sojourner Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 My guess is they are waiting to get data back from operational flights of F9 1.1 Full Thrust to finalize the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen_Heart Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Has it been clarified whether it is called V1.1 FT or V1.2? I've seen both used by SpaceX officials. Maybe they haven't even decided themselves yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 I have not yet heard of any official designation, no. Only that it ran internally under "v1.1 FT" during its development. Speculation goes that SpaceX will avoid calling it anything different in order to not lose the certifications that v1.1 earned, such as for launching NASA science payloads, or even the US military launch certification they fought so hard to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B787_300 Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 As far as I know it is just the FT version and SpaceX is not really calling it a different version anyway because they don't want to have to re-certify or have people claim they need to re-certify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Getting back to the actual topic this thread is about, for the first time in quite a while... This just in: SpaceX is seriously considering going for a landing directly on dry land for their return to flight mission. I'm going to speculate here and say that they'll have the barge out at sea too, and ultimately decide after stage separation whether or not to do the full boostback. Edited December 1, 2015 by Streetwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I've seen no indication USAF are 'seriously considering' actually letting them do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kartoffelkuchen Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Oh, interesting. They really want to beat Blue Origin now (in landing a rocket stage back on land which actually launched a orbital mission, and if they succeed also in reflying a landed booster I suggest), it seems. Though I don't know if this is that clever. There are no big changes from 1.1 to 1.1FT, but I'd rather make one more barge attempt to make sure everything is working instead of a RTLS with loads of reporters and cameras there which then fails. And everybody will then probably report that SpaceX failed and BO is much more advanced than they are or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I think the barge landing has been making things more complicated than landing on pad. If they can get clearance for landing at "LC-1", they have higher chances of finally getting a successful landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kryten said: I've seen no indication USAF are 'seriously considering' actually letting them do that. Perhaps this is the first such indication? I mean, the airforce isn't required to inform us. They will be talking with SpaceX, and if an agreement can be reached, then SpaceX will proceed with the attempt. If not... then well, we will see another barge attempt. According to this followup tweet - which also names December 15th as a potential launch date - approval hasn't been officially secured yet. However, according to rumors from last spring already, the very next flight after the failed CRS-7 launch had been a potential candidate to attempt a RTLS. I wouldn't be surprised if the airforce has been on the verge of accepting something like that for a while now. After all, SpaceX has demonstrated that they can come down within 10 meters of a target 4-5 times in a row (via water landings and barge attempts) - which directly translates into hitting a target the size of the SpaceX-owned landing complex at the cape 100% of the time. The airforce doesn't need assurance that the landing will succeed flawlessly, they need assurance that none of the military or civilian facilities that the Eastern Range is watching over are in danger. Edited December 1, 2015 by Streetwind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elukka Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) On 11/29/2015, 6:07:26, B787_300 said: Tis Silly that they dont publish the numbers. Even ULA publishes them (and ULA has to publish a lot more because of SRBs) They do publish generic payload and cost numbers on their website. The actual payload figure will vary according to, off the top of my head, launch inclination, landing (barge, land, or none, which will also affect cost) whether there's a secondary payload, fairing size and probably a bunch of other things. Since the user guide is intended for prospective customers I imagine they don't want to put the 13 150 kg figure there so that customers don't get the wrong impression. The payload for their particular mission may be more or less than that, and listing all possible maximum payloads would be quite a large table. Edited December 1, 2015 by Elukka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdad84 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 2 hours ago, Streetwind said: Getting back to the actual topic this thread is about, for the first time in quite a while... This just in: SpaceX is seriously considering going for a landing directly on dry land for their return to flight mission. I'm going to speculate here and say that they'll have the barge out at sea too, and ultimately decide after stage separation whether or not to do the full boostback. Ohhhhh.... Exciting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 I wonder how much more it costs for the full boostback. I'd like to think the barge will be for the core of the F9H or a heavier payload on the F9. Where as lighter payloads will have the boost back to land. That's pretty crazy if there going to make the decision during the flight to go back to land or not. I think I'd personally rather see a barge landing first. If they can do that they can do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 What makes you think they'd "make the decision during the flight to go back to land or not"???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazon Del Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 It's official! At the next launch SpaceX will attempt to land at their facility in Florida! http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/1/9832206/nasa-spacex-falcon-9-ground-landing-reusable-rockets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 It is by no means official yet. Heck, we don't even know if their launching on the 15th yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 3 hours ago, sojourner said: What makes you think they'd "make the decision during the flight to go back to land or not"???? It's not unusual to make on-the-spot decisions to cancel a highly experimental attempt in favor of something more likely to suceed. They have live telemetry from the rocket; they can decide whether to let it proceed, or whether the data doesn't look favorable. 43 minutes ago, DarthVader said: It is by no means official yet. Heck, we don't even know if their launching on the 15th yet. Yes it is. Check the link Mazon Del posted... NASA had a press conference and confirmed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 It's not official until the FAA approves it. Which hasn't happened yet. as stated in the Florida Today article. http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/spacex/2015/12/01/spacex-wants-land-next-booster-cape-canaveral/76576142/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdad84 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Even if it's not official yet, the fact that it even seemed to get this far this fast is GREAT! Wouldn't that be something amazing if SpaceX had a perfect RTF and nailed a F9 landing on land! Patiently waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hcube Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I hope they aren't burning steps and that it's not a silly move after what BlueOrigin did. That could cost them a lot if the landing failed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 this was apparently in the works for months before the BO thing. see NSF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I don't think it is. I think they have got the approach targeting figured out pretty well, so there isn't a huge risk of the rocket crashing somewhere it shouldn't be. The failures have been on the dynamics of the ground contact, which are more complex on a moving platform than they will be on a proper landing pad. I'm pretty confident that the chances of a successful landing on terra firma are higher than on a barge. If they go with a landing at LC-1, I'm quite optimistic that they will finally nail it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Given this'll be the first landing attempt with the uprated Merlin-1Ds, I give it 50-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 14 minutes ago, Kryten said: Given this'll be the first landing attempt with the uprated Merlin-1Ds, I give it 50-50. Uprated? What did that change about the merlin 1D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 25% higher thrust, although I'm not sure how exactly that's been achieved. Given they always said they expected to get them to that thrust level, it could just be an engine control software change. They've also slightly increased tank size and sub-chilled the propellant for higher density to take full advantage of the higher thrust, and used it as an opportunity to make minor changes to most of the other systems. Any one of those could throw off the guidance software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Per this article:http://www.americaspace.com/?p=89127 now the USAF is on board, now SpX just need the FAA to give approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts