And yet another article including a link to the distant video mentioned here before, and quite a few other details, of which perhaps something might be new to one or another of us. New to me was the assertion of a planned August west coast flight (from Vandenburg) currently slated to attempt barge recovery.
Department Of Thinking Out Loud : I reckon there's a few reasons to do another barge landing attempt.
- to prove it can be done. SpaceX has got to be populated by type-A personalities.
- SpaceX may not have FAA approval for a land return as yet ie. they might need to prove to a harder standard with the barge business. Once certified by actual demonstration ( times N ) then they may get approval for return to launch site flightplan.
- it will always be incredibly valuable to have an offshore return option succeed. Not just for Falcon 9 in the near term but as a generic methodology for way into the future. If this is to apply to the Falcon Heavy then there's a gaggle of components to recover after each launch. It has already been demonstrated to land beautifully on target but into waves .... we want the dry landing bit. Most of the world's surface is water and thus unlocking this method has got to be an enormously useful breakthrough.
On that last point it may be even more energetically favourable ( I'll have to think about this ) to not do a boost back. Just go further downrange and land quite distally. To be effective that would need a longer upper atmosphere phase to bleed more kinetic energy though. I think there is design room to put in a purely drag type drogue device ( not necessarily a chute ) on top of the 1st stage ie. packed just under the interstage. Deploy it first up at hypersonic speed but before the fin usage, and then toss it.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Drogues work like a 'sea anchor' ie. doesn't hook into the seabed. It can be as simple as a large bag full of sand on a rope say, and slows the drift simply by resisting motion through the water. Blue water fishermen occasionally use their fishing nets in a drogue like fashion.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
... the carrier rocket’s third stage irregularly detached from the spacecraft.
Quote:
Presumably, two successive events occurred: after the sustainer of the third stage of the carrier rocket turned off, first the oxidizer tank, and then the propellant tank of the carrier rocket’s third stage were depressurized.
'irregularly detached' + 'depressurized' ? You think so ? :-) :-)
On June 9, 2015, at 6.32 p.m. Moscow time, during the scheduled test of the radio system of rapprochement and docking of the ISS and Soyuz spacecraft, the Soyuz engines started operating non-nominally, which resulted in a slight change of the location of the ISS. The necessary measures have been taken to stabilize the ISS.
The ISS crews, the station itself, and Soyuz TMA-15M spacecraft’s regular return trip to Earth are out of danger. Roscosmos experts are establishing the causes of the incident, which will be revealed later.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) I shouldn't be laughing. Not too long later the same thing could have been tragic.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
the cause of the spacecraft's damage resulting from irregular detachment of the cargo transport spacecraft from the 3rd stage of the carrier rocket LIES IN THE PECULIARITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPLEX OF THE CARGO SPACECRAFT AND THE CARRIER ROCKET, related to the frequency and dynamic characteristics of the complex of the carrier rocket's first stage and the cargo transport spacecraft.
This construction peculiarity was not duly taken into account in the process of the design and tests of the rocket and space complex.
Which is Russian speak for "We had a duff design but nobody noticed it".
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Department Of Thinking Out Loud : I reckon there's a few reasons to do another barge landing attempt.
- it will always be incredibly valuable to have an offshore return option succeed. Not just for Falcon 9 in the near term but as a generic methodology for way into the future. If this is to apply to the Falcon Heavy then there's a gaggle of components to recover after each launch. It has already been demonstrated to land beautifully on target but into waves .... we want the dry landing bit. Most of the world's surface is water and thus unlocking this method has got to be an enormously useful breakthrough.
On that last point it may be even more energetically favourable ( I'll have to think about this ) to not do a boost back. Just go further downrange and land quite distally. To be effective that would need a longer upper atmosphere phase to bleed more kinetic energy though. I think there is design room to put in a purely drag type drogue device ( not necessarily a chute ) on top of the 1st stage ie. packed just under the interstage. Deploy it first up at hypersonic speed but before the fin usage, and then toss it.
I think the offshore return will be the norm, for the flexibility and safety aspect. Looking at the speeds and energies involved and the degree of difficulty landing such an unstable shape, any small loss of control ends up with bad news, (apart from fireworks night!), best kept off shore... even the perfect landing will be unhinged with a gust of wind, a small swell, even landing off centre will tip the barge.
I keep thinking if it is accurate enough to land on a barge, surely some open structure smart enough to catch it if necessary, should be made (and tested).
Landing aircraft at sea has multiple fail safes and ways of catching them, and once landed, aircraft are unlikely to topple over in rough weather.
I hope they nail it this time, but plan B at the moment is Bang, and i think they are missing opportunities to test a recovery system.
I think the offshore return will be the norm, for the flexibility and safety aspect. Looking at the speeds and energies involved and the degree of difficulty landing such an unstable shape, any small loss of control ends up with bad news, (apart from fireworks night!), best kept off shore... even the perfect landing will be unhinged with a gust of wind, a small swell, even landing off centre will tip the barge.
I would disagree. The entire point of a returnable/reusable module is to cut/reduce launch costs. Even if every offshore recovery is 100% the costs associated with ships/equipment at sea to move this thing off the barge to another floating device for transport to land is going to add significantly to the recovery expenses. Also as you state, a successful recovery can be undone should oceanic conditions degrade. How will they ensure that the 1st stage remains upright on a floating barge?
For the present they must demonstrate that the concept is doable. Then they must demonstrate that it can be successfully repetitive. Then they can move to land based recoveries. One needs to understand that Americans are law suit happy. This does complicate land based recoveries at this point in their development. Also any aircraft, and I will include a 1st stage rocket, must acquire clearance before penetrating the ADIZ or they will be met with other aircraft. Not sure how this aspect would be handled when penetrating the stratosphere. Another aspect to consider is how does one ensure separation between "returing rockets" and normal aircraft? Ideally land based recoveries would occur at a "field" that would have the resources necessary to turn around a recovered 1st stage, even if that means it has to be trucked to a launch site. I feel fairly safe in saying the the Kennedy Space center lacks this capability at this time although its not to say it could not be upgraded to do so.
The entire point of a returnable/reusable module is to cut/reduce launch costs.
Well my thinking was, the cost to move large things, is a lot less by sea than by land. And of course, a lot less if you don´t have to move them at all!
These big things landing unnecessarily near to others being assembled and refuelled, i just can´t see anyone wanting to take the risk.
Fuel costs to get back must be a big factor, I seem to recall the Saturn 5 first stages were recovered recently about 500 miles from Florida, a lot extra energy is needed to reverse all the effort and turn back.
The second stages will have an even more difficult task in getting back.
I found this post showing locations of the first and second stage locations Apollo 7-17 which shows quite a scatter.
Quote:
How will they ensure that the 1st stage remains upright on a floating barge?
This is my point - not well made, SpaceX are missing the opportunity to build and test a secondary catching system, which if working at sea, should work on land. Such a system could also assist in the safe transit to shore. We are yet to see what happens on the barge after a successful landing, so maybe some surprise awaits.
Quote:
One needs to understand that Americans are law suit happy. This does complicate land based recoveries at this point in their development. Also any aircraft, and I will include a 1st stage rocket, must acquire clearance before penetrating the ADIZ or they will be met with other aircraft.
I think these cost issues are reduced by offshore landing as getting airspace and legal space is a lot cheaper 500 miles out to sea.
And yet another article
)
And yet another article including a link to the distant video mentioned here before, and quite a few other details, of which perhaps something might be new to one or another of us. New to me was the assertion of a planned August west coast flight (from Vandenburg) currently slated to attempt barge recovery.
Department Of Thinking Out
)
Department Of Thinking Out Loud : I reckon there's a few reasons to do another barge landing attempt.
- to prove it can be done. SpaceX has got to be populated by type-A personalities.
- SpaceX may not have FAA approval for a land return as yet ie. they might need to prove to a harder standard with the barge business. Once certified by actual demonstration ( times N ) then they may get approval for return to launch site flightplan.
- it will always be incredibly valuable to have an offshore return option succeed. Not just for Falcon 9 in the near term but as a generic methodology for way into the future. If this is to apply to the Falcon Heavy then there's a gaggle of components to recover after each launch. It has already been demonstrated to land beautifully on target but into waves .... we want the dry landing bit. Most of the world's surface is water and thus unlocking this method has got to be an enormously useful breakthrough.
On that last point it may be even more energetically favourable ( I'll have to think about this ) to not do a boost back. Just go further downrange and land quite distally. To be effective that would need a longer upper atmosphere phase to bleed more kinetic energy though. I think there is design room to put in a purely drag type drogue device ( not necessarily a chute ) on top of the 1st stage ie. packed just under the interstage. Deploy it first up at hypersonic speed but before the fin usage, and then toss it.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) Drogues work like a 'sea anchor' ie. doesn't hook into the seabed. It can be as simple as a large bag full of sand on a rope say, and slows the drift simply by resisting motion through the water. Blue water fishermen occasionally use their fishing nets in a drogue like fashion.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
From the inquiry and
)
From the inquiry and conclusions into the recent Soyuz loss :
'irregularly detached' + 'depressurized' ? You think so ? :-) :-)
and then there is the other event :
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) I shouldn't be laughing. Not too long later the same thing could have been tragic.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: the cause of the
)
Which is Russian speak for "We had a duff design but nobody noticed it".
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
RE: Department Of Thinking
)
I think the offshore return will be the norm, for the flexibility and safety aspect. Looking at the speeds and energies involved and the degree of difficulty landing such an unstable shape, any small loss of control ends up with bad news, (apart from fireworks night!), best kept off shore... even the perfect landing will be unhinged with a gust of wind, a small swell, even landing off centre will tip the barge.
I keep thinking if it is accurate enough to land on a barge, surely some open structure smart enough to catch it if necessary, should be made (and tested).
Landing aircraft at sea has multiple fail safes and ways of catching them, and once landed, aircraft are unlikely to topple over in rough weather.
I hope they nail it this time, but plan B at the moment is Bang, and i think they are missing opportunities to test a recovery system.
RE: I think the offshore
)
I would disagree. The entire point of a returnable/reusable module is to cut/reduce launch costs. Even if every offshore recovery is 100% the costs associated with ships/equipment at sea to move this thing off the barge to another floating device for transport to land is going to add significantly to the recovery expenses. Also as you state, a successful recovery can be undone should oceanic conditions degrade. How will they ensure that the 1st stage remains upright on a floating barge?
For the present they must demonstrate that the concept is doable. Then they must demonstrate that it can be successfully repetitive. Then they can move to land based recoveries. One needs to understand that Americans are law suit happy. This does complicate land based recoveries at this point in their development. Also any aircraft, and I will include a 1st stage rocket, must acquire clearance before penetrating the ADIZ or they will be met with other aircraft. Not sure how this aspect would be handled when penetrating the stratosphere. Another aspect to consider is how does one ensure separation between "returing rockets" and normal aircraft? Ideally land based recoveries would occur at a "field" that would have the resources necessary to turn around a recovered 1st stage, even if that means it has to be trucked to a launch site. I feel fairly safe in saying the the Kennedy Space center lacks this capability at this time although its not to say it could not be upgraded to do so.
RE: The entire point of a
)
Well my thinking was, the cost to move large things, is a lot less by sea than by land. And of course, a lot less if you don´t have to move them at all!
These big things landing unnecessarily near to others being assembled and refuelled, i just can´t see anyone wanting to take the risk.
Fuel costs to get back must be a big factor, I seem to recall the Saturn 5 first stages were recovered recently about 500 miles from Florida, a lot extra energy is needed to reverse all the effort and turn back.
The second stages will have an even more difficult task in getting back.
I found this post showing locations of the first and second stage locations Apollo 7-17 which shows quite a scatter.
This is my point - not well made, SpaceX are missing the opportunity to build and test a secondary catching system, which if working at sea, should work on land. Such a system could also assist in the safe transit to shore. We are yet to see what happens on the barge after a successful landing, so maybe some surprise awaits.
I think these cost issues are reduced by offshore landing as getting airspace and legal space is a lot cheaper 500 miles out to sea.
Anyways fingers crossed for Sunday...
weather here is outstanding.
)
weather here is outstanding. here is the link to the live feed. As of now: 1h6m to launch.
The launch vehicle appears to
)
The launch vehicle appears to have disintegrated a little after two minutes after liftoff, not long after Max-Q.
RE: The launch vehicle
)
Yep (
http://rt.com/usa/270268-falcon-launch-space-fail/