Since there are four points of attachments on each fairing half it's easy to control twisting. You know how long is each cable. As well as it's easy to measure pressure on the cable. If one is longer that means it should be pulled little bit faster than other ones. No 6DOF control? Why you need that?I doubt now we talk about the same they thing? Why should they prevent fairing halves from hitting each other? It's all about hitting each other in controlled manner to reconnect and make shape which is safe in atmospheric heat and can be easily make floatable.
BALLUTE
I found the comment in the after launch press conference from EM interesting (at 33:33): Each of the fairing halfs cost several millions.Playing around with numbers: if each fairing half is 2mio (lower boundary), then the complete fairing is 4 mio. If I take 4mio per engine as an absolute upper boundary (then 10 engines would be 40mio, fairing 4 million and leaving 16mio for everything else including launch, testing and perhaps profit), then one fairing would equal the cost of one engine. Which seems somehow odd, given the complexity of an engine. And I would rather guess an engine is less then 4mio (because 16mio for everything else is not too much).
They should just learn how to build these cheaper, say some sort of 3D printing. Nowadays even large structures can be 3D printed.
Quote from: rds100 on 04/12/2016 06:15 pmThey should just learn how to build these cheaper, say some sort of 3D printing. Nowadays even large structures can be 3D printed.Composite materials get their strength from the use of (long) directional fibres.3D printing isn't the answer to everything...
Consider also that a redesigned fairing does not need to be optimized for shipping considerations the same way that an expendable would, because shipping logistics complexity and cost are amortized over many flights and you are shipping much fewer of them.
Quote from: Blackjax on 04/23/2016 06:36 pm Consider also that a redesigned fairing does not need to be optimized for shipping considerations the same way that an expendable would, because shipping logistics complexity and cost are amortized over many flights and you are shipping much fewer of them.Am imissing something here? A reused fairing would need to be shipped many times, since it wouldn't return to the launch site, it would end somewhere in the ocean. Then it need to be retrieved, brought to land, transported by road, etc.
The relevant tech here would be an automated fiber layup machine like is used for airplanes. It's still technically "Additive Manufacturing," so it's a kind of 3d printing except it uses a mandrel.Still, SpaceX is better off trying reuse. They need to get good at this sort of thing anyway.EDIT: Yes, the ISAAC machine. But these kind of machines are actually much better understood and more effectively utilized in industry than at NASA, to be absolutely honest. ISAAC is kind of a "me too!" sort of development, not anything ground-breaking (except in the literal sense since they need to reinforce the floor).
6 months ago I was listening to a presentation on 3D printing composite materials for space/LV application, where they were laying down fibers with long range orientation/registration/no kinks/no twist. (They are thinking about forming them like "pre-stressed" concrete beams, with a programmed distribution of fiber characteristics so as to make structural parts that are otherwise impossible to fabricate any other way ...
Raket_Mand @bittdk@elonmusk how did the recovery of the fairings go?
Elon Musk @elonmusk 1h1 hour ago@bittdk Better. Not there yet, but a solution is likely.