Second guessing their arguments

[Luke Pemberton]

I found this BBC article about SpaceX on the BBC.

I wonder if/when we'll hear this argument: SpaceX cannot control a 'soft' landing now, so how could NASA have achieved that back in the 60's with the technology they had then? 

Am I loading their gun by posting this? 

[Allan F]

You are years behind the curve - the crackpots have used that argument for yonks.

[Luke Pemberton]

You are years behind the curve - the crackpots have used that argument for yonks.

Yes, I have seen that argument invoked with Apollo 12. I'm wondering if they'll invoke the SpaceX failure specifically, and use this an even more compelling evidence for the 'twoof.'

[Daggerstab]

Nothing new. The most recent example before SpaceX was NASA's Morpheus lander crash.

[scooter]

They have demonstrated the capability several times in tests (which look very, very "unnatural" for a rocket), just something went amiss in the actual flight.
Amazing technology, they'll sort it out...

[Luke Pemberton]

They have demonstrated the capability several times in tests (which look very, very "unnatural" for a rocket), just something went amiss in the actual flight.
Amazing technology, they'll sort it out...

Any links to videos of the tests?

[scooter]

Hope this link works...they did a bunch of sub-scale tests, filmed from the air, then tested a Dragon booster.
Really looks weird...

[Allan F]

Did it dig a hole?

[Luke Pemberton]

Hope this link works...they did a bunch of sub-scale tests, filmed from the air, then tested a Dragon booster.
Really looks weird...

It does look really weird, it is like something from a 50s/60s sci film film but in HD. I like the cows at the end, that made me chuckle. It's hard to believe they can stabilise such an object in flight. Utterly incredible. Those aerospace engineers are certainly worth their dough.

[JayUtah]

I always liked the photos I found for this Clavius page.
http://www.clavius.org/techdcx.html

[smartcooky]

I don't get why they are going to all this trouble trying soft landing when they successfully recovered and re-used 270 SRBs in 135 STS missions with only one failure by parachuting them into the sea.

Even the failure would never have happened without pork barrel politics, and even then, it was preventable if NASA had listened to the warnings of their own engineers.

Is there some inherent flaw with using SRBs that we haven't heard about?

[JayUtah]

The SRB casings are quite robust, and those are the only parts they were trying to reuse.  I'm reasonably certain I could swing a 9-pound sledge at the SRB casing and not even put a dent in it.  I imagine the Falcon 9 structure is not nearly as robust and wouldn't survive even a parachute-softened impact with the water.

But it's hard to tell with SpaceX how much is popularity and hype, and how much of it is long-term useful engineering.  I think the soft-landing concept is certainly attention-getting.  And although the pieces have been there for several years, only SpaceX engineering has put them all together in an integrated, flyable form.  But I'm not sure the economics work out the way Musk seems to envision.  It's hard to get more than "vision" from him.  It will be interesting to see how this shapes up.  NASA seems not to mind.

[scooter]

Hope this link works...they did a bunch of sub-scale tests, filmed from the air, then tested a Dragon booster.
Really looks weird...

As I understand the SpaceX reusability testing, the tests in the videos are the "Dragonfly", a single engine version of the Dragon built specifically for the "up-down" tests (with the cows as generally indifferent observers )
I believe today's "landing" was the first of the full up Dragon first stage. Interesting concept, have to wonder how much residual fuel is needed for the maneuver.

[Zakalwe]

I don't get why they are going to all this trouble trying soft landing when they successfully recovered and re-used 270 SRBs in 135 STS missions with only one failure by parachuting them into the sea.

I would think that a liquid-fuelled booster, with it's myriad of pumps, seals, sensors and cryo-tanks would not survive an impact into salt water in the same way. SRBs are much simpler and more robust.

Is there some inherent flaw with using SRBs that we haven't heard about?

No ability to throttle or be shut down prior to burn-out without explosively dismantling them?

.... have to wonder how much residual fuel is needed for the maneuver.

I was wondering this too. After all, the fuel to manoeuvre and soft-land has to be lifted up to separation. I guess that fuel is cheaper than a rack of motors and the booster structure?

[Luke Pemberton]

Even the failure would never have happened without pork barrel politics, and even then, it was preventable if NASA had listened to the warnings of their own engineers.

Yeah, but they let the shuttle fly knowing that the o-rings would fail and therefore kill Christa McAuliffe who was going to expose the Apollo hoax by reporting that you can see stars in space. 

Despite this they could never find a way of assassinating Ralph Rene and Bill Kaysing, two old coots, one living in the middle of nowhere and one that was barely mobile. I have a reasonable imagination, but the shuttle conspiracy theory stretches mine well beyond its elastic limit.