Quote from: Avron on 01/11/2014 07:57 pmWould they need to file a flight plan for the stage/vehicle to RTLS? i.e would it be public before the event?Yes to the first; I wouldn't bet on the latter.They will require launch and reentry licenses; IIRC those may be combined and in any case include (among other things) flight plan and safety analysis. That said, the vast majority of information is not public AFAICT (the licenses published by the FAA are perfunctory and do not provide details).To do an RTLS, the operator would have to show a combined Ec below the allowable threshold. Flight path, IIP, and dwell time over populated areas are considerations, not to mention vehicle history. (In the original rule making considerations that was explicitly mentioned, e.g., experimental aircraft restrictions until a certain number of flight hours.)I would be amazed if the FAA approved return anywhere near a populated area (or overflight during terminal phase) without significant flight history. To Jon's point, that probably means waiting on more GH2 tests, and likely quite a few water "landings", before the FAA approves RTLS.
Would they need to file a flight plan for the stage/vehicle to RTLS? i.e would it be public before the event?
Anyone know that flight this booster belongs ? It has the mounts of legs, I think..http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/careers/cycle_large5.jpg
Quote from: QuantumG on 01/11/2014 09:09 pmQuote from: jongoff on 01/11/2014 08:05 pmSo they might put legs on it even if they're intending to do a water splashdown.That's what Elon said, yeah.Remotely more on-topic: they do have three CRS flights scheduled for 2014, and I wouldn't be surprised if they started making recovery attempts on non-CRS flights too, so subtract one from whatever you voted, for an estimates of how many recovery attempts they'll be making in 2014!Musk said that they would attempt recovery on pretty much all flights after Thaicom-6 (not just CRS flights).
Quote from: jongoff on 01/11/2014 08:05 pmSo they might put legs on it even if they're intending to do a water splashdown.That's what Elon said, yeah.Remotely more on-topic: they do have three CRS flights scheduled for 2014, and I wouldn't be surprised if they started making recovery attempts on non-CRS flights too, so subtract one from whatever you voted, for an estimates of how many recovery attempts they'll be making in 2014!
So they might put legs on it even if they're intending to do a water splashdown.
Looking for the quote on what was on the critical path for CRS-3 .. think it was Dragon vs legs..
We are not going hold up that flight for landing legs. So if landing legs end up being delayed for any reason then we won't hold up the flight for that. But the full plan is to have landing legs on that mission. The schedule for that mission is mostly governed by upgrades to the Dragon spacecraft. We have an upgraded avionics system and we are able to provide a lot more power to NASA for powered cargo. It essentially triples, I think, the amount of powered cargo that NASA can have. So I think that's what is driving that schedule. It's a high priority for us to get that mission launched as soon as we can. It looks like probably sometime in February most likely.
We have actually been working with Air Force range safety and the FAA to identify landing locations at Cape Canaveral and we have identified a few. I don't think that we are quite ready to say what those locations are but they are kind of out on the tip of Cape Canaveral, on the eastern most tip of Cape Canaveral. It's great working with both Air Force range safety and the FAA. They have actually been quite supportive of the whole thing. You need a (FAA) license and we expect to get it.
Our goal is to recover the first stage on all CRS flights and really on most flights. The next two flights are somewhat of an exception. When we negotiated these deals, we didn't have much bargaining power. It was before we obviously flown this version of the Falcon 9 successfully. So we kind of agreed to give up all performance on the rocket and not reserve anything for reusability. But going into the future, with future contracts, with a few exceptions, we have reserved enough performance to recover the stage. It's not just the CRS flights, it should be most flights after these next two (flights). In terms when we actually re-fly the stage, it's going to depend on what condition the stage is in and obviously getting customers comfortable with that. So it's difficult to say when would actually re-fly it. If things go super well then we would be able to re-fly a Falcon 9 stage before the end of next year and that's our aspiration.
Quote from: Avron on 01/11/2014 09:46 pmAnyone know that flight this booster belongs ? It has the mounts of legs, I think..http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/careers/cycle_large5.jpgThat was CASSIOPE 1st stage, the first v1.1 core. All three v1.1 vehicles flown appear to have had the lower leg joint attachments installed.
If they get to use LC-36 . there is not overflight .. I guess they just have to do the math on risk to the public... the range always has the button ..
Quote from: Avron on 01/11/2014 09:44 pmIf they get to use LC-36 . there is no overflight .. I guess they just have to do the math on risk to the public... the range always has the button .. Then again, for RTLS the IIP and potential debris field are in front of and downrange of the returning stage. There is still a lot of important stuff within a few kilometers of LC-36, including personnel classified as "public" (i.e., those not directly involved in the licensed activity); and a bit further downrange (with respect to the returning vehicle) are a lot of civilians.Hitting the button early may mitigate some risks. But what if a problem shows up late? Can or will the debris field and risk be sufficiently constrained to yield an acceptable Ec? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else can provide a credible analysis at this time. In short, it will likely be a few years (and many tests) until the FAA grants permission for RTLS to anywhere near a populated site.
If they get to use LC-36 . there is no overflight .. I guess they just have to do the math on risk to the public... the range always has the button ..
Yes, they might do RTLS but with a target in the ocean a few miles out from the shore - before going for a land landing.
Quote from: Lars_J on 01/11/2014 11:32 pmYes, they might do RTLS but with a target in the ocean a few miles out from the shore - before going for a land landing.Perhaps, but Musk was quoted saying they were seeking permission to land back at the Cape for CRS-3.
Quote from: joek on 01/11/2014 11:02 pmQuote from: Avron on 01/11/2014 09:44 pmIf they get to use LC-36 . there is no overflight .. I guess they just have to do the math on risk to the public... the range always has the button .. Then again, for RTLS the IIP and potential debris field are in front of and downrange of the returning stage. There is still a lot of important stuff within a few kilometers of LC-36, including personnel classified as "public" (i.e., those not directly involved in the licensed activity); and a bit further downrange (with respect to the returning vehicle) are a lot of civilians.Hitting the button early may mitigate some risks. But what if a problem shows up late? Can or will the debris field and risk be sufficiently constrained to yield an acceptable Ec? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else can provide a credible analysis at this time. In short, it will likely be a few years (and many tests) until the FAA grants permission for RTLS to anywhere near a populated site.Jim talked about the FTS not demolishing the stage and spewing debris all around. Rather he said that it would terminate the operation, while leaving the stage basically intact. If the IIP only comes ashore in the last few seconds, with the engine burning, essentially replicating the 100m lateral Grasshopper flight, they will have mitigated the risk to a great degree.It would still surprise me if they aimed for land before two or so first stages had been brought back to off-shore targets and demonstrated precision navigation.
It would still surprise me if they aimed for land before two or so first stages had been brought back to off-shore targets and demonstrated precision navigation.
Hitting the button early may mitigate some risks. But what if a problem shows up late? Can or will the debris field and risk be sufficiently constrained to yield an acceptable Ec? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else can provide a credible analysis at this time. In short, it will likely be a few years (and many tests) until the FAA grants permission for RTLS to anywhere near a populated site.
The targeting of landing site a few 100metres off shore then lateral flight to landing pad makes sense
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 01/12/2014 12:30 amThe targeting of landing site a few 100metres off shore then lateral flight to landing pad makes senseThe problem with that is that the stage has virtually no hover capability... the 'divert to landing point' manuever has to happen pretty far up, as the stage is coming in at terminal velocity.
Quote from: Lar on 01/11/2014 11:38 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 01/11/2014 11:32 pmYes, they might do RTLS but with a target in the ocean a few miles out from the shore - before going for a land landing.Perhaps, but Musk was quoted saying they were seeking permission to land back at the Cape for CRS-3.He was saying that a few months ago, yes. But without any GH2/F9R-1 test flights in McGregor or NM, I think that is a very remote possibility at this point. A couple of GH2 hops will of course change that if they happen.