- Status
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that causal chain isn't how it is. It's because rockets are so expensive that no one (or so few) can afford to find their flaws by crashing them often enough that in turn their design can be optimized as quickly as something cheap (e.g. a car).
So much money is poured into space programs because of the risk adversity of those footing the bill.
So much money is poured into space programs because of the risk adversity of those footing the bill.
I saw a note that the 1st stage parachutes did not deploy and the 1st stage was not recovered. That's a shame, as I'm sure there's a ton of reliability data to be gained from inspecting the stage post flight before anyone starts worrying about the cost savings and reuse. Has anyone heard anything about what went wrong there?
aaron38":mw8r6rum said:
A NASA SRB recovery ship was assisting SpaceX. They found s debris field. They did not see any parachute deployment.
gwobserver":3gzfeexn said:
No, it has nothing in it. It was structue for testing. It was a structural test article that SpaceX was finished testing.
The first stage broke up during reentry. So, no first stage, no first stage parachute deployment (to put it simply). This is a structural integrity problem. I think they will abandon reuse for the near future. Spacex can still undercut the competition on a launch per launch basis. It's their margin which will get smaller.
Congrats to Space X. Great Flight. The tribute to the rocket scientists who came first, was very appropriate.
shuttle_guy":2420yn49 said:
I thought I read exactly the opposite and that they were expecting to receive data back from Dragon. I'll see if I can find it...
Does anyone know if a liquid fuel rocket engine has ever been recovered from the ocean and then re-used?
I would have thought there would be all kinds of issues such as recertifying welds between the combustion chamber and expansion nozzle after impact and opening up initiation points for stress corrosion after exposure to corrosive salt water.
Has SpaceX found some magic formula to address these issues with their Merlin engines?
Mark
I would have thought there would be all kinds of issues such as recertifying welds between the combustion chamber and expansion nozzle after impact and opening up initiation points for stress corrosion after exposure to corrosive salt water.
Has SpaceX found some magic formula to address these issues with their Merlin engines?
Mark
IIRC there was a Saturn H-1 engine dipped into water and prepared for use, that worked just fine.
Here it is:
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1961/ ... -2063.html
Here it is:
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1961/ ... -2063.html
docm":2amselfm said:
A better solution than the Minuteman on top of the Orion. A total waste (with the alternate abort system tested at Marshall) of somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars.
There is no reason a salt water immersed rocket motor cannot be flushed and rendered inert with purge gas for re-use. The alloys used are very robust.
I posted here:RVHM":10zote7g said:
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?p=458617#p458617
with evidence that the Dragon "shell" was instrumented.
Only during ascent, to study the launch environment. Now it is a dead shell.Cosmicvoid":2k72tlx7 said:
Courtesy of job1207, this info from PopMech:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... rst-flight
Minute-by-Minute Lessons From Falcon 9's First Flight
The first-flight-test goal was to gather as much data as possible, however long the flight lasted, to provide guidance for any needed design changes. But beyond that, they had a number of specific events that each progressively proved out their initial design and gave them data on actual vehicle performance that engineers can now match against their predictions from simulations. Here's how the flight went, in detail.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... rst-flight
Minute-by-Minute Lessons From Falcon 9's First Flight
The first-flight-test goal was to gather as much data as possible, however long the flight lasted, to provide guidance for any needed design changes. But beyond that, they had a number of specific events that each progressively proved out their initial design and gave them data on actual vehicle performance that engineers can now match against their predictions from simulations. Here's how the flight went, in detail.
Yes, they (last stage and Dragon dummy) are in a very low orbit, currently 201 X 209 km, so will not last long. If you can catch a pass (H-A is listing it) you will see one of the fastest moving sats you can.
http://heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?sat ... 104&tz=EST
http://heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?sat ... 104&tz=EST
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sp ... 00629.html
"After riding a flame into Earth orbit more than three weeks ago, the dormant upper stage of the first Falcon 9 rocket plunged back into the atmosphere Sunday, a fiery finale for the historic privately-developed spacecraft.
The rocket and its dummy payload around 0050 GMT Sunday (8:50 p.m. EDT Saturday), according to U.S. military tracking data, but the margin of error is roughly two hours in either direction.
At 0050 GMT Sunday, the truck-sized vehicle would have streaked back into the atmosphere and burned up over Iraq and Syria. But the uncertainty in the exact re-entry time means the rocket and Dragon capsule could have come back to Earth anywhere along its ground track for more than two orbits..."
"After riding a flame into Earth orbit more than three weeks ago, the dormant upper stage of the first Falcon 9 rocket plunged back into the atmosphere Sunday, a fiery finale for the historic privately-developed spacecraft.
The rocket and its dummy payload around 0050 GMT Sunday (8:50 p.m. EDT Saturday), according to U.S. military tracking data, but the margin of error is roughly two hours in either direction.
At 0050 GMT Sunday, the truck-sized vehicle would have streaked back into the atmosphere and burned up over Iraq and Syria. But the uncertainty in the exact re-entry time means the rocket and Dragon capsule could have come back to Earth anywhere along its ground track for more than two orbits..."
After riding a flame into Earth orbit more than three weeks ago, the dormant upper stage of the first Falcon 9 rocket plunged back into the atmosphere Sunday, a fiery finale for the historic privately-developed spacecraft.
The rocket and its dummy payload around 0050 GMT Sunday (8:50 p.m. EDT Saturday), according to U.S. military tracking data, but the margin of error is roughly two hours in either direction.
At 0050 GMT Sunday, the truck-sized vehicle would have streaked back into the atmosphere and burned up over Iraq and Syria. But the uncertainty in the exact re-entry time means the rocket and Dragon capsule could have come back to Earth anywhere along its ground track for more than two orbits.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sp ... 00629.html
Final map from CORDS, which has different position and slightly different timing:
http://reentrynews.aero.org/2010026a.html
The rocket and its dummy payload around 0050 GMT Sunday (8:50 p.m. EDT Saturday), according to U.S. military tracking data, but the margin of error is roughly two hours in either direction.
At 0050 GMT Sunday, the truck-sized vehicle would have streaked back into the atmosphere and burned up over Iraq and Syria. But the uncertainty in the exact re-entry time means the rocket and Dragon capsule could have come back to Earth anywhere along its ground track for more than two orbits.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sp ... 00629.html
Final map from CORDS, which has different position and slightly different timing:
http://reentrynews.aero.org/2010026a.html
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram