

CRS-3 Falcon 9 first stage to sport legs and attempt soft splashdown - jccooper
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/crs-3-falcon-9-first-stage-sport-legs-attempt-soft-splashdown/

======
ChuckMcM
This will be yet another ambitious mission for SpaceX. One of the things that
strikes me about this stuff is that NASA would test some new feature, then
test it two more times to be sure that it working wasn't a fluke, and then go
for the next feature. SpaceX has been testing multiple new features on every
flight, which has led to some really rapid advancement in their capability. If
this thing successfully does its "pretend" landing on the water I am sure they
will push for the next one to land back at the pad.

~~~
jccooper
NASA would design a new feature, send it through half a dozen design reviews,
apply a few pounds of paperwork, test it on the ground, test fly it (maybe)
once, and then deem it "correct" and fly it as-is forever. Manned.

This happened with STS and it's happening with SLS. If you can believe it, the
SLS/Orion schedule is this:

1\. This year, the first Orion will fly unmanned on a Delta 4. For two orbits.
2\. Three years later (2017) the second Orion will fly unmanned on the very
first launch of SLS--around the moon. 3\. Three years later (2021), the third
Orion will fly manned, on the second launch of the SLS, to rendezvous with a
captured asteroid. 4\. After that, they hope someone somewhere will come up
with additional payloads for SLS and/or missions for Orion. Know anyone who
needs a giant rocket at $1B a pop? Have them call NASA. They're targeting one
launch per year, starting 2022.

It's completely mad. I wouldn't ride on the second flight of a rocket designed
by God Himself.

Take a look, by the way, at the Apollo test program:
[http://www.thespacerace.com/forum/index.php?topic=1089.0](http://www.thespacerace.com/forum/index.php?topic=1089.0)

Apollo, granted, was at a completely novel scale. But still: one test, all up?
Then three years? I won't be able to watch.

By the time SLS-1 gets off the ground (even if I grant them their schedule)
SpaceX will probably be launching a reusable Falcon Heavy (at about 2/3 the
payload of the SLS Block I) every other month, for $200M or less. And they'll
have, oh, about 100 F9 core-launches under their belt.

The SpaceX plan sure looks like a better idea to me. For anything. Other than
spending lots of money.

By the time SLS-2 is picking up their asteroid, Elon will probably be watching
from frickin' Mars.

~~~
deletes
By that time, Space X will be hired to fly parallel, take pictures and serve
as a backup.

 _Couldn 't resist_

~~~
sp332
By that time, SpaceX will be selling tickets to tourists who want to ride
along and watch in person :)

------
rwitoff
I was the Launch Systems Lead for one of the primary payloads on this flight
and was surprised when they announced this but excited to watch it happen (or
attempted). Almost every Falcon/Dragon flight is innovating in multiple major
ways which is NOT how Aerospace normally works, but why many of us we chose to
work in the industry and a refreshing change.

------
jccooper
CRS-3, by the way, will make good use of Dragon's unique down-mass capability.
It will carry up and return three sample return freezers, and swap in a
replacement for a malfunctioning space suit (bringing the bad one back for
examination.) The bad suit (or EMU) is not the one that famously leaked back
in July, interestingly enough, but the station's fourth suit that's been out
of commission for a while.

------
debt
A coworker of a friend was recruited by SpaceX to help _design the rockets
themselves_. He turned it down. Hes a product designer but damn I didnt know
product designers could also be qualified to design rockets. Maybe it was just
recruiter-speak but that's an incredible opportunity.

~~~
deletes
May I inquire, what job made him turn down SpaceX ?

~~~
debt
Some design firm in South Carolina.

------
hughes
Launch target is March 16, 2014

------
po
I still find it hard to believe that it is energy-efficient to carry fuel all
the way up and then all the way back down only to spend it in the last few
meters of the decent. I'm sure they've run the numbers and decided it is but
it is the most surprising part of this approach to me. Does anyone have an
idea of how much fuel is spent in the return phase?

~~~
nawitus
SpaceX is optimizing costs rather than energy-efficiency. Obviously you need
less fuel if you're not doing a soft-landing back.

~~~
danmaz74
Energy efficiency also needs to consider how much energy you need to build the
vector. It looks quite likely to me that reusing the vector would be more
energy efficient too.

~~~
nawitus
Energy efficiency means many different things. It's tricky to estimate if the
total energy efficiency is smaller using a reusable rocket. Could be.

