KerBlammo Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I hope SpaceX has mercy on us space nerds and releases the video. Maybe its simply that they want to cut together the available video into something really cool, and now that the holidays are over their video/PR people are all back at work preparing it for release... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModZero Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 20 hours ago, Nibb31 said: My point was that they don't have to release it. They are a private corporation, they have no obligation to release data to the public. Why would they ? We can only guess why (I tend to thing it's ego and recruitment, mostly), but they do seem quite eager to release videos and make enormous advancements in the amounts of GoPros strapped to rockets. So it makes a bit sense to wonder why wouldn't they publish one from a particularly endearing event (not as obligation, but as motivation, as in "what's different this time?") – but we don't really have much to build our speculations on. Me, I vote they can't decide on the soundtrack - it's hard to decide between Benny Hill chase music and Monty Python opening theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazon Del Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I'm sure this has been asked before, but I am admittedly uncertain. From what we know does the Falcon 9, assuming you throw everything at the task (so no fuel leftover for landing and such), have enough dV to hurl anything (from a cubesat on up) into Lunar Orbit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hcube Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I would quote your comment but the quote system is completely not working for me right now. If it's not being fixed then i'm not gonna bother trying either. But yes i am pretty sure the F9 can launch small payloads onto TLI orbit. But it wasn't designed for this so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Mazon Del said: I'm sure this has been asked before, but I am admittedly uncertain. From what we know does the Falcon 9, assuming you throw everything at the task (so no fuel leftover for landing and such), have enough dV to hurl anything (from a cubesat on up) into Lunar Orbit? Indeed it does. IIRC it's already sent at least one payload that way, and one of the entries for the Lunar XPrize has booked a flight for next year. ETA: it sent the DSCOVR satellite to the Earth/Sun L2 libration point, which is quite a bit further than the moo. Edited January 6, 2016 by CatastrophicFailure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModZero Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 3 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Indeed it does. IIRC it's already sent at least one payload that way, and one of the entries for the Lunar XPrize has booked a flight for next year. That's Astrobotic, which I spent time googling. Can't find the lunar orbit one, I know of DSCOVR, but that's at sun-earth L1, using a bunch of moon swing-bys, AFAIK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Mazon Del said: I'm sure this has been asked before, but I am admittedly uncertain. From what we know does the Falcon 9, assuming you throw everything at the task (so no fuel leftover for landing and such), have enough dV to hurl anything (from a cubesat on up) into Lunar Orbit? Yeah, Low Lunar Orbit has a similar Delta-V requirement as GEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbonautInTraining Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, fredinno said: Yeah, Low Lunar Orbit has a similar Delta-V requirement as GEO. It takes like 3 days to reach the moon. LOX boiloff? Edited January 7, 2016 by KerbonautInTraining added time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 It makes it's final burn long before coasting into lunar orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbonautInTraining Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 12 minutes ago, sojourner said: It makes it's final burn long before coasting into lunar orbit. They were talking about putting something into lunar orbit, which involves a ~800m/s insertion burn at closest approach. (I'm assuming the "cubesat" payload doesn't have the necessary propulsion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 14 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said: They were talking about putting something into lunar orbit, which involves a ~800m/s insertion burn at closest approach. (I'm assuming the "cubesat" payload doesn't have the necessary propulsion) This is typically done by the payload, even to GEO. The F9 just gives the initial (and much larger) burn to TLI/GTO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Yep, by the time you reach the insertion burn that second stage is mostly dead weight you don't want to have to spend Delta/V on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 1 hour ago, sojourner said: Yep, by the time you reach the insertion burn that second stage is mostly dead weight you don't want to have to spend Delta/V on. Actually, Lox has a much slower boil-off rate than LH2. Considering that it takes 3 days to get to the moon, you *should* be fine. Granted, it's not the most efficient method, but it's possible to still get a decently-sized probe over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazon Del Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 You might be able to use the LOX boiloff constructively. Something I recently found out that I thought was very clever of NASA, was that on the Saturn V, when they first launched up into a parking orbit at ~100 miles for final checks before going to the moon, they rigged up a system so that the boiloff was ejected out the back to provide a source of "thrust" that more than counteracted the "air resistance" at that altitude. So, perhaps you could cut your thrust a bit early, and coast-accelerate on the boiloff to save a bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchz95 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 SpaceX plans to recover their first stage on a barge during their Jason-3 launch on January 17th. http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/spacex-plans-drone-ship-rocket-landing-jan-17-launch-n492471 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainDreamer Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Lets see if they can land it on the barge again this time. Without explosions. Edited January 8, 2016 by RainDreamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerBlammo Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Well I guess we aren't going to see any on-board video (assuming it exists). Maybe they've taken a good look at the returned first stage and realize that there is no way that it could fly again without extensive and expensive refurbishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, KerBlammo said: Well I guess we aren't going to see any on-board video (assuming it exists). Maybe they've taken a good look at the returned first stage and realize that there is no way that it could fly again without extensive and expensive refurbishment. https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/682717803166695425 "Falcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again." Who the heck knows why they haven't showed the footage yet. Some kind of PR strategy perhaps. Edited January 11, 2016 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerBlammo Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Motokid600 said: "Falcon 9 back in the hangar at Cape Canaveral. No damage found, ready to fire again." Corporate PR ranges from mildly informative to outright deceptive in my experience. Yes there is no obvious external damage to the booster but that does not mean it is capable of launching again. Don't get me wrong, I hope they can achieve true re-useability and getting the booster back is a huge step in that direction but whether they can really fly again without rebuilding the rocket engines remains to be seen. As far as the video goes surely Elon Musk has some compassion for his fellow space nerds out here in internet land? If "Chris B" is correct they are sitting one of the coolest space flight videos ever! Won't someone think of the Space Nerds? Please? Edited January 12, 2016 by KerBlammo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Am I allowed to link to other forums? Anyway in my efforts to find out more news on a certain onboard video I found a very interesting discussion on the NASA forums. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38149.2080 And this Shes lookin' rough. "The upper nozzle blanket definitely appears to have been eroded and likely needs to be replaced. That area is right next to a turbine exhaust outlet. The white stuff in the nozzles appears to be some liquid that has dried, perhaps some leaking TEA-TEB fluid ( for the restarts I believe ), or an additive in the RP-1. There are also many small white marks on the outside of the engine bells. Not sure if that indicates stuff that has flecked on, or scratches made by some external abrasive material." Edited January 12, 2016 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 21 minutes ago, Motokid600 said: The white stuff in the nozzles appears to be some liquid that has dried Good night everybody! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I would have expected that there's no footage worth showing, since it was pitch dark with the engines off, and with them on the glare would have underexposed everything else... But then again I consider Chris Bergin to be a pretty reliable source, so who knows, I might be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 7 hours ago, Motokid600 said: 7 hours ago, Motokid600 said: Am I allowed to link to other forums? Anyway in my efforts to find out more news on a certain onboard video I found a very interesting discussion on the NASA forums. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38149.2080 And this Shes lookin' rough. "The upper nozzle blanket definitely appears to have been eroded and likely needs to be replaced. That area is right next to a turbine exhaust outlet. The white stuff in the nozzles appears to be some liquid that has dried, perhaps some leaking TEA-TEB fluid ( for the restarts I believe ), or an additive in the RP-1. There are also many small white marks on the outside of the engine bells. Not sure if that indicates stuff that has flecked on, or scratches made by some external abrasive material." Am I allowed to link to other forums? Anyway in my efforts to find out more news on a certain onboard video I found a very interesting discussion on the NASA forums. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38149.2080 And this Shes lookin' rough. "The upper nozzle blanket definitely appears to have been eroded and likely needs to be replaced. That area is right next to a turbine exhaust outlet. The white stuff in the nozzles appears to be some liquid that has dried, perhaps some leaking TEA-TEB fluid ( for the restarts I believe ), or an additive in the RP-1. There are also many small white marks on the outside of the engine bells. Not sure if that indicates stuff that has flecked on, or scratches made by some external abrasive material." Honestly? That doesn't sound too bad. Or at least they sound like known unknowns that could reasonably have been predicted by the SpaceX engineers and so (presumably) they have some ideas about how serious they are and mitigation plans in place as appropriate. If I remember rightly, the upper nozzle blanket was intended to contain any of the engines in the event of an RUD, and prevent the damage from taking out the remaining engines. It may also have been intended to thermally insulate the engines from one another - I'm less sure about that. Either way it doesn't seem too surprising that a bit of kit, intended to fit around a rocket engine, got a bit scorched. Likewise the white streaks. If that is TEA-TEB (which seems plausible given that a)TEA (triethylaluminium) would oxidise to aluminium oxide - which would account for the white powder and b ) the streaking was heaviest on the two engines that relight for the first two landing burns) - then you've got to assume that engineers using TEA-TEB for multiple restarts of a rocket engine might have anticipated that problem (if it is a problem) ahead of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Re: video footage. It occurs to me they have another launch coming up in a week, and will try landing on the barge again. Their record for that is less than stellar. Perhaps they're holding on to that footage in case this next landing attempt goes bad? "well we had a minor anomaly landing on the barge but look at these kewl movies from our other landing!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hcube Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Re: video footage. It occurs to me they have another launch coming up in a week, and will try landing on the barge again. Their record for that is less than stellar. Perhaps they're holding on to that footage in case this next landing attempt goes bad? "well we had a minor anomaly landing on the barge but look at these kewl movies from our other landing!" This is actually very probable. It's pretty cool for us anyway since whatever happens we will either get footage of a good barge landing or footage of a failed barge landing + onboard landing video of the orbcomm launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts