Space X Made History- 1st landing of an Orbital 1st stage.

[Christopher Miles]

~8:41pm EST December 21st, 2015.

Space X just landed its first stage booster at Cape Canaveral.

This process of landing, rather than throwing away, large (expensive!) booster engines will set the stage for an incredible reduction in the cost of access to space.

(This is what the shuttle promised- but failed- to deliver)

The landing site "Landing Complex 1" (Former Launch Complex 13) is just a few miles south of the launch site (Launch Complex 40)- so what an incredible reuse opportunity.

Rehab engines and fly again.

Rinse, refuel, and repeat.

Late in 2017 Space X will be launching astronauts to the ISS from the Cape again, (first crewed missions from the U.S. since shuttle retirement in 2011) and following that- the firm will be working to land the crew capsule on land using on board retro rockets (no more ol' timey splashdowns!)

Finally- Space remembered that we're in the 21st Century. Maybe some of our kids will see Mars after all.

Kudos to the Space X Team for a job well done. This changes everything.

 

[MANT!]

Yeppers, As I thought, Space X did succeed..much higher speed/altitude than Blue Origin's successful landing..

Looks like dumping the "Landing Barges" was an improvement and helped to lower the assorted variables barring a soft landing.

 

[Christopher Miles]

Yeah- the Amazon/Blue Origin effort was something that the Space X "Grasshopper" (prototype lander) was pretty much able to do some years ago.

Regarding tonight's success- This thing came back (near) ~supersonically - from a real booster orbit height (not just from the rather low technical "edge" of space- (The Blue Origin thing)).

The Space X team has likened the 1st stage landing effort to shooting a pencil over the Empire State Building, then landing it- eraser first- on a shoe box.

Thanks much for posting the pic. The ones I'd found were just so damned big.

 

[sojourner]

Your move Bezos.

 

[Dryson]

Two successful landings from two different companies on the first try.

I would have to think that in order to land on platform on the water the platform would have to be wider to absorb kinetic shock or the base of the rocker wider to distribute the kinetic shock across the rocket so it doesn't tip over.

 

[sojourner]

They have these things called "shocks". The auto industry has been perfecting them for years.

 

[Dryson]

Two successful landings from two different companies on the first try.

I would have to think that in order to land on platform on the water the platform would have to be wider to absorb kinetic shock or the base of the rocker wider to distribute the kinetic shock across the rocket so it doesn't tip over.

 

[Dryson]

I would have to think that the next big test would be to design an external fuel tank similar to the one used with the shuttle that would have return and resuable characteristics.

I also think that the SRB's could also be designed to be landed like Space X and Blue Origins rockets.

I would image the external fuel tank would separate near the top and parachute to the ground with the lower half being recoverable like Space X or Blue Origin.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

SRBs aren't controllable - you can't switch them on and off. To land them you would need to add liquid fuelled, gimballed engines, which would add too much weight and complexity. As SRBs are basically just tubes, parachuting them into the sea is good enough.

No-one's making space shuttle external tanks any more as there are no space shuttles. I don't think there are any plans to make any of the SLS stages recoverable. In fact, I understand NASA is not even going to bother recovering the extended SRBs used with the SLS Block 1 and 1B.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/sls-specifications-take-shape-development-continues/

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm fucking stoked! It's one thing to be able to do something that only major governments have been able to do before, but landing a first stage booster is something NO ONE has ever been able to do! This is the most significant development in spaceflight in over 30 years... and it's accomplished by a private company.

Welcome to the space age!

Yeppers, As I thought, Space X did succeed..much higher speed/altitude than Blue Origin's successful landing..

Looks like dumping the "Landing Barges" was an improvement and helped to lower the assorted variables barring a soft landing.

Exactly this.

The barge was mainly a concession to the FAA and NASA being reluctant to approve a powered landing at the Cape. I think Musk expected approval to be granted anyway, but wanted to avoid the risk of having that permission revoked if their early attempts failed. So the barge attempts could be considered "practice"

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I would have to think that the next big test would be to design an external fuel tank similar to the one used with the shuttle that would have return and resuable characteristics.

Why? Falcon 9 works perfectly fine without an external fuel tank.

The real test, actually, would be to see if they can recover the two side cores from a Falcon Heavy (center core is probably out of the question).

I also think that the SRB's could also be designed to be landed like Space X and Blue Origins rockets.

Again: WHY? SRBs have a lower specific impulse and far less control than the Falcon-9. Why would you even bother using them, let alone recovering them?

 

[MANT!]

SpaceX seems to think they can recover all 3 portions of the Falcon heavy..both boosters and the center core..

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM[/yt]

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I will be pleasantly surprised if they can recover all three... that WOULD be a game changer, especially in the satellite industry. Replace aging geostationary satellites with bigger ones than you could have in the past, for a tenth the cost of an EELV.

Forget satellites, SpaceX could open the door to university-funded space stations!

 

[Marc]

I will be pleasantly surprised if they can recover all three... that WOULD be a game changer, especially in the satellite industry. Replace aging geostationary satellites with bigger ones than you could have in the past, for a tenth the cost of an EELV.

Forget satellites, SpaceX could open the door to university-funded space stations!

How much fuel are they to needing for their powered landings (and whether they could reduce the fuel needed by using parachutes to slow the descent).

While it's a great achievement am wondering if it's sorta carrying fuel to burn fuel i.e having to build a larger rocket because you fuel to land it which means more fuel in order to launch it.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

I'm so hyped after watching this video. Screw the government. Space travel should have always been up to private industry. It's so exciting.

But at the same time I'm saddened by these things below. Why must people take a dump on awesome things?

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R1pGmkEzcM[/yt]


and below an informative link about the launch

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...hes-reusable-rocket-land-Earth-one-piece.html

It's the comments in the Daily Mail article that sadden me. People saying this is fake..

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

SpaceX seems to think they can recover all 3 portions of the Falcon heavy..both boosters and the center core..

It's like watching a real life KSP mission.

 

[sojourner]

I will be pleasantly surprised if they can recover all three... that WOULD be a game changer, especially in the satellite industry. Replace aging geostationary satellites with bigger ones than you could have in the past, for a tenth the cost of an EELV.

Forget satellites, SpaceX could open the door to university-funded space stations!

How much fuel are they to needing for their powered landings (and whether they could reduce the fuel needed by using parachutes to slow the descent).

While it's a great achievement am wondering if it's sorta carrying fuel to burn fuel i.e having to build a larger rocket because you fuel to land it which means more fuel in order to launch it.

Spacex already did the math and determined that the chutes would weigh more than the fuel required for powered landings. Powered landings are also more accurate.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I will be pleasantly surprised if they can recover all three... that WOULD be a game changer, especially in the satellite industry. Replace aging geostationary satellites with bigger ones than you could have in the past, for a tenth the cost of an EELV.

Forget satellites, SpaceX could open the door to university-funded space stations!

How much fuel are they to needing for their powered landings (and whether they could reduce the fuel needed by using parachutes to slow the descent).

While it's a great achievement am wondering if it's sorta carrying fuel to burn fuel i.e having to build a larger rocket because you fuel to land it which means more fuel in order to launch it.

It takes ALOT less fuel to land a rocket than it does to launch one. Primarily this is because the rockets have the benefit of wind resistance working in their favor during the descent, so the rockets have a lot less work to do. There's also the fact that they don't have to maintain high speed and acceleration on the way down.

The challenge of recovering the center stage is the fact that it will already be halfway around the world by MECO. They'll need an alternate landing/recovery site for it, OR they'll need some way to get the first stage to complete one full orbit and then reenter the atmosphere and land. I don't see SpaceX being able to do either of those things until MUCH later in the future.

 

[MANT!]

I will be pleasantly surprised if they can recover all three... that WOULD be a game changer, especially in the satellite industry. Replace aging geostationary satellites with bigger ones than you could have in the past, for a tenth the cost of an EELV.

Forget satellites, SpaceX could open the door to university-funded space stations!

Considering that the final boost is actually done from a true second stage, the actual core isn't an extended Falcon 9 but a slightly modified one, and according to the vid, lands at the same place as the boosters.. Now recovering the second stage will require either a fractional orbit with a different recovery site, or a single complete orbit (like Vostok 1) and re-entry to landing at original launch site.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abLC1l3loFA[/yt]

 

[sojourner]

SpaceX has abandoned second stage recovery on F9 and Falcon heavy.