Jump to content

Blue Origin Thread (merged)

Aethon

By Aethon
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

KSK

KSK

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Scotius said:

1st stage is down, the bird is up. 10\10 mission :D Congrats SpaceX!

Forget 'nominal' - everything is BIOBOB!

Bird In Orbit - Booster On Boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hysterrics

Hysterrics

Posted
Posted (edited)

My typical rundown of the mission:

The Falcon 9 soared upwards from a seemingly smooth countdown, with the usual issue of upper levels winds. This turned out to be no big deal. at T+2:28(Wizard engineer dude called it), the first stage separated and began it's voyage to OCISLY. The crowd cheered through the entry burn, per usual.

At T+8:00, we got some sweet drone ship footage. There was a bright light which made all of us watching kind of spooked. The screen whited out. The crowd was dead silent. After not even a second of white screen, we suddenly see a freshly landed Falcon in all of it's glory. There were supposedly reports of a little residual flame, but I was too busy jumping and yelling. The second stage entered it's coast and the stream was reduced to some music and a trajectory view. The hosts came back for the second burn. The 2nd stage cameras now got shown on the webcast as the vehicle passed into the light side of the Earth. The spacecraft separated on it's journey to apogee. Another perfect launch by SpaceX.

Track Record for Falcon 9 1.1 FT:

Orbcomm 2: Total mission success: RTLS successful.
SES-9: Mission success, barge landing failure. Landing footage was "to bad to release"
CRS-8: Total mission success: Barge landing success
JCSAT-14: Total mission success: Barge landing success

"We don't expect this one to succeed."
Lands directly in the center of the barge. 

Edited by Hysterrics
Link to comment
Share on other sites
StrandedonEarth

StrandedonEarth

Posted
Posted

WOOOOOOHOOOOO Now that's a great thing to wake up to! Hey look, they have nav blinkers on the legs!

4 hours ago, CptRichardson said:

From Musk:

 

"We may need a bigger rocket park."

They'll just have to start getting those birds back in the air!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ignath

Ignath

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

I MISSED IT!? ;.; I WAS ASLEEP!

 

Oh well, there's always next launch.

Congrats SpaceX on your landing!

For those who missed it:

Landing starts around 38:00 in the vid.

Edited by Ignath
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lukaszenko

Lukaszenko

Posted
Posted

I don't care what anybody says, I like the hosted webcast. Much more dramatic.

I don't think this will ever get boring. Routine maybe...hopefully, but not boring. I could sit at the airport and watch airplanes taking off and landing all day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hysterrics

Hysterrics

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Lukaszenko said:

I don't care what anybody says, I like the hosted webcast. Much more dramatic.

I don't think this will ever get boring. Routine maybe...hopefully, but not boring. I could sit at the airport and watch airplanes taking off and landing all day. 

Same. Cheering with the crowd was much more fun for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB666

PB666

Posted
Posted (edited)

Did anyone notice that there was no call out for Max-Q and this rocket barreled into Mach speed alot faster than CRS-8, and turned faster also.?

Yep, they hit max v1250 5 seconds earlier and 1700 meters lower than CRS-8. Either this craft is alot lighter or they increased the output of their engines again.

Edited by PB666
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngelLestat

AngelLestat

Posted
Posted

well I could not see it for the hour, but OMG, we can see how spacex are perfected themselves in matter of weeks...
How much we need to wait to see the same thing in other companies? 
I guess track the progress of spacex never will become boring, their are always pushing their limits and tech all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StrandedonEarth

StrandedonEarth

Posted
Posted
Just now, sevenperforce said:

Can't wait to see the full video from OCISLY once they pull it from the cams.

Probably not much to see in the dark, and then the glare from the rocket engine. 

Which begs the question, if it's a GTO flight, then why did they need to launch in the middle of the night?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rudi1291

rudi1291

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PB666 said:

Did anyone notice that there was no call out for Max-Q and this rocket barreled into Mach speed alot faster than CRS-8, and turned faster also.?

Yep, they hit max v1250 5 seconds earlier and 1700 meters lower than CRS-8. Either this craft is alot lighter or they increased the output of their engines again.

Appearantly the payload was heavier this time: JCSAT with 4696kg, CRS8 with 3136kg. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4hvn24/estimation_of_jcsat14_mass_via_linear_regression/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-8

Edit: I guess, for CRS8 we would have to add the weight of the capsule. Then it might be heavier than JCSAT...

Edited by rudi1291
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Glaran K'erman

Glaran K'erman

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Probably not much to see in the dark, and then the glare from the rocket engine. 

Which begs the question, if it's a GTO flight, then why did they need to launch in the middle of the night?

Well if it's part of a constellation, then launch windows would still matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CptRichardson

CptRichardson

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Did anyone notice that there was no call out for Max-Q and this rocket barreled into Mach speed alot faster than CRS-8, and turned faster also.?

Yep, they hit max v1250 5 seconds earlier and 1700 meters lower than CRS-8. Either this craft is alot lighter or they increased the output of their engines again.

 

Lighter payload, I believe. Plus less going easy on the rocket and punching the throttle through to 'Plaid' on the dial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rakaydos

Rakaydos

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, CptRichardson said:

 

Lighter payload, I believe. Plus less going easy on the rocket and punching the throttle through to 'Plaid' on the dial.

Agreed- After they recovered 2 boosters, they decided they could push the engines a bit harder with no modifications, were able to push harder, and thus reserve more fuel for the expirimental landing attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KSK

KSK

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Lukaszenko said:

I don't care what anybody says, I like the hosted webcast. Much more dramatic.

The host commentary seemed that bit more technical this time. They were discussing the need for ullage thrusters on the first stage for example, although not in so many words. I like it too. The telemetry feed in the top right corner is still the best part though - the pure numbers involved in getting something to orbit just hit me every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wumpus

wumpus

Posted
Posted

JCSAT-14 MECO ~2.3km/s (from eyeballing 8348km/h on the screen when MECO was called)

EntryburnCO ~2.0km/s from spacex announcers explaining why this was expected to crash.

Unless spacex has significantly changed the upper booster for the Falcon Heavy (and that doesn't appear possible.  They are pretty much stuck with the Falcon 9 upper stage plus possible reinforcement for a 25 ton greater load), this is nothing compared to what the center booster of a Falcon Heavy has to deal with.  From previous data from expendable loads, we can assume that the Falcon 9 with max (expendable) load of 22.8 tons will be going ~4km/s at 1st stage MECO.  Since they have [nearly] the same upper stages, the Falcon Heavy will have to provide exactly  that.  Of course, JCSAT-14 just proved that it is possible to land after burning "only" 2km/s of delta-v afterwards instead of 3km/s, so presumably Falcon Heavy

will need only twice the reserves of Falcon 9.  Getting to 30-40 tons make me expect they will lose the center booster.

At this point the economics get interesting.  With 30% of the [recoverable price of] $62M we might guess that the center booster costs $18M (or more accurately, not recovering adds to the cost).  A lot depends on how much leaving the landing reserve of the side tanks matters.  Presumably, they will need much less than 10% reserve (less than a Falcon 9 for landing).  If trying to recover the side boosters drops the Falcon Heavy cargo from 54.4 to ~40 tons while trying to recover all boosters drops the tonnage to ~22 tons, the cost delta hits $1000/ton: a no-brainer to expend the booster (assuming you somehow have a manifest to deliver some sort of arbitrary cargo in multiple trips, say a Mars spacecraft).  A lot depends on just how fast they can get the center booster [plus upper stage] going and still slow the thing down and land it, vs. how much delta-v they lose when just returning the side boosters.  And of course, the whole exercise is moot unless they manage to talk customers in the ~20 ton range into buying a "twofer" launch instead of individual launches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB666

PB666

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CptRichardson said:

 

Lighter payload, I believe. Plus less going easy on the rocket and punching the throttle through to 'Plaid' on the dial.

I'm going to do the math later, will be able to tell, they certainly did not reduce stage 1 or 2 fuel, just my sense, this was more of a throttle push than a lower weight issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sevenperforce

sevenperforce

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

the benefit of having many engines is that you reduce manufacture cost due quantity.. is also easier to design different launchers or stages changing the numbers of engines and in case one or two fails, you can still achieve your goal.

Certainly, but I was asking about engine arrangements not multiple engines in general.

2 hours ago, rudi1291 said:

Appearantly the payload was heavier this time: JCSAT with 4696kg, CRS8 with 3136kg. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4hvn24/estimation_of_jcsat14_mass_via_linear_regression/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-8

Edit: I guess, for CRS8 we would have to add the weight of the capsule. Then it might be heavier than JCSAT...

LEO vs GTO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SgtSomeone

SgtSomeone

Posted
Posted
On 5/3/2016 at 4:55 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

This is a GTO launch with little margins left for landing, but apparently they will try another barge landing anyways without expecting success. Hopefully the hole will be smaller this time.

SpaceFlightNow article link

Just woke up and caught up on the thread. The hole is definitely smaller this time :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
codepoet

codepoet

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

I'm pretty sure you dont have the right crane to do that, in your yard, though. :P

Crane?

I understood it to be an offer to have the stage land directly in the yard.

I did not realise that this was a landing burn using 3 engine rather than one. Awesome timing on the suicide burn considering how much G that much have been pulling, to get the whole 0 velocity at 0 altitude thing. For me that is the most impressive part of the whole thing.

 

Edited by codepoet
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB666

PB666

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, codepoet said:

Crane?

I understood it to be an offer to have the stage land directly in the yard.

I did not realise that this was a landing burn using 3 engine rather than one. Awesome timing on the suicide burn considering how much G that much have been pulling, to get the whole 0 velocity at 0 altitude thing. For me that is the most impressive part of the whole thing.

 

That's a ball-sy landing. The only reason they would care about gravity losses at that point is if they were fuel strapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...