Rakaydos Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 SpaceX's next generation rocket is tentatively planned to be much wider. I can only assume that they will either transport it in a different fashion, or assemble and test it directly at the launch site.I wonder if they can get FAA approval to "grasshopper" stages from construction to VAB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 They are cheap because is a private company which really cares about how to optimize cost.. In a goverment company is like: ok, I will use the best of the best and make 100 test on each part from my area so if something happens they dont point to me.. The money comes from above.. so there is not problem.. This same thing is applied to the politicians, there are only in danger if they force to someone to work with less budget than the average. So every body just spent a lot to avoid responsabilities.It's a pretty common fallacy that government=expensive and private=cheap. SpaceX is cheap because they have a vertical organisation and it is started from a clean sheet with cost optimization in mind. There are many private companies that use various levels of subcontractors and have a long history of heavy organization. It has nothing to do with private<>government, but it's all about organization.I remember you that the structural safety margins in falcon 9 are 40% above flight loads, higher than the 25% margins of other rockets.So when you said cheap tanks or cheap things.. it has nothing to do with the actual quality of the components. It has to do with good production procedures.If your margins are too high, you are wasting money, not optimizing.But you misread my post. I wasn't saying that SpaceX products were low quality. I was saying that the Falcon 9 design is optimized for low-cost, not for reusability. Those are contradictory requirements.A paper cup is optimized for low-cost, and it works well for what it's designed for (it satisfies all requirements, which is the definition of quality). Try sticking it in a dishwasher to reuse it, and it doesn't work so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 It's a pretty common fallacy that government=expensive and private=cheap.Is not.. is the general rule in the whole world. There are some exceptions that are related to corruption and monopoly, but for those is also responsable the goverment.http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/private-enterprise-does-it-better.html1-If your margins are too high, you are wasting money, not optimizing.2-But you misread my post. I wasn't saying that SpaceX products were low quality. I was saying that the Falcon 9 design is optimized for low-cost, not for reusability. Those are contradictory requirements.Sorry, I lose you there.. The only contradiction here is statement number 1 vs number 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainlord Mesomorph Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/17/8439109/spacex-falcon-9-barge-landing-videoa typical case of Lander Tipping Syndrome!(..... noooooo!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) Is not.. is the general rule in the whole world. There are some exceptions that are related to corruption and monopoly, but for those is also responsable the goverment.http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/private-enterprise-does-it-better.htmlWhat a load of rubbish (and never trust an opinion blogger with 1980's haircut and a moustache). There are plenty of things that government does better than private enterprise. Defense, police, or healthcare for example... scientific research and rocket science too. There would be no space industry at all if the government wasn't paying for it. But this is rolling off into the tangent of politics, which is frowned upon here, so let's not go there.Sorry, I lose you there.. The only contradiction here is statement number 1 vs number 2.You're the one who claimed that Falcon 9 has a 40% structural safety margin (whatever that means), not me, so I was responding to that. If it's true, then they have 40% too much structure, which is a waste. I don't know if it's true, It was just a tongue-in-cheek comment to what you said. Edited April 17, 2015 by Nibb31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelhester07 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 They'd be better off letting it land in the water and recovering it that way. Almost had it though. While the barge landing is cool it's not really practical imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airlock Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) JRTI's back in JAX. Too big to post here. http://i.imgur.com/h8BR1DA.jpgFried landing leg Edited April 17, 2015 by Airlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainlord Mesomorph Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Seems very "kerbal" to try it this way.I'd think wings or chutes would be easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfedg Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) They'd be better off letting it land in the water and recovering it that way. Almost had it though. While the barge landing is cool it's not really practical imo.It worked for the shuttle SRBs but those were very simplistic in design. I'm not sure the exotic metals used in rocket engines would fair well in salt water even for a relatively short time. Of course this is just speculation.Completely not-serious answer. NEEDZ MOAR SAS Edited April 17, 2015 by wolfedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt_flyer Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There's still some debris - mostly the non usable ones are remaining i think - the most valuable would have been picked up during the night .JRTI looks intact though some of the containers have some scorch marks, but nothing a good paint job can't solve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FishInferno Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 They'd be better off letting it land in the water and recovering it that way. Almost had it though. While the barge landing is cool it's not really practical imo.The barge is only to prove that they can land a stage with precision, after that the USAF will let them fly the stages back to the cape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwhip Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Jeeeesus, the explosion was big! Turns out that they were much closer than I thought they were in other videos.Keep trying, SpaceX and Elon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfedg Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 The barge is only to prove that they can land a stage with precision, after that the USAF will let them fly the stages back to the cape Do they have enough fuel for that? It would require a complete reversal of trajectory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Rocket Scientist Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 JRTI's back in JAX. Too big to post here. http://i.imgur.com/h8BR1DA.jpgFried landing leghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCziAtQWIAEZEOT.jpg:origIs that fried, or just the inward-facing / top side of the leg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Rocket Scientist Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 They'd be better off letting it land in the water and recovering it that way. Almost had it though. While the barge landing is cool it's not really practical imo.They tried that: when a very tall, very buoyant rocket soft-lands in the water, it tips over and hits the surface very hard, just like in the video. Except with a solid surface, it's possible for it to stay upright if it lands without too much lateral velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Merging with the existing thread in the Science Labs as this is not a KSP thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketscientistV Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Do they have enough fuel for that? It would require a complete reversal of trajectory.I think they launch from a different launch site instead of Cape Canaveral, they wouldn't have enough fuel to change velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I think they launch from a different launch site instead of Cape Canaveral, they wouldn't have enough fuel to change velocity. No, it's the cape. Remember we're talking about a nearly empty stage with no upper stage or payload, it doesn't take much to move it about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airlock Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I think they launch from a different launch site instead of Cape Canaveral, they wouldn't have enough fuel to change velocity.It depends on the payload. If they launch from the Cape, a Falcon 9 launching Dragon is well within the margin for a full boostback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfedg Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 No, it's the cape. Remember we're talking about a nearly empty stage with no upper stage or payload...moving at supersonic speeds in completely the wrong direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Most of the speed would be vertical, and of little consequence. The F9 upper stage does a lot of the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dkmdlb Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. They have said for what? - a few years now - that they are planning on returning the first stages to the launch site. Do you guys think that they haven't done the math? Do you think that they haven't figured out exactly what payload they can launch with and still have enough fuel to make the boostback? Are you saying they are going to be surprised by how much fuel it takes? Or are you saying that all the talk from them is dishonest and they know it won't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfedg Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. They have said for what? - a few years now - that they are planning on returning the first stages to the launch site. Do you guys think that they haven't done the math? Do you think that they haven't figured out exactly what payload they can launch with and still have enough fuel to make the boostback? Are you saying they are going to be surprised by how much fuel it takes? Or are you saying that all the talk from them is dishonest and they know it won't work?As I hadn't really been following Spacex until the last barge landing attempt (the one before this one) I can't speak for what they have and haven't said. Their website certainly could use some more information and updates about what they are doing though. I have no idea what their capabilities or intentions are besides what I have gathered from the past month or so. However, the claim that they plan to return it to the cape (which I only saw in this thread) just seems a bit odd for a nearly empty stage. All i was doing was questioning it not outright ruling it out.That being said. If there is a more informative and easier to navigate site than spacex.com that has this information. Please do share.EDIT: I did find an article on the subject http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/02/17/spacex-leases-property-for-landing-pads-at-cape-canaveral-vandenberg/ in addition to a reference in the wiki. Edited April 17, 2015 by wolfedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 The amount of fuel needed to brake before re-enter in the atmosphere is similar than brake your latitude velocity and then back to the cape.They dint said this.. but is what I imagine..That is why they want to do the next try on land, not because they are silly and they dint do the math before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceXray Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Why are people making so many assumptions not even based on fact? No one here is an actual engineer, let alone an engineer at SpaceX. Which means none of you is an actual expert in the field. So before implying something please support it with something. Yes, their website is lacking info, it is because they won't advertise it as a re-usable rocket until they actually re-use it at least once. They don't make promises they might not keep. They are still pioneers in spaceflight and are still exploring and developing. To clear up their strategy: the rocket itself has more than enough delta-v to launch something into an inclined prograde orbit, and they did do calculations on how much fuel they can leave in the first stage. Heck, even the 2nd stage is left with some excess fuel in it, because in the future they will re-use the 2nd stage too. The 1st stage mainly gets the rocket up, so it doesn't have too much horizontal velocity after separation. After it does the boostback, it usess its body like a wing to aim for the barge. By this moment, the atmosphere sufficiently slows it down, and only then does it need to use the engines to land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts