-
#680
by
CraigLieb
on 02 Dec, 2015 16:25
-
-
#681
by
mme
on 02 Dec, 2015 16:29
-
...
And of course, FTS would still be there if things goes very badly wrong.
...
If an incoming stage can't stay inside the flight envelope dictated by Range Safety, things have already gone very badly wrong. Whatever agreement Range Safety (and possibly the FAA) come to, it will not depend on the booster that couldn't maintain control being able to control itself. It will be a separate, fail safe system the end result of which can rely on newtonian physics to take it's course and minimize risk to property and life.
Edit/Lar: FAA, not FFA, pretty sure the Future Farmers of America have little say in the process!
-
#682
by
LastStarFighter
on 02 Dec, 2015 16:31
-
With the exception of possibly recovering the core stage of an FH launch at a downrange distance where a return to land is not feasible, I don't see any particular reason to use the barge again.
You may not, but SpaceX disagrees with you. They've specifically noted that the FT version will enable booster recovery downrange for the single-stick version with GTO launches.
I see, wasn't aware of that. They may have some scrubs for offshore weather.
They will (once approved) always go for a land landing if they have the performance for the mission. If the mission requires more energy they will try to land on the barge... If the mission requires even more than that they will expend the stage or use a FH (when it's online). Same is true for the FH. They will fly all three boosters back for land landing (once approved) if the mission allows. Then strap ons back core to the barge. Then core expended. Etc.
-
#683
by
Jim
on 02 Dec, 2015 16:50
-
But I cannot agree that are no constituencies in the various organizations.
And you would be wrong. NASA doesn't where the stage lands or if it lands at all. What the first stage does after separation no play in the mission for NASA. They care about the second stage getting the payload into orbit. NASA has no say in barge or land, since NASA doesn't operate the range or launch base.
-
#684
by
LouScheffer
on 02 Dec, 2015 17:14
-
But I cannot agree that are no constituencies in the various organizations.
And you would be wrong. NASA doesn't where the stage lands or if it lands at all. What the first stage does after separation no play in the mission for NASA. They care about the second stage getting the payload into orbit. NASA has no say in barge or land, since NASA doesn't operate the range or launch base.
And you would be wrong. NASA has a charter to work with partners to reduce the cost of access to space. Landing on land, as opposed to a barge, would surely support this.
From:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Emerging_Space_Report.pdf , section "NASA Engages with Emerging Space: Advancing Space Technology"
NASA's community of innovators includes the NASA workforce, small businesses, and
established and emerging space companies. This is a community that regularly develops, tests, and
implements cutting-edge research, and which yields potentially transformative solutions that can accelerate
timelines, slash costs, or multiply science return.
This is exactly why SpaceX wants to test this - it can potentially reduce costs and accelerate timelines.
-
#685
by
pathfinder_01
on 02 Dec, 2015 17:28
-
But I cannot agree that are no constituencies in the various organizations.
And you would be wrong. NASA doesn't where the stage lands or if it lands at all. What the first stage does after separation no play in the mission for NASA. They care about the second stage getting the payload into orbit. NASA has no say in barge or land, since NASA doesn't operate the range or launch base.
And you would be wrong. NASA has a charter to work with partners to reduce the cost of access to space. Landing on land, as opposed to a barge, would surely support this.
From: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Emerging_Space_Report.pdf , section "NASA Engages with Emerging Space: Advancing Space Technology"
NASA's community of innovators includes the NASA workforce, small businesses, and
established and emerging space companies. This is a community that regularly develops, tests, and
implements cutting-edge research, and which yields potentially transformative solutions that can accelerate
timelines, slash costs, or multiply science return.
This is exactly why SpaceX wants to test this - it can potentially reduce costs and accelerate timelines.
This flight of falcon 9 was not paid for by NASA and is not carrying a NASA payload. FAA and the Range(via the Air Force) are the government organizations charged with protecting people and property from way ward rockets and as such they have control over this landing and any landing. NASA only has an say when carrying an NASA payload and they would not be opposed (they only want to make sure that the payload is not endangered by the attempt to land).
-
#686
by
Jim
on 02 Dec, 2015 17:29
-
And you would be wrong.
And chalk up another wrong for Lou. Those are only words and just a link and not a "constituency". Again, the NASA organization(constituency) that deals with Spacex for spacecraft launches doesn't care.
-
#687
by
LouScheffer
on 02 Dec, 2015 17:44
-
But I cannot agree that are no constituencies in the various organizations.
And you would be wrong. NASA doesn't where the stage lands or if it lands at all. What the first stage does after separation no play in the mission for NASA. They care about the second stage getting the payload into orbit. NASA has no say in barge or land, since NASA doesn't operate the range or launch base.
And you would be wrong. NASA has a charter to work with partners to reduce the cost of access to space. Landing on land, as opposed to a barge, would surely support this.
From: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Emerging_Space_Report.pdf , section "NASA Engages with Emerging Space: Advancing Space Technology"
NASA's community of innovators includes the NASA workforce, small businesses, and established and emerging space companies. This is a community that regularly develops, tests, and implements cutting-edge research, and which yields potentially transformative solutions that can accelerate timelines, slash costs, or multiply science return.
This is exactly why SpaceX wants to test this - it can potentially reduce costs and accelerate timelines.
This flight of falcon 9 was not paid for by NASA and is not carrying a NASA payload. FAA and the Range(via the Air Force) are the government organizations charged with protecting people and property from way ward rockets and as such they have control over this landing and any landing. NASA only has an say when carrying an NASA payload and they would not be opposed (they only want to make sure that the payload is not endangered by the attempt to land).
NASA is not a monolithic entity, and different portions can and do have different goals - that's what's referred to by the "constituencies" above. The range group indeed does not care where it lands, or even if it makes it to orbit, provided it is safe. The payload group (when there is a NASA payload) cares only about the payload, and has no concern over what happens to the booster after separation. The hypersonics group explicitly cared about the booster re-entry, enough to send a plane to film it. They did not care about what the second stage did, or if the payload reached orbit, or if the booster landed. The group that works with private industry to reduce the cost of access to space *does* care what happens to the booster after separation. And so on...
-
#688
by
wannamoonbase
on 02 Dec, 2015 17:45
-
When should we expect to see a booster on stand for a static fire?
-
#689
by
abaddon
on 02 Dec, 2015 17:53
-
I see, wasn't aware of that. They may have some scrubs for offshore weather.
That is true, but it's possible there will be more options than with Shuttle booster recovery, as the booster could theoretically boost laterally to target a platform north or south of the launch trajectory by potentially hundreds of miles. This might give them some flexibility to avoid predicted weather patterns in the area.
There's obviously some lag time involved based on the platform's ability to navigate to the updated location as well as the ability to update the booster flight software to know where to go and how to get there... hard to say how flexible they will be in reality especially at the start. But it's something that down the road could mitigate some of the downrange scrubbing they might otherwise see.
-
#690
by
macpacheco
on 02 Dec, 2015 17:54
-
Going back a bit, how far offshore would a barge need to be stationed before you don't need launch range approval to land there?
SpaceX could test the vast majority of flyback and still land a couple or more miles off shore.
I don't know if I they could get any closer w/o approval, but for more than one effort the local news in Jacksonville has reported the barge was 200 miles offshore.
I don't recall anybody saying the barge was 200 miles from shore due to minimum safe distance from shore, but rather that 200 miles was as natural minimum energy (zero boost back) trajectory.
Not that my opinion is worth anything, but it makes zero sense that SpaceX couldn't land 30 or so miles offshore because that's too close to land for safety. Specially after SpaceX has demonstrated the returning stage found the target landing coordinates with very high accuracy on every single attempt (in some attempts the barge was there, in some attempts it wasn't on purpose). I think 10 miles from land would be an excellent compromise if landing in terra firma isn't granted at this point.
-
#691
by
Jim
on 02 Dec, 2015 18:04
-
The group that works with private industry to reduce the cost of access to space *does* care what happens to the booster after separation. And so on...
There is no such group nor is there a NASA range group.
-
#692
by
cscott
on 02 Dec, 2015 18:13
-
When should we expect to see a booster on stand for a static fire?
A week-ish, I think.
-
#693
by
rsnellenberger
on 02 Dec, 2015 18:15
-
Have we seen any information about how the existing Range Safety Officer support tools will monitor a booster that is inbound to a landing site? Have they extended the "standard" monitoring displays (whatever they are) or was that ability already built into the system?
Also, how and when will the RSO consoles transition from "launch mode" (when tracking toward land = bad) to "landing mode" (when tracking toward land = good)?
-
#694
by
Mike_1179
on 02 Dec, 2015 18:30
-
When should we expect to see a booster on stand for a static fire?
For CRS-6, static fire was on 11 April and launch was 13 April
For CRS-7, static fire was on 26 June and launch was on 28 June
If they’re shooting for a mid-December launch, static fire could be just over a week from now if they’re holding to that same timing
-
#695
by
LouScheffer
on 02 Dec, 2015 19:00
-
The group that works with private industry to reduce the cost of access to space *does* care what happens to the booster after separation. And so on...
There is no such group.
There may be no such group, but NASA as a whole believes its mandate includes working on this. Again from
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Emerging_Space_Report.pdf :
In addition to executing its scientific and human spaceflight programs, NASA also has a legislated responsibility to "encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space."
NASA has taken steps to foster the emerging space industry in a deliberate effort to build capability and seed an expansion of economic activity. Through competition for cargo and ultimately crew transportation to the ISS, NASA is helping to develop commercial capabilities that can enable new markets and increased American competitiveness in existing ones.
By leveraging NASA's modest support with their own resources, American companies are lowering the cost of launching cargo into space. As lower launch costs transform economic decision-making, new markets for services that once were cost-prohibitive are becoming increasingly realistic ...
So NASA believes that reducing costs is within its mandate, and believes it has worked with commercial vendors to help accomplish this. Group or not, someone within NASA did this work.
And if no-one in NASA is trying to help SpaceX attempt a land landing, that's a pretty strong indictment of NASA. In private industry, when a vendor comes to you and says they have a method that may reduce costs significantly, and asks if they can test it provided they can do so safely, you help them. You do this both to build your relationship with the vendor, and in your own self interest of lower prices in the future. If NASA does not have a constituency ("a group of supporters or patrons") that is trying to encourage experiments that could reduce they cost of flight, then it's in violation of its own self-declared responsibility.
-
#696
by
llanitedave
on 02 Dec, 2015 19:14
-
But I cannot agree that are no constituencies in the various organizations.
And you would be wrong. NASA doesn't where the stage lands or if it lands at all. What the first stage does after separation no play in the mission for NASA. They care about the second stage getting the payload into orbit. NASA has no say in barge or land, since NASA doesn't operate the range or launch base.
If NASA didn't care they would not have been interested in getting the data from the hypersonic reentry burn a few flights ago.
-
#697
by
georgegassaway
on 02 Dec, 2015 19:18
-
OK, my take on reading the Florida Today article is that the NEXT launch (the one AFTER Orbcomm-2) MIGHT try to land back at the Cape.
Now some are talking as though RTF is really going to try to land at LC-13 / Landing Complex-1.
So, I am wondering, have I missed seeing some solid facts that plans have truly changed and it will try to land at the Cape, including CCAFS permission to land? Or are some just going off half-cocked or just too giddy over the idea of a possible landing in 2 weeks to bother for solid info and people assume that CCAFS/AirForce/FAA will grant the permission if SpaceX gets enough media stories going about wanting to land there soon?
Anyway, I'm mainly posting this right now to find out if this really is for real and I've not found the right source to confirm it. Or if it's for now a lot of excitement over the idea but more wishful thinking, or possibility, than FACT?
-
#698
by
edkyle99
on 02 Dec, 2015 19:34
-
OK, my take on reading the Florida Today article is that the NEXT launch (the one AFTER Orbcomm-2) MIGHT try to land back at the Cape.
Now some are talking as though RTF is really going to try to land at LC-13 / Landing Complex-1.
It is the next (Orbcomm 2) launch that could see a landing at X1. As the article notes, it hinges on FAA and/or USAF approval. SpaceX probably needs to do its own final assessment too, and it probably depends on whether the landing site is actually going to be ready.
This is the best candidate for the attempt, because the payload is far lighter than the launch vehicle's capability. The first stage will probably be able to loft a lot, reducing the return distance.
- Ed Kyle
-
#699
by
rcoppola
on 02 Dec, 2015 19:47
-
The article is not entirely clear on the first reading but Ed is right as can been seen in the second paragraph when the "next" flight is mentioned within the context of being the RTF.
