Skip to comments.SpaceX achieves controlled landing of Falcon 9 first stage
Posted on 04/21/2014 6:36:31 AM PDT by Robe
SpaceX says it made two key strides toward the eventual reusability of the Falcon 9 rocket this week with the controlled splashdown of the rocket's first stage in the Atlantic Ocean on Friday
(Excerpt) Read more at spaceflightnow.com ...
It’s a neat job of balancing sophisticated attitude controls and sensors with what looks to be a huge fuel supply (just for this demonstration, I’d imagine) under likely ideal conditions (no wind).
This is a far cry from boosting something to a position to launch into orbit. Also, as you correct ask, how does it do on water, where most first-stages seem to land. How well can it perform in jet stream winds - all that?
Not saying this can’t be done, even though it’s a little 1950s Sci Fi-ish in terms of landings. But it does remind me of the very first promises made by Shuttle proponents for cost efficacy, turn around times, and numbers of flights/year that could be attained. It NEVER even came close to meeting even a SMIDGEON (haha) of the promises.
What has been missing from the testing so far is the unpowered ballistic phase, and I would like to see how they did on that.
That they say they were successful gives me hope, since they can't BS the way a government agency can. They actually have stockholders to answer to.
Oh, and the 'landing' test used the first stage booster that actually put the Falcon 9 spacecraft into orbit and mating with the ISS.
The testing on the first stage was essentially free, since they already met their milestone by getting the supplies to the ISS.
You should have read the article.
1. Sweep it out.
2. Stand it up.
3. Hook it up to new boosters.
4. Clean the ashtrays.
6. Load new payload.
Time to go, three days. LOL it took a full day to drive back out to the launch pad.
Why? I read the leader and watched the video. That was what all the hype was wasn’t it? I’m just commenting on the video and what I perceived as obstacles to overcome.
I can here’em testing from my house
That is pretty amazing.
No, there was a live test this weekend on the re-entering 1st stage from the launch to re-supply the ISS.
“Why? I read the leader and watched the video. “
But your post contradicted information in the article.
Oh please....I went back and read it because you implied my post was incorrect somehow. I read it through and through and there were SEPARATE tests with DIFFERENT boosters from this lead-in that touts a land-based drone-filmed video that weren’t fully successful (read the part about where they talk about ‘next time’).
In the end, their attitude control system (nitrogen powered) could not fully control the splash state. How is this something that indicts what I said?
We’ve heard all this equivocation and optimism before - it was call the Shuttle.
The difference being, SpaceX will have to actually save money by reusing hardware.
Hardly equivocation and optimism.
“Oh please....I went back and read it because you implied my post was incorrect somehow.”
From your original post: “This is a far cry from boosting something to a position to launch into orbit. Also, as you correct ask, how does it do on water, where most first-stages seem to land.”
From the article: “The first stage’s sporty descent maneuvers occurred as the Falcon 9 rocket’s upper stage continued into orbit with a Dragon supply ship heading for the International Space Station.”
Curious as to how salt water will affect engine components and electronics.
And the video showed what looked like a payloadless booster taking off and landing all inside less that a couple thousand feet.
The first time they test fired a motor, Space X didn’t announce it. Scared the crap out of the people in McGregor.
To me, it’s the sound of progress.
Parachutes are cheaper than propellant.
The Shuttle solid rocket boosters were recovered from the ocean and reused, but SpaceX has plans to return their boosters to dry land. Elon Musk says if they have to do a lot of refurbishing work it won’t be profitable.
Ok. My bad....I looked at thread title, and clicked to see the video that was advertised, and I made some assumptions - mea culpa. But tell me, should I have to match up the story narrative (linked) with the video (mentioned in the title, but not the real video that was intended?)
It’s an old cliché, but the carpets really should match the drapes. :o)
That’s okay....I got caught up in the hype of the video and didn’t read the fine print :o) Democrat politicians and government is a lot like that too... take care. I’ll shut my mouth and let others here who really think it’s neat to discuss it. I guess I just got too jaded about the whole Shuttle thing and lived through all the promises when it was first like this.
Fortunately, SpaceX can't lie it's ass off like NASA did.
One of the guys that SpaceX hired from NASA made a suggestion about something technical, and he was told "So do it". Freaked him out.
He said that at NASA, his suggestion would have led to a formal report, which would have been reviewed by a committee, which might have written a report to add a possible agenda item to an agenda meeting where something might get discussed.
It's a whole different world.
that night we had some kind of weird weather inversion and it forced the sound down, so it sounded considerably louder and add to it a reddish orange glow. I think more than beer was spilled.
Made the local news
Weve heard all this equivocation and optimism before - it was call the Shuttle.
You missed something...
"We were able to control the boost stage to a zero roll rate, which is previously what has destroyed the stage -- uncontrolled roll where the on-board nitrogen thrusters weren't able to control the aerodynamic torque and spun up," Musk said. "This time, with more powerful thrusters and more nitrogen propellant, we were able to null the roll rates."
“And the video showed ...”
And that is why you should have read the article.
The VIDEO was hyped in the thread title.
“The VIDEO was hyped in the thread title.”
If all you are going to read is the title then limit your comments to the title.
Actually, I did get around to reading the article after it was pointed out that the video and the narrative of the story weren’t exactly one in the same. I also read about various stages of success in the separate tests.
I think my original suppositions about the difficulty of the video land based landing and a water landing hold. In the narrative they are talking about survivability and retrieval from sea.
Regardless, I’m not going to bother anyone here any more with it.
Somehow this fact was missed. The waves destroyed it moments later.