SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space

Post by lmm » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 3:46 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #50

brianwawok wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you launch out of Cali going west and separate stage 2 300 miles out.... What is under you to land on?

I assume the parent poster meant that the launch should take place from somewhere on earth where there is earth 2300 miles out. It's likely not convenient to do so, at least not for all launch directions.

Post by smoyer » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #70

smoyer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former gymnast, I like the sticking the landing analogy but a human (even on an unstable mat) has far more control over their balance point (we do much of our balancing by bending at the waist - if only the rocket had one). In any case, I agree that this was very close. I've also spent a reasonable amount of time on "big water" and was specifically watching the attitude of the landing deck with respect to the ho…

The Falcon 9 isn't totally reusable not does it plan to be. It still has a non-recoverable second stage so it's not quite to the point of a SSTO.

Post by lmm » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #64

lmm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear it's a barge, not a dock. It might be possible, but we're talking about a rocket descending from hypersonic spaceflight; the accuracy is always going to be +/- a few metres. And the rocket would still have to have some kind of "hardpoints" that were strong enough to absorb the landing impact (you don't want to land smack on the delicate engine nozzles). A (relatively) big flat landing field and legs on th…

Yeah but if a rocket can so easily explode just by falling over, I'm not sure there are any legs I trust it to land on. I mean what if the legs were damaged during launch somehow, how exactly would it get back down safely other than just dropping it in the ocean completely?

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

smoyer wrote: post #73

rtkwe wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Falcon 9 isn't totally reusable not does it plan to be. It still has a non-recoverable second stage so it's not quite to the point of a SSTO.

Are you sure that there's not a plan to recover the second stage once they've consistently been recovering the first stage? (I'm assuming that would be part of the road-map).

Post by JulianMorrison » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #69

ceejayoz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a side-by-side comparison of their three barge landing attempts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA7RzJckvQ4 I don't think big, over-engineered solutions really look necessary with the amount of progress they're making. Plus, there aren't any cushioned walls on Mars, which is SpaceX's eventual goal - use this sort of tech to touch down there.

Also, if you deployed mitigation methods prematurely, then it stops the drive for improvement and tuning of the core landing functionality. Quick deploy cushions or other "Oops" enhancements might feature into the final version of the barge, but for now I think they're still trying to maximize the landing success rate. Better not to split engineering resources when the most important problem can still benefit from op…