Can anyone confirm what are the cubesats on CRS5 (Flock-1d'1, Flock-1d'2 and AESP-14?)?
Does anyone know if the vehicle spent the intervening time up at the pad or back in the hangar? Is it up now?
Quote from: meekGee on 01/04/2015 11:06 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/04/2015 10:17 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/04/2015 09:51 pmThe diagram above shows a re-entry burn, but no boost-back burn.For forward recovery, this makes sense.However, I think this test includes some boost-back. I say that, because on the nav charts, the intended landing zone is #3 out of 4. It makes sense to me that the furthest zone (#4) is a contingency zone in case the boost-back burn does not happen, and zone #2 is in case the re-entry burn does not happen, and zone #3 is where the X is.Why are they doing boost-back when they can just park the barge further out? Maybe it's part of practicing RTLS, so going through all the motions. When it's time to do FH center cores, they might skip the boost back.I think Zone 4 is where the stage comes down if re-entry burn doesn't happen.The stage is going pretty fast when the re-entry burn happens. If it fails, it will keep going quickly and end up overshooting the intended landing zone.If there's only one burn (apart from the landing burn) then there should be only 3 zones, no?Maybe. Or maybe Zone 2 is for something else. Maybe it's where the rocket drops if something goes wrong at max-Q.Zone 2 is small and separated from everything else. Zone 3 has a tail that stretches to Zone 4. That seems to imply to me that there's a continuum of possible failure cases that stretch from Zone 4 to the target in Zone 3. That is consistent with Zone 4 being the failure case for the re-entry burn. If the re-entry burn fails partway through, the rocket ends up somewhere in the tail between the target point and Zone 4, which is all part of Zone 3.In your theory, the boostback burn changes the target point from Zone 4 to Zone 2, then the re-entry burn changes the target point from Zone 2 to Zone 3. So why a tail between Zone 3 and Zone 4?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 01/04/2015 10:17 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/04/2015 09:51 pmThe diagram above shows a re-entry burn, but no boost-back burn.For forward recovery, this makes sense.However, I think this test includes some boost-back. I say that, because on the nav charts, the intended landing zone is #3 out of 4. It makes sense to me that the furthest zone (#4) is a contingency zone in case the boost-back burn does not happen, and zone #2 is in case the re-entry burn does not happen, and zone #3 is where the X is.Why are they doing boost-back when they can just park the barge further out? Maybe it's part of practicing RTLS, so going through all the motions. When it's time to do FH center cores, they might skip the boost back.I think Zone 4 is where the stage comes down if re-entry burn doesn't happen.The stage is going pretty fast when the re-entry burn happens. If it fails, it will keep going quickly and end up overshooting the intended landing zone.If there's only one burn (apart from the landing burn) then there should be only 3 zones, no?
Quote from: meekGee on 01/04/2015 09:51 pmThe diagram above shows a re-entry burn, but no boost-back burn.For forward recovery, this makes sense.However, I think this test includes some boost-back. I say that, because on the nav charts, the intended landing zone is #3 out of 4. It makes sense to me that the furthest zone (#4) is a contingency zone in case the boost-back burn does not happen, and zone #2 is in case the re-entry burn does not happen, and zone #3 is where the X is.Why are they doing boost-back when they can just park the barge further out? Maybe it's part of practicing RTLS, so going through all the motions. When it's time to do FH center cores, they might skip the boost back.I think Zone 4 is where the stage comes down if re-entry burn doesn't happen.The stage is going pretty fast when the re-entry burn happens. If it fails, it will keep going quickly and end up overshooting the intended landing zone.
The diagram above shows a re-entry burn, but no boost-back burn.For forward recovery, this makes sense.However, I think this test includes some boost-back. I say that, because on the nav charts, the intended landing zone is #3 out of 4. It makes sense to me that the furthest zone (#4) is a contingency zone in case the boost-back burn does not happen, and zone #2 is in case the re-entry burn does not happen, and zone #3 is where the X is.Why are they doing boost-back when they can just park the barge further out? Maybe it's part of practicing RTLS, so going through all the motions. When it's time to do FH center cores, they might skip the boost back.
I think I have solved it! Zone 2 (Blue area B on my map https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zp15b_P5ERVk.koWeOnV6-O-o) is a continuation of the liftoff zone (Yellow area A) with a break in it to act as a ship corridor. To test this I tracked and plotted a line of 3 tanker ships in the area and they are pretty much dead center of the gap.
Drone spaceport ship heads to its hold position in the Atlantic to prepare for a rocket landing
Quote from: Darga on 01/05/2015 06:28 pmI think I have solved it! Zone 2 (Blue area B on my map https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zp15b_P5ERVk.koWeOnV6-O-o) is a continuation of the liftoff zone (Yellow area A) with a break in it to act as a ship corridor. To test this I tracked and plotted a line of 3 tanker ships in the area and they are pretty much dead center of the gap.Why would there be a ship corridor in the middle of an exclusion zone? The point of an exclusion zone is to prevent ships from traveling there, lest a rocket fall on their heads.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/17/2014 03:34 amQuote from: Lars-J on 12/17/2014 01:40 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 12/16/2014 10:13 pm The propulsion system must only be used for station keeping as barge is being pushed by a tug. That was never in doubt for most of us - except for a vocal minority here.Hey, you could've been wrong. No one who knows marine vessels ever thought differently. This platform is much more barge than ship. Now that we've seen new pictures it appears modifications are minimal. Only whats needed to be a stable base for initial landings and not much else. Very much in the SpaceX style of doing business.
Quote from: Lars-J on 12/17/2014 01:40 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 12/16/2014 10:13 pm The propulsion system must only be used for station keeping as barge is being pushed by a tug. That was never in doubt for most of us - except for a vocal minority here.Hey, you could've been wrong.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 12/16/2014 10:13 pm The propulsion system must only be used for station keeping as barge is being pushed by a tug. That was never in doubt for most of us - except for a vocal minority here.
The propulsion system must only be used for station keeping as barge is being pushed by a tug.
Quote from: Helodriver on 12/17/2014 04:50 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 12/17/2014 03:34 amQuote from: Lars-J on 12/17/2014 01:40 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 12/16/2014 10:13 pm The propulsion system must only be used for station keeping as barge is being pushed by a tug. That was never in doubt for most of us - except for a vocal minority here.Hey, you could've been wrong. No one who knows marine vessels ever thought differently. This platform is much more barge than ship. Now that we've seen new pictures it appears modifications are minimal. Only whats needed to be a stable base for initial landings and not much else. Very much in the SpaceX style of doing business. Getting back to this issue of the question of whether the propulsion system would only be used for station-keeping, it looks like we have a better answer:https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/552182273865699328"Drone spaceport ship heads to its hold position in the Atlantic to prepare for a rocket landing" (@elonmusk) (emphasis mine)...I just want to say... "Neener"
