Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Musk: SpaceX to Attempt Falcon 9 First Stage Water Landing
Parabolic Arc ^ | March 28, 2013 | Doug Messier

Posted on 04/01/2013 6:12:17 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer

At a joint press conference with NASA earlier today, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said the company will try a water landing of its Falcon 9 first stage later year.

The landing will be the start of a series of flight tests that could culminate with an attempted propulsive landing of a first stage back at its launch site in the middle of 2014, Musk said.

During the initial test, the first stage will continue on a ballistic arc and execute a velocity reduction burn to cushion its re-entry into the atmosphere, the SpaceX chief said. Just before splashdown, the rocket will light up its engines again.

Musk said he expected to lose first stages during the initial recovery attempts. The company is looking to gain the experience and data needed to bring a first stage back to the launch site next year for a propulsive landing using retractable legs. He said that attempt could occur in mid-2014.

SpaceX also plans to unveil upgraded versions of the Falcon 9 and its Dragon freighter later this year. The improved rocket includes more powerful engines, longer fuel tanks and a number of significant upgrades that will improve its capability by 60 to 70 percent, Musk said.

Dragon version 2 will be able to carry more cargo and include larger windows for use in later crewed versions of the vehicle. The upgraded Dragon also will feature powerful, side-mounted thruster pods as well as retractable landing legs that will allow for propulsive touchdowns on land.

Musk expects that water landings will become a thing of the past, and that touching down on land will allow the company to conduct missions at a more rapid pace. He did not give any timetable for the first ground landing attempt.

The SpaceX CEO made his remarks during a post-mission press conference for the recently completed Dragon resupply mission to the International Space Station. Joining Musk at the event were SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, and International Space Station Program Scientist Julie Robinson.

A full synopsis of the press conference is below.

Opening Remarks

Bolden: •We’re really pleased at working together that SpaceX and NASA teams were able to berth at station and return safely
•Importance of the commercial cargo program and how critical it is for the ISS program
•Orbital Sciences is other COTS partner – set for a test flight of Antares rocket in April

Shotwell:
•Three successful missions in three months –
•First operational mission with Dragon trunk – grapple bars
•A number of technological demonstrations on this mission
•Dragon back in port in Long Beach last night at about 7 p.m.
•All systems remain powered and NASA received all critical cargo
•Returned 3,256 lbs. of cargo – 200 lbs. more than originally planned

Musk:
•Had an issue with Dragon spacecraft briefly
•Slight issue with propellant test valve
•Fixed within four or five hours
•No further issues after that point
•We don’t expect to see that issue again

Robinson:
•Over 200 scientific investigations ongoing on ISS
•Variety of different types of experiments
•300 tubes of blood – studying interaction between nutrition and bone loss — applications for osteoporosis treatment
•Experiment looking at alloy mixtures – launched on Dragon and returned
•Agriculture education, commercial activities
•Samples are on the ground, researchers are beginning to look at them

Q&A Session

Q. When is next CRS launch?

Shotwell: CRS 3 launch late this fall. A number of upgrades to the Dragon configuration that will enable better critical cargo to be sent and returned.

Musk: Will include upgraded Falcon 9. Could increase the useful payload of Dragon by several tons. As much as you could pack into Dragon.

Will attempt to recover the first stage.

“As I said before, I think it will take us several flights before we are successful in that.”

Q. Fairing test status at NASA Plum Brook?

Musk: NASA Plum Brook is an “really, epic super cool” facility

Prepping to do separate tests. Will be releasing information on it in the next few weeks.

Q. Are you optimistic about Orbital Sciences tests going on as scheduled?

Bolden: “Yes”

Q. When will Dragon be ready for human spaceflight and are they still on track for 2015?

Musk: “Things seem to be going very well.” Hitting milestones and hope to do pad abort tests later this year. “It’s coming along really well.” Partnership with NASA is going very well.

Bolden: All of our partners are making very good progress and making their milestones under CCiCAP agreements. The partners are also involved in developing certification process and showing they meet the requirements that are laid out.

NASA is the long pole in the tent. Hope to put out an RFP next spring with down select for providers in Fall 2014. Depends upon how generous Congress is with funding the program.

Q. What was the problem with the thrusters on Dragon?

Musk: There was a “very tiny change” to three of the check valves on the oxidizer tank. Different from the previous ones that flew, and they got stuck. Was able to write some new software in real time that was uploaded with Dragon to increase pressure upstream from check valve and release it. The spacecraft version of the Heimlich maneuver. Once they got unstuck, they worked very well.

Had difficulty communicating with the spacecraft because it was drifting. Worked with the Air Force to get higher powered dishes to communicate with Dragon and upload the software.

Q. How will sequestration affect commercial crew?

Bolden: As we projected, sequestration has a detrimental impact on the commercial crew program by reducing the amount of money available for partners. Don’t see an impact for the rest of this fiscal year (ends September 30), but it will have an impact down the road unless NASA gets more funding.

Q. What is long-term solution for Dragon thruster problem?

Musk: The software uploaded was to get the valve unstuck. We need to fix this tiny little issue with the valve, reverting it to was it used to be. Will do some checks to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Q. What is strategy on booster recover?

Musk: Initial recovery test will be a water landing. First stage continue in ballistic arc and execute a velocity reduction burn before it enters atmosphere to lessen impact. Right before splashdown, will light up the engine again. Emphasizes that we don’t expect success in the first several attempts. Hopefully next year with more experience and data, we should be able to return the first stage to the launch site and do a propulsion landing on land using legs.

Q. Is there a flight identified for return to launch site of the booster?

Musk: No. Will probably be the middle of next year.

Q. What are long term effects of sequestration?

Bolden: We don’t see an impact for the rest of 2013 calendar year because we ended up with more money than expected in commercial crew. Already discussing delays in commercial crew milestones with partners. Sequestration is a 10-year program that was never supposed to be executed.

Q. What was Bolden’s reaction to SpaceX’s solution to the propulsion problem?

Bolden: Incredible to watch their young, energetic team work through the propulsion anomaly.

Musk: SpaceX and NASA teams are deeply integrated and working closely with each other. It’s great to work with NASA. NASA was so cool, I was far more anxious than NASA was. We have one cool customer.

Q. On the check valve problem, you characterized it as a tiny issue. Was it a manufacturing or a configuration question?

Musk: It was a tiny design revision change from the supplier. The supplier made some mistakes and we didn’t catch those mistakes. Ran system through low pressurization tests, but didn’t run them through the high presssurization functionality tests. Didn’t get stuck in the low pressurization functionality tests. Make sure we don’t repeat that in the future. Need a magnifying glass to see the difference.

Q. How is upgraded Falcon 9 different from the current version?

Musk: Next version is a meaningful upgrade. Has 60 to 70 percent more capability. Improved redundancy, structure, engines, avionics, etc. This version is designed to allow first stage to land propulsively back at the landing site. Will take at least a year to get that right.

Shotwell: Performance changes are more than rocket changes, but translate into an improvement for scientific community. Can bring up more powered cargo, refrigerators, etc.

Musk: Dragon version 2 will be a significant upgrade, with the capability to land propulsively on land. Water landings will become a thing of the past. Will allow for missions at a faster tempo.

Q. Can you provide more details on Dragon Version 2?

Musk: Significant upgrades, powerful side mounted thruster pods. Quite big windows for astronauts to see outside. Landing legs that pop out of the bottom. It look like kind of a real alien spaceship. Started with landing on water because it was the easiest thing to do and we didn’t really know what we were doing. Didn’t want to take any unnecessary risks. Now want to push the envelope on the technology.

Plan to unveil Dragon Version 2 later this year.

Final Comments

Shotwell: Thanks all the SpaceXers for all the hard work they put in. Thanks NASA as both a partner and customer, extraordinary relationship with them. Thanks the Air Force, FAA and FCC.

Robinson: A real consolidation between commercial transport and the use of ISS for commercial research. All these things are going hand in hand, and they’re bringing results back to the U.S. economy.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last
To: Jonty30

How much have they done that is commercialized?

http://spinoff.nasa.gov/

Here is a start.


51 posted on 04/01/2013 7:08:10 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

“Musk: It was a tiny design revision change from the supplier. The supplier made some mistakes and we didn’t catch those mistakes. Ran system through low pressurization tests, but didn’t run them through the high presssurization functionality tests. Didn’t get stuck in the low pressurization functionality tests. “

Quality control mistakes and inadequate testing are unacceptable when you have lives and billions of dollars at stake. They’ll be forced to add the same overhead NASA has been forced too.


52 posted on 04/01/2013 7:09:14 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Yeah, like that cool Tesla?

Musk is a salesman first, engineer second. He has already figured out how to seperate people (the US government) from their money (taxes money).

Everyone hears “SpaceX” and they think “private commercial”. They would be shocked to know how much money he has received in government contracts.


53 posted on 04/01/2013 7:11:34 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
SpaceX is run by an Obama bundler.

And the others aren't? Are you kidding me? They buy petrolum jelly in 55 gallon drums for use in Washington, DC and surrounding areas.

Difference is SpaceX didn't do a paper spacecraft. They are building hardware that mostly works a whole lot cheaper than all of the above.

/johnny

54 posted on 04/01/2013 7:12:54 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

You’re ok with Obama cronies getting sweatheart deals while the govt is forced to GIVE him data, designs, and technical support?

Really?


55 posted on 04/01/2013 7:15:15 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

And no, the thousands of engineers in Texas and Florida who have been put out of work by this are not Obama fans.


56 posted on 04/01/2013 7:16:38 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Quality control mistakes and inadequate testing are unacceptable when you have lives and billions of dollars at stake.

That kind of crap is the difference between the F-22 and the WWII era warplanes. Fly then fix costs lives. So be it.

Fix then fly means you stay on the ground.

I despise that crap. It's institutionalized thinking.

And even with the billions and billions NASA spent on quality control and testing, they managed to kill a lot more folks than Musk has.

It's a dangerous business.

/johnny

57 posted on 04/01/2013 7:17:51 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Some went to work for Musk. The ones that weren't fossilized into institutional thinking.

/johnny

58 posted on 04/01/2013 7:19:02 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
How much payload will Musk sacrifice in order to land his rocket? Gravity isn’t cheap. It will take a good bit of fuel to land that first stage. That fuel will come at the expense of payload.

Instead of reducing payload, they are making the rocket bigger. Notice they are talking about the Falcon 2 upgrade. I think about 1/3 of the fuel in the rocket will be used to return to the pad.

BTW, NASA has been building and launching rockets for 50 years. What they have learned, they turn over to private industry. You know, people like Elon Musk and SpaceX.

Yes, as they should.

59 posted on 04/01/2013 7:20:05 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

You can do it with a spitfire.

With a system more complicated you end up with mission failure.


60 posted on 04/01/2013 7:20:08 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Looks like Musk is doing it with the Dragon 9.

And he only gets paid for meeting contract milestones. He doesn't get paid for doing studies.

/johnny

61 posted on 04/01/2013 7:21:52 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
With a system more complicated you end up with mission failure.

And I wouldn't call Columbia and Challenger mission successes.... Your way kills people and wastes billions.

/johnny

62 posted on 04/01/2013 7:24:05 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Good grief, they had a hell of a lot of successes as well


63 posted on 04/01/2013 7:28:21 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

I wonder if you or I could get one of those contracts.

No existing company, no past performance, no product, no knowledge of the process.

Yeah thats a sweetheart deal you are defending.


64 posted on 04/01/2013 7:30:13 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
And a lot of failures, including Gissom, Young, and Chaffee.

NASA has screwed the pooch a LOT because of institutionalized thinking.

NASA didn't build those spacecraft. They hired contractors to that they didn't watch. They let a test go on with men inside at 15 PSI O2 with crap wiring in a flakey spacecraft.

No... I'll never be convinced that government can do a better job of providing transportation from point a to point b.

I've ridden in a C-130 and a 747, one government, one commercial. I know which one was better and safer.

/johnny

65 posted on 04/01/2013 7:36:02 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
I wonder if you or I could get one of those contracts.

It's not that much of a deal, if you look at the financials. Musk dropped $100 million into it. Other folks dropped in about another $100 million of private capitalization.

I know I can't put $100M into a company, I have ex-wives. Can you?

Musk started this in 2002. They do get progress payments for meeting milestones. It's 2013, and cap is around $1B or so, last I heard.

/johnny

66 posted on 04/01/2013 7:44:14 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

“I’ve ridden in a C-130 and a 747, one government, one commercial. I know which one was better and safer.”

LOL. Why don’t you compare apples and chainsaws? They are both associated with trees.


67 posted on 04/01/2013 8:15:22 PM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
Because that's a bad comparison. Both are meant for transporting humans and equipment. One is commercial, one is government. One turns a profit, one drinks blood and treasure.

Lives have been lost on both.

I know which one I'd prefer to ride.

There isn't any profit in dead customers for the commercial side.

/johnny

68 posted on 04/01/2013 8:25:12 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I've ridden in a C-130 and a 747, one government, one commercial. I know which one was better and safer.

Now just a bleepin second.

Did the government make the C-130?

69 posted on 04/01/2013 8:42:57 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Nope... but they spec'ed it and contracted for it. For too much. And didn't do a bad job for a device made to kill people and break things, or further those goals.

I know which one I'd ride in, if I was forced to ride in an aircraft again. And I'd pay for the upgrade to first class.

/johnny

70 posted on 04/01/2013 8:48:40 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
a device made to kill people and break things,

A C-130 is a cargo plane.

71 posted on 04/01/2013 8:55:51 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
This is a big deal.

Wow. This is the definition of Big Deal. Thanks for the post. BTTT.
72 posted on 04/01/2013 8:58:12 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
It is made to also carry people. Very, very badly. In cheap lawn chair kind of seats that shake your kidneys out through your ears.

They also have variants with very, very large weapons in them. Like 155s. And bofors. Thumpy stuff.

So yes, they were designed and spec'ed to carry cargo and passengers in the use of killing people and breaking things, but they also do some serious killing and breaking all their own.

/johnny

73 posted on 04/01/2013 9:01:57 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
They also have variants with very, very large weapons in them.

AC-130.

74 posted on 04/01/2013 9:05:16 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Why do you guys celebrate this Obama bundler getting these sweet deals?

If we measured someone's worth by their politics we'd be democrats. They are the ones who consider political influence to be more important that achievement.

Paypal and SpaceX are great businesses, and Falcon/Dragon is a far cheaper way to orbit than the shuttle was. So the founder of those businesses is an idiot in his politics. That doesn't change the value of those businesses.

75 posted on 04/01/2013 9:06:44 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
"During the initial test, the first stage will continue on a ballistic arc and execute a velocity reduction burn to cushion its re-entry into the atmosphere, the SpaceX chief said. Just before splashdown, the rocket will light up its engines again."

Ouch... Not good for the hot section parts. Since the bell nozzles are ablative, they would be replaced anyway, but when the hot combustors hit that salt water... Ouch...

76 posted on 04/02/2013 5:34:01 AM PDT by Freeport (The proper application of high explosives will remove all obstacles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal

“If we measured someone’s worth by their politics we’d be democrats. They are the ones who consider political influence to be more important that achievement. “

So you like corruption and helping those who would be happy to see you jailed for your beliefs. Good to know.

As for the cost of Spacex. Sure its cheaper then the shuttle. Thats to be expected for a platform with a fraction of the capability of the shuttle or many other existing platforms.

We are in a fight for our lives and our freedoms. If you are ok with those who seek to take our freedoms then you are the enemy.


77 posted on 04/02/2013 6:42:56 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

So you’re ok with “fly then fix” for SpaceX and the failures which that introduces but use the failures of NASA to condemn them?

kinda hypocritical

Comparing a C-130 to a 747 is laughable.


78 posted on 04/02/2013 6:45:03 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

I don’t think they will be recovering the stages from the water for reuse in these flights. They just want to reduce the speed down to near zero before it hits the water..


79 posted on 04/02/2013 8:06:23 AM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-79 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson