Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Successfully Lands Its Rocket On A Floating Drone Ship For The First Time (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: SpaceX has finally landed its Falcon 9 rocket on a drone ship at sea, after launching the vehicle into space this afternoon. It's the first time the company has been able to pull off an ocean landing, after four previous attempts ended in failure. This is the second time SpaceX has successfully landed one of its rockets post-launch; the first time was in December, when the company's Falcon 9 rocket touched down at a ground-based landing site in Cape Canaveral, Florida, after putting a satellite into space. Now that SpaceX has demonstrated it can do both types of landings, the company can potentially recover and reuse even more rockets in the future. And that could mean much greater cost savings for SpaceX.
The smallest launch cost is fuel -- the largest is hardware. The majority of the hardware cost is for the 1st stage. So if the hardware of the 1st stage can be re-used, how is this not a win?
All rockets fly with lots of margin (read: extra fuel) in case of unexpected anomalies during flight. The difference with SpaceX is, when the flight goes as planned, they can use that extra margin to recover an immensely expensive piece of hardware. What's more, not all payloads are using every last pound of capacity in the vehicle. If you can launch 90% of the weight at half the cost thanks to reuse, you've fundamentally changed the market.
This is like getting to reuse a Boeing 747 instead of scrapping it after a single flight. If you think that's just a stunt, you don't have much of an imagination. This is a game changer.
1st stage is $60M. Fuel is $250K. You do the math.
Uh... yes. They've changed the volume of on-board hydraulic fluid, they changed the leg lock-out mechanisms, they changed the landing approach angle, and probably a billion other things. Do you even follow SpaceX bro?
I'd go out on a limb and say they will probably stick 8 out of the next 10 sea landings, and no less than 9 out of 10 RTL landings.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
There are two reasons that I've seen.
Because the rocket is almost out of fuel, even burning only one engine at minimum throttle, the thrust to weight ratio is more than one (ie, the rocket would fly, not land). So, they can't hover, they have to hit the ship and shut the engine off at the exact moment that the velocity is zero (or very close to it). So, to help with that problem, they come in at an angle which helps consume at least some of the thrust in a direction that isn't upward.
The second reason is, as you say, to protect the landing platform. If they run out of fuel (or the engine fails or....), the stage just drops into the ocean rather than crashing into the barge at a very high speed. That said, based on their last several failed landing attempts, that barge can take quite a hit and stay in one piece....
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
It looked like pretty rough seas, too. The next step is that someone goes on the barge and welds shoes over the landing gear to hold it to the deck. There may also be something that fastens to the "octoweb", the frame that holds the engines at the bottom of the first stage.
Believe it or not, welding something to the steel is fast, and easy to un-do. You just cut it off with the same welding equipment, and use an angle grinder to remove the bead.
Bruce Perens.
Blue Origin has been mocking them in the other way. "Hey, look at what we just did! What took you so long?" Sure, you had a sub-orbital launch profile (almost no horizontal velocity), popping off a tin can that came straight back down. Boy Scouts recover their Estes rockets all the time. SpaceX already did the landing thing with their Grasshopper rocket (and DC-X long before either of them), and the only reason they didn't take it higher was because they didn't have clearance to go higher at McGregor.
Falcon 9 has been on an orbital launch profile every time, sometimes even GTO, which is a lot harder to come back from. Even hitting the drone ship and falling over was harder than what Blue Origin did. A side-effect of having an actual useful launch profile is engines that can't throttle down to hover (Blue Origin can), so they have to do the much harder "hoverslam" maneuver. (zero vertical velocity at the same moment as zero altitude)
I will, however, give Blue Origin a few points for doing quick turnarounds. Their short-term objective is space tourism, and they're doing exactly what they need. It's just not nearly as hard as what SpaceX is trying to do.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
That's not really how rockets work. Sometimes a launch profile is compatible with secondary payloads, and so they sometimes do that. But often they're not, and so you can only launch to the one orbit. SpaceX doesn't control the satellite manufacturers operators: if the payload doesn't need the full payload, they can't just stick another satellite in there or tell them to make it bigger. If they could be putting additional payloads in the rocket to derive additional revenue, they would be. When they do the Orbcomm launches, they're launching lots of satellites at the same time, but then, those satellites all launch into very similar orbits.
Reusability on the first stage doesn't add terribly much weight anyhow: it takes a lot less fuel to decelerate a mostly empty stage than it does to accelerate the whole thing up to speed in the first place. It's also not a 1:1 relationship: 1 kilo of extra fuel does not subtract 1 kilo of mass from the potential payload. That would be true of the second stage, but not the first stage.
Since they can't really use that extra capacity anyhow, they might as well use it for cost savings, because reducing your costs is even better than increasing your revenue.