Skylon

SpaceX Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... whoever coordinates the camera feed switching, needs to have their pay docked...  :P

We got to *hear* several critical mission events, while watching the orbital animation, till the feeds got switched over quite a few seconds late... :face_palm:

I cant believe (at least) those bottom few sats didnt collide, right after sep... Yeah, I know, they are probably on their own power/nav at that point, but seems like there ought to be a better way to deploy, than to have to have them have to institute collision avoidance within just seconds of deployment... lol

Edited by Stone Blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The relative velocities of those satellites at deployment are probably measured in single-digit centimeters per second, and those satellites aren't very heavy.  If they can make it through launch and staging, I think they can handle a tiny little bump against their neighbors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zolotiyeruki said:

The relative velocities of those satellites at deployment are probably measured in single-digit centimeters per second, and those satellites aren't very heavy.  If they can make it through launch and staging, I think they can handle a tiny little bump against their neighbors.

Additionally, they're "stuck" to each others via rugged bumpers to begin with, so those would be the only contact points anyway.

1 hour ago, Delay said:

We didn't catch the other half though. Still a great success!

I wonder if wind conditions are just always going to be so unstable that fairing catches never reach a high success rate.

Then, in turn, I wonder how much of a success rate is needed to pay back the dev work and investment in the two boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Then, in turn, I wonder how much of a success rate is needed to pay back the dev work and investment in the two boats.

My guess is they spent money on them because reusability is profitable enough that catching fairings is an extra thing that's not necessarily needed, so they are trying it anyway.

Edited by Wjolcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

My guess is they spent money on them because reusability is profitable enough that catching fairings is an extra thing that's not necessarily needed, so they are trying it anyway.

Catching them make them easier to reuse as they have not been in seawater. 
They have the boats already and need boats to pick them up anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been reusing the ones that took a swim, so they're already saving money for Starlink.

That's why Starlink is a better bet than other constellations, their launch cost is so very, very low. Reused boosters, reused fairings, no markup on anything, and the first customer for the booster paid for the booster and fairings. Cost is the cost of the recovery ops, launch campaign, stage 2, and refurb on core and fairings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tater said:

They've been reusing the ones that took a swim, so they're already saving money for Starlink.

That's why Starlink is a better bet than other constellations, their launch cost is so very, very low. Reused boosters, reused fairings, no markup on anything, and the first customer for the booster paid for the booster and fairings. Cost is the cost of the recovery ops, launch campaign, stage 2, and refurb on core and fairings.

60 satellites per launch helps with costs, too. Less launches. Although still a lot of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't pay quite as much attention as I could; so forgive me not knowing the answer to this. When was the last time SpaceX tried to recover a booster but failed?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kerwood Floyd said:

I don't pay quite as much attention as I could; so forgive me not knowing the answer to this. When was the last time SpaceX tried to recover a booster but failed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

The Falcon Heavy center core, June, 2019 didn't make it. For F9 it was December 2018 (hydraulic failure on grid fins).

That FH core was going very fast and they knew they might lose it.

Spoiler

About 36 minutes in (a little before that are the side cores landing, though).

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if/when the new starlink would be visible in Central Europe or has page showing the trajectories etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like 17 in a row, not counting the FH core loss (which they knew was pretty marginal). The Dec 2018 one was a legit failure, though.

2 minutes ago, Toonu said:

Anyone know if/when the new starlink would be visible in Central Europe or has page showing the trajectories etc?

https://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary.aspx?satid=72001&lat=51.5074&lng=-0.1278&loc=London&alt=0&tz=GMT

Looks like visible passes are gonna be like here in N. America, not until the weekend of the 6th, and then in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I missed the launch because school, but I was able to watch the video on YouTube. 

Looks like a successful launch, but I wonder if the landing damaged the booster at all - it looked pretty hard.

Edited by RealKerbal3x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Sadly I missed the launch because school, but I was able to watch the video on YouTube. 

Looks like a successful launch, but I wonder if the landing damaged the booster at all - it looked pretty hard.

Was sondering about this too, engine seemed to cut off a few meters above the badge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stone Blue said:

Hmm... whoever coordinates the camera feed switching, needs to have their pay docked...  :P

We got to *hear* several critical mission events, while watching the orbital animation, till the feeds got switched over quite a few seconds late... :face_palm:

I cant believe (at least) those bottom few sats didnt collide, right after sep... Yeah, I know, they are probably on their own power/nav at that point, but seems like there ought to be a better way to deploy, than to have to have them have to institute collision avoidance within just seconds of deployment... lol

Have we EVER seen video of the moment of the Starlink stack separating? It always seems to me that they cutaway to the orbit animation at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the second mission feature video of the deploy sequence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ExtremeSquared said:

Crush cores should bottom out before engine contact.

8CPos.jpg

Yes, aluminum is nice as you can just melt it down and reuse it. 
However its better to wreck the booster structure than the engines. if the booster get an abnormal g load you will scrap it anyway. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The April '19 Falcon Heavy centre core was also lost after landing due to sea state conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

The April '19 Falcon Heavy centre core was also lost after landing due to sea state conditions.

Yeah, but the landing was OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, but the landing was OK.

Ja maar daar is ook alles mee gezegd.

 

*A dutch saying that means: yeah but that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an airliner lands, and later, while being pulled to a hanger the tractor drags it past a building so the wing gets knocked off, it's not the aircraft's fault.

Or if instead of blowing up during a test, what if the Crew Dragon used for DM-1 had been on a truck, and it got in a wreck on the road. Failure of Crew Dragon? No.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tater said:

If an airliner lands, and later, while being pulled to a hanger the tractor drags it past a building so the wing gets knocked off, it's not the aircraft's fault.

Or if instead of blowing up during a test, what if the Crew Dragon used for DM-1 had been on a truck, and it got in a wreck on the road. Failure of Crew Dragon? No.

I get what you mean it was down to the barge going up and down.

 

F9 landing legs are tougher than i thought!

 

Edit: i thought we were still talking about today's launch. Then i Read the fh thingy.

 

Confusion ensued. :)

Edited by Flying dutchman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question was about landing success, not transport across the ocean success. They've had better luck since getting "octograbber" working. Presumably the grabber is designed to get under the core even with a hard landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.