SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
SpaceX had a successful launch, orbit insertion, and recovery of all 3 rocket boosters last Thursday. Unfortunately, they were unable to fasten down the central core on the ASDS (Autonomous spaceport drone ship) "Of Course I Still Love You:
Shifting seas and high winds brought it down.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
SpaceX Loses the Center Core of its Falcon Heavy Rocket due to Choppy Seas
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 38 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
94% of the women in America are beautiful and the rest hang out around here.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:14AM (2 children)
I may be occasionally messy, but I never managed to lose a 20-story rocket before...
As a matter of fact, I expect few people ever have.
TFA doesn't say it did RUD, so hopefully they can still do the post-flight checks they couldn't do a year ago. After using a big dryer.
Next one will apparently get the Roomba treatment.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 16 2019, @01:58PM
Weather happens, it's what the military trains for.
We have a new-to-us sailboat, any idiot (including myself) can drive it in and out of the marina on a calm day. Of course, sailing isn't too exciting on a calm day. As the winds come up, the loads on the dock lines quickly increase above 100lbs, and maneuvering in and out of the marina without hitting other boats becomes quite challenging.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:09PM
> hopefully they can still do the post-flight checks they couldn't do a year ago. After using a big dryer.
If you mean hair dryer, it would be too heavy to lift. Maybe a lot of people with smaller hair dryers. That would require a LOT of extension cords, on separate circuits. Each dryer typically 1500 watts on high setting.
If you meant clothes dryer, the spinning would further damage the rocket.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:21AM (4 children)
View the problem of reaching the rocket as similar to locating the head of a CNC or 3D printer. You need XY positioning. Put the gripper on a bridge that spans the ship. The gripper moves along that bridge for movement in one direction. The bridge itself moves along tracks in the sides of the ship, providing the other dimension of movement. The mechanism can be doubled up to grab from both sides simultaneously, possibly eliminating the need for an active gripper.
Another way is an arm. An ordinary heavy-equipment arm, as used for digging up roads, could reach out and pin down a leg of the rocket. It need not be automatic; a human could remotely operate it. The vertical dimension isn't really needed, so sliding the arm is also an option.
Another way is to flood the deck with adhesive, possibly something like molten solder or polyurethane foam.
Another way is to pre-place grippers all over the deck. Make a deck of grippers. They just grip; they do not need to move around on the deck. It can be mechanical, electromagnetic, or vacuum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:54AM
But the robot design had issues with the modifications for the heavy mating booster's stubs and couldn't clamp it efficiently in the same way it had clamped the normal falcon boosters in the past. I imagine they will do some revisions now that this issue has become apparent, but given that the heavy is an interim solution and the BFR is looking to be able to launch at the same or lower cost once in production, I don't know how much engineering effort and money will go into fixing the octopus before it is rendered obsolete.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:57PM
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-booster-overboard/ [teslarati.com]
The next center core to be landed should have it.
Like another AC said, Falcon Heavy is an interim solution for SpaceX. Although that could change if they get a bunch of LOP-G and lunar missions.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:11PM (1 child)
How about equipment on the deck of the drone ship that can lower the booster back into a horizontal position where it can be better secured, and give the entire ship a lower center of gravity?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:13PM
Both you and GP need to remember that a rocket lands on that deck.
Recently, it has landed pretty centered, but there have been ... subnominal outcomes.
The Roomba is a trade-off. Keep the ship simple and the shockwaves will do less expensive damage.
The center of gravity of the empty booster is really low. It's a giant sail, but it should only need decent moorings to avoid toppling over.
Not sure why they didn't get on board with ropes and chains to secure the thing manually, but if the seas got bad before they got close (what's the safety distance during the landing?), I can't blame them for staying away from the tall oscillating thingy.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @10:17AM (6 children)
Apart from all the needless CO2 the launch spewed into the air, they've now polluted the ocean with carcinogenic hydrazine. Nice.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:15PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:23PM
SpaceX is carbon neutral because tesla absorbs all that carbon into their electric car engines.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday April 16 2019, @03:53PM (3 children)
The Falcon 9 doesn't use Hydrazine.
There are some contaminants though. For Propellants it uses RP-1 (very close to Kerosene) and Liquid oxygen for the main engines and Nitrogen cold gas thrusters for the RCS system. The hydraulic system contains a synthetic hydraulic fluid for the hydraulic system. The most unpleasant thing in the entire rocket is likely to be the Triethylaluminium/Triethylborane ignition mixture used to light the engines.
If it broke up then there will be a small oil slick from it. I haven't heard if it broke up, if they are going to blow it up, or if they will tow it back to shore. The landing was hundreds of kilometers from shore so sinking it in deep water seems the most likely option.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:17PM (2 children)
If sank, could it become the backbone of a new choral reef?
(I don't know the actual answer to that.)
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Osamabobama on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:17PM
Coral reefs are close to the surface of the water. If it sank below where it landed, it would be too deep to support coral.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday April 16 2019, @09:32PM
If it is in shallow water, it is possible. This one will be too deep though. It's in the [other] black.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @11:45AM (22 children)
Why exactly do they need to land the stages on sea fearing platform? Why not terra firma?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @12:08PM (15 children)
The middle rocket travels further down range, too far to make it all the way back.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:27PM (13 children)
To complete both AC's answers, the center core could make it back to land, but that would require a significant amount of fuel to stop, turn around, and go back.
That means a lot less energy used to push the payload into orbit. It's also true for the side boosters, or the F9, which sacrifice a lot of performance to reuse.
SpaceX and NASA have public numbers for the various scenarios (2xRTLS+ASDS, 3xASDS, expendable).
Expending all three cores results in a huge performance gain, especially compared to 3x RTLS. But the cost skyrockets.
Tradeoffs...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:34PM (12 children)
If NASA contracts SpaceX for LOP-G and lunar missions, these FH booster landings could become rare as they would almost certainly be expendable mode. Although it would be nice to see Starship/BFR used for that instead.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:48PM (2 children)
Given the scale, it would be hilarious to use Giant Starship to launch Tiny Gateway.
"now that we reached the campground in my 18-wheeler, let's sleep in the 2-person tent I brought!"
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:00PM (1 child)
The volume is laughably huge, but the payload capacity is still uncertain.
100+ tons to LEO, formerly 150. Could increase. But we do know that initial versions will not use vacuum-optimized Raptor engines.
The number for TLI will be less, unless the BFR is refueled in orbit, in which case you could use the same LEO number presumably.
Gateway segments should be in the range of 8-12 tons. I would be surprised if BFR can't launch two or three at once instead of just one.
Now about that campground... if the crewed version of BFR is ready by 2022-2023, why not send some to Gateway and let the astronauts sleep/roam in there? It should be designed to last much longer than 180 days in space (compare to Soyuz, Crew Dragon, Starliner).
The limiting factor could be the length and number of docks on the Gateway. Maybe additional segments should be added in the middle and ends so you can park 2-4 BFRs at Gateway, giving it a massive volume multiple times that of ISS. You could also park the BFRs perpendicular to the station, so it looks like 4 prongs are coming out of it. Make the damn thing a BFR parking lot.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:22PM
Add a mode where BFR docks to another BFR.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday April 16 2019, @04:52PM (8 children)
Expending 2x Falcon Heavy (6x Falcon cores) is probably still cheaper than a single SLS.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @05:02PM (7 children)
Certainly. $500 million SLS is a complete fib. $1 billion might be correct, with the true cost per rocket being many billions if you factor in total program costs. You could probably see six Falcon Heavy launches per SLS pork barrel.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:15PM (6 children)
$1 billion per launch is the figure I've most often heard. And that is not counting total program pork.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday April 16 2019, @09:54PM (5 children)
That puts it on par with the cost of a shuttle launch.
I'll support immediate termination of the program on the day FH does its first manned flight.
It will take a compelling argument to get me to buy into another contract like it too. Parting out development to subcontractors in every congressional district is a great jobs program, but a terrible way to get to space. That much is obvious now.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:32PM (4 children)
F9 can do the manned Dragon 2 fright. FH can send up the primary mission which the Dragon 2 docks with. The FH launch is first. Don't send crew until main mission equipment is already in orbit and verified working. How much more difficulter is it to dock with the mission than with the ISS? Maybe easier, because the main mission might be in a lower orbit than ISS?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:29PM (3 children)
This is a completely reasonable approach, and matches what we're going to do out at (the useless) LOP-G anyway. I don't have a good answer for why we can't assemble and fly from LEO.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:24PM (2 children)
> I don't have a good answer for why we can't assemble and fly from LEO.
As Ars's Statistical puts it, it's because the Senate has been mandating the SLS pork barrel, so the whole architecture is designed to keep SLS absolutely necessary.
Technically, there are quite a few absurd choices in there (the gateway makes things much harder, the capsule can't go to LLO...), which only make sense because no other rocket than SLS Block2 could do it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:38PM (1 child)
If the Senate keeps mandating SLS pork they may find that a private manned lunar mission might beat SLS to ever getting off the ground.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:26PM
One can only hope.
The question is more whether the Private US company will get there before the Chinese.
(Score: 2) by corey on Tuesday April 16 2019, @10:52PM
Just land down here in Oz. We could probably stick them on a container ship back over there or use em for our own launches.
Our give them to Rocket Lab in NZ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @01:34PM
The video explains it at one point.
The side boosters, being the first stage to separate, are close enough, moving slow enough, and have enough fuel to turn around and head back to land. The central core, which separates later in the launch, is further away and is traveling too fast to be able to turn around and make it back to land, so a barge is the only feasible means of recovery.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday April 16 2019, @02:12PM (2 children)
> Why exactly do they need to land the stages on sea fearing platform?
I don't believe it is in the requirements for the platform to be afraid of the sea.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1) by Catalyst on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:07PM (1 child)
Although that might be a good name for a future drone ship... The Seafearing Drone
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:12PM
A better name for a new SpaceX drone:
Error: the vessel name cannot exceed 45 chara
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:08PM (1 child)
They can't get back to Florida.
They could go for the Azores or Bermuda, but both are non-USA.
Puerto Rico might have worked. That at least is the USA, barely.
(Score: 1, Troll) by DannyB on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:14PM
After the hurricane, Trump spoke to the president of Puerto Rico. Therefore I must conclude it is decidedly not part of the US.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.