Wingman703 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I have to admit I'm always somewhat excited by the looks of controlled fire. Any kind (well, probably apart from stove and refineries...)Regarding launchers, the Vega IXV launch was so fast... Is it due to TWR ? SLT ? Is that save (I mean, can anyone give acceleration data ?)The Vega is basically 3 SRB's on top of each other with a liquid engine for the final stage. Thing has a stupid high TWR, considering the cargo it was carrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The seas were deemed too difficult to send out an uncrewed automated ship that survived a rocket crashing into it with barely a scratch.I rather doubt there were any russian trawlers with dashcams nearby. But the first stage had a camera on board, it could transmit the video in vhf or uhf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 You might get some imagery later on. They usually wait a couple of weeks before releasing it. Chances are it won't be much different from the footage of the previous splashdowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Chances are it won't be much different from the footage of the previous splashdowns.Yeah, but something is better than nothing.Some news (I guess) and details as maps about the landing pad agreement with US force.http://www.patrick.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-141107-004.pdfGizmag source:"SpaceX outlined its plans for the LC-13 pad, which will consist of a 750-ft (228-m) diameter pad of compressed soil and gravel designed to support the thrust and weight of returning spacecraft, and four 150-ft (45-m) contingency pads on the periphery for last-second emergency landings. In addition, SpaceX will build an access road and a mobile crane to move landed vehicles." Edited February 13, 2015 by AngelLestat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattasmack Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 OK, thanks. I was under the impression that the Falcon's second stage put DSCOVR into its current 170 km x 1.37 million km transfer orbit and was therefore also in that orbit. I unferstood that DSCOVR's own thrusters would merely bump it from the transfer orbit into "orbit" around Earth-Sun L1.PakledHostage, you are correct. The Falcon 9's second stage put DSCOVR into the 187x1.37m km orbit. (See SpaceX's press kit here, where you can see that they were targeting a very slightly lower apogee. The webcast on NasaTV also made it clear, that orbit was achieved after the second burn of the second stage, before the spacecraft separated from the stage.)According to spaceflight101.com, DSCOVR carries enough fuel for about 600 m/s total delta-V. That's to last over its entire lifetime, so is mostly meant for stationkeeping; it's certainly not enough to get the spacecraft to L1 from anything but an orbit that already gets it very close.Also, the second stage does achieve escape velocity, and in fact will be disposed of in solar orbit. (See SpaceX's filing with the FCC for the launch here, where they state "... launch vehicle Earth-escape second stage to be disposed of in Sun." "in Sun" is believed to be an error, where what they meant was solar orbit. The delta-V required to drop the stage's solar orbit's periapsis into the sun would be enormous.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrous Oxide Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 "in Sun" is believed to be an error, where what they meant was solar orbitElon just wants to fire rockets into the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softweir Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 PakledHostage, you are correct. *snip*Blast! I got it all wrong! I blame my sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 The Vega is basically 3 SRB's on top of each other with a liquid engine for the final stage. Thing has a stupid high TWR, considering the cargo it was carrying.Hmm... Maybe it's common for all SRB launch... Minotaur seems to also get fast quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooddog15 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) Well, the minotaur family is using old icbm components, so they should have rapid acceleration. Edited February 14, 2015 by gooddog15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethon Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Blowing up stuff- for science!NASA hopes new composite solid rocket boosters are better than those cased in steel.http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/a-composite-booster-gets-a-burst-of-energy.html#.VOS17_nF-Yd Edited February 18, 2015 by Aethon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The barge got pulled back into Jacksonville port yesterday, after having been conspicuously absent ever since the launch (even though the tug returned intermittently). People were speculating whether it might have been sunk, or at least severely damaged, by the storm...Well, turns out, 8 meter high wave action is no joke even on a ship designed to handle almost anything.http://imgur.com/EPLYgy8,A4FHWJO,vhJm1s5,bOBfpfT,pfJPbndOuch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perk Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGG936qQaBA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainDreamer Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 What cause that kind of damage on the barge while the portable generator seems to be intact? Or were the generators placed later once it is docked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perk Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 the generator hausing is much more robust, but as you can see in the window the cooling-cover of the generator was damaged in the same way as the container was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Jeez, no wonder they couldn't land in that. RIP shipping container, your sacrifice shall not be in vain.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainDreamer Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Jeez, no wonder they couldn't land in that. RIP shipping container, your sacrifice shall not be in vain....Didn't the first landing got the rocket bounced on one of them and demolish it?Poor containers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 They're not being very lucky with this barge-landing thing. It's turning out to be much harder than anticipated.Once they get the approvals, landing on solid ground is going to be a walk in the park compared to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 April might have a bigger chance of favorable weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Didn't the first landing got the rocket bounced on one of them and demolish it?Poor containers.Yeah, it got shredded in half. Sacrifices must be made...They're not being very lucky with this barge-landing thing. It's turning out to be much harder than anticipated.Once they get the approvals, landing on solid ground is going to be a walk in the park compared to this.I'm pretty sure that approval was recently given for construction of a launch pad for landing return stages at Kennedy. I think the current plan for the barge is to land the falcon heavy boosters? I forget if that was speculation or announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I'm pretty sure that approval was recently given for construction of a launch pad for landing return stages at Kennedy.Actually at Cape Canaveral; hence the need to wait for USAF approval, the cape being legally a USAF base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Actually at Cape Canaveral; hence the need to wait for USAF approval, the cape being legally a USAF base.Aren't the names pretty much interchangeable? They are less then a mile from each other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Aren't the names pretty much interchangeable? They are less then a mile from each other...Not if you want to talk about legislation. The regulatory regimes are completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airlock Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Looks like SpaceX is skipping a replacement for their F9R Dev 1 (the one that blew up last year). Deemed unnecessary as their current landing attempts provide all the data they need. The F9R Dev2 core may be used for the in-flight abort test of crew Dragon later this year -- perhaps even the Dragonfly. No more grasshopper program though. Original with paywall: http://sen.com/blogs/irene-klotz/spacex-bypassing-replacement-for-lost-falcon-9r-landing-test-vehicle Read the full article here: http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2wgpyz/irene_klotz_on_twitter_spacex_skipping/coqnxtjLast month, a Falcon 9 rocket came close to landing itself on a barge in the ocean, but it ran out of hydraulic fluid to maneuver its fins and crashed into the platform. A second attempt last week was stymied by high seas, but the rocket did successfully slow its descent and hover above the ocean’s surface before toppling over.The ocean tests have been so successful that SpaceX is not currently planning to build a replacement for the Falcon 9R that was destroyed last year.“We’re learning so much now, given the success of our returned vehicles, that when you can have full-envelope knowledge at a point that you’re only very closely missing the target then such an article doesn’t give you a great deal of additional learning,†Andy Lambert, SpaceX vice president of production, said in an interview.That doesn’t mean SpaceX is abandoning Spaceport America. The company has invested more than $2 million in facilities, said spaceport director Christine Anderson.“We’re hoping they’ll start up in the spring,†she said.Instead of Falcon 9R demonstration vehicles, the company seems likely to use Spaceport America as a testing ground for boosters that manage to land intact, with the goal of learning how well the rockets hold up during reflight. SpaceX declined to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) I think the current plan for the barge is to land the falcon heavy boosters? I forget if that was speculation or announced.It is speculation, but recovering the boosters seems to fit with their business plan. There hasn't been an official announcement that I'm aware of.What is worrying is that landing on a barge in the middle of the ocean appears to bring a whole new set of constraints (barge maintenance and availability, oceanic weather, etc...) which added to the launch constraints that are dictated by the payload (pad weather, launch windows, etc...), is going to make commercial offerings a bit awkward.Speculations were that they would offer a discount for FH launches with recoverable boosters, but the recoverable booster option is not only going to have a much reduced payload, but is also going to have extra launch constraints tied to weather conditions at the recovery site and to the availability of the barge. Customers will have to accept a higher risk of scrubs and operational delays, which reduces the value of the reusable offering. Also increasing the possibility of recovery-related delays puts more pressure on SpaceX's already tight launch schedule. In the end, it might not all be worth it from a business perspective. Edited February 20, 2015 by Nibb31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Didn't the first landing got the rocket bounced on one of them and demolish it?Poor containers.This is why people want it renamed after a certian other Ian M Banks spaceship...General Service Vehical "Only Slightly Bent" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts