SpaceX launch today
Discussion
I wonder how the controlled re-entry and splashdown of the 1st stage went?
1946 GMT (3:46 p.m. EDT)
During the final phase of the launch, a member of the SpaceX launch team said the first stage had re-ignited and ground teams were receiving video of the stage during descent into the Atlantic Ocean. We'll provide an update on that phase of the mission when we have more information.
1946 GMT (3:46 p.m. EDT)
During the final phase of the launch, a member of the SpaceX launch team said the first stage had re-ignited and ground teams were receiving video of the stage during descent into the Atlantic Ocean. We'll provide an update on that phase of the mission when we have more information.
Sounds better than last time at least:
Elon's Twitter Account said:
Last known state for rocket boost stage is 360 m/s, Mach 1.1, 8.5 km altitude and roll rate close to zero (v important!)
9:48 PM - 18 Apr 2014
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/statuses/457259334414...9:48 PM - 18 Apr 2014
Well done SpaceX. Very smooth launch (with a one second launch window!) and a better than expected soft landing in the ocean. Elon put the odds of succes at no better than 50:50 but it appears the reentry and soft landing worked more or less as planned. Elon quoted as saying based on yesterday's result there is the possibility SpaceX may be able to reuse a first stage sometime next year.
This and Skylon look very promising.
This and Skylon look very promising.
Eric Mc said:
Sounds promising. Of course, their ultimate aim is to bring the thing down for a soft landing on solid ground.
F9R ( successor to Grasshopper ) 1st flight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjWqQPWmsYEric Mc said:
The difficult part (not that any of this stuff is easy) seems to be getting the falling first stage, after it detaches from the second stage, back into a stable mode before deploying the landing legs and igniting the braking engine.
I understand for this flight the 1st stage had been fitted with more powerful attitude thrusters so that it could maintain stability.
Eric Mc said:
The difficult part (not that any of this stuff is easy) seems to be getting the falling first stage, after it detaches from the second stage, back into a stable mode before deploying the landing legs and igniting the braking engine.
Indeed. Rotating a 48 metre fuselage at Mach 6 just sounds crazy. Presumably they do that part early to reduce the effect of drag at higher altitude. The legs deploy during the landing burn. All deeply impressive stuff.When an object as fragile as an empty rocket stage is tumbling at such high speeds there is a real danger of structural break up. Getting the whole thing into a stable mode is vital before deploying parachutes, landing legs etc.
Back in the 1960s, NASA did seriously look at the possibility of recovering the first stages of the Saturn IB and the Saturn V but decided that it was all a bit "too hard".
I often think that, once they had completed the basic moon landing missions, the should have gone down the route of trying to make stages of the Saturn V recoverable. I am sure the costs involved in doing this would have been a lot less than developing an entire new system (the Space Shuttle) from scratch.
Back in the 1960s, NASA did seriously look at the possibility of recovering the first stages of the Saturn IB and the Saturn V but decided that it was all a bit "too hard".
I often think that, once they had completed the basic moon landing missions, the should have gone down the route of trying to make stages of the Saturn V recoverable. I am sure the costs involved in doing this would have been a lot less than developing an entire new system (the Space Shuttle) from scratch.
Recovering the S-1C was investigated, but as you say Eric it was deemed too difficult/expensive for the planned production run of Saturn Vs. I think it may have been considered further if the Saturn V ( and/or the various planned variants ) were kept in production. The weight of the recovery equipment could have been partially compensated for by deleting the fins, which I understand had been found to be unneccesary, and by stretching the fuel tankage a little to allow a longer engine burn, plus the use of the higher performance F-1A engines.
Recovering the S-II would have been a lot more difficult due to the need for heatshielding to protect it during its re-entry from near orbital speeds.
The S-IVB stage could also have been modified for recovery, essentially replacing it with the S-IVB derived SASSTO with a plug nozzle engine. There were also proposals to land the entire S-IVB on the moon as the basis for a lunar lab. ( http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apossivb.htm )
Recovering the S-II would have been a lot more difficult due to the need for heatshielding to protect it during its re-entry from near orbital speeds.
The S-IVB stage could also have been modified for recovery, essentially replacing it with the S-IVB derived SASSTO with a plug nozzle engine. There were also proposals to land the entire S-IVB on the moon as the basis for a lunar lab. ( http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apossivb.htm )
It seems the 1st stage did transmit some video just before impact but it was corrupted - they are appealing for anyone who can help improve what they have http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/04/29/first-stage-...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff