Talk-Polywell.org

It would seem the elegant solution would be to mount a simple heat sink run from the burning ME for reentry/decell to each of the legs while stowed. They would get some warm on the way and on the way down. If ice was the issue that would do it, and no moving or powered parts required.

The over way would be to run some simulations on ice build up during heavy weather and ensure you have enough force to knock the ice off as things come together. Be like rapping it with a hammer to take the ice off.

Dan suggested an decrease in tolerances Loosen the tolerances so it shakes rocks and rolls.
I remember a story (myth?) about WW2, the German tanks were freezing solid with ice and mud in the gears and tracks jamming them up. The soviets did not have that same problem as their stuff had slop and play making room for ice to break free or away.

Has SpaceX put anything out on the successful landing back in December? Should be long enough now they have some details on how well things worked and how easy or hard it will be to reuse.

I doubt they are going to release too many details beyond the fact that they didn't find any damage on first examination but that one engine had thrust fluctuations on a subsequent static fire test. Maybe one additional blurb about a cause for the fluctuations, but I can't imagine SpaceX going into a detailed list of costs associating with re-launching the stage.

I think the next big development to look forward to (beyond a successful barge landing) is a stage actually getting re-used. I'm not sure if they've stated a timeframe, but I won't be surprised if its not until 2017.

SpaceX has stated the successfully landed first stage will not fly again, as they will do testing on it and preserve it (it is the first object to safely land after a near-orbital speed suborbital flight). My guess is the next successful first stage landing will get tested and then reflown without a real payload.

Skipjack wrote:I thought the lowest throttle setting was 60%?

Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMv81Lmq48Q
EDIT: Poster's explanation of his calculations

Also they did a hover test of the Dragon today:
https://vine.co/v/iepOLZvMBYz

krenshala wrote:SpaceX has stated the successfully landed first stage will not fly again, as they will do testing on it and preserve it (it is the first object to safely land after a near-orbital speed suborbital flight). My guess is the next successful first stage landing will get tested and then reflown without a real payload.

A clarification may be appropriate. The Falcon 9 first stage landing is not a demonstration of new capacity in reusable rockets. The X-15 reached speeds of 4500 MPH (with some help from a B52), and several pilots reached heights to qualify as astronauts. The Shuttle, of course reached orbits with significant useful payloads. Blue Origins did so with admittedly smaller payload and speed.

What Falcon 9 first stage landing represents is a step towards incorporating such abilities for a package that will truly and significantly decrease the cost of doing so with a useful payload delivered to orbit. At least that is the hype. Only time will determine if it does a better job than the Shuttle.
The Falcon 9 has already demonstrated perhaps the cheapest access to space with the possible exception of Soyuz. Reuse of the first stage has several components. First, recovery has been demonstrated. Secondy, the reliability of this recovery has to be great enough to be viable. And finally, refurbishment and preperation for new flight has to be cheep enough to make it worthwhile-cost significantly less than a new and already economical launcher. The Shuttle demonstrated the first two criteria ( if you ignore multiple stupid management issues by NASA), but the cost of new or refurbished shuttles was prohibitive.

Russia is no longer a deal and has not been for a while.
http://www.space.com/20897-nasa-russia- ... -2017.html
NASA has signed a new deal that will keep American astronauts flying on Russian spacecraft through early 2017 at a cost of $70.7 million per seat — about $8 million more per astronaut than the previous going rate.

Maui wrote:

Skipjack wrote:I thought the lowest throttle setting was 60%?

Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMv81Lmq48Q
EDIT: Poster's explanation of his calculations

Also they did a hover test of the Dragon today:
https://vine.co/v/iepOLZvMBYz

Very cool! The Dragon test is from last November, btw.

Ok, here is a one dollar solution to the landing strut problem. Put it on upside down. That way when folded up it can not collect water to freeze as all the opening are facing down until deployment.

They are saving weight and cost by having it use it's mass to deploy. It falls down and locks in place.

Still doable I think, just the part that is at the 45 degree angle when the leg is deployed needs to be turned around.
(as I do not have the drawing this is just an assumption on my part as how the leg deploys)
That way all the seams / places for water to enter are at the lowest point. Water rarely flows upward.