Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

phys.org

231–240 of 497 posts

Re: SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parachutes aren't massless. The parachutes you'd need to land a rocket like this are actually comparable in mass to the extra fuel and landing legs needed for the vertical landing approach. You also can't land on a ship with parachutes. You don't have enough control. You can still land at sea, but then you have to actually land in the water, which means getting seawater on all your rocket hardware. That causes lots o…

If the problem is simply the seawater, you could use a large plastic liner to create a pool of fresh water floating in the sea, and land in that.

That's a lot of complexity to add compared to the current landing which boils down at it's simplest to an inverted pendulum balancing problem, hard but the dynamics are pretty well understood. First parachute landings aren't super accurate without a lot of engineering and controls and would rely on calm or no winds down range wherever you're landing to have any chance of hitting the 'pool'. Second that pool would want to float and to my knowledge no one's made anything like that, so they'd have to invent and build then deploy a huge piece of engineering for every single launch.

Re: SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

#232
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA landed a first stage on a barge to be re-used?

NASA reused every engine (not just the first stage) of an orbital payload delivery system, many times, 30 years ago. Runway rather than barge but that's not really an important difference. (The exciting part will be much cheaper refurbishment than the STS. But SpaceX haven't actually delivered on that component yet)

While that is true, by the time they rebuilt them, you might as well call them new engines.

SpaceX took their landed first stage directly over to the test pad to fire the engines multiple times. It's not really apples to apples.

Re: SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

#233

> P.S. Downvotes for this question? Really? There are always people on HN who love being contrarian and trying to diminish amazing things. It's like they hate seeing people excited for something and want to point out that this isn't that big of a deal. We're literally watching things happen for the first time ever, and this person's response is "what's so great about this?" while implying that people who are excited…

This is a new thing, 2-3 years ago downvotes were still rare, these days people treat it like reddit where it means disagree rather than inappropriate. The culture's changed.

Re: SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

#234
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA reused every engine (not just the first stage) of an orbital payload delivery system, many times, 30 years ago. Runway rather than barge but that's not really an important difference. (The exciting part will be much cheaper refurbishment than the STS. But SpaceX haven't actually delivered on that component yet)

While that is true, by the time they rebuilt them, you might as well call them new engines. SpaceX took their landed first stage directly over to the test pad to fire the engines multiple times. It's not really apples to apples.

If SpaceX can deliver what they're claiming in terms of refurb time/cost then that will be something to celebrate. But projects have a way of revealing unexpected challenges right at the last moment. I'm going to hold off the champagne until a refurbished booster actually flies.

Re: SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

#235
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA landed a first stage on a barge to be re-used?

NASA reused every engine (not just the first stage) of an orbital payload delivery system, many times, 30 years ago. Runway rather than barge but that's not really an important difference. (The exciting part will be much cheaper refurbishment than the STS. But SpaceX haven't actually delivered on that component yet)

A shuttle launch cost over an order of magnitude more than a Falcon 9 launch does, though. This is hugely relevant because the biggest factor limiting space travel is cost more than it is anything else. The demand for space travel is absolutely there, and all that is required to satisfy that demand is simply lowering cost.

Re: SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure he means the barge would sink from the big hole he thought the rocket would put in it.

Of course, but my point is that the barge is so much more massive that the idea of punching a hole all the way through doesn't really make sense, and even if that were possible, such a small hole wouldn't sink it anyway.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

#237
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tribalism, which is never good, no matter how common or accepted it might be in certain regions or cultures. Much the same as sports fans cheering for their teams or extreme nationalists at a political rally, chanting such as this is symtomatic of an "us versus them" and/or a "we are better than them" mentality. I feel pride in SpaceX accomplishments even though I have in no way contributed to their success beca…

> It's tribalism, which is never good, no matter how common or accepted it might be in certain regions or cultures. If they were doing it out of tribalism they'd probably be chanting 'homegrown', which is common after a big win over competitors who recruit mostly foreigners as a way of sticking it to them. Instead my guess is that they're doing this out of acknowledgement of the infrastructure and regulation that mak…

HAHA, that made my day! ALL HAIL INFRASTRUCTURE! ALL HAIL REGULATION!

Re: SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

#238
The big difference between landing at sea and on land seems to be the PR value. Otherwise a target is a target, taking any differences in weather into consideration. In fact it seems that landing at sea is actually less pressure since you don't have the same safety concerns and crash pictures (which are bad for publicity) the rocket simply disappears.

Re: SpaceX lands rocket at sea second time after satellite launch

#240
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So only about 4Gs? I somehow though it would be more and unsurvivable for humans.

Check out the flight profile on Flightclub.io -- I'm not sure how accurate their instantaneous data is but they're showing ~12g acceleration upon landing the booster. Seems more like what I'd expect.

TheVehicleDestroyer (who makes FlightClub) actually commented [1] to say that the 12G is an error due to how he models the deployment of the landing legs.

The actual force would have been closer to 5.1G

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4htenu/rspacex_jcsa...

Ugh sorry, there's a bug of some sort in Flight Club there. There's no way it was that large. A constant deceleration down from terminal velocity over 6 seconds is

a = (300 - 0)/6 = 50m/s2 = 5.1g

I'll need to look into that

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4htenu/rspacex_jcsa...

So it looks like that peak is due to the sudden increase in drag during my landing legs deployment. I deploy them at 500m altitude which is a time when the stage is probably still moving a bit too fast. It's a really large increase in cross-sectional area, but I'm probably not treating it correctly. I'll revise before Thaicom-8

Post reply on HN