FishInferno Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Capture successful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argylas Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 "Not bad for a navy guy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt_flyer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 For some reasons the media mainly talk about the failure of the landing, instead of how the launch is successful, Dragon going to ISS, and they actually hit the mark.And about the images of the barge, darn, I know rocket engine is hot, but looking at how the steel container melted does put it into perspective.How far did the first stage miss the X?Well, that's the media for you 'a rocket crashed onto a barge' is going to be much more catchy than 'the rocket accomplished it's main objective flawlessly' Else, given the size of the barge (the figures i found gives it approx 90x40meters), so if the engine exhaust hit the containers instead of the X, i'd say around 40m off the mark (though, if the steering grid fins were stuck in a bad position, the rocket could have been in a bad angle before crashing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethon Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 "It's no big deal."http://www.universetoday.com/118127/huge-rocket-recovery-strides-accomplished-spacex-drone-ship-back-in-port/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirocco Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Good point I was thinking about that wrong. Stuff still leaking out the back =/= still producing meaningful thrust. I was thinking leszek ment leting them go while they were still producing considerable thrust which would be bad as you can no longer controll where they'd go. particularly bad if they do the KSP trick of moveing out just slightly then convergeing just ahead of where they were released, right above or in the upper portions of the main craft. However you make a good point there would still be residual burnoff spiting burning material out the back even if it was no longer able to produce any significant TWR, thats probably what laszek ment.although I agree still laughable for a liquid engine.interesting note: in the falcon heavy fully recoverable configuration, SpaceX plans to have the booster cores fire for a few seconds after separation to put them on different courses for recovery.of course seeing as these are liquid engines, it's perfectly possible for them to cut out, seperate and then fire again a few seconds after separation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotengineer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Is that destroyed crate (center-right) where the rocket fell over? Or did it explode on impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cirocco Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Is that destroyed crate (center-right) where the rocket fell over? Or did it explode on impact?I think that is where the exhaust hit? Not sure what happened to the rocket itself, but explosion seems unlikely seeing as there would be almost no fuel left upon landing. More likely it just toppled over and was destroyed on impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampa Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 by my looking at it, no government agency would let Space X land like that on land with THAT result...MORE TESTING!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B787_300 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 sampa actually it would be easier for them to land on land and the first stage has a self destruct mechanism so it would be relatively safe, plus there are already exclusions zones set up for the launch so no one should be in danger at all. Also landing on a floating platform is hard, landing on the unmoving land is easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zarakon Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 A landing pad on the ground could also be much larger. Judging by the aftermath pictures, it seems likely that this attempt would have been successful if it was on a larger target. It looks like it didn't so much have a hard (excessive speed) landing, just landed on top of equipment instead of a flat area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 by my looking at it, no government agency would let Space X land like that on land with THAT result...MORE TESTING!!!!On land you can afford to have a landing area of 1×1 km and given the accuracy displayed there would be no problem for the Falcon 9 to land, with reasonable deviation, in the middle of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Would it be too much for the barge to meet the rocket halfway with its course corrections? For instance right here with this launch. Why couldn't that barge thrust its way over ten feet as the rocket came down. If the software could talk.. "I got it, I got it, I got it, I got, I g.. don't got it" lol.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Would it be too much for the barge to meet the rocket halfway with its course corrections? For instance right here with this launch. Why couldn't that barge thrust its way over ten feet as the rocket came down. If the software could talk.. "I got it, I got it, I got it, I got, I g.. don't got it" lol..Again, the problem was not the barge, the problem was the stage losing control because its hydraulic fluid ran out. Very little to do after that but the boom-boom. The only difference might be that the stage would be a pancake in the middle of the barge, rather than at the edge.Though I am not sure a lumbering barge would keep up with a nimble stage coming down at 20 m/s either way. Edited January 12, 2015 by Camacha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zarakon Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Again, the problem was not the barge, the problem was the stage losing control because its hydraulic fluid ran out. Very little to do after that but the boom-boom. The only difference might be that the stage would be a pancake in the middle of the barge, rather than at the edge.Though I am not sure a lumbering barge would keep up with a nimble stage coming down at 20 m/s either way.Where are you getting the 20 m/s number? I haven't seen anything to indicate that it was actually coming down too fast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I meant for future missions. Have the barge make minor corrections to assist the rocket as it comes down. Even if its just to keep a wreck out of the water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikaneko Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 This was a pretty big success to be honest. They got the stage ON THE BARGE, which .Big kudos to SpaceX, even if the ending went a bit awry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I meant for future missions. Have the barge make minor corrections to assist the rocket as it comes down. Even if its just to keep a wreck out of the water...I think that is complicating things the wrong way. It is going to get you a few metres at most. You would better weld some extra sheets of metal to the sides to achieve the same. No complex technology needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I think that is complicating things the wrong way. It is going to get you a few metres at most. You would better weld some extra sheets of metal to the sides to achieve the same. No complex technology needed.From the sounds of it thats all this rocket needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 From the sounds of it thats all this rocket needed.But that amounts to curing the symptoms, not the disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zarakon Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Well obviously that wouldn't be the only change they make to solve the problem. But if it's feasible to do it, it might not be a bad idea to do so for improved redundancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 But thats not the objective. The objective is to have a rocket which is capable of landing "on a dime", not a rocket barge combo which results in a safe landing.Moving the barge is like saying "I'm always half a meter off when parking my car, so I made a mechanical curb which can compensate for it.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camacha Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Where are you getting the 20 m/s number? I haven't seen anything to indicate that it was actually coming down too fastI think I saw that somewhere, but even if I made that up it is a reasonable number. End speed is supposed to be 7 something m/s, so 20 m/s is not an unrealistic approach speed, though it is probably more.From the sounds of it thats all this rocket needed.Again, solving that problem in the most back-to-front and convoluted way is not going to make things much better. If you really want to go that route, weld slabs to the side an be done with it. Some contrived control system is asking for trouble and unnecessary to boot, as the ground will have no such issues and SpaceX intends to switch to solid Earth soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt_flyer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 From the sounds of it thats all this rocket needed.Well, if the grid fins were stuck in a bad angle, not sure that the rocket could have made the touchdown fully upright to begin with (not accounting winds, which could easily push on the top of the empty rocket stage - the engines are heavy, but create drag, while the top is a lightweight rounded surface - with sidewinds and non working grid fins, the rocket could have started to topple before touchdown anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The barge will be needed for the F9Heavy core though right? I imagine by time SpaceX gets to that point the landing software will be more refined, but there is always the variables. A gust of wind could blow the stage off course a few hundred meters up and instead of the rocket itself stressing to stay on course the barge could attempt to move under it to assist. But thats a discussion for when the Heavy is needed I suppose.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Rocket Scientist Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The barge will be needed for the F9Heavy core though right? I imagine by time SpaceX gets to that point the landing software will be more refined, but there is always the variables. A gust of wind could blow the stage off course a few hundred meters up and instead of the rocket itself stressing to stay on course the barge could attempt to move under it to assist. But thats a discussion for when the Heavy is needed I suppose..Well, at least for a while it's likely older cores at the ends of their lives will be used on the Heavy. Even if you land the thing downrange it's going to need quite a bit of dV to slow itself down enough to survive reentry. Downrange recovery of the F9H central core is probably possible, but may not be economically viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts