SpaceX Barge Landing, from on-barge GoPro

almost...but no cigar.
 
A pity they lost the rocket, but it couldn't have been easy to hit a boat from low orbit. Huge kudos for trying something new. Were it easy we'd be doing it already.
 
Well.. if we're calling that a "landing", then I certainly feel better about some of mine!
 
F01LA said:
Well.. if we're calling that a "landing", then I certainly feel better about some of mine!
Click to expand...

Note that the airframe was not reusable without extensive repair therefore it wasn't a "great" landing.
 
Looks like another "unscheduled disassembly."
 
steingar said:
A pity they lost the rocket, but it couldn't have been easy to hit a boat from low orbit. Huge kudos for trying something new. Were it easy we'd be doing it already.
Click to expand...
ya but....it's not like it's never been done. This was done dozens of times....+20 years ago.:rolleyes:
 
Nice try,each time they get closer.only a matter of time before they get it.
 
I'm gonna put my money on "never." that thing is so long and stilty, and the gear so flimsy looking, it appears that any tilting moment is too much. That seemed to set down pretty well, and then, just, fell, over.
 
steingar said:
Find me where they landed a rocket on its tail using rocket motors. Outside of science fiction, that is.
Click to expand...

Lunar Excursion Module. Accomplished 6 times.

steingar said:
You find me where it landed on a barge from low orbit.
Click to expand...

Talk about moving the target! (Or goal post.)

(The LEM did land in the Sea of Tranquility; no barge required, though.)

EDIT: Useful list of landings, soft and not so soft, on other planets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landings_on_extraterrestrial_bodies
 
Last edited:
What was the payload capacity of the Delta Clipper?
 
So it was a stress test landing. Better luck next time.
 
Art VanDelay said:
That's got to be about one of the stupidest recovery methods to choose from.
Click to expand...


I'm with Art on this one. I've been asking why not do... [insert a number of saner ways to recover the thing here]... of various honest to goodness engineers and don't get very smart responses.

I have a theory and I've typed it once, elsewhere. It's about marketing and money and something "different" to rah-rah for because we humans are easily bored and lose interest. A nice struggle story keeps the thing in the media eye.
 
Datadriver said:
What was the payload capacity of the Delta Clipper?
Click to expand...
zero payload, just fuel....it was an atmospheric demo vehicle to prove out the technologies to perform the base rotation maneuver and landing. The concept was to grow the vehicle using those technologies for a larger sub orbital reusable vehicle. The funding never transpired. Many of us believe a black program or alike the X-37 got the funding instead.
 
steingar said:
Find me where they landed a rocket on its tail using rocket motors. Outside of science fiction, that is.
Click to expand...

SpaceX has already done it, way back in 2013. Trick now is getting it to happen on a floating (moving) barge. They'll get there, if they want to. It's just math and physics (and math) (and $$$$$).

 
Lindberg said:
That's what I'm thinking. What's wrong with parachutes?
Click to expand...

Parachutes don't work on the moon.
They would be too damn large on mars.

But this comes up a lot by people who seem to think SpaceX is populated with sub-standard engineers who can't see the "obvious". Suggest reading these links:

Why SpaceX Abandoned Parachuting into Water for Reusable Rockets

http://space.stackexchange.com/ques...utes-for-the-final-descent-of-the-first-stage

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/30531-Why-SpaceX-Is-Using-Rocket-Powered-Landing

Lastly, here's a tour of the SpaceX rocket factory in Hawthorne California that may interest budding space entrepreneurs:

 
I think they need bigger thrusters on top (more thrust).
 
Jim Logajan said:
But this comes up a lot by people who seem to think SpaceX is populated with sub-standard engineers who can't see the "obvious". Suggest reading these links:

Why SpaceX Abandoned Parachuting into Water for Reusable Rockets
Click to expand...

I actually figured they were pretty smart, until I read your article. It doesn't cite any of the reasons you did:
At the Space Access conference in April, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX's president, admitted: "We have recovered pieces of the first stages." The first stages weren't even getting as far as deploying their parachutes – they were breaking up during atmospheric re-entry.
Click to expand...
The author also questions whether dropping stages in salt water is really conducive to reuse. But parachute use without is a solved problem, and sufficient waterproofing and corrosion protection is surely feasible at a much lower cost than the barge-landing trick.
 
Lindberg said:
But parachute use without is a solved problem, and sufficient waterproofing and corrosion protection is surely feasible at a much lower cost than the barge-landing trick.
Click to expand...

The barge landings were a temporary measure for the initial trials as a safety precaution. According to this story quoting SpaceX president Shotwell, their next attempts at landing will be on solid ground:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ground-attempt-reusable-landing-sea/25827625/

The story also mentions ULA's approach, which may be closer to what you believe is a better way?
 
Lindberg said:
I actually figured they were pretty smart, until I read your article. It doesn't cite any of the reasons you did:

The author also questions whether dropping stages in salt water is really conducive to reuse. But parachute use without is a solved problem, and sufficient waterproofing and corrosion protection is surely feasible at a much lower cost than the barge-landing trick.
Click to expand...


For the record, NASA didn't bother with much corrosion protection, they just stripped the things down to the metal and recovered them with the now-infamous foam used to insulate things from atmospheric heating during launch.

In the early 90s, in a fit of green-ness, they moved the whole operation to a water based robotic stripping system in an enclosed room with a robotics operator in a booth on the other side of a big ol pane of glass. Same deal for spraying the foam back on.

Then there was a bunch of manual prep after that, which included rubbing various things down with sponges and an anti-corrosive, after it was all reassembled.

(That's the really shortened version of it. Lots more steps in there. But the gist is that they didn't do a whole lot of anti-corrosion stuff. They just covered things with foam and then stripped it off and put new foam on. Lots of inspections, etc.)
 
reusable (like hours later).....and recoverable.....ain't the same.
 
Well, Elon is one of the smartest people walking this planet.
If his money holds out I am betting he will solve the engineering issues involving a controlled, upright landing. NASA did it on the Moon Lander. Elon can do it here - though the skinny rocket is tougher to land without toppling.
OTOH he is doing great for the sales of Maalox. The big boys, like Boeing, et. al are popping Maalox like candy because they cannot even fantasize doing what he is right on the razors edge of accomplishing. They tried to block him from the space business by collusion with corrupt people in NASA and the Pentagon. It took the courts to force them to let him play. When they go to that extreme to eliminate a competitor you know they are scared sheetless of him. When he can land and reuse hjs booster it is all over for the big guys because he can underbid them by an amount that is insurmountable by a muscle bound gigando corporation.

He has created this rocket company that builds the machines from scratch with a small crew in a small factory - turning sheet metal into rockets and billets of stainless, titanium, and aluminium into engines. The big guys cannot even come close. They have to contract out almost every piece of their machines to other companies. That creates inefficiencies of command and control that rockets the cost (pun intended)

I am not a booster or a fan boi for Elon. But I admire brains and competence and right now he is the 800 pound gorilla that is smashing the military-industrial complex that hates his guts..
 
Dr. O said:
Well, Elon is one of the smartest people walking this planet.

...

I am not a booster or a fan boi for Elon. But I admire brains and competence and right now he is the 800 pound gorilla that is smashing the military-industrial complex that hates his guts..
Click to expand...


He's great at marketing and taking risks. I'd have to withhold judgement on "smartest".

Persistent as hell, yes. Persistence to the point of stubbornness, usually accounts for more in the long run, anyway.

And I can't say I'm a fan of his ability to put his business capital inflows for many of his businesses (not the rockets) on the taxpayer's backs, but he does know how to utilize an already whipped up crowd willing to bend over and spend everyone else's money for his dreams. I doubt he's reading many tea leaves there, though.

He just creates the stuff and then holds it out as the One True Thing that needs doing, and waits for the politicians to hand him special tax incentives and grants. Been plenty of those over the decades.

Also not a big fan of his narcissism that rarely credits the people who did all the dirty hard work for him, but that's also par for the course in the mind games he's playing. Gotta keep that "genius" ethos going as a sales tactic.

As far as Boeing being scared of him, I kinda doubt it. They're not going to lose any significant contracts to him.

Much of what they bring to the table is a matching monster bureaucracy to match the one that awards them contracts. The 'crats feel better talking to folks in the same boat. The unimaginative often want to buy from the unimaginative.

There's a reason they're still launching Titans... in 2015... Boring and consistent wins some races.
 
denverpilot said:
As far as Boeing being scared of him, I kinda doubt it. They're not going to lose any significant contracts to him.

Much of what they bring to the table is a matching monster bureaucracy to match the one that awards them contracts. The 'crats feel better talking to folks in the same boat. The unimaginative often want to buy from the unimaginative.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. It's not that simple. If it were, then why is NASA SpaceX's biggest customer? Or is NASA not a bureaucratic agency? You can't have it both ways.

SpaceX is the new kid. Their capabilities don't yet match what ULA (why do you keep saying "Boeing"?) can provide in terms of payload-to-orbit, so some missions simply can't fly on SpaceX's current rockets. Until recently, SpX didn't have the flight history to demonstrate reliable access to space on the F9. They're now elbowing their way up to the table, and it seems likely they'll become a competitive option for DoD flights going forward.

There's a reason they're still launching Titans... in 2015... Boring and consistent wins some races.
Click to expand...

Um....first, Titans were a Martin product, so would belong to Lockheed today if they were still flying. Second, they're not flying anymore: http://www.space.com/1697-final-titan-rocket-launch-ends-era.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top