numerobis Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I thought it was largely the engine and pumps that mattered, and the tank wasn't that expensive. If true, that argues for just melting the tank for scrap rather than inspecting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razark Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 11 minutes ago, AngelLestat said: 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. That will tell you that it is possible to fail after several launches. It would be better to examine the parts so that you can understand why it failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hysterrics Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 YES! Oh dear lord yes! This is amazing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty1 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Not to open a new topic but can someone enlighten me on the payload. There are 11 satellites that were released with no engine burn between them so their orbit is basically the same. What good are 11 comm satellites clustered together? Do they change their orbit after deployment using some on board maneuvering system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 2 hours ago, Frybert said: And then they would have to get the booster back to the cape by other, more expensive means. That makes sense, good for them abandoning the barge, now all they need is a vab with a closable roof tonlaunch and land from. Thing the space x folks have something serious here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 27 minutes ago, numerobis said: I thought it was largely the engine and pumps that mattered, and the tank wasn't that expensive. If true, that argues for just melting the tank for scrap rather than inspecting it. No, the tanking is still expensive (tanking is considered part of the "structure". http://i.stack.imgur.com/aY2w2.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geschosskopf Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 51 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said: I don't see it. Is it supposed to look like a head or something? Yeah, the white part to me looks like the head, shoulders, and arms of a small humanoid with his face aimed slightly up and left of straight at the camera. It's kinda like the "face on Mars" thing, a trick of the light and wishful thinking, but it jumped out at me and I thought it was funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 21 minutes ago, Mighty1 said: Not to open a new topic but can someone enlighten me on the payload. There are 11 satellites that were released with no engine burn between them so their orbit is basically the same. What good are 11 comm satellites clustered together? Do they change their orbit after deployment using some on board maneuvering system? That would not be unusual. Most satellites have some form of own propulsion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Yellow Dart Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 14 minutes ago, PB666 said: That makes sense, good for them abandoning the barge, now all they need is a vab with a closable roof tonlaunch and land from. Thing the space x folks have something serious here. Yes they probably have some low thrust hydrazine motors on board and will adjust to their proper places over the next few days or weeks. 21 minutes ago, Mighty1 said: Not to open a new topic but can someone enlighten me on the payload. There are 11 satellites that were released with no engine burn between them so their orbit is basically the same. What good are 11 comm satellites clustered together? Do they change their orbit after deployment using some on board maneuvering system? I think I heard that the barge might be used again if they ever wanted to try a second stage recovery. I know I've seen a CG image or video of a second stage re-entering with a heatshield on the front, but I can't find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 5 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said: I know I've seen a CG image or video of a second stage re-entering with a heatshield on the front, but I can't find it. That's from this video: https://youtu.be/sSF81yjVbJE?t=1m12s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Isn't the barge to be used for the central stack of Falcon Heavy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Yellow Dart Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Falcon9 today from a boat. Already getting it ready to move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 That's a very interesting muck pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) 23 minutes ago, The Yellow Dart said: Falcon9 today from a boat. Already getting it ready to move. Crane really puts it in perspective. What sort of test(s) is SpaceX going to put the stage through to see if it's flightworthy again? Edited December 22, 2015 by Robotengineer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frida Space Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 To everyone asking wether this first stage will be re-used (via SpaceFlightNow) Quote Elon Musk, the company’s founder and CEO, told reporters the rocket was to be readied for a ground test firing at Cape Canaveral to verify it weathered the up-and-down flight, but there are no plans to fly this particular rocket again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 We didn't get a date for that firing, did we? I would imagine sometime before its shipped back to Hawthorne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gojira1000 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 That was amazing - they recovered an actual orbital booster in a powered landing in a real launch ... holy ^#$%$. Elon Musk wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 So much for "refuel and go". More like" refuel, sand down, repaint, and go". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Yellow Dart Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 We might soon see a new entry on SpaceX's employment page: Rocket Washer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B787_300 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 4 minutes ago, Nibb31 said: So much for "refuel and go". More like" refuel, sand down, repaint, and go". hopefully it is like wash off (soot is decently easy to remove especially on a smooth surface), test, refuel, relaunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g00bd0g Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 So what happens to the orbiter stage after the satellites have deployed? De-orbit or Keppler syndrome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softweir Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I doubt it's muck, I suspect it is charring from high-airspeed heating, and the white areas are where the LOX tank kept the skin cooler or the landing legs shielded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 4 minutes ago, g00bd0g said: So what happens to the orbiter stage after the satellites have deployed? De-orbit or Keppler syndrome? This particular second stage was de-orbited to test the re-ignition of the new flight profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarManta Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 11 minutes ago, softweir said: I doubt it's muck, I suspect it is charring from high-airspeed heating, and the white areas are where the LOX tank kept the skin cooler or the landing legs shielded it. It's definitely not charring - if the rocket was that burned all around it wouldn't have survived. It's soot from the engines. It didn't stick to certain parts of the rocket because the LOX caused ice to condense on the surface of those parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen_Heart Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 56 minutes ago, Shpaget said: That's a very interesting muck pattern. It doesn't stick where the LOX is. As the LOX tank is at the top but half empty when it separates, only the middle bit stays clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts