>Jan. 17 Falcon 9 • Jason 3
>Launch time: 1842:18 GMT (1:42:18 p.m. EST; 10:42:18 a.m. PST)
>Launch site: SLC-4E, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
>A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the Jason 3 ocean altimetry mission. Jason 3 will measure ocean surface topography to aid in ocean circulation and climate change research for NOAA, EUMETSAT, NASA and the French space agency, CNES. Delayed from March 31, July 22 and December. [Dec. 12]
>Tomorrow at 10:42 AM PST SpaceX is scheduled to launch the Jason-3 satellite into orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. For many, it will be what happens after the launch that’s most important. Shortly after liftoff, SpaceX will make another attempt to land the first stage of their Falcon 9 rocket, this time on a floating drone ship in the ocean.
You ready, /spacex/?
>SpaceX will make another attempt to land the first stage of their Falcon 9 rocket, this time on a floating drone ship in the ocean.
2. Landing the first stage on a drone ship in the ocean, successfully, would be a monumental step forward in the quest for cheap spaceflight.
>also akin to landing a brick on a floating sponge
last two launches with climate related payloads failed
>Supposed to happen sometime this year, if all goes well. They're supposed to be ready for ISS crew rotations next year.
They test fired the last rocket recently. Testing it for reusability.
If this goes well, SpaceX is just gonna swallow the whole launch market altogether.
Nothing ULA or ESA can do. They've been laughing at SpaceX for years, and now they find themselves in a situation where SpaceX is gonna start piling up first stage like crazy, while they throw theirs until at least 2020.
SpaceX will "only" swallow the launch market for cheap/ low risk sattelites withtheir low prices.
When it comes to national security or a billion dollar satelite the most important factor is the launch record which spacex fucked up a little since their rocket blew up in summer.
it usually takes years to plan, design and assemble a sattelite so that is hardly an advantage.
As for national security launches, i think the contractors are required to have rockets on hold for them anyway.
Let's put it another way.
Launch contracts are usually settled years in advance. Because the queue is that long.
Now you can get an earlier launch if you put the extra $. The highest bidder gets the earlier one. Meanwhile, it only costs SpaceX a second stage anyhow.
Reliability is still much unknown at this time. I'd say, 1 failure in 10 or so launches isn't that bad. Ariane 5 failed its first 2 launches and ULA had some fails back in Delta II days.
I don't expect Ariane 6 and Vulcan to have a better record in their first 10 launches.
or you can just book the flight for your billion dollar sattelite years in advance of assembly on a rocket with a better launch record, beacause there is barely any disadvantage in having to book earlier.
>there is barely any disadvantage in having to book earlier.
That is total bullshit. The reason new satellites take years to build is that they're full of cutting-edge new technology, which nobody is experienced with. That makes the build schedule not simply long, but unpredictable.
If they have to book a flight years in advance for a spacecraft with an unpredictable construction schedule, this causes all sorts of problems, commonly resulting in spacecraft being shipped to the pad incomplete to be worked on to the last minute, which causes delays, cost overruns, staff burn-out, and flaws in the launched spacecraft.
For similar reasons, high launch cost is a major issue, especially when you need to order launches far in advance.
Building two of a fancy new satellite doesn't really cost a lot more than building one (although some profiteering scum contractors will try and charge as if they cost the same). Furthermore, it gives you some security against damage-causing accidents before launch: when you build multiples. Launch reliability is only super-important for expensive, long-lead-time launches.
That's not really how it works, particularly compared to flyback.
Reversing course and returning to the launch site means returning to land at a place where the weather was good enough to launch just minutes ago. So barge landing compared to flyback isn't going to improve weather conditions for landing.
What the barge allows is not freedom to choose the place you land for ideal conditions, but the ability to put a landing surface near the spot where the depleted stage will naturally fall to, minimizing the propellant required to reach it.
The flyback maneuver is costly. Saving propellant for reversing the course of the rocket significantly reduces the performance of the launch vehicle.
A downrange barge landing is much less costly. The stage more or less falls directly to the barge, with minimal redirection.
This will be especially important for recovering the center stage of the Falcon Heavy, which is essentially a three-stage launch vehicle. The side boosters can deplete early, compared to the normal Falcon 9 first stage, and fly the short distance back to land, but then the center stage will still be nearly full of fuel, going much farther downrange and to a much higher horizontal speed than a regular first stage. The performance penalty for flyback would be far more severe than it is for the side boosters or on single-stick Falcon 9.
>What the barge allows is not freedom to choose the place you land for ideal conditions,
That is exactly what I was meaning. It is up and back before the weather ever changes and can do so anywhere in the world's oceans if needed.
Why does your payload cost billions of dollars in the first place?
Most of them are basically an antenna, a computer, small thrusters and propellant tanks. Maybe some fancy optical piece for observations.
See, because you don't plan on launching a bunch of them, or having a spare ready to launch in case n°1 fails, you make damn sure it will operate for at least a decade.
It's the wash machine economics. Back in the days, a wash machine was bloody expensive, but it lasted 2 decades. Now they're cheap but last 5 years.
>not having both up at once
>Why does your payload cost billions of dollars in the first place?
It depends on the satellite. Some are really cheap and some are over 2 billion. Or, you can cob something cheap and small together in your garage and pay $4k to $12k per kg to have it launched by Interorbital Services on one of their Neptune rockets.
>pay $4k to $12k per kg to have it launched by Interorbital Services on one of their Neptune rockets.
That is by far the safest strategy to protect your payload, since you are guaranteed it will never launch.
Friendly reminder that Elon Musk was bald.
>one year free L2 membership for the winner
utter tears at you mugs. I make $500 on a slow day via sports betting. I'm so shrewd I have a 3% ROI in asia. I don't have time to play bingo with you penny punting slugs. Sending pellets your way lmao.
This isn't such a big deal. This is just a satellite launch. It's kind of neat that they're making a landing attempt for reuse, but this isn't even their latest model of rocket, so it's not really something they'd want to reuse anymore. The recovery attempt is just a technology test.
The hosts on these SpaceX webcasts piss me off. They purposely cherry pick the select few good looking/non-autistic rocket scientists and put them in front of the camera. I work at a SpaceX competitor and 99% of this industry is ugly/autistic as fuck.
They have all these systems they need to check for "go" status.
Why the fuck are they using voice to confirm everything is go?
Can't they just put up a server and sync with each other via that?
You could even put more information than just go/no-go for each system.
That was clumsy. I think he means it was the last such poll for the old Falcon 9 1.1, as opposed to the new Falcon 9 1.1 FT model (with densified propellant, which has a different procedure leading up to launch).
>So the guy on the hosted webcast just said this was the last time they do the gonogo thing on the webcast can someone tell me why?
This is the last Falcon 9 V1.1
All the rest will be Falcon 9 Full Thrust, FT, or per spacex internal use - just falcon 9. FT versions use supercooled lox and cooled RP-1, and the readiness poll is conducted ~38 minutes before launch - just before prop loading. That is before the webcast starts, so you won't hear it online.
Well it makes everything sound more impressive for public engagement purposes, plus it is another way to keep a man in the loop for the launch. It allows an actual person to use their discretion rather than leaving it up to cold, lifeless algorithms .
Dragon Manned Capsule can hold 7 people. Musk should get Americans excited for manned space flight again, by holding a lottery. One dollar tickets and you are entered into a drawing to be a passenger on the first manned Dragon flight. Provided you are healthy enough to survive the flight. He could raise enough to pay for the winner into orbit and then some. While also getting a huge amount of free attention in the media.
>mfw Stage 1 hit the mission control
Still in one piece?
Commander, I recommend we get a strike team to the crash site immediately.
>launched in fog
>45m to sat deployment
>no word on 1st stage
From what I've heard, incremental cost of a first stage is about $20 million, and the fuel is around $30,000.
However, aside from the incremental cost of building the stage, there is also the facility cost and overhead involved in having a certain amount of manufacturing capacity, and the limits and difficulties of expanding.
By reusing the stages, they can do more launches without building a bigger factory and training more people, which takes time.
By doing more launches, they can make more use of launchpad facilities, and have reasons to streamline launch operations.
>15 white dudes in lauch control
>1 token woman
look at me i'm going to land that multitonne hollow stick of metal on a barge in the full ocean
Alright /sci/, what's the chance it fucks up?
>Why the fuck would anyone care about "diversity" when it comes to important shit like this.
Are you kidding? If you don't bow to diversity, you get sued to death and refused government contracts. Most of the job market now is welfare by other means.
You might think, "I'm going to go into business and hire only the people I need." They won't let you. You've got to hire some not-very-useful people to carry your share of the burden.
I know, I know. I should've but 'should' in the sentence instead. On the other hand, SpaceX is very important to the US government, so it seems, so unless Tumblr & Co gets a shitfit out of it, everything should be all right,
Besides, I saw a pajeet and a brotha with ID's hanging, so they must have their quota or whatever.
I don't have numbers for you but landing on solid ground is much easier, there's no random fluctuations in the landing surface
If you watch the ORB-2 landing, you can see the rocket bounce a little when it lands.
Those legs have to absorb all the force of deceleration, and on a barge, one corner could be lifting upward in a wave, so you have the pressure of the ocean against the leg in addition to the deceleration force.
>having legs in the first place
Just use a ring and fly into it, and deploy hooks that will catch on to the ring.
Even if SpaceX wasn't doing anything terribly interesting like attempting to land stages and refine the processes involved, it's awesome that they stream their launches. It's exactly the sort of thing we need if spacefaring is to ever again enter the collective consciousness in as big of a way as it did back in the 60s.
I wonder if the SeaLaunch rig is more stable than the barge.
Doesn't matter. I've worked at sea for years. Even the biggest oil tankers and container vessels roll in waves, especially when you are static. The stream of the barge didn't look hugely dramatic but it was still probably a good 30 degree pitch
Musk should build a Torus Space Station at the lagrange point between the earth and moon.
it's all ogre, mission: success, landing: ... we can't talk about it.
will they release the video recorded from the platform?
still will be expensive; the upkeep especially. And although I don't know much about the availability of these kind of ships, but it might be cheaper to buy an empty one instead of stripping all the plumbing from the sealaunch one.
Seems like it would be easier to just get a used oil rig
Although if they plan to re-launch them it would be perfect.
It was built in Japan
what about dynamic control of the landing legs?
the legs sync with a little transponder in the drone barge and feed it accelerometer data so the rocket knows the difference between the plane crated by its landing legs, and the plan created by the drone ship's surface.
the landing legs basically "reach" for a stable footing on the drone ship, and after landing, the rocket sticks up
Actually you're right, it's possible. They will even check the data for everything, excessive fuel included.
Just from the barge drone footage, the rough seas might be more of a factor.
That doesn't mean it's not a factor.
Coming in with a heavy load of fuel makes the landing easier in some ways because they can start the burn earlier and possibly land with thrust equal to weight (one of the difficulties of landing Falcon 9 is that the minimum thrust of one engine is more than the empty weight, so it can't hover on its way to landing).
But on the other hand, it does mean more load on the legs when they shut down the engine. This could have broken a leg together with an unfortunately timed swell.
No one can really say it was a failure since they are attempting things never done in average rocketry before. Everyone can say they'd launched and deployed, but only like 1 other company can say they returned the stage 1 rocket and had it land, and no one can say they didn't it on a barge 200 miles at sea.
They uploaded the stream, it's 1hour 40 minutes, it's the whole thing, right?
I'll download it and cut the songs and upload the somewhere, though I'll probably have to upload it in 5 hours or so since my internet here is pretty shitty.
Does anyone care to have them? Will this thread last that long?
>Will this thread last that long?
It is 425 posts, no longer bumping, and is on page 3. It may be on page 7 in 5 hours, depending on traffic. Look for a new spacex thread in the catalog >>>/sci/catalog or make a new one when you return.
>implying fat NEETs are allowed
Not me, I'm undergoing age reversal and will soon appear to be around 30 and still my normal 6' 185lbs. With my 50+ years experience, I'll be finding ways to exploit space resources and maybe you too.
not feasible to make the entire barge surface operate like that and carry the weight of the rocket which is why i suggested making the landing legs do the work, they already hold the rocket up after all
put some rockets on the barge with a 30 second fuel supply
make the barge launch and hover about 15 feet up as it "catches" the rocket and then lowest itself
this guarantees stability of the platform because the rockets can gimble and thrust-vector
Just as soon as 1 time use $50 million rockets are worthless. This is a no going back thing. Rockets are reusable, you just need to recover them undamaged. The kinks will be worked out, no doubts here.
>project so delayed they have to stream it being built to prove someone is actually working on it
They are hard at work.
Look carefully, there's a new mirror ready to be installed.
I bet these guy are so under pressure they've gotta plan their pooping ahead of time. Take notes with time stamps of how many toilet paper they used, then review it in front of a panel of higher ups.
I'm sure they plan ahead for bathroom breaks since that entire place is a clean room. I wonder how many of them are indian. That must be awkward.
I guess I tried is all I can say, there was a lot of noise from the mics and some songs started and ended abruptly, some songs were almost completely uninterrupted save for one or two lines so I kept them (I think they are the songs 7,8 and 9) and some songs had a lot of talk going, I feel kinda silly now since I see that someone posted a youtube account with the songs and a cd but well, I already uploaded them so here's the link:
Reminder... some truth to counter all the SpaceXplode shilling.
All of Elon Musk’s businesses are FUNDED BY THE TAX PAYERS.. aka YOU!
That evil motherfucker is a the biggest welfare queen in the world! He became billionaire by getting tax handouts from government.
> Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
>Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.
>And he's built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.
>"He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. "That's a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day."
Bit pissed off by the failure. We know the rocket works, so the problem is the barge. Been thinking about how to level it in high seas. Its going to uave to he a new design, because this is doing an expensive retrieve and transport job.
My best ideas to now. A) A floating base comprising huge air filled circular balls, hydraulically damped, that move up and down independantly. B) The platform itself floats on a 'swimming pool' of oil on the barge, this oil is damped by baffles.
Anyone else have ideas?
so much better than handing out money to drunks and multi-child families.
It's the 3rd leg this time.
Also the drone barge is badass.
Tesla paid the government loan back. It's certainly not paying the subsidies back.
Anyway, a loan to a corporation is a gift to its owner. If you could form a corporation tomorrow and borrow a hundred million dollars, you could, with near certainty, pay it all back the next day and keep a million for yourself, just by going to a casino. The small possibility of losing it all doesn't hurt you, because it's the corporation, not you, that would go bankrupt.
Corporations, by their nature, are for gambling. That's the point of them: limited liability. You put your stake in the corporation, then you take risks with that stake, and if you fail, the stake you put in is lost, but that's all you lose.
So you've got to be really careful about loaning to corporations. When the government starts handing out loans to a corporation for reasons and under terms that a bank wouldn't accept, that's a gift to the owner. That's encouraging them to gamble with the money, which they won't have to pay back if their gamble fails.
Fucking had it.
What a shame
Doesn't it have four in all directions? It looks like the one just gives in or something.
>Falcon lands on droneship, but the lockout collet doesn't latch on one the four legs, causing it to tip over post landing. Root cause may have been ice buildup due to condensation from heavy fog at liftoff.
What I don't understand is why they're still stubbornly insisting on not having a catching system in place post-landing. This is the third time now.
NASA figured this out years ago. The Philae probe had a series of three harpoons that shot out once it touched down, maintaining its stability on a surface made entirely of ice.
Is there some reason that I'm not aware of? They don't want to fire harpoons into the asphalt of the ship? They want to get a 'clean' landing right? The extra weight isn't worth it?
I see a bunch of shitposting and some angry response from one of the engineers about how they don't need any help with their spacecraft and anyone making suggestions is being unhelpful.
Not exactly any solid reasoning.
>Explain how harpoons would help if one of the legs folded.
More traction from the other legs to maintain balance on the folded leg. One of the legs folding would be more difficult if it's also being held aloft by the three other legs. Even if the leg wasn't fully locked in place.
This isn't even the only way they could do it. They could have a mechanism on the ship which grabs the spacecraft.
This isn't even a pipe dream, because the soviets did this in the 60's.
I can't see a bunch of it yet.
>More traction from the other legs to maintain balance on the folded leg.
>They could have a mechanism on the ship which grabs the spacecraft.
Good explanations, and example. Now how about more legs or (more) ice-proof locking mechanism? Which one's the cheaper/lighter/durable/reliable option?
Although as landing gets more precise, the landing platform's catching technique is more feasible. We might not even need legs. Just a huge soft dexterous hand.
>They could have a mechanism on the ship which grabs the spacecraft.
SpaceX is a low-cost space access business, which means that while yes a lot of fancy assistance features are possible from a technical point of view they are undesired due to cost issues.
As Elon also have a crush for mars they're going to focus on technologies that can be ported over for extraterrestial landings.
If you can land on a drone ship at sea reliably you can probably do something similar on mars.
>If you can land on a drone ship at sea reliably you can probably do something similar on mars.
Ah, of course. It's even in principle more complicated to make landing a two-separate-piece solution. You would have to drop the grabber pad first and then the lander second.
Better to just choose a landing site while improving the lander.
I think this guy's on to something.
See you just add little wheels to make it mobile so it can catch the rocket in it's loving arms.
The rocket and "catcher's mitt" can communicate with each other to sync up minutely for little changes.
Those harpoons sure helped Philae anon.
I'm just being stupid, I actually loved that entire mission and really wish the lander hadn't bounced around the comet into a dark ditch.
Dude, we're all idiots. So asking questions is always good. The answer is self-destruct because they don't want secret Iron Man tech to fall into the wrong hands.
No, really. I think the fuel (kerosene and oxygen) inside is super-cooled and pressurized (for density), so that explains the white blowout, which is flammable, and the engine is still super-hot, hence the fuel ignites like a fireball.
Good question, btw.