13 ms·
SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
- Already__Taken 12y ago> next attempt to land Not the next F9 launch. They won't have legs the payload needs all the fuel. Next launch after that is a Dragon test so it isn't that one either. Maybe June we'll see that. Those ULA comments at the end are very odd and contradictory.
- richthegeek 12y agoHmm, I read it as intended - that the next time they will try to land will be on land. This page is quite a useful (although not 100% accurate) summary of the near-future of SpaceX: http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php Certainly interesting that the FCA are willing to try a land-launch before getting a successful landing on the barge.
- trose 12y agoI think they've ruled out the barge landing at this point. Seems like even with the stabilization, there is still too much movement. I dont see any reason they couldn't bring it back over water onto a landing pad. It should be really easy to keep the landing pad clear.
- knd775 12y agoIt is my understanding that the eventual goal has always been to land where they takeoff/launch from.
- sergiosgc 12y agoI never read anything that pointed towards that objective. Note that the first stage gets a lot of horizontal velocity, so bringing it back to the launch pad is expensive (fuel-wise). It is better to just cancel out the horizontal vector, follow a parabolic trajectory and land east of the launch pad.
- knd775 12y agoThis is what lead me to believe that: http://spacenews.com/spacex-leases-cape-canaveral-launch-pad-for-falcon-landings/ http://spacenews.com/spacex-leases-cape-canaveral-launch-pad...
- kllrnohj 12y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM http://www.space.com/13140-spacex-private-reusable-rocket-elon-musk.html http://www.space.com/13140-spacex-private-reusable-rocket-el... "After separating in orbit, the two stages of the rocket would come back to Earth and land at the launch pad." They've always intended both the boosters and the second stage to return to the launch site.
- jccooper 12y agoRecent statements indicate that they've given up on second stage recovery for the F9. Just too hard given current margins. That'll be in some future architecture.
- Already__Taken 12y agoIt's just the least valuable thing to try to recover. Pick your battles and all that. While a recoverable payload yes its much harder but bringing something back which is valable on top of the spacecraft. Getting S2 backs seems like 90% of the problems plus some others and not much of a payoff.
- bbatsell 12y agoReturn to Launch Site (RTLS) has been the goal from day one. Yes, it's expensive in terms of payload (about 30%), but SpaceX thinks it's worth it. The cost to fill all tanks is ~$200,000, which pales in comparison to everything else. They will land every rocket they can (determined by how much ΔV the payload requires). I'm quite sure that reusable Falcon Heavy launches will be cheaper than expendable Falcon 9 launches, which incentivizes customers with payloads on the margin to choose the Heavy, which allows SpaceX to return at least 2 cores to the launch site. (Neat little aside: launches from Florida and Texas can also take slight advantage of the earth rotating beneath the rocket in the direction they want it to.)
- dandelany 12y agoAlmost certainly not. They're still working on building a second drone ship on the west coast. Even after they accomplish landings on land, there will still be a need for barge landings in two scenarios: Falcon 9 launches with payloads large enough to prohibit a full boostback burn, and more importantly, Falcon Heavy launches. On the Heavy, the two strap-on boosters will be able to make it back to land but the core stage will be much further downrange and moving much faster, almost certainly necessitating an ocean landing.
- benkuykendall 12y agoAccording to their events page, 22 July will be the first attempted (to use their phrasing) ``land landing''. http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php
- ehmmm 12y agoThat is not an official SpaceX website. This website is not in any way associated with SpaceX.
- NortySpock 12y agoThat's a fan-run site; not an official schedule.
- 51Cards 12y agoI saw this on the planned launch schedule a few days ago. The date mentioned there is 22 July 2015. I was surprised they were getting clearance to try so soon since they haven't quite nailed sea landings yet. I guess it could be argued they have seem to have the navigation part down pretty well though, minimizing the odds they will drop this in a neighbourhood.
- ErrantX 12y agoI guess the important part is that they've proven they can hit the target. Thats the risky part of testing over land. One assumes that it's a recognised risk that at the point of actually landing there is a risk of explosion, and a land-based site will account for that.
- henkboyd 12y agoThey haven't gotten clearance yet, but they hope to. Edit: SpaceX page indicates an attempt in July so they must have.
- mikeash 12y agoSince they're launching that one out of Vandenberg, maybe the Air Force is more accommodating to crazy schemes like this than NASA is, or maybe the facilities are just ready for it there first.
- mrfusion 12y agoI don't think they can completely give up on the barge though. As I understand it they'll always need barge landings for the Falcon Heavy core? Maybe they're just itching to get a success on their pelt.
- nickff 12y agoWhy will they always need the barge for the Falcon Heavy core? I think they would be more likely to need it for a second stage than the Heavy's core, because SSECO occurs very far down range, and at such a high speed that the rocket cannot make it back to the launch pad without a great deal of fuel. Alternatively, they could be planning to launch from Texas, and recover some stage(s) in Florida. *edit: in another comment on this discussion, kllrohg mentioned that SpaceX's stated intent has been to land all stages back at the launch site. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388762 http://www.space.com/13140-spacex-private-reusable-rocket-el.. http://www.space.com/13140-spacex-private-reusable-rocket-el....
- daeken 12y agoFalcon Heavy boosters will be able to boost back and land at the pad. Falcon Heavy cores will be too far down range, and will have to land on a barge pretty significantly out to sea.
- acadien 12y agoI agree, as others have said the dynamics of a barge is a necessary challenge to prove the technology. But they need some more positive press, maybe a gif that doesn't end in an explosion hehe. On a side note the colloquialism 'success on their pelt' is totally new to me, I've always heard it as 'success under their belt'.
- Igglyboo 12y agoI think he meant 'success under their belt'. If you google for both phrases, the belt wins has far more results and they're actually relevant.
- Cshelton 12y agoI think now that they have proven they can 'hit the hole', almost spot on, they'll be able to get approval to go for a try on cleared land space. It sounds like to me, landing on land would be ideal; less expensive and less risk with stabilization and rough waters.
- harshreality 12y agoThey need to be able to stabilize the rocket's landing in all sorts of conditions if they want to have any hope of landing it on another planet. It's not like interplanetary launches will be able to schedule launches to choose optimal weather conditions for the landing. Maybe, if they're lucky, they'll be able to orbit briefly to avoid bad weather at the landing site, but moderate winds and wind gusts are going to be a problem. If it's impossible to reliably land under those conditions, the whole idea is flawed for the purposes of interplanetary flight. You can't have rockets going to Mars, and only have 50% or 75% surviving for relaunch. That's not the kind of cost reduction that will make interplanetary travel and resupply feasible. It would obviously help with LEO launch costs, though, or any return landings on Earth. Even if rocket stages are only recovered some of the time, and not reliably, that's a significant cost savings and well worth doing. It's just that Musk is so intent on interplanetary travel driving all this technology. If it's only for cost savings for Earth landings, a parachute system or a specially designed (more accommodating) landing complex/barge could work too, right? > (paraphrasing multiple comments) "but this is to re-land rocket stages on Earth" Here's an interview where he specifically talks about his long term goal of landing rocket stages on other planets. He says parachutes negatively affect reusability, I'm not sure how much of that is potential damage or off-site landing and how much is the necessity to reinstall a parachute for the next launch. The point here is that he is clearly not thinking only of Earth landings in developing this technology. I think some sort of assisted landing or more developed landing site could increase chance of recovery and reusability for Earth landings, decreasing total launch costs for Earth orbit missions, at the cost of not being applicable to landings on other planets. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOpmaLY9XdI?t=11m30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOpmaLY9XdI?t=11m30s
- gfodor 12y ago
- solve 12y agoShouldn't be that surprising. Military has been blowing up missiles and detonating bombs on land at military testing sites for decades.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoLet's hope that the next cause of a rapid unscheduled disassembly won't be the rocket landing on a landmine.
- branchan 12y agoYes but normally these missile and bombs are all isolated to these remote areas. Imagine the rocket is launched from Florida, it might need to fly over populated areas to reach its 'land' landing area, which is different.
- brianobush 12y agoHow about an oil rig like structure at sea?
- rtkwe 12y agoThose are expensive structures. Also there probably aren't spares lying around that can be tasked and moved into the range.
- msandford 12y agoRight now there are plenty of spares that can be had for cheap. With oil at $50/bbl and offshore being more expensive than onshore, you can be sure that there are jack up rigs (the kind you want) available. Here is a listing: http://www.worldoils.com/searigs/ http://www.worldoils.com/searigs/ This is an old rig which you could probably get for less than scrap value since it's going to take a bunch of effort to break it down into things which you could actually re-melt. http://www.worldoils.com/searigs/jackuprig101.php http://www.worldoils.com/searigs/jackuprig101.php Looking here, depending on where you park it that gets you anywhere from a couple of miles offshore up to say 100 or more. It depends on the topography of the ocean's floor. http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/ http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/
- kenrikm 12y agoIm pretty sure an oil rig with a completely flat deck would be an ideal platform, at least for sea landings. However they are extremely expensive.
- sergiosgc 12y agoDoes this mean they'll be launching from another facility? Right now, the trajectory goes over to the sea, and bringing the first stage back to dry land is expensive. They'd have to launch far away from the east coast.
- dgritsko 12y agoYes, this launch will take place from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California (according to http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- 0xffff2 12y agoTwo factors: 1. Yes, they will eventually be launching elsewhere. SpaceX is currently building its own launch facility in Brownsville, TX, which would indeed permit landing at the cape. 2. Elon Musk seems to think that despite the expense, they can fly the rocket back to the launch pad for lighter payloads.
- jccooper 12y agoFlorida's an awful long way from Brownsville. Take a look at the launch danger zones chart; first stage recovery is just off the coast. Maybe you could finagle a second stage recovery in Florida from Texas, but only from very specific inclinations. Doesn't seem likely to be useful.
- djloche 12y agoMy guess is that once they have their facility operational in TX, they will primarily launch from there, and keep Florida and California as backup options for their clients / use when necessary.
- ridgeguy 12y agoThere's a Falcon 9 launch from Vandenberg scheduled for July 22. VAFB is a large coastal installation with lots of room for a return to land. schedule: http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ read near the end of this story for a statement that booster return to land is planned for the July 22 launch: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spaceport-america-spacex-reusability-testing/ http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spaceport-america-spa...
- chinathrow 12y agoI just love the term "flight termination system". It sounds so much better than "self destruction system" :)
- TeMPOraL 12y agoEven cuter term is "range safety" :).
- travelton 12y agoAnyone know how this flight termination system works? Obviously it self-destructs. But, under what parameters? Does Mission Control send the signal, or does the rocket determine this on its own?
- Crito 12y agoThe range safety officer has a button that they can press. I'm not sure if the rocket can do it on its own as well. Somewhat amusingly, the Russians do not use these systems. They launch from the desert in Kazakhstan, so they just let their rockets crash and burn.
- david-given 12y agoMy understanding is that there's a bunch of automated triggers --- e.g. if the vehicle leaves its flight corridor, it's supposed to get terminated. That doesn't necessarily mean that it goes bang; for a vehicle like the F9, shutting down all the engines is fine in most circumstances. However, there is also a Range Safety Officer with a hand on a big red switch (or at least, a metaphorical hand on a metaphorical switch). They're the final authority on whether the vehicle lives or dies. The shuttle may or may not have had a self-destruct system in the orbiter itself; I'm finding conflicting references. The SRBs and tank certainly did; the RSO pushed the button after Challenger disintegrated on launch to stop the SRBs flying away. Yes, pushing the button while the SRBs and tank were attached to the orbiter would have killed the crew. Being the RSO is a job for very sober, very thoughtful people.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago> "Just purely the boat moving, even in a low sea state, it's hard to imagine that vehicle is going to stay vertical," Shotwell said. "That vehicle is big and tall, compared to the itty-bity-greater-than-a-football-field-size ship." Is this a new development? This contradicts both a lot of things I read over the Internet (granted, those were not official SpaceX statements) and the apparently still ongoing plans to build a second barge.
- ceejayoz 12y agoIIRC they're anticipating that some missions from Florida will have a performance profile preventing a return to land.
- jsolson 12y agoIf it's actually that serious a problem (and I'm not a rocket scientist, so I don't know), it suggests a solution: stabilize the landing bed on the ship relative to the sea. Perhaps have the bed float above the ship electromagnetically such that you can control the field strength applied to any part of the platform dynamically as the ship bucks underneath it. There might be a reason that people don't let me design large mechanical systems...
- TeMPOraL 12y ago> There might be a reason that people don't let me design large mechanical systems... Naah, I can totally see this working in Kerbal Space Program...
- ohitsdom 12y agoElon Musk actually joked/hinted (in a tweet) that they were making modifications to the barge similar to the flying SHIELD helicarrier.
- TeMPOraL 12y agoHeh, for some reason I always felt there's a connection between (Marvel's Cinematic Universe) SHIELD and SpaceX.
- jayfuerstenberg 12y agoLand the rocket on some flame-proof air bags. It doesn't have to land vertically does it? Let it fall over gently if need be.
- laggyluke 12y agoNo flame-proof airbags are available on Mars. AFAIK most of SpaceX's design decisions are based around this.
- saganus 12y agoBut can't the vehicle carry them to Mars? Kind of like the airbag system for one of the rovers, can't remember which one (Curiosity?) Or even better, how about getting it to land sideways on purpose? I don't see how that would be more difficult than doing it upright.
- noir_lord 12y agoImagine the material that a coke can is made off. Now imagine a cylinder made of that material 3-4 times wider than a barrel and 20-30ft high. That's why you can't land them sideways they'd just crush themselves.
- saganus 12y agoI guess you are right. It wouldn't make sense to make a rocket that can withstand vertical AND horizontal forces. That would be like launching a brick I guess. Thanks for the pointer.
- jccooper 12y agoThe dang thing is a couple mm thick and ten stories tall. There's no "gentle" option available for tipping over. The solution is to land it right. It'll happen.
- dayyan 12y agoHere's a much better quality video of the previous attempt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAzwuEmZcmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAzwuEmZcmE
- benihana 12y agoThat thrust vectoring!
- flountown 12y agoAre there any articles or press out there that describe the stabilization tech used on the barge? A lot of the things when looking through Google seem to focus on the challenges of guiding the rocket but not stabilizing the platform. I guess it tends to be a non-issue since it seems their plan all along was landing it on land, but I'd be really interested to see the design story that went into the barge.
- mbell 12y agoThere is nothing special about the barge stabilization, it's off the shelf marine tech. A few azimuth thrusters controlled by a station keeping system. The only unusual thing about it is that the azimuth thrusters are a lot more powerful than would normally be put on a barge that size to give it better positional control in rough seas.
- flountown 12y agoI know this was a few days ago, but I forgot to check back. The reason I ask, is that this company http://seakeeper.com/ http://seakeeper.com/ used to be a customer of mine. It seems like an extremely cool concept and I know it works for smaller vessels and the company is currently developing larger solutions for the government and oil industries.
- mbell 12y agoThis is what the SpaceX barge uses: https://www.thrustmaster.net/out-drive-propulsion-unit/portable-dynamic-positioning-system/ https://www.thrustmaster.net/out-drive-propulsion-unit/porta...
- sparkzilla 12y agoThere are two kinds of stabilization required: Side-to-side, which would use azimuth thrusters, and up-down which can be implemented with SWATH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-waterplane-area_twin_hull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-waterplane-area_twin_hull
- 12y ago
- elchief 12y agoWhat was the % cost reduction in being able to land the boosters again? I read it somewhere a while back but can't find it. It was pretty significant if I recall. TIA.
- Florin_Andrei 12y agoAccording to Elon, reusable rockets will drive the spaceflight costs down 100x. The booster is $60 million, the fuel charge for it is $200k. Other costs are involved in the final price per kg of payload, obviously.
- imglorp 12y agoObviously the math checks out, but I wonder what fraction of the price involves carrying the booster's landing capability (bigger tanks, landing legs, thrusters, bigger booster, etc) to its apogee. I mean that, compared to a single use disposable booster that doesn't carry all that aloft.
- jaggederest 12y ago30% is the cited figure for a complete return, and is factored into the 100x number.
- mikeash 12y agoThe first stage accounts for about 75% of the total cost of the Falcon 9, so best case would be a 75% cost reduction. Any refurbishment needed before flying again would reduce that, as well as whatever fixed costs there are for a launch, like fuel, salaries for on-site workers, consumable launch pad equipment, or whatever. Refurbishment is the big wild card. If the rocket is ready to go again with no work then it could come close to that 75% reduction. If it requires extensive work before it can fly again then it could be a lot smaller.
- elchief 12y agoSweet, thx. That's a pretty big game-changer.
- hahamrfunnyguy 12y agoInstead of moving the rocket to meet the platform, would it be feasible to employ some stabilization mechanism so that the barge stays relatively level and the rocket doesn't have to correct as much?
- GeneralMayhem 12y agoIf the goal is to recover a rocket from LEO, yes. If the goal is to use this as a training mission to land a rocket on another planet, then no.
- Narishma 12y agoLanding on another planet with the rocket's first stage?
- jccooper 12y agoIt does that. The barge has four thrusters for stabilization. The problem is not the barge moving, but rather control problems. They would have happened on land too--unless by landing on a larger area you have a simpler control problem, which may be true.
- arman0 12y agoDumb question: why can't they land (drop) into a large pool filled with some inert liquid?
- iSnow 12y agoProbably because a rocket engine is pretty hot on landing, so the thermal shock upon contact with the liquid would deform it or cause cracks.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- noir_lord 12y agoOnce that inert liquid is into every single component on the engine how do you safely and cost efficiently remove it? What inert liquid wouldn't vapourise at least partially under the force of a rocket engine? Mostly though you can't find a nice friendly pool of inert liquid on Mars or anywhere else but the Earth in our solar system ;).
- NamTaf 12y agoThere's no pool of inert liquid on Mars. When you look at any design out of SpaceX, you need to keep in mind the fact that Elon himself drives the requirement of 'this has to help humans get to Mars'. It extends through the Falcon, the Dragon and a whole heap of other aspects of what they do.
- godgod 12y agoThis to me seems like a logical idea. Water attempts are what we will have to have but why not test it on a stable platform first to gain knowledge before shooting for the real end goal. Musk is brilliant.
- soheil 12y agoMojave Desert seems like a good candidate. I'd let them use my land http://www.ysoheil.com/2014/08/soheils-village.html http://www.ysoheil.com/2014/08/soheils-village.html
- classicsnoot 12y agoSomeone may have asked this already, but why not use some kind of system similar to "mobile" oil rigs? The kind that float into place, partially submerge, then tether to the sea floor? Seems like the best of both worlds to me... [edit]...It could also serve as the launching platform. In this way the launch/recovery pad could be floated to the rocket, boarded and built, moved into position near the equator, then launch and recover.
- ptio 12y agoThat's what Sea Launch used[1]. Note that the drone ship doubles up as a recovery vehicle to ferry back the stage to land. Also a sea launch platform will be a permanent structure while the drone ship's purpose is to be a test platform for landing on land. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch