Launch News SpaceX Falcon 9 launch with Jason-3, January 17, 2016

[Urwumpe]

Can't quite see - does the pilot just flatten the blades or actually reverse the pitch after contact?
The heli looks like a giant leaned on it - is it just it's weight?

Actually they reverse pitch and really press the helicopter against the deck, but most of the compression is because of the weight. You can see it better in this video made during better weather, it runs longer and shows also how the helicopter is secured to the deck:

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Ah... That's not rough weather! (grumble-grumble Back in my day...)

In all seriousness, I was part of the flight deck crew during a RAST evolution that had some really nifty sea conditions. I connectd the probes and when I stood up I got hit by the main mount. The aircrewman was white as a sheet, if the pilot had planted it and I had some tie-down chains on me we would've just grabbed it then.

Been in worse, but this is what I call interesting sea-state
http://youtu.be/2UH2YbRiBjA

 

[Artlav]

Been in worse, but this is what I call interesting sea-state
http://youtu.be/2UH2YbRiBjA

Huh, isn't that the exact same video (first one), only mirrored and with a bunch of logos?

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Nah that first one is an NH90, mine is a Lynx (look at the empennage, one has horizontal stab).

After looking at the SpaceX video all I can say is that was close. Pretty much right on the X, damb leg gave way and boom.

I've no doubt they'll get it very soon.

 

[RisingFury]

Elon Musk on Twitter:

My best guess for 2016: ~70% landing success rate (so still a few more RUDs to go), then hopefully improving to ~90% in 2017

 

[Thunder Chicken]

My best guess for 2016: ~70% landing success rate (so still a few more RUDs to go), then hopefully improving to ~90% in 2017

Place your bets...:lol:

I think these numbers are optimistic, but they have been aggressive and have been pulling off some very sophisticated technical feats. They do seem to be learning and improving from their RUDs which is a healthy approach. It's good to see an organization embrace the concept of failure as a learning tool and keep making progress vs. something to be shunned which paralyzes future efforts. They are doing the right things engineering-wise.

Hopefully they'll be getting their customers to orbit and finally stick a few landings on those barges in 2016. Maybe Falcon 9H (April?) will help their stats with two cores landing on dry land.

 

[Col_Klonk]

Why are they doing it the difficult way..

How about just flying the stage back to base... No need to worry about the extra fuel (only wings and gear - part of the rocket).

It'll have extended range due to 'shuttle type' flying capabilities, instead of dropping out of the sky.

Maybe have a much smaller engine in the rear to extend range further

Have a PC pilot jockey flying it like a drone pilot... or fully automated.
Easier to test, like the shuttle... take it upstairs, drop it and fly it home.

Surely they must have thought of this ?? :facepalm:

 

[Hlynkacg]

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or a genuine question, but they're doing it "the difficult way" because Tsiolkovsky is a cold hard

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or a genuine question, but they're doing it "the difficult way" because Tsiolkovsky is a cold hard

Actually it is not really the most difficult way, since it does not add (much) mechanical complexity. But software is of course also something that can fail.

Parachutes and airbags could even be worse, though each component is fairly simple and reliable.

 

[Col_Klonk]

Talking about return journey...

The fuel weight required for the current return trip could be replaced by fold out (or extendable) wing surfaces sitting flush, similar to the current legs.
Current landing struts replaced by shuttle type gears, only lighter.

Control done by the smaller canards up front (which may extend for the return trip)

The nose section of the stage has an ejection part revealing a nose cone for reducing resistance.

Depending on materials used and implementation it might weigh the same, or lighter with more fuel for Tsiolkovsky

The return trip uses the staging speed and position for the target runway. It could even turn back to the original launch base.

If necessary use drogue chutes to slow it down.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Just one design of several.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_(rocket_booster)

 

[Col_Klonk]

Just one design of several.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_(rocket_booster)

Hah.. That's funny... I hadn't even thought of looking it up...
That booster looks good though!!

 

[Urwumpe]

Sad, that they don't restart this with a better project management here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fly-back_booster

 

[RGClark]

I suspect that they DO have indicators, and that's why they cut the feed when they did... three green lights, one red.

Ah, thereby comes the conspiracies theories: did SpaceX cut the feed intentionally?

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Ah, thereby comes the conspiracies theories: did SpaceX cut the feed intentionally?

Bob Clark

I would not be surprised if they did, but the symptoms are rather looking like a transmission failure.

 

[C3PO]

Recovering the first stage isn't that novel as ideas go. :thumbup:

 

[Col_Klonk]

Ja, that's not a very good design either.. there should be a tail boom between the tails as it could oscillate itself into two pieces

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Talking about return journey...

The fuel weight required for the current return trip could be replaced by fold out (or extendable) wing surfaces sitting flush, similar to the current legs.
Current landing struts replaced by shuttle type gears, only lighter.

This is similar to Airbus' Adeline concept (though they jettison the tank and return just the engines), so some refurbishment is required.

http://www.space.com/29620-airbus-adeline-reusable-rocket-space-tug.html

Remember for the Falcon 9 that the wings would need to be robust enough to fly back something the size of the Statue of Liberty with the CG back near the engines, so you have some awkward aerostability issues to deal with. The tanks and interstage would effectively form a 100 ft "nose" that has little weight but big surface area, so weathervane instability is a big problem. This is likely why Airbus decided to jettison the tank and just return the expensive bits (the engines).

Fuel and weight wise, SpaceX's nearly spent 1st stage just has to continue its arc into the ocean (mostly). It's not burning a lot of fuel to decelerate because it is very light. Most of the stage dV is going toward pushing the 2nd stage to orbit, not returning. Even flyback to the landing site is not so bad energy wise. Again - you're decelerating a light stage, and once you get it moving back to the pad you're "flying" the stage with the grid fins.

At the end of the day, the Falcon 9 is a largely conventional rocket, with some low mass amendments (fins, legs, control software) to enable return.

 

[Hlynkacg]

Actually it is not really the most difficult way, since it does not add (much) mechanical complexity. But software is of course also :huh:something that can fail.

Parachutes and airbags could even be worse, though each component is fairly simple and reliable.

I was responding to Captain Klonk calling it "the difficult way". He seems to be under the impression that wings and control surfaces capable of withstanding supersonic flight are going to weigh less than the propellant required to decelerate a (nearly) empty stage. The rocket equation says otherwise.

Software issues aside the "easy way" being discussed is actually way harder, and removes the existing option to say "screw recovery, give me dV!" should the need arise.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Recovering the first stage isn't that novel as ideas go. :thumbup:

I have this funny picture of two Siamese twin pilots, separated at birth, flying this thing in both cockpits and having vigorous arguments about which direction to go.

God my brain is weird sometimes.