SpaceX News

[kunkmiester]

It sounds like part of the delays is getting things right for landing.


If so, it would probably be best to forget about recovering this stage if it helps with scheduling--launch tempo is more important right now that recovery I would think, both for reputation, and for cash flow. Once they get to launching once a month, they'll have plenty of opportunities to land on the barge.

[Giorgio]

Most of the launch fees are generally payed in advance of several months. Accounting wise SpaceX has been profitable and has no issues of Cash Flow for ongoing operations already from 2013. Also let's not forget that for new design and research they accepted an investment from Google of $900 million for a 7.5% stake in their stock about one year ago.
And as I said before, actual customers don't care for one or two weeks delays, they care to have their payload safely in orbit. That's where you build reputation right now.

SpaceX is doing the right thing in the right way while making good science and experience in the process. There is really no hurry to have this lunch done, what's important is to do it in the right way while maximizing its experimental value and data collection opportunities.

[ladajo]

From Elon Musk's post on twitter:
70 kt cross wind transition has got to put some lateral stress on the airframe as you boost through it.

[paperburn1]

very annoying that spacex rocket is reaching max Q right about the same time it hits the wind shear.

[jnaujok]

So, successful launch of SES-9, but over an hour and still no word on whether they stuck the landing. There's stories out there saying "Space-X confirms successful landing" and others that say, "Space-X confirms loss of vehicle on landing." Friggin' Schroedinger's rocket at this point.

[ladajo]

Boom. ... gurgle?

[Giorgio]

Boom but no gurgle.

[ladajo]

[Tom Ligon]

Well, they said this one was a long shot. Although, I think Musk said up front that they are all long shots.

I find the barge names entertaining, at least. This one is called "Of Course I Still Love You". Particularly amusing, the other two are both named "Just Read The Instructions".

Any suggestions for renaming Barge 3? "Use Fire Resistant Paint"? "A Little Slower This Time, Please"? Could they get away with "Viagra" (keep it up!)?

There's a restaurant my wife and I pass frequently, which has changed hands many times over the years. Our private name for it is "Small Fortune." You can make a small fortune with this restaurant ... just start with a large fortune. So far this is likely name for the enterprise of landing on barges.

[JoeP]

So, as impressive as it is to land the first stage on a moving, sea-borne platform, could other simpler alternatives be cheaper and easier that also satisfy the objective of preserving it and the engines in it?

For example, lets say we had some kind of water tight, clam-shell shroud or some sort of leaf shutter that caps off either end after separation with a water-tight seal, and some nice huge parachutes that bring it down gently enough in the sea somewhere to be picked up and/or towed back to home base. That way you don't have to do a complicated landing that will have some level of mishap which destroy everything, and you don't need to preserve any fuel either for the landing, thus making your 1st stage that much more powerful.

[paperburn1]

I have always said if it was not for physics and law enforcement I would be unstoppable.
This is one of those physic things , to haul all that recovery stuff up that high it would cost a lot of payload capacity. An additional lets say 1000 kilos of recovery equipment would take at a rough guess 2500 kilos of fuel. Now you have to make up for height and speed lost carting the extra weight so that even more fuel. All the time you still have all that equipment that your not using that boosted the rocket up that high that can recover the first stage 75-90 percent of the time already there. It makes more economics to loose a few stages and retain the extra payload capacity and ability to send things to Geo synchronize orbit than loose out on that market. If I understand correctly it was a lack of fuel because they boosted so high that prevented a possible recovery. This launch was near the limits of their load capacity.
Six of one / half a dozen of another, yes, it could be done/has been done but do the benefits outweigh the cost . only the engineers and accountants really know for sure.

[JoeP]

Thanks Paperburn. After I clicked send last night, I mentally came up with the very same list of why my supposedly simpler alternative really isn't so simple or reliable. Another thing I was thinking that the powered recovery landing technology will be very useful off our planet as well, such as on the moon or Mars, where a thick atmosphere and global seas with ships aren't going to be conveniently available. And SpaceX is designing for the long term.

[D Tibbets]

So, as impressive as it is to land the first stage on a moving, sea-borne platform, could other simpler alternatives be cheaper and easier that also satisfy the objective of preserving it and the engines in it?

For example, lets say we had some kind of water tight, clam-shell shroud or some sort of leaf shutter that caps off either end after separation with a water-tight seal, and some nice huge parachutes that bring it down gently enough in the sea somewhere to be picked up and/or towed back to home base. That way you don't have to do a complicated landing that will have some level of mishap which destroy everything, and you don't need to preserve any fuel either for the landing, thus making your 1st stage that much more powerful.

My (again limited) understanding is that splashing in the ocean is a terribly damaging event, mostly due to salt water corrosion. Even landing/ launching from coastal land presents significant corrosion concerns. A space base in New Mexico has a large advantage in this regard. The advantage of launching over oceans is that no craters are possible.

The only other alternative I know of is the tentative ULA proposal to separate the expensive rocket engine assembly from the rest of the first stage and snag it in the air as it is falling under parachutes. A single stage to orbit or Shuttle approach allows for a wide choice of landing sites, but implementation has proven to be a disaster for SSTO and a cost disaster for the Shuttle.

PS: Russia and China launch over land with convenient sparsely populated regions down range. I will leave it to you to research the consequences.

Dan Tibbets

[KitemanSA]

I had no understanding before that this super-chilled LOX thing was going to take away the ability to deal with all but the smallest delay. That seems like a huge sacrifice. Have to wonder is SpaceX is having any second thoughts on this (though I know it is fairly key to their re-usability gambit)

Why not just add a few small flyback boosters with or without fuel transfer capability (depending on whether it is easier to transfer fuel or thrust)?

[paperburn1]

Its called the Falcon heavy
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities