Good luck SpaceX!

primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' BoopinDetroit, MI Icrontian
RyderGnomeQueenSignalHeroJBoogalooUPSLynxTeramonaprimesuspect
«1

Comments

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian

    im wondering why, if their goal is to reclaim the rocket for multiple uses or even just salvage, what if they just slowed the decent and deployed flotation devices for a safe water landing? wouldnt that be safer, and less costly? and when i say safer, i mean for the rocket, since i realize it is one of the rockets "escape stages" for lack of a better term, and is therefore unmanned.

  • Per article:
    "One of the major financial headaches in space travel is that the multi-stage rockets used to punch out of the Earth’s gravity are single-use only. If Musk and his company can retrieve even part of theirs intact, then it’ll save millions on future flights."

    I think landing on a barge makes recovery and risk of damage far lower than landing slowly in to the water, but hey good questions for Dras.

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian
    edited December 2014

    if its water damage they are worried about, again, maybe it would be easier and cheaper to seal the hull of the rocket against water? i feel like if it can land safely on a hard surface, it could land safer in water...Or a GIANT FOAM PIT!!!
    EDIT: that last part should be read in the voice of Caboose from Red Vs. Blue

  • SignalSignal Icrontian

    @XGPHero said:
    im wondering why, if their goal is to reclaim the rocket for multiple uses or even just salvage, what if they just slowed the decent and deployed flotation devices for a safe water landing? wouldnt that be safer, and less costly? and when i say safer, i mean for the rocket, since i realize it is one of the rockets "escape stages" for lack of a better term, and is therefore unmanned.

    I wondered this too. Why can't they just recover it in a similar way NASA did for the solid rocket boosters?

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian
    edited December 2014

    @Signal said:
    I wondered this too. Why can't they just recover it in a similar way NASA did for the solid rocket boosters?

    or the rentry pods for the lunar missions? those had floaties right?

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian
    edited December 2014

    for the record, im not saying they should, im sure that possibility would have occured to them. im asking why is that not a viable option?

  • Let's say there is no efficiency benefit from landing on a platform, there is a marketing benefit from doing it -- there's even a benefit from attempting it. I am sure Dras will set us straight though.

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian

    yeah, that makes sense

  • RyanFodderRyanFodder Detroit, MI Icrontian

    I believe the thought process is that they eventually want to land them on ... land but they can't because they haven't "proven" they can land on a hard surface.

    So I think this is proof of concept.

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian

    ohhhh! i cant believe i didnt think of that...good call!

  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian
    edited January 2015
  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian

    wait...so @drasnor, can you confirm or deny our(@cannonfodder) theory?

  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian

    @XGPHero said:
    im wondering why, if their goal is to reclaim the rocket for multiple uses or even just salvage, what if they just slowed the decent and deployed flotation devices for a safe water landing? wouldnt that be safer, and less costly? and when i say safer, i mean for the rocket, since i realize it is one of the rockets "escape stages" for lack of a better term, and is therefore unmanned.

    At touchdown, the rocket is pretty much empty of propellant and is actually quite bouyant on its own as long as you don't let it fill up with seawater. However, a Falcon 9 v1.1 1st stage is about 14 storeys tall and, after bobbing in the water for a few seconds, has been found to fall over on its side like a pine tree cut off at the base. Rocket tankage in general is proportionally thinner than a beer can (relying on internal pressure for rigidity and strength) but shares certain important qualities with a balloon in this scenario in that it pops on impact.

    The Shuttle solid rocket boosters blew their noses off to deploy their parachutes and flooded on splashdown. The amount of refurbishment required was not much better (if at all) than just buying new ones but was somewhat helped by the fact that solid motors are much simpler machines. Also, there's this popular misconception that parachute landings are gentle but the fact of the matter is that parachutes in general are really only capable of getting you down to the impact velocities associated with things like car wrecks (around 31 km/hr for things like Apollo and around 83 km/hr for things like shuttle boosters). A parachute large enough to do the same for an orbital launch vehicle would not leave any mass for payload. If it was this easy, everyone would do it.

    PirateNinjaSignal
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian

    Also, I appreciate the best wishes! One way or another, it's going to be spectacular.

    PirateNinja
  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian
    edited December 2014

    p

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian
    edited December 2014

    pertaining to the impact velocity, im still wondering how it would be easier to land on a solid object than in water. i can understand that it wouldnt float reliably on its own, but why cant DEPLOYABLE flotation devices mixed with the same deceleration methods planned for the barge landing make it more feasible than to land softly in water? is it like @cannonfodder suggested, that the ultimate goal is to land them safely on land?

    EDIT: im sorry for coming across so rude...i was in a hurry to post it so i could sleep with an answer, and did not proof read it for consideration that any information you give us is a privilege not a right. the above statement is 100% unedited, but i hope you understand that i am still only asking these questions for academic purposes, and not to be combative.

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian

    is it that there can be EITHER decellerators, OR floatation devices, but BOTH creates a nonfeasible propulsion to load ratio?

  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian

    Vanilla didn't show your posts until I refreshed the page. Regarding that theory, I can't comment but it's worth checking all the Gwynne and Elon interviews because I don't remember what all the bosses have said publicly.

  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian

    @XGPHero said:
    is it that there can be EITHER decellerators, OR floatation devices, but BOTH creates a nonfeasible propulsion to load ratio?

    I can't really comment but this is worth a read: http://www.space.com/2643-falcon-1-failure-traced-busted-nut.html

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian
    edited December 2014

    Definitely read the whole article, but noteworthy peice is this:
    "The next Falcon 1 launch is slated for November from Kwajalein. Musk said the DARPA-funded launch will not carry a satellite but will carry some DARPA-provided instruments, which he declined to describe. He said the launch is primarily a test flight meant to demonstrate the design and procedural changes SpaceX is making."
    if nobody objects i think we should blow this out of all proportion! ;)

    EDIT: as for gwynne and elon interviews, i will have to do more reading tomorrow

  • RyanFodderRyanFodder Detroit, MI Icrontian

    I seem to remember Elon tweeting that he'd like to land the rockets in the desert, but couldn't get approval until they demonstrated successful landings.

    I would think flotation devices (compressed air tanks) would carry as much weight as the fuel to land vertically, and also take up lots if space in addition to having additional systems that could fail. (The rockets are already there).

  • _k_k P-Town, Texas Icrontian

    This is just laying around at work, any of you guys want it for like $50?

  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian

    I want to hear the story of that one!

  • _k_k P-Town, Texas Icrontian

    Anousheh, Hamid, and Amir Ansari own the company I work at. Since it is kind of their trophy, they paid some initial amount and then when the prize didn't have a big donor they chipped in a weeeee bit more for naming rights, it sits in the lobby of where I work.

    It is annoying but rather mind blowing since I have to see pictures of someone I have to work with in space and then to see them walking around the office later in the day. Annoying in the since that I won't get to go to space.

    drasnor
  • drasnordrasnor Starship Operator Hawthorne, CA Icrontian

    http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/05/spacex-5-mission-status-center/

    Sorry about the inconvenient timing, physics constraints dictate.

  • HeroHero formerly known as XGPHero Icrontian
    edited January 2015

    About previous discussion of "why no water landing?"...this is why; “'We’ve been able to soft-land the rocket booster in the ocean twice so far,' Mr. Musk said. 'Unfortunately, it sort of sat there for several seconds, then tipped over and exploded. It’s quite difficult to reuse at that point.'"
    "The first rocket stage, Mr. Musk noted, is as tall as a 14-story building. 'When a 14-story building falls over, it’s quite a belly flop,' he said. 'What we need to do is to be able to land on a floating platform.'”

    Quoted from the article @drasnor posted above...belly flop = bad for rockets

    midga
  • aspieRommelaspieRommel Icrontic politico Indianapolis, IN Icrontian

    @XGPHero said:
    Definitely read the whole article, but noteworthy peice is this:
    "...Musk said the DARPA-funded launch will not carry a satellite but will carry some DARPA-provided instruments, which he declined to describe. ..."

    Is anyone else worried that DARPA is even involved with this, noting their research record?

  • TushonTushon I'm scared, Coach Alexandria, VA Icrontian

    Not really. The military would just use another private entity to launch a satellite if it wasn't using SpaceX and I like SpaceX more than the other ones. They are gonna launch sneaky stuff somehow.

  • aspieRommelaspieRommel Icrontic politico Indianapolis, IN Icrontian
    edited January 2015

    @Tushon‌ I wasn't saying anything against SpaceX (As a matter of fact, I was thinking this was their idea.) I was just saying that, based on DARPA's record, that it would hurt SpaceX because their record shows a high number of failures.

Sign In or Register to comment.