This is going to be epic. It really gives me a sense of living in the movies I used to watch as science fiction as a kid.
Even more interesting for me was he tweeted the X-wings [1] which make total sense. On re-entry you don't need to burn fuel to provide attitude stabilization and drag if you can do that aerodynamically. I realize the first test failed due to an out of control spin, but if you remember the old rotary rocket days you may note that one could use reentry to spin up the F-9 then flip the pitch on the x-wings to provide an auto-rotation type of re-entry into the denser atmosphere. That would save fuel needed for the landing.
Instead of spending valuable propellant on a boostback burn to get to the launch site, they'll just partially refuel the spent lower stage on the barge and have it fly itself back to the launch site. This'll improve their maximum payload, and possibly save money.
>they'll just partially refuel the spent lower stage on the barge and have it fly itself back to the launch site.
given the capabilities of the stage, wouldn't it basically be a suborbital hyper-transport - they can fly it from any point A to point B, like from SF to Honk-Kong must faster than Concorde.
71% of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans so it would only make sense to make launch and land platforms on the oceans. Not only for the space but for the safety; if a launch needs to be aborted, or has a catastrophic failure (see; explosion) the harmful debris won't come raining down on the population.
That's why the U.S. launch sites are located on the coasts: Wallops Island, Cape Canaveral, and Vandenberg AFB. They all launch vehicles away from CONUS.
In 1935, U.S. Adm. William H. Standley saw a British demonstration of the Royal Navy's new remote-control aircraft for target practice, the DH 82B Queen Bee. Back stateside, Standley charged Commander Delmer Fahrney with developing something similar for the Navy. "Fahrney adopted the name 'drone' to refer to these aircraft in homage to the Queen Bee," Mr. Zaloga wrote. The term fit, as a drone could only function when controlled by an operator on the ground or in a "mother" plane.
A stern googling will get you the Wall Street Journal article this comes from. If I link it, they won't let you read it.
Notwithstanding the other replies, there are no authoritative sources for word definitions in living languages. Words mean what their users intend.
A relatively recent example of this is the word 'literally' which used to, and still does, mean 'in the literally sense; exactly' but has also come to mean 'not literally true' when used for emphasis, as in: I have received literally thousands of emails).
What is the cost/technical feasibility of SpaceX being able to broadcast this landing live? The barge will be miles out to sea where there are no cell towers, so how difficult would it be and how much would it cost to stream a video from the middle of the Atlantic?
I'm pretty sure they could send the live video signal up to a communications satellite in geostationary orbit. That satellite would relay the signal to a base station which would then broadcast it however they normally do.
There are lots of comsats in GEO; no doubt some of them are open to doing a deal, but I don't know the cost. Maybe an international TV news network would be willing to do it "for free" so long as they get exclusive access?
They won't do it live unless they are _really_ sure it will work.
Even if it's just a test that they know has a reasonable chance of failing, that's not how it will be portrayed in the mainstream media (see: the F9R-dev RUD)
Before cellphones there was this technology called TV. Which has been broadcasting live from around the world for decades. I think they can figure it out.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
Even more interesting for me was he tweeted the X-wings [1] which make total sense. On re-entry you don't need to burn fuel to provide attitude stabilization and drag if you can do that aerodynamically. I realize the first test failed due to an out of control spin, but if you remember the old rotary rocket days you may note that one could use reentry to spin up the F-9 then flip the pitch on the x-wings to provide an auto-rotation type of re-entry into the denser atmosphere. That would save fuel needed for the landing.
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/22/space-x-x-wing-rocket-drone...
[+] [-] msandford|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pjscott|11 years ago|reply
"Base is 300 ft by 100 ft, with wings that extend width to 170 ft. Will allow refuel & rocket flyback in future."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/536263260056850432
Instead of spending valuable propellant on a boostback burn to get to the launch site, they'll just partially refuel the spent lower stage on the barge and have it fly itself back to the launch site. This'll improve their maximum payload, and possibly save money.
[+] [-] trhway|11 years ago|reply
given the capabilities of the stage, wouldn't it basically be a suborbital hyper-transport - they can fly it from any point A to point B, like from SF to Honk-Kong must faster than Concorde.
[+] [-] 32faction|11 years ago|reply
That's why the U.S. launch sites are located on the coasts: Wallops Island, Cape Canaveral, and Vandenberg AFB. They all launch vehicles away from CONUS.
[+] [-] nashashmi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jws|11 years ago|reply
A stern googling will get you the Wall Street Journal article this comes from. If I link it, they won't let you read it.
[+] [-] invertedohm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheSpiceIsLife|11 years ago|reply
A relatively recent example of this is the word 'literally' which used to, and still does, mean 'in the literally sense; exactly' but has also come to mean 'not literally true' when used for emphasis, as in: I have received literally thousands of emails).
Words!
[+] [-] aboodman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rlt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grantbachman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troymc|11 years ago|reply
There are lots of comsats in GEO; no doubt some of them are open to doing a deal, but I don't know the cost. Maybe an international TV news network would be willing to do it "for free" so long as they get exclusive access?
[+] [-] morituri|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JshWright|11 years ago|reply
Even if it's just a test that they know has a reasonable chance of failing, that's not how it will be portrayed in the mainstream media (see: the F9R-dev RUD)
[+] [-] njharman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenrikm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JshWright|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robgibbons|11 years ago|reply