SpaceX Launches Falcon 9 v1.1 on Maiden Flight
SpaceX Launch Update: This Sunday SpaceX will attempt to launch the first Falcon 9 v1.1. While similar to the original Falcon 9, the upgraded version sports the more powerful Merlin 1D engines which have yet to fly, a much longer fuselage, a new larger fairing and a number of other upgrades to the rocket including its software. The launch will be webcast.
The primary payload is the Canadian Space Agency CASSIOPE satellite. Several secondary nanosats will also be launched.
SpaceX is categorizing this launch as a “demonstration flight” with the risk higher than usual for a Falcon 9 launch. However I don’t expect them to launch unless they are as certain as they can be of mission success.
UPDATE: SpaceX has successfully launched the Falcon 9 v1.1 on its maiden flight.
– SpaceX Successfully Launches Upgraded Falcon 9 Rocket on Maiden Flight [Watch] UPDATED, SpaceRef
I prefer to use a designation of Falcon 9.1 for the uprated model premiering.
They are all 9.1 from here on out , so why the ” version 1.1″ appendage , SpaceX ? That’s verbose.
9 refers to the number of engines on the first stage rocket (The Falcon 1 had one engine on its first stage). So 9.1 would imply nine and one tenth of an engine.
I see what you’re going for, their nomenclature can be confusing and non-standard. I find it easier just to call it a Falcon 9, since this version will become the standard vehicle.
This version will not become the standard vehicle!
Isn’t’t that the whole point?
V 1.1 just has the first stage reuseable.
When they make the second stage reusable that maybe V 1.2 which could be called falcon r
But Elon is now a year into raptor development which will use methane for fuel.
So falcon will get new engines
That falcon maybe called falcon V 2.1
Since Elon is a programer it seems to me that he doesn’t think of a rocket as a finished product but like software as something that you design the best you can, then put out your beta version and see how it works, with every intention of making the next version better!
Imagine what falcon 4.0 or 5.0 maybe like?
Doesn’t the fact that Spacex doesn’t make separate specialized test vehicles but uses falcon as the test vehicle come from this software philosophy?
I think at some point, they are going to have to have a booster with a larger core diameter, too.
Dewdle:
It’s called the ‘Falcon 9 v1.1’ or ‘Falcon 9-R’ because Elon Musk says so. It’s his ball, his bat and his glove, so what can you do?
It is probably the first rocket to use a software revision scheme though.
tinker
Kind of gives you the idea they plan to keep updating things 🙂 if all of there previous launches haven’t already given you that impression.
If, after the introduction of the Falcon 9-R, you can still buy a Falcon 9 that doesn’t get reused to loft a larger payload, than they’re separate products and it makes perfect sense to have a “Falcon 9” and “Falcon 9-R”.
Then you have version numbers. This Falcon 9 is definitely 1.1 and any hypothetical Falcon 9-R will be the first of its line, even if the actual machine is nearly identical to a Falcon 9 with a bigger number.
It can get messier than that. The next version after “NeXTStep 3.3” was “Mac OS X v10.0” (now “10.8”). It was later forked to create “iPhone OS 1.0” (now “iOS 7”). Both of which are simultaneously also Darwin OS, which is currently “version 14.0”.
I sincerely hope SpaceX has at least some success in slowing and simulating landing the first stage. I don’t expect complete success, though, and it will take very little to make me happy.
Mark:
If Spacex saw fit to put rocket cams on the first stage we may be in for a treat. We’ll have to see how (of if) they’ll do that. I’d like a split screen of the first stage going down and second stage going up.
tinker
I concur, Tinker. I also hope they have someone in a ship, downrange, to video the descent. I’d love to see that stage hover just above the water before going in.
Mark:
With a live Merlin 1d bearing down on the landing zone, I don’t think being in a boat would be a good idea. Too much could go so very, very wrong!
But an robot camera in a bouy or even a mobile unit would fit the bill.
tinker
Very unlikely to get hit by the booster even if you were near its landing zone. I’ll drive the speed boat.
Although a camera boat needn’t be manned.
Mark:
Turns out that Spacex does have a boat in the first stage’s ‘landing’ area.
Hope it’s fast and maneuverable!
tinker
Ditto, Tinker. I hope it’s stable, too. I want good pictures of this. SpaceX might make a little history today.
Turns out it wasn’t either, Tinker. It was a work boat called the American Islander. Probably capable of ten knots flat out with a following wind 🙂
I just hope it was a stable platform for lots of TV cameras.
It seems to me I saw a comment to the effect that this launch will not be televised. I’m thinking that’s for two reasons – first, it’s experimental and they want to release only the pretty stuff, second, this is a private launch, not for the government, so they are not under obligation to make the event public.
OK, scratch that. I see that they are planning to webcast. My plans for 12 p.m. EDT just changed!
They won’t be attempting a landing on this flight, they will just be trying to slow it down enough so that it just might survive impact with the water so that they can recover it for analysis. However even if they don’t recover the stage the test should still provide a lot of good data from the instrumentation that is onboard.
Steve:
No reason not to land the stage as close to zero altitude and zero velocity if they can. Then they could hover til the fuel runs out. If they bore into the water til the Merlin quenches, maybe the stage won’t smack down too hard when it tips over.
If Spacex does end up hauling even a dinged up stage into port next week it’ll make certain folks squirm for sure!
tinker
The only reason not to attempt a simulated landing including hovering on the first flight is that it might have been too much to add to the test plan for this flight. With so much riding on this flight they are probably putting all of their attention on a successful delivery of payload to orbit.
But even so they would still like to get their feet wet (pardon the pun) on booster recovery on this flight, so they are going to at least attempt something. I think it would be quite an accomplishment just to bring the booster down safely through the atmosphere without tumbling. Even more impressive is if they maintain enough control so that the bottom is pointed down as they hit the water. And if on top of all of this they are able to fire the engines and reduce the water impact speed, I think they will have accomplished enough on their first attempt to start the squirming.
I realize that we have seen Grasshopper do all of this and more, but that was from a fixed starting point and very slow speeds. This will be a very dynamic situation with a lot of unknowns, which is why I think that even just reducing the water impact speed on this first flight will be a tremendous accomplishment. And whatever they accomplish on this flight will give the software people a lot of valuable data for planning a simulated landing on a subsequent flight.
Steve:
I’m sure the best of Grasshopper’s data went into this Falcon’s flight computer. Of course it would be written in the structure of the flight software in the first place. Also, GPS data can give the stage a good idea of where it is until it gets close to the water.
If the stage can slow down enough, it will naturally assume an engine down attidute due to the weight of the Merlins. Drag and gravity will provide enough ullage for the single, central Merlin to start. It’s the three engine burn right after second stage seperation that I worry about. Will they use Dracos as ullage engines or wait for drag to do the work for them?
If they can get to terminal velocity at 10,000 ft., I’d say they could nail it!
tinker
The next three (?) flights won’t attempt recovery, according to SpaceX, because they need the reaction mass. Heavy sats going to GEO. However, the next ISS resupply mission is expected to involve a first stage recovery attempt, and that stage is to have landing legs. Musk says the legs, deployed, should improve the core’s stability in downward flight.
The re-useability of the 1st stage is the big change that is coming for the Falcon 9. The added length of V1.1 must represent partly or in whole the need to carry additional fuel for a Stage 1 soft landing for reuse. SpaceX’s test of the first stage reuse is likely scripted and the limiting event is that they have to deploy the parachutes at right altitude and I would suspect the engines cannot be fired after that so that they do not interfere with the operation of the chutes. If the 1st stage is 1/2 of the cost of a Falcon 9 – $56.5M, then using the 1st stage might reduce the 1st stage cost between 1/2 and 2/3rds, i.e. $14M to $18M and the total cost of a F9 to between $39M and $43M. The price of F9 is already impressive and once the 1st stage is re-useable and mass production is used, the cost should drop to $3K per Kg. Presently, it is the lowest price in its launcher class, the Russian Proton-M, costing $4.3K/Kg vs F9 $4.1K/Kg. The Falcon 9 V2 (Re-useable). Everything else – Ariane 5, Delta 4 and Atlas 5 are between $10K and $14K per Kg. The Falcon 9 is in a class of only two launchers by price now and will be in a class of its own once the first stage is re-used. This is disruptive technology!!! They are claiming $2.2K per Kg for the Falcon Heavy. I think it possible that the Falcon Heavy with all SpaceX planned re-use and mass production could achieve $1K per Kg ($450 / lb). NASA’s SLS does not stand a chance of competing with that. If you forget about the money spent on development of the Constellation Ares and now SLS, SLS might cost $10K / Kg. I have commented that Falcon 9H would be half the cost of SLS, actually F9H will be 1/4th the cost of SLS (if/when it flies). Damn, they should have designed SLS for unmanned payloads only with rendezvous and merger to Orion (F9) in LEO. SLS is doomed to be abandoned soon after first flights. [It took competition and demand as the driver to innovate, i.e. re-useability, all manufacturing techniques.]
I immediately went to a friend’s house to have a beer and watch the launch (web viewing party) when we realized at the last minute that it’s on Sunday, not Saturday.
Time for less beer.
3 launches, 3 anomalies. What could possibly go wrong?
SJ:
What three anomalies? One engine out? One stuck valve issue? What was the third?
Growing pains for a baby Falcon and Dragon. This is a much different launch vehicle, so no common hardware is being flown today. But… SpaceX went from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 without a hitch and Falcon 9 v1.1 is only a minor scaling of the vehicle compared to Falcon 1, only 60% longer (and 80% more powerful).
I’m betting that the SpaceX team has learned from experience, built well and will probably fly well too.
Space is tough though. So, you might get your crater… just don’t go wishing for one.
tinker
To SpaceX’s credit, they’ve made no pretence about the likelihood of problems on this flight. From what I’ve seen (apart from the video downlink) just about everything went perfectly, at least as far as the launch, ascent and payload delivery was concerned.
The bad news – 3 anomalies (JG – 3rd anomaly was failure to restart second stage engine in this latest flight: critical for GEO launches like the upcoming SES-8).
The good news, rocket successfully deployed at least some of the payloads in each mission. In this business even a small anomaly can take out the entire rocket.
The question that will be answered over the next few launches: is it luck or resiliency? I hope for the latter, fear it is the former.
In histories of new rockets isn’t Spacex’s record better than most???
I guess it depends which new rockets you include. Falcon 1’s record is awful. Falcon 9’s is quite good. Quick survey of first 5 launches for American rockets (success out of launches):
Falcon 1: 2 out of 5
Falcon 9: 4.5 out of 5
Delta IV: 4.5 out of 5 (all variants)
Delta III: 1 out of 3
Minotaur I: 5 out of 5
Atlas V: 5 out of 5 (all variants)
Pegasus: 3+2*.5 out of 5
Delta II: 5 out of 5
Conestoga: 0 out of 1
In the press kit they say it will lift off from the Launch and Landing Center. I think that they will get it floating tail down. If all the openings to the tanks are closed. It should float for a long time. I remember an interview a long time ago during F1, Elon saying it would float like a pop can.
Wow. That pencil thin rocket flew straight and solid. First flight of the payload fairing and it separated! This is a major accomplishment already… I don’t even know if the spacecraft separated, another huge first flight event in this mission! Bravo Space X!
Latest on 1st Stage restart and its return to Earth. From BBC article: << “Mr Musk reported that the test went well, although the stage lost stability in the moments prior to impacting the water – a behaviour he says his engineering team understands and can correct. “So it hit the water relatively hard,” he told reporters. “We’ve recovered portions of the stage. But the most important thing is we now believe we have all the pieces of the puzzle.” And Mr Musk said SpaceX would attempt to land a stage on legs, on land, early next year.” >> Great engineering. Imagine the video we’ll see someday of all three 1st stage F9 Cores of a Falcon 9 Heavy returning to gentle four-point landings.
I read a quote from him that he attributed the problem to “aero torque” that caused the stage to spin up. It seems this would be rather obvious and would require an active control system. Perhaps the effect of the air were more than expected but I’m curious why this was missed.
Interesting. So they clearly have active control for pitch and yaw but not roll. Or something is being missed in their control of roll. I wonder if they are using reaction wheels for attitude control.
No, they have roll control, but it was overwhelmed.
I think they hope the legs will help, but does that mean it comes down head first initially instead? Might be a completely different attempt. I vaguely remember something like that in early ideas.
The F9 core must be allowed to continue on a ballistic trajectory. Fuel cost of stopping it in “mid-air” would be too much, I would think. Altitude is high enough (at its peak altitude) so that it can be rotated about to fire the engines to slow its fall – effectively upright position, without being effected by aerodynamic stress. It is also an interesting optimization problem to solve to minimize fuel use. At high altitude, the engines perform best (in vacuum or near vacuum) but at lower altitude aero-drag will naturally reduce its speed. Use aero-drag to its utmost but you will fire your engines under more atmospheric pressure, i.e. less efficiently. Also, more time taken to return to Earth represents effectively hover time which is extra fuel. Ideally one would permit a free fall and impart a single brief impulse at the last moment; the limiting factor being the g-force that the core could withstand (stresses). So I would suspect they permit a free fall up to the point where aerodynamic stresses would be exceeded then begin firing the rockets and even then not at full power… only to stay below the never exceed return speed (the never exceed stress level). As I describe in my comment below, I think they will place a ship based landing pad over an optimal point in the Atlantic or Pacific. [Man, quenching those hot nozzles in ocean water during these initial tests must ruin the metal]
So after separation, the first stage will flip 180, fire engines to slow, flip another 180 and fall back head-first. Maybe the legs are deployed for shuttlecock natural stabilizing effect. Would it be slow enough to not damage itself from reentry? Would the legs be vulnerable and are they designed to withstand some heating? (carbon fiber with aluminum honeycomb structure)
These are my questions. What exactly are they trying to do?
No, probably heads up (engines trailing) in a ballistic trajectory then turning 180 during the downward trajectory before aerodynamics creates too much stress on the structure (to turn back upright). They have to clearly keep the core below a never exceed speed so that aerodynamic stresses do not damage or destroy the stage. Rentry heat is not a factor for the first stage. The 2nd stage which will eventually also be returned for re-use will have to re-enter the atmosphere at around 17,000 mph (re-entry head). What are they doing? To dramatically reduce the cost to orbit a pound of payload, re-using spent stages is necessary. That was one reason for the Space Shuttle but it did not pan out. Re-use of Falcon stage 1 and 2 cores will likely succeed and lower the cost to about $500/lb (1/10th the cheapest cost today).
Ok that makes sense and what I thought initially, but I thought I heard it mentioned that the legs were supposed to help with the aerodynamic stabilization. I can’t find it now.
Ah here it is coming back up in a more recent article –
http://spaceflightnow.com/n…
I’d hope and think that Musk is a sound board for his engineers (let us know, guys) and what he says is technically correct. From my understanding from education and model rocketry, taking into account CG and center of pressure, I have reservations about the legs doing much positive to stabilize roll. Legs or fins often impart a spin (roll) to stabilize a model rocket. Any asymmetry in the legs will impart a net force to cause roll. Legs could help stabilize pitch and yaw but that depends on the CG and CP of the whole system.
Returning 1st stages back to where they launched might be a demonstration/stunt. SpaceX might place ship-based platforms out in the ocean and then haul them back to port once the technology is fully operational. That would save fuel needed to return gently BUT perhaps the cost of retrieval with a ship outweighs the extra mass/volume needed to force the 1st stage to retrace its whole ascent back to land.
Yeah they had better be all symmetric. Now what they could do is to have some movable part/flaps on the legs or body that can deploy to counter the roll as needed and then stow back after. That would basically act like the jets that currently do the job but could have more strength if needed when in the atmosphere.
I would probably weep for joy at that sight.
Mark
You replied to another comment of mine by saying that spacex will have to go to a bigger diameter sometime. Well isn’t he designing the big methane engine now? Isn’t that why he is renting the shuttle pad to stack the Mct/falconxx ? With recoverability doesn’t it make economic sense to skip falcon x size and build a recovable falconxx now? I think that Elon maybe planning to have his recoverable BFR operational before SLS is operational. Is it possible that MCT could be a giant three core boaster that looks like falcon heavy?
I suspect you’re on the right track, but unfortunately for guys like me, SpaceX is playing its cards close to the vest. I’d love to know more.
That day is not far away.
When will they first fly falcon heavy? Less than a year? On falcon heavy’s first flight won’t they at least try to water land all three boosters?
Falcon Heavy is set for a early 2014 maiden flight as listed on their launch manifest. I’d think they will try the soft landing with a Falcon 9 first. I’d prove it a few times with one core before showing off return of all 3 of a Heavy.
I disagree. Those three cores are being thrown into the ocean anyhow. Why not try to soft land them? Even if they run into each other and blow up, there would be reams of data coming from such a result. The more they try, the more they know.
Well, ok, maybe they would test them over water to be dropped into the ocean. That can be done in private, more or less. So maybe you are right – all cores from here on will test the soft-landing return – F9s and F-Hs. They need data points to prove reliability and under diverse conditions. It is interesting to imagine that more fuel will be needed to travel back to more distant landing pads. So instead could they place a ship rigged with a landing pad out at an optimal location in the Atlantic or Pacific to minimize the fuel needed to make a soft landing? Or could they place a landing pad on an island or in Spain (such as the Shuttle had an emergency landing site)? Turning those things around to land back in the US could be expensive as well as risky if passing over populated areas.
Imagine the video we’ll see someday of all three 1 stage FXX cores of a Falcon XX Heavy returning to gentle four-point landings
v1.1 va, SpaceX
Latest from CSA says that CASSIOPE has separated from the Falcon-9 u/s and its’ health-checks are looking good. At least one of the Cubesats has also separated and is reporting back to its operators.
SpaceX should provide an update later today. I’ve heard the recovery ship is headed is out attempting to recover the 1st stage.
We are watching the creative destruction of the “Only NASA” paradigm right before our eyes.
And embarrassing the hell out of the House and Senate space subcommittees. They look pretty foolish for a) attempting to strangle NASA’s commercial programs, and b) for shipping truckloads of money to SLS and Orion.
They only look silly outside of their own districts. In their districts, they’re successful advocates for local business, which isn’t usually something that gets you voted out of office. Our national space program is being driven by provincial interests in Congress, not national interests.
Does every one of them have local business in their district that benefits? I’m going to guess no. Ok, what percentage of the committees/sub-committees? Looks like it might be pretty high for the space sub-committees but I’m not checking actual districts.
http://science.house.gov/su…
http://science.house.gov/ab…
My reps are in neither committee unfortunately.
Please call your congressmen and senators and brag about how well SAA’s, COTS, and iCap are doing. Feel free to remind the neocons in the house and the liberals in the senate that their SLS porker is underfunded and over budget.
The Falcon seemed to get off the pad quickly. Nice flight, SpaceX.
Hope read my reply in the Orion thread sir.
George Worthington
The 3 engine burn was good. The second burn with the single 1st stage engine caused it to go into a spin and it crashed. They picked up some parts. Too bad. I hope they come up with a fix. The 2nd stage engine did not start again. They have done that before, so it should be an easy fix. The next launch was suppose to have 1 good one before it flew. I hope this was good enough. The rest was good. I like those shiny engine skirts.
According to Musk, the spin “centrifuged” the fuel, which caused the engine to cut-out, which is why it crashed.
That’s more worrying. Every upcoming launch requires restarts. They won’t get another test flight.
I believe I read where Musk said aero torque caused it to spin. I would assume this is the airflow now going in reverse from the bottom up. I would think that would have been looked into before hand and either aero surfaces or thrusters used to keep control. I’m not sure why that was a surprise.
Maybe it wasn’t and they knew it was a big risk, said the chances were 10%, and went ahead and tried it anyway for the experience and some data.
Good luck to the Canadian Space Agency with its CASSIOPE satellite.
Well done to SpaceX.
Well it wasn’t a historic day as I had hoped but it was a great one!
Yup I got to see a rocket test!
And the best part is Steve and Tinker get to pay for it with their taxes not me.
I was very impressed by the launch and laud the major achievements, the some what insignificant issue was just an irritant to someone who produced public media, I found it pretty irritating that the mission video buffered regularly. There is not a single feed that didn’t show a buffering feed. While it’s not possible to know if Space X received a clean uninterrupted feed, I would be slightly concerned about the loss of vital seconds of visual verifications of operation. I understand that there are redundant sensor systems, but investors are watching, so giving investors a buffering signal is not really advantageous. At least the last Shuttle Missions had excellent video.
Put the live video feed in context. You have an experimental vehicle launch. And regardless of the fact that it was carrying a commercial payload, this was unquestionably an experimental launch. The commercial payload almost certainly got a pretty sweet deal on price in exchange for accepting the risk of this rocket exploding immediately after launch.
Next, you have a fixed amount of bandwidth with which to transmit data. And you have significant telemetry expectations from this launch, because its data will directly feed into how the next launches are conducted. First and foremost, above showing shiny things to investors, is capturing enough data from this flight to make the next attempts at “landing” a first stage more successful. So in the competition between telemetry that might result in a better result next time and streaming video, I would certainly hope that streaming video takes a back seat.
The investors should hope that too, because it should be more important to them that the goal (a first stage landing) is reached than them seeing live video of the incremental steps on the way to that goal. Reaching the goal is what gets them their return on investment, not watching shiny video displays of the individual steps towards it.
Thus it’s insignificant and really only an irritant, I think you should be aware the the field of video analytics is a rapidly growing one, video analytics found the piece of ice that hit the Columbia wing on launch, however too far after the fact to be of much use. There is not at current a sensor web on the surface of the craft to measure all compression modes and vibration, there are some sensors in some places, for this reason you can get a lot of information from HD video feeds, I say this because I participated in discussions with JSC on the topic and in relations to the Moon Mars and Beyond missions which is interestingly somehow still existent contrary to web pages and press releases saying otherwise. From a scientific perspective I am not concerned in the slightest that the public didn’t get it’s video, but I am concerned if the video was lost to Space-X I personally could work with a group of engineers and glean hundreds if not thousands of hours of relevant data from a few minuets of quality clear video, measuring pressure data from exhaust plumes to creating physics models based upon HD video of stage separation, all that data can be used to create even more efficient lower risk launches. It should be done regularly and not as a result of fact finding after a catastrophe.
Telemetry and the live video don’t share the same downlinks. The TM feed was solid throughout the flight.
I agree that the video glitches were annoying, but if you look at the geography and azimuth of launch, there are a lot fewer land locations to put ground stations compared with the path up the US East Coast used for the ISS missions. I think they need an extra ship with the necessary receiving gear down range (they had two moderate sized workboats this time).
Sounds like you’ve nailed down the likely root cause, if it were mine I’d do just that.
I’m much more concerned why the second stage Merlin balked when it was supposed to reignite.
SpaceX has three more Falcon 9’s queued up for launch before year’s end. Some will require not one but two restarts of stage 2 for GEO insertion. We all have much to anticipate. Real rocket science, R & D on the fly . I thought this launch was spectacular. That tall skinny bird can fly, and was incredibly stable going up. And a whole lot faster than I expected.
Hopefully there will be video from the RC quadropter of a Falcon standing on its tail of fire, in a cloud of steam , above blue water.
Towards which I say they need to reverse the names of SpaceX’s two products… the booster is the real Dragon here now with its wings and flames , and the capsule is the Falcon that comes home to roost
Second stage was venting LOX on pass over South Africa: https://twitter.com/elonmus…
Software glitch — uncommanded valve opening, or stuck valve?
Wow, noctilucent O2 vapor cloud 🙂
Jonathan Amos of the BBC is claiming that CRS-3 flight (Feb 2014) will mount landing legs on first stage, and attempt powered flyback to landing at the Cape.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/s…
Great news. Answers all my questions. NASA may actually doing some experimenting. Not much. Mostly SpaceX. I hope there is a video and they try to land at the Cape.
I looked at the sat image. Elon says he needs 2-3 miles. Looks like there is plenty of room to land on the Shuttle runway and the approach is clear also.
It would be interesting what percentage of NASA proper employees are working with space-x, I would suppose from experience that there is at least a small team, but it’s totally possible there is none. With all the thousands of contractors that lost their jobs after shuttle & related projects were canceled at JSC and Marshall Space-X would have their pick of highly qualified x-nasa and x-USA contractors.
Hey thanks, good article. I read two previous descriptions of what happened on the long shot attempted soft water landing but this has the best info here on that.
I’m a little surprised they will go straight for a land landing instead of trying to get one good water landing first.
Mike there are more flights, this year before the CRS flight. Elon must feel confident that Spacex will have a couple water landings by then.
SpaceX isn’t doing first stage recovery on the SES and Thaicom launches, as they can’t afford the performance reduction on those geostationary payloads.
Wondered about that after I posted
🙂 thanks
how about the Grasshoppper 2.0 flights?
It’s an issue of mixing very hot parts with very corrosive salt water.
Tests performed by NASA in the early 60’s on saltwater immersion of Saturn I engines indicate that the problem is surmountable: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=…
I believe this is true. I’ve seen it as a quote by Elon during yesterday’s press conference. Not sure they would attempt to land at the Cape, though; they lack the necessary permissions at the moment. And some experience 🙂
Tinker suggested the flight profile of MCT using falcon heavy drawings
Well could a falcon heavy be designed to have 2 boasters land on earth and the central boaster land on mars with the payload on top. Then do the fuel making thing and fly back home. Couldnt the falcon heavy be a small scale Mars Colonial Transport protype?
AFAIK, the center booster on the Falcon Heavy won’t make Earth orbit, and it might not even be possible to reuse it (too high altitude, high speeds, etc. compared to the outer two boosters). the 2nd stage is what would make a trans-Mars injection burn, i doubt the 2nd stage could be designed to handle Mars’ atmospheric entry at interplanetary speeds, the TPS would likely be prohibitively heavy. so all you’re going to get to Mars is the payload.
Regarding the 2nd stage shutdown, there’s a report that there may have been an small explosion around the time of the 2nd burn. Several additional objects (in addition to the normal ones from a launch) are being tracked in its orbit. One theory is that perhaps there was an engine explosion or some insulation came off. These extra parts may be normal but just something to think about.
SpaceX’s explanation of events is copied below:
“Following separation of the satellites to their correct orbit, the Falcon 9 second stage underwent a controlled venting of propellants (fuel and pressure were released from the tank) and the stage was successfully safed. During this process, it is possible insulation came off the fuel dome on the second stage and is the source of what some observers incorrectly interpreted as a rupture in the second stage. This material would be in several pieces and be reflective in the Space Track radar. It is also possible the debris came from thestudent satellite separation mechanisms onboard.
“SpaceX will continue to review to help identify the source of the extra debris, but our data confirms there was no rupture of any kind on the second stage.”