You can see all the burns, ascent long arc upwards, then second stage burn, the thin boostback burn touching the second stage arc, re-entry burn vertical line and the final landing burn.
I think the cloud layer really adds to the photo.
What an outstanding record of the flight profile, plus of course simple beauty.
It shows the cleverness of going up before going back to gain the extra fuel benefit of reversing course at the higher altitude ( compared to within thicker air ). The final approach is then mostly nulled in the horizontal plane, leaving only the vertical component to finesse. We already know what can happen with too much sideways translation. The rest of the aerospace industry ought to be either boggled and/or crapping themselves by now.
Just imagine what we may see with the Heavy ..... all three booster components coming back simultaneously ... that I gotta see !!! :-)))
{ When/if the tri-booster separates cleanly you 'just' have three Falcon Nines to land. }
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Just imagine what we may see with the Heavy ..... all three booster components coming back simultaneously
Not quite simultaneously, the center booster burns fuel from the side boosters in the early going (there is cross piping), so they run out first and get detached while the center keeps on burning for a bit more.
So a Falcon Heavy landing should see the two side elements landing somewhere (whether land or barge) very nearly simultaneously, but the center booster being a bit later and quite possibly in a different place.
It is interesting to walk down from the maximum capability launch considering the recovery possibilities:
1. For maximum effort: no recoverable boosters
2. Side boosters on barge(s), center lost
3. All boosters on barges, center much farther downrange
4. All boosters on barge(s), at common location
5. Side boosters return to launch site, center to barge
6. All three boosters returned to launch site
In practice I don't know that they will exercise very many of these options. A lot must depend on what the market offers them in terms of launch effort required, and if options two through four look likely to be only occasionally useful, developing the extra barge capability required may not make any economic sense.
I believe there is to be an Atlas 5 launch (ULA) 7/28 around 0830 Eastern Time. This one should rattle the windows. Seems like activity at Canaveral is really picking up.
There's a view of the CRS-9 booster which is in such obviously great condition. Now Hans Koenigsmann has indicated in one of the the post CRS-9 press conferences ( question @ 17:12 onwards ) that with the upcoming Falcon Heavy test the two side boosters come back to land. That implies another landing zone ( yep, that's #2 nearby #1 ! ) and the centre core will go downrange to barge. He implied that this will be the regular/default plan ( Pete's option #5 ). Interestingly every time you throw a booster away ( or at least don't come back to land ) then you gain 200 GJ of payload KE, so Pete's option #1 has some 400-600 GJ over that default, depending on exact profiles. That's the ballpark budget to spend at least. I can't understate what a massive amount of energy that is to be throwing about with the various return strategies. One Falcon is an outstanding hotrod of a vehicle ..... yet to be beaten in it's weight class ..... imagine three in tandem ! :-))
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) The reason why 3 * 200 GJ may not give you 600 GJ exactly is complex. There are some underlying non-linearities in the problem which confound simple scaling. The devil is in the detail .... not the least of which is the aerodynamics of the conjoined boosters.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I didn't know SpaceX was bidding/applied for that contract. Were they ? SpaceX don't even have a rocket ready for that as the Heavy hasn't actually flown yet. Why was NASA even considering it I wonder ? Odd. I thought these things were only progressively certified ie. functionality as demonstrated. It reads as if they only had a choice of one anyway, because of the plutonium in the payload.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) The Atlas series makes perfect sense, they were designed to have radioactive payload from long ago.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: You can see all the
)
What an outstanding record of the flight profile, plus of course simple beauty.
It shows the cleverness of going up before going back to gain the extra fuel benefit of reversing course at the higher altitude ( compared to within thicker air ). The final approach is then mostly nulled in the horizontal plane, leaving only the vertical component to finesse. We already know what can happen with too much sideways translation. The rest of the aerospace industry ought to be either boggled and/or crapping themselves by now.
Just imagine what we may see with the Heavy ..... all three booster components coming back simultaneously ... that I gotta see !!! :-)))
{ When/if the tri-booster separates cleanly you 'just' have three Falcon Nines to land. }
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: Just imagine what we
)
Not quite simultaneously, the center booster burns fuel from the side boosters in the early going (there is cross piping), so they run out first and get detached while the center keeps on burning for a bit more.
So a Falcon Heavy landing should see the two side elements landing somewhere (whether land or barge) very nearly simultaneously, but the center booster being a bit later and quite possibly in a different place.
It is interesting to walk down from the maximum capability launch considering the recovery possibilities:
1. For maximum effort: no recoverable boosters
2. Side boosters on barge(s), center lost
3. All boosters on barges, center much farther downrange
4. All boosters on barge(s), at common location
5. Side boosters return to launch site, center to barge
6. All three boosters returned to launch site
In practice I don't know that they will exercise very many of these options. A lot must depend on what the market offers them in terms of launch effort required, and if options two through four look likely to be only occasionally useful, developing the extra barge capability required may not make any economic sense.
I believe there is to be an
)
I believe there is to be an Atlas 5 launch (ULA) 7/28 around 0830 Eastern Time. This one should rattle the windows. Seems like activity at Canaveral is really picking up.
Boostback burn CRS 9 photo
)
Boostback burn CRS 9 photo
There's a view of the CRS-9
)
There's a view of the CRS-9 booster which is in such obviously great condition. Now Hans Koenigsmann has indicated in one of the the post CRS-9 press conferences ( question @ 17:12 onwards ) that with the upcoming Falcon Heavy test the two side boosters come back to land. That implies another landing zone ( yep, that's #2 nearby #1 ! ) and the centre core will go downrange to barge. He implied that this will be the regular/default plan ( Pete's option #5 ). Interestingly every time you throw a booster away ( or at least don't come back to land ) then you gain 200 GJ of payload KE, so Pete's option #1 has some 400-600 GJ over that default, depending on exact profiles. That's the ballpark budget to spend at least. I can't understate what a massive amount of energy that is to be throwing about with the various return strategies. One Falcon is an outstanding hotrod of a vehicle ..... yet to be beaten in it's weight class ..... imagine three in tandem ! :-))
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) The reason why 3 * 200 GJ may not give you 600 GJ exactly is complex. There are some underlying non-linearities in the problem which confound simple scaling. The devil is in the detail .... not the least of which is the aerodynamics of the conjoined boosters.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I guess not everything is
)
I guess not everything is coming up spaceX
https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/07/25/nasa-books-nuclear-certified-atlas-5-rocket-for-mars-2020-rover-launch/
I didn't know SpaceX was
)
I didn't know SpaceX was bidding/applied for that contract. Were they ? SpaceX don't even have a rocket ready for that as the Heavy hasn't actually flown yet. Why was NASA even considering it I wonder ? Odd. I thought these things were only progressively certified ie. functionality as demonstrated. It reads as if they only had a choice of one anyway, because of the plutonium in the payload.
Cheers, Mike.
( edit ) The Atlas series makes perfect sense, they were designed to have radioactive payload from long ago.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
An Atlas 5 flies 7/28 ~0800
)
An Atlas 5 flies 7/28 ~0800 Eastern Time
RE: SpaceX don't even have
)
Launch date July 2020, 4 years in the future. By then my team should have flown on the second falcon heavy launch. We are also part of Mars 2020.
Successful launch of the
)
Successful launch of the Atlas V. This link might be useful for future live launch coverage of ULA vehicles.