Space x launches pay load, recovers rocket!!!

[JI_Joe84]

Article over at newscientist com,
Yeah they did it. Put a payload into orbit then recovered the rocket using their vertical landing idea. Also they appear to have competent competition, that I did not know.

P.s. I'm on mobile and there is no copy-paste ability apparently so I could not put a proper link in. Sorry!

[Jub]

Link to original story.

SpaceX, the company run and founded by Tesla Motors’ Elon Musk, has successfully completed a vertical take-off and vertical landing (VTVL) with its Falcon 9 rocket after delivering a payload of commercial satellites, setting a new landmark in space travel technology.

The Falcon 9 rocket blasted off from Florida with 11 communication satellites for customer OrbComm Inc and successfully deployed them in space. The reusable main-stage booster then turned around and landed safely near its launchpad at Cape Canaveral. With this, Falcon 9 becomes the first space rocket to land successfully on earth after launching a commercial payload in space.



Why is the Falcon 9 landing so important for SpaceX?

The fact that Falcon 9 was able to go into space, launch its commercial payload and then return to Earth is great news for SpaceX as it will bring down operational costs for the company. Space X has proved that its rockets can be refurbished and re-flown for commercial purposes. However, SpaceX has not yet revealed how much of the rocket’s components can be reused.

The SpaceX feat is important, given that this is the first time that an orbital rocket has come back to Earth intact. The rocket reached a height of approximately 200 kms before it landed back on earth, and it is this high altitude which made the company’s mission so difficult.

Falcon 9 details

Falcon 9 is a 229.6 feet (70 metres) tall, two-stage rocket, built and designed by the company to deliver satellites and the Dragon spacecraft into orbit. It’s got a diametre of 12 feet and generates more than 1.5 million pounds of thrust at sea level, going up to nearly 1.7 million pounds of thrust in vacuum of space.

Elon Musk, also put out details about the Falcon 9 used in today’s mission and said the rocket has a higher performance than the prior version due to increased boost thrust, deep cryo-oxidizer and a much larger upper stage engine bell.

How is the Falcon 9 different from say rival Blue Origins’ New Shepard, which also landed back after take-off in November this year?

Falcon 9 is a bigger, more powerful rocket than Blue Origins’ New Shepard, which entered the earth’s orbit in November and successfully landed back. Blue Origins is funded by Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos.

Falcon 9’s first stage is powered by nine Merlin engines, each one being much more powerful than the Blue Shepard which has one BE-3 engine. Each Merlin engine can emit 756 kilonewtons (170,000 pounds) of thrust at liftoff, while the BE-3 has a thrust of 110,000 pounds at liftoff. The total mass of the Falcon 9 is 541,300 kg or 1,194,000 pounds; the greater the mass of a rocket, the greater is the amount of thrust required to take-off into space.

Falcon 9 is primarily for delivering commercial space payload and therefore can carry a lot more weight, while New Shepard is really for taking space tourists to the edge of the earth and experience weightlessness.

Is Falcon 9 the first rocket to go into space and land safely back on earth?

The first sub-orbital reusable rocket was used in the X-15 planes tested by US Air Force and NASA in 1960s. These three rocket-powered planes reached the edge of outer space and the research data provided by them helped shape future space programs at NASA. In the private sector, SpaceShipOne, a rocket-powered aircraft, also completed the first spaceflight in 2004 and landed back successfully on Earth.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 had done a soft landing in the Atlantic Ocean in July 2014, proving that its engines are capable of successfully re-entering from space. In this case, the rocket had tipped sideways after landing.

So what next for Falcon 9?

Interestingly, after the successful landing Musk declared that the Falcon 9 will never fly again and that they’ll be keep this one back on earth. Even so, Musk’s company has proved that reusable rockets that go into space are very much a reality.

[Simon_Jester]

When that interview you quoted says "the Falcon 9 will never fly again," is that to mean this particular rocket will never fly again, or that this entire type of rocket is being redesigned and a new version will be flown in the future?

[Jub]

When that interview you quoted says "the Falcon 9 will never fly again," is that to mean this particular rocket will never fly again, or that this entire type of rocket is being redesigned and a new version will be flown in the future?

My reading is that they want this particular rocket as a piece of history.

[Simon_Jester]

More cynically, they may not be entirely sure it's ready for prime time, since this is a totally unprecedented thing they have done. It would look rather bad if their reusable rocket, on its first real re-use, falls apart or explodes.

So if I were them, I would take this particular Falcon 9 lower stage apart with a fine-tooth comb, perform tests on its material composition and other characteristics, and so on. However, such exhaustive and thorough tests might well leave the rocket in no condition to fly again... hence it would become a lovely museum piece.

[Jub]

More cynically, they may not be entirely sure it's ready for prime time, since this is a totally unprecedented thing they have done. It would look rather bad if their reusable rocket, on its first real re-use, falls apart or explodes.

So if I were them, I would take this particular Falcon 9 lower stage apart with a fine-tooth comb, perform tests on its material composition and other characteristics, and so on. However, such exhaustive and thorough tests might well leave the rocket in no condition to fly again... hence it would become a lovely museum piece.

That would make a great deal of sense.

[SpottedKitty]

When that interview you quoted says "the Falcon 9 will never fly again," is that to mean this particular rocket will never fly again, or that this entire type of rocket is being redesigned and a new version will be flown in the future?

My reading is that they want this particular rocket as a piece of history.

<nod> If I were Elon Musk, I'd want that thing on my office desk.

And yes, I've read reports that this particular stage won't be refurbished for re-use, because it's the first. I haven't come across any estimates of when they'll try for a reflight. Presumably the first one will be a test — no need to risk an actual paying launch on a stage you're not sure you can trust, until you've successfully done it a couple of times.

A mindbogglingly excellent sight; landing on its tail, like God and Robert Heinlein intended.

[His Divine Shadow]

I dunno why but I was reminded of the Delta Clipper upon reading this. Oh how I miss the little rocket that could...

[Simon_Jester]

Who with a soul doesn't?

[Enigma]

Delta Clipper buh?

[Starglider]

Delta Clipper was really on the edge of feasibility with early 90s technology. Considering what happened to Venture Star, which was half a decade later with an order of magnitude larger budget and didn't attempt powered landing, I can't see the full scale Delta Clipper working out. Soft land of a mid-size orbital launcher first stage is good progress but it's not comparable to trying to build a reusable SSTO, which several 90s projects attempted and missed badly (Roton as well).

[Sky Captain]

I read on Nasaspaceflight forums that for this recovered stage plan is after a minor inspection to put it on test stand, refuel and do full duration test firing to check all the systems and find out if it could fly as it is without much refurbishment. After that maybe it will be taken apart for detailed inspection, materials testing and whatever engineering data they can get out of it. Then retire it as museum piece.

Stages recovered later this year likely will be reused on real flights probably with some not too important payloads in case it blows up.

[Sea Skimmer]

Delta Clipper was really on the edge of feasibility with early 90s technology. Considering what happened to Venture Star, which was half a decade later with an order of magnitude larger budget and didn't attempt powered landing, I can't see the full scale Delta Clipper working out.

'Working' was never a vital requirement for the full scale Delta Clipper anyway, as it would never have been built in anything like its intended form. It's original mission concept and funding came out of the SDI program, quick servicing missions for orbital SDI weapons platforms, many concepts of which would have needed small scale equipment replacement and helium coolant recharges. The Clipper was supposed to do that with much less trouble then the shuttle. Since the SDI weapons were themselves decades from working, even by the most optimistic interpretations of the program simply proving the reentry and landing concept was more then mission accomplished, and could have been very useful to more practical projects. For example a Clipper shaped air launch vehicle would be easier to fit on a air launch plane then a winged orbitor. That SSTO would never work with the technology of the time was not so important, major technology changes being inevitable. Indeed they built the thing at a time when many experts argued SSTO would absolutely never work in engineering terms, now in the 2000s we are at least confident it really can, it will just always have a horrific payload fraction without using the Alchemist Engine concept.

Venture Star was just stupid, and only existed because NASA management was utterly ignoring its own engineers, again, at a time when NASA was really struggling to remain relevant (and Lockheed had maximum skunk works credit..which also led into the way the JSF program formulated). Luster of the shuttle gone, military firmly rejected it, space station program looking unlikely, unmanned probe projects not yet proven as successful as they now have ect.... I suppose its hard to hate them too much for trying because the total amount of money blown really wasn't that high for the scope of the project, and Lockheed funded about a quarter of it out of pocket.

In related news the USAF says they think the SABRE engine can really work, or at least is compliant with USAF understanding of hypersonic flight, but no big surprise, they also think Skylon won't work and will burn it's own tail off, and would like the designers to make it a two stage to orbit system because that'd be still be superior to any rocket based launch system and not lead to an expensive failure.

[Crazedwraith]

SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space

Slight set back here?

[jwl]

BBC online's title is a little misleading since it only exploded after it had landed. One of the legs didn't secure down properly, so it tipped over and then exploded. In my opinion that problem would be pretty easy to fix for next time.

[Ace Pace]

SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space

Slight set back here?

Note the very different target. Not a stationary landing pad with clear weather, but a rather rocky platform at sea.

[jwl]

SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space

Slight set back here?

Note the very different target. Not a stationary landing pad with clear weather, but a rather rocky platform at sea.

According to Elon Musk, it would probably have tipped over even if it was on land: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688816554306191360

[Guardsman Bass]

At least it stayed on the platform, I suppose.

In related news the USAF says they think the SABRE engine can really work, or at least is compliant with USAF understanding of hypersonic flight, but no big surprise, they also think Skylon won't work and will burn it's own tail off, and would like the designers to make it a two stage to orbit system because that'd be still be superior to any rocket based launch system and not lead to an expensive failure.

"Expendable upper stage" would be fine for most missions. You're not bringing the payload back to Earth anyways.

[Sea Skimmer]

It would be fine, but such a mission profile will only work if the craft is engineered to do it and able to open the payload bay while still under some relevant aerodynamic loading.

[Zeropoint]

It's to be expected that you have a few missteps when you're trying something no one has ever done before. Having "permission to fail" is important in advancing the state of the art.