Launch News SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.2 with Thaicom-8, May 26, 2016

[MaverickSawyer]

Looks like they broke whatever protective cover was over the camera lens! :lol:

 

[ADSWNJ]

Check out this updated version, with 4x slo-mo, and with a guidance target illustration to show how the orientation maneuvers are being done. Incredible work!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-yWTH7SJDA"]SpaceX Thaicom-8 first stage landing, with OCISLY position marker, 4x slow-motion[/ame]

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Looks like some crazy frictional / compressive heating on the grid fins coming in.

How is landing rocket stages ever going to be boring or commonplace?

 

[ADSWNJ]

Looks like some crazy frictional / compressive heating on the grid fins coming in.

How is landing rocket stages ever going to be boring or commonplace?

This! It'll never become boring for us space-nuts! Just imagine how insane the triple-landing is going to be from the Falcon Heavy.

 

[Andy44]

Does anyone remember not too long ago when we were beginning to think that maybe barge recoveries were just never going to work? Now it's 3 to 1 land vs. sea.

Amazing.

 

[RisingFury]

Does anyone remember not too long ago when we were beginning to think that maybe barge recoveries were just never going to work? Now it's 3 to 1 land vs. sea.

Amazing.

Not too long ago, we had members who thought that the thrust of the engines needs to be reduced to allow for hovering. Now they're landing with 3 engines firing.

This is why you don't leave rocket science to armchair rocket engineers.

 

[Unstung]

Not too long ago, we had members who thought that the thrust of the engines needs to be reduced to allow for hovering. Now they're landing with 3 engines firing.

This is why you don't leave rocket science to armchair rocket engineers.

Somewhat relevant: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

I'm not saying that they're distinguished scientists, but you get the idea. Don't know about elderly.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Does anyone remember not too long ago when we were beginning to think that maybe barge recoveries were just never going to work? Now it's 3 to 1 land vs. sea.

Amazing.

Not too much longer ago we were watching SpaceX struggling to get one good use out of the non-reusable Falcon 1s. SpaceX's growth into this level of technological sophistication is staggering. 10 years and they're landing rockets on barges, looking at manned flights in 2017, and even an unmanned Mars mission.

One of the things that makes me so proud about the Apollo program is that we put our heads together, rolled up our sleeves, struggled, and ultimately achieved great things. I think our government is not able to do things like this anymore, but I have a similar pride in what SpaceX has pulled off; it really was done with the same energy and spirit.

I still think the scruffy hipsters need to shave and tuck in their shirts though. :dry:

 

[Notebook]

I agree, its a remarkable technical performance. Also agree they need more of the Apollo style Mission Control attitude and less of the cheering. Distracting and not needed.

N.

 

[RisingFury]

One of the things that makes me so proud about the Apollo program is that we put our heads together, rolled up our sleeves, struggled, and ultimately achieved great things. I think our government is not able to do things like this anymore,

The government didn't put men on the moon, it just paid for the ride. It's not the the government can't do it, they're just too busy wasting 1.5 trillion dollars on Lockheed Martin F-35.

Yes, that's right. Could have had 10 Apollo programs with that money. Could have been on Mars with that money.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

The government didn't put men on the moon, it just paid for the ride. It's not the the government can't do it, they're just too busy wasting 1.5 trillion dollars on Lockheed Martin F-35.

Less pork, more sausages rockets!

 

[dman]

Was there any damage to the Falcon 1st stage from the awkward landing

From looks of it t, did the thrust unit touch the deck? Any damage to rockets?

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

Less pork, more xxxxxxx rockets!

WE WILL BURY YOU.....!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yho1Eydh1mM

 

[Col_Klonk]

Was there any damage to the Falcon 1st stage from the awkward landing

From looks of it t, did the thrust unit touch the deck? Any damage to rockets?

It definitely came down hard on that landing - There a jump (and after vibration) in the on-board video of about 1m. The barge video gives you nothing, but if it has a recorder on the ship that will have a crystal clear picture.

4 scenarios - Switched off engines to early, Ran out of fuel, or not enough time to stop - or camera is a problem (we haven't seen this yet).

Although it landed I'd say we're looking at 3-2, and in reality 0-4, until a used stage flies again... The original purpose of this exercise.

Remember that the inefficient NASA took about 6 months to turn around a more complex shuttle.. We're sitting on 4 months now with SpaceX with a first stage.

 

[ADSWNJ]

You can assume with 100% certainty that the barge and the first stage are loaded with sensors and recorders, so they will have a crystal clear picture of what happened.

From analysis on another forum, this landing was trying a flatter trajectory to look to optimize fuel by having more atmospheric glide time. The retro burn was 8 secs earlier than the previous GTO launch, reducing the MaxQ by ~20%. They also sequenced the 3 engine-burn with the center first, then the 2 outer, then back to just the center for landing, to reduce delta-G shock.

I'm sure SpaceX has a program they are executing, and they will introduce the "flight proven" stages into the rotation at a time and place f their choosing. The time to turn around the first re-fly stage is not important, but rather the target turn-around once it gets to steady state.

 

[Urwumpe]

It definitely came down hard on that landing - There a jump (and after vibration) in the on-board video of about 1m. The barge video gives you nothing, but if it has a recorder on the ship that will have a crystal clear picture.

4 scenarios - Switched off engines to early, Ran out of fuel, or not enough time to stop - or camera is a problem (we haven't seen this yet).

Although it landed I'd say we're looking at 3-2, and in reality 0-4, until a used stage flies again... The original purpose of this exercise.

Remember that the inefficient NASA took about 6 months to turn around a more complex shuttle.. We're sitting on 4 months now with SpaceX with a first stage.

Or simply the barge moved up faster in an unexpected wave, than the rocket was able to compensate. Carrier landings are always a controlled crash. :lol:

 

[DaveS]

Re 1st stage:

@elonmusk:

Rocket landing speed was close to design max & used up contingency crush core, hence back & forth motion. Prob ok, but some risk of tipping.

Crush core is aluminum honeycomb for energy absorption in the telescoping actuator. Easy to replace (if Falcon makes it back to port).

 

[Col_Klonk]

..(if Falcon makes it back to port).

That what I was also thinking.. They should put a crane mechanism on the barge that can lay the stage down in a 'cradle'.
Easier to transport in high seas..

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Check out this angle of lean.

The center of mass is down by the engines so this is less bad than it looks, but I just picture a fat sea gull deciding to perch on it and causing the whole thing to topple over.

Still, any landing you can walk away from...

 

[Andy44]

I assume that by the time that photo was shot the feet had been secured to the deck, so it wasn't going anywhere, looks notwithstanding.

 

[orb]

Check out this angle of lean.

It looks like a steamship.