lajoswinkler Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Did John just pull out what I think it is (tongue in cheek mocking of you know what)? Awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 3 hours ago, Brotoro said: Ms. Tree has caught a fairing! Wahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So much winning and losing! Every SpaceX launch is way more exciting than expendable rockets! overall they made one launch and landed 2 rockets and caught a fairing! In my book that calls for a round of drinks! (Just about to watch it, but I was reading here first >_<) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 57 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said: Did John just pull out what I think it is (tongue in cheek mocking of you know what)? Awesome! I need that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garwel Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) I wonder how many boosters SpaceX can afford to lose in a Falcon Heavy launch before it becomes unprofitable. Will they still get a net profit if they don't recover anything at all? Edited June 25, 2019 by garwel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProtoJeb21 Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 So, the center core was lost....again. I stand by my belief that SpaceX is cursed to never recover a Falcon Heavy center core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 6 hours ago, Xd the great said: Was it the heat or the speed? Or not enough TEA-TAB? I had a bad feeling that it wasn't going to work when the hosts were reporting on it and said something along the lines that the re-entry burn was "off the timeline." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Lol, center core suddenly decided it was an airplane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, garwel said: I wonder how many boosters SpaceX can afford to lose in a Falcon Heavy launch before it becomes unprofitable. Will they still get a net profit if they don't recover anything at all? My guess would be 4. Re-use is a bonus. Requiring recovery to make a profit would be reckless at this point. Edited June 25, 2019 by Geonovast Revised statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, Geonovast said: Requiring recovery to make a profit would be reckless, no matter how good they get at it. But that’s what they’re going to do with Starship/SH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, sh1pman said: But that’s what they’re going to do with Starship/SH. I've revised my statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Yeah, the landing burn startup made me hold my breath for a moment. It really looked like a RUD at first. On the landing failure, it looks to me like the center core ran out of velocity a few meters too high. IIRC, the Merlin engines can't throttle down enough to hover when the booster is empty, so the timing and throttling of the landing burn have to be very precise so that the booster runs out of velocity just as it runs out of altitude. If the velocity runs out before the altitude, you can't get all the way to the barge, and if the altitude runs out first...well, we've all started a landing burn too late, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said: Yeah, the landing burn startup made me hold my breath for a moment. It really looked like a RUD at first. On the landing failure, it looks to me like the center core ran out of velocity a few meters too high. IIRC, the Merlin engines can't throttle down enough to hover when the booster is empty, so the timing and throttling of the landing burn have to be very precise so that the booster runs out of velocity just as it runs out of altitude. If the velocity runs out before the altitude, you can't get all the way to the barge, and if the altitude runs out first...well, we've all started a landing burn too late, right? Makes as much sense as anything. I assume that it flying off sideways was an abort mode to try to spare the barge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 It's a shame that the centre core crashed, but you need to fail in order to succeed. Landing a booster so far downrange, and at such high velocity, is imposing a set of challenges nearly as hard as those encountered when SpaceX first began to attempt landing first stages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 During coverage, the younger guy called out entry burn ending, then right after entry burn started. Wonder if the burn timing was wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delay Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Just watched the launch after coming back home. The curse of the center core continues. But I like how they didn't cut the footage. They showed the center core exploding (and still got a huge applause!). Frankly it's a big enough achievement to even manage to get this close to the drone ship that far downrange! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignath Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Don't think this has been posted here yet, it's a giant GIF of the Center Core "landing": https://giant.gfycat.com/AcceptablePlayfulDinosaur.webm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaff Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Are we getting to the point yet where it’s more reliable to fly a used rocket than a new rocket as far as recovery goes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Just now, Jaff said: Are we getting to the point yet where it’s more reliable to fly a used rocket than a new rocket as far as recovery goes? If I'm not mistaken, every single landing failure has been new hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Delay said: Just watched the launch after coming back home. The curse of the center core continues. But I like how they didn't cut the footage. They showed the center core exploding (and still got a huge applause!). Frankly it's a big enough achievement to even manage to get this close to the drone ship that far downrange! Coverage tend to get lost as the rocket landing bump the barge around so it looses satellite up-link. Kind of hard to explain why you did not came home with an stage: stolen by pirates or the dog ate it is a bit weak http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff500/fv00463.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 1 hour ago, tater said: During coverage, the younger guy called out entry burn ending, then right after entry burn started. Wonder if the burn timing was wrong? I'm inclined to think the announcer got it mixed up, because the landing burn appeared to be nominal until (literally) the last second. If the entry burn had been that late, MaxQ on the entry would have been a whole lot higher, potentially resulting in damage to the booster. ...or maybe he was right, and one of the landing leg actuators was damaged during re-entry, and didn't extend fully, leading to an abort? In the video, I can clearly make out two of the landing legs (top left and bottom left in the video), and *maybe* a third on the top right. The fourth (which would be bottom right) is (or would be) hidden by the exhaust plume. If a landing leg didn't extend, or didn't lock properly (which has happened, remember), that could certainly result in an abort that close to touchdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 It'll be interesting to hear what went wrong with the center core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, tater said: It'll be interesting to hear what went wrong with the center core. At the moment, I’m betting on the landing burn being ever so slightly misjudged, and the booster reaching zero velocity too high up. The announcement seemed to be a bit off, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted June 25, 2019 Share Posted June 25, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.