Jump to content

Blue Origin Thread (merged)

Aethon

By Aethon
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

StrandedonEarth

StrandedonEarth

Posted
Posted (edited)
Are they still going to attempt a landing?

I doubt it. The SES sats go to GTO, which leaves no margin for landing

(they just need to work on how hard they hit it).

Actually, on the last landing attempt I don't think they hit the target that hard on the initial landing. But in true Kerbal fashion, it couldn't keep itself vertical

Edited by StrandedonEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
okan170

okan170

Posted
Posted

SES-9 would be the first Falcon 9 "1.2" which uses densified propellants and a stretched 2nd stage to allow for recovery on flights like this. So get ready for some more frequent landing attempts! (hopefully actual landings)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted
Are you aware of the way Elon Musk operates? OF COURSE there's gonna be a landing

Not sure what "how Musk operates" has to do with it. Whether they attempt a landing or not depends on mission requirements.

SES-9 will be the first flight of "Falcon 1.2", with uprated thrust and densified propellant. It will also be a GTO flight, which pushes the envelope of Falcon 9. There will be no landing attempt this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Streetwind

Streetwind

Posted
Posted (edited)
SES-9 will be the first flight of "Falcon 1.2", with uprated thrust and densified propellant. It will also be a GTO flight, which pushes the envelope of Falcon 9. There will be no landing attempt this time.

The v1.2 is designed for the express purpose of allowing first stage recovery during GTO flights. SpaceX hasn't even published any expendable performance numbers for it IIRC. It's not meant to fly expendable (though I suppose if you asked nicely they'd sell you one).

From the way it courrently looks, SpaceX will try four more launches this year. Expected payloads are SES-9, CRS Flight 8, Orbcomm OG2 and Jason-3. Though no payload order has been officially confirmed, it looks increasingly really likely that it's going to be this order - the first two in November (NET Nov. 1 for SES-9, NET Nov. 15 for CRS Flight 8), the other two in December. Jason-3 will fly on a v1.1 booster; all others, including all future Falcon 9 launches, are expected to use the (still not officially named) v1.2 configuration. That would make Jason-3 the last v1.1 flight ever.

During AIAA Space 2015 this week, Lee Rosen said that there will be as many as three barge landing attempts and one land landing attempt this year. Considering that there are four flights scheduled in total, this confirms that every single launch (including SES-9) will involve a landing attempt. The land landing attempt will (with 95% certainty) be Jason-3, as it launches from Vandenberg, where SpaceX is nearing completion of a landing pad. The Jason-3 launch had already been speculated for a land landing attempt earlier this year, before the failure.

I'm personally expecting that one launch will slip into 2016, but if they can really pull off 4 launches in 8 weeks, that would be one impressive return to flight.

Edited by Streetwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frozen_Heart

Frozen_Heart

Posted
Posted
Not sure what "how Musk operates" has to do with it. Whether they attempt a landing or not depends on mission requirements.

SES-9 will be the first flight of "Falcon 1.2", with uprated thrust and densified propellant. It will also be a GTO flight, which pushes the envelope of Falcon 9. There will be no landing attempt this time.

The V1.2 is designed to land from GTO flights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted (edited)
The V1.2 is designed to land from GTO flights.

Sure, but I doubt they will add the extra complexity for the first flight of a new rocket.

Is it true that the new Falcon will have a longer tank? They are already having trouble preventing the stage from toppling over after landing. The reason for the tall and thin design is to reduce transportation costs by allowing road transport, but a wide and short design would allow for a lower CoM and higher stability. A taller Falcon 1.2 will just make things harder.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SargeRho

SargeRho

Posted
Posted (edited)

IIRC the reason the last one to land toppled is because the engine didn't respond quickly enough, which was an easy fix according to Musk. It toppled due to the excessive horizontal velocity.

Edited by SargeRho
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Streetwind

Streetwind

Posted
Posted (edited)
Is it true that the new Falcon will have a longer tank? They are already having trouble preventing the stage from toppling over after landing.

What SargeRho said, and also: the elongated tank is that of the second stage, not the first.

They basically gave the first stage more TWR, so it can throw a heavier second stage higher despite reserving fuel for landing. The v1.1 Falcon actually has a pretty low TWR off the pad and stands to gain quite a bit from reducing gravity losses with more thrust. There's also the densified propellant thing, where they squeeze a few extra kilograms of propellant into the tanks by chilling it to lower temperatures than normally required. The second stage's own TWR meanwhile is lower because it is heavier, but this is not an issue because it already has an unusually large engine for an orbit insertion stage, and it gets more of a push from the upgraded first stage.

Also, a landing attempt adds little to no complexity, I would wager. The whole process may be complicated, but it is also completely hands off and requires (nor allows) no human interaction. And after decoupling the second stage, nothing that the first stage does is relevant to the actual mission anymore. They might as well let the computer take it through the motions then.

Edited by Streetwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
okan170

okan170

Posted
Posted
Not sure what "how Musk operates" has to do with it. Whether they attempt a landing or not depends on mission requirements.

SES-9 will be the first flight of "Falcon 1.2", with uprated thrust and densified propellant. It will also be a GTO flight, which pushes the envelope of Falcon 9. There will be no landing attempt this time.

Actually SES-9 is currently set for a landing attempt. After choosing the "1.2" (Full-thrust), SES-9 also inquired about the possibility that, should the stage be returned, they could lease it for future SES missions. Now that bit was before the CRS-7 incident, so if it ends up being the first recovered stage, I don't know if its going to be possible to figure out a "lease" on what is essentially a testbed.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-early-adopter-ses-ready-to-reuse-falcon-9-%C2%AD-for-the-right-price/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Exoscientist

Exoscientist

Posted
Posted
The v1.2 is designed for the express purpose of allowing first stage recovery during GTO flights. SpaceX hasn't even published any expendable performance numbers for it IIRC. It's not meant to fly expendable (though I suppose if you asked nicely they'd sell you one).

From the way it courrently looks, SpaceX will try four more launches this year. Expected payloads are SES-9, CRS Flight 8, Orbcomm OG2 and Jason-3. Though no payload order has been officially confirmed, it looks increasingly really likely that it's going to be this order - the first two in November (NET Nov. 1 for SES-9, NET Nov. 15 for CRS Flight 8), the other two in December. Jason-3 will fly on a v1.1 booster; all others, including all future Falcon 9 launches, are expected to use the (still not officially named) v1.2 configuration. That would make Jason-3 the last v1.1 flight ever.

During AIAA Space 2015 this week, Lee Rosen said that there will be as many as three barge landing attempts and one land landing attempt this year. Considering that there are four flights scheduled in total, this confirms that every single launch (including SES-9) will involve a landing attempt. The land landing attempt will (with 95% certainty) be Jason-3, as it launches from Vandenberg, where SpaceX is nearing completion of a landing pad. The Jason-3 launch had already been speculated for a land landing attempt earlier this year, before the failure.

I'm personally expecting that one launch will slip into 2016, but if they can really pull off 4 launches in 8 weeks, that would be one impressive return to flight.

SpaceX has made multiple upgrades to the Merlin to improve performance. I think an upgrade to improve the reliability of reusability is doable:

Hovering capability for the reusable Falcon 9, page 2: Merlin engines in a pressure-fed mode?

http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/07/hovering-capability-for-reusable-falcon.html

Bob Clark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cris

Cris

Posted
Posted (edited)

" SpaceX will test the new technique in a July 22, 2015 launch from the Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4 in California. The company plans to install a fail-safe in case the descent starts to go wrong: it will just blow up the Falcon 9 with an auto-destruct feature. "

But the July 22 ( Jason 3 ) Launch is Delayed due to CRS 7 Incident ...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a15135/spacex-ground-rocket-landing-auto-destruct/

Edited by Cris
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Streetwind

Streetwind

Posted
Posted
I'm personally expecting that one launch will slip into 2016, but if they can really pull off 4 launches in 8 weeks, that would be one impressive return to flight.

Quoting myself from a week ago because truth:

Per NasaSpaceflight.com, schedules have been pushed back by two weeks and Jason-3 is now early 2016, leaving 3 more launches this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...