I like to think that with these videos SpaceX is also making a very worthy contribution to more realistic movie special effects.
SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
101–110 of 216 posts
Re: SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
#102Could someone explain to me why they attempt this? Wouldn't inflating a set of floating devices when it goes down the ocean an easier way of retrieving it? Or something other than this REALLY HARD TO PULL OFF maneuver? Genuinely interested.
Two main reasons I can think of: 1) Sea water is extremely corrosive. If your booster takes a dunk in the drink, it's going to be very hard to refurbish for another launch. Lots of components (electronics, valves, etc) would need to be replaced and the structural integrity of the tanks themselves may be compromised by rust. 2) Flotation devices attached to the booster = extra payload. It would be the canvas/dinghys A…
Flotation devices attached to the booster = extra payload
Yes, but how much extra fuel does the rocket have to carry to land? That's a ton of extra payload as well.
Re: SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> like everyone else does Nobody else does this. I have absolutely no idea what you could possibly be referring to. SpaceX lands on land preferably when it is an option. > I don't understand why they won't keep landing them on the ground ... It's not like there's not enough space on Earth As a general rule, you not understanding the reason for something does not mean there is not a good reason. For reference, see the…
>Nobody else does this. I have absolutely no idea what you could possibly be referring to. Believe it or not, we've been landing spacecraft for decades. Does "space shuttle" ring a bell?
The Space Shuttle was a space craft, not a rocket. The SpaceX equivalent to the Space Shuttle is the Dragon spacecraft. Dragon V2 does land exclusively on the ground.
Re: SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
#104> explodes on landing
This is a pretty unfair characterization. It actually made the landing for most purposes, then a specific failure occurred - a leg failed to lock and it fell over. And yes, when a rocket falls over it will often explode.
Re: SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
#105SpaceX actually got very close to sticking this landing. Sea conditions were reasonably rough, with 3-meter waves. It's also the first time SpaceX launches in fog, IIRC. Everything about the landing except the stuck leg seemed to be perfect. So IMHO, the fact that the rocket exploded is not the most pertinent fact about this experiment. The main piece of news is that SpaceX is exceedingly likely to be able to recover…
> Everything about the landing except the stuck leg seemed to be perfect. And there's the issue: it only takes a tiny bit of imperfect to ruin a landing. I do think that SpaceX is going to get to the point where they are recovering enough of their rockets to make it pay off. But there will probably always be a significant chance that some little thing will go wrong. Don't be fooled later by "we've landed 5 in a row"…
This is very, very, early days. I'm sure you could have side the same about 'normal' flight, loads and loads of failures, then getting it to the '5 in the row', then a bunch of screwups.
Now jet flight across the oceans in often horrendous conditions is 99.999% safe (ish).
Re: SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
#106Could someone explain to me why they attempt this? Wouldn't inflating a set of floating devices when it goes down the ocean an easier way of retrieving it? Or something other than this REALLY HARD TO PULL OFF maneuver? Genuinely interested.
The key thing to remember about rockets is that they are incredibly fragile. The rocket is about 15 stories tall and is designed for force to only be applied at the end either via the rocket engines or the landing gear.
Any type of lateral forces will irreversibly damage the rocket. As an illustration, extreme care is taken when the rocket needs to be transported on its side. Some rockets, not the Falcon 9, can't even be transported on their side without being pressurized.
So pretty much anything other than a perfect soft touch landing would leave the rocket unable to fly again. Anything touching the 3/16" thick skin of the Falcon 9, would cause the very least extensive refurbishment at the least, but more likely irreversibly damage the frame of the 15 stories tall 1st stage. So this rules out every alternative that has been suggested in this thread.
Re: SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
#107> explodes on landing This is a pretty unfair characterization. It actually made the landing for most purposes, then a specific failure occurred - a leg failed to lock and it fell over. And yes, when a rocket falls over it will often explode.
Would you prefer "lands then explodes"? Stop trying to rephrase failures.
Re: SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
#108> explodes on landing This is a pretty unfair characterization. It actually made the landing for most purposes, then a specific failure occurred - a leg failed to lock and it fell over. And yes, when a rocket falls over it will often explode.
"Explodes after landing" would be more accurate, I think.
Re: SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
#109> explodes on landing This is a pretty unfair characterization. It actually made the landing for most purposes, then a specific failure occurred - a leg failed to lock and it fell over. And yes, when a rocket falls over it will often explode.
It's not an unfair headline. It did explode when it landed. This is not good, no way how you twist it.
Re: SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
#110SpaceX actually got very close to sticking this landing. Sea conditions were reasonably rough, with 3-meter waves. It's also the first time SpaceX launches in fog, IIRC. Everything about the landing except the stuck leg seemed to be perfect. So IMHO, the fact that the rocket exploded is not the most pertinent fact about this experiment. The main piece of news is that SpaceX is exceedingly likely to be able to recover…
> Everything about the landing except the stuck leg seemed to be perfect. And there's the issue: it only takes a tiny bit of imperfect to ruin a landing. I do think that SpaceX is going to get to the point where they are recovering enough of their rockets to make it pay off. But there will probably always be a significant chance that some little thing will go wrong. Don't be fooled later by "we've landed 5 in a row"…
The number of things that could go wrong is limited. The will learn all of them.
The same happened with airplanes. Just something so simple as breaking sound barrier control inversion meant hundreds of pilots dying until someone figured it out..
Thanks to automation and telemetry, SpaceX is learning fast without killing anyone. In the past it was hard to analyze what went wrong when the pilot did not survive.