0
billvon

Falcon landing?

Recommended Posts

Phillbo

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

..... they always landed on the tail fins of the rockets :ph34r:



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yoink

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?
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0