SpaceX Rocket Launch Succeeds, But Landing Test Doesn't
New submitter 0x2A writes: A Falcon 9 rocket built by SpaceX successfully launched a Dragon cargo ship toward the International Space Station early Saturday— and then returned to Earth, apparently impacting its target ocean platform during a landing test in the Atlantic.
"Rocket made it to drone spaceport ship, but landed hard. Close, but no cigar this time. Bodes well for the future tho," Elon Musk tweeted shortly after the launch. He added that they didn't get good video of the landing attempt, so they'll be piecing it together using telemetry and debris. "Ship itself is fine. Some of the support equipment on the deck will need to be replaced."
"Rocket made it to drone spaceport ship, but landed hard. Close, but no cigar this time. Bodes well for the future tho," Elon Musk tweeted shortly after the launch. He added that they didn't get good video of the landing attempt, so they'll be piecing it together using telemetry and debris. "Ship itself is fine. Some of the support equipment on the deck will need to be replaced."
Probably just a flake of ice, the rocket/spacecraft are generally covered with it on launch and if you look closely it sheds it throughout the flight.
There will never be manned landings of the first stage. Or the second. For the simple reason that there is no reason to man them in the first place. As for the crew capsule - well by then they will have had lots of practice landing the first two stages, not to mention the much more similar unmanned cargo capsules which are a much easier control challenge than the booster stages - compare balancing a vertical broom in your palm to balancing a baseball. It might get a bit more exciting if the crew were allowed to wander around during landing, chaotically modifying the mass distribution, but I suspect most everyone would rather be strapped firmly in place anyway.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
According to Elon "Didn't get good landing/impact video. Pitch dark and foggy."
Sounds like the aircraft you are describing is the De Havilland Comet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Another news story said it was foggy and zero visibility. The cameras on the rocket really only showed anything when it fell over into the water, where bubbles could be seen.
Considering spaceX has navigated the rocket exactly where they wanted every landing attempt, I wonder when they will finally get permission to land on, um, actual land. For all we know the ship may have pitched up increasing the velocity that the rocket touched down. Plus I'm sure the poor visibility at sea couldn't have helped either.
Better known as 318230.
Firstly, I think SpaceX were trying to get away from parachute recoveries. The Shuttle solid booster rockets used to parachute down into the ocean, but the problem with that is that they need completely cleaning out and refurbishing between each flight.
Secondly, they would need more than parachutes to recover the first stage because it is travelling so fast when it separates (not sure of the exact number, but somewhere between 2 and 4 Kilometers per second). They have to do a retrograde burn to slow down enough to safely re-enter the atmosphere.
The bubbles you're probably referring to were from a camera inside the liquid oxygen tank of the second stage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Landing *anything* that's been to space on a barge has never been done before.
Landing a full-size *first stage* that's delivered a payload to space *anywhere* has never been done before (far, far harder problem than landing a crew capsule, they're massive, hard to control, and imbalanced).
The thing is nearly as heavy as the Space Shuttle, much larger, a much more unstable shape (due to the nature of rockets), has only stubby grid fins for manueuvering, is controlled by a computer with no ability for real-time corrections by a pilot, and was landing on a barge barely larger than itself. And was created on what's by comparison a shoestring budget. Let's not pretend that this isn't a massive challenge.
I know it's the nerd-equivalent of being a hipster to berate anyone who expresses any support for SpaceX, but for god's sake, look objectively at the nature of this challenge for a minute. One can hate Elon, but these engineers are not exactly picking the low hanging fruit, and they've still achieved very impressive results thusfar.
(The real question will be, of course, whether they can actually refurbish these first stages cheaper than they can build them... most people assumed the Shuttle would be dirt cheap to refurbish, after all...)
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
Elon Musk @elonmusk "Grid fins worked extremely well from hypersonic velocity to subsonic, but ran out of hydraulic fluid right before landing."
"Upcoming flight already has 50% more hydraulic fluid, so should have plenty of margin for landing attempt next month."
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Putting wings on something that consists of empty tanks in front and heavy engines in the tail is harder. A rocket stage has totally the wrong center of gravity to fly this way. Try to throw a dart with the heavy tip backwards and you will see why.
Yes, that's exactly what they're doing. No one has soft-landed the first stage of a rocket after using it to launch something into orbit before. That stage normally burns up on reentry or is debris in the ocean.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Not an official reply but answered on Twitter:
Chris (Robotbeat) @Robotbeat 3h3 hours ago
@dtarsgeorge @rocketrepreneur In aerospace, hydraulics are pressurized with gas (no pump) and no return lines. Pretty standard, actually.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings