tater Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 (edited) Just as a cheerful follow up to tater's post, I was talking about the landing last week with a colleague and showed her it on the webcast. She was extremely impressed and her seven year old was even more so. Apparently he's currently having much fun swooshing his Lego Falcon 9 around and landing it on a Lego barge. Edited May 10, 2016 by KSK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdivine Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 How long before the actual touchdown did spaceX shutdown 2 of it's 3 firing engines for landing? In the video, i saw only 1 engine being lit up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi1291 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Rdivine said: How long before the actual touchdown did spaceX shutdown 2 of it's 3 firing engines for landing? In the video, i saw only 1 engine being lit up. At 1:02 it looks like they shutdown 2 of the engines, but its hard to tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 The JCSAT-14 booster has been lifted off of OCISLY and is currently being lowered onto the inspection stand at Port Canaveral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 The FTS detonator has been removed, and a camera. Watch live here: www portcanaveralwebcam.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 (edited) http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow Dragon-8 release coverage (live from ISS). They just undocked it, still on arm. Release at 8:18 US Central Time (13 min) Edited May 11, 2016 by tater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbinot Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Be kind of cool to get a camera onboard the booster...probably wouldnt survive re-entry, but would be still be awesome to watch it till it died Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Unless I woefully miss my guess, I'm pretty sure that you can see the shadow of the ISS on the trunk of the Dragon as it recedes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 10 hours ago, Orbinot said: Be kind of cool to get a camera onboard the booster...probably wouldnt survive re-entry, but would be still be awesome to watch it till it died The last landing had live footage from the booster looking down, so there should be footage of the reentry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Feed has been pulled until further notice. NSF and R/SpaceX are crowd sourcing a possible replacement, maybe this forum could chip in here:https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4izg1t/regarding_ptztv_and_links_to_their_port_canaveral/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethon Posted May 13, 2016 Author Share Posted May 13, 2016 Time lapse of Falcon 9 unloading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcalplanner Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 I just reviewed the numbers for the Falcon FT, and I am officially impressed. In the expendable configurstion, they're able to put 22.8 metric tons into orbit using a 549.05 ton rocket, for a payload mass fraction of 4.15 percent. All while only using kerolox engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said: I just reviewed the numbers for the Falcon FT, and I am officially impressed. In the expendable configurstion, they're able to put 22.8 metric tons into orbit using a 549.05 ton rocket, for a payload mass fraction of 4.15 percent. All while only using kerolox engines. It's not hard to see why. In the FT update, a first stage without payload has roughly 8.8 km/s of dV, while an independent second stage has a whopping 11.3 km/s of dV. SpaceX basically stacked a small SSTO on top of a large SSTO and called it a badass rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Yeah, they're all about mass fraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, tater said: Yeah, they're all about mass fraction. "Because I'm all about that mass, 'bout that mass, mass fraction" Another factor that is often overlooked but is perhaps far more important: payload fraction. The ratio of payload to inert stage mass at burnout is the payload fraction, and it determines how much structural margin a given design has. Ideally, your payload should be at least as massive as your inert stage mass at burnout; that way, if you need to add strength or TPS or anything else to your terminal stage, you only lose a few percent of payload for the corresponding percent increase in inert stage mass. Payload fraction, not mass fraction, is typically what kills SSTOs. If your payload is only a tenth of your dry mass, then an unexpected 10% increase in structural weight cuts 90% of your payload. In its fully expendable configuration, the terminal stage of the Falcon 9 boasts not a 1:1 payload fraction, but a 5:1 payload fraction. That's money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 "fully expendable configuration," That reminds me I've been meaning to ask. Will the Falcon 9 ever fly fully expendable again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 37 minutes ago, Motokid600 said: "fully expendable configuration," That reminds me I've been meaning to ask. Will the Falcon 9 ever fly fully expendable again? *dons Captain Obvious hat* I guess it depends whether it would be cheaper to use a Falcon Heavy in reusable configuration to lift 20 ton payloads. Which, in turn, depends on how reusable Falcon Heavy actually is and how much of a saving reusability actually gives them. My gut feeling is that Falcon (expendable) would probably be cheaper than Falcon Heavy (reusable) for a 20-23 payload but then my gut knows exactly diddly-squat about rocket science. *doffs Captain Obvious hat* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 There is the whole issue of "mass production" to consider. Reuse with current, very limited payloads to compete for means that reuse directly diminishes manufacturing output, which might very well harm cost efficiency. It might be cheaper to keep production busy and expend launchers than it is to reuse them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 14 minutes ago, tater said: There is the whole issue of "mass production" to consider. Reuse with current, very limited payloads to compete for means that reuse directly diminishes manufacturing output, which might very well harm cost efficiency. It might be cheaper to keep production busy and expend launchers than it is to reuse them. Depends if the upperstage merlins use the same production line as the lowerstage. If each lowerstage gets 11 launches, that's the same production (of merlins) as 2 complete launches, fully replaced, and far more of economy of scale for upperstage production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 That's true regarding engines. I was thinking whole stages. I suppose if they can garner a higher launch cadence, production moves to upper stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbal01 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 F9-024-S1 has been moved to LC-39A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, tater said: That's true regarding engines. I was thinking whole stages. I suppose if they can garner a higher launch cadence, production moves to upper stages. Not TOO much higher launch cadence. If we run with the 10/1 reuse ratio, thats 10 launches for (almost) the same Merlin production ("Engines are the most expensive part of a rocket") as 2 expendable, or a 5/1 increase in cadence to keep the current merlin production the same. SpaceX launched 6 rockets in 2014, their first year with a serious launch cadence. At that same level of merlin production, they can field 30 falcon 9 lanches assuming full reuse- a large number, but not terribly greater than the global launch market figures I've seen posted around, IIRC. Of course, the wildcard in the deck is Falcon Heavy Core reuse. If it can be reused, that's 3 reusable cores to only 1 upperstage. If it cant, it's an expendable falcon 9 PLUS 2 reuable boosters. Edited May 14, 2016 by Rakaydos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 They've said 10-20, and I think they actually regard the real number as possibly much higher from things I have read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts