Automatic floating spaceport returns from the open sea
Automatic barge Drone Ship Marmac 300 arrives at the port. On Saturday, she was landing the first stage of the Falcon-9 rocket of the private space company SpaceX. The rocket successfully deduced the Dragon cargo spacecraft, which on Monday is to dock with the International Space Station. But the landing of the first stage was tough.
')
They tried to gently land the first stage of the Falcon-9 rocket on a floating platform, but the “landing” turned out to be tough. The rocket did not have time to fully extinguish the speed and crashed. According to the founder of the company SpaceX Ilona Mask, the cause of the accident was the exhaustion of hydraulic fluid in the control system of the grid stabilizers. Here are some more additions.
The video from the polygon shows the work of these stabilizers:
As it turned out, they are controlled by an open hydraulic system, i.e. after performing the work, the liquid does not return through a closed cycle, but is discharged into the atmosphere. This is done to reduce the landing weight of the rocket stage. This time, they say, only 10% of the liquid was not enough, and for the next launch they promise to pour 50% more. It is likely that a new attempt at landing on the floating cosmodrome will occur in January or February of this year.
The barge has dimensions of 100 by 60 meters, and getting into such a “patch” in the ocean from a height of 60 km by a step, which is designed for take-off and not landing, already deserves respect. A minor damage on the platform indicates that the speed of the rocket reduction was quite insignificant, so the future soft landing with the return stage, looks quite realistic.
More information about the landing scheme and the purpose of such an operation, as well as answers to frequently asked questions are written here .
In the presented pictures it is difficult to see what is damaged elements of buildings on board the platform, and what remains of the rocket. Probably, the rocket generally fell overboard and sank, although some fragments covered with a tarpaulin on the deck can be considered.
Photo source .
On Friday, the port cameras recorded the process of bringing the barge to the open sea:
And this is the unloading of some debris, apparently, remnants of the steps:
It remains to hope that SpaceX will publish a hard-landing nightly video, and the circumstances will become clearer.
This is how landing could occur according to reddit users.
We will follow the developments.
FAQ
Why not on a parachute, but on rocket engines?
A bunch of arguments:
a) Landing by parachute does not provide softness. Who jumped - knows. For example, when landing the Soyuz spacecraft on parachutes, at the last moment, rocket braking engines are triggered on the ground. But at the same time, the Soyuz is much smaller and lighter than the first stage of the Falcon-9, and is used once. On parachutes, the Space Shuttle side accelerating stages were attempted to land, but even when landing on parachutes and into water, the rockets experienced such shock loads that they had to be sorted out almost completely.
b) The Space Shuttle naval operation of catching missile blocks was a very expensive enterprise. Mask even has an unmanned ship.
c) Saltwater also does not have a beneficial effect on engine materials. They say this is the main argument why the floating platform was chosen.
d) Parachutes do not provide high precision landing. Today Musk has confirmed that it’s real to land a rocket on a snout of 100x100 meters in the sea. With parachutes - is unreal.
e) SpaceX has now, with the help of rocket engines and unused fuel, achieved a soft landing that can compete with parachutes. At the same time, at the start of fuel, it is necessary to fill in by 15-20% more. In the opinion of SpaceX engineers, this is simpler, and in the opinion of their accountants, it is cheaper than messing around with parachutes and their recovery after being hit and dipped in water.
f) Any airborne military equipment is also experiencing high shock loads, although, apart from parachutes, they are also attached to brake rocket engines and damping platforms. But then tanks or jeeps, and then an empty 30 meter aluminum tube, it needs an order of magnitude higher delicacy of landing, with maximum weight savings.
How much can you use the same level, because the engine resource does not replenish?
The goal of the Mask is 10 flights. The example with the certification of the Soviet "RD-170" for the same 10 flights, says that technically it is quite real. They did not participate in real reusable flights, but they were driven off in all flight modes at the stands. And do not forget about the Space Shuttle engines that have been used more than 10 times.
Why put in the ocean?
The launch of the spacecraft is carried out under the NASA program, hence starting from Cape Canaveral, which is located on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. It was built so that all elements of the missiles fell into the water and did not pose a danger to people on land. SpaceX is now building its space center in Texas. They will receive permission to operate it when they confirm the reliability and safety of their reusable technology in tests over the ocean.
Who pays all these tests? (Didn't you get some budget money?)
The tests are paid for by SpaceX, which consist of the invested personal funds of Ilona Mask and third-party investors. This launch is carried out in the interests of NASA, but the state agency pays for the delivery of cargo to the ISS. If the rocket stages silently fell into the ocean, the Mask would be paid the same. The SpaceX competitors, Orbital Sciences, work on the same contract.
A bunch of arguments:
a) Landing by parachute does not provide softness. Who jumped - knows. For example, when landing the Soyuz spacecraft on parachutes, at the last moment, rocket braking engines are triggered on the ground. But at the same time, the Soyuz is much smaller and lighter than the first stage of the Falcon-9, and is used once. On parachutes, the Space Shuttle side accelerating stages were attempted to land, but even when landing on parachutes and into water, the rockets experienced such shock loads that they had to be sorted out almost completely.
b) The Space Shuttle naval operation of catching missile blocks was a very expensive enterprise. Mask even has an unmanned ship.
c) Saltwater also does not have a beneficial effect on engine materials. They say this is the main argument why the floating platform was chosen.
d) Parachutes do not provide high precision landing. Today Musk has confirmed that it’s real to land a rocket on a snout of 100x100 meters in the sea. With parachutes - is unreal.
e) SpaceX has now, with the help of rocket engines and unused fuel, achieved a soft landing that can compete with parachutes. At the same time, at the start of fuel, it is necessary to fill in by 15-20% more. In the opinion of SpaceX engineers, this is simpler, and in the opinion of their accountants, it is cheaper than messing around with parachutes and their recovery after being hit and dipped in water.
f) Any airborne military equipment is also experiencing high shock loads, although, apart from parachutes, they are also attached to brake rocket engines and damping platforms. But then tanks or jeeps, and then an empty 30 meter aluminum tube, it needs an order of magnitude higher delicacy of landing, with maximum weight savings.
How much can you use the same level, because the engine resource does not replenish?
The goal of the Mask is 10 flights. The example with the certification of the Soviet "RD-170" for the same 10 flights, says that technically it is quite real. They did not participate in real reusable flights, but they were driven off in all flight modes at the stands. And do not forget about the Space Shuttle engines that have been used more than 10 times.
Why put in the ocean?
The launch of the spacecraft is carried out under the NASA program, hence starting from Cape Canaveral, which is located on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. It was built so that all elements of the missiles fell into the water and did not pose a danger to people on land. SpaceX is now building its space center in Texas. They will receive permission to operate it when they confirm the reliability and safety of their reusable technology in tests over the ocean.
Who pays all these tests? (Didn't you get some budget money?)
The tests are paid for by SpaceX, which consist of the invested personal funds of Ilona Mask and third-party investors. This launch is carried out in the interests of NASA, but the state agency pays for the delivery of cargo to the ISS. If the rocket stages silently fell into the ocean, the Mask would be paid the same. The SpaceX competitors, Orbital Sciences, work on the same contract.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/365921/
All Articles