-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wow! Mind blowing. It looks like the last image of the first stage showed it very close to vertical and kicking up water, correct? But the caption in the video says the camera failed to record "splashdown".
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
They took the film from a moving plane filming a very fast moving object. Not too bad really. Hopefully in just a few months we'll have a landing on a floating object which will then lead to an official landing on land. Then we'll really be cooking.
Patience young Jedi.
You had one job cameraman...
I kid! That video is awesome. Seems like they are going to be very well set up for the subsequent launches. I'm really really debating trying to make it FLA for one of these.
If they did a first stage landing in Texas I would be tempted to drive there in my S to watch it. If I lived in Florida I would definitely want to see it in person.
However, they might not let anyone get close enough to see it for safety reasons.
That is just amazing footage that really makes me excited for what SpaceX is doing. That said, I am wondering about the angle the rocket had when it hit the water. If it was landing on land, I'm pretty sure the rocket would have toppled because of the angle.
In thinking about it, it could easily have been that SpaceX was attempting to angle the rocket on purpose to avoid the toppling impact in the water to possibly save the rocket for recovery.
In thinking about it, it could easily have been that SpaceX was attempting to angle the rocket on purpose to avoid the toppling impact in the water to possibly save the rocket for recovery.
chickensevil
Active Member
Or possibly to ensure it toppled on the side they wanted. I know on the last one before this, they specifically said it had a nominal oriantation waning it was vertical enough to count. Of that is nominal as well then I would say it is at least intended.
Remember that these heavy geosynchronous orbit flights don't retain enough fuel to land. Which means that this thing was running on fumes. Amazing it got as vertical as it did. Also, I believe that they will need the steering vanes, shown on a rocket flight in Texas, to actually place the rocket at a designated landing site. I could be wrong, but it seems really hard to land on a barge with just the rocket engine and a little leftover fuel.
chickensevil
Active Member
This particular flight did not have the fuel issues. They had enough to carry out this secondary mission objective. Also they refire the rocket once in high altitude to give it a proper trajectory to the proposed landing site and also to do the initial slow down and reorientation of the rocket. There has been a couple proposed ideas floated around the various forums (here, reddit, and NSF) to identify how they would return the rocket back to FL verses landing in the ocean. with minimal fuel cost (keeping in mind that it doesn't take much because it is almost empty of fuel and has none of the 2nd stage or payload weight to deal with anymore.)
The final rocket firing just before landing is what would give them the pinpoint accuracy and final proper orientation to land in a stabilized fashion.
But yes, the steering vanes or whatever they are called would also help them with maneuvering the rocket.
Thanks, I didn't realize this was the July 14th flight. Initial trajectory is one thing, I just wonder about the fuel requirements if they end up a few hundred yards off due to wind or slight miscalculation of angle.
chickensevil
Active Member
I'm sure all of this is built into the calculations. Keep in mind the pinpoint accuracy that they are sending off their payloads into orbit (many of which are not actually GTO) going out is likely far more variables and having one small overburn/underburn would cause a greater degree of missing your target than coming back down.
Similar threads
- Article
