Link: https://youtu.be/DPfHHls50-w
Ummm...that was 2 weeks ago.
Faclon 9 Dragon Capsule to ISS resupply mission reschedule for May 3rd.
3 Boosters incoming to recovery now.
I was wondering, but it said "live" for time. ...and comments are live.
I think that's someone doing a "live" replay of the launch in order to get views. It's kinda like NBC re-airing the dropping of the ball at 3:00 AM on January 1st so the West Coast can pretend 
Still an amazing thing to see, those Heavy launches are 2^3 cooler than a regular Falcon 9 launch.
The real-time streams will be found on SpaceX's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/spacexchannel
I think the next Heavy launch is June 22.
So that was the correct landing on the ship that fell off on it's way back, then...
Still, interesting to watch.
Yup.... I only saw it because it was highlighted in the YouTube sidebar as "Live". It was also packed with ads that kept interrupting the stream. So, I was spoofed by Google/YouTube. pretty E36 M3ty they do it like that.
alfadriver said:So that was the correct landing on the ship that fell off on it's way back, then...
Still, interesting to watch.
Iirc, there’s a robot and runs out and grabs the boosters on the ship to hold them down - after another capsized. But the FH center has a different landing gear setup so the robot couldn’t attach.
So cool to watch.
One thing that I should have posted yesterday, since I actually happened to see part of it- Blue Origin launched again, yesterday. Nothing into orbit, but an up and down flight.
It was live on youtube, and you can see the replay. First time I've seen one- and it's interesting that the rocket is pretty short and fat- relatively speaking. But what it's testing is the flights of a, soon to be, manned capsule for people to fly to space and back. Huge windows on the capsule, and that would be interesting to be in. Like SpaceX this is a totally recovered and reused system- apparently yesterday's flight was the 5th of this one. And, like X, the engine stage glides down and lands vertically.
FWIW, this is the "war" between Musk (Space X) and Bezos (Blue Origin). Seems to me that X has a pretty sizable lead... But it's pretty cool to see.
And we can't forget Boeing and NASA's project.
alfadriver said:- and it's interesting that the rocket is pretty short and fat- relatively speaking.
Short and fat is where it's at!
There's a big difference in the energy involved between the BO and SpaceX recoveries - SpaceX has a big lead not only in the sheer number of launches, but in the difficulty of the recoveries. The two of them seem to be aiming for different end results, so we're seeing a different approach.
SpaceX scrubbed a launch today because of a problem with the recovery ship. Nothing that would affect the actual launch, but it meant they wouldn't get the booster back. Think about that - the recovery has become so normal that the launch won't go unless it's possible. Why throw away a $25,000,000 booster if you don't have to?
In reply to Keith Tanner :
The only thing that I see that makes SpaceX such a difficulty is that they are choosing to launch over open water. And I know BO wants to do the same thing, as Bezos wanted the launch site that X is using for them. So....
The fact that BO has not put anything into orbit yet isn't really a different- I think that will come in due time.
So I'm not really seeing that the approaches are actually different. They are in totally different phases of development of the same concept.
Keith Tanner said:Why throw away a $25,000,000 booster if you don't have to?
I guess that's one good aspect of the privatization of the space program. Fiscal responsibility. The gubmint wouldn't bother with recovery, because taxpayer money is like, free.
1988RedT2 said:Keith Tanner said:Why throw away a $25,000,000 booster if you don't have to?
I guess that's one good aspect of the privatization of the space program. Fiscal responsibility. The gubmint wouldn't bother with recovery, because taxpayer money is like, free.
???
The Apollo program did throw a lot away, sure, but the Space Shuttle reused everything, other than one big fuel tank.
In reply to alfadriver :
Well, okay. They recovered the solid rocket boosters, but none of them ever flew again.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
??? Seems like a lot of them were- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster
Sure, there was a lot to rebuild them, and it wasn't cheap. But they were not 100% new....
Here's some more detail- https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9261/how-many-solid-rocket-boosters-were-there-in-the-space-shuttle-program
Which points out that the boosters were not uniquely put together and reused- but segments of each booster was used to assemble a booster for launch. Parts were used from different sources, but the segments certainly launched more than once. It was not as if the whole thing was thrown away. The worst of the worst was one segment had 124 made for 135 flights- but the best was 15 made for the same 135 flights.
Relative to what we see now, no, that was not the best cost solution. But it was not totally wasted, and was an effective solution for the 80's.
alfadriver said:???
The Apollo program did throw a lot away, sure, but the Space Shuttle reused everything, other than one big fuel tank.
All of which needed to be completely gone through and reworked. It would have been far cheaper in most cases just to use a disposable rocket. Even the SpaceX boosters need a to be reworked, just not as much, since they are FAR simpler then an entire shuttle.
The Space Shuttle was useful when you needed to bring cargo back, but that rarely happened. It was basically a very expensive proof of concept that was never practical.
In reply to aircooled :
I understand that, but I'm not sure back in the 80's you could reliably recover a vertical landing rocket, like we are now. And given that issue, a liquid rocket was not possible thanks to the required water landing. (how much reliance on GPS do those current rockets require? Which didn't exist for the SS development)
And I also understand that the SS was not the best program in terms of recycling the parts or cost efficiency. But they at least tried.
alfadriver said:In reply to 1988RedT2 :
??? Seems like a lot of them were- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster
Sure, there was a lot to rebuild them, and it wasn't cheap. But they were not 100% new....
Here's some more detail- https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9261/how-many-solid-rocket-boosters-were-there-in-the-space-shuttle-program
Which points out that the boosters were not uniquely put together and reused- but segments of each booster was used to assemble a booster for launch. Parts were used from different sources, but the segments certainly launched more than once. It was not as if the whole thing was thrown away. The worst of the worst was one segment had 124 made for 135 flights- but the best was 15 made for the same 135 flights.
Relative to what we see now, no, that was not the best cost solution. But it was not totally wasted, and was an effective solution for the 80's.
Fascinating! I had no idea.
alfadriver said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
The only thing that I see that makes SpaceX such a difficulty is that they are choosing to launch over open water. And I know BO wants to do the same thing, as Bezos wanted the launch site that X is using for them. So....
The fact that BO has not put anything into orbit yet isn't really a different- I think that will come in due time.
So I'm not really seeing that the approaches are actually different. They are in totally different phases of development of the same concept.
It's about the amount of energy. The SpaceX boosters are coming in much faster and hotter, which adds to the difficulty. That's also why they're landing some of the boosters on a ship, because they don't always have enough fuel left to RTLS (Return To Lauch Site) after doing their work to get the payload up. The center of the Falcon Heavy, for example, can't go back to base because it's so far downrange. The reason today's launch was landing on the boat instead of RTLS was the landing pad is shut down for the accident investigation for the Crew Dragon whoopsie.
Blue Origin has a lot of funding that SpaceX doesn't, and I think this has let them take a very different approach. They're more likely to take big steps than the more iterative approach we're seeing from SpaceX, but the experience that SpaceX has in landing orbital boosters over and over and over is hard to beat.
Here's the flight profile comparison. You can see how much more kinetic energy is involved with the SpaceX landing.
The most impressive thing I've seen in the New Space Era was a recent Falcon 9 failure. One of the grid fins failed to deploy and the booster went into a spin. The impressive part was that the thing managed to stabilize itself just in time and come to a perfect soft landing...on the water. So, we have an autonomous rocket with a component failure travelling something like 500 mph, that then manages to overcome the problem, select a safe landing spot and bring itself in safely. Watching the onboard video of that thing regain control is spectacular.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Keith
The only real difference in what they are doing right now is that SpaceX is inserting stuff into space, whereas Blue origin is not. The added complexity to Space X right now is what they are actually doing with the payload- that changes the path so much that is very much changes how the boosters land. Once BO gets to that point, they will be required to do the same thing.
Either way, landing your own rocket to use again is really cool. Landing it straight up and down took some guts to attempt, and since both can do it, that's REALLY impressive. I'm a big fan of both- and an envious of SpaceX's team when you hear them cheer in the background. That has to be one of the coolest things to do. (and there's a Lewis Hamilton video out there of his visit to NASA, he thinks astronauts are cooler than he is).
I wish both of them all of the luck in the universe.
(Ok, I do have one "complaint" about BO- their telemetry isn't as good- they need to mount cameras and stream them like Space X does. And they need to operate like the rest of the world does- in m and km/hr. )
1988RedT2 said:alfadriver said:In reply to 1988RedT2 :
??? Seems like a lot of them were- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster
Sure, there was a lot to rebuild them, and it wasn't cheap. But they were not 100% new....
Here's some more detail- https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9261/how-many-solid-rocket-boosters-were-there-in-the-space-shuttle-program
Which points out that the boosters were not uniquely put together and reused- but segments of each booster was used to assemble a booster for launch. Parts were used from different sources, but the segments certainly launched more than once. It was not as if the whole thing was thrown away. The worst of the worst was one segment had 124 made for 135 flights- but the best was 15 made for the same 135 flights.
Relative to what we see now, no, that was not the best cost solution. But it was not totally wasted, and was an effective solution for the 80's.
Fascinating! I had no idea.
And I thought they were more resusable- so that was interesting to read how they were actually used...
This was launched this morning- if you want to see a night landing on a drone ship. Pretty wild.
You'll need to log in to post.
