Updates SpaceX Falcon 9 F5 CRS SpX-2 through CRS SpX-12 Updates

[Urwumpe]

The landing platform is back in port. Not much left of the first stage, as expected.

Also you can see that the explosion has really left some dents in the deck - the I beams that carry the deck are now clearly visible in some places.

But that's nothing that can't be fixed in some days.

 

[RisingFury]

I can't tell if the deck is damaged or if that's just material piled on top of it.

There's not much damage on the structures on the side and not even the paint is gone. There's even less fire damage than I'd expect.

We'll see after they clean it up.

Edit:

You can see the deck is wet and reflecting. You can see the reflection of the man standing top right and the beam looking piece of debris at the top of the inner, yellow circle. The only piece I'm having a hard time seeing is the one on the right. I can't tell if that's a hole in the deck or just a shadow / reflection combo. I think it might just be a shadow / reflection.

Keep in mind, this rocket impact was much less brutal than the previous one. The previous one slammed into the deck.

 

[n122vu]

The only piece I'm having a hard time seeing is the one on the right. I can't tell if that's a hole in the deck or just a shadow / reflection combo. I think it might just be a shadow / reflection.

Keep in mind, this rocket impact was much less brutal than the previous one. The previous one slammed into the deck.

To me it looks like pooled water reflecting the clouds in the sky, but it could be a hole in the deck. Can't say definitively.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

They should probably do something to protect the containers at the ends of the barge - the ones on the far side have a lot of punch-through damage. Deck looks OK to me, might need a patch or two but nothing that can't be done easily. The next launch (April 27th?) isn't going to be able to make a landing attempt due to the orbit.

 

[Keatah]

Maybe this has been asked before, maybe not.

What are the economics of returning these boosters? Is all the trouble going to yield significant savings? How reliable will the used ones be? Is the infrastructure necessary to return them going to cost more than the savings?

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Maybe this has been asked before, maybe not.

What are the economics of returning these boosters? Is all the trouble going to yield significant savings? How reliable will the used ones be? Is the infrastructure necessary to return them going to cost more than the savings?

Imagine if you purchased a car, drove it to work and back once, and then pushed it off a pier into the ocean at the end of the day. Then repeat this every day that you want to go to work. It gets rather pricey in cars rather quickly. Rockets are even more costly because they are not built in high volumes (yet).

Having a reusable system is (potentially) a huge savings in launch costs. But that assumes that the reusability is pretty much "gas-up and go". Soft landing the stage, keeping it out of seawater, and basically keeping it in restackable condition is the goal. If there is significant refurbishment required, it can be more expensive than the disposable alternatives (see the Shuttle program for evidence of this).

So yes, the potential savings are enormous, but only if flying rockets becomes as routine as flying airliners.

 

[Donamy]

Not to mention the mess of cars at the end of the pier. :hello:

 

[MaverickSawyer]

The landing platform is back in port. Not much left of the first stage, as expected.

:2cents: : Definitely some deck penetration at two points. But as other have said, nothing that can't be fixed.

 

[RGClark]

SpaceX Checks Throttle Valve After Flawed Falcon 9 Recovery Attempt.
"Video of the stage descending to the landing ship showed the vehicle
approaching quickly but decelerating. However, closer to the platform the
Falcon 9 showed an excessive horizontal velocity component that prompted the
single engine used for landing to gimbal to correct the flight path angle.
Exhaust from the Merlin engine could be seen raising clouds of water from
around the platform as the stage maneuvered close to the edge of the landing
zone. The control system then commanded vectoring of the engine nozzle to an
angle that effectively over-compensated for the previous flight path angle
correction. By this time the vehicle was too low to make further corrections
and landed at too great a tilt and speed to safely land."
Apr 16, 2015 Guy Norris Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
http://aviationweek.com/space/spacex-checks-throttle-valve-after-flawed-falcon-9-recovery-attempt

The video released by SpaceX shows the Falcon 9 coming in too fast:
____________________________________________________
Elon Musk @elonmusk
Apr 15
High resolution, color corrected, slow motion rocket landing video
https://youtu.be/BhMSzC1crr0
____________________________________________________

Actually, since this is slow motion it actually landed faster than this.
And Elon has acknowledged in this tweet the present configuration, which can't hover, will
cause high g landings:
______________________________________________________

@ID_AA_Carmack Thanks! 3 of 9 engines are lit initially, dropping to 1 near
ground. Even w 1 lit, it can't hover, so always land at high g
- Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 15, 2015
______________________________________________________

Study of the video of both failed landings suggest both could have landed
safely with hovering capability. Then the suggestion is made to make some
relatively low cost modifications to give the Falcon 9 hovering ability:

Hovering capability for the reusable Falcon 9.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/04/hovering-capability-for-reusable-falcon.html

Bob Clark

 

[Sky Captain]

I'm not sure hovering would have helped in the last landing attempt. Rocket started to tilt back and forth because of lagging valve. If it tried to hover the oscillations would become larger and larger until it crashed.
As I understand something like this happened. Guidance computer give command to valve, valve responds some fraction of second later than expected, computer gives command to compensate and valve again responds with lag thus increasing the oscillation. Hovering attempt would make things worse not better.

 

[RisingFury]

Agreed. You don't need to hover in order to land. This was another hardware issue, not a problem with the theory of operation.

 

[Urwumpe]

Agreed. You don't need to hover in order to land. This was another hardware issue, not a problem with the theory of operation.

Especially: You don't need to hover, if you are not searching your landing site.

if you have a known landing site with known topography, you only need to follow a hose-like space of allowed trajectories to it, using tighter and tighter navigation constraints.

AFAIR you are not even really hovering, if you are landing a helicopter on a warship in a storm, you are just really slowly approaching it or aborting the landing and start again. Especially since hovering is already hard enough in calm weather...

 

[Unstung]

HOLY :

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Great photo! I like the scorch marks all up the sides of the rocket except where it was protected by the landing legs. These rockets are going to look mean when they start recycling the stages.

 

[Artlav]

Elon's pet dragon. :headbang:

 

[RGClark]

I'd like to see a true speed video of the landing instead of the slowed down versions released by SpaceX to show how fast it was landing.Too fast.

Bob Clark

 

[RGClark]

From Parabolicarc.com:

Parabolicarc.com
‏@spacecom
Matsumori: next landing attempt for first stage Falcon 9 booster will be on CRS-7 flight in June. Will land on drone ship. #spacetechexpo

https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/600793660465094657

So not the previously announced attempt to land at the launch site. Perhaps at NASA's request?

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

So not the previously announced attempt to land at the launch site. Perhaps at NASA's request?

Why NASA at all? Did the past landing attempt accomplish any reasonable criteria for attempting a safe land landing on the next flight, if you would be a private company that has to pay for the damage that it might cause? (And especially: Pass every such mandatory criteria?)


Seriously: As much love as SpaceX gets from NASA - would a SpaceX launch kill somebody, they would be deeply in trouble. They will be measured with much different scales than for example explosions at factories, alone because its spaceflight. What can already drive a fertilizer company into bankrupcy can also be damaging for a spaceflight company.

And thus, it should better not happen by gambling too much. Its normal to gamble with technical unknowns and take more risks and uncertainties to reduce testing costs (Though you always pay the price sooner or later, either by slightly higher running costs because you can't optimize operations or by accidents)

Even if I would be a crazy multibillionaire, I would pull out the list of criterias defined before the tests and check after every flight if really everything went well before making a decision for the next flight. Its not cast in stone, but tolerating deviations requires understanding the consequences, especially if you still have unknown probabilities of unknown failures. Ignoring the past decision processes and engineering will have dire consequences.

Not might have. Will have.

Even if things work better than expected, if you don't know how things work, you might expect soon too much of them.

 

[DaveS]

From Parabolicarc.com:


https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/600793660465094657

So not the previously announced attempt to land at the launch site. Perhaps at NASA's request?

Bob Clark

NASA has nothing to do with this. It's all on the USAF, the owner/operator of the Eastern and Western Ranges. They decide all the safety related aspects of a launch. If they're not happy with something, it simply won't fly.

 

[RGClark]

Why NASA at all? Did the past landing attempt accomplish any reasonable criteria for attempting a safe land landing on the next flight, if you would be a private company that has to pay for the damage that it might cause? (And especially: Pass every such mandatory criteria?)
Seriously: As much love as SpaceX gets from NASA - would a SpaceX launch kill somebody, they would be deeply in trouble. They will be measured with much different scales than for example explosions at factories, alone because its spaceflight. What can already drive a fertilizer company into bankrupcy can also be damaging for a spaceflight company.
And thus, it should better not happen by gambling too much. Its normal to gamble with technical unknowns and take more risks and uncertainties to reduce testing costs (Though you always pay the price sooner or later, either by slightly higher running costs because you can't optimize operations or by accidents)
Even if I would be a crazy multibillionaire, I would pull out the list of criterias defined before the tests and check after every flight if really everything went well before making a decision for the next flight. Its not cast in stone, but tolerating deviations requires understanding the consequences, especially if you still have unknown probabilities of unknown failures. Ignoring the past decision processes and engineering will have dire consequences.
Not might have. Will have.
Even if things work better than expected, if you don't know how things work, you might expect soon too much of them.

I speculated that it might have been NASA's request because SpaceX said they wanted this next landing attempt to be on land back at the launch site.

Also, actually, it would be at the Air Force's request since this next launch is from the Air Force's launch site.

Bob Clark