Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/24/2015 11:24 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 12/24/2015 11:11 pmPlus, what we saw on the F9-21 first stage was not evidence of the stage being on fire, but of combustion products depositing themselves on the outside of the stage. So the body of the stage could have been at a very reasonable temperature on the way down.No. It was on fire. Flames were visible after engine shut down that lasted for a half-minute at least. Eyewitnesses also saw flickering flames during the coast phase that followed the reentry burn and preceded the landing burn. They are visible, barely, in some of the YouTube videos. The fire was in the vicinity of propulsion section, so was likely engine/propellant related. Maybe not a big deal, but still something to inspect and possibly repair. - Ed KyleI wondered if the fire might be from hydraulic fluid used for the grid fins. Instead of just pumping it out maybe they are burning it off instead, which would explain the fire seen after the re-entry burn and after the landing. Does any one know how they dispose of the hydraulic fluid?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/24/2015 11:11 pmPlus, what we saw on the F9-21 first stage was not evidence of the stage being on fire, but of combustion products depositing themselves on the outside of the stage. So the body of the stage could have been at a very reasonable temperature on the way down.No. It was on fire. Flames were visible after engine shut down that lasted for a half-minute at least. Eyewitnesses also saw flickering flames during the coast phase that followed the reentry burn and preceded the landing burn. They are visible, barely, in some of the YouTube videos. The fire was in the vicinity of propulsion section, so was likely engine/propellant related. Maybe not a big deal, but still something to inspect and possibly repair. - Ed Kyle
Plus, what we saw on the F9-21 first stage was not evidence of the stage being on fire, but of combustion products depositing themselves on the outside of the stage. So the body of the stage could have been at a very reasonable temperature on the way down.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/24/2015 11:11 pmPlus, what we saw on the F9-21 first stage was not evidence of the stage being on fire, but of combustion products depositing themselves on the outside of the stage. So the body of the stage could have been at a very reasonable temperature on the way down.No. It was on fire. Flames were visible after engine shut down that lasted for a half-minute at least.
The fire was in the vicinity of propulsion section, so was likely engine/propellant related. Maybe not a big deal, but still something to inspect and possibly repair.
Falcon stages have to have some type of thermal protection on their bases, for engine heating if nothing else
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/24/2015 11:24 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 12/24/2015 11:11 pmPlus, what we saw on the F9-21 first stage was not evidence of the stage being on fire, but of combustion products depositing themselves on the outside of the stage. So the body of the stage could have been at a very reasonable temperature on the way down.No. It was on fire. Flames were visible after engine shut down that lasted for a half-minute at least.After landing there was a small flame coming from the side of an engine. I would not characterize that as the entire stage being on fire - it was a small issue in the area of the stage where fire is expected for normal operation.
Video analysis of the landing...
Do you think that NASA will learn from SpaceX's example and follow?Keep in mind that SX has done in 5 years what NASA couldn't do in 50 (not a knock on NASA).And might it be extrapolated to even bigger launch vehicles?
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 12/23/2015 05:29 amSpaceX got a mass number of 21200 kg to 27 degrees GTO orbit on their Falcon Heavy web page. However they only list pricing for 6.4 metric ton to GTO orbit. Guessing there are no payloads greater than 6.5 metric to GTO in the foreseeable future according to SpaceX marketing people.21.2 tonnes is for a fully expended Falcon Heavy. 6.4 tonnes is for full booster and core recovery. - Ed Kyle
SpaceX got a mass number of 21200 kg to 27 degrees GTO orbit on their Falcon Heavy web page. However they only list pricing for 6.4 metric ton to GTO orbit. Guessing there are no payloads greater than 6.5 metric to GTO in the foreseeable future according to SpaceX marketing people.
RTLS will be a rare event only used when payload is light enough to make it doable... for F9FT...My guess is the next stage we will see land on LZ-1 will be a side booster off a FH... Drone ship is gonna get a workout the next 12 months...
RTLS will be a rare event only used when payload is light enough to make it doable.
Quote from: John Alan on 12/25/2015 10:35 pmRTLS will be a rare event only used when payload is light enough to make it doable. I had impression that it is opposite: that launches requestiong barge will be exception than rule (for example, middle core of FH).If this impression is right, CRS launches should be eligible for RTLS.
I'm flabergasted by the performance loss due to RTLS
My opinion... OB-2 was a light load going to a medium LEO... SX promised to put 11 more up to finish the contract... job done... Just so happened it was perfect opportunity to "break in" LZ-1 with a RTLS...A CRS mission with RTLS... no way... Dragon weighs too much... Looking at the manifest... next year out...Name one other mission that S2 can push to target orbit from 5000 km/h... I don't see one... most are sized to use the obsolete 1.1's available payload and target specs...F9FT update only 'bought' enough performance to turn most missions into drone ship landings... As the numbers up above and elsewhere point out...It does not take that much RP1/LOX to get to the drone ship...That boost back burn takes a lot of energy to 'turn this ship around'... I also think... they really needed to show they could hit the target on a RTLS...From day 1... The plans of LZ-1 with 5 pads only mean't one thing to me...The exact thing they have shown in the FH YouTube video...Put 2 or 3 cores down there at the same time... It was silly that the Gov said "one core, no more"... Like I said before... The drone ships will get a workout during the next year...
Quote from: John Alan on 12/26/2015 04:52 amMy opinion... OB-2 was a light load going to a medium LEO... SX promised to put 11 more up to finish the contract... job done... Just so happened it was perfect opportunity to "break in" LZ-1 with a RTLS...A CRS mission with RTLS... no way... Dragon weighs too much... Looking at the manifest... next year out...Name one other mission that S2 can push to target orbit from 5000 km/h... I don't see one... most are sized to use the obsolete 1.1's available payload and target specs...F9FT update only 'bought' enough performance to turn most missions into drone ship landings... As the numbers up above and elsewhere point out...It does not take that much RP1/LOX to get to the drone ship...That boost back burn takes a lot of energy to 'turn this ship around'... I also think... they really needed to show they could hit the target on a RTLS...From day 1... The plans of LZ-1 with 5 pads only mean't one thing to me...The exact thing they have shown in the FH YouTube video...Put 2 or 3 cores down there at the same time... It was silly that the Gov said "one core, no more"... Like I said before... The drone ships will get a workout during the next year... F9R was quoted to handle a 13.1 ton payload to LEO in expendable mode.Assuming full thrust has 33% more performance, that would be 17 tons to LEO. Of course the target Dragon insertion orbit is slightly higher than a bare bones LEO orbit, but very slightly so.A fully loaded dragon is 7.5 tons (from wikipedia 4.2 dry + 3.3 payload).That's just 44% of estimated expendable payload capacity.Plus in most missions dragon is volume limited. Let's assume 1 ton of cargo less than capacity, or 6.5 tons.In that scenario we're talking 38% of expendable performance.A fully loaded dragon is certainly borderline to the limit of RTLS, but I think it can be done. But in most typical Dragon to ISS missions, I think will be done with some margins.
What about Dragon 2... the unit SpaceX have indicated they will have both cargo and crew versions down the road...We don't know yet what it weighs dry... do we... But SpaceX does...Would not surprise me if dry it's 7+tons and full load 12+tons fuel and payload...No way S2 can put that to ISS from 5000km/h... in my opinion...
Hey guys the BA 330 weighs 43,000 lb would it be possible to launch this to LEO as this is where BA wants to put it no? And still recover all three boosters? Or would the core have to be expended? Gosh I hope the answer is yes...