The CRS-3/SpX-3 - Dragon, Suit Up! - Party Thread

[Elmar Moelzer]

Agree with you Chris and It looks like we may not get the information we all here are hoping for. Let's hope SpaceX releases something to the public more than just a general statement (not that they have to).

I think it took a while until SpaceX showed the image of the stage splashing down to the public last time and even longer for them to release the video of the on board camera.

[RubberToe]

Agree with you Chris and It looks like we may not get the information we all here are hoping for. Let's hope SpaceX releases something to the public more than just a general statement (not that they have to).

I think it took a while until SpaceX showed the image of the stage splashing down to the public last time and even longer for them to release the video of the on board camera.

I remember seeing the picture from the chase plane showing the stage just before it hit the water. But I don't remember ever seeing any video from the stage itself. Please provide a link if this actually exists. My understanding was the stage was spinning pretty rapidly, so any video would reflect that.

RT

[douglas100]

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32859.msg1109408#msg1109408

[Mongo62]

I remember seeing the picture from the chase plane showing the stage just before it hit the water. But I don't remember ever seeing any video from the stage itself. Please provide a link if this actually exists. My understanding was the stage was spinning pretty rapidly, so any video would reflect that.

Portions of the on-board video of the Cassiope first stage reentry burn can be found here, starting at 2:41 on the video. By 3:04 the transparent camera cover is completely coated with soot.

[Lobo]

But do you feel that the next flight should simply attempt to repeat the same goals as this flight - ie. the landing at sea - merely to acquire more of the same data? Or do you feel that the next flight should somehow push the envelope a little further, even if it doesn't mean attempting a full land-based landing?

How can the envelope be pushed further on the next flight, to try and raise the bar, even if it's not a full landing on land? What kind of elevated goal can be set for the next flight/landing?

Boost-back to just offshore seems like a logical next step to me.

I feel a poll coming on....   what are the choices???

KIDDING.  Because that IS the obvious logical next step.

Barge?

My two guesses:

I doubt they'll try a barge landing.  They'd need to do a lot of work to an existing barge to make the deck capable of handling the thrust and heat of the landing stage.  If they are renting one, they don't want to burn a hole in the middle.  And it might be costly for just one test.  Plus they need to work on demonstrating precision landing.  Unless they have close up video from a ship of the staging landing in the water from this one, then there's a good chance it came down a ways away from any assets.

So

1)  They will move some assets to a target area downrange and see if they can do a precision landing in the water out there.  The test will be how close to a specific target location they can get.

or

2)  They will boost it back close to land and also try to hit a target area. 

I still sort of think they'll work some sort of lease of LC-36 in order to to at least initial test bringing cores back and landing them.  Perhaps landing them directly back at 39A once precision has been demonstrated.
LC-36 is nice and flat and in a good location out on the point there.  And it's available for lease.

[Rocket Science]

But do you feel that the next flight should simply attempt to repeat the same goals as this flight - ie. the landing at sea - merely to acquire more of the same data? Or do you feel that the next flight should somehow push the envelope a little further, even if it doesn't mean attempting a full land-based landing?

How can the envelope be pushed further on the next flight, to try and raise the bar, even if it's not a full landing on land? What kind of elevated goal can be set for the next flight/landing?

Boost-back to just offshore seems like a logical next step to me.

I feel a poll coming on....   what are the choices???

KIDDING.  Because that IS the obvious logical next step.

Barge?

My two guesses:

I doubt they'll try a barge landing.  They'd need to do a lot of work to an existing barge to make the deck capable of handling the thrust and heat of the landing stage.  If they are renting one, they don't want to burn a hole in the middle.  And it might be costly for just one test.  Plus they need to work on demonstrating precision landing.  Unless they have close up video from a ship of the staging landing in the water from this one, then there's a good chance it came down a ways away from any assets.

So

1)  They will move some assets to a target area downrange and see if they can do a precision landing in the water out there.  The test will be how close to a specific target location they can get.

or

2)  They will boost it back close to land and also try to hit a target area. 

I still sort of think they'll work some sort of lease of LC-36 in order to to at least initial test bringing cores back and landing them.  Perhaps landing them directly back at 39A once precision has been demonstrated.
LC-36 is nice and flat and in a good location out on the point there.  And it's available for lease.

Hey Lobo!
I知 only half serious about a barge, but I guess they could lay down some firebrick as a surface to land on...
You池e couple of predictions could be spot-on. I知 curious about the FAA take and the CCAFS  range about any damage, but I guess that is what FTS is for...

[Lobo]

Hey Lobo!
I知 only half serious about a barge, but I guess they could lay down some firebrick as a surface to land on...
You池e couple of predictions could be spot-on. I知 curious about the FAA take and the CCAFS  range about any damage, but I guess that is what FTS is for...

A barge would actually make more sense than a fixed land pad or repurposed oil platform pad, IMO.  It can be placed appropriately down range depending on the trajectory of the particular mission. 

But to your point, firebrick might provide adequate insulation on the barge deck, but can you keep it in place when 100klbs+ of thrust is shooting down on it?
I think any modification to a barge to protect it from heat -and- the force of the thrust would be extensive enough to necessitate SpaceX buying a barge of their own rather that being able to lease a barge asset.

But even with a barge, you have weather concerns, as well as water condition concerns.  Unless you have a whole aircraft carrier or something, the barge would probably be pitching if there's swells while it's trying to maintain a fixed location for the core to target in on, as it would if it were returning to a land location.  Without a a certain forward velocity in swells to help reduce pitching, a barge or ship just trying to maintain position would bob around pretty severely.  (I know that from watching "Deadliest Catch" in high seas!  :-)  )

And I think trying to tow it into the swells to increase stability would then create a probelm with trying to land the F9R core on a moving target (which would still be pitching, just not as much).

And then the F9R core is a very big moment arm while vertical on the deck subject to tipping over on that pitching deck until it's secured. 

So, any F9R launch would require good launch condictions, but also likely very good weather and sea conditions at the target landing zone.

Then there's all that fuel to get the barge (or ship with a large flat deck) out to the target area, and then all the way back to KSC.  Vs. the amount of fuel needed to RTLS.

For all of these various reasons, until I heard SpaceX say otherwise, I'm banking on no downrange SOP recovery for F9R -or- FH's central core.  F9R core will come back to the landing site, as will the FH outboard boosters in almost all missions.  The FH central core will probably usually stage shortly after the boosters so it can get back to the landing site before it gets too far down range and too fast to RTLS.    Having all 3 FH booster RTLS gives a big performance penalty (although it still would probably be good enough for many payloads with only an upper stage expended), so if more capacity than that is required, they'll just expend the central core and be done with it.  The performance then jumps up quite a bit.  Probably enough to handle all or most current payloads, including most USAF/DoD birds.  And only one upper stage and one core is expended.  That's still a very cost effective vehicle for the next several years whole SpaceX tries to carve out commercial and government market share and establish their brand and bona fidas.  Reusable 2nd stages probably get worked on later.

I知 curious about the FAA take and the CCAFS  range about any damage, but I guess that is what FTS is for...

Yup, that'll be an interesting thing to see play out.  I would guess the FTS is what would be used in case there's some control problem as it gets over land at the Cape, which is it's purpose to handle that exact situation during a launch.  Less dangerous though, as there's only a fraction of the fuel on board.  Still, you don't want it crashing down onto some military assets at CCAFS.
That's why I'm surious if they'll cut a deal to use LC-46.  That seems like the most safe and obvious place that's available for lease, at least initially.  More places to ditch in the water if there's a problem out at the point there.  If they get really good at it, they can probably land right back at LC-40 or LC-39A.

[Avron]

A barge would actually make more sense than a fixed land pad or repurposed oil platform pad, IMO.  It can be placed appropriately down range depending on the trajectory of the particular mission. 

Looking at the rest of the post, Elons concept of a "fixed land pad" is superior  - no Russian tug boats to worry about as an additional bonus or salvage rights

[Lar]

Looking at the rest of the post, Elons concept of a "fixed land pad" is superior  - no Russian tug boats to worry about as an additional bonus or salvage rights

You still have to worry about landsharks, though! And Tremors.

(this is the party thread)

[CJ]

Hrmmm..

I think y'all are missing the boat, literally, regarding downrange landing possibilities.  There exists an opportunity here, a synergy, if one things just a little outside the box. 

So, instead of landing the stage on a barge (which isn't stable in swells or high seas) use a very large, stabilized, self-mobile platform, of a kind that are always in the area anyway. They're called cruise ships. Landing the F9 stage on the main pool deck of one would surely make for plenty of news coverage (think of the PR value!) and it'd make for an interesting time for the cruise ship passengers as well.

Doesn't that sound more interesting than going for the humdrum practicality of RTLS?

 

[Rocket Science]

Hey Lobo!
I知 only half serious about a barge, but I guess they could lay down some firebrick as a surface to land on...
You池e couple of predictions could be spot-on. I知 curious about the FAA take and the CCAFS  range about any damage, but I guess that is what FTS is for...

A barge would actually make more sense than a fixed land pad or repurposed oil platform pad, IMO.  It can be placed appropriately down range depending on the trajectory of the particular mission. 

But to your point, firebrick might provide adequate insulation on the barge deck, but can you keep it in place when 100klbs+ of thrust is shooting down on it?
I think any modification to a barge to protect it from heat -and- the force of the thrust would be extensive enough to necessitate SpaceX buying a barge of their own rather that being able to lease a barge asset.

But even with a barge, you have weather concerns, as well as water condition concerns.  Unless you have a whole aircraft carrier or something, the barge would probably be pitching if there's swells while it's trying to maintain a fixed location for the core to target in on, as it would if it were returning to a land location.  Without a a certain forward velocity in swells to help reduce pitching, a barge or ship just trying to maintain position would bob around pretty severely.  (I know that from watching "Deadliest Catch" in high seas!  :-)  )

And I think trying to tow it into the swells to increase stability would then create a probelm with trying to land the F9R core on a moving target (which would still be pitching, just not as much).

And then the F9R core is a very big moment arm while vertical on the deck subject to tipping over on that pitching deck until it's secured. 

So, any F9R launch would require good launch condictions, but also likely very good weather and sea conditions at the target landing zone.

Then there's all that fuel to get the barge (or ship with a large flat deck) out to the target area, and then all the way back to KSC.  Vs. the amount of fuel needed to RTLS.

For all of these various reasons, until I heard SpaceX say otherwise, I'm banking on no downrange SOP recovery for F9R -or- FH's central core.  F9R core will come back to the landing site, as will the FH outboard boosters in almost all missions.  The FH central core will probably usually stage shortly after the boosters so it can get back to the landing site before it gets too far down range and too fast to RTLS.    Having all 3 FH booster RTLS gives a big performance penalty (although it still would probably be good enough for many payloads with only an upper stage expended), so if more capacity than that is required, they'll just expend the central core and be done with it.  The performance then jumps up quite a bit.  Probably enough to handle all or most current payloads, including most USAF/DoD birds.  And only one upper stage and one core is expended.  That's still a very cost effective vehicle for the next several years whole SpaceX tries to carve out commercial and government market share and establish their brand and bona fidas.  Reusable 2nd stages probably get worked on later.

I知 curious about the FAA take and the CCAFS  range about any damage, but I guess that is what FTS is for...

Yup, that'll be an interesting thing to see play out.  I would guess the FTS is what would be used in case there's some control problem as it gets over land at the Cape, which is it's purpose to handle that exact situation during a launch.  Less dangerous though, as there's only a fraction of the fuel on board.  Still, you don't want it crashing down onto some military assets at CCAFS.
That's why I'm surious if they'll cut a deal to use LC-46.  That seems like the most safe and obvious place that's available for lease, at least initially.  More places to ditch in the water if there's a problem out at the point there.  If they get really good at it, they can probably land right back at LC-40 or LC-39A.

All the reasons you stated for the standard ops are valid. My suggestion was only during the last test phase prior to the actual RTLS. Someplace off shore from the Cape in the leeside of a barrier island or sort or a lagoon for calmer water... I don稚 see much on a map until you get to the north end of Florida or into Georgia though. If not firebrick or high temperature concrete, I guess you could pump water across the surface of the steel deck of the barge... A floating crane could move in to stabilize then.

Or you be ballsy and fly straight back to the launch site...

[bunker9603]

A large cargo container ship would work nicely...plenty stable 

[oiorionsbelt]

Or you be ballsy and fly straight back to the launch site...

For rapid reusability this is the only option.

[sanman]

If Gilligan's Island was still on TV, we'd all be watching the intro of the latest episode showing that booster making a powered landing in the lagoon.

[Ronpur50]

Perhaps the next launch will land just offshore of the Cape, far enough away for safety but close enough to show RTLS can be done....and we can see it!

[Comga]

If Gilligan's Island was still on TV, we'd all be watching the intro of the latest episode showing that booster making a powered landing in the lagoon.

sanman is the only one here who appears to know the definition of "party"!

There are (far away) threads for non-SpaceX concepts like landing on barges or semi-submersibles (or cruise ships, but at least that's funny.) so let's keep the (eye roll worthy) armchair engineering there, and keep this thread light.




Love that TV show satellite prop!  Ah, the 60's!

[Rocket Science]

If Gilligan's Island was still on TV, we'd all be watching the intro of the latest episode showing that booster making a powered landing in the lagoon.

sanman is the only one here who appears to know the definition of "party"!

There are (far away) threads for non-SpaceX concepts like landing on barges or semi-submersibles (or cruise ships, but at least that's funny.) so let's keep the (eye roll worthy) armchair engineering there, and keep this thread light.




Love that TV show satellite prop!  Ah, the 60's!

Then the Professor can devise a capsule made out bamboo and coconuts to get them off the island!

[ugordan]

I spotted the Falcon 9 second stage last night right at sundown as it sailed over Tallahassee.  Nice and bright!!!

That would be interesting since the stage was supposed to have been deorbited less than one orbit after launch.

[Prober]

. The test was a success.

but the patient died

just had to do that...but wait this was the zombie falcon

[Lobo]

sanman is the only one here who appears to know the definition of "party"!

Toga!  Toga!  Toga!