insert_name Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 1 hour ago, mikegarrison said: Yes, a nice sunny day is too much to ask for. Things to remember: 1) The point of the mission is to safely launch the payload. Landing the rocket is only a bonus. 2) Launch windows are very tight. In order to hit the right orbital inclination, you must launch when you hit the window or else wait for the next window. 3) It's winter. The weather may be worse the next window. 1) landing the rocket increases profit 2) nothing to say here 3) this is California were talking about, "winter" conditions barely made it to February last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 24 minutes ago, insert_name said: 3) this is California were talking about, "winter" conditions barely made it to February last year We're in January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 yes, but not next launch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Just now, insert_name said: yes, but not next launch Last year wasnt an El Nino year. (apparently that's spanish for rainy year) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Rakaydos said: Last year wasnt an El Nino year. (apparently that's spanish for rainy year) Not sure if you're joking, but el nino has different effects on the weather depending on where you are. The typical effects of el nino and la nina on the weather where I live are almost the mirror of their effects on SoCal. http://www.elnino.noaa.gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 It's not as if fog is that unusual in coastal southern california, ice buildup just hasn't been a major constraint for previous rockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 2 hours ago, insert_name said: 1) landing the rocket increases profit Not yet, the rocket is still technically expendable right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softweir Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 3 hours ago, insert_name said: 1) landing the rocket increases profit Not yet. If anything, it is costing SpaceX a lot of money (and reducing profit) because they are going to all the expense of landing them but they aren't yet reusing them. Eventually, once they do start reusing rockets, it will save them money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 22 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: @insert_name is right, @wumpus. From what it sounds, the ice formed while the rocket was sitting on the pad in visible moisture (fog) while full of cryogenic liquids a couple hundred degrees below freezing. If you'll think back to the recovered F9 last month, much of the rocket was not covered by soot probably because of ice still clinging to it. We're not talking a full-on, ionized plasma reentry here, either. Once the rocket gets a few km up there's very little heat transfer in the short time before landing to melt any ice build up. The fog at the launch site just exacerbated an expected condition into a real problem, one that's been faced in the air travel industry for decades but no one had ever thought to apply to rockets, since this is all so new. If the landing gear is anything like an aircraft landing gear, there's a latch it has to snap into on deployment to lock it into position. Ice can be quite strong under compression so depending on the design, either it might not take that much ice to foul the mechanism, or there was simply that much ice. While fog might only occur at Vandenburg during winter, the Falcon typically launches in Florida. Dealing with humidity has to be normal operation. I'd still expect ice to have issues with direct contact with flames (although it doesn't work quite as well as you would think. In that situation the ice needs to go all the way to a gas to leave, requiring two phase conversions. Expect a lot of heat transfer required for even a little bit of ice). I still think that requiring the latch to work to avoid excess travel on the legs was the real cause of this failure. Not sure how much it will weigh to avoid it, and how many other places ice could cause similar problems (mostly with keeping the legs from extending at all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 17 hours ago, fredinno said: Not yet, the rocket is still technically expendable right now. I wouldn't be too surprised if they couldn't retrofit a 1.1 falcon9 right now (all the tooling being changed to 1.2). They might be able to launch the thing as planned (gas and go), but there is no way that anyone would buy a launch it for even half the going rate of a 1.2. Landing the thing was an R&D exersize. February's* booster might possibly be re-used, but that is likely pushing it. * One of the next launches goes back to land, and I think another one is simply expended. Not sure which is which. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 There arer no 1.1's left to retrofit. All existing Falcon 9's are 1.2's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooddog15 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Spaceflight Now has pictures of the wreckage at port: Link .At least they did recover the engines.. Edited January 20, 2016 by gooddog15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I would be pretty surprised if even the bells were salvageable to be honest. The engines themselves are sure to be toast, at least from a reusability standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) that stage seems in good condition.. let's reuse it.. PD: The barge should be one of the spacex workers best paid considering its task. Edited January 21, 2016 by AngelLestat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredinno Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 5 hours ago, gooddog15 said: Spaceflight Now has pictures of the wreckage at port: Link .At least they did recover the engines.. Lest not forget that the engines are the most expensive parts... 1 hour ago, AngelLestat said: that stage seems in good condition.. let's reuse it.. PD: The barge should be one of the spacex workers best paid considering its task. How can you pay a machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperFastJellyfish Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, fredinno said: Lest not forget that the engines are the most expensive parts... How can you pay a machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hcube Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 4 hours ago, AngelLestat said: that stage seems in good condition.. let's reuse it.. This is a joke right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 6 hours ago, fredinno said: How can you pay a machine? With repairs? 4 hours ago, Hcube said: This is a joke right ? if I need to explain it, is not a joke anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta_8930 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 They were able to salvage most of the primary structure even though the stage exploded after tipping over.. That shows how close we were this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbonautInTraining Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Slightly off topic: I just realized you can build a full scale Falcon 9 in stock KSP using a cluster of vectors. Also no, there's no chance in hell any of the engines are getting re-used. The kraken is obviously not satisfied with this batch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EladDv Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 1 hour ago, KerbonautInTraining said: Slightly off topic: I just realized you can build a full scale Falcon 9 in stock KSP using a cluster of vectors. not without some clipping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbonautInTraining Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 13 minutes ago, EladDv said: not without some clipping Where? I know it would be possible to get the fuel/engine setup pretty close to reality, but come to think of it I don't think it would be possible to make the landing system without mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EladDv Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 26 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said: Where? I know it would be possible to get the fuel/engine setup pretty close to reality, but come to think of it I don't think it would be possible to make the landing system without mods. well you could make the landing legs with some stock hinges the main problem really is that the rocket will be OP for stock KSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuky Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Please correct me if this is the wrong thread to post this... SpaceX did a hover test with Dragon V2 Edited January 21, 2016 by Cuky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Cuky, just paste the link and then hit enter to post Youtube videos. That video is so cool, who needs wings. Edited January 21, 2016 by Albert VDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts