Launch News SpaceX Falcon 9 Return to Flight with 11 Orbcomm-2 satellites, December 21/22, 2015

[Cosmic Penguin]

And potential Falcon 9 Heavy in April. :thumbup: Double or triple first stage flyback would be incredible.

---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------



Done.

Isn't this Galactic Penguin SST's job? :lol:

Alas, I recently took up a full time job and the rest of the time was (somewhat) spent elsewhere. Heck I have two December Russian sat launches and 9 (yes, nine) Chinese launches dating from Q4 2015 that are still pending me to write on here..... :facepalm:

Rest assured that I can speed up my tempo pretty soon.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Good summary video from SpaceX:

 

[RGClark]

Good summary video from SpaceX:

"The Falcon has landed" | Recap of Falcon 9 launch and landing - YouTube

Still would much more like to see the camera view from onboard. :dry:

Bob Clark

 

[Thunder Chicken]

A static fire was performed with the recovered 1st stage on Friday. There was apparently some minor anomaly with engine 9 in the outer ring.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-tests-recovered-falcon-9-stage-and-prepares-for-next-launch/

Conducted hold-down firing of returned Falcon rocket. Data looks good overall, but engine 9 showed thrust fluctuations.

Maybe some debris ingestion. Engine data looks ok. Will borescope tonight. This is one of the outer engines.

 

[Andy44]

That photo of the booster in the hangar is awesome.

How cool is it that they can take a landed booster and test the engines without sending them off to the factory first.

Also in that article is this:

SpaceX, though, has suggested some future launches might require a landing at sea because the stage doesn’t have the energy required for a return to land. That would likely be the case on missions where the payload is heavy enough for the required orbit to prevent the first stage from retaining enough propellant to execute a return to the launch site. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/spacex-tests-r...repares-for-next-launch/#sthash.RfmQhxgN.dpuf

So a good barge landing may be more than just a substitute for lack of a dry land pad.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

So a good barge landing may be more than just a substitute for lack of a dry land pad.

From what I understand the RTLS done with OrbComm 2 was enabled by the steep ascent (wasn't very far downrange and so had less horizontal velocity to null out) and the relatively low payload mass. When they try to lob something big and heavy that needs all the dV they can muster, they'll have to drop them in the ocean, hopefully onto a barge.

I think for Falcon 9H they'll absolutely have to do it with the center core.

---------- Post added at 07:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------

That photo of the booster in the hangar is awesome.

I'm curious as to why the center section is so relatively clean. It landed like that. Is that the only part they put the Turtle Wax on or something?

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I'm curious as to why the center section is so relatively clean. It landed like that. Is that the only part they put the Turtle Wax on or something?

And what about that engine that is much lighter than its counterparts?

 

[Thunder Chicken]

And what about that engine that is much lighter than its counterparts?

Maybe that is engine 9? I don't know what the numbering order it for these engines, except I believe the center engine is 1.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

I would only gues that it is one that they've been inspecting?

 

[Andy44]

It could be the lighting.

 

[RGClark]

A static fire was performed with the recovered 1st stage on Friday. There was apparently some minor anomaly with engine 9 in the outer ring.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-tests-recovered-falcon-9-stage-and-prepares-for-next-launch/

SpaceX will modify its Falcon 9 rocket based on tests of its landed vehicle.
The changes will make the rocket 'even more robust’.
By Loren Grush on February 3, 2016 03:02 pm @lorengrush
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/3/10906966/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-changes-reduce-refurbishment

Perhaps more coking seen than expected? This might also push back the next flight of the upgraded version of the F9.



Bob Clark

 

[Lmoy]

I've been wondering about that clean centre section as well. Every photo of a returned/returning booster has it, so it's not the lighting or just that one, there's a specific reason that that one part of the booster isn't getting roasted grey like the rest of vehicle. Whatever reason for the strange pattern, it looks positively badass.

Maybe someone with a Twitter account can ask Musk?

 

[MaverickSawyer]

SpaceX will modify its Falcon 9 rocket based on tests of its landed vehicle.
The changes will make the rocket 'even more robust’.
By Loren Grush on February 3, 2016 03:02 pm @lorengrush
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/3/10906966/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-changes-reduce-refurbishment

Perhaps more coking seen than expected? This might also push back the next flight of the upgraded version of the F9.



Bob Clark

Or, it's not structurally strong enough to withstand multiple flights. :facepalm:

 

[GLS]

Or, it's not structurally strong enough to withstand multiple flights. :facepalm:

That's my guess as well.

 

[Urwumpe]

Or they simply reinforce the landing gear, so it does not fail so often during harder landings.

 

[Andy44]

Or, it's not structurally strong enough to withstand multiple flights. :facepalm:

That's why they call it "testing".

The first space shuttle orbiter was found to have structural problems as well, which is why it never flew in space as planned (Enterprise).

 

[Urwumpe]

The first space shuttle orbiter was found to have structural problems as well, which is why it never flew in space as planned (Enterprise).

AFAIR, Enterprise was designed for the ALT tests and all those "structural problems" had been intentional for saving costs. You don't need a full thrust structure and pressure vessel, if a bit of ballast and wooden SSMEs is enough.

The first full orbiter was Columbia and it and Challenger were much heavier than the second generation orbiters.

 

[Andy44]

AFAIR, Enterprise was designed for the ALT tests and all those "structural problems" had been intentional for saving costs. You don't need a full thrust structure and pressure vessel, if a bit of ballast and wooden SSMEs is enough.

The first full orbiter was Columbia and it and Challenger were much heavier than the second generation orbiters.

No, Enterprise was supposed to be on STS-1 right from the start. She was rolled out before her spaceworthy subsystems were installed because they needed to get on with the ALT.

What happened was that during the ALT the factory decided to make changes to the airframe structure, which for Enterprise would mean an expensive and time-consuming disassembly and shipping airframe parts back to subcontractors. Upgrading STA-099, then under construction, was cheaper and easier, and thus OV-099 Challenger was born and Enterprise demoted to terrestrial test bed.

This is in the history books and I've explained this so many times over the years, even hard core space fans still put out that "Enterprise isn't a real spacecraft" myth. Enterprise is a real space vehicle, she just isn't finished.

 

[Urwumpe]

Something interesting from SpaceX:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BBtPIxal8eM/

In this close-up photograph of their only successful landing, you can see a whole lot of ice spraying from the landing gear during deployment. Looks like ice is really a critical factor for the landing gear deployment.

---------- Post added at 12:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------

No, Enterprise was supposed to be on STS-1 right from the start. She was rolled out before her spaceworthy subsystems were installed because they needed to get on with the ALT.

What happened was that during the ALT the factory decided to make changes to the airframe structure, which for Enterprise would mean an expensive and time-consuming disassembly and shipping airframe parts back to subcontractors. Upgrading STA-099, then under construction, was cheaper and easier, and thus OV-099 Challenger was born and Enterprise demoted to terrestrial test bed.

This is in the history books and I've explained this so many times over the years, even hard core space fans still put out that "Enterprise isn't a real spacecraft" myth. Enterprise is a real space vehicle, she just isn't finished.

I can't find anything like that in my books. The Jenkins book states that Enterprise was supposed to be retrofitted to become the second space-worthy orbiter in the STS program, with Columbia still being the first one.

Still OV-101 had been used in so many static and vibration tests (and that already before ALT), that it is hard to believe that it would really have been used in spaceflight afterwards, since it essentially had a lot tear and wear on its structure already. And it had little in common with Columbia and all the later orbiters at this point, because R&D was not yet over. STS-17 was planned to be the first Enterprise launch, before the decision to use STA-099. OV-101 remained the prototype it always was.

 

[Andy44]

It's possible I was mistaken about Enterprise being slated for STS-1, but it absolutely was meant to be a space-worthy orbiter when it was first laid down.