Thanks. You're probably 100% right since nothing catastrophic occurred
Quote from: SoulWager on 01/15/2015 05:05 pmQuote from: TomH on 01/15/2015 04:40 pmSorry if this was reported elsewhere and I missed it. How hard was the landing and how much hardware remained intact and on the deck of the ship? The main reason in asking is to know whether there was enough of the engine power packs, recovered and intact, to examine the degree of wear, coking, etc.My understanding is that the stage was nearly vertical and moving horizontally toward the center of the barge when it hit the hull or support equipment from the side(very close to zero vertical velocity), with the lox tank and interstage tipping onto the landing platform, and the RP-1 tank onto the support equipment. I'm pretty sure the octoweb and engines went into the ocean.Sorry, but HOW do we know that? There's been lots of fun speculation, but unless SpaceX has released something I missed, then we simply don't know what "hard" landing meant.
Quote from: TomH on 01/15/2015 04:40 pmSorry if this was reported elsewhere and I missed it. How hard was the landing and how much hardware remained intact and on the deck of the ship? The main reason in asking is to know whether there was enough of the engine power packs, recovered and intact, to examine the degree of wear, coking, etc.My understanding is that the stage was nearly vertical and moving horizontally toward the center of the barge when it hit the hull or support equipment from the side(very close to zero vertical velocity), with the lox tank and interstage tipping onto the landing platform, and the RP-1 tank onto the support equipment. I'm pretty sure the octoweb and engines went into the ocean.
Sorry if this was reported elsewhere and I missed it. How hard was the landing and how much hardware remained intact and on the deck of the ship? The main reason in asking is to know whether there was enough of the engine power packs, recovered and intact, to examine the degree of wear, coking, etc.
In other news, it looks like the F9 2nd stage has re-entered Earth's atmosphere late on January 17 over far-eastern Russia (near the Chinese border and the Vostochny Cosmodrome), and was widely observed by residents there:See http://satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2015/0122.html and http://www.spaceflight101.com/re-entry-of-falcon-9-second-stage-observed-over-eastern-russia.html for details.
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/20/2015 10:11 amIn other news, it looks like the F9 2nd stage has re-entered Earth's atmosphere late on January 17 over far-eastern Russia (near the Chinese border and the Vostochny Cosmodrome), and was widely observed by residents there:See http://satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2015/0122.html and http://www.spaceflight101.com/re-entry-of-falcon-9-second-stage-observed-over-eastern-russia.html for details.Is that confirmed or just speculation? Almost all upper stages for CRS flights have been disposed of in the ocean south of Australia/New Zealand.
Because of the recovery, is has been assumed that the second stage was left with too little margin to perform a deorbit. I did see a calculation made by an organization whose name I can't recall on when the stage was expected to re-enter. On a calculation that was +/- 7 min they were only off by 2 seconds. So someone was watching this closely, and it was expected.
Is there a mechanism to take dragon trunk cargo inside the ISS ? Or all trunk cargo is meant for attaching outside the ISS ?
Quote from: Dudely on 01/21/2015 01:14 pmBecause of the recovery, is has been assumed that the second stage was left with too little margin to perform a deorbit. I did see a calculation made by an organization whose name I can't recall on when the stage was expected to re-enter. On a calculation that was +/- 7 min they were only off by 2 seconds. So someone was watching this closely, and it was expected.I have to question that - With atmospheric density fluctuations, it is *impossible* to predict re-entry with that detail. How far in advance was this claim made?
Wow, in that case it sounds like return circuit would at least provide more reliability than some arbitrary increase in hydraulic fluid. What if the random aerodynamic forces cause the next return flight to consume more than the extra 50% fluid allocated? How much mass are we talking about here - pounds, or tens of pounds, or hundreds?Or instead of hydraulics, couldn't they try to use electromechanical, or pneumatics, or something else?It sounds like those hydraulics are going to pose a reliability issue down the road.
Wow, in that case it sounds like return circuit would at least provide more reliability than some arbitrary increase in hydraulic fluid. What if the random aerodynamic forces cause the next return flight to consume more than the extra 50% fluid allocated? How much mass are we talking about here - pounds, or tens of pounds, or hundreds?Or instead of hydraulics, couldn't they try to use electromechanical, or pneumatics, or something else?It sounds like those hydraulics are going to pose a reliability issue in the longer run.
The aerodynamics don't vary *that* much from flight to flight.
