SpaceX has released a statement:
After landing, the vehicle tipped sideways as planned to its final water safing state in a nearly horizontal position. The water impact caused loss of hull integrity, but we received all the necessary data to achieve a successful landing on a future flight. Going forward, we are taking steps to minimize the build up of ice and spots on the camera housing in order to gather improved video on future launches.
At this point, we are highly confident of being able to land successfully on a floating launch pad or back at the launch site and refly the rocket with no required refurbishment. However, our next couple launches are for very high velocity geostationary satellite missions, which don’t allow enough residual propellant for landing. In the longer term, missions like that will fly on Falcon Heavy, but until then Falcon 9 will need to fly in expendable mode.
We will attempt our next water landing on flight 13 of Falcon 9, but with a low probability of success. Flights 14 and 15 will attempt to land on a solid surface with an improved probability of success.
Some questions. Did they recover the hardware, or did it sink? If they didn’t recover it, how can they inspect it post flight to have that level of confidence in a low-refurbishment reflight?
So they’ve basically give up on ocean recovery. I wonder what “solid surface” they’ll attempt to land on? On Twitter the other day, I suggested flying back to Walker Cay, the northernmost island of the Bahamas, if they can’t get FAA permission to come back to Florida. Or perhaps they could try to drop it on a barge down range.
I would guess a barge downrange, given the opening they left themselves with this statement: “we are highly confident of being able to land successfully on a floating launch pad or back at the launch site and refly the rocket with no required refurbishment.” (empasis added)
Granted, I have no inside or outside knowledge, just a SWAG.
I missed that in my skim, I guess.
I caught it on my initial read, but it actually took me two or three attempts to find the passage when I went to copy it for the quote (I kept looking in the first and third paragraphs).
Great news. I wonder if they will start making higher altitude test flights at Spaceport America before the next launch-with-legs (Commercial Resupply 4), and whether CRS-4 will feature fins as well as legs.
I watch the flight, and was astonished at the amount of loft it had. Staging took place less than 30 km down range. Normally it’s a couple of hundred. I would never have guessed that this vehicle had the performance to do the Orbcomm mission with that much loft, but it did. And I have no doubt now that their performance reserve is sufficient to get back to the Cape and land.
Going further downrange would not help. They’d have to depress the trajectory and speed up the first stage after staging in order to reach the nearest island. That would compound the problem, not solve it. They are in a very good place right now, and I’m extremely optimistic about them having a reusable first stage.
I wasn’t proposing a down-range island (not sure there are any other than Bermuda). I was proposing turning around as they plan to for the Cape and just heading a little further southeast to Walker Cay. It’s not easier to get to, but it might be easier to get permission from the Bahamian government.
Who thought up that crazy idea? lol. It’s Walker’s Cay and it is (or was) for sale list time I checked.
First, there is ITAR. There is also a village there. You would have to run it by them first, although they would probably be totally into it since Walker’s Cay has been trashed for quite a while now.
The better idea was for the core stage of the Falcon Heavy out of Brownsville. Hog Cay recently sold at auction and the bidding was far more aggressive than anybody imagined. It has an airport and an airport code. Regardless, unless they do the ‘dogleg’ or head south past the Cayman’s and out post Trinadad and Tobago they would have to overfly the most narrow part of Long Island where there is nothing but a couple of shacks and some pothole farms. I know everybody out there and I’ve already ran this past them, since it is bound to come up in the future. But the dogleg clears them of any liability (barely but they can squeak through) anyways, depending on the inclination and timing. And you have already mentioned Cay Sal which I have brought up years ago. I guess is that once this gets going the overflight rule and ITAR will be modified, which then would allow them to land the core stage almost anywhere along the coast and in Florida.
A TSTO MCT BFR using methane will obsolete all of these arguments.
I knew I shouldn’t mention the Bahamas with Elifritz in the neighborhood. It’s like saying “Betelgeuse.”
That may be true, but the question remains, who bought ‘Innocence Island’? lol.
I can’t wait until we start treating these things as hypersonic stratospheric airlines.
(Geatano mode..on) I thought of it first and did a comment suggesting a barge landing, so it’s my idea and they should pay me a gazillion bucks and use the rest of my superior ideas from now on. (Geatano mode off) I did suggest a barge recovery for some other vehicle once, but it was definitely not as tall and skinny as the Falcon 9. In anything but a perfect sea state, I expect problems keeping it properly vertical until it can be secured. Even then I wonder at the abuse from wave action on the skinny tower.
Prove me wrong and I cheer.
Its a rocket. It flies. It only needs to refill on the barge, then it flies away to pick up the next satellite to launch.
It could be one of those semi-submersible types, similar to sealauch’s platform. They tend to be pretty stable in most sea states you’d attempt a landing. Also gives time to secure it after landing before moving the platform.
Unfortunately, Blue Origin patented the barge recovery idea recently.
Can you patent landing on a ship?
So, all aircraft carriers ar grounded now?
So, all aircraft carriers ar grounded now?
Only if you plan to land ‘space launch vehicles’ on them.
“A method for operating a space launch vehicle, the method comprising: launching the space launch vehicle from earth; positioning a landing structure in a body of water; and landing the space launch vehicle on the landing structure in the body of water. “
Well, it will be interesting to watch Bezos attempt to sue Elon after he does it a couple times for test flights, and then starts flying back.
How do you patent something that you’ve not yet done nor demonstrated the capacity to do?
Such a bullshit patent. Ever heard of the Douglas Ithacus?
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/ithacus.htm
I thought you weren’t supposed to be able to patent raw ideas, but only ones that you have “reduced to practice”.
Anyway, I doubt Blue Origin having such a patent would be any great impediment to SpaceX using the idea. It’s got to be a lot better than some patent troll owning it.
Whenever I read “Bob patented foo” I always insert “a method for” in there. Often the person making the comment doesn’t have any clue that the patent was for a particular method but seeing as that’s what patents are granted for, it saves a lot of heartache to just silently correct them.
In this case, Bezos, Lai and Findlay patented a method for vertically landing a reusable booster on a barge that involves multidirectional communication between booster and barge. It was granted on March 25th this year and you can read the specific claims here: http://www.google.com/patents/US8678321
Or Elon Musk could just stop fooling around with outdated coastal launch facilities and launch from Spaceport America. The original studies in the 1990’s mapped out over land corridors to ISS, Polar and Equatorial orbits. You have multiple airfields downrange to land on, less corrosion, an attitude advantage that allows increased payload and much better flying weather. It should also be pointed out WSMR has a decades long history of overland rocket flights from the old IRBM and anti-missile research programs with Pershings and Scuds being regularly launched into the range from Utah and Fort Wingate, so an occasional controlled launch wouldn’t be an issue.
Given that the two Asiasat missions are Falcon 9 numbers 11 and 12, 13 is the CRS 4 mission currently scheduled for Sept. 12. The identities of Falcon 9 flights 14 and 15, those SpaceX now declares to be the initial pair of feet-dry 1st-stage landing attempts, seem a bit less definite. The next two items on SpaceX’s launch manifest listing after CRS 4 are the second Orbcomm mission and CRS 5. Both of these are obviously candidates for 1st-stage flyback tests. But CRS 5 is on the Spaceflight Now launch schedule as a Dec. 1 mission. The second Orbcomm mission isn’t on the Spaceflight Now schedule at all yet.
What is on the Spaceflight Now schedule for SpaceX in the next 55 days are the two Asiasat missions and CRS 4. These missions are shown scheduled three weeks apart. This is the sort of accelerated launch tempo many have called for SpaceX to step up and provide, but following three missions in 55 days with only two missions in the next 80 days seems a significant step back.
On the other hand, there might not be anything that could be conveniently back-scheduled into the final quarter of 2014. The next six missions on SpaceX’s manifest beyond CRS 5 only include one that is definitely a candidate for more 1st-stage recovery testing. That would be CRS 6, scheduled for Feb. 4 according to Spaceflight Now. The rest of the next six are what appear to be four GTO comsats plus something for the Argentine space agency that is launching out of V’berg. I’m guessing that negotiations about feet-dry RTLS recovery of 1st-stages is probably at an even earlier stage, vis-a-vis V’berg, than is the case for KSC/Canaveral so I’m not looking for a California beach landing that soon.
Four of the six missions just referenced from the SpaceX manifest don’t appear yet on the Spaceflight Now schedule, but the two that do are scheduled about a month apart. That suggests SpaceX is anticipating a normative mission-a-month schedule next year. If so, the upcoming Orbcomm mission and the two CRS missions may be the only three opportunities for more flyback testing until the second half of 2015.
It would not surprise me if simple bureaucratic hypercautiousness is holding up SpaceX’s permission to try landing returning F9 1st stages at KSC/Canaveral. Perhaps the reference to a “floating launch pad” is SpaceX’s way of hinting that NASA may not be prepared to be reasonable about this matter in time to take advantage of the only two test opportunities SpaceX may have for awhile. Could be SpaceX is already lining up some kind of Plan B that involves some manner of seagoing catcher’s mitt.
On another question entirely, I wonder what SpaceX plans to do to keep ice off the downward-facing video camera window. A de-icing fluid sprayer? A windshield wiper? Both? As with Jim’s musing about the possible presence of paddle fins on the next operational F9 1st stage, it is impossible not to wonder what neat little bit of business we’ll see next.
If there’s institutional resistance to a flyback to Florida, I’d think it more likely to come from the range and the FAA than from NASA.
Salient point. That’s the problem with having multiple parties to a decision, any one of which can unilaterally veto proposals for change. Also explains why SpaceX is so eager to get going in places – and I assume that plural will shortly be operative – like Brownsville.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2006/06_05AR.html
For example. Probably something you can spray on or some coating in the lens to prevent frosting.
The first Falcon Heavy launch is scheduled for early 2015. Attempting to recover 2 or 3 of the cores would make that an even more exciting test.
Yes. Yes it would.
Gives new meaning and maybe new hope to recovering aerospace engineers around the world.
The video is available here.
Per Rand’s suggestion to use a small island downrange to land:
SpaceX Roadmap building on its rocket business revolution.
July 28, 2014 by Chris Bergin
L2 information notes SpaceX is evaluating first stage landing sites at both its East and West coast launch locations, with SLC-13 at Cape Canaveral and SLC-4W at Vandenberg understood to be the favored options at this point in time.
The information also provides intriguing, albeit unconfirmed, notes that SpaceX may be looking at an island downrange of the West Coast launch site for returning Falcon Heavy cores, in the event a high payload penalty negates a return to SLC-4W.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/07/spacex-roadmap-rocket-business-revolution/
And the author of this blog suggests Puerto Rico and nearby islands for take off and landing:
“why launch from Puerto Rico?”
June 7, 2014
(The spam filter sometimes catches blog URL’s so you can find that author’s blog post by doing a Google search on the title.)
Bob Clark
Rand certainly wasn’t the first to suggest this, you can search the space blogs and forums for much suggestions. Besides Walker’s Cay, the big one is Innocence Island (Hog Cay) just south of Little Exuma with a direct line to Brownsville and no intervening islands. Cay Sal is particularly intriguing and a colleague of mine in Texas recently went out there to do a wildlife assay and got a stunning aerial photo of it, basically the first ever. This place is perfect for F9H center core recovery, but also perfect for BFR noise abatement, and has deep water on the leeward side for the big liquid methane and oxygen tankers that will be needed. Multiple landing sites from Cay Sal are available, including Great Exuma, Duncan Town in the Ragged’s. I’ve been working this problem for a while and I know everyone in the Bahamas.
This is space colonization we are talking about on a grand scale. Think it through, you can do it! lol.