razark Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 2 hours ago, PB666 said: How about ellington field? Not saying that just because its 12 miles away either, :^). Somehow, I just don't see anyone approving plans to land rockets in the middle of a major metropolitan area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SargeRho Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 To see how each of the parts handle the stress of a full flight cycle. It would be utterly reckless not to inspect the rocket in detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castille7 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) SPACE-X Falcon 9 has landed! http://www.space.com/31444-spacex-falcon-rocket-landing-epic-photos.html Edited December 22, 2015 by castille7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Examining it after "only" one flight also doesn't tell the whole story. You don't worry about a hammer being worn out after nailing down one nail. The question is no longer can the booster land. The question is how many times can it land without something blowing up. They probably have a list of components that require special attention, perhaps turbopumps and fuel lines, and the list of stuff "not likely to fail any time soon" like the flight computer and grid fins. Some parts may be good enough for 5 cycles, others may not need replacement even after 50. The thing is, such lists are, at this time, just an educated guess. Only time and dozens of launches can provide better data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 7 hours ago, PB666 said: Can i add that their landing trajectory doesn't make much sense, if you have east bound momemtum at peak altitude why reverse it to land with west bound momentum? dV in the x,y needs to be added twice then stppoed twice, this is 3 additional dV just to land (although the primary occurs after stage 2 sep), if they had chosen a pad and a landing site at different locals they wouldn'.t have had to carry this extra fuel and they have more payload cap. And then they would have to get the booster back to the cape by other, more expensive means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razark Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 5 minutes ago, Shpaget said: Examining it after "only" one flight also doesn't tell the whole story. You don't worry about a hammer being worn out after nailing down one nail. That's because we've been using hammers for a long time. Reusable boosters are rather a newer technology. The question at this point isn't "how many launches can the parts stand?", it's "are any of the parts fit for reuse?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 The other pertinent question is "Will it be cheaper to recertify this for reuse rather than simply building another?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 High performance engines, especially experimental high performance engines (and other mechanical things), are often disassembled & inspected. NASCAR & drag race engines get torn down & rebuilt after every single use, generally. Like @razark & @Shpaget mentioned, they know they can land the booster now, so next question is, can they turn a profit doing so as they've expected? With that in mind, I'm sure all the F9's systems have been designed specifically for easy tear down & inspection. Not like on some motorcycles where you have to remove the engine just to asjust the valves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 6 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Not like on some motorcycles where you have to remove the engine just to asjust the valves Funny you should mention that, guess what I have planned for this weekend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softweir Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 48 minutes ago, AngelLestat said: Why disassemble? ... There's no certainty that they will. However there is a very good chance they will want to examine all the moving parts to look for unexpected signs of wear. It is true that they have fired many. many engines in static tests. However, that doesn't quite simulate the effects of an engine firing while accelerating at however-many-Gs the Falcon pulls, nor the effects of firing in near vacuum, not indeed the effects of retro-firing into an oncoming supersonic rush of air. And finally, they won't know for sure what effects re-entry has had on the engines. Only way to learn what those effects are is to disassemble the engines to check every bearing and the insides of every part of the turbos and the combustion chamber. The same is true for the tanks - ALL the tanks, including the pressurised helium tanks. And those famously critical struts! Do the tanks show signs of creasing because of unexpected stresses during launch? If so - chuck it out and redesign it, it won't last a second launch! Can they view every square millimetre of tank skin while in situ? If not, they have to disassemble the rocket to see every millimetre. And finally, what about the electronics and wiring? Do they look as if they need work before a relaunch? Are there worrying signs of re-entry heating on the electronics boxes? Do they need to raise the specs of those systems before thinking about reuse? Only way to tell for sure is to pull the lot apart and examine it on a bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 24 minutes ago, Frybert said: Funny you should mention that, guess what I have planned for this weekend? My condolences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderSpork Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I was watching it launch/land live at Jetty Park, looking across the water. Incredible! Though that sonic boom couldn't have been better (worse) timed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legoclone09 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I got kicked from the IRC for swearing when it landed... Still, it was worth it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Yellow Dart Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said: The other pertinent question is "Will it be cheaper to recertify this for reuse rather than simply building another?" While I'm pretty sure that the answer to that is yes, they built almost every part of the rocket, so testing and taking it apart will let them tweak and change things to make them more reuse-friendly, now that this first step is accomplished. I'm guessing the next one to land will be test fired and inspected, then sent up on a mock-mission with a mass simulator on SpaceX's dime, both as a test and a technology demonstrator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 6 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said: While I'm pretty sure that the answer to that is yes, they built almost every part of the rocket, so testing and taking it apart will let them tweak and change things to make them more reuse-friendly, now that this first step is accomplished. I'm guessing the next one to land will be test fired and inspected, then sent up on a mock-mission with a mass simulator on SpaceX's dime, both as a test and a technology demonstrator. Remains to be seen, IMO. Remember the lessons from the shuttle program. Thankfully SpaceX's business plan is not dependent on reusability, so it's a bonus if it works out and not a big deal if it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Pretty much everyone is on this thread now. WHOOOO, SPACEX DID IT!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 10 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said: While I'm pretty sure that the answer to that is yes, they built almost every part of the rocket, so testing and taking it apart will let them tweak and change things to make them more reuse-friendly, now that this first step is accomplished. I'm guessing the next one to land will be test fired and inspected, then sent up on a mock-mission with a mass simulator on SpaceX's dime, both as a test and a technology demonstrator. Now that you mention it, weren't they originally planning on doing something exactly like this for the in-flight abort test of the D2 before everything went all 19 this summer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdivine Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 With jeff bezos' tweet reminding us of how blue origin beat spaceX to land the first rocket that went to space... It's who does it best, not who does it first. Sorry bezos your moment of glory is up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceception Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 DISCLAIMER!!! I'm not trying to insult people from other countries! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! Whoo!!! Go SpaceX! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Yellow Dart Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said: Remains to be seen, IMO. Remember the lessons from the shuttle program. Thankfully SpaceX's business plan is not dependent on reusability, so it's a bonus if it works out and not a big deal if it doesn't. Yeah, but the shuttle was very different animal. Reentry tiles, two sets of propulsion engines, external tank replacement, saltwater in the SRBs, much larger, and operated and maintained by NASA which doesn't help costs. This is dead simple in comparison. I'm not sure we'll get to the "cut cost of getting to space by 100-fold" mark that Musk has mentioned, but I can't imagine reuse of the Falcon9 could cost more than building a new one, especially since reuse has been a goal of SpaceX since inception and Falcon 9 was designed with that in mind. Edited December 22, 2015 by The Yellow Dart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) It would make sense to me to give a first stage a second launch while also testing the Dragon 2 in flight abort. First stage explodes? No problem, Dragon can abort, no cargo is lost First stage holds steady? Well.. um... Dragon aborts anyway! E/ more photos released from SpaceX, both of ascent and descent. Guess I'll have plenty of material for my background/screen saver now... https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos Edited December 22, 2015 by Wingman703 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 1 minute ago, The Yellow Dart said: Yeah, but the shuttle was very different animal. Reentry tiles, two sets of propulsion engines, external tank replacement, saltwater in the SRBs, much larger, and operated and maintained by NASA which doesn't help costs. This is dead simple in comparison. I'm not sure we'll get to the "cut cost of getting to space by 100-fold" mark that Musk has mentioned, but I can't imagine reuse of the Falcon9 could cost more than building a new one, especially since reuse has been a goal of SpaceX since inception and Falcon 9 was designed with that in mind. As I say, it remains to be seen. Sure it's less complex than the shuttle, but that also means manufacturing a new one is much cheaper, too. It will depend on how much disassembly/recertification the payload insurers will require, and how the actuary data accumulates with more launches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geschosskopf Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Well, good for SpaceX. Too bad they won't be flying it again so we won't get any data on the costs of refurbishment and the reliability of rebuilt rockets. But anyway, quite a feat. Kudos to SpaceX Still, I'm wondering what, or rather who, stowed away aboard the rocket? He was visible the whole time the satellites were deploying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Yellow Dart Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 4 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said: Well, good for SpaceX. Too bad they won't be flying it again so we won't get any data on the costs of refurbishment and the reliability of rebuilt rockets. But anyway, quite a feat. Kudos to SpaceX Still, I'm wondering what, or rather who, stowed away aboard the rocket? He was visible the whole time the satellites were deploying.... I don't see it. Is it supposed to look like a head or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 1 hour ago, softweir said: There's no certainty that they will. However there is a very good chance they will want to examine all the moving parts to look for unexpected signs of wear. It is true that they have fired many. many engines in static tests. However, that doesn't quite simulate the effects of an engine firing while accelerating at however-many-Gs the Falcon pulls, nor the effects of firing in near vacuum, not indeed the effects of retro-firing into an oncoming supersonic rush of air. And finally, they won't know for sure what effects re-entry has had on the engines. Only way to learn what those effects are is to disassemble the engines to check every bearing and the insides of every part of the turbos and the combustion chamber. The same is true for the tanks - ALL the tanks, including the pressurised helium tanks. And those famously critical struts! Do the tanks show signs of creasing because of unexpected stresses during launch? If so - chuck it out and redesign it, it won't last a second launch! Can they view every square millimetre of tank skin while in situ? If not, they have to disassemble the rocket to see every millimetre. And finally, what about the electronics and wiring? Do they look as if they need work before a relaunch? Are there worrying signs of re-entry heating on the electronics boxes? Do they need to raise the specs of those systems before thinking about reuse? Only way to tell for sure is to pull the lot apart and examine it on a bench. I dont think they will do that, I guess this booster will remain some way intact (just few test) to be preserved as historic prop. You can search for fissures without open the whole thing, with special lights or tune machines that measure the sound of each part. If I would be Elon musk, with the next booster that achieves landing, I will refill it with fuel, then I ensemble a fake payload, and I will repeat the process many times. That is the best way to test something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts