SpaceX vertical landing attempt on the 16th

[Jim Logajan]

Weather and technicalities permitting, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket will be attempting a rocket powered soft landing of the first stage (on water, since it is still being tested) on Sunday. They added legs to the first stage to replicate the configuration that would be needed for a solid ground landing. Article:
http://www.space.com/25019-spacex-rocket-engine-test-success.html

A stabilization system that can guide a rocket on ascent should (in theory) have no problem guiding it on descent.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I see that although they missed the March 16th date, they finally managed to launch on the 18th ... of April.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/spacex-launches-cargo-tries-rocket-recovery-n84266

Too early yet for data from the SpaceX tracking plane, so no word on how the first stage fared on its landing attempt. NASA had also planned to have a P-3 flying so it could monitor the supersonic thruster firings on the booster's descent (presumably the data would be for use in planning a Mars mission) but icing prevented their flight (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch).

 

[Jim Logajan]

Landing the tall booster on those narrow legs with that high of a CoG in good weather and in bad will in the end be found impractical - the hard way

They currently only plan to take off in good weather - so why would they end up taking off in good weather and land in bad weather? I know Florida weather can change fast, but boy....

Also - what makes you think the CoG is all that high? All the heavy bits are near the base and the tank is empty or nearly so on landing.

Hurtling tons of reentry vehicle back at the populated land will generate some spectacular headlines in the not distant future when the magic smoke leaks out of some electronic bit

Why would landing be any different than a takeoff where an aberrant rocket could fly an arc into anything within hundreds of miles? At least on return the amount of flammables on board is near a minimum.

I guess I don't see how the landing could be considered any more difficult or hazardous than the takeoff. By my own reckoning it should be safer. I believe you are engaging in special pleading to make a case for hazards and difficulties where a like-for-like comparison would show your concerns are not objective.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Space X builds vehicles to lift stuff into space for the government. If it weren't for the NASA contracts, they would not exist. Space X would be nothing without NASA.

By my count, of their first 9 Falcon 9 launches, 1 was effectively a test for themselves, with 4 of the remaining 8 carrying payloads for customers other than NASA or the U.S. government. (One carried 2 payloads, so the government had payloads on 5 of the 8.)

Of the 39 future missions listed on their current manifest, I see only 13 that list NASA or the DOD as customer.

So without NASA or the government as customers their customer base would be reduced by 1/3 (or 1/2 if long term trend is for more government contracts.) At most this might require them to double their launch prices. I believe that such prices still puts them at the low end of current going rates, so would still attract non-government customers.

The numbers and facts don't seem to support your breathless and emotion-laden assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_launches
http://www.spacex.com/missions

 

[Jim Logajan]

I had never heard the term "RUD" before and it really makes me laugh.


Me- "damn thing blew up"

Elon Musk - "we experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly"

Musk didn't originate the acronym - I know it has been around a while, at least in amateur high power rocketry, where RUD events are are a bit more frequent.