Falcon landing

vidmelocker Follow
  • 755,760
  • 1
Comments (35)
Sorted by:
  • polkovnikov-ph reply @John_Reynaga You'd be surprised that there is Google Maps with several petabytes of such pictures waiting for you.
  • cooolkiid1209 reply I'm so surprised about that!i mean like just wow!
  • BraggerMusk reply Is there any wonder how SpaceX got a NASA contract award for crew transport to the ISS? If it's not Boeing, we're not going! http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/15/elon-musk-poster-child-of-obama-gilded-age "Musk is, of course, a big donor to Obama, having given $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund and another $30,400 to the Democratic National Committee." "Musk symbolizes the Obama entrepreneur -- someone who relies on government to make their riches as opposed to the marketplace. The Elon Musks of the world have thrived under Obama, while everyone else muddles along funding their lavish estates. Welcome to Obama’s Gilded Age." http://www.facebook.com/RealSpaceAct2013
  • mwalvis reply It seems top-heavy to me
  • peekaboo99 reply @VirtualGathis I wasn't trolling, just wandering why they didn't use a parachute. But it's clear to me now. Thank you for clarifying! ;-)
  • Pawtiko reply That explosion at the end...
  • jwmflying14 reply @zay_k False. There isn't a single liquid fueled engine in use that can throttle down to 40%! The Merlin 1D has a much lower threshold than most engines, and it can only throttle down to 70%. This leaves the near depleted first stage with a thrust to weight ratio between 1.86:1 and 2.67:1. If it were to have throttled any sooner, there is a good chance it wouldn't have ever touched down at all. @KillerkoUK, The Shuttle SRB's where recovered in a similar fashion to what you are saying (parachute, salt water recovery). This is extremely harsh on every component that makes up the stage. The whole point in recovering the stage this way is so that one day it can land at the pad, be refueled, reloaded, and sent off in a matter of days or weeks (Only after they perfect any component that incurs any amount of damage upon return). @felicienperrinn and @seanduffy As mentioned higher up in my comment, it is NOT that the rocket doesn't carry enough fuel, simply that the rocket has so much power ...morecompared to weight, if it left the engine running at any point past 0ft/s decent rate, it would start to climb. It is not possible for this rocket to slowly descend, or hover. What you are seeing is the best situation. A quick and rapid deceleration timed precisely so that when 0ft/s speed is reached, it subsequently just reached 0 ft off the deck, in other words it landed and has stopped moving. The Grasshopper test vehicle was ballasted with extra weight to achieve hover, and a throttled descent. If the F9R first stage carried extra (Wasted) fuel as ballast in order to be able to hover, it would directly cut into its payload capabilities. SpaceX's landing style is the only way to land a rocket with such a high Thrust to Weight Ratio (TWR), and also the most efficient use of fuel.
  • VirtualGathis reply @peekaboo99 - I can't tell if you are trolling or not. SpaceX used parachutes on the first few F9 launches. They were too heavy, heavier than the fuel to land, and didn't slow the stage enough to permit it to be reused. So parachutes have been tested in real world launches and they failed to meet the mission requirements of low weight and effective reuse. @SpaceX - WTG! You almost nailed it. You definitely need a method for stabilizing the stage once the engine shuts off. In this video it looks like it was just tilted too far to recover. If the lateral thrusters, seen puffing furiously about seven seconds in, had just a bit more power it might have made it anyway. Well, that is assuming the landing leg wasn't bent already.
  • zay_k reply @felicienperrinn The Merlin 1D engine even at its lowest throttle ~40% is still too powerful to hover, and starting and powering down a rocket engine takes some time, so you cant pulse it. so the only way to land a falcon 9 would be like this, (possible with the engine firing a little sooner to slow it more)
  • yrral86 reply @KillerkoUK Salt water is super corrosive, especially to very hot metal and sensitive electronics. The space shuttle solid rocket boosters cost nearly as much to refurbish as they cost to build. The SLS system will be using the remaining SRBs, but they determined that it is best to just use them once and let them sink so they can replace them with a slightly cheaper model designed for one-time use.
  • greenace92 reply @BoBoPost I imagine redirecting the thrust is not a good idea, too fast that's like pulling a uTurn in a car at a thousand miles an hour <- no math to back that up
  • greenace92 reply gahh... point downwards
  • greenace92 reply Should have the tip rocket or jet exhaust to point upwards as well to pull the rocket upwards, perhaps add jet exhausts to the struts as well... it seemed to not have enough leverage to compensate and right the rocket eg. too top-heavy...
  • weekedgames reply Needs more struts
  • KillerkoUK reply why not just let it land in water and then retrieve it? sounds like much easier way to reuse that thing...
  • peekaboo99 reply Just give the damn thing a chute!
  • BoBoPost reply Why try to land on a flat barge? It would be cool, for sure but why not try to land into an upside down cone structure or something similar and the structure itself could have air bags that deploy and stabilize the top of rocket (can't fall over). There could be a much wider margin for error, probably. The structure itself could also probably reflect/funnel the thrust of the rocket in a way to help it center itself to landing. Lots of fun ideas to try! Go SpaceX!
  • kryptoniterazor reply It loos as though the rightmost landing leg is collapsed back almost at 90° to the rocket (rather than pointing down towards the ground) when it tips over. I wonder if it would have stayed upright with more hydraulic pressure or a stronger locking mechanism.
  • IamMe reply Perhaps because its not quite where it has to be? Even after it successfully lands, there will still be much to improve.
  • sumgi reply @felicienperrinn The faclon 9R is not able to hover since just one engine at low throttle is enough to lift the empty booster back into the sky. http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/31st6b/can_the_returning_first_stage_of_falcon_9_hover/
  • seanduffy reply @felicienperrinn it doesn't carry enough fuel to develop the thrust to rise up again. Once its on its way down, it can't change direction.
  • felicienperrinn reply Why did it seek to land straight away with all that momentum? How about coming close to the barge, then slowly rising up again a few feet to stabilize and take away the momentum; and then slowly descend to the barge!
Download the Vidme app!