This guy was pretty close to both the launch and landing pad. So close, in fact, that it's the only video I've seen where the sonic booms arrived 13 seconds before landing.
Reading about the lattice (grid) fins, I see that high pressure hydraulic fluid is vented when they are operating. Could some of the "soot" covering the stage be this fluid accumulating after being vented during reentry? - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/24/2015 03:22 pmReading about the lattice (grid) fins, I see that high pressure hydraulic fluid is vented when they are operating. Could some of the "soot" covering the stage be this fluid accumulating after being vented during reentry? - Ed KyleWhat happens to the spent hydraulic fluid was debated extensively in the link below. Some people believe it's vented out of the interstage, others argued it's captured in a waste tank.So whether or not you believe any of the fluid may be now visible on the skin of the stage depends on your opinion as to whether or not the spent fluid is recaptured.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36536.0My own guess is that they dump the fluid in order to avoid the extra weight and cost of a catchment tank and plumbing.OTOH, one argument against that view is that no one has been able to see evidence of hydraulic fluid on the skin of Grasshopper in photos or videos of its hops in TX.
Kabloona, your guess is exactly right. Interesting to know of that older thread you found and the same debate. There was the following within my long quote yesterday from Spaceflight101, and now I understand it more clearly myself. I thought they were saying the whole tank for hydraulic fluid was dumped overboard."The four fins are rotated and tilted independently by an open hydraulic system using pressurized hydraulic fluid supplied from a pressurized tank that is dumped overboard after flowing through the hydraulic actuators of the fin system. The design was also driven by overall mass considerations."
One more pic from LZ-1.https://mobile.twitter.com/SpaceXTrip/status/679933830493540353/photo/1
So the recovered first stage will be erected at 39A and static fired. Was there ever any serious consideration given to launching it again with a mass simulator replacing the second stage and payload? The stage has been paid for already, so it would be essentially "free" flight testing. Maybe even keep sending it uphill until it finally fails, with inspections between each flight. The hardware costs would be minimal, mainly the cost of a mass simulator for each flight, plus the cost of propellant.If that was too much, how about dropping a nose cone on it and launching it straight up, like New Shepard but a lot higher? Instead of reaching a measly 100.5 km, it might reach 500 km or more. Or would that be too "In your face, Bezos!" for SpaceX?
The stage has been paid for already, so it would be essentially "free" flight testing.
Before the memory of the crane-supported stage fades from mind, I had this question: How do you suppose they attached the lifting apparatus to the top of the stage prior to the crane applying tension to it? Was it a ring that just dangled and docked into place, or would there have been some worker assistance with the fittings? (and if so, how the heck did they get up there?)
Quote from: Mongo62 on 12/24/2015 08:48 pmThe stage has been paid for already, so it would be essentially "free" flight testing.It would not be free for two reasons. First is obvious: ops, permissions and all of that means a lot of workhours for a lot of people.Second is opportunity cost. It is possible to have better use of stage than something that amounts to stunt.