tseitsei89 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 (edited) Who did a powered landing first is completely irrelevant. SpaceX actually made rockets reusable and that is what really matters. Same goes for testing the bigger engine. All kinds of fun stuff has been tested but what matters is to make them work in actual missions with real rockets. Edited December 30, 2020 by tseitsei89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 33 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Well... this escalated quickly... I thought something had 'escalated quickly' to SN9 and got scared for a moment. Then I realized what you were talking about. Looks like SN9 did some RCS tests today and is still standing tall, looking sleek and shiny! I guess my prediction that more than the fin got crumpled might have been wrong! Then again, you never know when a rocket will suddenly gain the will to be in a million pieces... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 (edited) Neither SpaceX nor Blue Origin were first to land a rocket propulsively. Blue Origin was founded in 2000. SpaceX was founded in 2002. Blue Origin started hop tests in 2006. SpaceX started launching Falcon 1 in 2006. SpaceX first put a payload in orbit in 2008. SpaceX started launching Falcon 9 in 2010. SpaceX berthed a spacecraft to the ISS in 2012. SpaceX started hop tests with Grasshopper in 2012. SpaceX upgraded Falcon 9 to v1.1 in 2013. SpaceX started hop tests with F9R Dev-1 in 2014. Blue Origin started high altitude testing with New Shepherd in 2015. Blue Origin first landed New Shepherd from high altitude in 2015. SpaceX upgraded Falcon 9 to FT in 2015. SpaceX first landed an orbital class booster propulsively in 2015. Blue first reflew New Shepherd in 2016. SpaceX first reflew Falcon 9 in 2016. SpaceX upgraded Falcon 9 to Falcon Heavy in 2018. SpaceX upgraded Falcon 9 to Block 5 in 2018. SpaceX started hop tests with Starhopper in 2019. SpaceX were the first to fly a full flow staged combustion engine in 2019. SpaceX flew crew to the ISS in 2020. SpaceX started hop tests with SN5 and SN6 in 2020. SpaceX started belly flop tests with SN8 in 2020. Blue Origin has launched 3 New Shepherd vehicles a total of 13 times and landed 12 times, including 12 consecutive landing successes. NS-3 has 7 launches and landings over 2 years 10 months. SpaceX has launched rockets from the Falcon family 106 times with 104.5 successes, 1 in-flight failure and 1 pre-launch failure. Cores have landed successfully 70 out of 80 attempts, including 20 consecutive successes. Both B1049 and B1051 have 7 launches and landings with B1051 taking 1 year 9 months to do so. I hope that settles things. Edited December 30, 2020 by RCgothic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clamp-o-Tron Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, RCgothic said: Neither SpaceX nor Blue Origin were first to land a rocket propulsively. Blue Origin was founded in 2000. SpaceX was founded in 2002. Blue Origin started hop tests in 2006. SpaceX started launching Falcon 1 in 2006. SpaceX first put a payload in orbit in 2008. SpaceX started launching Falcon 9 in 2010. SpaceX berthed a spacecraft to the ISS in 2012. SpaceX started hop tests with Grasshopper in 2012. SpaceX upgraded Falcon 9 to v1.1 in 2013. SpaceX started hop tests with F9R Dev-1 in 2014. Blue Origin started high altitude testing with New Shepherd in 2015. Blue Origin first landed New Shepherd from high altitude in 2015. SpaceX upgraded Falcon 9 to FT in 2015. SpaceX first landed an orbital class booster propulsively in 2015. Blue first reflew New Shepherd in 2016. SpaceX first reflew Falcon 9 in 2016. SpaceX upgraded Falcon 9 to Falcon Heavy in 2018. SpaceX upgraded Falcon 9 to Block 5 in 2018. SpaceX started hop tests with Starhopper in 2019. SpaceX were the first to fly a full flow staged combustion engine in 2019. SpaceX flew crew to the ISS in 2020. SpaceX started hop tests with SN5 and SN6 in 2020. SpaceX started belly flop tests with SN8 in 2020. Blue Origin has launched 3 New Shepherd vehicles a total of 13 times and landed 12 times, including 13 consecutive successes. NS-3 has 7 launches and landings over 2 years 10 months. SpaceX has launched rockets from the Falcon family 106 times with 104.5 successes, 1 in-flight failure and 1 pre-launch failure. Cores have landed successfully 70 out of 80 attempts, including 20 consecutive successes. Both B1049 and B1051 have 7 launches and landings with B1051 taking 1 year 9 months to do so. I hope that settles things. Thank you. I don’t know why this was a debate, people need to recognize that Blue Origin isn’t just copying everything SpaceX does- they have separate goals and technologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanRising Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 (edited) “We’re going to try to catch the Super Heavy Booster with the launch tower arm, using the grid fins to take the load.” I think I’m going to file this one under the same tab as the catgirl robots from Tesla. Edited December 30, 2020 by RyanRising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavio hc16 Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 9 minutes ago, RyanRising said: “We’re going to try to catch the Super Heavy Booster with the launch tower arm, using the grid fins to take the load.” I think I’m going to file this one under the same tab as the catgirl robots from Tesla. this has to be the biggest "Wait....what?" moment i have ever had from Spacex. I would not be the engienieer in charge of that system, or maybe i would love to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 That sounds crazy, but so did the bellyflop maneuver. Also, update on the CH4 header pressure issue: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 That certainly sounds Krazy with a kapital Kerbal K, but it does make a lot of sense. Considering they wanted to land it on the launch mount with a precision of millimeters, this sounds like it will allow for imprecision while still getting it back on the mount ASAP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 Just now, StrandedonEarth said: That certainly sounds Krazy with a kapital Kerbal K, but it does make a lot of sense. Considering they wanted to land it on the launch mount with a precision of millimeters, this sounds like it will allow for imprecision while still getting it back on the mount ASAP Indeed, as long as they can get precision down to a couple of metres (shouldn't be problematic considering how precisely they can already land F9) it shouldn't be a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 1 hour ago, RyanRising said: “We’re going to try to catch the Super Heavy Booster with the launch tower arm, using the grid fins to take the load.” I think I’m going to file this one under the same tab as the catgirl robots from Tesla. Agree. more so as its way over complex, spaceX taleked about landing the booster back on the launch clamps and eliminating legs while getting excellent turnaround speed. Lots including me said it was stupid because you needed to land with cm accuracy rater than meters and any fail would take out the launch pad and easy the tower. Technical possible but complex and dangerous. Yes I realize Musk thing multiple evolution's down the line. Its something they might do then landing accuracy is good enough, now one way to do this is to land on an landing rig who have suspension and some range of movement. including moving within the range of the tower. Grabbing the rocket with the tower, how do you even design this? is it 200 ton super heavy weight? I think he is trolling the no landing on launch clamp crowd. Why don't grab it mid air downrange by an flying catgirl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 27 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: That certainly sounds Krazy with a kapital Kerbal K, but it does make a lot of sense. Considering they wanted to land it on the launch mount with a precision of millimeters, this sounds like it will allow for imprecision while still getting it back on the mount ASAP The problem is that landing back on the pad will be so much simpler, how to even design something who can grab the top of an rocket doing an suicide burn? An 200 ton rocket. Note that the top is likely to swing a meter or two then you do trust vectoring who is not an issue if landing on pad but critical if trying to grab it somehow. The arm will both need to be very fast to move in an clamp down during the suicide burn, move in 3-5 meter and do it so softly it don't damage the hull and strong enough its able to hold 200 ton. Just try to design it somehow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted December 30, 2020 Share Posted December 30, 2020 1 hour ago, RealKerbal3x said: Also, update on the CH4 header pressure issue: Now this is more interesting, sounds like they are not yet using CH4 to pressurize and they are not sure if they will use gas CH4 and oxygen to pressurize at all. Hint its not much helium on Mars. I and other also assumed the nose engine on moonship was gas CH4 / O2 engines and that these engines was under development, they are also needed for very accurate landings as they will be in the 20 ton trust range and be very fast tuned as they are feed high pressure gas. Yes you could copy electron and use an electric pump but you need to hold all the extra helium. Using helium during testing is however not an issue to reduce error sources. You could emulate CH4 / O2 pressurization doing static fires after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVaughan Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 4 hours ago, magnemoe said: The problem is that landing back on the pad will be so much simpler, how to even design something who can grab the top of an rocket doing an suicide burn? An 200 ton rocket. Note that the top is likely to swing a meter or two then you do trust vectoring who is not an issue if landing on pad but critical if trying to grab it somehow. The arm will both need to be very fast to move in an clamp down during the suicide burn, move in 3-5 meter and do it so softly it don't damage the hull and strong enough its able to hold 200 ton. Just try to design it somehow Superheavy should be able to hover, so a suicide burn shouldn't be necessary. Assuming adequate fuel reserve, it should be able to gently lower itself into the waiting arms. But yeah I can see them losing a few launch towers trying to get this right. Might make more sense to use a retracting arm launch tower for launch. Then use a specially designed crawler setup with tracks at 4 corners to catch the booster. Can grab Superheavy from 4 sides. Can be designed to withstand lateral and vertical shock loadings. Over engineered to hopefully cope with an imperfect landing. More stable and less likely to tip over in the event of higher than designed loads during an imperfect landing than a tower with an arm sticking out the side. Then use the crawler to move the booster back onto the launch clamps. Can land far enough away that a RUD on landing doesn't damage launch infrastructure. Might take more than 1 hour to get back on launch clamps, but better to build a system that works reliably than lose multiple launch towers struggling to get a more advanced system working. (Once it is working reliably you can reduce turnaround time by landing closer to the launch mount, at the cost of making launch infrastructure vulnerable to damage during a landing failure). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 31 minutes ago, AVaughan said: Might make more sense to use a retracting arm launch tower for launch. Then use a specially designed crawler setup with tracks at 4 corners to catch the booster. Better yet, make it a big ring so that the booster doesn't have to worry about being at the right roll angle. If the gridfins extend out significantly beyond the extra width at the bottom of the booster, this shouldn't be a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolotiyeruki Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 I'm not terribly concerned about landing accuracy--the last few dozen F9 boosters look to have landed within a meter or so of dead center on the landing pad. There aren't many last-second failure modes, and SpaceX have found many already (running out of hydraulic fluid for the gimbals, low header tank pressure, out of fuel during the hoverslam, etc), and there's not much fuel left to go boom at that point anyway. Not that I wish to minimize the damage that 200 tons of stainless steel can do when falling at dozens of meters per second, but we're not talking about a massive explosion even if something *does* go wrong. The ability to hover makes this considerably easier as well, because it means that cm accuracy isn't necessarily required during the landing burn--it can hover and translate as needed for a few seconds. It still sounds bonkers, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 (edited) Spoiler A spike engine would allow them just to stick into ground. No legs, no accuracy. Just a beach. Edited December 31, 2020 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 11 hours ago, magnemoe said: Why don't grab it mid air downrange by an flying catgirl. Kinda like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 That was something like the vision that popped into my mind when I first heard about this. They are going to need the equivalent of a giant robot arm mounted on the tower that can move fast, reach in or out, left or right, and position a position a C-shaped 'hand' under the grid fins. What big structures do we have that can move fast like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Brotoro said: That was something like the vision that popped into my mind when I first heard about this. They are going to need the equivalent of a giant robot arm mounted on the tower that can move fast, reach in or out, left or right, and position a position a C-shaped 'hand' under the grid fins. What big structures do we have that can move fast like that? I don't think it'll need to be particularly fast-moving. Here's my idea of what it'll look like: Essentially, Super Heavy could be caught using a large ring-shaped crane structure which would have freedom of motion in all axes. This would allow the booster to land with a couple of metres of error and then be lowered precisely back into the launch mount. This crane would run on a track attached to the vertical launch tower, allowing it to place the booster on the launch mount and then move to the bottom of the tower to allow the grid fins to retract and another launch to take place. It really seems like SpaceX wants Super Heavy to be an extension of the launch pad, boosting Starships part of the way into orbit before returning for almost immediate reuse. Edited December 31, 2020 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, Brotoro said: What big structures do we have that can move fast like that? Didn't you watch the Cloverfield? <snip> I have weird feelings about the SpaceX biological dept Spoiler but feel impressed by their future plans Spoiler Edited December 31, 2020 by Geonovast Removed video containing inappropriate content Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said: Better but don't see the point of the wires, simply have the U claw attached to the tower with option to rotate and move a bit out and inn. Yes they give some flex but better to build that into the hooks and the claw to tower mounting. Still an stupid idea. Yes superheavy has lifting lugs who is probably near the grind fins for lifting it but gentle lifting and catching is two different things. Now the only rationalization for this might be if they go for the offshore pad you don't need an landing pad for superheavy, the crane grabs it over water. On the other hand you miss a bit and you hit the tower and the complex claw, the tower who also is your launch tower. An landing pad on the other hand is an very simple structure so hard to damage and easy to repair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Some content has been removed for containing language that violates our forum guidelines. Please make sure external content, like embedded videos, follows our forum rules. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Didn't you watch the Cloverfield? <snip> I have weird feelings about the SpaceX biological dept Hide contents but feel impressed by their future plans Hide contents Giant monster movies are all the rage. Too bad our planet is too small and dense to support such life. (Blue whales are only about 9 storeys in length, and weigh abt. 100 tons) Far more dangerous is the swarm of little fast moving buggers: <snip> Edited December 31, 2020 by Geonovast Removed video containing inappropriate content Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totalitor Posted December 31, 2020 Share Posted December 31, 2020 Would it be better that tower moves after superheavy landing and not superheavy itself? Still landing legs needed. 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.