 on: April 15, 2015, 02:06:47 pm »
This one should work ...

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #86 on: April 16, 2015, 04:07:18 am »
Spacex might try for dry land on their next attempt:
"While not providing details of when or where that attempt would occur, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX President and COO, told Defense News on Wednesday that the company hopes its next attempted landing will take place on land, not at sea."
 
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/space/2015/04/15/spacex-ground-attempt-reusable-landing-sea/25827625/
 
 
 

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #87 on: April 16, 2015, 05:04:47 am »
We already knew that they were getting paperwork in line to do landing at Vandy, the surprise is that they are hoping to do it at Cape in June already;

Quote
The first attempt to stick a Falcon 9 booster on a landing pad at Vandenberg could come as early as July following the launch of the French-U.S. Jason-3 ocean altimetry satellite mission, she said.

“We’d love to land Jason-3, which we’re going to launch in July; we’d love to land that on land at Vandenberg,” Shotwell said.

Another possibility “might” be following the scheduled June launch of a commercial resupply mission to the International Space Station from the Cape, Shotwell said.

From; http://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-dragon-cargo-spacecraft-rocket-stage-makes-hard-landing-2/

We shall see.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #88 on: April 16, 2015, 05:56:31 am »
That'd be quite a flight back, coming all the way back to the launch area.  (The turning maneuver would be interesting.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #89 on: April 16, 2015, 06:00:57 am »
Indeed. The boostback would need to be much longer and probably adding another layer of complexity. On this and CRS-5 attempt the barge was 200 miles out to the sea.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #90 on: April 16, 2015, 12:56:02 pm »
Leaked video of the landing as seen from the barge;

https://vid.me/i6o5
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #91 on: April 21, 2015, 04:07:10 am »
From Spacex:
 
"Cause of hard rocket landing confirmed as due to slower than expected throttle valve response. Next attempt in 2 months"
 
I wonder where their land based landing pad is located?  Seems like it would take a lot of delta V to do a 180 and return to base.  Or is the ascent profile primarly vertical for the first stage?  The barge location seemed to be pretty far out to sea.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #92 on: April 21, 2015, 05:11:53 am »
LC-13 at Cape and LC-4W at Vandy.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #93 on: April 21, 2015, 10:42:39 am »
Seems like it would take a lot of delta V to do a 180 and return to base.  Or is the ascent profile primarly vertical for the first stage?  The barge location seemed to be pretty far out to sea.

The 2 landing attempts already used a "partial boostback profile" where the stage landed far short of where a ballistic trajectory would have taken it.
AIU, they're aiming for 2 landing profiles:
  • on land, if there's enough fuel to do that, or
  • on the barge, if the payload margin is too small to allow boostback.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2015, 03:44:02 am »
Another landing attempt on Sunday.  This will be another barge landing rather than dry land.  Spacex also released another video on the last attempt.









Story Here:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/25/spacex-aims-for-another-rocket-landing-experiment-sunday/


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2015, 03:58:50 am »
Fingers crossed.  :)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2015, 06:53:13 am »
Beautiful! Thanks for sharing. I'll be watching!

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2015, 11:09:10 am »
They also apparently have 3 barges now. One for the west coast launches has already gone through the canal, while two are in Florida at the moment.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2015, 04:52:17 pm »
OK, I'm looking at that 'smoke/vapor' trail left as the first-stage comes creaming down ass-backwards. I know that there are at least two firings of the single center engine during the landing phase. do they keep that engines gas-generator burning after the first breaking burn?

What's the source of that smoke/vapor trail on descent?

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #99 on: June 27, 2015, 11:43:40 am »
They also apparently have 3 barges now. One for the west coast launches has already gone through the canal, while two are in Florida at the moment.
No, they have two right now. 303 and 304. 300 got retired.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #100 on: June 27, 2015, 12:31:50 pm »
They also apparently have 3 barges now. One for the west coast launches has already gone through the canal, while two are in Florida at the moment.
No, they have two right now. 303 and 304. 300 got retired.

Uneconomical to repair?
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2015, 12:45:30 pm »
Owner wanted it back, it was leased.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2015, 08:37:37 pm »
They also apparently have 3 barges now. One for the west coast launches has already gone through the canal, while two are in Florida at the moment.
No, they have two right now. 303 and 304. 300 got retired.
I stand corrected, was misreading the data.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #103 on: June 28, 2015, 07:25:52 am »
Launch failure.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #104 on: June 28, 2015, 07:30:33 am »
Catastrophic failure of first stage right after passing through Mach 1 around the 2 minute mark.  I didn't see any unusual behavior prior to the explosion.

The announcer is now confirming loss of vehicle but they don't know what happened.

Both NASA's commercial resupply vehicles have now suffered a launch failure so this will impact ISS operations.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #105 on: June 28, 2015, 07:44:18 am »
Looks like the whole Dragon decided to completely bail.  :'(

« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 07:47:55 am by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline hagaricus

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #106 on: June 28, 2015, 07:49:23 am »
Looking at it from about T=2:14 you can see a bright spot near the 1st/2nd stage junction prior to the plume of vapour which appears to come from the same spot at about 2:19...

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #107 on: June 28, 2015, 07:49:43 am »
Fast work in getting that put together.

I seem to see the engines still running even as the vehicle is exploding.  The first large white cloud appears to come from above the engine compartment near the area where the landing legs are tucked in.  I wonder if something really stupid like pre-mature deployment occurred?



Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #108 on: June 28, 2015, 08:26:40 am »



At Maximum Q (highes Aerodynamic pressure on rocket) the Falcon 9 produce a Smoke trail behind it
priore Stage separation, the second stage Tank are Pressurized here the Second tank simply disaggregated at this moment


either the welding on Tank was faulty
or the tank was damage by some thing at maximum Q by ice or one of cover blow off denting the tank.   
I love Strange Technology

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #109 on: June 28, 2015, 08:45:29 am »
At the 2:16 mark, 2 white spots appear near the bottom of the payload shroud.  I don't remember seeing those on prior launches (during first stage boost phase).  Well the announcer indicated that they had a lot of telemetry data so Spacex may be able to isolate the cause relatively quickly.

As a marketing and confidence re-storing gesture, I wonder if they will try to re-fly as soon as possible (vs the Antares situation).  Spacex had a pad abort during an early launch and then turned around 24 hours later rather than spending a week trying to second guess themselves.

ULA must be quietly celebrating right now.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #110 on: June 28, 2015, 09:24:58 am »
Well that's a bummer.  I wonder how many hours we'll have to wait before the politicians start trying to make hay of this. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 920
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #111 on: June 28, 2015, 09:45:31 am »
Just seen it on Sky News,  any thoughts on the cause of the explosion?

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #112 on: June 28, 2015, 10:03:38 am »
Tweet from Elon Musk: "There was an overpressure event in the upper stage liquid oxygen tank. Data suggests counterintuitive cause."

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #113 on: June 28, 2015, 11:08:06 am »
At the 2:16 mark, 2 white spots appear near the bottom of the payload shroud.  I don't remember seeing those on prior launches (during first stage boost phase).

That is just airpressure man. It is around solar panel covers, nothing to see here.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #114 on: June 28, 2015, 11:22:22 am »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline skyblue

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #115 on: June 28, 2015, 06:27:55 pm »
ULA must be quietly celebrating right now.

Lets not be childish, alright?

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/615167324887191552

+

http://www.federalspace.ru/21551/


That's just something polite he needs to say in public.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #116 on: June 28, 2015, 07:26:21 pm »
Well that's a bummer.  I wonder how many hours we'll have to wait before the politicians start trying to make hay of this.
Dick Shelby probably has an intern making giant placards of those failure pics, senators love having placard on easels when they talk.

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #117 on: July 20, 2015, 10:42:06 pm »
they have identified the cause
in Second stage, Inside Lox tank one of steel stud holding Helium tank, failed at 1/5 of load it design for.
it rupture it connected Helium tank, what released it entire content at once, leading to overpressure that let to burst asunder of second stage


http://spacenews.com/falcon-9-failure-linked-to-upper-stage-tank-strut/

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/20/9004463/space-x-falcon-9-rocket-explosion-cause-explained
I love Strange Technology

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #120 on: December 10, 2015, 02:17:48 pm »
We don't know for sure if they will land on land yet. They got GO from AF but no confirmation of GO from FAA yet. But chances are they will allow it. Either way they have a barge out at sea (very low downrange due to steep climb vs CRS missions) as a back up plan.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2044
  • I am not actually here.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #121 on: December 10, 2015, 06:11:34 pm »
they have identified the cause
in Second stage, Inside Lox tank one of steel stud holding Helium tank, failed at 1/5 of load it design for.
it rupture it connected Helium tank, what released it entire content at once, leading to overpressure that let to burst asunder of second stage


http://spacenews.com/falcon-9-failure-linked-to-upper-stage-tank-strut/

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/20/9004463/space-x-falcon-9-rocket-explosion-cause-explained

I did not realize that SpaceX was using Stargate technology in the Falcon 9.

Offline aim9xray

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 461
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #122 on: December 10, 2015, 11:02:50 pm »
Ahem, well.  Yes. 

It has not been generally revealed that the Falcon 9 actually uses two subscale "Chappa'ais" - one in the fuel tank and one in the oxidizer tank.  Additional fuel and oxidizer is thus continually introduced into the vehicle through the dual wormholes.  The result is essentially a self-licking ice cream cone, at least from the vehicle's point of view.

The reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage is driven by the economics of the dual Chappa-ai installation, not really the rocket motors which are extremely cheap by comparison.    ::)

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #123 on: December 12, 2015, 06:54:25 am »
Falcon 9 v1.1FT first stage. Maybe the first one that will return in one piece?  :)
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #124 on: December 12, 2015, 07:09:33 am »
Can't wait!  Hope they nail the landing.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #125 on: December 12, 2015, 07:59:04 am »
That pictures. That might very well be a shot of this centuries Wright Flyer.

Go get 'em, SpaceX!

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #126 on: December 16, 2015, 10:16:29 am »
Apparently quite a few changes made in addition to just the tank support strut.

From Florida Today
==================================
SpaceX on Wednesday hopes to test-fire the main engines on a Falcon 9 rocket that CEO Elon Musk said on Tuesday is "significantly improved" over the previous version.

"There are a number of improvements in the rocket," Musk said during a presentation at the American Geophysical Union's meeting in San Francisco.

The 230-foot rocket is a new version featuring upgrades from the previous one that was known as version 1.1. They include:

Liquid oxygen propellant sub-cooled to close to its freezing point, increasing its density "quite significantly," Musk said, enabling the rocket to carry more of it and improve thrust. Musk said he believed it was the first use of "deeply cryogenic propellant."
A "stretched" or longer upper stage that can hold more rocket-grade kerosene and liquid oxygen propellant.
Changes to the systems that separate the rocket stages, and "a number of other improvements in electronics."
The changes combine to increase the Falcon 9's thrust at sea level from 1.3 million to 1.5 million pounds, rising to nearly 1.7 million pounds in flight, according to information on SpaceX's Web site.

"So it’s I think a significantly improved rocket from the last one," said Musk.
========================================

And Florida Today still claims they may attempt to land the first stage at Cape Canaveral:
========================================
Liftoff from Launch Complex 40 would be planned between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m.

During his remarks Tuesday, Musk again discussed his belief in the importance of developing reusable rockets to lower the cost of spaceflight. SpaceX has twice attempted to land Falcon boosters on ocean barges in an effort to recover them, unsuccessfully.

Musk did not confirm if SpaceX would try to land the next booster on land at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for the first time, as FLORIDA TODAY recently reported the company hopes to do soon

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #127 on: December 16, 2015, 10:43:40 am »
This is not news. CRS-7 was the second to last "v1.1" version, JASON-3 will be the last one.

OG2 and on will be v1.1 Full Thrust, sometimes called v1.2 (not official name). Changes are;



These changes allow F9 to do GTO launches and also be reusable. And yes, fuel is densified, there is 7% more LOX and few % more RP-1.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #128 on: December 16, 2015, 10:58:17 am »
This is not news. CRS-7 was the second to last "v1.1" version, JASON-3 will be the last one.

OG2 and on will be v1.1 Full Thrust, sometimes called v1.2 (not official name). Changes are;



These changes allow F9 to do GTO launches and also be reusable. And yes, fuel is densified, there is 7% more LOX and few % more RP-1.

Any idea if they're really going to try a landing at Cape Canaveral?  Sounds like sources don't agree with each other.  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #129 on: December 16, 2015, 12:11:52 pm »
SpaceX obviously wants to, AF has given green light, situation from FAA is unknown at the moment. I think it is very likely FAA will allow it, lastly it comes down to whether the weather is good. Today's forecast for 19'th looks to be 90% GO, so very good.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #130 on: December 18, 2015, 10:12:35 am »
They have had issues with doing the static fire, seems to be on the ground systems side of things. (check Elon's twitter for some interesting details)

As to FAA, as expected they are cool with a landing on land;

http://spacenews.com/faa-moves-closer-to-approving-falcon-9-landings-at-cape-canaveral/

EDIT; Static fire happened. Aiming to launch on sunday but the window is now reduced from 3 hours to instantaneous for some reason. IE it will be a miracle if they launch on Sunday. 22'nd is the next attempt after that, 15min window but that is basically the same as instantaneous.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 04:17:42 pm by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #131 on: December 19, 2015, 06:39:42 pm »
From the SpaceX site:

"SpaceX is currently aiming for a December 20th launch of the Falcon 9 rocket, carrying 11 satellites for ORBCOMM. The launch is part of ORBCOMM's second and final OG2 Mission and will lift off from SpaceX's launch pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.  This mission also marks the first time SpaceX will attempt to land the first stage of the Falcon 9 rocket on land. The landing of the first stage is a secondary test objective.

The launch webcast is targeted to begin at 5:05pm PT with liftoff at 5:29pm PT.  The launch webcast can be viewed at spacex.com/webcast.  For updates, visit www.spacex.com and www.orbcomm.com."

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #132 on: December 20, 2015, 05:14:21 am »
T-12h14m

Good article about the mission and landing objective here if one isnt up to date; http://www.americaspace.com/?p=89910
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #133 on: December 20, 2015, 01:02:20 pm »
Quote
Just reviewed mission params w SpaceX team. Monte Carlo runs show tmrw night has a 10% higher chance of a good landing. Punting 24 hrs.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/678679083782377472

Monte Carlo is a risk sim. Think about it; a rocket launch is delayed 24h because of a rocket landing.

Quote
December 20, 2015 (4:00 pm ET)
We have an update regarding tonight’s target launch for ORBCOMM’s OG2 Mission 2. Upon further review of the static fire data, SpaceX has determined that an additional day prior to launch will allow for more analysis and time to further chill the liquid oxygen in preparation for launch. Please note that we will now be targeting launch for tomorrow, Monday, December 21 at 8:33 pm ET.

http://blog.orbcomm.com/orbcomm-og2-mission-2-launch-update/

+

Quote
Delving into what Elon said, wind gusts tonight forecast at 22-24 kts. Monday night a calmer 12-15 kts. For the landing....

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/678685315238928384
« Last Edit: December 20, 2015, 01:46:21 pm by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #134 on: December 21, 2015, 05:40:09 pm »
AWESOME!
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2152
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #135 on: December 21, 2015, 05:45:35 pm »
Way to go, SpaceX! Way to go!
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline xmotex

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #136 on: December 21, 2015, 05:48:52 pm »
That was pretty thrilling to watch.
Well done, SpaceX!

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #137 on: December 21, 2015, 05:51:21 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #138 on: December 21, 2015, 05:53:51 pm »
Giggity!



Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #139 on: December 21, 2015, 05:57:31 pm »
The single most amazing thing i have ever witnessed.

What an amazing, incredibly strong comeback after CRS-7.  Everything just perfect, cant make this sh!t up. I am half Russian, living in Norway, and even i started to chant USA USA USA USA USA.

And meanwhile, Bezos is kinda, sorta, is being a a$$hat; https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/679116636310360067
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 06:00:49 pm by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #140 on: December 21, 2015, 06:06:48 pm »
The single most amazing thing i have ever witnessed.

What an amazing, incredibly strong comeback after CRS-7.  Everything just perfect, cant make this sh!t up. I am half Russian, living in Norway, and even i started to chant USA USA USA USA USA.

And meanwhile, Bezos is kinda, sorta, is being a a$$hat; https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/679116636310360067

I hope he wakes up tomorrow and realizes how stupid his comment was. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #141 on: December 21, 2015, 06:16:08 pm »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #142 on: December 21, 2015, 06:24:07 pm »
Is that showing two separate burns for the return flight?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #143 on: December 21, 2015, 06:25:34 pm »
Yes. The long one is obviously accent, the first part on the right is re-entry burn (between 70 and 40km altitude, 30seconds, 3 engines) and the last part is landing burn.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #144 on: December 21, 2015, 07:03:29 pm »
What kind of body lift, exactly, do you expect from a tube that is situated in no atmosphere? The remove the front velocity vector of the rocket by turning it around and doing the boostback burn. This kills off the front velocity and shortens the downrange distance. Then re-entry burn then landing burn.

Amazing video, i will argue even more so than the official one!

Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #145 on: December 21, 2015, 07:09:21 pm »
What kind of body lift, exactly, do you expect from a tube that is situated in no atmosphere? The remove the front velocity vector of the rocket by turning it around and doing the boostback burn. This kills off the front velocity and shortens the downrange distance. Then re-entry burn then landing burn.

Yeah, that's what I figured they did.  Just thought I might be missing something as it seems like it would take a bit of fuel to kill the forward velocity and bring it all the way back. 

Yeah that video is pretty good.  I was disappointed it was going to be a night launch but I think it turned out even better.  Almost like something out of a sci-fi movie.

« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 07:16:17 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #146 on: December 21, 2015, 07:40:32 pm »
Yes, they use about 42-60 000 kg of fuel for all the recovery burns.

What a sight;



+ https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWzNZC_UkAEDgBv.jpg:orig

As to what will happen to it;

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/679129749105459200

A few weeks ago it was stated by a NASA employ they will use the booster for testing at LC-39A, fill it up etc. So glad that it wont suffer destructive testing, important piece of hardware to go into museum after examination! :D

Video of F9FT S1 back on LZ-1. :D

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/679145544673923072
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 07:47:30 pm by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #147 on: December 21, 2015, 07:46:26 pm »
I wonder if they'll try to bring back all 3 on their first Heavy launch. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #148 on: December 21, 2015, 07:48:27 pm »
Boosters to land, core to barge. (check NASAwatch twitter profile, Elon was answering media questions)

Mother of god; https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWzUJbpUkAEBOtD.jpg:orig
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 08:09:43 pm by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #149 on: December 21, 2015, 08:31:02 pm »
I watched live outside from Fort Myers Beach. The re-entry burn for the returning first stage was awesome to see, even though I'm hundreds of miles away.

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #150 on: December 21, 2015, 08:45:18 pm »
A Historic day for Space Flight

i guess the success of Blue shepherd and Falcon 9,
At United Launch Alliance and Arianespace the management Panic
while the there engineers  start to rethink there options on stage recuperation

from Donut Argh a local living near KSC
Quote
Sorry, not trying to brag, but just wanted to say that having see Falcons and Shuttles launch from my back yard, it was the weirdest thing ever to see the light coming back down in the opposite direction. Insane.
I love Strange Technology

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #151 on: December 21, 2015, 09:13:25 pm »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #152 on: December 21, 2015, 09:38:49 pm »
Makes you wonder how many camera drones they had up filming it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline phil gollin

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #153 on: December 22, 2015, 04:02:42 am »
.

Reminds me of the (VERY) old arcade game "Lunar Lander"   ;D

( I do wish that was available for Windows 7 or 10 )

.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #154 on: December 22, 2015, 04:38:02 am »
OK, assuming the upcoming hydro shows the tank welds held tight, nothing was sprung, engine coking is not too much of an issue, and the turbine shafts swing without binding. What post-flight maintenance would this booster require before being ready for flight?

How do they light off the Merlin engine -- hypergolic, spark, bottle-rocket?

Another thing -- starting with the next re-use of the vehicle: how will they stagger the use of the two outboard engines needed for the fly-back maneuver? There's no getting away from the fact that the center engine, with each flight cycle, will rack up many more minutes/hours of run-time than the others, but what about the two used initially to push the booster back to the launch-site? Will SpaceX work to use alternative sets of outboard engines for each new flight -- in an effort to put the eight engines on the same run-time-before-overhaul clock?

I would love to be there (after things cooled down a bit) to bore-scope the turbine stator and disc. If there's a maintence issue, it's going to be the turbopumps.

What a machine!



David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #155 on: December 22, 2015, 07:00:17 am »
OK, assuming the upcoming hydro shows the tank welds held tight, nothing was sprung, engine coking is not too much of an issue, and the turbine shafts swing without binding. What post-flight maintenance would this booster require before being ready for flight?

How do they light off the Merlin engine -- hypergolic, spark, bottle-rocket?

Ignition is hypergolic with triethylaluminium and triethylborane.

SpaceX's stated goal is to refly the stage without significant refurbishment -- just flush it out, clean it up, test it, and go again.


Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #156 on: December 22, 2015, 08:32:11 am »
OK, assuming the upcoming hydro shows the tank welds held tight, nothing was sprung, engine coking is not too much of an issue, and the turbine shafts swing without binding. What post-flight maintenance would this booster require before being ready for flight?

How do they light off the Merlin engine -- hypergolic, spark, bottle-rocket?

Ignition is hypergolic with triethylaluminium and triethylborane.

SpaceX's stated goal is to refly the stage without significant refurbishment -- just flush it out, clean it up, test it, and go again.

Thanks.

Here's hoping it shakes out that simple (remembering the big promises NASA made about the STS).

God bless the private sector and it's leaders not afraid to plan BIG! Leave government to do the pure-research and development and the business people to exploit those findings.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #157 on: December 22, 2015, 09:46:54 am »

Here's hoping it shakes out that simple (remembering the big promises NASA made about the STS).


STS sought to recover the upper stage. Falcon, so far, recovers the first stage. The gulf between the two concepts is *vast.*

Additionally, recovery of the second stage might not even be a good idea. Leave 'em in space. Cluster them to build stations or spacecraft. Melt 'em down for raw materials. Apart from human beings, there are very few things launched into space that are more valuable back on the ground than up in space.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Machdiamond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #158 on: December 22, 2015, 10:40:13 am »
Reminds me of the (VERY) old arcade game "Lunar Lander"   ;D
( I do wish that was available for Windows 7 or 10 )

http://my.ign.com/atari/lunar-lander

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1307
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #159 on: December 22, 2015, 11:39:56 am »
Additionally, recovery of the second stage might not even be a good idea. Leave 'em in space. Cluster them to build stations or spacecraft. Melt 'em down for raw materials. Apart from human beings, there are very few things launched into space that are more valuable back on the ground than up in space.

That an interesting idea reminiscent of all those projects to use the Space Shuttle fuel tanks for other things.  I do wonder about the economics, though.

Published launch price for the Falcon 9 is $61.2 million and the specs say that the payload is 13,150 kg to Low Earth Orbit and 4,850 kg to Geostationary Transfer Orbit.  By my calculations that a per kilo cost of $4,654-12,619.  The empty mass of Stage 2 is 3,900 kg.  How much would you pay for scrap alloys and composites and electronics and all the rest in orbit?  Half the per kilo launch price?  A quarter?  A tenth?

At, say, $1,000 per kilo in LEO, $3,000 per kilo in GTO, that's $3.9 million or $11.7 million.  How much does SpaceX save by reusing the second stage?  At what point would they say, sure, sell it for scrap in orbit, and we'll just build another?  I don't know, but it's an intriguing idea.
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #160 on: December 22, 2015, 12:36:55 pm »
How much would you pay for scrap alloys and composites and electronics and all the rest in orbit? 

If SpaceX were to seriously contemplate this, they'd be well advised to go to metal structures as much as possible. Aluminum, magnesium, titanium... they can all be melted down and re-used, pretty much without loss. But composites? You could dissolve out the epoxy and then chop up the resulting fiber stands to use in some sort of second-rate castings (perhaps even re-using the epoxy somehow), but the losses would probably be substantial.

Some systems would be great to have on their own... tanks, engines, pumps, etc.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline JeffB

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 79
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #161 on: December 22, 2015, 04:25:41 pm »
How much would you pay for scrap alloys and composites and electronics and all the rest in orbit? 

If SpaceX were to seriously contemplate this, they'd be well advised to go to metal structures as much as possible. Aluminum, magnesium, titanium... they can all be melted down and re-used, pretty much without loss. But composites? You could dissolve out the epoxy and then chop up the resulting fiber stands to use in some sort of second-rate castings (perhaps even re-using the epoxy somehow), but the losses would probably be substantial.

Some systems would be great to have on their own... tanks, engines, pumps, etc.

That kind of depends on the specifics of the engines, pumps, etc. From memory upper stage engines don't have very long lifetimes anyway so a lot of them probably only have a few more seconds of life in them at best. Then there's all the stuff about purging and restarting them properly as well. The Falcon 9 second stage is LOX/RP1 too so to reuse the tankage, because of the proportions, kinda restricts you to the same propellant mix...which you'd have to get up to the stage as well, etc, etc. Sorry to rain on the parade and all.

If they can start building upper stages that use LOX/LH2 and they have enough dV left over to park them then there is always the possibility of refueling them robotically  from a lunar water mining operation, but that's a long way off.

They're certainly on their way though, congratulations to SpaceX on a job beautifully done.

Offline francesco

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 6
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #162 on: December 23, 2015, 10:16:19 am »
.

Reminds me of the (VERY) old arcade game "Lunar Lander"   ;D

( I do wish that was available for Windows 7 or 10 )

.
there are a couple of cool apps off the game

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #163 on: December 23, 2015, 12:13:22 pm »



« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 12:20:23 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 920
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #164 on: December 24, 2015, 08:42:16 am »





Wow! Great videos sferrin.  SpaceX were lucky this time with the launch and subsequent recovery of the 1st stage booster, lets hope that continues.

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #165 on: December 24, 2015, 11:03:44 am »
I'm not sure luck is the right word here...

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #167 on: December 30, 2015, 12:45:36 pm »
Nice sensationalized title considering that is not what Rogozin said at all. ::)
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #168 on: December 30, 2015, 12:49:35 pm »
Nice sensationalized title considering that is not what Rogozin said at all. ::)

Can you provide an alternate translation of what Rogozin said?

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #169 on: December 30, 2015, 05:57:21 pm »
How, in any shape, way or form is this;

Quote
Elon Musk `Stepping on Toes' in Space Race, Russia Official Says

Equal to this;

Quote
“The main goal today is to make space cheap,” Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who’s in charge of defense, told Rossiya 24 TV in an interview on Wednesday in Moscow. “Competitors are stepping on our toes. Look at what billionaire Musk is doing with his projects. This is very interesting, well done, and we treat this work with respect.”

It is a sensationalized clickbait BS title especially given the context where he said the price was important. "Stepping on our toes" is meant as an acknowledgment that SpaceX is giving them a good fight on the price and he is being direct and honest by acknowledging it.

I watched the actual interview and the quote is accurate. He also said that they are not "a race horse" with blinds, they pay attention to developments in spaceflight. Hopefully MRKS-1 wont be too little too late for them, we will see.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #170 on: January 01, 2016, 07:47:21 am »
Quote
Falcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 920
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #171 on: January 01, 2016, 09:05:30 am »
Quote
Falcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425

Good news for Falcon 9, so when will the next Falcon 9 launch be?

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #172 on: January 01, 2016, 09:33:44 am »
January 17th for Jason-3; it'll be a Falcon 9 v1.1 (the last one to be built) though which might possibly have implications on return to flight arrangements.

After that, there's another launch "mid January" for SES 9 which will be the second Falcon 9 v1.2 / 'Full Thrust' launch. There's also then CRS-8 in Feb, etc. The SpaceX subreddit keeps a nice little list of upcoming events on it's sidebar.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 920
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #173 on: January 01, 2016, 01:00:29 pm »
January 17th for Jason-3; it'll be a Falcon 9 v1.1 (the last one to be built) though which might possibly have implications on return to flight arrangements.

After that, there's another launch "mid January" for SES 9 which will be the second Falcon 9 v1.2 / 'Full Thrust' launch. There's also then CRS-8 in Feb, etc. The SpaceX subreddit keeps a nice little list of upcoming events on it's sidebar.

Thanks for the link Dragon029.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #174 on: January 01, 2016, 02:32:35 pm »
SES-9 has been "late January" for a while now, sidebar is not updated. But yes, next up is JASON-3.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #175 on: January 04, 2016, 03:32:51 am »
Looks like the re-entry heating didn't cause too much visible degradation.  A hold-down test fire is planned to verify functional performance but no date yet.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #178 on: January 12, 2016, 05:17:26 am »
Spacex hold down engine test at Vandenberg AFB in prep for upcoming launch.  I wonder if/when they will figure their manufacturing consistency has reached the point where these pre-launch tests are unnecessary.  A hold down test firing on a Falcon Heavy will be impressive.


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #179 on: January 12, 2016, 06:16:37 am »
With this one launching out of California, does anybody know if they intend to try to land the booster?

edit (via twitter):

"Aiming to launch this weekend and (hopefully) land on our droneship. Ship landings needed for high velocity missions "
« Last Edit: January 12, 2016, 06:18:54 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 920
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #180 on: January 12, 2016, 06:47:27 am »
With this one launching out of California, does anybody know if they intend to try to land the booster?

edit (via twitter):

"Aiming to launch this weekend and (hopefully) land on our droneship. Ship landings needed for high velocity missions "

Good luck SpaceX.  After the successful land based landing, I hope that this forthcoming mission is a success.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #181 on: January 12, 2016, 07:05:54 am »
Landing pad at Vandenberg is not ready yet (pending environmental reviews and whatnot) + landing JASON-3 on ASDS will be a good training for SES-9 later this month which will be GTO and hence barge landing.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #182 on: January 12, 2016, 07:56:24 am »
Landing pad at Vandenberg is not ready yet (pending environmental reviews and whatnot) + landing JASON-3 on ASDS will be a good training for SES-9 later this month which will be GTO and hence barge landing.

If they stick both the landings off the California coast and Florida coast later this month that will be big, BIG boost.  I wish them well.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #183 on: January 12, 2016, 11:02:04 am »
Meanwhile, here is an awesome video to enjoy;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANv5UfZsvZQ&feature=youtu.be
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #186 on: January 17, 2016, 09:44:09 am »
'bout a 15 min. away.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 10:27:18 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #187 on: January 17, 2016, 10:33:38 am »
9 min.

3 minutes.  12-15 foot waves at landing barge.  Fingers crossed.

Of course, video feed freezes just as it's about to get to the barge.  :'(

Must have crashed.  Should have been down by now and people don't look cheerful.  Bummer.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 10:57:39 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #188 on: January 17, 2016, 11:02:13 am »
damn
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #189 on: January 17, 2016, 11:07:40 am »
9 min.

3 minutes.  12-15 foot waves at landing barge.  Fingers crossed.

Of course, video feed freezes just as it's about to get to the barge.  :'(

Must have crashed.  Should have been down by now and people don't look cheerful.  Bummer.

Yeah, I keep thinking if it landed successfully, we would have heard about it by now. But that barge was seriously heaving in the waves just before we lost the feed.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #190 on: January 17, 2016, 11:09:45 am »
Looks like one of the landing legs broke.  With the 12-15 foot waves I can see how it might be difficult to compensate for relative motion second to second.  Wonder how much weight it would add to add a stabilization system to the landing legs as well as the barge, so if it comes in off perpendicular to the landing surface the legs can give a bit until the other legs can help.  (Of course, if the current system is only robust enough to extend the legs, and no more, that might not be an option.  No doubt they've already considered all of this.)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 11:22:38 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #191 on: January 17, 2016, 11:40:01 am »
I like how they keep saying at the SpaceX web site that they lost the feed, so they don't know if it landed. As if they don't have ships out there that were watching the landing with a recovery crew with satellite communications. It's obvious they're just trying to figure out "what went wrong" before they make the announcement.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #192 on: January 17, 2016, 11:47:19 am »
I like how they keep saying at the SpaceX web site that they lost the feed, so they don't know if it landed. As if they don't have ships out there that were watching the landing with a recovery crew with satellite communications. It's obvious they're just trying to figure out "what went wrong" before they make the announcement.

They've already been on saying they had a hard landing and one of the legs broke.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #193 on: January 17, 2016, 12:21:37 pm »
Looks like one of the landing legs broke.  With the 12-15 foot waves I can see how it might be difficult to compensate for relative motion second to second.  Wonder how much weight it would add to add a stabilization system to the landing legs as well as the barge, so if it comes in off perpendicular to the landing surface the legs can give a bit until the other legs can help.  (Of course, if the current system is only robust enough to extend the legs, and no more, that might not be an option.  No doubt they've already considered all of this.)

It might be easier to build a stabilised platform (using the type of hydraulics used on flight simulators) on the deck of the barge.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #194 on: January 17, 2016, 12:34:39 pm »
Why are they landing it on a barge? Because it makes the return flight easier, since they can position the barge along the trajectory, as opposed to the fly back mission they did in Florida?

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #195 on: January 17, 2016, 12:37:14 pm »
I like how they keep saying at the SpaceX web site that they lost the feed, so they don't know if it landed. As if they don't have ships out there that were watching the landing with a recovery crew with satellite communications. It's obvious they're just trying to figure out "what went wrong" before they make the announcement.

The recovery ship doesn't have a live video link. We also saw various hiccups in the feed from the rocket and from the ship earlier in the broadcast, so "we lost the feed" isn't necessarily a cover story.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #196 on: January 17, 2016, 12:40:17 pm »
Looks like one of the landing legs broke.  With the 12-15 foot waves I can see how it might be difficult to compensate for relative motion second to second.  Wonder how much weight it would add to add a stabilization system to the landing legs as well as the barge, so if it comes in off perpendicular to the landing surface the legs can give a bit until the other legs can help.  (Of course, if the current system is only robust enough to extend the legs, and no more, that might not be an option.  No doubt they've already considered all of this.)

It might be easier to build a stabilised platform (using the type of hydraulics used on flight simulators) on the deck of the barge.

The barge is already stabilized.  I just wonder if it's reaction time is sufficient. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #197 on: January 17, 2016, 12:41:28 pm »
Why are they landing it on a barge? Because it makes the return flight easier, since they can position the barge along the trajectory, as opposed to the fly back mission they did in Florida?

Some missions won't have enough fuel left to fly all the way to a land pad. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #198 on: January 17, 2016, 12:47:23 pm »
Why are they landing it on a barge? Because it makes the return flight easier, since they can position the barge along the trajectory, as opposed to the fly back mission they did in Florida?

For Vandenberg AFB
The ground Landing pad there were not ready, there for landing on Barge

The barge will be use in future mission like Falcon Heavy were the booster land near launch site, while central stage land on the Barge in atlantic.
I love Strange Technology

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2044
  • I am not actually here.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #199 on: January 17, 2016, 12:53:52 pm »

The barge is already stabilized.  I just wonder if it's reaction time is sufficient.

The barge itself (the ship) is somewhat stabilized by thrusters. Making the flight deck stabilized through a hydraulic gimbal is something different.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #200 on: January 17, 2016, 12:58:21 pm »

The barge is already stabilized.  I just wonder if it's reaction time is sufficient.

The barge itself (the ship) is somewhat stabilized by thrusters. Making the flight deck stabilized through a hydraulic gimbal is something different.

Is there anything else that big that has been motion stabilized like that?  Also, does anybody know if the rocket is just assuming it's got a level surface under it or are there sensors on it to check the angle of the surface beneath it?  Just wondering if it had been able to pause a few seconds 5-10 feet off the deck, and wait for the deck to get more level, if it might have helped.  It would be interesting to know all the scenarios they played out, and assumptions they're making.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 01:02:48 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2044
  • I am not actually here.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #201 on: January 17, 2016, 01:11:25 pm »

Is there anything else that big that has been motion stabilized like that? 

Yes, many things. For example, oil exploration and drilling ships. Anything rigid going down to the bottom needs to be stabilized relative to ship motion, and this deals with forces far, far greater than the barge would experience. I believe some ships have helicopter pads that are motion compensating as well.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #202 on: January 17, 2016, 02:09:07 pm »
Is there anything else that big that has been motion stabilized like that?  Also, does anybody know if the rocket is just assuming it's got a level surface under it or are there sensors on it to check the angle of the surface beneath it?  Just wondering if it had been able to pause a few seconds 5-10 feet off the deck, and wait for the deck to get more level, if it might have helped.  It would be interesting to know all the scenarios they played out, and assumptions they're making.

I don't think Falcon can really hover.  Even minimum thrust on one Merlin is too much to just hold altitude once it's down to zero velocity.  At that point trying to wait out the platform means the stage would be pogoing as well, moving up when the engine is firing then falling when it's off.

I really think they've underestimated the difficulties of landing on a moving platform.  I wonder if they wouldn't be better off building a semi-stationary platform on a jackup rig in the Gulf of Mexico for their high-velocity launches from Texas.

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #203 on: January 17, 2016, 02:27:10 pm »
I really think they've underestimated the difficulties of landing on a moving platform.  I wonder if they wouldn't be better off building a semi-stationary platform on a jackup rig in the Gulf of Mexico for their high-velocity launches from Texas.
I don't think they understimate the difficulty; Elon for example has said that this definitely won't be their last RUD ("Rapid Unplanned Disassembly"  ;))

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2149
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #204 on: January 17, 2016, 03:54:10 pm »
This might help:

http://www.quantumhydraulic.com/specs/QuantumMagliftML600.pdf

I believe they're used on the OSVs that the Navy uses to screen SSBNs entering and leaving harbor. Basically, they carry containers full of gravel to block any terrorist/SF rocket attacks.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #205 on: January 17, 2016, 04:33:11 pm »
I don't think Falcon can really hover.  Even minimum thrust on one Merlin is too much to just hold altitude once it's down to zero velocity.  At that point trying to wait out the platform means the stage would be pogoing as well, moving up when the engine is firing then falling when it's off.

I really think they've underestimated the difficulties of landing on a moving platform.  I wonder if they wouldn't be better off building a semi-stationary platform on a jackup rig in the Gulf of Mexico for their high-velocity launches from Texas.

Maybe they could adjust the descent speed to make sure it touches down when the pad is level? As opposed to a full on hover? Granted, it would depend in large on the period of the pad's motion and I also realize it isn't as though the period would be consistent.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #206 on: January 17, 2016, 04:39:29 pm »
SpaceX First Stage Landing Story.

Apparently the landing leg didn't latch. Bummer. They're going to get all of this right eventually and kudos to them for not giving up. Also, apparently they aren't cleared to land back at Vandenburg.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #207 on: January 17, 2016, 06:44:53 pm »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #208 on: January 17, 2016, 08:29:41 pm »
Here you tube video that show what happened

I love Strange Technology

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #209 on: January 17, 2016, 11:03:55 pm »
Thanks for the video. They stuck the landing! Hopefully there aren't any other weak links outside of the gear latch.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #210 on: January 18, 2016, 02:21:12 am »
It blew up rather quickly there. Range safety device going off by accident? Or was that old bane of rocketeers, fuel tank vapours?


Here's a close up photo as it was tipping over.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/12104824/Moment-SpaceX-Falcon-9-rocket-crashes-and-explodes-during-landing.html


The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #211 on: January 18, 2016, 02:45:14 am »
Regarding the earlier successful landing on land: http://gizmodo.com/spacexs-returned-rocket-still-fires-mostly-1753442217
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 920
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #212 on: January 18, 2016, 03:54:38 am »
Anyone know what caused the landing leg to break?  It seamed to go so well from the launch and release of Jason 3.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #213 on: January 18, 2016, 04:13:55 am »
Anyone know what caused the landing leg to break?  It seamed to go so well from the launch and release of Jason 3.
It was said several time in the thread already. The leg didnt latch in locked position. It didnt actually break or anything. And instead of reuploaded video here is the actual source;

https://www.instagram.com/p/BAqirNbwEc0/

Where Elon Musk says;

Quote
Falcon lands on droneship, but the lockout collet doesn't latch on one the four legs, causing it to tip over post landing. Root cause may have been ice buildup due to condensation from heavy fog at liftoff.

It was completely successful landing. Standing was the issue. :)

It blew up rather quickly there. Range safety device going off by accident? Or was that old bane of rocketeers, fuel tank vapours?

Yes there was some fuel remaining but keep in mind the fuel tanks are pressurized. It was not FTS.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 04:16:43 am by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #214 on: January 18, 2016, 05:20:44 am »
Thanks for the video. They stuck the landing! Hopefully there aren't any other weak links outside of the gear latch.

Damn, that looked about as dead center on the target as it could be too.  :(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #215 on: January 18, 2016, 05:50:31 am »
Within 1.3m of the dead center... So yeah. SES-9 barge landing next up and after that it is CRS-8 which will be land.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #216 on: January 18, 2016, 06:08:44 pm »
It blew up rather quickly there. Range safety device going off by accident? Or was that old bane of rocketeers, fuel tank vapours?
Probably just pressure. The fuel and oxidizer tanks are under pressure, when ruptured by the impact with the deck one or both came apart explosively. Luckily its mostly helium in those tanks by the time it lands, so the fireball wouldn't have been too big.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 06:10:31 pm by Moose »

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #217 on: January 24, 2016, 07:13:03 am »
What is getting glossed over here, in the SpaceX re-run of the recovered booster engines: There was a problem with one of the motors. We have not heard the inspection report on that motor yet.

Did it ingest something knocked loose from within the lox/kerosene tank (caused by structure flexing during recovery maneuvers). Or, was FOD kicked up by the landing exhaust splash, pinging the turbine and/or clobbering the pintel injector of that motor. Why was that motors thrust curve all over the place?

I would very much like to know what that motor problem was! Is this a landing site problem or a tank problem?

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #218 on: January 24, 2016, 07:21:43 am »
"Maybe some debris ingestion. Engine data looks ok. Will borescope tonight. This is one of the outer engines."

So there were fluctuations that, while yet unexplained, were still within acceptable parameters?  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #219 on: January 24, 2016, 08:12:17 am »
"Maybe some debris ingestion. Engine data looks ok. Will borescope tonight. This is one of the outer engines."

So there were fluctuations that, while yet unexplained, were still within acceptable parameters?  ???

I suspect "Engine data" means data gathered by sensors on the engine. It's unlikely the engines are so heavily instrumented they can measure everything, so yes. Engine data can look okay while the engine does not perform to specifications.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 08:14:53 am by Hobbes »

Offline gral_rj

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #220 on: January 26, 2016, 02:47:16 pm »
I suspect "Engine data" means data gathered by sensors on the engine. It's unlikely the engines are so heavily instrumented they can measure everything, so yes. Engine data can look okay while the engine does not perform to specifications.

They can't measure everything, but you can learn a lot of things just by putting one or two thermocouples in the combustion chamber. Hell, you can buy a combustor dynamics sensor/software package for your heavy-duty gas turbine and get a lot of information for predictive maintenance - and you can bet those engines have more comprehensive monitoring systems than that of power plant gas turbines.

As for engine data looking ok while still not performing to specifications, yes, but the fact they will be(or already are) going to borescope the engine signals to me they have a point where measurements deviated from the expected, enough to warrant a closer look. Mind you, tolerance for deviation is at this point is much lower than what it would/will be when they operate Falcon commercially.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #222 on: February 23, 2016, 01:23:43 pm »
And another launch tomorrow evening.  Static fire completed yesterday.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/22/falcon-9-clears-static-fire-test-before-launch-this-week/


Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #223 on: February 24, 2016, 11:28:21 am »
Will be a very difficult mission; both ascent and descent. Satellite will be the heaviest they have ever launched to GTO (5721kg) and because of the high orbit it will probably be the most challenging mission they have done, period. Landing wise it will be similar to DSCOVR, going very fast at MECO (8000-9000km/h) and will experience very high forces on the way down, like DSCOVR did;

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/564509965612634112

So they are skipping boostback in this case again and landing very far out at sea, something like 600km out. Weather is looking very nice out there, 2m/s winds and 1.8m waves.

F9FT being able to lift such a heavy sat to a challenging orbit + landing is very very impressive.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #224 on: February 25, 2016, 03:28:05 pm »
They're up live for today's launch.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #225 on: February 25, 2016, 03:46:22 pm »
Never mind.    :(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #226 on: February 26, 2016, 08:29:36 am »
Looks like March 3'rd now.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #227 on: February 26, 2016, 09:37:43 am »
Launch jobs are starting to pile up -- at this rate they won't have the time to scrub the soot and touch-up paint the launch structures as the end of the year approaches. This years manifest had about a launch a month. Not looking good if they can't solve the slush-oxygen problem.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #228 on: February 26, 2016, 09:54:28 am »
Launch jobs are starting to pile up -- at this rate they won't have the time to scrub the soot and touch-up paint the launch structures as the end of the year approaches. This years manifest had about a launch a month. Not looking good if they can't solve the slush-oxygen problem.

David

Given this is what, the 2nd launch with it, I'd say it's far to early to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #229 on: February 26, 2016, 11:23:54 am »
Yeah, only second flight with this version and no one has ever gone this cold with LOX - which is what the issue has been for the last two attempts. Angara uses colder RP-1 though.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #230 on: February 26, 2016, 11:46:30 am »
Yeah, only second flight with this version and no one has ever gone this cold with LOX - which is what the issue has been for the last two attempts. Angara uses colder RP-1 though.

On the webcast yesterday one of the guys said both were supercooled which I thought was odd.  (As in both the LOX and RP1 on the Falcon.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #231 on: February 27, 2016, 02:34:50 am »
Yeah, only LOX is really super cooled. I think there were other silly mistakes in the webcast like them saying it will use multiple engines to land etc.

Falcon 9 v1.1:

LOX: ~ -180C
RP-1: ambient, ~ 21C

Falcon 9 Full Thrust:

LOX: -206C (~9.9% density increase versus v1.1)
RP-1: -6.6C (2.6% density increase v1.1)

Angara:

LOX: -180C
RP-1: -15C (density increase 3.4% vs ambient 21C)

So they could go even colder for RP-1 but not a whole lot of difference. LOX is where the big gains can be made and that is what they did.

Not official yet but there is a possibility for an attempt tomorrow.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #232 on: February 27, 2016, 04:30:37 pm »
They use 3 engines for the braking maneuver, that might have been the source of the multiple engines comment.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #233 on: February 28, 2016, 02:31:08 am »
Yes, 3 engines for boostback and re-entry burns but their comment was for landing in particular iirc. Either way, it doesn't matter. T-13h.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline compton_effect

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #234 on: February 28, 2016, 08:17:24 am »
The multiple engines comment for landing is actually correct.
Due to the concession to the client - the first stage won't do a boostback burn and instead come in in a ballistic arc - further out to sea.
The chances of a successful landing is so low that they'll be doing a multiple engine high-g burn to see if they can do it.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/703000514749984768

Quote
@NASASpaceflight First stage is going to pull some massive Gs slowing down. Multi-engine landing burn too! :-O

They'd lose the stage anyway - so they'll be destruct testing the landing concept.
So this is the aerospace equivalent of 'Hold my beer, I want to try something'.


 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #235 on: February 28, 2016, 08:40:54 am »
The multiple engines comment for landing is actually correct.
Due to the concession to the client - the first stage won't do a boostback burn and instead come in in a ballistic arc - further out to sea.
The chances of a successful landing is so low that they'll be doing a multiple engine high-g burn to see if they can do it.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/703000514749984768

Quote
@NASASpaceflight First stage is going to pull some massive Gs slowing down. Multi-engine landing burn too! :-O

They'd lose the stage anyway - so they'll be destruct testing the landing concept.
So this is the aerospace equivalent of 'Hold my beer, I want to try something'.

And the Mrs and I bought tickets to Deadpool a few days ago.  SpaceX should be touching down just as the end credits roll.

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline compton_effect

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #236 on: February 28, 2016, 09:04:19 am »
Lol. I know the feeling.
But having seen the Merc with the Mouth - its a fair trade off.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #237 on: February 28, 2016, 11:05:24 am »
The multiple engines comment for landing is actually correct.
Due to the concession to the client - the first stage won't do a boostback burn and instead come in in a ballistic arc - further out to sea.
The chances of a successful landing is so low that they'll be doing a multiple engine high-g burn to see if they can do it.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/703000514749984768

Quote
@NASASpaceflight First stage is going to pull some massive Gs slowing down. Multi-engine landing burn too! :-O

They'd lose the stage anyway - so they'll be destruct testing the landing concept.
So this is the aerospace equivalent of 'Hold my beer, I want to try something'.

I knew about the ballistic arc, no boostback, ASDS being 650km out to the sea etc but i missed the tidbit about it being a multiple engine landing burn. What the actual F. That is strange and super crazy.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline compton_effect

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #238 on: February 28, 2016, 12:59:42 pm »
Its SpaceX crazy. If they fail - it will be spectacular. If they succeed - it will be legendary. They would have proved first stage reusability through all the flight profiles.

 One failure simulation has the engines and fuel tank crumple like a beer can . A second one -with more fuel left - has it punching a hole in the barge. Either way - the information gathered will be invaluable.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #239 on: February 28, 2016, 01:15:36 pm »
Lol. I know the feeling.
But having seen the Merc with the Mouth - its a fair trade off.

Got my ticket time changed. Now I get to see both. If they launch today.  Fingers crossed.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #240 on: February 28, 2016, 01:41:45 pm »
They would have proved first stage reusability through all the flight profiles.

Not really no. They would have proven the ability to land it - reusing a stage is an entirely different story. ;) I am still having hard time to believe that Chris isn't at fault here, maybe he got it from the webcast or something, i dont know. Obviously i would love to be proven wrong but landing with multiple engines is radically different from landing on one having a 30 second burn which is difficult enough obviously. Oh well, we shall see.

PS: They have pulled OG2 core engines out and plan on using some of them on future missions;

Quote
The stage is currently housed at the new HIF at 39A, albeit now with its aft end somewhat dismantled for inspections along with – according to sources – some “potential” harvesting for future vehicles – which would play into the goal of initial reusability of flown hardware.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/02/spacex-falcon-9-static-fire-ahead-ses-9-launch/
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 01:47:33 pm by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #241 on: February 28, 2016, 03:27:49 pm »
Just gone live.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #242 on: February 28, 2016, 03:37:53 pm »
Just gone live.

Are you seeing just the SpaceX logo and an animation of stars?  Because that's all I've got on both the main feed and the "technical webcast"

Edit: Never mind, they just went live.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 03:42:07 pm by TomS »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #243 on: February 28, 2016, 03:46:05 pm »
@#$^@$%^!!!!!!
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #244 on: February 28, 2016, 03:53:53 pm »
I swear this is bloody hilarious. No issues whatsoever with the rocket or ground systems, 7 seconds past the previous hold time - some a-hole decides it is a good idea to travel into the keep out zone with a bloody ship. ;D
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #245 on: February 28, 2016, 03:58:32 pm »
How long can they hold before things start freezing up?
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #246 on: February 28, 2016, 03:59:38 pm »
I swear this is bloody hilarious. No issues whatsoever with the rocket or ground systems, 7 seconds past the previous hold time - some a-hole decides it is a good idea to travel into the keep out zone with a bloody ship. ;D

Hope they fine them within an inch of their fiscal lives.  I wonder how many minutes before  there is no longer enough fuel onboard to complete the landing.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #247 on: February 28, 2016, 04:09:05 pm »
 :'( :'(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #248 on: February 28, 2016, 04:10:39 pm »
?? Sferrin. Time reset - all good. What a thriller.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #249 on: February 28, 2016, 04:15:33 pm »
?? Sferrin. Time reset - all good. What a thriller.

They said "29th" figured they'd bumped it to tomorrow but then times zones. . .  I hope they still have enough O2 on board to do the landing.  :-\
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #250 on: February 28, 2016, 04:16:57 pm »
Well they are obviously continuing to feed it and "top it off" but yeah, it is certainly a challenge.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #251 on: February 28, 2016, 04:19:23 pm »
Well they are obviously continuing to feed it and "top it off" but yeah, it is certainly a challenge.

Hopefully they're topping it off. Thought I'd heard them shutting the lines down.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #252 on: February 28, 2016, 04:21:51 pm »
SMH.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7169
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #253 on: February 28, 2016, 04:26:19 pm »
Well, poop. Flashing back to the early 80's, me sitting on my ass in front of the TV waiting for a Shuttle launch, about to pop out of my skin when the SSME's start up... and promptly shut down.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #254 on: February 28, 2016, 04:31:27 pm »
Scrubbed.  :(
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 04:33:35 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #255 on: February 28, 2016, 04:43:34 pm »
I am not mad or annoyed or anything, just amazed. They had everything against them lol. Aaaand in the end the issue of the shutdown was because of the damn boat:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/704102461766676481

I am still chuckling for myself.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #256 on: February 28, 2016, 05:06:09 pm »
I am not mad or annoyed or anything, just amazed. They had everything against them lol. Aaaand in the end the issue of the shutdown was because of the damn boat:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/704102461766676481

I am still chuckling for myself.

Just impatient I guess.  I want to see them land on a barge.  :-[  These guys (Space X, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic) are all making progress.  NASA?  Well, they're going to spend the next decade or two designing a behemoth that might get launched once a year.  Maybe.  I fully expect SpaceX to leave SLS in the dust.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 05:08:25 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Arian

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #257 on: February 28, 2016, 09:11:46 pm »
These guys (Space X, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic) are all making progress.  NASA?  Well, they're going to spend the next decade or two designing a behemoth that might get launched once a year.  Maybe.  I fully expect SpaceX to leave SLS in the dust.

That's the job of NASA. If SLS were to be a viable commercial program, it would have been done by SpaceX or ULA. It's precisely's NASA's job to invest money in projects which otherwise would not be done by private companies. If SLS remains on schedule for 2018 first launch, it will have SpaceX's lunch. And SLS is in a totally different class from Falcon Heavy anyway. Not that spaceX isn't impressive, but these are apples and oranges.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 09:20:49 pm by Arian »

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #258 on: February 29, 2016, 04:50:27 am »
No. It's NASA's job to investigate the many a varied problems of aerospace travel; to do the RESEARCH private industry can not afford to do -- on behalf of the private aerospace companies/American people.

NASA was supposed to be this place where rocket-scientist went to conduct scientific research. It got derailed the moment the commie's put a man in space. NASA's been a political play-thing ever since.

And it's a govenment employer. The kind of environment that hires conservative, life-long emploee's -- the type of guys who play it safe, not agresively. Fine for wind-tunnel operators. Not fine if you're looking to develop heavy weight launchers that won't be throw-backs to ammunition type vehicles.

It's not supposed to be a frig'n travel agency.

NASA was supposed to be the NACA of the space-age.

NASA's supposed to gather real-world vehicle and engine data. The only thing this institution should fly are X-craft, dammit!

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #259 on: February 29, 2016, 05:15:29 am »
"A fuel problem forced the sudden delay, following a postponement -- known as a hold -- earlier in the evening due to a ship that ventured into the waters off Cape Canaveral, Florida, said SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.

"Launch aborted on low thrust alarm. Rising oxygen temps due to hold for boat and helium bubble triggered alarm," Musk said on Twitter."

Yep.  Boat owner should be fined.  That's a lot of money down the drain because somebody couldn't be bothered to pay attention to where they were going.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Arian

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #260 on: February 29, 2016, 03:00:11 pm »
No. It's NASA's job to investigate the many a varied problems of aerospace travel; to do the RESEARCH private industry can not afford to do -- on behalf of the private aerospace companies/American people.

NASA was supposed to be this place where rocket-scientist went to conduct scientific research. It got derailed the moment the commie's put a man in space. NASA's been a political play-thing ever since.

And it's a govenment employer. The kind of environment that hires conservative, life-long emploee's -- the type of guys who play it safe, not agresively. Fine for wind-tunnel operators. Not fine if you're looking to develop heavy weight launchers that won't be throw-backs to ammunition type vehicles.

It's not supposed to be a frig'n travel agency.

NASA was supposed to be the NACA of the space-age.

NASA's supposed to gather real-world vehicle and engine data. The only thing this institution should fly are X-craft, dammit!

David

We're saying the same thing. But things like sending people to Mars (or the moon) falls under basic research and has little if any commercial application. And people who do basic research, scientists etc, are generally very conservative low-risk people, and people who want and need "life-long" employment to get that sort of work done. So either way it seems to me that this is NASA's job, not SpaceX or ULA's job. Which is reflected in the very different types or rockets and missions they are focusing on. SLS is more than twice as capable as Falcon Heavy, and isn't something that would be useful for any commercial purposes. Its only reason for existence is inter-planetary travel. SpaceX may have ambitions on that too, but I'd bet anything that NASA is going to beat them to Mars by a decade.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #261 on: February 29, 2016, 03:12:37 pm »
No. It's NASA's job to investigate the many a varied problems of aerospace travel; to do the RESEARCH private industry can not afford to do -- on behalf of the private aerospace companies/American people.

NASA was supposed to be this place where rocket-scientist went to conduct scientific research. It got derailed the moment the commie's put a man in space. NASA's been a political play-thing ever since.

And it's a govenment employer. The kind of environment that hires conservative, life-long emploee's -- the type of guys who play it safe, not agresively. Fine for wind-tunnel operators. Not fine if you're looking to develop heavy weight launchers that won't be throw-backs to ammunition type vehicles.

It's not supposed to be a frig'n travel agency.

NASA was supposed to be the NACA of the space-age.

NASA's supposed to gather real-world vehicle and engine data. The only thing this institution should fly are X-craft, dammit!

David

We're saying the same thing. But things like sending people to Mars (or the moon) falls under basic research and has little if any commercial application. And people who do basic research, scientists etc, are generally very conservative low-risk people, and people who want and need "life-long" employment to get that sort of work done.

Tell that to the Apollo and X-15 people.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #262 on: February 29, 2016, 04:07:30 pm »
For nearly three decades the otherwise conservative government agency, NASA, had 'go fever'. A headlong, risk taking effort to move the technological ball ahead of the Soviet's.

Like war, the space-race worked to motivate government employees to take risks in a competitive spirit.

Survival, be it national or personal, is a powerful catalyst.

However, today, in the absence of a space race lethargy has set in over at NASA. The pace slowed by both risk adverse institutional thinking, and inconsistent and niggardly funding. Today institutionally sanctioned job security (safety!) trumps radical efforts to advance the state-of-the-art. That's why NASA has reverted (SLS) back to the ammunition-age of rocketry. And to what end? Job security; a 'reason' for NASA's existence. Same old, same old.

Let the profit motivated private sector determine if there is a buck to be made by going to the moon (again!) or Mars. If they do, they'll find a way to get there. And they'll do so exploiting the engines, structures, and orbital mechanics worked out by NASA. In the private sector money is the catalyst. Let those rockets ride on investor dollars. Stop with the government rockets shot off to who knows where using my tax dollars as reaction mass.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Arian

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #263 on: February 29, 2016, 04:36:13 pm »
For nearly three decades the otherwise conservative government agency, NASA, had 'go fever'. A headlong, risk taking effort to move the technological ball ahead of the Soviet's.

Like war, the space-race worked to motivate government employees to take risks in a competitive spirit.

Survival, be it national or personal, is a powerful catalyst.

However, today, in the absence of a space race lethargy has set in over at NASA. The pace slowed by both risk adverse institutional thinking, and inconsistent and niggardly funding. Today institutionally sanctioned job security (safety!) trumps radical efforts to advance the state-of-the-art. That's why NASA has reverted (SLS) back to the ammunition-age of rocketry. And to what end? Job security; a 'reason' for NASA's existence. Same old, same old.

Let the profit motivated private sector determine if there is a buck to be made by going to the moon (again!) or Mars. If they do, they'll find a way to get there. And they'll do so exploiting the engines, structures, and orbital mechanics worked out by NASA. In the private sector money is the catalyst. Let those rockets ride on investor dollars. Stop with the government rockets shot off to who knows where using my tax dollars as reaction mass.

David

Yes, in the absence of a space race, things slow down because there isn't a motivation for them. But that's neither here nor there. It's not very relevant to the discussion. I agree with you that there is little risk taking going on. But that's the nature of the beast. Basic research is about the least risk-taking endeavor there is, and the people who do it are naturally very risk averse people.

Your second statement, however, contradicts your previous statement. You first said that the job of NASA is to do the sort of research that private companies do not want to do (either because its too expensive, or because they see no value in it). Now you're saying, let the private companies determine what should be done. These are contradictory requirements.

There is no value in going to the moon, or mars. I personally think its a waste of money either way, but what I think doesn't matter. It's still NASA's job to do these sort of missions, if we (we as a country) decide that's what we want to do. Private companies aren't going to do it. As for your criticism of SLS, where is the alternative equally capable system designed by private companies? Nowhere. Because its a system which has no other purpose other than inter-planetary travel, which is not going to happen outside of NASA.

Quote
Tell that to the Apollo and X-15 people.

Tell them what? You're talking about the astronauts and pilots? Those are obviously risk-seeking people. But to get a ride on a spacecraft or X-15, it took decades of research by people who were diametrically the opposite of them. Plus there was the space-race thing going on which gave impetus to be more risk-taking in projects. In either case, that doesn't change the fact that no one else is interested in doing this stuff outside of NASA, and NASA is still doing it better than everyone else.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #264 on: February 29, 2016, 04:59:00 pm »
Tell them what? You're talking about the astronauts and pilots? Those are obviously risk-seeking people. But to get a ride on a spacecraft or X-15, it took decades of research by people who were diametrically the opposite of them.

"Decades"?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #265 on: March 01, 2016, 04:44:18 am »
The SLS architecture is rendered obsolete if in-orbit fuel depots are established.  These depots could be orbited and then fueled by Falcon Heavy class launchers.  The fuel depot idea has been around for a long time but held back by safety concerns.  There is some research on the ISS which is testing fuel transfers in space so perhaps these concerns might be resolved.

The whole notion of manned planetary expeditions using Apollo style architecture (which SLS represents) is financially nonviable.  The problem with SLS is that it costs so much it prohibits the very missions it is supposed to enable.   I will not be surprised if a second “Augustine Commission” eventually terminates the program after a few test flights.

The other problem has to do with NASA’s bureaucratic culture.  The overhead, G&A rates, and staffing levels loaded onto NASA programs make them extremely expensive (look at the current cost of the James Webb Space Telescope).  This problem is basically intractable since it is inherent in the NASA DNA.  The usual solution is wholesale replacement of the managerial strata all the way down to technical leads.  It would be interesting to test the applicability of the DARPA model of minimal bureaucracy to large scale projects.  With interconnected networks allowing instant and total oversight, is it still necessary to have large, permanent government agencies?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #266 on: March 01, 2016, 05:00:55 am »
Any word?  There was talk they could make another attempt as early as today but then nothing else.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #267 on: March 01, 2016, 05:26:17 am »
The webcast is counting down for a launch later today (around midnight GMT), now at T-10 hours.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #268 on: March 01, 2016, 05:39:13 am »
The webcast is counting down for a launch later today (around midnight GMT), now at T-10 hours.

Cool.  (That bit is blocked out here.)  I wish them well.  Can't wait to see them make that landing attempt.  If they stick this one that should really be a boost considering it's even more difficult than what they've been trying.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #269 on: March 01, 2016, 12:58:02 pm »
The SES-9 drama is ongoing, todays attempt is scrubbed due to 70m/s winds;

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/704770247769722880
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Arian

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #270 on: March 01, 2016, 02:23:58 pm »
make them extremely expensive (look at the current cost of the James Webb Space Telescope).

As compared to what? That's the real issue. Yes they are expensive, but they are also done by NASA because they are so expensive that no one else will do them. So its a circular argument. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #271 on: March 01, 2016, 04:48:13 pm »
make them extremely expensive (look at the current cost of the James Webb Space Telescope).

As compared to what? That's the real issue. Yes they are expensive, but they are also done by NASA because they are so expensive that no one else will do them. So its a circular argument.

Maybe with space telescopes - for now.  Launch vehicles?  Nope. It won't be long before commercial entities, and their launchers, are putting up astronauts far more often than NASA. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #272 on: March 01, 2016, 05:13:15 pm »
make them extremely expensive (look at the current cost of the James Webb Space Telescope).

As compared to what? That's the real issue. Yes they are expensive, but they are also done by NASA because they are so expensive that no one else will do them. So its a circular argument.

I did not authorize NASA to fling hardware to the planets. I want NASA to get its head out of the stars (doing so on my back) and to stick with technology refinement. If someone wants to count the rings of a gas-giant, let them foot the bill and/or entice other like minded people to build the probe and hire a ride from SpaceX or the like. If this means changing the NASA charter, so be it.

NASA is not supposed to be an unstoppable juggernaut looking for missions for old-style rockets yet to be built (the SLS designed to dump re-usable engines into the Atlantic). It's time for we voters to start questioning the activities of this Managers wet-dream and haul back on the reins.

Let the commercial launch businesses take it from here. NASA, you had your day ... and thanks for all the fish.

David
« Last Edit: March 01, 2016, 05:14:46 pm by merriman »
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #273 on: March 02, 2016, 12:22:02 am »
Quote
If someone wants to count the rings of a gas-giant, let them foot the bill


I disagree. A world where NASA limits itself to aeronautical research is a far poorer world. The other planets in our solar system would still be tiny dots in a telescope rather than treasure troves of information. We'd know far less about our origins and how the universe works than we do now. You'd have missed out on the massive advances to society that came from the Apollo project.
If you're consistent, you'd also have to stop spending in other areas of research. No more particle physics beyond simple cyclotrons. No more large astronomical observatories.
Expensive research with no immediate return is exactly what governments should do.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #274 on: March 02, 2016, 04:15:49 am »
Expensive research with no return is a waste of money. I invite anyone with the want and means to 'explore' to explore away, and God speed. Just don't do it on my dime.

Curiosity and knowledge seeking has to linkage to Federal spending. Government should do three things: raise an Army, protect the boarders, and insure interstate commerce. That's about it. I put NASA in the 'raise an Army' category. But, today, NASA is way out of hand.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline Hobbes

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 617
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #275 on: March 02, 2016, 04:32:41 am »
So you'd advocate a return to 15th century society? Because that's what a world without government-funded research would look like. 'No research without immediate applications' is extraordinarily shortsighted.
One example: it took 20 years for the internet to become commercially viable. With your favored policy in place, we wouldn't be talking right now.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #276 on: March 02, 2016, 04:42:16 am »
It's an interesting perspective, but not one shared by most Americans.  Expeditions of exploration have been part of the government's mission since the founding of the nation.  So has hte development of scientific knowledge.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #277 on: March 02, 2016, 05:10:12 am »
So you'd advocate a return to 15th century society? Because that's what a world without government-funded research would look like. 'No research without immediate applications' is extraordinarily shortsighted.
One example: it took 20 years for the internet to become commercially viable. With your favored policy in place, we wouldn't be talking right now.

The internet (ARPAnet) was a military program so yeah, it would still be a go.  Same with GPS.  While I'm not quite with Merriman on this, I do think NASA is squandering a lot of money.  If they're going to build SLS at least have a friggin' plan.  They don't even have any payloads lined up for it. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #278 on: March 02, 2016, 05:27:38 am »
Maybe with space telescopes - for now.  Launch vehicles?  Nope. It won't be long before commercial entities, and their launchers, are putting up astronauts far more often than NASA.

To where? Don't say Bigelow because until that company gets a new CEO and management it is a complete and utter mess.

If they're going to build SLS at least have a friggin' plan.  They don't even have any payloads lined up for it.

Well, that is hardly NASA's fault is it now? Congress wants a big rocket to have something to show, they are not interested in funding any actual payloads for it. But we are wildly off topic now.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Arian

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 107
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #279 on: March 02, 2016, 09:17:54 pm »
Well, that is hardly NASA's fault is it now? Congress...

Agreed. NASA takes the path of least resistance with projects like SLS because Congress (at the behest of an extremely short-sighted public, and even more short-sighted and ignorant politicians) keeps canceling anything that remotely smells of risk. So, they get something totally non-risky.

I get your concerns and sentiment merriman. I really do. But ultimately, you're saying the same thing as me: invest in research that one day might find applications in industry. You only seem to disagree with me as to whether sending rockets to the moon or Mars is part of that mission. Maybe, maybe not. Realistically, these things costs peanuts compared to the rest of the stuff the government wastes money on. $8 billion is what the government spends in a weekend. And few things have given us more return for the buck than NASA and military R&D over the decades.

Anyway, sorry for the off-topic.

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1307
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #280 on: March 03, 2016, 03:55:52 am »
On U.S. government spending....

According to this 2013 infographic from JPL, the NASA budget represents about 0.5% of the U.S. federal budget.  Could they spend it more wisely and more effectively?  Absolutely.  But, as has been said, they often don't get to decide themselves because it's all about what the higher ups and Congress will approve, not always what makes the most sense.

For context, check out these infographics on the 2013 and 2015 U.S. federal budgets.  These numbers track with the 0.5% number from JPL.  What's really striking is that over 60% of the federal budget is made up of fixed costs, mostly Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.  Half of the rest goes to the military, and everything else the government does comes out of the other half.

In other words, if you could save just 1% off the fixed costs, about 0.6% of the total budget, you'd already pay for NASA.  Want to see human colonization of Mars and beyond?  Support medical reforms.
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #281 on: March 03, 2016, 05:05:24 am »
Maybe with space telescopes - for now.  Launch vehicles?  Nope. It won't be long before commercial entities, and their launchers, are putting up astronauts far more often than NASA.

To where? Don't say Bigelow because until that company gets a new CEO and management it is a complete and utter mess.

If they're going to build SLS at least have a friggin' plan.  They don't even have any payloads lined up for it.

Well, that is hardly NASA's fault is it now? Congress wants a big rocket to have something to show, they are not interested in funding any actual payloads for it. But we are wildly off topic now.

True.  NASA gets their marching orders from Congress (to a degree). 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #282 on: March 04, 2016, 06:22:54 am »
While weather reports are 90% go, it doesnt look good for a launch today. Still very large winds at altitude.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #283 on: March 04, 2016, 06:59:48 am »
While weather reports are 90% go, it doesnt look good for a launch today. Still very large winds at altitude.

 :'(  Still crossing my fingers though.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #284 on: March 04, 2016, 03:48:23 pm »
So close. . . :(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #285 on: March 04, 2016, 03:50:43 pm »
color bars. Not good. A three-engine landing burn. Wow! Film at Eleven!

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #286 on: March 04, 2016, 04:01:35 pm »
Dont know for sure anything just yet. Some very very very low probability rumors that it succeed. Off-center does not mean it failed.

EDIT: Clean sep, looked great. Main mission complete now.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 04:09:44 pm by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #287 on: March 04, 2016, 04:09:33 pm »
Dont know for sure anything just yet. Some very very very low probability rumors that it succeed. Off-center does not mean it failed.

No but failure of the camera suggests it probably did.  (Explosions and cameras don't get along well most of the time.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #288 on: March 04, 2016, 04:11:06 pm »
No, no it does not. JASON-3 camera cut out too and that wasnt because it got killed, according to the guy that is doing the webcasts it was because of the vibrations. This one was twice as long out so even worse connection.

EDIT:

Quote
#Falcon9 booster did not survive landing, confirmed by #SpaceX. #SES9
https://twitter.com/MatthewBTravis/status/705908015711518720
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 04:12:39 pm by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #289 on: March 04, 2016, 04:11:37 pm »
This is a nail-biter! SpaceX web-cast just signed off without ANY booster recovery status. Nuts! Not good!

Yes! The money's safe (old Alien movie line); primary mission completed successfully. Awaiting word to see if SpaceX gets to eat the cake too.

David
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 04:15:26 pm by merriman »
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #290 on: March 04, 2016, 04:57:27 pm »
Quote
Rocket landed hard on the droneship. Didn't expect this one to work (v hot reentry), but next flight has a good chance.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/705917924972736512

Next one is CRS-8, RTLS and should have a long boostback. Aimed for 30'th march, as of now.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline compton_effect

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 68
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #291 on: March 04, 2016, 08:42:01 pm »
Whelp. It bounced. That it handled the high g-loading during the braking burn is impressive enough.
Primary mission was textbook - so nicely done it will probably get boring.
And we all knew the landing was a long shot.
 
That it reached the barge and bounced on the first time - with a such a radical flight profile?

That's impressive - the amount of data gathered is priceless.

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #292 on: March 05, 2016, 04:17:23 am »
It's sad that ship "Just Read the Instructions" got hit again by first stage...

Next chance for ten land landing is with CRS-8, CRS-9, CRS-10, CRS-11, DragonLab 1 and DragonV2 also Falcon heavy in 2016
for rest over 14 ship landing attempts for 2016
means "Of Course I Still Love You" and "Just Read the Instructions" will be hit hard this year ...
I love Strange Technology

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #293 on: March 05, 2016, 04:59:05 am »
It was "Of course i still love you" ASDS which is based in Florida, not "Just read the instructions" which is based on west-coast and had its first mission with JASON-3. You are confusing with the original, Marmac 300, JRTI.

Your launch list is a bit faulty too. There is no evidence that DragonLab will launch this year for instance. Not to mention barge will be used for GTO missions, not LEO missions. And they most certainly wont do 14 GTO missions this year.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 05:08:58 am by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #294 on: March 05, 2016, 06:27:13 am »
It was "Of course i still love you" ASDS which is based in Florida, not "Just read the instructions" which is based on west-coast and had its first mission with JASON-3. You are confusing with the original, Marmac 300, JRTI.

Your launch list is a bit faulty too. There is no evidence that DragonLab will launch this year for instance. Not to mention barge will be used for GTO missions, not LEO missions. And they most certainly wont do 14 GTO missions this year.

my source is german Wikipedia  ::)

On GTO the Falcon 9 has to make landing on Drone ship. it use too much fuel for a return to land landing.
The LEO mission left Falcon 9 with suffice fuel reserve for land landing.
Also the booster for Falcon heavy, while core stage has to land on Drone ship, it simply to far for land landing.
and the Polar orbit mission there will be Land landing at Vandenberg AFB, but some launch here need Drone ship landing.
I love Strange Technology

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #295 on: March 05, 2016, 07:05:53 am »
You are telling me things i already know. :P
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #296 on: March 18, 2016, 03:33:32 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #297 on: March 18, 2016, 03:43:40 am »
This could put a spanner in the works: http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/03/senator-asks-pentagon-to-investigate-troubling-launch-contracts/

Bad day for ULA. Crony capitalism personified.

Wonder if Tobey is looking for a gig at SpaceX? Aerojet-Rocketdyne must be livid.

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #298 on: March 18, 2016, 04:09:28 am »
This could put a spanner in the works: http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/03/senator-asks-pentagon-to-investigate-troubling-launch-contracts/

Not for SpaceX.  ;)  Thing is, ULA has the smarts and resources to compete with SpaceX but it would require a cultural shift. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #299 on: March 18, 2016, 04:55:05 am »
Wonder if Tobey is looking for a gig at SpaceX? Aerojet-Rocketdyne must be livid.

David

Full transcript here; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MTGfXjnFPKbd59uP0GaCiq0A6TO8FlbK9CrPtZO6LVs/edit

I haven't read the whole thing but reading bits here and there it is just hilariously unprofessional in every way possible. Never mind SpaceX comments for a second, but his comments regarding Aerojet and BO/Jeff is just... wtf man. Or revealing outright real reason behind not bidding on GPS competition etc. There must have been a dozen ULA lawyers getting heart attack simultaneously reading/hearing those.

And it is obvious the old guard is still unable to understand how SpaceX manages to build and launch as cheap as they do, which is why they continue to make dumb comments like these;

Quote
So are you skeptical that they can make a profit off of their launches?

I know he’s not making a profit. He’s plowing through all the people’s money right now. NASA gave him four billion dollars to develop the Falcon 9, so he’s definitely not. At 60 million dollars a launch, he’s spending a whole lot more than that. Every time you watch a Falcon 9 launch, he’s probably losing quarter of a billion dollars or something like that.

Sure sure, keep living in that denial. And as far as i remember NASA funded F9 with like ~330milion USD (for the original v1.0, whether later revisions has been 100% out of SpaceX's pocket is unclear) which is pennies all things considered.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 04:57:57 am by flanker »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #300 on: April 08, 2016, 01:44:57 pm »
SpaceX just launched.  Going to try for a barge landing.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #301 on: April 08, 2016, 01:51:27 pm »
Reentry burn just started.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #302 on: April 08, 2016, 01:52:45 pm »
YEAH!!!!!!!!!



« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 01:59:38 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8108
  • The path not taken.
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #303 on: April 08, 2016, 02:06:12 pm »
The Falcon has landed.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #304 on: April 08, 2016, 02:08:05 pm »
They might want to make the pad a tad bigger.   :o  I wonder if they monitor the relative position of the rocket and barge and roll the rocket for best leg position for stability.   ???
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 02:10:02 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1299
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #305 on: April 08, 2016, 02:10:05 pm »
I wonder if the barge has active roll/pitch dampeners on it?  Any larger pitch amplitude and it might affect landing forces.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #306 on: April 08, 2016, 02:15:12 pm »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Gildasd

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • Space fantasist
    • Sci-Fi Meanderings
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #307 on: April 08, 2016, 02:18:37 pm »
I wonder if the barge has active roll/pitch dampeners on it?  Any larger pitch amplitude and it might affect landing forces.
The other barge has, no idea if they are identical or not.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11263
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #308 on: April 08, 2016, 02:19:38 pm »
I wonder if the barge has active roll/pitch dampeners on it?  Any larger pitch amplitude and it might affect landing forces.
The other barge has, no idea if they are identical or not.

Barge is still pitching around quite a bit in the video.  I guess there are limits to the motion they can eliminate.

HD of the landing:


« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 02:21:30 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline merriman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • David Douglass Merriman lll
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #309 on: April 08, 2016, 02:28:50 pm »
gas that thing up and do it again!

Elon Musk, the Hank Rearden of rockets

David
We're the extra fuel they may need, Stanton...

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #310 on: April 08, 2016, 03:05:38 pm »
gas that thing up and do it again!

Elon Musk, the Hank Rearden of rockets

David

Yeah, they decided not to refly the first Falcon 9 that they recovered but I think they'll have to refly this one to make a point (and to answer Blue Origin's recent flights, even though those were not orbital).

Online Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4109
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #311 on: April 08, 2016, 03:42:26 pm »
Congratulation SpaceX

i hear already the whine and  howling coming from Arianespace and ULA HQ...
I love Strange Technology

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #312 on: April 08, 2016, 05:56:08 pm »
gas that thing up and do it again!

Elon Musk, the Hank Rearden of rockets

David

Yeah, they decided not to refly the first Falcon 9 that they recovered but I think they'll have to refly this one to make a point (and to answer Blue Origin's recent flights, even though those were not orbital).

Elon doesnt care about answering BO because BO is irrelevant to what SpaceX is doing. During the post launch conference Elon said they will static test fire the booster 10 times on Pad 39A and relaunch it in June.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #313 on: April 08, 2016, 11:12:13 pm »
I wonder if the barge has active roll/pitch dampeners on it?  Any larger pitch amplitude and it might affect landing forces.
The other barge has, no idea if they are identical or not.

Barge is still pitching around quite a bit in the video.  I guess there are limits to the motion they can eliminate.

HD of the landing:

Given that they're using a second-hand dry cargo barge with some thrusters bolted on, it's doing pretty well. Getting greater stability would require divorcing the deck's movement from the surface wave action, either with submerged hulls or stilts down to the sea bed.

Offline CiTrus90

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Reply #314 on: April 09, 2016, 12:05:01 am »
It's an amazing feat, and the SpaceX team must be really proud of what they have been able to achieve!

This said, though, I still think the real breakthrough in space launches will come only when a mass-driver will be built and used.

Regards.