Here‘s the SpaceX press release. Note that no government agency is funding them to do this. It’s actual internal R&D, a rarity in this industry, at least up until now. Also, if NASA was doing this, they’d spend billions up front on analysis. In contrast, SpaceX is flying, and failing, and improving, and flying again, and failing and improving. They may not land on Friday, but they’ll be a lot closer to being able to do it.
[Update a while later]
Why the CRS-5 mission could change everything.
Trying to do things without billions of dollars of analysis? Next thing ya know they’ll be teaching kids to ride bicycles with this method!
The best way to do it. Work out the details to a satisfactory level and then get out there and fly. Will you break things? Yup. Will you learn from them? Yup. You cannot keep the design in the computer forever.
Let’s all keep our fingers crossed.
OT: Instapundit reports that Jerry Pournelle had a mild stroke yesterday, but is doing well.
Doesn’t really say what kind of landing guidance system they are using. I am curious. Does it aim for a particular coordinate and expect the platform to be there (i.e. GPS only)? Or does it have some form of active terminal guidance that steers towards the platform?
The way I read it, if the barge drifts due to current / wind overwhelming the position-keeping system, the rocket is going to either fall off the side or miss altogether. That implies a static coordinate.
Regardless, if their previous accuracy was measured in kilometres, there’s a mighty big step in front of them. Good luck SpaceX!
The barge has the capability to maintain a set position.
The barge has the capability to maintain a set position, within limits.
FIFY
Within very generous limits, judging from Musk’s description of the barge: “Autonomous spaceport drone ship. Thrusters repurposed from deep sea oil rigs hold position within 3m even in a storm.”
My company makes those grid fins. Very cool! It’ll be great to see if they can make this work.
if NASA was doing this, they’d spend billions up front on analysis.
And find dozens of reasons not to do it. (There are always reasons not to do something.)
Besides, NASA’s working on a bigger problem: replacing “conventional rocketry” with a new launch system that will “save millions of dollars in propellant.” No matter how many billions of dollars t costs.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/nasa-engineers-propose-combining-rail-gun-and-scramjet-fire-spacecraft-orbit
PS claims it was the President who told NASA they should be working on this. That sounds odd, but it’s possible — every politician in DC thinks he’s a rocket scientist these days.
Another Rube Goldberg contraption. It is not a railgun/scramjet. It is a railgun/scramjet/rocket. Scramjets are airbreathing engines. You cannot use them in space. They are probably proposing the railgun because the scramjet does not have enough performance to lift the fuel in the first place. There have been proposals to use rail launch for high-altitude aircraft since WWII at least. Just hit Wikipedia for the “Silbervogel” page. That was before we had maglev so it was a rocket sled but the idea is the same.
I am sorry but rocket engines are the only viable space launch method we have. I do think you might be able to use something like ABL i.e. Ablative Laser Propulsion to good effect on a first stage but other than that the performance improvements must come from the rocket propulsion side not this complicated mess.
The scramjet research is mostly useful for hypersonic cruise missiles, reconnaissance aircraft, and global reach bombers.
For reconnaissance aircraft (manned or unmanned), hypersonic aircraft are of limited utility. All one could do is gather a few moments of data as it blasts by at the speed of heat. The name of the game in reconnaissance is persistent observation. The ability to loiter over an area for hours or even days is far more valuable militarily than a mere snapshot in time. That’s one of the reasons why the SR-71 was retired in 1990 and the venerable U-2 soldiers on to this day.
I suspect this is also being rushed in order to torpedo any attempt by Blue Origin to extort them with their stupid patent. It would be better for them to land in some place where it was easier to recover the vehicle.
Ultimately, I think the barge will be most useful in recovering the central core of a Falcon Heavy while the outboard cores return to the launch site. As for Falcon 9s, SpaceX wants to return their first stages to the launch site whenever possible but they have to demonstrate their ability to make precision landings before they’ll get permission to do that.
Ultimately, I think the barge will be most useful in recovering the central core of a Falcon Heavy while the outboard cores return to the launch site.
Yes, that’s what I’ve been thinking, too.
Depending on the mission profile and payload mass, there may be several operational profiles for recovering the Falcon and Falcon Heavy first stages. It might go something like this:
Falcon 9 – Return to Launch Site – Lightest Payload
Falcon 9 – Land on Barge downrange – Medium Payload
Falcon 9 – Disposable – Maximum Payload
Falcon Heavy – All Cores Return to Launch Site – Lightest Payload
Falcon Heavy – Outer Cores Return to Launch Site, Center Core Lands on Barge – Medium Payload
Falcon Heavy – Disposable – Maximum Payload
NASA has spent millions just making sure a demonstration would go off without a problem, even if it meant changing the design, such that one was no longer actually testing the final design, but a specific design that was only useful to make the test be successful.
The static fire test was scrubbed yesterday and today. I just checked NSF.com and Chris said that January 6 is now the unofficial target date. This is on the public side, not L2.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/12/spacex-static-fire-falcon-9-crs-5/
“Also, if NASA was doing this, they’d spend billions up front on analysis. In contrast, SpaceX is flying, and failing, and improving, and flying again, and failing and improving.”
One key difference, of course, being that SpaceX is making money on each failure, whereas NASA only spends money regardless of outcome. (You’d think that would make them more daring–but NASA’s main existential concern is bad PR.) Even with Elon’s prodigious capital-raising abilities, a rocket-recovery development program would be impossible for SpaceX if they weren’t doing their testing on reveune flights. That, by the way, is going to give them a heck of a first-mover advantage once they get reusability working.
It’s obvious that others see the trend which requires those others to adjust plans in order to be competitive. It’s just as obvious they don’t understand how fast SpaceX is already moving. They are doing a lot more at the same time than most realize.
The barge seems to have no allowance for the 14 story core to fall over even if it does land on target. It seems they may not be using the fact that the barge is mobile to full advantage. Laying the core down in netting might be working with rather than against the physical forces?
Say they get the core in hover just above the water… then they move both the barge and the core toward each other and catch it sideways and lay it down almost immediately for transport?
I had a different idea. After touchdown, four robots move towards the rocket. Each attaches itself to a landing leg, then attaches itself to the deck. That may be enough to keep the rocket secure until the ship reaches land.
Alternatively, the robots could be made to be heavy, and once they attach themselves to the legs, their weight may be enough to keep the rocket from tipping over in the wind or ocean swells. They wouldn’t have to attach themselves to the deck.
Even better: land on something that isn’t moving. Like a concrete pad.