There's a camera in the fuel tank of this rocket
January 10, 2015 7:19 PM Subscribe
Early Saturday morning, Space-X launched CRS-5, another supply run to the International Space Station. It was also an attempt to land the first stage on a barge in the Atlantic ocean, in hopes of recovering the booster to keep costs down. It failed, but came really close. But the most impressive aspect of this launch were the views from the internal LO2 tank camera of the 2nd stage.
Here’s video from Space X of the launch, which has shots from that internal camera.
User Apocalypse Cow on io9 noted these highlights from the video:
~22:57 — shows the pool (of fuel)
~25:18 — shows what happens to the pool at SECO — I swear it looks like something out of The Andromeda Strain ;-)
~26:12 — blobby heaven! =D
Yes, blobby heaven= fuel floating around in the tank!
Here’s video from Space X of the launch, which has shots from that internal camera.
User Apocalypse Cow on io9 noted these highlights from the video:
~22:57 — shows the pool (of fuel)
~25:18 — shows what happens to the pool at SECO — I swear it looks like something out of The Andromeda Strain ;-)
~26:12 — blobby heaven! =D
Yes, blobby heaven= fuel floating around in the tank!
Still, apparently quite close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades and unmanned spacecraft. Nice.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:26 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:26 PM on January 10, 2015
What does SECO stand for?
posted by egypturnash at 7:27 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by egypturnash at 7:27 PM on January 10, 2015
SECO stands for something like Second stage Engine Cut-Off. When the thrust from the engine stops, the tank goes into free-fall and the fuel starts floating around the tank.
posted by monotreme at 7:35 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by monotreme at 7:35 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
You can tell it's the LOX tank because liquid oxygen is a pale blue.
posted by The Tensor at 7:36 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by The Tensor at 7:36 PM on January 10, 2015
Honest to god, I woke up this morning and read those headlines and was like, wow, the media is being really nice to these guys. And I was glad, you know?
posted by valkane at 7:36 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by valkane at 7:36 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Every time I see something about this, it makes me happy. Not a perfect result but progress.
posted by arcticseal at 8:01 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by arcticseal at 8:01 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
That 'blobby heaven' is interesting to look at but it is a really bad idea to re-start the engine in that state. You need small secondary engines to settle the fuel back into the bottom (if that has any meaning in weightlessness) of the tank. Only a very tinay amount of thrust is necessary to settle the tank. These small engines are called Ullage Motors.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 8:11 PM on January 10, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Confess, Fletch at 8:11 PM on January 10, 2015 [10 favorites]
Yaaaaay! You WILL go to space today.
posted by Twain Device at 8:14 PM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Twain Device at 8:14 PM on January 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
So why don't they just use better parachutes or make the stage more like a glider so that they don't have to fuss with all this perfect landing upright on a floating barge?
posted by mhh5 at 8:57 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by mhh5 at 8:57 PM on January 10, 2015
I work for an aerospace company and part of my job is designing printed circuit boards. I was bored so I added Princess Celestia to a project to see if anyone would notice. This later became the flight revision because it passed testing, so the power supply board with Celly on the silkscreen is going to be in a device mounted outside the ISS!
posted by Drinky Die at 8:59 PM on January 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:59 PM on January 10, 2015 [5 favorites]
more like a glider
Yeah, where are the fins? (Seriously, why aren't there any fins on that rocket?)
posted by spacewrench at 9:09 PM on January 10, 2015
Yeah, where are the fins? (Seriously, why aren't there any fins on that rocket?)
posted by spacewrench at 9:09 PM on January 10, 2015
Parachutes are heavy and inaccurate. If you want to reuse the first stage landing in saltwater isn't a good idea. The shuttle SRBs were simpler than the Falcon first stage and still required a great deal of refurbishing.
Adding wings adds more weight and requires more complex control surfaces.
posted by beowulf573 at 9:43 PM on January 10, 2015
Adding wings adds more weight and requires more complex control surfaces.
posted by beowulf573 at 9:43 PM on January 10, 2015
So why don't they just use better parachutes or make the stage more like a glider so that they don't have to fuss with all this perfect landing upright on a floating barge?
1. you don't want your first stage getting dunked in sea water.
2. You do want to control said first stage and not have it glide all over the place.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:44 PM on January 10, 2015
1. you don't want your first stage getting dunked in sea water.
2. You do want to control said first stage and not have it glide all over the place.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:44 PM on January 10, 2015
No fins because fins are a drag, and it's a drag to waste fuel.
The thrust from the engines can be steered hydraulically (as I understand it, the kerosene fuel is used as hydraulic fluid on its way to becoming thrust), so that when an attitude deviation is detected, the thrust from the engines is vectored to correct for it.
Fins look like they're an artifact of a time when rockets were much more passive than they are now. Properly designed fins would put the center of pressure tailward of the center of gravity, so that the rocket would tend to apply corrective force and decrease the deviation caused by aerodynamic side forces, rather than increase the deviation by amplifying the deviation when the center of gravity is noseward of the center of pressure.
posted by the Real Dan at 9:44 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
The thrust from the engines can be steered hydraulically (as I understand it, the kerosene fuel is used as hydraulic fluid on its way to becoming thrust), so that when an attitude deviation is detected, the thrust from the engines is vectored to correct for it.
Fins look like they're an artifact of a time when rockets were much more passive than they are now. Properly designed fins would put the center of pressure tailward of the center of gravity, so that the rocket would tend to apply corrective force and decrease the deviation caused by aerodynamic side forces, rather than increase the deviation by amplifying the deviation when the center of gravity is noseward of the center of pressure.
posted by the Real Dan at 9:44 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hmmm, I am not a SpaceX engineer, but the reason they're landing the way they are:
Extra parachutes are more weight and atmospheric drag, which means less things going to space. You want to put many things into space.
Making a glider out of a bunch of rocket fuel is pretty frowned on. One of the reasons Cape Canaveral is our launch facility is that it's got this huge chunk of ocean to the east, so if something goes amiss the wreckage doesn't land on a major city or something.
The fact that they landed, but just harder than expected, is pretty promising news. Be curious to see what the debris looks like in the morning.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:45 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Extra parachutes are more weight and atmospheric drag, which means less things going to space. You want to put many things into space.
Making a glider out of a bunch of rocket fuel is pretty frowned on. One of the reasons Cape Canaveral is our launch facility is that it's got this huge chunk of ocean to the east, so if something goes amiss the wreckage doesn't land on a major city or something.
The fact that they landed, but just harder than expected, is pretty promising news. Be curious to see what the debris looks like in the morning.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:45 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
You can see details of the grid fins in use on the F9R here.
posted by beowulf573 at 9:46 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by beowulf573 at 9:46 PM on January 10, 2015
It does have fins that guide it back to earth. They're grid fins which are stowed away against the rocket until they're needed.
posted by zsazsa at 9:47 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by zsazsa at 9:47 PM on January 10, 2015
Here's the same video on Youtube. Times should be about the same.
FYI, the ASDS barge is currently sailing towards port. We'll probably see some pictures of it in the morning. It may have rocket debris on it.
Here's a great writeup on grid fins.
posted by intermod at 10:37 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
FYI, the ASDS barge is currently sailing towards port. We'll probably see some pictures of it in the morning. It may have rocket debris on it.
Here's a great writeup on grid fins.
posted by intermod at 10:37 PM on January 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
What is the big burst of light that sweeps up the vehicle right after it starts to move? (about 16.07-8 in the video)
posted by ctmf at 11:14 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ctmf at 11:14 PM on January 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hmm. I don't usually think of parachutes as being heavy. And they are inaccurate, but can't they compensate for inaccuracy by following the parachutes very accurately and then scooping them up before they crash into water?
posted by mhh5 at 11:31 PM on January 10, 2015
posted by mhh5 at 11:31 PM on January 10, 2015
No. The whole point of recovering the first stage is having to refurbish it as little as possible. Hence landing it something, instead of plopping it on the ocean.
Parachutes do not allow for a precise landing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:40 PM on January 10, 2015
Parachutes do not allow for a precise landing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:40 PM on January 10, 2015
Extra parachutes are more weight and atmospheric drag, which means less things going to space.
Fuel not used for boosting is extra weight, too. Wonder how much remains unburned on the ascent so it can use it for landing.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 5:31 AM on January 11, 2015
Fuel not used for boosting is extra weight, too. Wonder how much remains unburned on the ascent so it can use it for landing.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 5:31 AM on January 11, 2015
ctmf: What is the big burst of light that sweeps up the vehicle right after it starts to move?
I've noticed that on every F9 launch. As far as I can tell, it's leftover oxidizer(?) pouring from the top-up hose just after it disconnects from the rocket and "igniting". I always thought it was weird that SpaceX didn't put a valve on the end of the hose, but I guess the flare up doesn't concern them.
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:07 AM on January 11, 2015
I've noticed that on every F9 launch. As far as I can tell, it's leftover oxidizer(?) pouring from the top-up hose just after it disconnects from the rocket and "igniting". I always thought it was weird that SpaceX didn't put a valve on the end of the hose, but I guess the flare up doesn't concern them.
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:07 AM on January 11, 2015
Extra parachutes are more weight and atmospheric drag, which means less things going to space. You want to put many things into space.
Doesn't the extra fuel needed to land at a reasonable velocity more than outweigh this? I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems pretty expensive (in terms of propellant) to send all that fuel up just to send it back down again.
I'm curious what SpaceX's economic reasoning on this is. I suppose once you have a bunch of working recoverable boosters, you only really have to worry about the cost of the fuel to send them up, even though that fuel cost is more than it would be with disposable boosters.
Maybe they're just doing it because landing autonomous rocket boosters on autonomous launchpad barges is a pretty awesome thing to do.
posted by neckro23 at 6:14 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Doesn't the extra fuel needed to land at a reasonable velocity more than outweigh this? I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems pretty expensive (in terms of propellant) to send all that fuel up just to send it back down again.
I'm curious what SpaceX's economic reasoning on this is. I suppose once you have a bunch of working recoverable boosters, you only really have to worry about the cost of the fuel to send them up, even though that fuel cost is more than it would be with disposable boosters.
Maybe they're just doing it because landing autonomous rocket boosters on autonomous launchpad barges is a pretty awesome thing to do.
posted by neckro23 at 6:14 AM on January 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
They've explained the economics of this project quite well. The fuel is actually a very small cost of a launch -- typically less than five percent. The rest is concerned with getting the hardware perfect. The first stage isn't subjected to the massive re-entry stresses the other stages and orbital payloads see, since it burns out long before it's at orbital velocity, so getting a proven stage back to refurb is a big win.
In normal flight no stage ever burns out all its fuel, there is always a surplus by design so that the burn delta V can be exactly controlled. It is this excess which SpaceX is using to guide down the now much lighter first stage. But the return mission is what we in Louisiana call "lagniappe," and it can't involve anything heavy or complicated enough to interfere with the normal flight specification. All the hardware and fuel for the first stage return have to be "hidden" within the normal overage factors which are allowed in this spec.
This is also probably why there is no ullage motor. As I recall before they tried guided landing they tried restarting the engines on the way down; this was probably to see if they could do it without ullage. I suspect the camera in this mission's LOX tank was to dot an i or cross a t somewhere in their theory of how reliable this would be.
posted by localroger at 6:26 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
In normal flight no stage ever burns out all its fuel, there is always a surplus by design so that the burn delta V can be exactly controlled. It is this excess which SpaceX is using to guide down the now much lighter first stage. But the return mission is what we in Louisiana call "lagniappe," and it can't involve anything heavy or complicated enough to interfere with the normal flight specification. All the hardware and fuel for the first stage return have to be "hidden" within the normal overage factors which are allowed in this spec.
This is also probably why there is no ullage motor. As I recall before they tried guided landing they tried restarting the engines on the way down; this was probably to see if they could do it without ullage. I suspect the camera in this mission's LOX tank was to dot an i or cross a t somewhere in their theory of how reliable this would be.
posted by localroger at 6:26 AM on January 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
That view from inside the fuel tank looks like a demonic robot eye.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:05 AM on January 11, 2015
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:05 AM on January 11, 2015
Fins look like they're an artifact of a time when rockets were much more passive than they are now.
More kind of a "patch" to help with a specific problem, in many cases, as control of large rockets via gimballing the engines or similar is always required anyway.
The ones on the Saturn V, for example, didn't even do anything in a normal launch. They were only added to slow down the loss of control in certain scenarios to give the escape systems more time to do their thing.
posted by FishBike at 8:38 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
More kind of a "patch" to help with a specific problem, in many cases, as control of large rockets via gimballing the engines or similar is always required anyway.
The ones on the Saturn V, for example, didn't even do anything in a normal launch. They were only added to slow down the loss of control in certain scenarios to give the escape systems more time to do their thing.
posted by FishBike at 8:38 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I have just watched pixellated blobs of liquid oxygen slosh around in a container umpteen miles above the surface of the Earth.
I... just wanted to note that that was what just happened. To me. As I sat here.
Wow.
posted by seyirci at 11:57 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I... just wanted to note that that was what just happened. To me. As I sat here.
Wow.
posted by seyirci at 11:57 AM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Bird 9 is the Falcon 9 getting the UpGoer Five treatment.
posted by rmd1023 at 3:36 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rmd1023 at 3:36 PM on January 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
it's like a very expensive and cool looking lava lamp.
posted by jrishel at 7:54 AM on January 12, 2015
posted by jrishel at 7:54 AM on January 12, 2015
My god — it's full of blobs
posted by Standard Orange at 8:59 PM on January 12, 2015
posted by Standard Orange at 8:59 PM on January 12, 2015
SpaceXtasy: Elon Musk, Falcon 9, and the Legacy of Rocket Scientist/Occultist Jack Parsons
Previously.
posted by homunculus at 4:22 PM on January 14, 2015
Previously.
posted by homunculus at 4:22 PM on January 14, 2015
In other Musk news: Elon Musk is building a five-mile Hyperloop test track
Previously.
posted by homunculus at 5:38 PM on January 15, 2015
Previously.
posted by homunculus at 5:38 PM on January 15, 2015
Rapid unscheduled disassembly
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:51 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:51 AM on January 16, 2015
Wow, that was a lot closer to a successful landing than I was anticipating.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:02 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:02 AM on January 16, 2015
Pictures of the first stage attempting to land.
Also kind of loud autoplaying video, FYI.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 10:03 AM on January 16, 2015
Also kind of loud autoplaying video, FYI.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 10:03 AM on January 16, 2015
Looks like it literally ran out of hydraulic fluid or whatever just a couple of seconds too soon.
posted by localroger at 10:13 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by localroger at 10:13 AM on January 16, 2015
Sorry, video wasn't on the page when I originally saw it. Cool, but autoplay bad.
posted by beowulf573 at 11:03 AM on January 16, 2015
posted by beowulf573 at 11:03 AM on January 16, 2015
In yet more Musk news: This Is Elon Musk's Plan To Build A Space Internet
posted by homunculus at 6:11 PM on January 17, 2015
posted by homunculus at 6:11 PM on January 17, 2015
The autonomous barges are named Just Read the Instructions and Of Course I Still Love You.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:10 PM on January 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:10 PM on January 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older challenging traditional notions of masculinity | You may not have known his name, but you... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:23 PM on January 10, 2015