Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Jason 3 - SLC-4E Vandenberg - Jan 17, 2016 - DISCUSSION (Read 594379 times)

otter · « **Reply #1040 on:** 01/18/2016 09:48 am »

Was it the first time when the Falcon's 2d stage made 3 burns?

kevinof · « **Reply #1041 on:** 01/18/2016 10:17 am »

Agreed. We can see the tweaks and the adjustments to the s/w for each launch. They have nailed the targeting, they have adjusted and nailed the attitude just before landing, the speed and softness and it's great to watch it evolve.

It was also great to see all the young engineers and controllers in SpaceX. I'm an old guy but to see the young talent and drive was great - they are the future and to have them contributing and learning at the cutting edge is great.

Great stuff and well done everyone.

Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/18/2016 08:31 am

Its an evolutionary process to achieve a fault tolerant design. All and all, still a good day for data collection and the Falcon flew flawlessly on to the deck... A lot of folks should still be proud!!

ugordan · « **Reply #1042 on:** 01/18/2016 12:02 pm »

Norm38 · « **Reply #1043 on:** 01/18/2016 12:51 pm »

When I first heard they had "landed hard" I thought maybe it was the barge pitching, or something fundamental. But to see the way it set down dead center, they've got the design worked out. Beef up the latches, should nail the next one.

cebri · « **Reply #1044 on:** 01/18/2016 01:21 pm »

That was close.

Mapperuo · « **Reply #1045 on:** 01/18/2016 01:42 pm »

I expected better BBC....

That makes it sound like a failure

gadgetmind · « **Reply #1046 on:** 01/18/2016 01:46 pm »

Yes, they'd get better press if they just dropped the booster into the ocean after the separation just like everyone else. Of course, their priority isn't to get the best possible PR!

MKremer · « **Reply #1047 on:** 01/18/2016 01:51 pm »

Have to remember that many internet news headlines are worded to generate clicks rather than providing context.

"SpaceX rocket launches satellite then explodes" - facts with no context

woods170 · « **Reply #1048 on:** 01/18/2016 02:05 pm »

Quote from: Mapperuo on 01/18/2016 01:42 pm

I expected better BBC....

That makes it sound like a failure

Suppose the BBC had had the same stance on Peake's spacewalk:

"First British spacewalk is a failure".

But I digress.

gadgetmind · « **Reply #1049 on:** 01/18/2016 02:07 pm »

Quote from: woods170 on 01/18/2016 02:05 pm

Suppose the BBC had had the same stance on Peake's spacewalk:

This was the first report I saw online.

"Tim Peake spacewalk ends early"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35328281

Darkseraph · « **Reply #1050 on:** 01/18/2016 02:23 pm »

Quote from: Mapperuo on 01/18/2016 01:42 pm

I expected better BBC....

That makes it sound like a failure

It sounds like an accurate description of the events to me. It did explode after it delivered the satellite.

Mapperuo · « **Reply #1051 on:** 01/18/2016 02:27 pm »

Quote from: Darkseraph on 01/18/2016 02:23 pm

Quote from: Mapperuo on 01/18/2016 01:42 pm
I expected better BBC....

That makes it sound like a failure

It sounds like an accurate description of the events to me. It did explode after it delivered the satellite.

Sure it did but 99% of the none space audience will assume SpaceX have failed big time here. They won't know this was an experimental part of a mission that went 100% successfully.

alang · « **Reply #1052 on:** 01/18/2016 02:27 pm »

In general the BBC has poor technical understanding - possibly cultural as the UK doesn't manufacture as much as it used to do.
An exception is Jonathan Amos's journalism.

MKremer · « **Reply #1053 on:** 01/18/2016 02:40 pm »

Quote from: alang on 01/18/2016 02:27 pm

In general the BBC has poor technical understanding - possibly cultural as the UK doesn't manufacture as much as it used to do.
An exception is Jonathan Amos's journalism.

Its likely more a case of "Condense it down so people want to click on the headline."
If it sounds dramatic more people might want to know more.

Star One · « **Reply #1054 on:** 01/18/2016 02:49 pm »

Quote from: woods170 on 01/18/2016 02:05 pm

Quote from: Mapperuo on 01/18/2016 01:42 pm
I expected better BBC....

That makes it sound like a failure

Suppose the BBC had had the same stance on Peake's spacewalk:

"First British spacewalk is a failure".

But I digress.

I can't let that sort of comment pass as their actually coverage was fairly good for his spacewalk. Secondly, it's hardly equivalent considering the connotations of saying a manned space walk has failed is no where near the same as a rocket stage falling over and exploding.

By the way I am not sure where the above headline quoted comes from as this is the only two BBC articles I can find & neither has that headline. Both seem fairly accurate headline wise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35340734

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35339776

Fan Boi · « **Reply #1055 on:** 01/18/2016 03:26 pm »

No trouble on the ride up.
Second burn of second stage went perfect.
Paying customer happy.
Falcon found barge and made perfect landing, within a few feet of the X.
Tipped over after the fact, likely would have happened on land as well.
I suspect they are on the cusp of successful landings going forward, whether land or barge.
I just don't see this landing attempt as much of a failure as most seem to...

ugordan · « **Reply #1056 on:** 01/18/2016 03:27 pm »

You can actually see one set of solar panels glinting during deployment at 8:36 into this video (sourced from the SpaceX no-host feed). I guess people missed it at the time since they waited over 20 minutes to get a confirmation of that.

Tuts36 · « **Reply #1057 on:** 01/18/2016 03:28 pm »

This might be the worst article I have read yet about a SpaceX launch. And it's in the Orlando Sentinel too, they ought to know better

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/technology/os-spacex-failure-natural-obstacle-in-emerging-industry-20160118-post.html

CorvusCorax · « **Reply #1058 on:** 01/18/2016 03:31 pm »

I don't know if it has been discussed before but...

On a couple of news pages, forum trolls accused SpaceX of having "edited / time-shifted" the video feed from the drone ship in order to not show the landing if anything goes wrong.

Although technically possible and not without precedence (I think the Chinese media did something like that even to the Olympic opening ceremony) it would make little sense for SpaceX to hide the failure from the live stream only to then twitter the video and debris footage in time for most big media sites to include it into their reports. (Unless someone hired Michael bay to to edit the explosion to look even more spectacular *sic*)

However I think theres a more plausible reason than just waves and motion interrupting the sat-video connection. And one that could potentially affect future launches.

1. The drone ship is on the northern hemisphere. It's video link is via a geostationary sattelite, so the sat dish points more or less straight south
2. The sat dish is on the northern end of the drone ship (is it? can anyone confirm from video/known drone ship layout?)
3. Ergo, the sat link goes across the deck, crossing the path of the rocket.
4. Rocket exhaust is ionized, a known problem which during launches causes hightened lightning hazard
5. Therefore rocket exhaust (which is much wider than the stage itself) in the path of the sat connection would very likely interrupt the signal.
6. The signal interrupts exactly as the rocket engines glowing reflection becomes visible on deck structures
7. Additional ship motion (from landing) while signal is interrupted makes it harder for the system to reacquire the link
8. The blast wave might damage the dish, further delaying/preventing signal reacquisition.

If that is indeed the case, SpaceX needs to modify the sat link setup to prevent their own stage from interrupting their link in the future.

Does my rambling make sense?

Rocket Science · « **Reply #1059 on:** 01/18/2016 03:35 pm »

Quote from: Fan Boi on 01/18/2016 03:26 pm

No trouble on the ride up.
Second burn of second stage went perfect.
Paying customer happy.
Falcon found barge and made perfect landing, within a few feet of the X.
Tipped over after the fact, likely would have happened on land as well.
I suspect they are on the cusp of successful landings going forward, whether land or barge.
I just don't see this landing attempt as much of a failure as most seem to...

All over the news... It just makes better TV...