Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Falcon 9R Vertical Take-Off and Landing Test Flight
schwit1 (797399) writes "The competition heats up: SpaceX [Wednesday] released a new video of the most recent Falcon 9R vertical take-off and landing test flight. The flight was to test the deployment and use of fins for controlling the stage during its return to Earth. Watch them unfold and adjust themselves beginning at about 1:15 into the video. In the second half you can see them near the top of the stage. Yet another video from SpaceX of the world's most blase cows. You can imagine new cows to the herd, reacting to the launch as the conditioned cows just yawn, just another 100 foot tall rocket launching and landing nearby. Nothing to see here."
Aaaand 3... 2... 1... Deploy flyswatters!
If Kerbal Space Program has taught me anything, it's that giant rocket engines are incredibley hard to control going forward. I can't even fathom the engineering skill and knowledge of physics required to make a rocket fly near flawlessly in reverse.
I have it on the authority of several friends who have been involved in the raising of cows ... cows are far too damned stupid for what you're ascribing to them.
I believe the entire cow decision tree comes down to: Does it look like it will eat me? Are the other cows moving and do they seem scared? Can I eat it? Can I poop on it? Is it time for a nap?
Everything else, apparently, is mostly random chance and blind luck.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I'm still confused how you can fire a rocket in reverse going mach 17 and not have problems with exhaust doing something to the nozzle.
also, start at 2m20s to watch the cows run away!
If I remember correctly, the stage is so light by that point that they believe they can turn around and fly back using 10% of the fuel. That cuts payload somewhat, but a 20% lower payload for 10% of the price would still be a big win.
The other option is to launch such that there's a convenient spot to land around where the stage would come down. That would take much less fuel, but you have to fly it back to the launhch site afterwards.
I believe the first stage makes an orbit before de-orbiting via a burn, comes in head first with an ablative heat shield, and flips over once it's roughly subsonic. The details are still sketchy but from what I heard the first real 'landing' on water was approximately 1 mile off course. Musk wants 300 ft on next flight and on a pad at the cape by end of the year.
I know Elon Musk has his haters, even in the nerd community, and they have their reasons. But personally, I am thankful beyond thankful for him, his companies, and many fine employees. There is no one out there working so hard to make the Earth a better place while also opening the doors to space in order to ensure the survival of our species. I find it interesting that the business ventures he lines up are not only geared toward making a better Earth, they simultaneously serve the purpose of developing crucial technologies we would need to colonize Mars. The man is a genius, and yes I'm a fanboy.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Huh? No the first stage never makes it into orbit. Otherwise you wouldn't need a second stage and it would be a SSTO vehicle.
You're referring to the second stage. The first stage never get's anywhere close to orbit.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
If you watch the Tesla news lately, I think it is apparent that the current American launch monopolists have initiated a wide ranging propaganda and political campaign against SpaceX. Examples of this are here and here, as well as comment boards on various articles about Space X. The memes I have noticed emphasized are first and foremost that SpaceX is cutting corners (aimed at legislators), that Space X is the beneficiary of "corporate welfare", and that Musk is a "communist bum" (aimed at right-leaning readers).
One of the primary reasons I think this is evidence of an organized campaign is the timing. Space X initiated the campaign against the Russian rocket engines being used by ULA, as well as objecting to the bulk purchases of launch contracts by the Airforce from ULA, thus locking Space X out of a significant number of launches before it gains certification. I can imagine this as a directive from ULA exectives being given around that time. Such campaigns typically take a few weeks to work-up. They take studies of public opinion, come up with themes to base their campaign around, and then test those themes with the public, often with focus groups. This lag of a few weeks for propaganda campaigns is typical when an organization suddenly decides to initiate a campaign based on new information. Watch for it next time you see a government or corporation being attacked by a new threat. This lag of two or more weeks between threat and response is typical I believe of an organized propaganda campaign.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
With a thick atmosphere and oceans and wide open plains everywhere there is little engineering justification to landing a rocket when you can simply pop a parachute.
But Mars has a thin atmosphere and you need a working rocket to come home. Are the fins a lattice to simulate mar's thin air?
Elon is nothing if not forward looking...
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
Why can't you just drive it back? It's got fins; surely it has wheels too!
Yeah, but it corners like a whale.
like apple circa 1978.
lose != loose
You wouldn't have to fly it back to the launch site; the Falcon 9 travels by road, and the diameter (3.66 metres) was specifically chosen to be the largest diameter that can be transported by truck on regular roads. It's a cost-saving measure.
In a real launch the vehicle is a couple of hundred miles downrange at separation. I'm guessing that one of the purposes of having a launch site in Texas is that then they can let the stage coast downrange some more, and land it at Canaveral. This would require less energy than returning to Texas. However Canaveral is pretty far downrange, so my guess may be bogus. This also depends on what type of orbit the launch is intended for.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
This is wrong, they said specifically that they aim to land back at the launch site, for quick refuel/restart (less than 24h turnover in production). No plans to return to other pads and carry via road/waterway.
Not only supersonic - it seems likely that they'll perform quite adequately even down to the ~80m/s that it hits while freefalling down to a landing.
I'm not sure about added weight.
Certainly, it's added weight, if the stage is not intended to be recovered.
However, the extra control authority right down to the point you need to light the main engine to start the 3-4G burn means that you may gain back the
mass in less fuel needed both for the main engines and attitude control systems.
Good to know about the fins... It was just a guess.
I don't see why parachutes are inevitably destructive for Earth re entry however... Dragon design aside ...
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
Remember. The truth is what the left yells at you often enough.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?