SpaceX launches cargo ship but rocket recovery test fails

NASA, SpaceX ready Dragon spacecraft for Saturday launch

[link to www.computerworld.com]

Revelation 12 New King James Version (NKJV)

The Woman, the Child, and the Dragon
12 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.

3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Are you aware that the lady in the France incident is still at large and could be said to have fled into the wilderness? And no, I am not religious.


[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Last Edited by Thereturn on 01/10/2015 08:04 AM

alternative link: [link to www.cbc.ca]



Last Edited by Jozo on 01/10/2015 08:25 AM

:hahanelson:

Did it get Brokened?

This wasn't a surprise, by the way. They had already expected that it had a low probability of success. This was a test and I think it was the first time, or one of the first times, that they were testing the recovery of their rocket.

I have never bought into the controlled retro rocket landing framework. There is virtually no margin for error and the aerodynamics of descent are so inherently complicated that even the smallest glitch would result in a disaster. Too unreliable. Stick with splashdowns or go back to gliding down in a better design lifting body. SSO for under a million a pound with current technology is not feasible without fusion, period.

This was a test to see if recovery of the booster (vs letting it crash into the ocean) was do-able. They have successfully tested the booster on short flights from launch to landing several times, just something went amiss this time.

They'll keep working on it...that it actually impacted it's target (albeit pretty hard, whatever that means) was a small consolation.

Thinking outside the box...

It was the first times they were actually trying to land it on something solid. It's not confirmed, but their next attempt could be as early as January 29th. If not it will be in April.

Why people are so unforgiving, sarcastic/cynical and pessimistic when it comes to this industry is really beyond me. Especially given the possibilities that arise once they have mastered this tech they've just started to try out.

It's the complete lack of patience... And expecting everything to just work out, just because. Well guess what, it's a trail & error business. Stuff like that happens. Perfection of this can usually take years. Yet take a look at where SpaceX stands in a timespan of 12 years!

Because it reached the barge shows how precise these rockets are. I'd call that a partial success.

I watched the launch this morning my time.

No Elon Musk fan here, he is a Bankster and profiteer he goes where the money is, but at least all nominal this time they placed the cargo into orbit.

The fact that they did not recoop the booster is less important. They'll build a new one out of insurance pay back.

It got den'ed.

Why dont thy put like a giant self inflating life raft type deal on the rocket so when it hits the water it floats

So it crash landed? Lots of crash landings lately.

What the heck does this have to do with anything? Just because of the name? One failed landing of an automated drone does not mean prophecy is being fulfilled if you are religious or not. The space effort as a whole - Russian and Americans both - lost a large amount of craft before (if you believe it or not) the Americans got to the Moon. Unfortunately, many experimental pilots and other crew were also lost. Why do you think both the public and automated systems ground control are kept far back now? Sheesh, these people...

Thanks OP, the BBC thread has the video of the launch, where is the video of the landing........ what exactly does hit hard look like?

So in summary, when you were coming to the planet, this is the agreement you had with NASA that they will contribute towards the developments you enjoy on the planet or perhaps you will just be an onlooker as they continue losing their ships and make the progress that will benefit your life. And you are in control of your life? I don't think so....

I believe it landed in darkness, and being a first attempt at such a landing (from orbit), there were likely no manned cameras around. Don't know details of the crash landing, but maybe landing pad cameras were taken out as well...
We can watch his site for updates...

Just being bold enough to start working with the concept (many successful up-and-downs with the Dragonfly prototype) is really pretty bold.

I kept seeing different articles about spaceX troubles. always made me bummed, but what a earlier poster said is true this is all trial and error. spaceX is doing better than some countries. I like and hope the space industry grows. competition breeds inovation.

Think of Elon Musk what you will, we can't know whether that which drives him is purely for the better/survival of mankind or profit. However, in the latter case i would be very surprised, nothing in this industry is guaranteed and what reuseability tech SpaceX comes up with has yet to be perfected. They survive on contracts and investors. That can be pretty shaky. Make a few mistakes or have a few happen out of your control, and that's that.

Think of it this way. With all his money he could've went for the safe route and avoid building his own space program, correct? He nearly went bankrupt after the first few tries blew up. Yet SpaceX is still around, and are proving to be a vital partner to NASA. Trying to provide a revolutionary change to an industry which is in desperate need of this, if they want to go anywhere. Something as radical as the Mars Colonial Transporter may just be what we need and what NASA never attempt on it's own due to a variety of reasons.

You may not like Elon Musk, but i do like that he chose this industry and try to make a change. Because commercial spaceflight will likely prove vital to a future on other planets.

For one, unlike NASA, which has to fight it's way past narrowminded politicians, SpaceX can go and take a shot at totally new designs. And force other contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing (and other players like Orbital) to step up their game if they want to stay involved. It has forced ESA to look at a reuseable rocket design of their own.

I believe it's a good thing SpaceX is around. Because it forces a once stagnant industry into motion. At one point, space will actually become attractive and cheap. If 50 years from now i can say SpaceX (Next to the Orion program) has proven to be what changed it all, i will thank his decision to go that direction, regardless of his motives.

Just remember that there is currently little money to be made in spaceflight, until you convince the rest. A second space age has to be kickstarted (and already has) through competition of fresh companies leading the way. With American, Russian, European and Asian space agencies and their knowledge/data backing them up.

The test SpaceX did a while back with that other rocket went well. They were able to land it right after blast-off which was pretty good...


[link to www.space.com]

Right!

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
― Thomas A. Edison

My argument has nothing to do with it being new, untried or whatever. It is based on simple principles of basic aerodynamics. Using thrust be it rocket fuel, air from a hovercraft type device or anything else to create an aerodynamically stable approach and landing vector from a vertical position is simply problematic at best. Even with computers vectoring the engine thrust, the inherent instability derived from such an approach is fraught with aerodynamic incongruences. And if the computers fail, a human cannot land it safely.

Last Edited by redhed6971 on 01/10/2015 02:28 PM

Why not just a number of inflatable donuts around returning rocket body. if one doesn't inflate others are enough to cushion landing either on land or sea

Hold your breath for 20 minutes and get back to us.


Are you serious about that garbage you posted....seriously?

Eh, if i would have meant you, i would've quoted you. That post was very general by nature. Moreso directed at those who lambast these companies at the first sign of trouble or seem amused whenever something goes wrong...

At this point i'm happy to see any kind of development. Even if it would prove the proposed tech infeasible to move on to other cost reducing ideas.

In my personal opinion, i do see them perfecting it, only to have it remain used only for cargo flights in the foreseeable future. At this point they can just keep experimenting because it doesn't interfere with their missions to the ISS.

Everyones a winner. Or so it seems.

Apparently, this tiny detail threw a spanner in the works... But it shows just how close they came to total success.

Elon Musk @elonmusk · 4 uur 4 uur geleden

Grid fins worked extremely well from hypersonic velocity to subsonic, but ran out of hydraulic fluid right before landing.

Elon Musk @elonmusk · 4 uur 4 uur geleden

Upcoming flight already has 50% more hydraulic fluid, so should have plenty of margin for landing attempt next month.