|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
First flight of Block 5 successful launch and landing
The first flight of SpaceX Falcon 9 Block 5 has happened. Both the
launch (the first communications satellite for Bangladesh) and the landing of the first stage was successful. I also saw a picture on Twitter of a recovery ship with what looked like a fairing half under a tarp. This would have been fished out of the water since Mr. Steven is on the west coast. What we saw has been described as the end of the beginning for SpaceX. At this point Block 5 should be standardized as much as possible so that NASA will certify it for crewed flights. NASA really won't tolerate the sort of continuous tweaking that SpaceX did on the first 50+ flights. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
First flight of Block 5 successful launch and landing
JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 14 May 2018
17:00:27 -0400: On 2018-05-14 06:23, Jeff Findley wrote: What we saw has been described as the end of the beginning for SpaceX. At this point Block 5 should be standardized as much as possible so that NASA will certify it for crewed flights. NASA really won't tolerate the sort of continuous tweaking that SpaceX did on the first 50+ flights. During launch commentary, the commentator mentioned no planned major changes for Falcon 9 anymore, but that tweaks would likely continue to be done for minor improvements. Want to bet they won't be flying those tweaks on manned missions until they're proven in? Does NASA require "brand spanking new" Stage I for crewed flights or tolerate re-used stages ? Unknown, since there are no crewed flights to date. They 'tolerate' previously flown stages and capsules on cargo missions. There's no known reason to not do the same on manned flights. They'll probably fly new until there have been 7 or so 'reused' launches that are successful. It should be noted that the very first Block 5 not only managed to land, but landed on "I still love you" for its very first flight. That's not a 'but'. I Still Love You is the name of the barge. It's the only thing out there to land on, so if the stage successfully landed that would be where. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
First flight of Block 5 successful launch and landing
JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 15 May 2018
04:04:57 -0400: On 2018-05-14 23:00, Fred J. McCall wrote: That's not a 'but'. I Still Love You is the name of the barge. It's the only thing out there to land on, so if the stage successfully landed that would be where. SpaceX has had higher success rate landing on ground than on the barges. Well, no, not in any real sense. The only reason barge numbers are lower is because all the development of the capability was done with barges. (I realise that landing on barges is also because of shortage of fuel which limits control for landing). Close but no cigar. Landing on land requires totally reversing the velocity vector of the first stage after separation. Still, a success on a barge with a "new" rocket on first time is very impressive. You might want to look at just how many successful barge landings they have under their belt and when the last failure was. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
First flight of Block 5 successful launch and landing
JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 15 May 2018
18:22:21 -0400: On 2018-05-15 07:13, Jeff Findley wrote: fins: had heard that the Falcon 9 Heavy was first to use them, but your link proves otherwise. What? You're not going to argue with him about it? Pretty much everything you say is new is an incremental upgrade over previous versions, so the likelihood of failure is rather low, IMHO. Looking at the early failures, it was often "very close but no cigar". So introducing lots of minor changes could be seen as major for the landing software. And monkeys could fly out your butt. Landing software is going to care about physical characteristics. It's going to have tolerance for mass changes because they need to be able to land with varying amounts of fuel. So the only changes to really care about are CG and moment arm changes. That's easy to design around on the ground. Also, I'd bet that all of these changes have been reviewed by NASA as part of commercial crew. I have not seen the contract between NASA and SpaceX. Not sure how much micromanagement authority they have. But for sure, they would have specifcied a number of standards and succesful tests prior to NASA sending their crews on SpaceX flights. The commercial crew capability is being developed under NASA contract, so they're going to get program reviews on changes. If NASA is reluctant to accept on-going tweaks, that would push them to agree to re-use of a rocket that is at a version NASA tested, instead of insisting on always new stages which would force NASA to accept on-going tweaks and improvements being made. No. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
First flight of Block 5 successful launch and landing
JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 16 May 2018
04:32:49 -0400: On 2018-05-16 03:20, Fred J. McCall wrote: And monkeys could fly out your butt. Landing software is going to care about physical characteristics. It's going to have tolerance for mass changes because they need to be able to land with varying amounts of fuel. So the only changes to really care about are CG and moment arm changes. That's easy to design around on the ground. If it were that easy, they would have succeeded with their first attempt. It took a number of attempts before they got it to work. You're confused (as usual). Doing it the first time is hard. However, once you've figured it out, so long as you don't make major changes in CG or mass you don't even have to change the software. The fact they succeeded on first attempt with a rocket where many variables were changed shows the software has gained maturity and reliability. Or it shows that they took care that their changes didn't make any significant changes in CG or moment arms. Remember that the "revolutionary" part starts with Block 5 which can be reused more than once, and this depends on reliable landings. Remember that if the issue was 'reliable landings', they were already doing that. The Block 5 changes are to reduce need for refurbishment and make it easier when it is required. The commercial crew capability is being developed under NASA contract, so they're going to get program reviews on changes. Yet, weren't you the one arguing that a commercial crew contract was no different than putting their employees on a commercial jetliner? No, I wasn't. Once again you are confused. What I was arguing was that a commercial crew contract ON AN ALREADY EXISTING AND FAA CERTIFICATED VEHICLE is no different from getting on a commercial airliner. But this is not that. This is development of a vehicle and system under NASA contract to carry NASA personnel AS CREW. No FAA certificate; NASA controls the 'man rating' of the system. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another successful SpaceX launch and landing | Jeff Findley[_6_] | Policy | 100 | July 30th 16 01:40 AM |
Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and landing! | Jeff Findley[_6_] | Policy | 4 | May 7th 16 11:19 AM |
Titan, ten months after the successful landing of the Huygens probe(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | December 2nd 05 09:04 PM |
Lockheed Martin And Aerojet Complete Successful Atlas V Block B Solid Rocket Booster Test | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | June 3rd 05 02:48 PM |
Successful European DELTA mission concludes with Soyuz landing | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 1st 04 12:25 PM |