[QUOTE=only_human;428130]Streaming begins in 26 minutes.[/QUOTE]

Stream just went live!

Launch!

That Stage 1 recovery looked pretty... kinematic, if you catch my drift.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;428137]Launch!

That Stage 1 recovery looked pretty... kinematic, if you catch my drift.[/QUOTE]
These video cutouts suck. Someone on reddet quipped "Schrödinger's rocket."

[QUOTE]Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk
Target altitude of 40,600 km achieved. Thanks @SES_Satellites for riding on Falcon 9! Looking forward to future missions.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Elon Musk – Verified account ‏@elonmusk

Rocket landed hard on the droneship. Didn't expect this one to work (v hot reentry), but next flight has a good chance.[/QUOTE]

AFAICT there is no video released of the booster landing with better visuals than we saw during the webcast?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;428155]AFAICT there is no video released of the booster landing with better visuals than we saw during the webcast?[/QUOTE]
There should be. As hinted at in the broadcast, when the booster comes in for a landing, it shakes the drone ship and the drone ship loses satellite lock. This interrupts the feed. But then later, the data can be recovered from on-board sources.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;428170]There should be. As hinted at in the broadcast, when the booster comes in for a landing, it shakes the drone ship and the drone ship loses satellite lock. This interrupts the feed. But then later, the data can be recovered from on-board sources.[/QUOTE]
Found this clip out there. Dunno where it came from or anything else about it.
[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aARSV1GT1Ic[/url]
[YOUTUBE]aARSV1GT1Ic[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=only_human;428205]Found this clip out there. Dunno where it came from or anything else about it.
[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aARSV1GT1Ic[/url][/QUOTE]That is some joker reposting an earlier landing attempt:
[YOUTUBE]WcfJLNj6ujQ[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;428170]As hinted at in the broadcast, when the booster comes in for a landing, it shakes the drone ship and the drone ship loses satellite lock. This interrupts the feed. But then later, the data can be recovered from on-board sources.[/QUOTE]

I'm just vicariously observing here.

But would not a gyroscope stabilized antenna keep a fix?

[QUOTE=chalsall;428316]I'm just vicariously observing here.

But would not a gyroscope stabilized antenna keep a fix?[/QUOTE]

This external thread is primarily wondering about keeping a satellite fix but there isn't anything definitive in it. It does indicate though that other tentative solutions have been previously suggested and negatively answered:
[url]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11227481[/url]
[QUOTE]daeken 2 days ago

I do wonder why they don't have a separate small barge with a couple fiber runs between them, to do the comms (e.g. host the dish(es)). I guess it just isn't that important.
reply

dtparr 2 days ago

That was asked on the spacex sub-reddit. The response was something like "you underestimate the power of a Merlin" which I took to mean that a reasonable distance to avoid the effects is too far to reasonably run ship-to-ship cabling.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;428328]This external thread is primarily wondering about keeping a satellite fix but there isn't anything definitive in it.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that additional information.

I do note that SpaceX always has a support ship a few kilometers away during landing attempts. In my mind it would be fairly trivial to have a unidirectional wireless link between the barge and the support ship; omnidirectional antenna on the barge and a high-gain directional antenna on the ship which could then uplink to a satellite.

I'm sure SpaceX have already thought of this (I doubt I could hold a candle to even their interns), but they probably have more important things to work on then simply satiating their geek fans' appetite for live video streams.... :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;428424]Thanks for that additional information.

I do note that SpaceX always has a support ship a few kilometers away during landing attempts. In my mind it would be fairly trivial to have a unidirectional wireless link between the barge and the support ship; omnidirectional antenna on the barge and a high-gain directional antenna on the ship which could then uplink to a satellite.

I'm sure SpaceX have already thought of this (I doubt I could hold a candle to even their interns), but they probably have more important things to work on then simply satiating their geek fans' appetite for live video streams.... :smile:[/QUOTE]
I agree entirely that omnidirectional transmission to another site that does the actual uplink sounds feasible. As for SpaceX priorities, first and foremost is controlling messaging and perception which is very hard to do in the presence of live streaming. So they would like to capitalize on the launch enthusiast presence but not so much with the delivery of disaster porn.

[URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/with-todays-launch-europe-and-russia-seek-to-break-the-mars-curse/"]With today’s launch, Europe and Russia seek to break the Mars “curse”[/URL]
[QUOTE]The ExoMars program has been in various stages of planning since around the turn of the century. In 2008 NASA and the European Space Agency reached an agreement to share costs on the two missions, an orbiter and landers, that would both search for life and test technologies for a mission to return samples of Martian soil and rocks to Earth.

However, in February, 2012, President Obama's budget called for the cancellation of NASA's participation in the program to pay for the James Webb Space Telescope, which continued to run over its budget allocation. "Tough choices had to be made," NASA's administrator, Charles Bolden, said at the time about the agency's science budget.

At that point the European Space Agency turned to Russia, which has long wanted to return to Mars after a series of missions in the 1970s. The Russian Space Agency agreed to provide Proton rockets for both the 2016 and 2018 launches, as well as some scientific instruments for the 2016 orbiter. The Russians will also assist with the development of technology for the 2018 rover.

And so today's launch was neither the beginning nor the end of efforts by Europe and Russia to finally put a robust lander safely on the surface of Mars. It is but a step, with the bigger tests coming later this year with the Schiaparelli landing, and in 2018, when a highly capable rover tries to repeat this feat.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;429122][URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/with-todays-launch-europe-and-russia-seek-to-break-the-mars-curse/"]With today’s launch, Europe and Russia seek to break the Mars “curse”[/URL][/QUOTE]
The following launch video/quote is from a Google Plus post.
[QUOTE]
European Space Agency, ESA

We're still buzzing about the successful launch of #ExoMars on Monday, taking Europe all the way to Mars! Enjoy this replay of the ExoMars 2016 liftoff on a Proton-M rocket from Baikonur, Kazakhstan at 09:31 GMT on 14 March 2016.

Credit: ESA/Euronews
[url]https://youtu.be/wbSyvBICfGc[/url]
[YOUTUBE]wbSyvBICfGc[/YOUTUBE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;429451]The following launch video/quote is from a Google Plus post.[/QUOTE]

What in the [STRIKE]blazys[/STRIKE]blazes is that red stuff at T+7? Appears to originate above the engines?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;429475]What in the [STRIKE]blazys[/STRIKE]blazes is that red stuff at T+7? Appears to originate above the engines?[/QUOTE]
Maybe this:
[url]http://www.space.com/21820-russia-proton-rocket-explained-infographic.html[/url]
[QUOTE]The Proton-M carries UDMH fuel (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) and N2O4 oxidizer (nitrogen tetroxide) in its main stages. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.astronautix.com/props/n2o4udmh.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) has a characteristic reddish-brown colour in both liquid and gaseous phases.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;429478]Maybe this:
[url]http://www.space.com/21820-russia-proton-rocket-explained-infographic.html[/url]

[url]http://www.astronautix.com/props/n2o4udmh.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

The first link contradicts the graphic it contains as to the fuel of the fourth stage (though I should think LH2 is rather more likely than RP-1 for a vacuum stage).

As for the N2O4, does that mean it was leaking somewhere from the Proton? The oxidizer certainly should not appear a) above the engines b) at all, since its entire purpose is to be combusted inside the engines. If it truly is the oxidizer, than some *serious* malfunction occurred on that launch.

...or not. As far as I can tell, it's a normal artifact of Proton M launches. How exceedingly strange. Some cursory googling hasn't revealed what exactly is going on.

This might be possibly corroborative. It refers to another Proton launch:
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/2uel9b/ignition_and_lift_off_of_the_402nd_proton_rocket/?limit=500[/url]
[QUOTE]BosonTheClown 1 point 1 year ago
I'm curious...what was the brown stuff that started to leak out around the 33 second mark?

[–]YURI_FOR_THE_YURIGOD 1 point 1 year ago
possibly N2O4 vapor. Proton M uses that as fuel. Check [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/llis_lib/pdf/1025088main_HypergolSpillsandFires.pdf"]this NASA doc[/URL] for some cases of spills of hypergolic fuels.
Go to page 20 of that pdf (page 13 by their own numbering) and look at the second picture. It's a N2O4 leak and the cloud looks like the one in the video.[/QUOTE]

[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OOwD1O8LzKI[/url]
[QUOTE]Published on Feb 1, 2015. A Russian rocket took a rare day time launch this afternoon, February 1st 2015 at 12:31 UTC from Kazachstan. The Proton-M on it's 402nd mission lofted the British Inmarsat 5-F2 satellite into orbit. Inmarsat 5-F2 is part of a planned three satellite fleet, with F1 having launched 2013, that will provide communications and internet over each of the 89 Ka-band transponders onboard.[/QUOTE]
[YOUTUBE]OOwD1O8LzKI[/YOUTUBE]

EDIT: The Nasa doc linked in the reddit quote presents a 404 error but this might be the document. These chemicals are nasty stuff.
[url]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20090029348[/url]

Still seems incredible to me that there is oxidizer leaking, above the engines, into the engine exhaust, and that all of the above is okay and normal.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;429485]Still seems incredible to me that there is oxidizer leaking, above the engines, into the engine exhaust, and that all of the above is okay and normal.[/QUOTE]
The reason I didn't reply directly to this specific point of above the engines was at first I didn't notice what you were contending in the video. I think I see it now. One thing though is the second stage uses the same fuel. Maybe it came from there.
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-M[/url]
[QUOTE]Second Stage - 8S811K
Length 14 m (46 ft)
Diameter 4.15 m (13.6 ft)
Empty mass 11,715 kg (25,827 lb)
Gross mass 167,828 kg (369,997 lb)
Engines 4 RD-0210
Thrust 2,399 kN (539,000 lbf)
Specific impulse 327 sec
Burn time 206 sec
Fuel N2O4/UDMH[/QUOTE]
Edit: I still am not sure that I see any red/brown above the engines.
Edit: Oh, you mean above the rocket stage exhaust but still alongside that stages's tubes, right? There is something there I see at video point 15 seconds.

[QUOTE=only_human;429486]The reason I didn't reply directly to this specific point of above the engines was at first I didn't notice what you were contending in the video. I think I see it now. One thing though is the second stage uses the same fuel. Maybe it came from there.
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-M[/url]

Edit: I still am not sure that I see any red/brown above the engines.
Edit: Oh, you mean above the rocket stage exhaust but still alongside that stages's tubes, right? There is something there I see at video point 15 seconds.[/QUOTE]

It's pretty clear to me.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbSyvBICfGc&t=22s[/url]

Starts within a ~second of the timestamp on the link above (and similar for other launches)

ISS hatch opening for new guests
[url]http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv[/url]
5 minutes to open

edit:

Everyone aboard. A few more minutes until communication is reestablished. Over 8 hours since launch. Friends and family waiting to talk to astronauts.

[QUOTE]ULA Atlas V Rocket Launch: Orbital ATK Cygnus Spacecraft | OA-6
Watch Orbital ATK’s Cygnus cargo ship launch to International Space Station at 11:05pm ET. NASA TV: [url]www.nasa.gov/ntv[/url]
To ensure research aboard the International Space Station continues uninterrupted, NASA at the Kennedy Space Center is preparing to launch a Cygnus spacecraft to provide needed supplies to the orbiting outpost.

The United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket and Orbital ATK Cygnus spacecraft stack is on the launch pad at Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Launch time is 11:05 p.m. EDT on March 22, 2016 at the start of a 30-minute window. The mission calls for the Cygnus to deliver more than 3 1/2 tons of experiments and supplies to the International Space Station where astronauts will help conduct research to improve life on Earth and prep NASA for a journey to Mars by future astronauts. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv[/url]

I watched it from the Charleston, SC area an hour ago, roughly 300 miles out from the pad, and relatively well positioned along the inclination of the orbit. The sky was totally clear of clouds, but the moon was exceedingly full and bright (the horizon seriously looked like it was still dusk). We saw roughly the last 60-90 seconds of the stage 1 burn, as well as the "explosions" of stage 1 cutoff, stage separation, and fairing separation (or possibly stage 2 ignition). We looked for the stage 2 burning but couldn't find it, since at that point it was positioned directly under the moon.

[URL="http://www.universetoday.com/128091/atlas-v-engine-anomaly-forces-upper-stage-thrust-makeup-during-cygnus-launch-next-flight-delayed/"]ATLAS V ENGINE ANOMALY FORCES THRUST MAKEUP DURING CYGNUS LAUNCH, NEXT FLIGHT DELAYED[/URL][QUOTE]The stunningly beautiful nighttime blastoff of the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V from the Florida space coast on Tuesday, March 22, was not quite as flawless as initially thought and marred by the early engine shutdown which has now forced a postponement of the next planned Atlas V launch as company engineers painstakingly evaluate the data.

“The Centaur [upper stage] burned for longer than planned,” Lyn Chassagne, spokesperson for rocket maker ULA, told Universe Today.

“The ULA engineering team is reviewing the data to determine the root cause of the occurrence.”

The Centaur RL10C-1 powerplant had to make up for a thrust and velocity deficiency resulting from a 6 second shorter than planned firing of the Atlas V’s first stage RD-180 engines.

Indeed the Centaur had to fire for a minute longer than planned to inject Cygnus into its target orbit.

“The first stage cut-off occurred approximately 6 seconds early, however the Centaur was able to burn an additional approximately 60 seconds longer and achieve mission success, delivering Cygnus to its required orbit.”[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][/QUOTE][QUOTE=only_human;430092][URL="http://www.universetoday.com/128091/atlas-v-engine-anomaly-forces-upper-stage-thrust-makeup-during-cygnus-launch-next-flight-delayed/"]ATLAS V ENGINE ANOMALY FORCES THRUST MAKEUP DURING CYGNUS LAUNCH, NEXT FLIGHT DELAYED[/URL][/QUOTE]

Man, Orbital and Russian engines just don't get along, do they?

[URL="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/nasa-is-going-green-with-a-new-rocket-fuel-in-2017-8280020"]NASA is Going Green With a New Rocket Fuel in 2017[/URL]
[QUOTE]The result is the AF-M315E, a hydroxyl ammonium nitrate fuel oxidizer blend that was originally developed at the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base in California. If it works this fuel change will be a win for NASA on all fronts. The stuff is actually less toxic and easier to handle than the regular hydrazine-based propellants, according to NASA. It comes with fewer handling restrictions which helps cut down on cost. Plus, it's more efficient than hydrazine, giving a spacecraft more thrust for less fuel, and more dense, which means more of it fits into a smaller space in a fuel container.

In other words, NASA has every reason to continue running tests to see if AF-M315E will work as a cheaper, better "green" rocket fuel that both NASA and commercial space companies could use in launches in the coming years, according to NASA.

NASA just finished up the functional and environmental hardware and systems tests that were the first big step toward the fuel actually being put into use for rocket launches. Now, they just have to pull off the next part of the process and actually test the fuel. The first test is slated to take place in 2017, according to NASA. A compact small satellite (known around NASA as a "smallsat") will be launched into space loaded with AF-M315E. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;430293][URL="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/nasa-is-going-green-with-a-new-rocket-fuel-in-2017-8280020"]NASA is Going Green With a New Rocket Fuel in 2017[/URL][/QUOTE]
That article shows that the writer does not clearly understand the issues that they are talking about. The new "green" fuel is not for the main engines that are generation the soot referenced. It is for the maneuvering thrusters, 3rd stages, PAM's, and apogee kick motors. All of those are mainly used above the 25 mile zone that is being talked about for soot.

Also:
[QUOTE]If it doesn't, well, NASA will have to possibly find some other way to decrease its environmental footprint. There's always recycling.[/QUOTE]Oh, recycling will fix the carbon black up in the atmosphere. :max:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;430302]That article shows that the writer does not clearly understand the issues that they are talking about. The new "green" fuel is not for the main engines that are generation the soot referenced. It is for the maneuvering thrusters, 3rd stages, PAM's, and apogee kick motors. All of those are mainly used above the 25 mile zone that is being talked about for soot.

Also:
Oh, recycling will fix the carbon black up in the atmosphere. :max:[/QUOTE]
Well local reporting will always get the science wrong. I partially blame Nasa for characterizing the using of less hazardous chemicals as a green change. Carrying a folded knife in your pocket is safer than an unsheathed steak knife but not necessarily a green change.

So the reporting went off into the weeds by looking at how nasty chemicals are and assumed that Nasa's "green" change meant some of the several negatives must have been improved instead of recognizing that this was positive spin on a safer to handle fuel.

The other two errors as you mentioned were failing to understand where the fuel would be used and closing with the insipid and useless recycling comment after having been spun in the green direction by Nasa's shallow green pandering.

[QUOTE=only_human;430092][URL="http://www.universetoday.com/128091/atlas-v-engine-anomaly-forces-upper-stage-thrust-makeup-during-cygnus-launch-next-flight-delayed/"]ATLAS V ENGINE ANOMALY FORCES THRUST MAKEUP DURING CYGNUS LAUNCH, NEXT FLIGHT DELAYED[/URL][/QUOTE]
And it came within ~1 second of not making orbit.
[url]http://spaceflight101.com/cygnus-oa6/by-the-numbers-how-close-atlas-v-came-to-failure-in-this-weeks-cygnus-launch/[/url]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;430364]And it came within ~1 second of not making orbit.
[url]http://spaceflight101.com/cygnus-oa6/by-the-numbers-how-close-atlas-v-came-to-failure-in-this-weeks-cygnus-launch/[/url][/QUOTE]
Well it looks quite bad when explained like that. Another entry for the near disaster list.

ULA changed their CEO a couple years ago and their VP of engineering resigned a couple of weeks ago after speaking his mind too clearly. The RD-180 is not John McCain's friend, and this can't look good. Props for the Centaur upper stage saving the day. As the article's numbers suggest, much too close.

[URL="http://archive.is/20160325212843/http://www.popsci.com/rocket-lab-plans-to-launch-its-new-rocket-engine-later-this-year"]ROCKET LAB PLANS TO LAUNCH NEW, AFFORDABLE ROCKET ENGINE LATER THIS YEAR[/URL] -
A PARTIALLY 3D-PRINTED ROCKET ENGINE JOINS THE SPACE RACE
[QUOTE]The company says the engine will now be ready for its first test flight in the second half of 2016. The launch will be part of the development program for the Electron rocket, whose liftoff will be powered by 9 Rutherford engines.

The Rutherford engine is small and will not pack as much punch as its competitors, but Rocket Lab thinks it will be able to launch small satellites into orbit at a low cost. An Electron launch is expected to cost about $5 million, compared to SpaceX's $60 million launches.

Notably, the Rutherford is made primarily out of 3D printed parts. It also uniquely uses battery-powered electric motors to power the pumps that deliver propellant to the rocket's combustion chamber.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2016/20160407-mice-cabbage-crs-8-preview.html"]Live mice, cabbage, and a drone ship: Your SpaceX Dragon launch preview[/URL]
[QUOTE]Watch: SpaceX CRS-8 launch

Launch: Friday, April 8, 4:43 p.m. EDT (20:43 UTC)
Instantaneous launch window

NASA TV coverage starts 3:00 p.m.
Backup launch opportunity Saturday, April 9, 4:20 p.m.

Berthing: Sunday, April 10 NASA TV coverage begins 5:30 a.m. EDT
Dragon installation approximately 9:30 a.m.

Return to Earth: May 11[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Last year, astronauts snacked on the first-ever crop of space lettuce as part of NASA’s pick-and-eat salad initiative. The agency is shipping 18 new "plant pillows" of chinese cabbage and romaine lettuce. Food tasters at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas rated the cabbage as the tastiest menu option. [B]"We are also working on sending some ranch dressing up,"[/B] said principal investigator Gioia Massa.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly is sending 20 live mice to the station as part of a muscoskeletal experiment that could give scientists insight into muscle wasting diseases. Crewmembers will get a chance to handle the mice, but unfortunately for the rodents, the experiment is "terminal." Said an Eli Lilly representative: "Unfortunately, there is no way yet to bring mice live back to Earth."[/QUOTE]

If I were one of the astronauts, I'd demand the best ranch dressing. At thousands of dollars a pound, there's no reason to skimp, unless high Gs mess up ranch dressing.

And why can't they bring the mice back? Does their health deteriorate that quickly?

SpaceX live stream is now, well, live...

[url]http://www.spacex.com/webcast[/url]

Successful landing!!!!
 

Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :smile: :tu:

They goddamn did it, and this time all landing legs are holding firm. :smile: Looks like it's a solid 10m off target -- around [strike]halfway[/strike] around 30-40% from the center to the edge of the barge. Still, incredible stuff. Now here's hoping it can survive the journey back to port!

:smile::smile::tu::tu::bow:

Try that Jeff Bezos!

So many people that I talk to can't grasp how much harder it is to do what Space-X is than the Blue Origin folks.

Take a rocket that is separating the second stage at about 80km in altitude (260,000 feet) at a speed of Mach 10, with an ultimate apogee altitude of around 140km.
B-O is vertical only and has peaked at 101 km.
The Falcon first stage does 4 total burns. 2 are need because of the horizontal speed that B-O does not have.

Then stick the landing with less than 30m error on a moving craft that can hold position with only 3m of accuracy that is pitching on the seas.
And the landing legs have to deploy and lock. B-O does not have to have deployable legs.

[URL="http://spaceflight101.com/spx-8-recovery-future-plans/"]'Of Course I Still Love You, we have a Falcon 9 on board!’ – Big plans for recovered SpaceX Booster[/URL]
[QUOTE]Musk expects the booster to be re-flown on an operational mission with a paying customer as early as June, though discussions are still to be finalized.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Steps completed immediately after landing were to safe the propellant system and vent the pressurized propellant tanks to safe pressures. Crews were expected to approach the Drone Ship some time after landing, starting with a careful inspection of the booster before getting close to it to weld the landing legs to the steel deck of the ASDS using steel shoes. The booster is secured to the pad to prevent it from tipping over in the event of rough seas and strong winds which are expected for its return to shore.

The Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship is expected at the Space Coast on Sunday, Musk was unsure whether Port Canaveral would be its first destination, but said the ASDS was ultimately headed there.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]SpaceX’s future plans to further expand reusability of launch vehicle components will focus on Falcon’s 13-meter long payload fairing which costs several million Dollars to produce. Experimentation was already conducted on an earlier flight with stabilization systems on the fairing and early SpaceX concepts called for the fairing halves to be recovered in mid-air using helicopters.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;431077]Try that Jeff Bezos!

So many people that I talk to can't grasp how much harder it is to do what Space-X is than the Blue Origin folks.

Take a rocket that is separating the second stage at about 80km in altitude (260,000 feet) at a speed of Mach 10, with an ultimate apogee altitude of around 140km.
B-O is vertical only and has peaked at 101 km.
The Falcon first stage does 4 total burns. 2 are need because of the horizontal speed that B-O does not have.

Then stick the landing with less than 30m error on a moving craft that can hold position with only 3m of accuracy that is pitching on the seas.
And the landing legs have to deploy and lock. B-O does not have to have deployable legs.[/QUOTE]

Elon Musk said that OCISTLY can GPS station keep with accuracy <1 meter at the post launch press conference.

[URL="http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html"]How (and Why) SpaceX Will Colonize Mars[/URL]
During Friday's launch one of the two commentators had an Occupy Mars shirt on so I went ahead and read about Musk's long-term strategy. This is a lot to read through and it has a slightly hagiographic feel at first but I bet at least some of the people here might finish thinking instead that it is quite visionary.

[QUOTE=only_human;431100][URL="http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html"]How (and Why) SpaceX Will Colonize Mars[/URL][/QUOTE]Well written and a good read.

Elon [url=http://imgur.com/zsdV04z]tweeted[/url] this video, but deleted it not long after, probably due to the [b]foul language[/b].

If you have no conniptions about the f-word, enjoy:

[YOUTUBE]lSx4DGBstYA[/YOUTUBE]

The [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avaSdC0QOUM]original "music" video[/url], if you're curious.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;431146]Elon [url=http://imgur.com/zsdV04z]tweeted[/url] this video, but deleted it not long after, probably due to the [b]foul language[/b].

If you have no conniptions about the f-word, enjoy:

[YOUTUBE]lSx4DGBstYA[/YOUTUBE]

The [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avaSdC0QOUM]original "music" video[/url], if you're curious.[/QUOTE]
I liked it very much in this context even though I'm more concerned about profanity than the average bear. I hadn't heard it before but I am waging a fruitless battle to outwait the existence rap music. [URL="https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/ZCz8WQi5nD6"]Linus liked it too:[/URL]
[QUOTE]I'm enjoying the Youtube mixup of the SpaceX CRS-8 first stage landing with Lonely Island's "I'm on a boat" song. Congrats to everybody involved.

I'm not very hip, so the only other time I've heard that song is when somebody in my poker group is mangling it (horribly). I think it works better for Elon Musk, but maybe that is because I'm not losing money.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;431187]I hadn't heard it before but I am waging a fruitless battle to outwait the existence rap music. [/QUOTE]I believe that its spelled with a silent 'c'.

A decent bit of the offset from center of the barge was after-cutoff bouncing. [url]https://twitter.com/aallan/status/718851627218808832[/url]

That "green" satellite propellant that Nasa has been working on is expected to boosted into space on a Falcon Heavy satellite payload in March next year: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Propellant_Infusion_Mission[/url]
[QUOTE]The combined benefits of low toxicity and easy open-container handling will shorten ground processing time from weeks to days, simplifying the launching of satellites.[/QUOTE]
Other potential applications may be feasible:
[QUOTE]In addition to its use on lighter satellites and rockets, the fuel's exceptional volumetric storage properties is also being assessed for military uses such as missile launches.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2016_2"]Future 2016 SpaceX Falcon launches[/URL]

The first Falcon Heavy test flight should be this November.
The next Falcon 9 launch should be April 28th according to the above launch list.

The next SpaceX engine design, essential to Mars methane refueling ambitions is the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine)"]Raptor[/URL].
[QUOTE]In January 2016, the US Air Force awarded a US$33.6 million development contract to SpaceX develop a prototype version of its methane-fueled reusable Raptor engine for use on the upper stage of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles, which required double-matching funding by SpaceX of at least US$67.3 million. Work under the contract is expected to be completed in 2018, and engine performance testing will be done at NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.[/QUOTE]

Has anyone here actually managed to see a rocket launch? I am sufficiently enthused by the Falcon Heavy that I'm quite tempted to look at the logistics; but Falcon Heavy #1 seems a mission extremely likely to be repeatedly delayed (and has already been pretty repeatedly delayed ...)

Thanks to the Great Mouse I can get to Orlando at a month's notice for £500 or so; I'm not sure how often a mission is substantially delayed within a month of expected launch date, and that's still a lot to pay just to hear an announcer shout 'HOLD, HOLD' at T-7s. Also I'm not quite sure what there is to do in and around Orlando - KSC probably could eat three days, and there is indeed the Great Mouse.

It bothers me that the Falcon Heavy demo flight does not have a commercial customer. So the strongest scheduling pressures are those related to delays of subsequent Heavy flights.

Knowing the payload would give a better idea.

Here is a smart reddit thread from a year ago: [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/33l5mk/falcon_heavy_demo_flight_1_speculation_thread/"]Falcon Heavy Demo Flight 1 speculation thread[/URL]

This year's low energy transit to Mars was in March so I don't expect the demo to make some great statement about private rockets to the Red Planet. The next Trans-Mars injection would be in two years.

The Ariane 6 designed as a commercial competitor to the Falcon 9 has recently cleared some tax and bureaucratic hurdles so that may induce SpaceX to push harder on Falcon Heavy scheduling.
[URL="http://spacenews.com/ariane-6-rocket-designers-say-theyll-match-or-beat-todays-spacex-prices-on-per-kilogram-basis/"]Ariane 6 designers say they’ll beat SpaceX prices on per-kilogram basis[/URL]

My perspective is that spending time now getting a lot of experience on core recoveries is more sensible before complexifying missions by doubling or tripling first stage core recoveries per flight.

Still seeing 27 Roman Candles burning all at once is definitely worth watching.

edit: (added more smoke)
[URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-way-to-reach-mars-safely-anytime-and-on-the-cheap/"]A New Way to Reach Mars Safely, Anytime and on the Cheap[/URL] -
Ballistic capture, a low-energy method that has coasted spacecraft into lunar orbit, could help humanity visit the Red Planet much more often

[QUOTE=fivemack;431298]Has anyone here actually managed to see a rocket launch? I am sufficiently enthused by the Falcon Heavy that I'm quite tempted to look at the logistics; but Falcon Heavy #1 seems a mission extremely likely to be repeatedly delayed (and has already been pretty repeatedly delayed ...)

Thanks to the Great Mouse I can get to Orlando at a month's notice for £500 or so; I'm not sure how often a mission is substantially delayed within a month of expected launch date, and that's still a lot to pay just to hear an announcer shout 'HOLD, HOLD' at T-7s. Also I'm not quite sure what there is to do in and around Orlando - KSC probably could eat three days, and there is indeed the Great Mouse.[/QUOTE]

I've mentioned before that I've been to one, and notably posted my own personal video of the December F9 return to launch site historic landing [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=419905#post419905"]several pages back[/URL]. My dad lives on [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_Island,_Florida"]the island[/URL] that Kennedy Space Center is on, which is just to the west of Cape Canaveral. Said island is a solid 30+ km long (depending on how much of the trailing part to the south you count as island, it gets very thin). KSC and wildlife preserves occupy the northern two thirds, while ~35K residents occupy the lower third (and form only a small part of the 550K people in the surrounding [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevard_County,_Florida"]metropolitan area[/URL]; the area is some ~100 km in length, and I'm not real sure of the population density as a function of location in the area).

I visit a couple of times a year, approximately, and my most recent visit happened to correspond beautifully to SpaceX's historic launch.

I'm not real familiar with what there is to do around there, seeing as the total time I've spent there in my life is on the order of a month, with nearly no tourism. Cocoa Beach (which is to Cape Canaveral as residential Merritt Island is to KSC) is a relatively major tourist attraction, though beyond the idyllic beaches it almost surely has nothing that would interest you. Orlando is of course ~100 km west of the coast, and undoubtedly has far more things to do (not least of which is the Great Mouse), though perhaps none of them are as interesting as, say, the KSC Visitors' Center (which I've been to a couple times, including one of their guided tours to the LC-39 observation gantry between the VAB and LC-39A, though obviously that wasn't when there was any sort of rocket around).

If you so desire I could forward any questions you might have to my dad.

Edit: For the record, the December F9 was the second launch I'd been to -- I also saw a Delta IV Heavy launch a few years ago, which was noticeably louder and more powerful than the F9. Seeing as the D IV is ~twice the power of the F9, and the FH is ~twice the power of the D IV, I shudder to think what Space Shuttle, much less Saturn V launches would have been like -- ~eight times an F9 or ~double a FH... For reference, the D IV was like a minor earthquake, where the F9 was really just extraordinarily loud, not quite earthquake level. No video or sound recording system could ever do it justice. Distance was around 17.5 km, see attached (northern point of measure averages LCs-40 and 41; 40 is for the F9, [STRIKE]41 north of it was the Delta IV[/STRIKE] evidently I misremembered; DIVHs launch from LC-37B). The FH will launch from 39A, which is around ~20 km it seems from my standard viewing point. I'm not entirely sure if there's a possibly better place, or what NASA-sanctioned places you can get to, but I do know that thousands of people line that publicly accessible road I marked for each launch (no doubt more for the FH). My old go-to joke is that there is only one professional spectator sport in Brevard County, and it is rocket launching.



And of course, thousands of other people online have written about watching Florida launches, e.g. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/faq/watching#wiki_i.27m_at_cape_canaveral._where.27s_the_best_place_to_watch_the_launch.3F[/url] Also [url]https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launch-info/launch-scrub-policy.aspx[/url] (the policy kinda sucks, a lot, IMO)

Edit: The video I posted (first link in this post) nearly exactly identifies my viewing point. Our view of the landing was unfortunately blocked by a building, and Google Maps kindly points out the only such building on the Cape in the second attached image.

The water sprayed at launch is for sound suppression to protect the rocket and other equipment.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;431305]
And of course, thousands of other people online have written about watching Florida launches, e.g. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/faq/watching#wiki_i.27m_at_cape_canaveral._where.27s_the_best_place_to_watch_the_launch.3F[/url] Also [url]https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launch-info/launch-scrub-policy.aspx[/url] (the policy kinda sucks, a lot, IMO)
[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html#e9[/url]

Awesome landing video from on board the rocket.
[url]https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/718605741288894464[/url]
and the 4K video
[YOUTUBE]sYmQQn_ZSys[/YOUTUBE]
The pad abort test video for the Crew Dragon is cool. 0-100 mph in 1.2 seconds is a heck of an elevator ride.:anurag:

The stage is due to arrive back in port in ~1 hour. [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4ee2zy/crs8_ocisly_returning_to_port_canaveral/[/url]

I have reason to believe that SpaceX is going to try to move their recovered first stage to the horizontal position tomorrow.

Someone gathered up all the stupidity in one place. [URL="http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/meet-the-truthers-who-believe-spacex-faked-its-rocket-landing"]Meet the Truthers Who Are Certain SpaceX Faked Its Rocket Landing[/URL]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;431077]Try that Jeff Bezos!

So many people that I talk to can't grasp how much harder it is to do what Space-X is than the Blue Origin folks.

Take a rocket that is separating the second stage at about 80km in altitude (260,000 feet) at a speed of Mach 10, with an ultimate apogee altitude of around 140km.
B-O is vertical only and has peaked at 101 km.
The Falcon first stage does 4 total burns. 2 are need because of the horizontal speed that B-O does not have.

Then stick the landing with less than 30m error on a moving craft that can hold position with only 3m of accuracy that is pitching on the seas.
And the landing legs have to deploy and lock. B-O does not have to have deployable legs.[/QUOTE]
I bet watching these things land is like being a fan at a sporting event, with everybody trying to make it land properly through sheer willpower. Maybe with some added hand motions like in golf. GO LEFT GO LEFT!!! NOOOOO...NOT THAT LEFT, THE OTHER LEFT!!!.

While watching the people work on the recovered first stage at Port Canaveral, everyone seemed to be strictly business except in one little scene that I liked: Two guys were working to put some kind of grommet protection on some kind of access hole. I don't know what the hole is for and one of them reached into the hole a few times as part of the preparation. As I was saying the work was strictly business except that this hole was a few feet below a USA flag on the side of the stage. At one point the worker on the right paused, looks up, and then reached up to touch the flag. Kinda cool.

1:32 into the video.
[url]http://youtu.be/mDoyWcLtBC4[/url]
[YouTube]mDoyWcLtBC4[/YouTube]

[QUOTE=only_human;431503]Someone gathered up all the stupidity in one place. [URL="http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/meet-the-truthers-who-believe-spacex-faked-its-rocket-landing"]Meet the Truthers Who Are Certain SpaceX Faked Its Rocket Landing[/URL][/QUOTE]
I immediately started passing this muttering nonsense around. :cmd:

To boldly go where no spacecraft has been before.
 

Yuri MIlner, backed by Mark Zuckerberg, has announced a $100M research effor to kick-start a laser-sail project. A few square metres of sail carrying a ~1g spacecraft will be accelerated to 0.2c by a ground-based laser array.

This lot hit the news all over the UK yesterday, making the front pages of [I]The Times[/I] and the [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36025706"]BBC[/URL].

Question about soot on recovered Falcon 9s
 

Perhaps someone here can shed some light on a question I have...

The recovered Falcon 9s have a great deal of black soot on them, very clearly visible when comparing the white surface protected by the landing legs during re-entry vs. the surfaces not protected. I assume most of this is from the incompletely burned fuel in the gas-generator turbo pump (the Merlin engines are an "Open Cycle" design) which washes back around the rocket during re-entry.

My question is: why is there such a well-defined difference in the bottom 2/5ths of the rocket compared to the top 3/5ths? Is a different material used there, or is it a function of the aerodynamic flow?

[URL="http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/04/13/new-views-of-falcon-9-landing-from-on-board-spacexs-drone-ship/"]These pictures should clearly show[/URL] what I'm wondering about.

[QUOTE=chalsall;431558]Perhaps someone here can shed some light on a question I have...

The recovered Falcon 9s have a great deal of black soot on them, very clearly visible when comparing the white surface protected by the landing legs during re-entry vs. the surfaces not protected. I assume most of this is from the incompletely burned fuel in the gas-generator turbo pump (the Merlin engines are an "Open Cycle" design) which washes back around the rocket during re-entry.

My question is: why is there such a well-defined difference in the bottom 2/5ths of the rocket compared to the top 3/5ths? Is a different material used there, or is it a function of the aerodynamic flow?

[URL="http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/04/13/new-views-of-falcon-9-landing-from-on-board-spacexs-drone-ship/"]These pictures should clearly show[/URL] what I'm wondering about.[/QUOTE]

That is where the RP-1 tank ends (below) and the lox tank starts (above). The LOX tank is very cold and probably gets a layer of frost that prevents the soot from sticking.

[url]http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;431562][url]http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]

Super coolness. Thanks. I was not aware of that document.

[QUOTE=chalsall;431558]Perhaps someone here can shed some light on a question I have...

The recovered Falcon 9s have a great deal of black soot on them, very clearly visible when comparing the white surface protected by the landing legs during re-entry vs. the surfaces not protected. I assume most of this is from the incompletely burned fuel in the gas-generator turbo pump (the Merlin engines are an "Open Cycle" design) which washes back around the rocket during re-entry.

My question is: why is there such a well-defined difference in the bottom 2/5ths of the rocket compared to the top 3/5ths? Is a different material used there, or is it a function of the aerodynamic flow?

[URL="http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/04/13/new-views-of-falcon-9-landing-from-on-board-spacexs-drone-ship/"]These pictures should clearly show[/URL] what I'm wondering about.[/QUOTE]

Is it possible that those particles have a pretty strong charge, relative to the skin? This might remove most of them in the lower sections.

On the other hand, to say that there would be turbulence around the booster, especially at the bottom, would be a bit of an understatement. Could cooling of the hot gases cause them to precipitate onto the (slightly) cooler skin? :confused2:

[QUOTE=kladner;431567]Is it possible that those particles have a pretty strong charge, relative to the skin? This might remove most of them in the lower sections.[/QUOTE]

Probably not.

Even if there is plasma coming out the back, it is likely net charge neutral. This isn't an ion drive, after all.

[QUOTE=chalsall;431568]Probably not.

Even if there is plasma coming out the back, it is likely net charge neutral. This isn't an ion drive, after all.[/QUOTE]The clouds which went past here a few minutes ago were net charge neutral. Nonetheless there were some pretty impressive plasma phenomena. Certainly made the chucks run for cover.

Anyway, ion drives also squirt electrons out the back, otherwise the charge build up on the engine re-attracts the positively charged exhaust. Their exhaust is also net charge neutral.

[QUOTE=xilman;431575]Anyway, ion drives also squirt electrons out the back, otherwise the charge build up on the engine re-attracts the positively charged exhaust. Their exhaust is also net charge neutral.[/QUOTE]

LOL... Yes. Of course. Otherwise the drive wouldn't work.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;431562]That is where the RP-1 tank ends (below) and the lox tank starts (above). The LOX tank is very cold and probably gets a layer of frost that prevents the soot from sticking.

[URL]http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the answer, Mark. Facts are much better than speculation. :markrose:

[QUOTE=kladner;431579]Thanks for the answer, Mark. Facts are much better than speculation. :markrose:[/QUOTE]

The frost theory is speculation though.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;431585]The frost theory is speculation though.[/QUOTE]
Oh. OK. Still, it is the most plausible explanation put forward thus far.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;431585]The frost theory is speculation though.[/QUOTE]

It's widely held as "the answer" by a number of internet pundits though, and what I would have replied.

(Although I'm not sure how much of that soot is strictly from the pre-burners -- I imagine most of it is from the actual exhaust of the re-entry burn, since there is far more of said exhaust than of pre-burner exhaust and the re-entry burn occurs at mostly supersonic speeds.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;431587]It's widely held as "the answer" by a number of internet pundits though, and what I would have replied.[/QUOTE]

Are you familiar with the concept of "what a waste of carbon"?

Kerbal SpaceY
 

After watching SpaceX's succes on Kerbtube, [URL="http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Bill_Kerman"]Bill Kerman[/URL] had the bright idea to emulate their recent feat of landing the first stage booster. [URL="http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Jebediah_Kerman"]Jeb Kerman[/URL] was furious when he learned that the mission would be unmanned and demanded that Bill changed his design. Bill explained the mission was to resupply the KSS (Kerbal Space Station) and there would be no room for Kerbonauts on this flight. [URL="http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Bob_Kerman"]Bob Kerman[/URL] was delighted when he learned there would be room on the capsule for scientific experiments and went to work immediately.

More pics (and higher resolution) in my imgur album:
[URL]http://imgur.com/a/AOXzE[/URL]

Game: [B]Kerbal Space Program[/B], a space flight simulation game developed by Squad (a independent studio) [URL="http://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com"]www.kerbalspaceprogram.com[/URL]
If you are interested in rockets/space, you should definitely check it out. The game is actively developed and there are many add-ons,mods and part packs.
Add-ons/mods used:
SpaceY (for parts)
Kerbal Engineer Redux (to see delta-V stats)
MechJeb (extra flight control and suicide burn)
FMRS (to control return of stage 1)

Apparently it rained fairly hard yesterday at Port Canaveral:
TL;DR: 3 minutes of our buddy getting soaked:
[url]https://youtu.be/MxmU7MWJYWk[/url]
[YOUTUBE]MxmU7MWJYWk[/YOUTUBE]
[QUOTE]Apr 14, 2016Spring rains are back. The CRS8 booster looked just a bit cleaner.[/QUOTE]
h/t: [URL="Apr 14, 2016Spring rains are back. The CRS8 booster looked just a bit cleaner."]The SpaceX Fan Club[/URL] (on Google+)

So, the last of the four landing legs have been removed from the recovered Falcon 9...

[url]http://www.portcanaveralwebcam.com/[/url]

I really need to get out more....

[QUOTE=chalsall;431640]So, the last of the four landing legs have been removed from the recovered Falcon 9...[/QUOTE]If they start doing more landings, etc. Space-X should build a dedicated crane for this. (Provided they lease that dock exclusively.) A tower and boom crane that pivots in place or a container crane that has been retrofitted to handle the F9. Both of those would be a safer option than the crane that they are using.

She's sideways, about the be lowered onto the trailer! :tu:

OK, I have never understood politics...

But [URL="http://spacenews.com/draft-house-bill-would-scramble-air-forces-rocket-engine-plan/"]what this article is reporting[/URL] seems to make absolutely no sense to me:

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON – The House Armed Services Committee is set to take up an authorization bill this week that would insist the Pentagon invest in a new main stage engine — not an upper stage engine, strap-on motors or launch vehicles as the Air Force has planned — as the cornerstone of its effort to wean itself from the Russian RD-180 rocket engine.

The proposed restrictions essentially would forbid the Air Force from funding several recently announced co-investment deals with Orbital ATK, SpaceX and United Launch Alliance beyond this year. The Air Force doled out $317 million worth of contracts to help fund Orbital ATK’s development of a new solid-fueled launcher, SpaceX’s development a new upper-stage engine, and ULA’s development of Vulcan, a potentially reusable successor to the RD-180 powered Atlas 5 rocket.

The Air Force’s only other partnership is with Aerojet Rocketdyne, which stands to receive up to $536 million to develop AR-1, a [COLOR="Red"]kerosene-fuled[/COLOR][sic] engine that the Sacramento, California-company is pitching as an RD-180 replacement that would also be suitable for Vulcan if ULA drops plans to use Blue Origin’s methane-fueled BE-4 engine instead.[/QUOTE]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but would this not lead to United Launch Alliance (a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing) and Aerojet Rocketdyne (the "old boys") being the primary beneficiaries over the newer (and should be noted, US of A indigenous) entrants?

Not that I suspect this will really matter all that much to the new entrants in the long term. More likely this is simply a matter of the old boys being caught off guard, and not knowing what to do so they leverage political favours so survive a little longer...

Thoughts?

[QUOTE=chalsall;432529]OK, I have never understood politics...

But [URL="http://spacenews.com/draft-house-bill-would-scramble-air-forces-rocket-engine-plan/"]what this article is reporting[/URL] seems to make absolutely no sense to me:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but would this not lead to United Launch Alliance (a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing) and Aerojet Rocketdyne (the "old boys") being the primary beneficiaries over the newer (and should be noted, US of A indigenous) entrants?

Not that I suspect this will really matter all that much to the new entrants in the long term. More likely this is simply a matter of the old boys being caught off guard, and not knowing what to do so they leverage political favours so survive a little longer...

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
I think you hit the nail on the head.

Aggressive business sites are waking up to investment opportunities in the new guard of space enterprises even to the point of getting ready to jump the gun for companies that aren't even publicly traded yet as in this article today on Seeking Alpha:
[URL="http://seekingalpha.com/article/3967735-will-space-x-next-ten-bagger"]Will Space X Be Your Next Ten Bagger?[/URL]
[QUOTE]Summary[LIST][*]I am constantly on the lookout for ten baggers, stocks that have the potential to rise tenfold over the long term.[*]I’ve found another live one for you.[*]Elon Musk’s Space X is so forcefully pushing forward rocket technology that he is setting up one of the great investment opportunities of the century.[/LIST][/QUOTE]

[URL="http://spacenews.com/nasa-cuts-funds-for-mars-landing-technology-work/"]NASA cuts funds for Mars landing technology work[/URL]

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON — NASA is cutting funding for a Mars landing technology demonstration project by about 85 percent in response to budget reductions to its space technology program and the need to set aside funding within that program for a satellite servicing effort.
...
Other big programs, like a contract awarded April 19 to Aerojet Rocketdyne for solar electric propulsion work valued at $67 million, will further constrain NASA’s space technology efforts if its budget remains at the Senate’s level. “It will mean a bigger impact this coming year than what we just went through,” Reuter said[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...

[QUOTE=chalsall;432777][URL="http://spacenews.com/nasa-cuts-funds-for-mars-landing-technology-work/"]NASA cuts funds for Mars landing technology work[/URL]



Hmmm...[/QUOTE]

I'm not so worried: [url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/spacex-has-already-demonstrated-its-key-mars-landing-tech-with-the-falcon-9/[/url]

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;432778]I'm not so worried[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear, I'm also not worried. I'm amused.

Elon Musk had a field day on twitter today. Among other things, he confirmed that Red Dragon will be capable of sample return, and that the first launch of the Falcon Heavy will attempt to recover all three boosters. I use [url]http://reddit.com/r/spacex[/url] to stay up to date, I don't really feel like linking ten different twitter posts.

Edit: One link that's also pretty useful [url]https://twitter.com/elonmusk/with_replies[/url]

[QUOTE=chalsall;432777][URL="http://spacenews.com/nasa-cuts-funds-for-mars-landing-technology-work/"]NASA cuts funds for Mars landing technology work[/URL]



Hmmm...[/QUOTE]
Next time Nasa will know better than to try to spend money outside of Alabama.

Here's an excellent summary: [url]https://i.imgur.com/k536rQM.png[/url]

TRAPPIST are not only monk but [URL="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/05/03/three_earth_sized_exoplanets_found_around_nearby_red_dwarf_star.html"]exoplanet[/URL]

[url]http://www.spacex.com/webcast[/url]
about 11 minutes until liftoff

update:
Stage 1 successfully landed on drone ship. This is the first success for stage one when coming in hot from a geosynchronous transfer orbit launch. On the drone ship it definitely looked hotter with flames still present after landing.

The rest of the mission so far seems to be proceeding nominally.

[QUOTE=only_human;433192]Stage 1 successfully landed on drone ship. This is the first success for stage one when coming in hot from a geosynchronous transfer orbit launch. On the drone ship it definitely looked hotter with flames still present after landing.[/QUOTE]And it seems that the first stage is also closer to center than last time.
:clap::faf:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;433198]And it seems that the first stage is also closer to center than last time.[/QUOTE]

It was accurate last time, just a bit windier.


The ups and down are palpable: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bMeDj76ig&t=37m35s[/url]

[QUOTE=Dubslow;433204]It was accurate last time, just a bit windier.


The ups and down are palpable: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bMeDj76ig&t=37m35s[/url][/QUOTE]

That timestamp is now useless, they cut some earlier footage from before the launch. New link: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bMeDj76ig&t=28m35s[/url]

[In my defense, the thread is about space missions after all]

Saturday nite [i]pienso borracho[/i] (or whatever the Spanish for 'drunken musing' is) ... Watching an old episode of [i]Lost In Space[/i] on MeTV right now ("Target: Earth", S3 ep16), in which the aliens du jour look like, well, human-sized piles of :poop: with imperial-conquest tendencies.

Q: Why are the Poop People so unpopular all around the galaxy?

A: Because nobody likes someone who makes a habit of speaking in the 'turd person.'

Ha, ha, ha, a million laughs... (we left-coast-to-asia-pacific-time-zone folks have to make our own fun around here this time of night.)

Looks like OCISLY will arrive back to port in the morning on Monday. It might still be dark.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;433345]Looks like OCISLY will arrive back to port in the morning on Monday. It might still be dark.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4ihp1p/f9024_recovery_thread/"]Tracking thread.[/URL]

SpaceX has released HD video of the landing from various cameras on the barge.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHqLz9ni0Bo[/url]

As this was a GTO mission (as opposed to the CRS-8 LEO launch), the landing was substantially higher energy; double the velocity, quadruple the energy, and 8x the drag heating. The boostback burn was skipped entirely, and the landing burn used 3 engines (line formation) rather than the one used on both prior successes (though 2 of the 3 shut off before the center engine does as it throttles down in the last few seconds).

A redditor timed the light -> sound gap from the first angle, and a gap of 3.03 seconds indicates that the landing burn started at roughly 1km altitude (3K feet).

Any idea what the green flashes at the end were? My guess is drips of triethylborane from the engine-relighting system, but I'm surprised there was enough to make such bright flashes.

[QUOTE=fivemack;433490]Any idea what the green flashes at the end were? My guess is drips of triethylborane from the engine-relighting system, but I'm surprised there was enough to make such bright flashes.[/QUOTE]

It is definitely from the TEA-TEB ignition system, but exactly why isn't quite known. Best guess anyone has is some sort of post-flight safing (though IIRC the first such flash came very shortly after touchdown).

Six minutes of panning over the returned stage at Port Canaveral. Not much to glean from it though. The painted flag took a beating. The little pop out T-rex guidance hands are [I]not[/I] indicative of any kind of over-compensation, thankyouverymuch.
[url]https://youtu.be/nPlt56HckRI[/url]
[YOUTUBE]nPlt56HckRI[/YOUTUBE]

The Dragon cargo capsule returns home tomorrow. Need more cameras.
[URL="http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-tv-to-broadcast-dragon-departure-from-international-space-station"]NASA TV to Broadcast Dragon Departure from International Space Station[/URL]
[QUOTE]After delivering almost 7,000 pounds of cargo to the International Space Station, including the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), the SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft is set to leave the orbital laboratory with valuable science research and return to Earth on Wednesday, May 11. NASA Television will provide live coverage of Dragon's departure beginning at 9 a.m. EDT.

The Dragon capsule, which arrived at the station April 10, will be detached from the Earth-facing side of the station's Harmony module using the Canadarm2 robotic arm, operated by ground controllers. Robotics controllers will maneuver Dragon into place and Expedition 47 robotic arm operator Tim Peake of ESA (European Space Agency) will execute the command for its 9:18 a.m. release.

Dragon will fire its thrusters three times to move to a safe distance from the station before being commanded to begin its deorbit burn about 2 p.m. The capsule will splash down in the Pacific Ocean about 2:55 p.m. The deorbit burn and splashdown will not be broadcast on NASA TV.

A recovery team will retrieve the capsule and its more than 3,700 pounds of return cargo, including samples from ongoing space station research, which ultimately will be shipped to laboratories for further study. This cargo includes samples from human research, biology and biotechnology studies, physical science investigations and education activities sponsored by NASA and the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), the nonprofit organization that manages research aboard the U.S. national laboratory portion of the space station. The spacecraft also will return the final batch of human research samples from the one-year crew mission.

In the event of adverse weather conditions in the Pacific, the backup departure and splashdown date is Saturday, May 14.

Dragon, the only space station resupply spacecraft able to return to Earth intact, launched April 8 on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, for the company’s eighth NASA-contracted commercial resupply mission to the station.

For NASA TV scheduling and video streaming information, visit:

[url]http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv[/url][/QUOTE]