cubinator Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 11 minutes ago, tater said: He said the one that just landed will probably fly in May. Geez, that's pretty fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HebaruSan Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, tater said: In the press conference I posted, Musk says that the first landing (RTLS) is going outside HQ, they just got permission from the FAA because it's taller than anything else around the airport there (hence having to ask). He said the one that just landed will probably fly in May. Excellent. I look forward to the discussion of "They did it" / "Will it be worth it" being replaced by an increasingly long, complex spreadsheet tracking which boosters have been used how many times with what results. Was that the third launch of booster 2, or the second launch of booster 3...? Once re-use is established, is the plan to accumulate a pool of boosters and only build a new one when retiring an old one? If so, do we know the planned size of that pool? Edited April 11, 2016 by HebaruSan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, HebaruSan said: Once re-use is established, is the plan to accumulate a pool of boosters and only build a new one when retiring an old one? If so, do we know the planned size of that pool? Anything they launch for NASA has to be done on new equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HebaruSan Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Just now, Frybert said: Anything they launch for NASA has to be done on new equipment. So NASA will essentially be buying them boosters to use for other customers. Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignath Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 1 hour ago, tater said: In the press conference I posted, Musk says that the first landing (RTLS) is going outside HQ, they just got permission from the FAA because it's taller than anything else around the airport there (hence having to ask). He said the one that just landed will probably fly in May. I think he later revised the statement to June or July. He stated that the May date may have been a bit too ambitious as far as flight re-certification, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Elsbeth III (with ASDS OCISLY and F9-23) is 47 nautical miles from Port Canveral, check its progress here:https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4eawpv/satellite_location_of_ocisly_over_past_days/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTNLemay Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) On 4/10/2016 at 6:04 PM, StrandedonEarth said: From Wiki: Hey thanks for that proof. One thing is still bothering me though. In searching for specs on the F9 and it's missions, I've been surprised to find that a lot of the missions it's been performing appear to be well under it's designated specs. On the wiki it says it can haul 13 tons to LEO, or 4.8 tons to GTO, but I can't find a single LEO mission that weighed more than 7 tons. The ISS resupply missions appear to be 2000 to 2500 kg of cargo, aboard he 4,2 ton Dragon spacecraft. And the GTO missions appear to be similarly small payloads. Some of them weighed in at under 2 tons. Is it because there are no "middle ground" rockets that could perform these lighter missions, or is the F9 so economical that it costs less than these weaker rockets? 42 minutes ago, DarthVader said: Elsbeth III (with ASDS OCISLY and F9-23) is 47 nautical miles from Port Canveral, check its progress here:https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4eawpv/satellite_location_of_ocisly_over_past_days/ Did they send people to strap the rocket down, or is the boat still completely unmanned? And if it's the later, how have they prevented it from tipping over in the oceanic swells? Edited April 12, 2016 by PTNLemay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frybert Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, PTNLemay said: Did they send people to strap the rocket down, or is the boat still completely unmanned? And if it's the later, how have they prevented it from tipping over in the oceanic swells? They send people out and weld straps over the landing legs to the deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 26 minutes ago, PTNLemay said: One thing is still bothering me though. Well, the Wiki lists 13 tons to LEO. That doesn't say if that's expendable or reusable. If you knock off 30% for reuse, that brings it down to about 9 tons. Also, that figure only says "to LEO" but it doesn't say where in LEO. The Space Shuttle Wiki has two listings for LEO: Quote Payload to LEO (204 kilometers (110 nmi) @ 28.5° inclination: 27,500 kilograms (60,600 lb) Payload to LEO (407 kilometers (220 nmi) @ 51.6° to ISS): 16,050 kilograms (35,380 lb)[65] Payload to GTO: 8,390 lb (3,806 kg) Payload to Polar Orbit: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg) So it's not a given that F9v1.1 can haul 13 tons to the ISS. As for other satellites, well, it just may be that they haven't found a customer that wants 13 tons in a lower LEO. But they have sent a payload to L1, at a million miles out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 1 hour ago, PTNLemay said: Hey thanks for that proof. One thing is still bothering me though. In searching for specs on the F9 and it's missions, I've been surprised to find that a lot of the missions it's been performing appear to be well under it's designated specs. On the wiki it says it can haul 13 tons to LEO, or 4.8 tons to GTO, but I can't find a single LEO mission that weighed more than 7 tons. The ISS resupply missions appear to be 2000 to 2500 kg of cargo, aboard he 4,2 ton Dragon spacecraft. And the GTO missions appear to be similarly small payloads. Some of them weighed in at under 2 tons. Is it because there are no "middle ground" rockets that could perform these lighter missions, or is the F9 so economical that it costs less than these weaker rockets? Launches aren't sold based on weight, typically. The Falcon 9 is quite overpowered for LEO due to the really fantastic T/W ratio of the Merlin 1Ds; it was designed that way to give it a margin for reuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignath Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, DarthVader said: Elsbeth III (with ASDS OCISLY and F9-23) is 47 nautical miles from Port Canveral, check its progress here:https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4eawpv/satellite_location_of_ocisly_over_past_days/ Elsbeth III, F9-23, and the other assorted support ships returned to Port Canaveral early this AM (Eastern Time). A couple images: http://imgur.com/4njELVY http://imgur.com/qIe1DNd Edited April 12, 2016 by Ignath Timezone for clarity & official SpaceX pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) part of the soot was washout, not sure how bad that can be taking into account that it was partially made by seawater. I still think they need a solid and place fixed platform in the sea. Edited April 12, 2016 by AngelLestat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbonautInTraining Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 17 minutes ago, AngelLestat said: part of the soot was washout, "Washout"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignath Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 16 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said: "Washout"? I assume he means washed off. "Some of the soot was washed off, not sure how bad that could be taking into account it was washed off by seawater" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Just now, Ignath said: I assume he means washed off. "Some of the soot was washed off, not sure how bad that could be taking into account it was washed off by seawater" If the problem is too bad, the team that wlds the leg to the deck can just throw a dust cover over the engines for the trip back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Y'all should check out the Canaveral port live cam.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Yellow Dart Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) I made a compilation of every SpaceX rocket landing and landing attempt that was recorded on video, from Grasshopper to last Friday. It ended up being kinda long but oh well. Maybe I'll make another one with just Falcon 9 landings. Edited April 12, 2016 by The Yellow Dart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Rakaydos said: If the problem is too bad, the team that wlds the leg to the deck can just throw a dust cover over the engines for the trip back. How sure are we that this is dust, could be that the paint burnt off, the hydrolics on the legs looks like they have been through fire. The coloration looks to me like heat oxidized metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbonautInTraining Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 3 hours ago, Ignath said: My phone won't let me see the full resolution image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elthy Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 I also cant figure out how to get a high resolution picture from that on a desktop PC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Yellow Dart Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Elthy said: I also cant figure out how to get a high resolution picture from that on a desktop PC... Yeah, Instagram is a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) I wonder how bad the sea spray will effect it. They should definitely cover as much as they can with tarps. Oh and correct me if I'm wrong, but that definitely looks like some kind of clamp on the feet. Edited April 12, 2016 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Motokid600 said: I wonder how bad the sea spray will effect it. They should definitely cover as much as they can with tarps. Oh and correct me if I'm wrong, but that definitely looks like some kind of clamp on the feet. Welded-on shoes for stability. Edited April 12, 2016 by Robotengineer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 5 hours ago, PB666 said: How sure are we that this is dust, could be that the paint burnt off, the hydrolics on the legs looks like they have been through fire. The coloration looks to me like heat oxidized metal. If you watch the launch footage closely, there was some nasty plume recircularisation into the engine bay; bad enough that I initially thought it was on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Kryten said: If you watch the launch footage closely, there was some nasty plume recircularisation into the engine bay; bad enough that I initially thought it was on fire. You mean the flare after passing through its Mach related bow shock? They could have prevented that if they had designed the nose piece minimize boundary separation after bow shock. Would have increased the weight though and cost of nose piece. After seeing the docked video of the barge at Canaveral I realized that it was paint, you can still see the space X Logo on the bottom of the stage. According to Sears-haack shape, the rise in crosssectional area should taper and then recede, otherwise you get wave formation along the rest of the body, as speed increases the wave length proceeds down the body and then down the plume. My bad, did not realize, thought it was a H2 / O2, in-fact it uses kerosene, yep that bow shock caused the engines to soot it up. But on the bright side, having the engines under the boundary layer does increase the ISP, lol, funny because creating that separation costs more in Mach drag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts