SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Jason 3 - SLC-4E Vandenberg - Jan 17, 2016 - DISCUSSION

[DatUser14]

NRC Quest is nearly back in port, Vesselfinder shows her as near dock (can't imagine that's accurate, as the estimated ETA is 23:51, and it's only 19:00 from where I am (est).

[mn]

I may start a poll, and am soliciting help on making a complete list.  It would be titled "I was wrong" and will read

"I posted that SpaceX needs:

1   A bigger barge *
...
...
25 Roombas wielding MIG welders # *

* And I was wrong"

# which a really clever person like me can see but *

What is missing from this list?  I am sure there were more such suggestions.

edit: Already added #19, 21-25

You forgot:

* Wings
...
...
* The Shield helicarrier (a flying rotary winged barge)

Oh, and I've seen antigravity suggested before (multiple times). I love the internet!

* More time

OK while we're at it: Since we already know they can hit the bulls eye, let the rocket land in a silo that's just slightly wider than the rocket and padded on the inside, it won't tip over that's for sure.

[smoliarm]

First time, at least to public knowledge. Longest coast till that burn as well, 100 minutes after launch.

Well, then it's pretty big milestone, although went unnoticed

[Joffan]

Is it the first time the second stage did THREE burns?
In the update thread it looks like it did a third (deorbit) burn:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39140.msg1478278#msg1478278

I think it's the first time the second stage put itself into an orbit where it really needed a de-orbit burn. Previously the second-stage perigee has been low enough that it would de-orbit without further maneuvering.

Edit: Actually, of course, I'm wrong. The DSCOVR launch put the second stage in a very high orbit. Perhaps too high to easily make a deorbit?

[mme]

I may start a poll, and am soliciting help on making a complete list.  It would be titled "I was wrong" and will read

"I posted that SpaceX needs:

1   A bigger barge *
2   A more stable barge *
3   A semisubmersible barge *
4   A seabed anchored barge *
5   A barge with a self-leveling surface *
6   A slower approach *
7   A more even approach *
8   A calmer sea state *
9   A radar altimeter *
10 More radar altimeters *
11 A hydraulic leg deployment *
12 A shock absorbing leg design * #
13 A set of heaters for the legs * #
14 Arresting wires *
15 Wheels under the legs * #
16 Brakes for wheels under the legs *
17 A barge transmitter protected from the rocket plume on descent *
18 A barge barge transmitter that points at a satellite not behind the rocket plume *
19 To turn off the FTS before landing # *
20 To stop hiding their failures *
21 A Chuck-E-Cheese ball pit *   (Thanks Tuts36!)
22 A sky-hook wire system
23 Horizontal landing with shorter legs * (I kid you not)
24 Below deck self-deploying foot grabbing devices or some such thing *
25 Roombas wielding MIG welders # *

* And I was wrong"

# which a really clever person like me can see but *

What is missing from this list?  I am sure there were more such suggestions.

edit: Already added #19, 21-25

* Metaklett (steel velcro for the feet to stick to)
* The ability to hover
* Swarms of drones measuring and transmitting wind velocities
* The ability to change landing targets based on an uplink
* The ability to change targets based on super smart all aware software

[JamesG123]

I for one, enjoy watching the guilt/cost-free kabooms. My kids think they are pretty neat too.  No one else can successfully launch their payload, and still blow up their rocket!

Who cares what the uninformed masses & media thinks.  Everyone who knows what SpaceX is doing realizes how difficult and trail-blazing their work is.

[Llian Rhydderch]

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

So every launch byline should be "Rocket launches satellite then crashes into ocean"?  (Or land, depending).

No, because although that is what happens, a recovery test is not part of the objectives list of ordinary rocket launches and therefore not really news.  :/

So, it was only a flight test on this launch.  Musk has just been smart enough to do his flight tests of high-altitude returning boosters through hypersonic --> supersonic --> transonic buffet --> subsonic --> terminal velocity --> propulsive landing with capital equipment that was "used up" in the ordinary rocket accounting sense.  He then added (some many hundreds of thousands of dollars of marginal cost) to instrument the test article(s) and enhance the rocket at the margins, to iteratively develop a reusable technology that works.

They call it on the webcast an "experimental test", and have always listed it as a "secondary objective."

For my money, what we see here is clickbait journalism as well as reveal the dearth of technology understanding in many editors and journalists in the media.

[OxCartMark]

I may start a poll, and am soliciting help on making a complete list.  It would be titled "I was wrong" and will read

"I posted that SpaceX needs:...

...What is missing from this list?  I am sure there were more such suggestions.

There was on the barge thread an ongoing stream of assertions that the deck plates (~1" steel) wouldn't be able to withstand the rocket blast without at the minimum warping and needing replacement.

There have been recurring suggestions of IIRC, some kind of arm that raises a fence or net up on all sides to prevent the landed stage from tipping too far.

There have been recurring suggestions that the landed stage would need to be transported to port horizontally, either on the ASDS or by loading it / them onto a separate transport ship (leaving the ASDS out to sea for the next shot.

*I* was an advocate (and maybe still am) of a low heavy vehicle which drives under the landed stage and attaches to it then pulls down to load the widespread legs with more force while providing a lower combined CG.  And that vehicle would eventually connect to ports on the bottom of the stage to refill fluids for flyback.

Back when the first picture of the ASDS was released (in Louisiana, from overhead) there were observations that the deck seemed to be semi-transparent, as if we were seeing two levels.  Heligrid was suggested as being the top layer.  Made sense to me.  I was a proponent.

When its all done I'm wordering if even Elon may have gotten it wrong with the welded shoes method he told us of at the AMA in early 2015.  That's a long time ago and the state of the art may have evolved.

[smoliarm]

Is it the first time the second stage did THREE burns?
In the update thread it looks like it did a third (deorbit) burn:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39140.msg1478278#msg1478278

I think it's the first time the second stage put itself into an orbit where it really needed a de-orbit burn. Previously the second-stage perigee has been low enough that it would de-orbit without further maneuvering.

Edit: Actually, of course, I'm wrong. The DSCOVR launch put the second stage in a very high orbit. Perhaps too high to easily make a deorbit?

About DSCOVR - I don't think you are wrong here, that flight put second stage into orbit with very high apogee but the perigee was low enough for de-orbit by natural decay (as I understand it, there is no specific need for de-orbit if perigee is about or below 200 km).
However, the last mission - Orbcomm, it had final orbit 600 x 600 km, and it would require de-orbit burn. I did quick check and it looks like they did it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38148.msg1462218#msg1462218
At that time it went generally unnoticed too, quite understandably, everybody was exited by the very first successful landing.
However, these steps - third ignition of second stage and long coast periods between burns - they are very important milestones, especially for second stage return.

[Johnnyhinbos]

I for one, enjoy watching the guilt/cost-free kabooms. My kids think they are pretty neat too.  No one else can successfully launch their payload, and still blow up their rocket!

Who cares what the uninformed masses & media thinks.  Everyone who knows what SpaceX is doing realizes how difficult and trail-blazing their work is.

That's exactly what I was thinking walking home from work today in the freezing cold. SpaceX manages to succeed in their mission and still thrills with an explosion (worst case).

Plus, as I'm written up as living the blue lifestyle - http://divers.neaq.org/2009/12/64-why-does-john-hanzl-live-blue.php?m=1 (it's an aquarium thing), I applaud SpaceX working on bringing home their toys instead of willingly chucking them into the ocean. It's kinda funny in a not funny way, but if any other industry flat out said that their business model was to deliver a clients cargo someplace, then throw literally tons of building supplies, including hazardous chemicals, into the ocean after each delivery, I bet it would raise a few eyebrows...

[IntoTheVoid]

Is it the first time the second stage did THREE burns?
In the update thread it looks like it did a third (deorbit) burn:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39140.msg1478278#msg1478278

I think it's the first time the second stage put itself into an orbit where it really needed a de-orbit burn. Previously the second-stage perigee has been low enough that it would de-orbit without further maneuvering.

Edit: Actually, of course, I'm wrong. The DSCOVR launch put the second stage in a very high orbit. Perhaps too high to easily make a deorbit?

...
However, the last mission - Orbcomm, it had final orbit 600 x 600 km, and it would require de-orbit burn. I did quick check and it looks like they did it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38148.msg1462218#msg1462218
At that time it went generally unnoticed too, quite understandably, everybody was exited by the very first successful landing.
However, these steps - third ignition of second stage and long coast periods between burns - they are very important milestones, especially for second stage return.

The Orbcomm flight was only two burns. The de-orbit burn was revalidation of 2nd stage relight prior to SES-9 which was then scheduled to be next, and which requires the 2nd burn to achieve the target orbit.

[su27k]

I may start a poll, and am soliciting help on making a complete list.  It would be titled "I was wrong" and will read

"I posted that SpaceX needs:
9   A radar altimeter *
13 A set of heaters for the legs * #

I don't think these are proven to be wrong, unless the proof is in L2...

[meekGee]

I may start a poll, and am soliciting help on making a complete list.  It would be titled "I was wrong" and will read

"I posted that SpaceX needs:
9   A radar altimeter *
13 A set of heaters for the legs * #

I don't think these are proven to be wrong, unless the proof is in L2...

Actually, #9 and #10 were not "things SpaceX needs" but rather guesses as to how they're doing it already...

As for leg non-lock mitigations, they are fair game, just like "larger hydraulic fluid reservoir" was.

The list is funny though

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Apparently the ball pit is something they already do at their christmas parties, so they've got that covered.

I reckon we won't see a repeat of a Jason 3 style landing failure. They'll increase the relevant tolerances, add heaters if they need them, whatever's required. We haven't seen any repeat fails from them yet.

[Llian Rhydderch]

I for one, enjoy watching the guilt/cost-free kabooms. My kids think they are pretty neat too.  No one else can successfully launch their payload, and still blow up their rocket!

Who cares what the uninformed masses & media thinks.  Everyone who knows what SpaceX is doing realizes how difficult and trail-blazing their work is.

That's exactly what I was thinking walking home from work today in the freezing cold. SpaceX manages to succeed in their mission and still thrills with an explosion (worst case).

Plus, as I'm written up as living the blue lifestyle - http://divers.neaq.org/2009/12/64-why-does-john-hanzl-live-blue.php?m=1 (it's an aquarium thing), I applaud SpaceX working on bringing home their toys instead of willingly chucking them into the ocean. It's kinda funny in a not funny way, but if any other industry flat out said that their business model was to deliver a clients cargo someplace, then throw literally tons of building supplies, including hazardous chemicals, into the ocean after each delivery, I bet it would raise a few eyebrows...

Yeah, I found that odd too, but I think I have an explanation that comports with the reality of when these sorts of things were noticed with other negative externalities in the past: always much later than when the problem began, and somewhat later than even when the problem became rather more noticeable to many. Responses to such things typically take (a long) time in human social systems.

But since that is likely off topic from Jason-3 (except for the "kudos to SpaceX for explicitly deorbiting the Jason-3 second stage"), feel free to PM me should you want to discuss further.

[Dante80]

The list is funny though

This one is missing.

[Comga]

I may start a poll, and am soliciting help on making a complete list.  It would be titled "I was wrong" and will read

"I posted that SpaceX needs:

1   A bigger barge *
2  .......

* And I was wrong"

# which a really clever person like me can see but *

Yup, a lot of esteemed NSF members wrote postings to the effect of "obviously failed due to excess speed/ angled deck/ sea state, etc, etc."

A good reminder that speculation - in the absence of data - should always be given with a caveat...

I am sorry my post was so lighthearted, because you are the only one whose responding post addresses the real point.

The SpaceX guys are not stupid in the least, and they are lead by a veritable genius.  They have tons of information and engineering to which we are not privy.  Even if "the answer" seems obvious in hindsight, it probably isn't. 

We should all be circumspect and modest. Occasionally we can ask questions that other members can answer from experience, but we should never jump to the conclusion that we know better.

[Danderman]

The reality is that the hard part of landing was accomplished on Sunday, and we should expect completely successful landings in the future. It is unlikely that landing legs not locking will happy too many more times.

[yg1968]

Another problem could arise. I am not expecting it but you never know. I think that Musk is trying to lower expectations.

[faramund]

Another problem could arise. I am not expecting it but you never know. I think that Musk is trying to lower expectations.

This is the ultimate issue. It seems that there are many people who assume that because SpaceX has solved the known problems, that all will be well.

But when a novel undertaking occurs, there are an unknown number of unknown problems. Who before the last landing, knew the latch mechanism problem existed?

So yes, I assume SpaceX will get reusability working, but it will not be smooth from here on. Unknown problems will continue to occur, and progress will be made, but there will be ups and downs.

I think the latch mechanism problem was interesting. Until then, SpaceX had shown they could land a stage (admittedly on land), but they were brought down by a different environment (in terms of the launch weather).

There could be more of this, perhaps the next stage will land, and then be relaunched, and then 'because of something different', another failure could occur.

And to be clear, I don't think any of this is SpaceX's fault, its simply a consequence of attempting a novel course of action.