We could start with our already phallic looking rocket and then have it come down into something that looks like the world's largest inflatable sex toy. Elon Musk might have trouble living that one down.:-)
Yes, there have been many proposals to somehow catch the rocket.
Not until the next time we cut the NASA budget to pay for a subsidy of some incredibly rich industry. Like oil. We need more oil drilling subsidies, don't we? Or intellectual property. That's just another word for innovation, isn't it?
The tweet from Musk this morning used the word "sticktion", meaning static friction. And said it was the cause of a phase delay. And then the tweet got deleted.
But we've seen Grasshopper and Falcon R9 position properly on land. Nobody's told us what the maximum wind was in those tests.
Musk alluded to a process control issue this morning and then deleted the tweet. It will take time to find out what the deal is.
Merlin 1D can throttle to 70% and the old 1C could go to 60%. Perhaps there's room for deeper throttling. I would expect that they'd try that before adding a new system and its weight.
The pad area they have at KSC is made for F9 Heavy, and multiple stages are supposed to land there, the neighbors are sensitive about having other rockets come down in their yard, and there's a big building you really don't want to hit:-) . So, they probably do need the precision. There was an odd tweet from Musk, later deleted, that said there was actually a process control problem and a phase delay.
You can see a lot more if you go to 1080 HD and full screen. There's some large piece of equipment, perhaps the motor head for one of the barge's corner thrusters, being thrust off of the barge in flames.
It looks like they'll need to do a lot of work on the barge. The support ship Go Quest and the tug Elsbeth III seem to be back in Jacksonville according to vessel tracking sites. There is a Carnival cruise ship that parks next to the barge's dock every 4 days, so we will probably see photos from its bow netcam if we don't see them otherwise.
Oh, check out this newscast. At 2:43, CBS News uses a sequence a SpaceX fan produced with Kerbal Space Program to illustrate how the landing is supposed to work.
They don't have the option to take an orbit before boosting back either. Even if the trajectory would work for that, the propellants would probably get too cold for a restart.
The first one they get back intact is planned to have non-destructive testing and to do demo flights in Texas but not into orbit. The second one they get back intact is supposed to be dismantled.
We have yet to find out what, if anything, is left of today's stage. It may be that some materials evaluation can take place.
I haven't tried to move a boat larger than 35 feet in the water, and that had a lot of inertia. So, I get your point.
It's got 4000 HP of active stabilization that is supposed to keep it within 3 meters of a point in rough seas. The thrusters are on all 4 corners, and rotate 360 degrees on command. So, I thought maybe that could do it. Maybe not.
The last I heard, they can get the two side stages of F9 Heavy back to the takeoff point, but not the center one - it's too far downrange when the second stage separates. So they would need the barge for that one.
But the recent F9 Heavy video shows all three coming back to the pad.
No doubt we will hear more as F9 Heavy is closer to flying.
It takes far bigger thrusters to move the whole planet underneath the descending rocket...
You have a point. But you wouldn't really have to move the whole planet. Just an object large enough to land upon. Like the barge in a harbor, arbitrarily close to land.
Of course, this is only worth exploring if there just isn't enough room to further stabilize the rocket during the close approach.
Well, that might be better than ULA's plan to have the engine detach, fly under its own hang-glider, and then be snagged in flight by a helicopter.:-)
Catching it in a net might not compensate for lateral Gs and torque on the rocket, which is a big empty tank at that point and could crumple. But maybe...
Musk tweeted here that the rocket landed fine but there was residual lateral velocity that tipped it over after landing. The photos on that tweet are worth looking at.
Obviously, now they have to work on fine positioning with elimination of lateral velocity before it comes down on the barge. Not an easy problem, especially given that the first stage doesn't have much Delta-V in its cold gas reaction control thrusters and does most of its positioning with the grid fins and the engine. Which means using more fuel. Hopefully there's enough, or room for building up the RCS.
I think it would actually have gone much harder for SpaceX if a F9 had exploded before Antares. Orbital is not going anywhere and will get another chance to send their payload to the Space Station. The investors in SpaceX aren't going to be flighty, and neither Air Force nor NASA are going to close the game because of an explosion, given their history.
ULA doesn't have much chance to use an explosion to their benefit without dredging up the status of their Russian engines, the multiple Delta explosions and the old Atlas one.
Slashdot Mirror
We could start with our already phallic looking rocket and then have it come down into something that looks like the world's largest inflatable sex toy. Elon Musk might have trouble living that one down. :-)
Yes, there have been many proposals to somehow catch the rocket.
Where I used to live they had trucks dump salt on the road!
Not until the next time we cut the NASA budget to pay for a subsidy of some incredibly rich industry. Like oil. We need more oil drilling subsidies, don't we? Or intellectual property. That's just another word for innovation, isn't it?
In those tests, both Grasshopper and R9 were coming down much more slowly. But it appeared they could come down slowly. Pretty close to hover.
The tweet from Musk this morning used the word "sticktion", meaning static friction. And said it was the cause of a phase delay. And then the tweet got deleted.
Oh, they're Canadian. That explains everything!
(Ducks and runs for cover)
:-)
But we've seen Grasshopper and Falcon R9 position properly on land. Nobody's told us what the maximum wind was in those tests.
Musk alluded to a process control issue this morning and then deleted the tweet. It will take time to find out what the deal is.
Merlin 1D can throttle to 70% and the old 1C could go to 60%. Perhaps there's room for deeper throttling. I would expect that they'd try that before adding a new system and its weight.
They have a job for you in the ULA marketing department.
They have talked about refueling on the barge and flying the booster to land! That's really difficult to do after a salt-water dip :-)
The ship is 300 feet long. It's a big rocket :-)
The pad area they have at KSC is made for F9 Heavy, and multiple stages are supposed to land there, the neighbors are sensitive about having other rockets come down in their yard, and there's a big building you really don't want to hit :-) . So, they probably do need the precision. There was an odd tweet from Musk, later deleted, that said there was actually a process control problem and a phase delay.
You can see a lot more if you go to 1080 HD and full screen. There's some large piece of equipment, perhaps the motor head for one of the barge's corner thrusters, being thrust off of the barge in flames.
It looks like they'll need to do a lot of work on the barge. The support ship Go Quest and the tug Elsbeth III seem to be back in Jacksonville according to vessel tracking sites. There is a Carnival cruise ship that parks next to the barge's dock every 4 days, so we will probably see photos from its bow netcam if we don't see them otherwise.
Oh, check out this newscast. At 2:43, CBS News uses a sequence a SpaceX fan produced with Kerbal Space Program to illustrate how the landing is supposed to work.
They don't have the option to take an orbit before boosting back either. Even if the trajectory would work for that, the propellants would probably get too cold for a restart.
Thank you. I remember that the sequencing of explosive bolts - all at once instead of one at a time - killed a Soyuz crew.
Gosh, that video looks so close.
Well, the video is up on SpaceFlightNow, and it cuts off before the rocket tips over. Yes, we have no reason to believe there was anything left.
The first one they get back intact is planned to have non-destructive testing and to do demo flights in Texas but not into orbit. The second one they get back intact is supposed to be dismantled.
We have yet to find out what, if anything, is left of today's stage. It may be that some materials evaluation can take place.
I haven't tried to move a boat larger than 35 feet in the water, and that had a lot of inertia. So, I get your point.
It's got 4000 HP of active stabilization that is supposed to keep it within 3 meters of a point in rough seas. The thrusters are on all 4 corners, and rotate 360 degrees on command. So, I thought maybe that could do it. Maybe not.
I don't know what parts are consumable, but if the second stage is attached with explosive bolts, those would be.
The ultimate would be to just gas it up and go :-)
The last I heard, they can get the two side stages of F9 Heavy back to the takeoff point, but not the center one - it's too far downrange when the second stage separates. So they would need the barge for that one.
But the recent F9 Heavy video shows all three coming back to the pad.
No doubt we will hear more as F9 Heavy is closer to flying.
It's not clear yet whether the rocket remained on the barge after tipping.
Sure, it would be nice to get at least partial recovery. But they seem so close to full recovery of a full first stage.
You have a point. But you wouldn't really have to move the whole planet. Just an object large enough to land upon. Like the barge in a harbor, arbitrarily close to land.
Of course, this is only worth exploring if there just isn't enough room to further stabilize the rocket during the close approach.
That's why the call it rocket science.
They'll get there eventually. I am watching every try with a great deal of emotion.
Well, that might be better than ULA's plan to have the engine detach, fly under its own hang-glider, and then be snagged in flight by a helicopter. :-)
Catching it in a net might not compensate for lateral Gs and torque on the rocket, which is a big empty tank at that point and could crumple. But maybe...
OK, this might be crazy, but another alternative would be to move the barge. It's got big thrusters now, I think 1000 HP on each corner.
Musk tweeted here that the rocket landed fine but there was residual lateral velocity that tipped it over after landing. The photos on that tweet are worth looking at.
Obviously, now they have to work on fine positioning with elimination of lateral velocity before it comes down on the barge. Not an easy problem, especially given that the first stage doesn't have much Delta-V in its cold gas reaction control thrusters and does most of its positioning with the grid fins and the engine. Which means using more fuel. Hopefully there's enough, or room for building up the RCS.
I think it would actually have gone much harder for SpaceX if a F9 had exploded before Antares. Orbital is not going anywhere and will get another chance to send their payload to the Space Station. The investors in SpaceX aren't going to be flighty, and neither Air Force nor NASA are going to close the game because of an explosion, given their history.
ULA doesn't have much chance to use an explosion to their benefit without dredging up the status of their Russian engines, the multiple Delta explosions and the old Atlas one.