Business, Space, Technology and Society

SpaceX Flight

69 Comments

Looks like another perfect flight of the Falcon 9 and Dragon. Press conference is scheduled at 1700 EDT, when they’ll presumably tell us how the recovery attempt went. They did report a successful entry burn.

[Update about 5 PM PDT]

Elon has some news:

[Another update about twenty minutes later]

[Update an hour or so later]

I should add that while this is great news, it will still be disappointing if the rough seas prevent recovery, or break up the vehicle, because they’ll lose data they’d like to have to see how the stage handled the flight. That’s critical to understanding turnaround. The good news is that they’ll be able to do this every flight (that doesn’t need a lot of performance, like their earlier GEO missions) to get it right, and finally start to understand that.

69 thoughts on “SpaceX Flight”

      1. Went looking for the comment and couldn’t find it. Wonder if he deleted it, and what he meant. The Russians apparently have a salvage ship in the recovery area. Was he suggesting they would try to poach the stage? Or was he thinking about, ah, ‘denial of access,’ achieved more directly? (Dang it, why’d he have to go spoil my celebration?)

        1. Chris Bergin mentioned trimming the thread, which is a launch update thread and had wandered off-topic. Glad I saved it.

          The paranoid conspiracy-mongering portion of my brain made me think of the possibility of future attempts at sabotage. Hope SpaceX has good security.

        2. Right now space services bring in massive amounts of hard cash to Russia. ISS missions, for one. International and domestic commercial launches for another. Even with the cost of their own ISS flights everything else pretty much puts them in the positive. If SpaceX captures most of the worldwide commercial business plus brings ISS crew transfer back home that drains a huge amount of business away from Russia, potentially even domestic Russian business. That’s a scary place for them to be in.

          1. Don’t be surprised when the Russians or others announce their reusable vehicle. It’s either compete or die.

          2. Ken: I’m perfectly fine with that. The more the merrier. It certainly beats what I was thinking.

          3. It certainly beats what I was thinking.

            Do tell rickl. (Sabotage?)

            BTW if any have the time, please Fisk me. I’m hoping Rand does although I know he’s busy and may not think my thoughts worthy. But I’d love if he would.

      2. The NASA money was nice dollars to the Russians but peanuts compared to Fossil Fuel Sales.

        It’s funny, the Russians have a weak card with ISS access because the US can either shut down
        the ISS or get Commercial resupply going in full gear. Dragon is operational in V1.0, by V3.0 it will be able to carry crewmembers. Cygnus is operational and if the ESA spends some money they can keep ATV operating and that gives NASA and ESA a lot of options.

        However Oil and Gas Sales which is the big fish, is likely to be dying in 10 years. The rapid growth of renewables will be the one that really interrupts the russian cash pipeline

        1. However Oil and Gas Sales which is the big fish, is likely to be dying in 10 years. The rapid growth of renewables will be the one that really interrupts the russian cash pipeline

          Dream on.

      1. If I recall they had a similar problem with the DC-X. The solution they reached was just to go to a local hardware store and buy some fire retardant paint designed for paint garages. Problem solved.

      2. This seems like something you would catch with a desktop analysis.

        It’s really simple to estimate radiation loads and try and figure out
        the peak temperatures on the legs, and the heat rise and flux plus of course
        the effect on structural weakness due to heating.

        I’d say the challenge is they want the legs out early to help reduce rotation but that means they get hot. I’m sure it’s solvable but the weight penalty could be rough.

        1. This seems like something you would catch with a desktop analysis.

          If so, NASA wasn’t using those desktop analysis with Shuttle. Do you really think the only issue is radiation? No concern with AO or roughness?

          Hey, speaking of desktop analysis, did you ever find way that told you that 4 engine aircraft are designed to maintain flight control with 2 engines? Your previous app seemed so lacking, I’m sure you upgraded by now.

        2. Something tells me that the radiation loads are only part of the heating; I would be much more worried about hot gas convection.

          1. Actaully, for kerosene engines radiant heating dominates in a big way, on the X-Racer I measured (redacted) kW/m2 of radiant heat with a simple calorimeter, while the plume educts a substantial cool air flow across the area of interest. The hot gases are going away, not washing across the legs. Selection of the correct paint is not simple.

    2. There are things you should paint, and things you shouldn’t.

      Perhaps a porcelain coating would be more appropriate.

    3. Thanks for the vid link! Great shots!!!

      As for the legs, my guess is they’re on fire, but, shouldn’t be an issue for later flights; they plan on launching the F9R test stage with them stowed and then deploying just prior to touchdown (so far less exposure to IR from the engine).

      Okay, now a dumb question regarding that drone they used to shoot from; it looks like it was darn close. Isn’t there a danger to F9R if the drone strayed into it’s path? My guess is that it’s no danger because of the low relative velocities; any collision would likely not harm the F9 (though the drone might not be so fortunate) but I don’t know.

    4. I live about 20 miles away from the McGregor Test Site and you can clearly hear those tests. The 9-R is a much louder beast than the Grasshopper was (Which you can see in the background just be for the video ends…) The first time they tested the full up engine configuration for the 9XL, they started warning us locals about 2 weeks in advance. Say what you will about SpaceX, their PR efforts here in the Waco area have been masterful and the whole community is excited by what is going on out there. And the kids are loving it…

      1. I envy you your close proximity to McGregor. I’d love to see one of these tests, and I assume they are easily visible from publicly accessible areas – especially once they start going to higher altitudes.

        I too commend their PR efforts, but… one has to ask, how to the cows feel about the F9 tests? 🙂

        1. The only thing I care about with the cows is are they medium rare, and can I have a good portion of burnt ends with lots of barbeque sauce after they get flame broiled by the F9-R… 😀

          1. What? Shouldn’t the opinions of cows be taken into account regarding space policy? I think they should… after all, the opinions of members of congress count for a lot, and cows are far smarter.

          3. Actually it would be the ranchers that own the cows and whether or not launches have a direct/indirect negative effect on their herds and the revenue stream at auction time. If the launches hurt their bottom line they will complain .. if not …

        2. The test facility is out int he middle of an old Navy ordanance depot. Lots of nice empty space and plenty of spread out bunkers to store stuff in that could go boom. You can get reasonably close, but access is controlled, and some times all we get is a notice that “sometime between 8am and Noon, SpaceX will be conducting a test.” Makes it a bit hard, but not impossible to plan to be there…

        3. I’m pretty sure they chose McGregor because of the PR value. George W. Bush lives only ten miles away.

          1. No, they chose it because Beal had already done much of the legwork to refurbish it into a propulsion test facility.

    5. Is it perhaps a more ablative coating that’s -supposed- to cook off to carry the heat away from the actual legs? Under the “Let something change phase/react and physically go away with the heat” plan?

    6. I don’t think the legs “caught fire”… Most of the visible flame is from the turbo-pump exhaust.

      The legs were certainly smoking, though – or the (ablative?) coating that they are covered in.

  3. Rand, can you give us some insight on why the rocket structure is still being painted on the outside? Is is it for insulation and protection? Or asethetics? I would have thought that after what was learned about the weight savings from not painting the external tank for the shuttle launches would have applied here too. Not that most of what was done with the shuttle’s design and use should serve as a warning of what not to do…

    1. The ET was a special case, there the paint was over foam insulation and designed to be protective, so it was quite heavy. For the F9 the surface area is less (because of stage density) and since the paint is just anti-corrosion and not designed to protect vulnerable foam insulation it is much thinner and thus much lighter overall.

      2. Two arguments for launching to orbit from Space America. Less corrosion issues because of the high desert air. Second, lots of places down range to land the booster with worrying about losing it to heavy seas, not to mention no need to flush the salt water out of it.

        1. Good point about the corrosion, but SpaceX learned their corrosion lessons back on the first Falcon 1 and made appropriate changes. I don’t think their vehicles much mind the salt air at the Cape – or at V’berg for that matter – anymore. I’m sure they’ll do just fine in the local miasma at Brownsville too. As for the sea water problem, it’s strictly a temporary expedient during recoverability testing to land in the water. Multiple SpaceX-ers have stated their hope to recover a 1st stage on land before year’s end and to refly it early next year. Once they’ve gotten one back to a feet-dry landing, I don’t see anymore trips into the drink in SpaceX’s future.

    2. ET used foam insulation because the tank stores liquid hydrogen fuel. Falcon 9 uses LOX/Kerosene which boils at higher temperatures so it needs less insulation.

  4. As I posted in the reusability thread the big takeaway here is that SpaceX is able to test reusability with operational launches. There is nothing they won’t be able to test in the reusable flight profile up to and including RTLS, and to do so without adding mission risk to their customers. To have such remarkable testing ability which is for the most part subsidized by customers is a tremendous advantage to them. If you compare to Blue Origin with their reusability tests, here you have NASA, and other customers, paying for the best and most expensive reusability tests for the Falcon 9, and still getting operational orbital launches out of it.

    1. It’s even more of a win-win than that apparently. On the post-launch news conference, NASA’s Gerstenmaier said NASA, itself, is also interested in SpaceX’s data from their high-altitude, hypersonic entry burn experiments. It has relevance to work NASA is doing anent the landing of large objects on Mars.

      1. Darn it. That’s the second use of “anent” here this year. If you keep it up, the word will return from its status as archaic and become commonplace, like “fetch” did with computers.

      1. Of course. And were it not for the perversions of the launch industry caused by Cold War geopolitics all of this would be par for the course, and much of the work SpaceX is doing now would have been done decades ago. I think SpaceX is probably doing a bit better than what should be expected, even so.

        Sometimes bog standard pragmatism within a sea of unreason and irrationality is itself notable. It’s interesting how many commercial, profit seeking companies have been involved in the spaceflight business, but the vast majority of them have taken the path of setting up a fiefdom and suckling at the teat of easy money, rather than to put in the work to build highly competitive services.

        1. I would have to say that the ULA’s companies have as much to do and blame to share with NASA for the sorry state of the launch industry and the apathy in Congress for commercial crew, as well as the congressional support for the SLS/NASA Jobs Program.

          Heck, I was born right before Apollo 13 and grew up watching Voyager and the shuttle, etc, all the time believing that by the time I was 30 we would have a major base on the moon and would be looking at colonizing Mars and the larger asteroids. Little did I know we would never leave earth orbit in a manned spacecraft again after the landins were done. As cool as Voyager, Spirit and Opportunity, and Cassini et. al. are, one team of mining prospecters could have done in a week what it has taken the rovers a decade to do…

        2. One of the perversions is simply the mind set of some people…

          One can only hope that by the time colonization of Mars becomes practical that we will be beyond ownership of material things…

          This to refute my revised plan which is based on a simple trust.

          1. BTW, I sent a link to that post to SpaceX, Mars One and Space Adventures. Feel free to contact them with that link yourselves. Setting up a trust is the first step. Media attention, which seems to be Mars One’s bailywick is the second.

            It is absolutely ridiculous that selling phony mars deeds for $20 a pop is ok, but chain of title is somehow out of fashion? All chain of title begins with a claim.

          2. I’ve also just sent email to a couple of law firms that specialize in trusts as well as to the Mars Society. My plan is to annoy enough people until somebody takes me seriously. I want to make this happen. Financing is the key. Don’t you want to see the launch of a ten meter core with nine raptor engines?

      1. Very heavy seas, it seems. Waves of 15 – 20 feet were mentioned during the press conference. I don’t know the details of what waterborne assets SpaceX has deployed out there, but boats is probably a more apt description than ships. Except for the fact that it’s not freezing at those latitudes in the Atlantic, I’m guessing it’s looking a lot like an episode of Deadliest Catch out there right now. I hope the 1st stage is recoverable, but if they lose it, them’s the breaks. You launch with the weather and sea state you’ve got, wha da doo dah.

  6. Wonderful news on the 8 second post-splashdown transmissions; that means a relatively intact soft landing, which is a HUGE step forward. IMHO, this is more important than the actual mission itself (though that’s very important, of course).

    1. Pending confirmation via detailed analysis of telemetry, it sure sounds like a completely nominal recovery descent and zero-velocity hover just over the wave tops followed by a gentle slide into the drink. Still hoping for physical recovery of the stage, but I’d sure hate to be the lad who has to bend a line on that puppy.

  7. There was smoke coming from the landing legs on previous flights too, I think it is some sort of ablative coating.

  8. Good news all around. They need to test it over some place where it is easier to recover the first stage.

    1. I disagree, I think it’s better this way. They’re forced to work out the nitty gritty details on RTLS. That flight profile is ultimately the most practical and useful, it’s better to put in the modicum of extra effort necessary to make it work than to be stuck with some interim solution for too long due to fears of how “hard” it is to do a proper RTLS.

  9. “I should add that while this is great news, it will still be disappointing if the rough seas prevent recovery, or break up the vehicle, because they’ll lose data they’d like to have to see how the stage handled the flight. ”

    I take it that there are telemetry limitations that prevents transmitting the data in real time? Given the number of things that can go wrong with a water landing (I realize that’s temporary), it would have been nice to telemeter all the data instead of recording it. But then maybe there’s a lot of data recorded.

    Anyhow congratulations Space-X – very well done.

    1. Pretty amazing what a rolling cross-sea can do with regard to working seams and opening that which is thought to be closed.

  12. I was thinking that the first stage would be listed in a marine hazards alert if it was floating, and I found this;

    This is from a marine nav hazzards KMZ (google Earth) product, which can be found at;
    http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/MSI.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=msi_portal_page_63

    NAVAREA IV 274/14 [1 of 1][[WWNWSFOLDER]]

    WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
    1. 150 FOOT LONG ROCKET BOOSTER ADRIFT VICINITY
    31-00N 076-00W. REPORTS TO U.S. COAST GUARD MIAMI,
    PHONE: 305 415 6800, E-MAIL: RCCMIAMI@USCG.MIL.
    2. CANCEL THIS MSG 220720Z APR 14.//

    Authority: RCC MIAMI 190256Z APR 14.

    Date:
    Cancel: 22072000 Apr 14

    I do see the cancel, BUT, it’s still in the current warnings. And, at least this gives us the coordinates.

Comments are closed.