billvon 2,676 #1 April 14, 2015 Did the Falcon first stage successfully land? Haven't seen any news yet. Would have happened about 15 minutes ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrubin 0 #2 April 14, 2015 I just saw a tweet from Elon Musk that the rocket landed on the droneship, but too hard for survival. https://twitter.com/spacex I was watching the webcast of the launch and was disappointed when they didn't show the landing attempt."I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrubin 0 #3 April 14, 2015 https://twitter.com/elonmusk QuoteLooks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #4 April 15, 2015 Looks like a gif of it's attempt, but not the full length video. http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/14/8417621/watch-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-landing"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #5 April 15, 2015 Damn, that's some amazing technology. I hope Elon keeps trying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillbo 11 #6 April 15, 2015 I question why they don't keep it simple and just drop it in the ocean for pick up? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #7 April 15, 2015 PhillboI question why they don't keep it simple and just drop it in the ocean for pick up? Not sure but a couple of guesses. . . They don't want to soak their rocket in salt water. They don't want to have to winch it out of the ocean (a complicated, expensive proposition). Anyone have any more reasons? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #8 April 15, 2015 It does seem they need to rethink the rocket capture when it hits the barge... Because of the lateral movement, they need some kind of catch fence or something so it doesn't fall over. I dunno... Giant funbags, er I mean airbags would be nice, but not with the rocket firing to slow the descent..."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #9 April 15, 2015 Yep, they've shown they can hit the barge accurately and slowly enough. Now, to keep the rocket from falling over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #10 April 15, 2015 I'm not sure about the slow enough part yet. Maybe little thruster rockets at the top of the main body to stabilise the top would help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #11 April 15, 2015 JohnMitchell ***I question why they don't keep it simple and just drop it in the ocean for pick up? Not sure but a couple of guesses. . . They don't want to soak their rocket in salt water. They don't want to have to winch it out of the ocean (a complicated, expensive proposition). Anyone have any more reasons? Not Buck Rogers-ish enough..... or Flesh Gordon from the old serials.... they always landed on the tail fins of the rockets Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #12 April 15, 2015 Amazon Not Buck Rogers-ish enough..... or Flesh Gordon from the old serials.... they always landed on the tail fins of the rockets Maybe Iron Man could be there to fly up and stabilize it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 718 #13 April 15, 2015 I had always thought the Flesh Gordon version was a gay flick, but then I found THIS and all I can say is TITTIES!! Whoa. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #14 April 16, 2015 Amazon ..... they always landed on the tail fins of the rockets You have to land on the tail fins. Otherwise you plug up the hole where the fire comes out. ...unless you could figure out a way to get it to tilt a little when you're ready to go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 April 16, 2015 JohnMitchell***I question why they don't keep it simple and just drop it in the ocean for pick up? Not sure but a couple of guesses. . . They don't want to soak their rocket in salt water. They don't want to have to winch it out of the ocean (a complicated, expensive proposition). Anyone have any more reasons? First response. The Merlin engines are liquid fueled. Much like an auto engine, once it becomes flooded with water, it's a mess and must be entirely rebuilt. If it become flooded with salt water, just ditch the thing. It's no good, anymore. The Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters were solid fuels. Just big pipes filled with solid fuel. If they land in the ocean they can basically be hosed down, repacked with fuel and they are good to go. Again, no so with liquid engines. I did notice a still of the landing. There was an American flag that looked to be fully extended. Meaning some pretty heavy wind. It looked to me like it touched down fine. I surmise that the wind played a pretty big factor in the toppling. Amazing what these engineers are able to do. Even better that they are doing this and posting the videos of the successes and failures. To me it inspires confidence. What SpaceX is doing is not easy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SethInMI 156 #16 April 16, 2015 yoinkI'm not sure about the slow enough part yet. Maybe little thruster rockets at the top of the main body to stabilise the top would help. If you watch the landing video, you can see the thrusters on the top of the rocket firing trying to keep the it upright, but in vain as it toppled anyway. I remember reading a quote from Musk saying the only way to make the reuse viable was landing the rocket right where it took off, but that takes a lot more propellant to fly it back over there, so maybe they realized that the barge was a better option, or maybe the eventual goal will be to dispense with the barge?It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 April 16, 2015 SethInMI***I'm not sure about the slow enough part yet. Maybe little thruster rockets at the top of the main body to stabilise the top would help. If you watch the landing video, you can see the thrusters on the top of the rocket firing trying to keep the it upright, but in vain as it toppled anyway. I remember reading a quote from Musk saying the only way to make the reuse viable was landing the rocket right where it took off, but that takes a lot more propellant to fly it back over there, so maybe they realized that the barge was a better option, or maybe the eventual goal will be to dispense with the barge? I think the barge idea is one to prevent damage on land possibly to something they may not want to pay large sums of money to replace or to people until the technology is proven.... plus... you only risk damage from fire and explosion to the barge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #18 April 16, 2015 SethInMI***I'm not sure about the slow enough part yet. Maybe little thruster rockets at the top of the main body to stabilise the top would help. If you watch the landing video, you can see the thrusters on the top of the rocket firing trying to keep the it upright, but in vain as it toppled anyway. I remember reading a quote from Musk saying the only way to make the reuse viable was landing the rocket right where it took off, but that takes a lot more propellant to fly it back over there, so maybe they realized that the barge was a better option, or maybe the eventual goal will be to dispense with the barge? Back in the early planning stages of the Shuttle program, a popular concept was that a single large winged booster would be individually manned. On separation from the orbiter, the boosters would be returned to KSC for a horizontal landing. But it couldn't be done without jet engines in the booster, meaning lots of extra weight, separate fuel and added complexity with two systems. One of the Shuttle abort modes was a Return to Launch Site abort. After the SRBs separated, if an SSME shut down the shuttle would turn around and go back under rocket power to land at KSC. Musk is talking about this as a standard procedure. The problem with it for a main booster is energy and weight. At first stage separation you need enough fuel to cancel out the down range velocity and return back up range to land. That takes fuel. A lot of fuel. So one can imagine a Saturn V sized booster needed to get a capsule up to LEO. Not really cost effective. So the barge at sea looks like the way to go. The performance hit is there by carrying extra fuel to land the thing. But going RTLS just requires too much energy and the payload capability is dramatically reduced. Just the weight of the fuel to return is prohibitive Note: this would probably be a lot easier if there were launches over land, which the U.S. doesn't do for safety reasons. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #19 April 17, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMAtCQEPLeQ My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dpreguy 14 #20 April 17, 2015 pea gravel pit for landing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #21 April 17, 2015 That was the Falcon landing from a while ago.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)