That's certainly better than nothing, but I don't think it's sufficient for the claim they've made here. They need to recover the stage.
I'm still wondering why we haven't seen any surface video of the return.
I was probably too wordy in my earlier post to encourage replies (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35243.msg1232564#msg1232564), but I did want to make the point that any future recovery of the second stage in flights from the Cape to LEO would likely have to be on a ship-based platform off Western Australia (as opposed to a land-based platform). Therefore, experience recovering the first stage on a ship-based platform will be useful, even if the eventual plan is to bring first stages back to the pad. I'm looking forward to flights 14 & 15
This post does come to the topic - bear with me I know I saw somewhere (maybe for CRS-3) an exclusion zone map for the second stage coming down off the coast of Western Australia. Being a resident of Perth WA, I began wondering if SpaceX is likely to attempt to build landing pad(s) somewhere near me, (or maybe if it will be more efficient to give the second stage just enough of an extra boost so it comes down somewhere near Florida after the first full orbit)Any second stages returning to land on current trajectories would have to come down somewhere on the WA coast....
Quote from: mikelepage on 07/23/2014 09:46 amThis post does come to the topic - bear with me I know I saw somewhere (maybe for CRS-3) an exclusion zone map for the second stage coming down off the coast of Western Australia. Being a resident of Perth WA, I began wondering if SpaceX is likely to attempt to build landing pad(s) somewhere near me, (or maybe if it will be more efficient to give the second stage just enough of an extra boost so it comes down somewhere near Florida after the first full orbit)Any second stages returning to land on current trajectories would have to come down somewhere on the WA coast....No they wouldn't. Just because SpaceX chose to de-orbit the second stage in that area for this flight doesn't mean a future re-usable stage would do that. Why would they ever chose to bring the stage down in an area which has the maximum distance to transport the stage home? Bear in mind a recoverable second stage is a spacecraft. It essentially has to do what Dragon has to do for re-entry and landing. Why would they consider landing the stage on a platform at sea (extra cost and complexity of operations) when they can land it anywhere on land between the latitudes of the orbital inclination?But I notice we're getting OT here and I'm contributing to it. I shall reprimand myself and say no more!
I'm still wondering why we haven't seen any surface video of the return. They show surface video of the Dragon returns after all and surface video goes a long way toward proving that they know where it will touch down. Video shot from aircraft is good, (Casiope) but one could argue that an airplane could move several miles toward the touch down while the stage is returning. A boat can't move far at all during the return.
Quote from: aero on 07/26/2014 05:18 amI'm still wondering why we haven't seen any surface video of the return. They show surface video of the Dragon returns after all and surface video goes a long way toward proving that they know where it will touch down. Video shot from aircraft is good, (Casiope) but one could argue that an airplane could move several miles toward the touch down while the stage is returning. A boat can't move far at all during the return.The NASA crew failed to obtain video: it was too hard to track the rocket. They will reportedly try again for CRS-4. There might be other video, but remember this is only the *first* shot they've had at capturing landing video -- the CRS-3 flight has terrible weather, so they didn't even get to try then. Yes, we have good surface video of Dragon now --- but there have been five Dragons. I seem to recall the first dragon didn't have great surface splashdown photos either. And remember that parachute landings are quite leisurely compared to the propulsive landing process.
Considering SpaceX's lawsuit against the Air Force, I guess it's very unlikely they'll agree to allowing the use of their RC-135S Cobra Ball to observe/video the booster return, even if it was available...this is their regular job...
"It’s not as though we’re battling the whole Air Force. That’s not the case at all. I think we’re on very good terms with the vast majority of the Air Force. Our concern really relates to a handful of people in the procurement area of the Air Force.”
Looking at the video, I was surprised at how late the landing legs deployed.<snip>
Quote from: inventodoc on 07/23/2014 12:29 amLooking at the video, I was surprised at how late the landing legs deployed.<snip>I've read a few comments about timing of the legs, and consistency with the CRS-3 landing. So I decided to do a split screen video on both landings and watch them side by side - and this lead to me adding one thing after another until my wife said I've spent too much time on this.So here's a link to my 2 minute combination of 5 videos showing the reusability of the first stage.
Quote from: GregA on 07/27/2014 02:54 pmI've read a few comments about timing of the legs, and consistency with the CRS-3 landing. So I decided to do a split screen video on both landings and watch them side by side - and this lead to me adding one thing after another until my wife said I've spent too much time on this.So here's a link to my 2 minute combination of 5 videos showing the reusability of the first stage. Great video. Thanks. So the legs deploy in parallel.
I've read a few comments about timing of the legs, and consistency with the CRS-3 landing. So I decided to do a split screen video on both landings and watch them side by side - and this lead to me adding one thing after another until my wife said I've spent too much time on this.So here's a link to my 2 minute combination of 5 videos showing the reusability of the first stage.
Very good comparison.What I see: the last part of the landing, while the engine blows the dust/vapor away has other length at the test flights and at the ocean landings:- 1:49-1:52 at ocean landings- 1:49-1:57 at F9R landingsMaybe the landing speed is higher (this is my guess as explanation) at ocean landing? More aggressive deceleration in this case? Or the engine was shut down earlier because of the water?
I tried to measure the velocity of objects on the video before 1:49. The waves at CRS-3 seems to be more speedy going away from the rocket, than the object on the F9R videos, but I don't know if the video restoring was enough accurate to use for this measurement.