4 ms·
Ultimately, it may be better to abort in such cases, and land with payload (assuming there's enough propellant left to do so), or even discard the payload. As r
by gnode 10y ago
Ultimately, it may be better to abort in such cases, and land with payload (assuming there's enough propellant left to do so), or even discard the payload. As re-usability becomes more commonplace, the cost of the first stage booster will dwarf the cost per launch, and we'll probably see space launches for increasingly lower value cargo.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoThe dynamic loads of a fully loaded Falcon 9 preclude an abort once it's off the pad; you are committed. I'm not an aerospace engineer, but if one wants to comment, I'd be happy to be corrected. It already requires ideal conditions for stages to separate successfully.
- gnode 10y agoI realise this comment is now over a week old, but could you clarify what you meant? I don't know the specifics of the Falcon 9, but the only tolerance problem I see is in the strength of the landing legs, supporting the weight of the payload when landed (any excess propellants can be burnt off). Obviously you could make them bigger at the cost of lift mass.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoThe weight distribution of a fully fueled and payload-carrying Falcon 9 prohibits it from attempting any sort of boostback burn back to the landing pad if an abort is needed. It would tear the vehicle apart. It would be similar to a a fully loaded semi truck trying to turn on a dime.