SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

louis · 2015-12-23 05:30:01

Whilst I am in many ways a Mars First person, equally it does seem absurd to me that we have no permanent presence on the Moon. It's a mere 3 or 4 days away and in many ways is far more hospitable than Antarctica. Moreover, with sponsorship, sale of regolith and super-rich tourism and so on, it can be self-funding to a large extent.

Anyway, more details about Musk's Mars colonisation plans should be a highlight of 2016. I am hoping he is going to announce that he will launch pre-MCT precursor missions (robot and then human) from 2020 onwards.

Excelsior wrote:

A fantastic technical achievement. But sticking the landing is just half the battle. There's a big difference between their Grasshopper test flights and this operational launch, so this is still virgin territory. Now they have to pick that booster apart to make sure its reusable. And then they have to fly it a few times without picking it apart to prove the concept truly viable.
Still, they have already reduced launch costs considerably, and are on the cusp of slashing them in a transformative way. Its a testament of what one can do when you answer to a vision and not to shareholders.
One wonders if they will still make the effort to recover the second stage. While the first stage represents the vast majority of the cost, if you can land a capsule on a pad, you can land the second stage using all the same pieces. If nothing else, that is valuable pressurized volume that you've gotten to orbit. Waste not, want not.
Combined with the inaugural flights of the Falcon Heavy, the Dragon 2 capsule, and the BEAM module all next year, the pieces are falling into place. Poor Bigelow is basically stilling on their hands, waiting for affordable access, and it's right there. We are also due to see some renders of the Mars Colonial Transporter early next year, and after last night I think he will strike while the pad is still hot. It's unclear if that entails just a new launcher, a much larger capsule, or a full transit and surface architecture. There is a lot of ground work to be done.
I'd still want a Lunar Return to Stay before the decade is out. And other than surface hardware, there is very little left that would need to be produced. Providing that service can propel SpaceX's Mars development, just as providing service to the ISS has gotten them this far.

Excelsior · 2016-01-18 14:45:13

Excelsior wrote:

One wonders if they will still make the effort to recover the second stage. While the first stage represents the vast majority of the cost, if you can land a capsule on a pad, you can land the second stage using all the same pieces. If nothing else, that is valuable pressurized volume that you've gotten to orbit. Waste not, want not.

After the addition of the Dreamchaser spaceplane to the rooster of delivery vessels last week, I couldn't help but note the potential of a spaceplane platform as a second stage. The potential is even more vivid with the more tubular yet similarly functioning X-37 platform. It's a tube with control surfaces and a heat shield. What do we need for a recoverable second stage? A tube with a heat shield and some means of a controlled landing.

Which is not to say that it is without challenges. The biggest is probably how to effectively interface the 3rd stage/payload on top of a fragile, heat shielded, nosecone. Plus balancing the added weight and performance. But I think as reusable launchers mature, overall performance will increase, overcoming the additional weight requirements.

RobertDyck · 2016-01-18 15:22:17

This video shows what SpaceX was planning in 2011. First stage landing legs are shown similar to what they did, but just a little different. Dragon SuperDraco launch escape / landing rockets are flush; the finished one has 4 pods, each with engines and propellant tanks. The only significant difference is the second stage, shown reusable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSF81yjVbJE

This video has a heat shield on top of the stage, and landing legs that are retracted but visible when the interstage is discarded. Legs extend below the rocket engine exhaust nozzle for final touch-down. Good idea. This would add mass for the heat shield and landing legs. And additional propellant would be required for deorbit and landing. All that would make the second stage heavier. The second stage uses a Merlin 1D engine, same as the first stage but with an exhaust nozzle extension for use in vacuum. Would that interfere with landing in air pressure?

And the video does not include grid fins, for either stage. Would the second stage require grid fins for controlled reentry?

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-01-18 15:22:50)

SpaceNut · 2018-01-30 21:31:15

SpaceX Delays GovSat-1 Launch to Replace Falcon 9 Rocket Sensor

GovSat-1 is the first GovSat, a joint venture by the gorvernment of Luxembourg and the satellite-operating company SES. SpaceX is launching GovSat-1 on a Falcon 9 rocket that contains a used first-stage booster that previously launched a U.S. spy satellite into orbit in May 2017. The second stage, which is used in the last leg of the launch to place GovSat-1 in orbit, is new. SpaceX does not plan to recover the used Falcon 9 first stage via a landing as it has in the past.

elderflower · 2018-02-01 05:16:28

Apparently the 1st stage splashed down in the ocean and may be recovered.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-02-01 09:34:47

The first stage made a soft splashdown, is undamaged and floating.

Void · 2018-02-01 14:16:38

So, it seems to say "Experimental High Thrust Landing".

I am interested in this. I am not a "Rocket Man". I am here to learn if possible.

But I have been trying to visualize how this could be accomplished.

If I were to try to make a "Water Landing Pad", I guess I would put air bubblers under the point where the rocket would land.
I would set off the bubbling in a timely manner prior to touch down.

What I would hope to accomplish would be to make the water "Softer". Less water hammering.

I wonder if the "Experimental High Thrust Landing" Aerated the water. Making a mix of water spray and air bubbles, which softened the impact? Of course also, if it entered the water at a relative low speed, perhaps this was part of the method.

Even though it looks intact, I will be concerned that the engines that were hot will have been altered by quenching in water.

The engines themselves probably acted like pneumatic shock absorbers as well, being filled with air or exhaust, and then pushing onto the water mass.

But I am ready for real rocket people to offer better dialog. No problem.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-01 14:18:07)

elderflower · 2018-02-01 15:43:14

Quenching of hot engines would be an issue, but only for the gimballed descent engines, not for all nine. Salt water corrosion and shock heating by warm water of cryogenic components are other potential issues.

Void · 2018-02-01 21:25:09

So I ran across an apparent explanation:

Instead of landing with 1 engine, they wanted to try landing with 3 engines. They did not want to clobber a barge with the thing if it crashed. So they dumped it into the ocean, where the expected it to show much more apparent damage.

The reason they want to do the aggressive three engine landing is so they can reduce the hang time in Earths gravity coming down, to conserve fuel.

However the negative issues to overcome are maintaining control, and the stresses on the booster, when suddenly slowing down.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-01 21:25:24)

elderflower · 2018-02-02 02:39:42

So less return fuel needed due to more atmospheric drag, so a larger payload could be launched and they still could recover the 1st stage. Very good!

Void · 2018-02-02 21:18:57

It appears there be more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/falcon-9 … ery-2018-2

Quote:

The experimental splashdown may have been a test for SpaceX's upcoming block 5 rocket design. A booster typically fires one of its nine engines during landing, using quite a bit of fuel in the process. Wednesday's test apparently fired three engines for a much shorter time — a trick that may consume less fuel.
A gentle splashdown in the ocean is a good sign. It might mean SpaceX is working on a new way to recover boosters, perhaps even if there is no boat to land them on or they miss their target.
Musk has said in recent months that he's hoping to slim down the recovery design on SpaceX's rocket boosters, and maybe forgo the landing legs entirely.
"We believe the precision at this point is good enough for propulsive landing that we do not need legs for the next version," Musk said in October.
"It will land with so much precision that it will land back on its launch mounts," he added — meaning right back at a launch pad or in a cradle with mounts designed to capture it.
A photo that shows the scale of a Falcon 9 rocket's self-landing booster. SpaceX/Elon Musk via Twitter; Business Insider
It's possible this test could be part of the company's attempt to ditch the landing legs, as some Reddit users have speculated in a discussion about the GovSat-1 mission.
Eliminating even some of the legs' weight would create new possibilities for Falcon 9 rockets.
All four legs together "weigh less than a [Tesla] Model S," Musk has said, though presumably the weights are similar: about two tons. The booster could instead pack in that much more fuel, which would improve its odds of successfully rocketing payloads to orbit or launching heavier payloads — while giving the booster more control for landing.
The change could also free up enough weight for a system to recover the expensive second stage of the rocket, which currently gets discarded. Musk has previously said he'd like to recover that as well.
Wednesday's experiment might aid the development of Musk's "Big F***ing Rocket," a fully reusable 348-foot-tall launcher being designed to help send people to Mars (which Musk wants to land back at its launch pad for rapid refueling).
In any case, SpaceX seemed to be trying to improve its booster-landing technique with the latest test. The company wound up with an unexpected 134-foot-tall, multi-million-dollar memento to commemorate the experiment.

So, they may get rid of the legs, and land on the mounts, or a cradle (I speculated on that option some time ago)

Or I am surprised that they even might try to improve water landings. I would think on the basis of Elderflowers comments about damaging cryogenic components, some minimal protective method could be added. I still think that the three engines quenched in ocean water could likely turn out to be at least partially "Toast".

This whole thing according to the commentary might free up enough weight so that the upper stage could be recovered. That's what was said anyway.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-03 13:48:10)

Void · 2018-02-03 13:49:09

Well, I will probably get a slap-up for this, but I have a weird idea of how to protect the engines in a water landing. It is just an idea. Easy to say, much harder or impossible to do.

Essentially get the thing to go nose down while the engines are still firing, after it lands into aerated water.
Like I say easy to say.

The value of this would be to burn off the balance of the remaining fuel and Oxygen, to make it safer to retrieve.

I cannot be assured that when the rocket engines descend into the aerated water, they would not get wet, but if the engines were still firing, they might not quench as much. If there were some type of collar surrounding the engine collection, perhaps a vapor filled VOID might keep the engines largely untouched. But it would certainly be a turbulent situation.

For the Falcon 9 which survived, this did not occur. What I am guessing happened was that the rocket thrust aerated the water into a temporary slurry with a specific gravity much less than water. Where it was expected that the rocket would topple, I am guessing it inserted into the slurry quite a ways, so that it was not so tipsy. Impact shocks probably were buffered by the compressible bubbles in that temporary slurry. And so when the fizz dissipated, likely the rocket gently rose up onto it's side. But maybe there was significant damage. Don't know yet.

Back to the proposed upending landing procedure, what would be the advantages?
-No landing legs needed.
-Burn off the remaining propellants, so that on retrieval, explosion hazards would be reduced.
-Avoid a collision or explosion which could take out expensive ground or barge equipment.
-Have a wider field to land on.

Disadvantages?
-Heavy Seas in open ocean might be a challenge.
-Having to engineer a way for the thing to upend after it entered the water.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-03 14:00:45)

SpaceNut · 2018-02-03 20:07:38

The experiment also has data for the second stage in the impact hidden without some extra thinking as the stage would be small and is lighter than the first stage so if fuel is use to act as the heatshield as we thing it does in retopropulsion then adding more length of stage plus tankage for the purpose of recovering the 2nd stage makes sense.

As far as the recovery of the first stage we lnow that the longer the stage sets in the ocean water the more damage is done to it. Also even the SRB's that were used on the shuttle would get damage even with a parachute ocasionally.

Void · 2018-02-03 20:25:33

I will give you that Spacenut. Probably in this case better to perfect landing on land and on barges. Those are already very ambitious works.

But some day in the future a revisit of water landings might be considered, when perhaps new technology emerges. Fun to try though.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-03 20:26:18)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-02-03 23:18:09

I suspect the landing legs will remain for some time to come. I happen to believe that the overall stability of the rocket stage will play a major role.

louis · 2018-02-28 03:58:39

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1jMRBnztU4

Michio Kaku with some interesting observations on Falcon 9 Heavy, Musk and Mars.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-11 19:27:36

SpaceX Launch Schedule: Plan to Launch 5 Falcon 9 Rockets in One Month

The company has five launches scheduled for the next month. The first three launches will actually happen in a span of seven days, an impressive launch schedule on its own. The first of the launches is currently set for March 29 from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It will be the fifth Iridium Next launch for the communications company Iridium that SpaceX has conducted, the sixth launch is also scheduled to happen within the one month period. The following launch is scheduled to happen several days later on April 2, from Cape Canaveral Air Force Base. That launch will make an attempt at sending a resupply mission up to the International Space Station. The third launch the company has scheduled is set for three days after that on April 5. This third launch is scheduled to send the Bangabandhu-1 satellite to space.

Nice rapid succession on the first 3 launches....

louis · 2018-03-30 08:17:39

Looks like another successful launch for a Falcon 9.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0LLkpxuBmg

Looking to recover part of the fairing...

Last edited by louis (2018-03-30 08:18:57)

SpaceNut · 2018-03-30 16:10:08

To whom does the bell toll, it tolls for Nasa with each successful flight. They need to keep launching this rocket with minor upgrades for using it for manned flight.

SpaceNut · 2018-04-04 17:49:20

Another flawless launch Monday, 2 April at 16:30:38 EDT, Dragon successfully reached orbit and began its day and a half long chase of the International Space Station.
CRS-14 Dragon arrives at Space Station with science bonanza

Once safely berthed to Station, the ISS crew will begin the month-long task of unloading Dragon of all its supplies and experiments.

wow that long to unpack....

Veggie PONDS (Passive Orbital Nutrient Delivery System), the experiment uses a newly developed passive nutrient delivery system and the Veggie plant growth facility already aboard the Station to cultivate lettuce and mizuna greens, which are to be harvested on-orbit and consumed – with some samples saved for return to Earth for analysis.
Seven veggie PONDS are included on the CRS-14 Dragon, with six more to follow next month on the OA-9E mission of Orbital ATK’s Cygnus resupply vehicle. Moreover, while the original veggie units were designed for one-time use, the new veggie PONDS are designed to be reused.

CRS-14: SpaceX Falcon 9 conducts second flight with previously flown Dragon

The CRS-14 mission is carrying 2,647 kilograms (5,836 pounds) of cargo. Within the capsule, this includes 1,070 kilograms (2,359 lb) of scientific hardware and experiments, 344 kilograms (758 lb) of provisions for the crew, 148 kilograms (326 lb) of equipment to support the US segment of the space station and 11 kilograms (24 lb) of hardware for the Russian side of the Station . The cargo also includes 99 kilograms (218 lb) of equipment to support the crew in conducting extra-vehicular activities – or spacewalks – and 49 kilograms (108 lb) of computer equipment.
The cargo includes a new heater controller for the station’s carbon dioxide scrubbers, high-definition camera assemblies to be mounted outside of the ISS and a spare Common Communication for Visiting Vehicles (C2V2) assembly that will be installed to improve reliability ahead of the arrival of a Cygnus mission next month. A new HP Envy printer will also be delivered for the crew’s use.
Science aboard the Dragon’s capsule includes a study of the effects of microgravity on bone marrow – to confirm whether long-duration spaceflight affects marrow and blood cell production in the same way that it would affect a patient in long-term bed rest on Earth.

The remaining 926 kilograms (2,041 lb) of cargo is located in the unpressurized Trunk. This includes the Materials ISS Experiment Flight Facility (MISSE-FF), an externally-mounted materials research platform that will allow up to fourteen interchangeable sample modules to be exposed to the space environment at one time.
The facility will be attached to one of the ExPrESS Logistics Carriers (ELCs) attached to the space station’s truss. A refurbished Pump and Flow Control Subassembly for the station’s solar array cooling system – one of the outpost’s orbital replacement units (ORUs) – will also be delivered via the Trunk. The third payload in Dragon’s Trunk is the European Space Agency’s Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM). ASIM will be mounted to one of the external payload racks of the station’s Columbus module. The 314-kilogram (692 lb) instrument will be used to study high-altitude electrical activity within Earth’s atmosphere. The aim of the experiment is to provide a better understanding of transient luminous events (TLEs) or ionospheric lightning, little-understood electrical phenomena known as sprites, jets and ELVES

Void · 2018-04-18 11:04:07

I don't know if this has been previously posted somewhere.

A plan to recover more hardware.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=el … &FORM=VIRE

It is a curious matter, in spite of the stated intention to stockpile Falcon 9's and move on to BFR, they seem to still be working towards full hardware recovery for the Falcon 9.

I suppose to re-use their stockpile and make it pay longer.

But maybe they are working towards general skills which will be used in an unknown way in the future.

There seems to be a lot of interest in "Catchers Mitts", and now a "Bouncy House". And the balloon.

Normally I will not post up in this section, but I will make an exception this time.

Elon Musk and SpaceX seem to be full of tricks. It is fun to watch.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-04-18 11:09:50)

louis · 2018-04-18 16:47:03

New Falcon 9 launch in 6 mins...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PoXfY3odtw

Here's hoping another successful launch...

I switched to the Space X website. Successful Stage 1 landing but you only got to see the rocket cam, as the video connection with the drone ship was disrupted, sadly. Always the best bit!

Looks like the satellite launch is going OK.

Last edited by louis (2018-04-18 17:02:21)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-18 18:04:33

Satellite successfully separated from Falcon 9, and is on it's was to the desired orbit. Now we wait for TESS to perform. SpaceX did it's job perfectly.

GW Johnson · 2018-04-19 11:39:18

Very good news indeed! Thanks, Oldfart1939.

GW

louis · 2018-04-19 17:46:10

It was great that the launch went well, but it does remind me what is so wrong with NASA - they put huge amounts of money into something like TESS but if we went to Mars we would within two or three decades be able to undertake such surveys much more cheaply and easily. I guess I am accusing NASA of being incredibly short-termist in the way they plan things. For me the obvious way forward is to plant human civilisation on the Moon and Mars and then 1001 things currently not possible become feasible. But if we stick with the lazy NASA way we will just limp along making incremental progress at a depressingly slow speed.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2015-12-23 05:30:01

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#102 2016-01-18 14:45:13

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#103 2016-01-18 15:22:17

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#104 2018-01-30 21:31:15

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#105 2018-02-01 05:16:28

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#106 2018-02-01 09:34:47

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#107 2018-02-01 14:16:38

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#108 2018-02-01 15:43:14

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#109 2018-02-01 21:25:09

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#110 2018-02-02 02:39:42

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#111 2018-02-02 21:18:57

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#112 2018-02-03 13:49:09

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#113 2018-02-03 20:07:38

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#114 2018-02-03 20:25:33

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#115 2018-02-03 23:18:09

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#116 2018-02-28 03:58:39

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#117 2018-03-11 19:27:36

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#118 2018-03-30 08:17:39

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#119 2018-03-30 16:10:08

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#120 2018-04-04 17:49:20

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#121 2018-04-18 11:04:07

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#122 2018-04-18 16:47:03

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#123 2018-04-18 18:04:33

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#124 2018-04-19 11:39:18

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

#125 2018-04-19 17:46:10

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9R launch

Board footer