Posted on 12/20/2015 12:13:01 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine
Photos: Taller, souped-up Falcon 9 on the launch pad
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/12/20/photos-taller-souped-up-falcon-9-on-the-launch-pad/
SpaceX scheduled to return Falcon 9 rocket to flight Sunday
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/12/19/spacex-plans-to-return-falcon-9-rocket-to-flight-sunday/
Live coverage: Upgraded Falcon 9 rocket set for debut launch
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/12/20/falcon-9-orbcomm-2-mission-status-center/
You can also watch the live launch coverage here.
http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow
They really need to focus on the ascent after the last one.
Proves we don’t have technology to go to the moon. Still don’t.
I may be the only person who doesn’t, but I do not see the benefit of landing the return craft like this.
My concern is that this is a highly problematic maneuver, and would add an additional element that has to go just right or there is total disaster.
Are there going to be people returning via this vehicle, or is it just a cargo specific entity?
Last time they tried this was out in the ocean and it failed. It fell into the ocean. So this time they are trying on land and Cape Canaveral has so much confidence in this landing that they are evacuating. Says so in the article. It’s just too dangerous. Going to ruin Florida .
The first stage is not a person or cargo carrying vehicle. It’s just the booster rocket. The advantage to reusing it is that it saves on costs by refurbishing it rather than having to throw one away every time they launch. It cost much less to refurbish, or it should, then it does to just build and launch.
Yikes...
I knew the former ones had failed on that platform.
The first one of these that comes down slamming into something it shouldn’t have, they’ll pay out ten times the lost stage rocket.
Thanks for that important clarification.
That makes sense.
Since that thing doesn’t go orbital, wouldn’t it be easier to simply put wings on it and fly it back to the launch site?
Does that stage still go too high to do that.
When they launch something like in Atlas or Delta, and it explodes on take off, it’s a much bigger bang than what they would get if the Space X first stage comes down off center and explodes. There’s not as much fuel in it. They can get the direction and the pin point of where they’re supposed to land correctly. Both times they tried to land it on the barge, it landed ON the barge, but off-center. If they can solve that, it should work. However, things can go wrong... as they found out.
That wasn’t the way they designed it. I do know that the Blue Origin rocket does have wings on it that help guide it back to where it’s supposed to land. I think maybe that might help SpaceX, but its all up to their engineers.
I agree. Thanks for your responses.
I have a front seat to watch from my front yard.
Thanks for posting this, wanted to watch.
That wasn’t the way they designed it. I do know that the Blue Origin rocket does have wings on it that help guide it back to where it’s supposed to land. I think maybe that might help SpaceX, but its all up to their engineers.
...
Blue Origin uses some type of fins. I wouldn’t call them wings. SpaceX uses aerodynamic grids, cold gas thrusters, and a steerable rocket motor.
Nice...we gave up our front yard seating 10 years ago in our relocation to GreenAcres. We are coming to the weeks (mid-December to mid-March) that I would prefer to be back in M/I!
The biggest difference is the payload capsule on top. The one that parachutes down. The Blue Origin capsule is designed to carry tourists to near space, and the spacex payload is satellites which continue into orbit. But the first stages of both are very similar in design.
Postponed 24 hours to wait for better weather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.