SpaceX Loses the Center Core of Its Falcon Heavy Rocket Due To Choppy Seas (theverge.com) 103
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: SpaceX successfully landed the center core of its Falcon Heavy rocket on a drone ship last week, but the vehicle accidentally fell into the ocean while in transit to the Florida coast. The company blamed the loss on choppy seas. "Over the weekend, due to rough sea conditions, SpaceX's recovery team was unable to secure the center core booster for its return trip to Port Canaveral," SpaceX said in a statement to The Verge. "As conditions worsened with eight to ten foot swells, the booster began to shift and ultimately was unable to remain upright. While we had hoped to bring the booster back intact, the safety of our team always takes precedence. We do not expect future missions to be impacted."
SpaceX does have ways to secure the rockets it lands in the ocean, including a robot known as the "octagrabber" that latches on to the base of the boosters. But because the center core connects to two side boosters, it has a different design than a normal Falcon 9 booster. So the octagrabber cannot hold on to it in the same way. The center core is a modified Falcon 9 booster -- one of three that make up the Falcon Heavy rocket -- which flew last week during the second flight of the Falcon Heavy. "Following takeoff, all three cores of the rocket successfully landed back on Earth: the two outer cores touched down on dual concrete landing pads at the Cape while the center core touched down on the company's drone ship named Of Course I Still Love You in the Atlantic," reports The Verge.
SpaceX does have ways to secure the rockets it lands in the ocean, including a robot known as the "octagrabber" that latches on to the base of the boosters. But because the center core connects to two side boosters, it has a different design than a normal Falcon 9 booster. So the octagrabber cannot hold on to it in the same way. The center core is a modified Falcon 9 booster -- one of three that make up the Falcon Heavy rocket -- which flew last week during the second flight of the Falcon Heavy. "Following takeoff, all three cores of the rocket successfully landed back on Earth: the two outer cores touched down on dual concrete landing pads at the Cape while the center core touched down on the company's drone ship named Of Course I Still Love You in the Atlantic," reports The Verge.
stupid gravity well (Score:1)
and its stupid water
holding us back from 3D printing human hearts in the asteroid belt
Obvious response (Score:5, Funny)
"You're gonna need a bigger boat"
Hey APK SPH!!!! (Score:2)
Take your medications.
You couldn't END a shit properly.
Threats no less. From a cowardly keyboard warrior.
And calling out an AC while posting as an AC.
SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP IMMEDIATELY.
(Preferably from someone trained by Dr. Kevorkian..)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they should contact Boaty McBoatface for advice!?
Re:Obvious response (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We know that it didn't have the fuel to return to Florida. However what about if you keep going to say Lajes Air Base on the Azores, aka a Space Shuttle launch abort landing site? Not seen a reason why that is not possible other than having to negotiate with the Portuguese about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The drone ship was only a few hundred nautical miles offshore, not a few thousand like the Azores. The thing with the shuttle was that once you lit the SRBs, you were committed to flying, at least until the SRBs were exhausted. Given the amount of thrust and duration, that would put you within range of the Azores.
Also, hitting the Azores would require the rocket to be launched on a specific azimuth, which isn't a due-east launch like what is done for Geostationary.
Re: (Score:2)
They will fix the problem, which was that the robot which locks down recovered boosters did not work with the center one from a Falcon Heavy.
Yes, that seems about right from what has been said. The center rocket just didn't have the compatible anchor points needed to secure the rocket in heavy seas. Solved problem, just need to do it next time so they can launch in a wider variety of offshore weather. Sounds like it could add a few pounds here and there, but it should be doable.
Where did it sink? Will China recover it and copy (Score:1)
If its still in shallow waters, it could be picked up recovered later for analysis, but useless for launch.
Where is it? First one to find it , keepers? Maritime salvage rights?
If its on the continental shelf it would be easy to drag it up 300 ft?
If its in deep ocean water, I am sure China will send a recover sub to "steal" all the in perfect condition tech they can.
Re: Where did it sink? Will China recover it and c (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the vast majority of Earth's surface is covered by water, and most of that water's surface is uninhabited
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please learn how to troll properly.
Years later we will all find (Score:1)
Kids playing on the seashore will be finding Falcon parts on the shore for years after this, and use their Sponge Bob Squarepants phones to call their friends about the amazing discovery.
Re: Years later we will all find (Score:5, Insightful)
You do remember that the ocean contains vastly more rocket parts from Saturn V, Atlas, Delta, and Titan boosters, right? Picking on the one company that actually tries to keep their trash out of the ocean is pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
You do remember that the ocean contains vastly more rocket parts from Saturn V, Atlas, Delta, and Titan boosters, right? Picking on the one company that actually tries to keep their trash out of the ocean is pathetic.
No let's pick on this company. How dare they try and prevent equipment from landing in the ocean where it provides wonderful artificial reefs which have been shown time and time again to benefit ocean life in what is otherwise a wasteland.
Re: (Score:1)
Why a guy wire? It could be a girl wire.
still cheaper. (Score:3)
Losing one reusable rocket is still cheaper than using three non-reusable rockets.
Re: still cheaper. (Score:1)
Losing part of the launcher renders it a non-reusable instance.
They will need to keep trying.
Okay, gotta ask (Score:1)
Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?
Re: (Score:1)
or, re-fuel and fly it home.
Re:Okay, gotta ask (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?
Doesn't work. The rockets are not designed to handle heavy horizontal stress. They can handle pretty extreme vertical stress but to make them survive being on their sides that reliably would require a lot more reinforcements which means the rockets would have a lot more mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?
Doesn't work. The rockets are not designed to handle heavy horizontal stress. They can handle pretty extreme vertical stress but to make them survive being on their sides that reliably would require a lot more reinforcements which means the rockets would have a lot more mass.
They could pressurize the interior after landing with something inert, such as nitrogen gas, which could give it enough structural strength to tip on its side.
Re: (Score:2)
Plain compressed air would work just fine.
safey? its Autonomous (Score:2)
The vessel is Autonomous
What safety is needed for the Team?
Re: (Score:2)
The team that would be required to weld the feet to the deck. That's a dangerous job if the ship is moving too much and there's a risk that the booster will slide around.
Re: (Score:3)
> "Doesn't work. The rockets are not designed to handle heavy horizontal stress."
Nope.
They are assembled horizontally and set upright on the pad. When they get to port they crane them off the boat and lay them horizontally onto a truck. Grabbing it and laying it down is just a matter of engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
⦠but it probably doesn't make sense to do that if you can just grab it and hold it upright instead.
Re:Okay, gotta ask (Score:4, Insightful)
Grabbing it and laying it down is just a matter of engineering.
But there's no need. The center of mass is very low due to empty fuel/oxygen tanks, and heavy engines at the bottom, and the booster is already very stable standing upright. The only thing that needs to be done is grab the legs with an improved octograbber, so it doesn't start sliding around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?
Doesn't work. The rockets are not designed to handle heavy horizontal stress. They can handle pretty extreme vertical stress but to make them survive being on their sides that reliably would require a lot more reinforcements which means the rockets would have a lot more mass.
Wrong: take a look at the pre-launch videos. The entire 3-booster assembly is transported to the launchpad horizontally, on a specially designed carrier. It remains in full contact with the carrier bed as it (the bed) is hydraulically lifted to vertical.
I will grant you that implementing such a gizmo on the barge is not cost-effective. But putting in a new set of grapplers and tiedowns is almost certainly in the future for the OfCourseIStillLoveYou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The crane to do that would have to be massive [wikimedia.org]. They already have a solution [wixstatic.com] though, it's a giant Roomba that goes under the center of the rocket and clamps on like a giant weight like this [elonx.cz], the problem is it's not yet compatible with the Falcon Heavy center. If the weather had been better they could have welded it to the deck, that's what they did before but maybe the conditions were too rough for that. Either way once they adapt the clamps this won't happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest I was wondering why they used a smooth deck instead of the a grid type used to land helicoptors on:
https://cramm-yachting-systems... [cramm-yach...ystems.com]
Yes, yes. i know: "rocket exhaust" - but there's nothing stopping you putting a grid surface over the deck to have something for feet latches and the octagrabber to hook onto for stability.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?
It would require a crew to attach the booster to a crane and lift it, which is much more dangerous in rough seas than just quickly welding the feet to the deck.
And, even in horizontal position, it would have to be secured, otherwise it would still slide around and get damaged, or fall off the deck.
I love it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: I love it (Score:1)
You don't need to be an expert to recognize and acknowledge a failure for the launcher to be reusable.
Now let's all handwave some more.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll confess, I just came to laugh at them being able to launch payloads into space, land and retrieve the launch vehicle but then let it fall off a barge into the sea.
Yeah, I know, it's petty.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey I played Kerbel I'm qwalified!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Xbox Controller (Score:2)
Star trek drops the core... (Score:2)
...Falcon Heavy's core seems to like the drink me thinks... Irrespective very well done.
Hm, I suspect the core is more engineered than the side boosters... might this affect the short-term calendar of work for FH?
Stabilisers (Score:2)
Specifically, I had something like this in mind:-
https://images.app.goo.gl/CyBo... [app.goo.gl]
https://images.app.goo.gl/jiPX... [app.goo.gl]
[ the first image shows an outrigger canoe, the second a mobile crane].
I think the crane example is a good one, because it shows that OCISLY you could modified with hydr
Re: (Score:2)
Now, the linked article doesn't really go in to detail as to why the first stage was lost. It isn't clear if the first stage is left upright for transit or whether there is a folding crane aboard that can be used to lower it to the deck...
It is kept upright. There's video footage and photos of the barge returning to port with boosters standing on it.
... surely it is possible to have a set of extending metal braces, again, powered by hydraulics, that can fold up from horizontal storage to a vertical brace position, then maybe simply wrap a loop around the circumference of the first stage, attach that to lines up to the top of the upright braces, and raise the support loop until it is just beneath the fold-out fins...
They already have a better solution, as was mentioned in the summary. They built a big flat low tug-like remote controlled vehicle they call Octagrabber which rolls under the booster and clamps onto the legs. They use it for Falcon 9 recoveries. The only reason they didn't use it for the Falcon Heavy central core is the legs are in a different place and the vehicle can't reach them. Yet. T
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be kind of worried about the forces that the struts for the outriggers would have to endure. On a canoe the outriggers make a narrow boat wider, but still not that large. On a barge you'd have to have quite a long extension to get much more stability.
I would instead propose using a platform supported by underwater pontoons like deep sea oil rigs. So long as the pontoons are deeper than the troughs of the waves the platform should be rock steady. Makes towing it a lot more fuel inefficient, Though you ca
The sea is like that (Score:2)
Frequently underestimated force of nature. You never really get the idea of the true power without experiencing it. I really have my doubts about the reliability of any floating landing platform. Better start thinking about investing in some concrete pylon if this landing at sea thing really is going to work.