21–30 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Space X would like to return Falcon to dry land, but given the high chance of failure, they're first trying to do it on the drone ship "Just Read the Instructions" at sea. That way when things go wrong, it's not such a big deal.
But if the sea is the problem...
This is an "unpublished video" on a non-SpaceX YouTube channel. Who uploaded this?
From reading the comments over on /r/spacex, this looks to originally have been an unlisted video in SpaceX's youtube channel, and shortly after appearing on reddit it was made private. Not before several people had made copies, however, and re-uploaded it (one of those people has the same reddit username as the youtube channel linked here). That said, impressive video. This shows how close they are truly getting. Un…
What happens once it lands successfully? Won't one stray wave tip it right over into the ocean? Those landing struts are only 1/10 the length of the rocket. If this wasn't so tall, it wouldn't be nearly the problem that it is. Are they perhaps really trying to develop a Dragon landing system? And using this extra tall rocket as a worst-case scenario?
I'm not an expert, but here's my understanding: > What happens once it lands successfully? It becomes a lot easier to get permission to attempt a landing on dry land. But, as I understand it, they will always need to land some rockets at sea. In the long run, they hope that they can then re-use the rocket, which will drastically reduce the cost of launches. > Are they perhaps really trying to develop a Dragon landing…
Yeah, this is something I didn't realize. Flying back to land requires fuel, which cuts into the payload capacity. If a payload is too close to capacity, a sea landing may be the only option.
Why did it explode in such a dramatic fashion? I thought the booster was almost entirely empty when it returns to the barge.
Non-engineers see this as a failure. Engineers and scientists see this as an awe-inspiring success from which to learn, iterate and try again. I don't fault reporters for exagerated headlined focusing on failure. They don't know any better. That is not what their lives are about and most might be challenged to understand that nothing in that video constitutes failure in the context of evolving a design. In fact, fail…
If your rocket blows up on the launch pad, you just learned that you shouldn't overpressure your fuel tank (or w/e). But if your rocket lifts off, goes to space, and lands, you learn thousands of things that work that you can use again.
Why did it explode in such a dramatic fashion? I thought the booster was almost entirely empty when it returns to the barge.
There is always some extra fuel and oxidizer, as it is used to slow the vehicle, and is needed until touchdown. If the vehicle were to run out of propellant before landing, it would crash. In addition, the LOX makes any combustion spectacular.
If it hovered for 5 seconds at .5 meters, for example, could it burn off enough extra fuel?
What happens once it lands successfully? Won't one stray wave tip it right over into the ocean? Those landing struts are only 1/10 the length of the rocket. If this wasn't so tall, it wouldn't be nearly the problem that it is. Are they perhaps really trying to develop a Dragon landing system? And using this extra tall rocket as a worst-case scenario?
"Mostly gravity. The center of gravity is pretty low for the booster, as all the engines and residual propellant is at the bottom. We are going to weld steel shoes over the landing feet as a precautionary measure."