:ban: He posts bullshit in all threads.

He might be right about "living planets". They've found so many potentially habitable exoplanets out there. One of them might have life on it.

[URL="https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/9/15597756/spacex-falcon-heavy-first-engine-test-main-rocket"]Watch SpaceX fire up the first big engine test of the Falcon Heavy’s main core[/URL]
[QUOTE]SpaceX has been promising to fly its next big rocket, the Falcon Heavy, for about four years now — but in a new video released today, the company revealed the vehicle may be finally getting ready for its maiden voyage. The video shows the Falcon Heavy’s main core going through its first major static fire test, which ignites the booster’s engines while the vehicle is strapped down. The test was conducted at SpaceX’s test site and development facility in McGregor, Texas, last week, ahead of a planned late-summer launch.[/QUOTE]

Falcon Heavy Center Core Test Firing
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSAWd-b5uhU[/url]
[YOUTUBE]PSAWd-b5uhU[/YOUTUBE]

FWIW, that video was hijacked directly from the SpaceX twitter account

[QUOTE=Dubslow;458699]FWIW, that video was hijacked directly from the SpaceX twitter account[/QUOTE]
I included a Verge article that fairly uses the Twitter link. If YouTube receives a takedown request for that non-commercial copy of essentially a press-release publicity video then all the mechanisms will have been followed. I think it is okay on this scale but am willing to be corrected.

[QUOTE=only_human;458704]I included a Verge article that fairly uses the Twitter link. If YouTube receives a takedown request for that non-commercial copy of essentially a press-release publicity video then all the mechanisms will have been followed. I think it is okay on this scale but am willing to be corrected.[/QUOTE]

I didn't click on the link :smile: Sorry. I agree it's not a big deal, just a kind of kneejerk hypercorrective reaction on my part. (Total time between me clicking on the thread and hitting "Submit Reply" was less than 30 seconds, notwithstanding the time I took to watch most of the video for a second time.)

SpaceX CRS-11.
 

[URL="https://www.wired.com/2017/06/watch-spacex-relaunch-commercial-cargo-capsule-first-time/"]SpaceX are about to attempt yet another first for a commercial entity -- re-flying pressurised[/URL] kit.

T minus a couple of hours and counting.

[URL="http://www.spacex.com/webcast"]This feed should come live in about an hour and a half[/URL]. Some of us stream from many sources to get the technical feed as well.

[QUOTE=chalsall;460255][URL="https://www.wired.com/2017/06/watch-spacex-relaunch-commercial-cargo-capsule-first-time/"]SpaceX are about to attempt yet another first for a commercial entity -- re-flying pressurised[/URL] kit.

T minus a couple of hours and counting.

[URL="http://www.spacex.com/webcast"]This feed should come live in about an hour and a half[/URL]. Some of us stream from many sources to get the technical feed as well.[/QUOTE]

Launch scrubbed.because of weather. Maybe tomorrow...

[QUOTE=ET_;460270]Launch scrubbed.because of weather. Maybe tomorrow...[/QUOTE]

Lightening strikes. Possibly Saturday.

Saturday 1707ET/2107UTC is the backup target

Just looking at Paul Allen's [URL="https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=stratolaunch"]Stratolaunch[/URL] makes me feel uneasy.

This is supposed to replace part of a rocket's first stage energy needs by flying the rocket up to some altitude and velocity prior to ignition.

So I don't like thinking about ignition problems after releasing the rocket and any other problems involving having to release the rocket anyway or fly it back to the ground after some problem occurs. BTW is that airframe going to be okay with perverse torque incidents?

Elon estimated that flying a rocket up this way might save 5% fuel.

Edit: A positive of this thing mentioned in places I skimmed: A rocket nozzle will require less compromises between full atmosphere and vacuum dimensions.

I agree, on the face it doesn't look like it'll save that much fuel. 10 km high, maybe 250-300 m/s of airplance velocity -- a very small fraction of the ~7700 m/s needed for an LEO parking orbit. I don't imagine the rocket failing will be much of an issue -- as long as it's 50-100 miles of desert (or ocean) in the direction of travel, collateral damage will be essentially nil. And I don't think the optimized nozzle will affect much either, maybe a few percent. So I think an absolute best case scenario is 10% less delta v required for a given rocket, which admittedly could be a lot more from a fuel fraction perspective thanks to the exponentiality of the rocket equation, but still I don't really see it as being a grand way to reduce costs.

Another advantage of Stratolaunch might be avoiding max Q headaches by launching above most of the atmosphere.

edit: oh, I forgot, I saw somewhere mention that some some launch weather problems would be avoidable.

I wonder how the development costs would compare with those of a linear accelerator. Of course, those would be best sited at higher altitudes, near the equator. This puts a number of constraints on the idea.
[Edit: Oh. OK. The plane exists. Do the intended payloads?]
Still, for smaller launches this might be helpful. The catapult might have a lot to recommend it, if it could fling freight capsules into orbit.

Remember that saving fuel also saves more fuel. For example, the Saturn V burned about 160 tons of fuel alone (exclusive of oxidizer), before it cleared the tower (~400', ~120m). That is over 5% of the total launch mass. Starting the rocket at 30,000 feet (9,000m) would save a large amount of fuel that requires more fuel to lift.

When SpaceX was possibly going to be providing the rocket portion, it would have had only 5 Merlin engines. Higher altitude and less weight of fuel means less thrust needed, which means less engines.

This would be at least the 4th airplane-rocket combo to launch a satellite (3rd rocket family). And another advantage of the plane, it can be flown right on the equator for maximum free power.

Ah! I had wondered about a Merlin configuration for such a process.

Okay here is some info from existing [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)"]Pegasus[/URL] air launched rockets:
[QUOTE][B]Launch profile[/B]

In a Pegasus launch, the carrier aircraft takes off from a runway with support and checkout facilities. Such locations have included Kennedy Space Center / Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida; Vandenberg Air Force Base and Dryden Flight Research Center, California; Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia; Kwajalein Range in the Pacific Ocean, and the Canary Islands in the Atlantic. Orbital offers launches from Alcantara, Brazil, but no known customers have performed any. The capabilities of Alcantara are superfluous to other sites, without being any more convenient.

Upon reaching a predetermined staging time, location, and velocity vector the aircraft releases the Pegasus. After five seconds of free-fall, the first stage ignites and the vehicle pitches up. The 45-degree delta wing (of carbon composite construction and double-wedge airfoil) aids pitch-up and provides some lift. The tail fins provide steering for first-stage flight, as the Orion 50S motor does not have a thrust-vectoring nozzle.

Approximately 1 minute and 17 seconds later, the Orion 50S motor burns out. The vehicle is at over 200,000 feet (61 km) in altitude and hypersonic speed. The first stage falls away, taking the wing and tail surfaces, and the second stage ignites. The Orion 50 burns for approximately 1 minute and 18 seconds. Attitude control is by thrust vectoring the Orion 50 motor around two axes, pitch and yaw; roll control is provided by nitrogen thrusters on the third stage.

Midway through second-stage flight, the launcher has reached a near-vacuum altitude. The fairing splits and falls away, uncovering the payload and third stage. Upon burnout of the second-stage motor, the stack coasts until reaching a suitable point in its trajectory, depending on mission. Then the Orion 50 is discarded, and the third stage's Orion 38 motor ignites. It too has a thrust-vectoring nozzle, assisted by the nitrogen thrusters for roll. After approximately 64 seconds, the third stage burns out.

A fourth stage is sometimes added for a higher altitude, finer altitude accuracy, or more complex maneuvers. The HAPS (Hydrazine Auxiliary Propulsion System) is powered by three restartable, monopropellant hydrazine thrusters. As with dual launches, the HAPS cuts into the fixed volume available for payload. In at least one instance, the spacecraft was built around the HAPS.

Guidance is via a 32-bit computer and an IMU. A GPS receiver gives additional information. Due to the air launch and wing lift, the first-stage flight algorithm is custom-designed. The second- and third-stage trajectories are ballistic, and their guidance is derived from a Space Shuttle algorithm.

[B]Carrier aircraft[/B]

[B]The carrier aircraft (initially a NASA B-52, now an L-1011 owned by Orbital) serves as a booster to increase payloads at reduced cost. 40,000 feet (12,000 m) is only about 4% of a low earth orbital altitude, and the subsonic aircraft reaches only about 3% of orbital velocity, yet by delivering the launch vehicle to this speed and altitude, the reusable aircraft replaces a costly first-stage booster.

The single biggest cause of traditional launch delays is weather. Carriage to 40,000 feet takes the Pegasus above the troposphere, into the stratosphere. Conventional weather is limited to the troposphere, and crosswinds are much gentler at 40,000 feet. Thus the Pegasus is largely immune to weather-induced delays and their associated costs, once at altitude. (Bad weather is still a factor during takeoff, ascent, and the transit to the staging point).

Air launching reduces range costs. No blastproof pad, blockhouse, or associated equipment are needed. This permits takeoff from a wide variety of sites, generally limited by the support and preparation requirements of the payload. The travel range of the aircraft allows launches at the equator, which increases performance and is a requirement for some mission orbits. Launching over oceans also reduces insurance costs, which are often large for a vehicle filled with volatile fuel and oxidizer.

Launch at altitude allows a larger, more efficient, yet cheaper first-stage nozzle. Its expansion ratio can be designed for low ambient air pressures, without risking flow separation and flight instability during low-altitude flight. The extra diameter of the high-altitude nozzle would be difficult to gimbal. But with reduced crosswinds, the fins can provide sufficient first-stage steering. This allows a fixed nozzle, which saves cost and weight versus a hot joint.[/B]

A single-impulse launch results in an elliptical orbit, with a high apogee and low perigee. The use of three stages, plus the coast period between second- and third-stage firings, help to circularize the orbit, ensuring the perigee clears the Earth's atmosphere. If the Pegasus launch had begun at low altitude, the coast period or thrust profile of the stages would have to be modified to prevent skimming of the atmosphere after one pass.[/QUOTE]

Our attempts to launch a rocket from a plane in [URL="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqkdD5-aHUAhUQ0IMKHdFuDYkQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fkerbalspaceprogram.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNEkP92dTnDB7qrlaay0UWNorsrR2g&sig2=o6T5EWzIs_UxH-2roiQp_A"]Kerbal Space Program[/URL] have not ended well for the Kerbals involved.

:razz:

[QUOTE=kladner;460391]I wonder how the development costs would compare with those of a linear accelerator. Of course, those would be best sited at higher altitudes, near the equator. This puts a number of constraints on the idea.
[Edit: Oh. OK. The plane exists. Do the intended payloads?]
Still, for smaller launches this might be helpful. The catapult might have a lot to recommend it, if it could fling freight capsules into orbit.[/QUOTE]An orbital velocity linac would have serious thermal problems for its projectile. Hitting a thousandth of an atmosphere at 20km/s is enough to make meteors burn and/or explode. Remember what happened over Siberia (at least) three times in the last 110 years. Hitting half an atmosphere is seriously interesting.

The cheap way around the problem is to build a very rugged rocket and sent that on a high sub-orbital trajectory. The expensive ways are to arrange for a vacuum ahead of the projectile, either contained in tube or by pushing the air out of the way just in time, either through powerful lasers or with sacrificial mass accelerated in the same linac.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;460395]This would be at least the 4th airplane-rocket combo to launch a satellite (3rd rocket family). And another advantage of the plane, it can be flown right on the equator for maximum free power.[/QUOTE]

And another advantage is you can get above weather, which scrubbed SpaceX's Thursday launch, and has a 40% probably of scrubbing today's.

SpaceX feed is now live: [url]http://www.spacex.com/webcast[/url]

[QUOTE=chalsall;460448]SpaceX feed is now live: [url]http://www.spacex.com/webcast[/url][/QUOTE]

When I reincarnate, I hope to do great things.

[QUOTE=chalsall;460452]When I reincarnate, I hope to do great things.[/QUOTE]

They pulled this off. As expected.

In the Dragon cargo is a cool kind of solar panel that will be tested but is not currently going to be an addition to the ISS.

Instead of rigid solar panels it is flexible and rolled up under some tension to spring open "like a party favor." [url]https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/spacex-falcon-9-crs-11-dragon-iss-100th-39a/[/url]
[QUOTE]ROSA is a prototype for a new compact solar array, which will be deployed at the space station to test its deployment mechanism and demonstrate it in orbit, although this will not form a permanent part of the station’s power generation system.[/QUOTE]

[url]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/roll-out-solar-array-technology-benefits-for-nasa-commercial-sector[/url]
[QUOTE]The Roll Out Solar Array (ROSA) is one of the options eyed by NASA that could power an advanced solar electric propulsion spacecraft that makes possible such endeavors as the agency’s Asteroid Redirect Mission—plucking a multi-ton boulder from an asteroid’s surface, and then maneuvering that object into a stable orbit around the moon for human inspection and sampling.

Tapping into ROSA technology allows the conversion of sunlight into electrical power that drives the ion thrusters of a solar electric propulsion spacecraft. ROSA is expected to enable a number of space initiatives and is a cost-saving plus to transport cargo over long distances beyond the Earth.

Commercial satellite platforms

One of the companies that NASA STMD contracted with is Deployable Space Systems (DSS) of Santa Barbara, California to work on the ROSA. DSS has partnered with Space Systems Loral (SSL) of Palo Alto, California to apply the technology into SSL’s heritage commercial satellite platform. SSL builds some of the world’s highest power satellites.

Higher power increases satellite capability, particularly for applications like broadband and ultra high-definition television, explains Al Tadros, SSL vice president for Civil and Department of Defense Business.

“We get more power by using larger solar arrays. But efficiently packaging them for launch and then deploying those big arrays by a spacecraft has been the challenge.”Tadros says. “What the work on ROSA has done is develop a technique to deploy very large surface areas of flexible solar arrays, doing that efficiently with low risk,” Tadros adds. “It’s more power without increasing the mass dramatically.”

ROSA is an enabler for SSL business, Tadros adds. “Higher power can translate to more payload and more revenue for our customers.”

Scalable solar wings

In general, the solar array rolls up around a spindle to form a compact cylinder for launch. Those solar wings are then deployed via strain energy in rolled booms that form the outer sides of the structure. A lightweight mesh material supports strings of photovoltaic cells that churn out electrical power.

What’s more is that ROSA is scalable. It can be configured and combined with other ROSAs for very high power levels, Michael Ragsdale says, Research and Development project manager at SSL.

Deployment of the innovative ROSA is straightforward, a two-stage process that takes roughly ten minutes, Ragsdale says. “It’s a simple mechanism that controls the array deployment and that increases its reliability.”

SSL is working closely with space agency researchers at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, and its contractor DSS to qualify ROSA to become an integral part of SSL’s 1300 satellite platform product line.

Technology testing

The U.S. Air Force has funded a test flight of the ROSA mechanism, now scheduled for a SpaceX launch in Spring 2017 to the International Space Station, where it will be deployed in space.

ROSA is groundbreaking, a lightweight technology that rolls up and stows into a very compact volume, explains Brian Spence, president of DSS. “NASA’s investment in ROSA was important to elevate the maturity level of the technology and I am pleased to see a good return on investment of taxpayer dollars.”

DSS is a small business founded some eight years ago, Spence notes, and brought to bear its cadre of engineers in solar array, deployable boom, mechanism and composites design to bring ROSA to flight-ready status.

“It’s very unique and innovative, different than anything that’s been done before,” Spence points out. “However, it’s also extremely simple. That aspect of the technology really lends itself well to being accepted by end users, like SSL.”

Looking into the future, Spence envisions ROSA technology as key for NASA’s solar electric propulsion needs as well as robotic and human journeys to Mars and beyond. For example, excursions on Mars can benefit by deploying solar arrays, he adds, and then retract them for point-to-point travel across the rugged landscape of the Red Planet.

“I think that we’re at the cusp of something really big here,” Spence concludes.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;460418]An orbital velocity linac would have serious thermal problems for its projectile. Hitting a thousandth of an atmosphere at 20km/s is enough to make meteors burn and/or explode. [/QUOTE]

There is of course the fact that low earth regime orbital velocities are roughly 8 km/s, not 20.

Beyond doubt, an accelerator would be much better off say, on Luna. They are just a romantic notion I latched onto in sci-fi, though they are not the only far-fetched launch means which have turned up in various stories.
See [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop"]Lofstrom loop:max:
[/URL]

Second ever re-used booster will be launching in 1.5 hours, 1510 EDT = 1910 UTC

[QUOTE=Dubslow;461879]Second ever re-used booster will be launching in 1.5 hours, 1510 EDT = 1910 UTC[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.spacex.com/webcast"]Should be live in 27 minutes[/URL].

[QUOTE=chalsall;461889][URL="http://www.spacex.com/webcast"]Should be live in 27 minutes[/URL].[/QUOTE]

It's now live.

[QUOTE=chalsall;461891]It's now live.[/QUOTE]

And they did it again.

[QUOTE=chalsall;461894]And they did it again.[/QUOTE]

Looked like quite a rough landing though. That core's active service is almost certainly over

[QUOTE=Dubslow;461895]Looked like quite a rough landing though. That core's active service is almost certainly over[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Looked like a good landing.

Word of Elon :
Rocket is extra toasty and hit the deck hard (used almost all of the emergency crush core), but otherwise good

[QUOTE=firejuggler;461901]Rocket is extra toasty and hit the deck hard (used almost all of the emergency crush core), but otherwise good[/QUOTE]

Add some butter, and enjoy breakfast.

[QUOTE=chalsall;461903]Add some butter, and enjoy breakfast.[/QUOTE]

My girlfriend says I have a crush on Musk.

SpaceX are scheduled to launch a rocket Sunday from California.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;461901]Word of Elon :
Rocket is extra toasty and hit the deck hard (used almost all of the emergency crush core), but otherwise good[/QUOTE]Just means that there are more missions that can have the 1st stage reused. :)
From now on in you know the mission is hard core when the rocket takes off without legs or grid fins.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;461901]Word of Elon :
Rocket is extra toasty and hit the deck hard (used almost all of the emergency crush core), but otherwise good[/QUOTE]

There is some legwork in the future:
[QUOTE]Falcon 9 Block 5
Main article: Falcon 9 Block 5
On October 23, 2016, Musk described a Falcon 9 "Block 5"[clarification needed] version that would have "a lot of minor refinements that collectively are important, but uprated thrust and [B]improved legs[/B] are the most significant."[78] On January 21, 2017 Musk added that the Block 5 version "[s]ignificantly improves performance & ease of reusability".[79] He described this version as the "final" version of the rocket. Block 5 is expected to start production in early 2017 with the initial flight in the second or the third quarter of 2017.[78][/QUOTE]

So long and thanks for all the fins
 

"[URL="https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/for-sundays-launch-spacex-to-test-significantly-upgraded-grid-fins/"]For Sunday’s launch, SpaceX to test “significantly upgraded” grid fins[/URL]
The instantaneous launch window opens at 4:24pm ET."
[QUOTE]During prior missions these grid fins, manufactured from aluminum with added thermal protection, have caught fire due to atmospheric heating. To address this problem the company has forged new grid fins from titanium. "Flying with larger & significantly upgraded hypersonic grid fins," Musk tweeted. "Single piece cast & cut titanium. Can take reentry heat with no shielding." The new fins are a bit heavier, but are designed for multiple re-uses as SpaceX seeks to more toward rapid reuse of its first stage booster.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;460465]In the Dragon cargo is a cool kind of solar panel that will be tested but is not currently going to be an addition to the ISS.

Instead of rigid solar panels it is flexible and rolled up under some tension to spring open "like a party favor." [url]https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/spacex-falcon-9-crs-11-dragon-iss-100th-39a/[/url]


[url]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/roll-out-solar-array-technology-benefits-for-nasa-commercial-sector[/url][/QUOTE]

[URL="https://www.space.com/37320-rosa-roll-out-solar-array-jettisoned.html"]Farewell, ROSA! Space Station Lets Go of Roll-Out Solar Array After Retraction Fail[/URL]
[QUOTE]After a week of tests on the end of the International Space Station's robotic arm, the Roll-Out Solar Array (ROSA) was safely jettisoned. While the rollable solar panel unfurled successfully at the beginning of the experiment, the ground operations team was unable to retract it to stow.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;462207][URL="https://www.space.com/37320-rosa-roll-out-solar-array-jettisoned.html"]Farewell, ROSA! Space Station Lets Go of Roll-Out Solar Array After Retraction Fail[/URL][/QUOTE]

And they had contingency plans in place before launch, in case they couldn't retract the array. The team simply pulled the trigger on this option after a further review.

Based on the low mass and large area, this orbital object should re-enter the atmosphere and burn up rather quickly.

[QUOTE=chalsall;462208]And they had contingency plans in place before launch, in case they couldn't retract the array. The team simply pulled the trigger on this option after a further review.

Based on the low mass and large area, this orbital object should re-enter the atmosphere and burn up rather quickly.[/QUOTE]

Good! I was worrying about more orbital junk.

There is a launch tonight and then a Dragon capsule is returning to Earth from the ISS very early Monday
[QUOTE]Falcon 9 and @Intelsat 35e vertical on Pad 39A. Weather is 40% favorable for tonight's launch window which opens at 7:36 p.m. EDT, 23:36 UTC
2 hours ago · Twitter[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/823844/SpaceX-live-stream-watch-Dragon-spacecraft-return-Earth-LIVE-online-ISS-NASA"]SpaceX live stream: Watch the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft return to Earth LIVE online[/URL]

There is no landing attemp tonight, right?

[QUOTE=firejuggler;462563]There is no landing attemp tonight, right?[/QUOTE]

Correct. Reddit has the minutiae; the satellite is too heavy to recover stage 1.
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6kt2re/welcome_to_the_rspacex_intelsat_35e_official/[/url]

The weather is bad but a comment says it is getting better.

Edit: They've had trouble with fairing recovery. I think the guided parachutes are not working right. I don't know if they will mention that but maybe they won't even have parachutes on them this time because they are leaving off the legs and fins to squeeze out extra performance.

[QUOTE=only_human;462564]Correct. Reddit has the minutiae; the satellite is too heavy to recover stage 1.
[URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6kt2re/welcome_to_the_rspacex_intelsat_35e_official/"][[/URL]/QUOTE]
From the link, I found this interesting-
[LIST][*][QUOTE]Originally this satellite was due to go up on a Falcon Heavy but improvements to the Falcon 9 i.e. Falcon 9 Full Thrust variant being able to carry up to 8,300kg to GTO meant it could be launched on a single stick launcher rather than the triple core Falcon Heavy.[/QUOTE][/LIST] The "single stick" description is rather amusing. It is a [U]very big stick[/U]. I wish they would get the Falcon Heavy further along. I suppose that the extra payload commands a premium price, to cover the loss of the booster.
The idea and image of an x3 Falcon=Heavy launching and returning is mind-blowing.

The 6700kg to GTO satellite will be one of the heaviest such launches ever, if not the heaviest in the public record. I believe Inmarsat a couple of months ago and maybe even Echostar 23 back in March may have also been originally signed for the Falcon Heavy. Part of the reason is that 5 years ago, hypothetical Falcon 9 performance was less than half of what it was today (more than its actual performance at the time, but still well less than they have since achieved). The v1.1 was really a massive stepping stone; it's much larger than 1.0 and with significantly uprated engines. The densified propellant of 1.2, together with further uprated engines, has been the icing on the cake, such that the F9 is capable of launch several GTO missions that were previously thought to require the Heavy. Some of these have been recoverable, barely, such as I think the more recent SES launches, while obviously the ones up at 6000kg, while now doable with an F9, must be expendable F9s. (The maximum GTO payload mass allowing recovery is thought to be ~5400kg. [The thread says 5300, but I think that slightly undershoots it.]) When the FH *does* come on line (cross fingers, knock on wood), that should render obsolete expendable F9s.

Edit: I think the fairing stuff will be irrelevant to the launch performance, or at least it was calculated as such by SpaceX; I say that because the subreddit noticed the dedicated fairing recovery boat (GO Searcher) had left port. (I suppose I should double check its current status, if it's ~1000-1500km downrange in the Atlantic that's a pretty good sign fairing recovery will be attempted on this launch.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;462583]The 6700kg to GTO satellite will be one of the heaviest such launches ever, if not the heaviest in the public record. I believe Inmarsat a couple of months ago and maybe even Echostar 23 back in March may have also been originally signed for the Falcon Heavy........When the FH *does* come on line (cross fingers, knock on wood), that should render obsolete expendable F9s.
[/QUOTE]
That will surely be a good thing, but I don't want things rushed, either. Are there any differences between recoverable v expendable, in structure? Is it just fuel?

no fins no leg for the expendable.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;462589]no fins no leg for the expendable.[/QUOTE]
Ah! Less weight for the heavy lift.
EDIT: .....and savings in material.

[QUOTE=kladner;462593]Ah! Less weight for the heavy lift.
EDIT: .....and savings in material.[/QUOTE]

The fins and legs are a pretty small percentage of the weight, though obviously if they're not needed, every percent counts

[QUOTE=Dubslow;462595]The fins and legs are a pretty small percentage of the weight, though obviously if they're not needed, every percent counts[/QUOTE]
A Reddit hardware cost guestimate puts a fairly high parts cost on the legs and and the new titanium fins so even without significant performance differences it seems a clear win to leave them off.
[URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/62sq7z/cost_calculation_for_falcon_9_falcon_heavy/"]Cost calculation for Falcon 9 & Falcon Heavy[/URL]
[QUOTE]luckybipedal • 92d
OK, so this is what I had in mind: I separate cost for recovery hardware and separated booster and center core cost. I also added a column for FH with the center core expended.

For a recoverable core I used the newer $40 million number. For an expendable one I used the older $30 million with an estimated cost of recovery HW of $10 million, say $5 million for the legs and another $5 million for titanium grid fins. The cost of the second stage fuselage is estimated excluding the cost of recovery HW on the 1st stage. I also increased the cost of the center core fuselage slightly to account for structural reinforcement.

With these assumptions the cost percentage of a recoverable F9 first stage gets pretty close to the stated 75%.

There is a wrinkle in this: Flying and not reusing a recoverable booster eats most of the profit. In the current configuration it's probably not as bad because they're still using cheaper aluminium grid fins and they may be reusing legs already.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;462647]A Reddit hardware cost guestimate puts a fairly high parts cost on the legs and and the new titanium fins so even without significant performance differences it seems a clear win to leave them off.
[URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/62sq7z/cost_calculation_for_falcon_9_falcon_heavy/"]Cost calculation for Falcon 9 & Falcon Heavy[/URL][/QUOTE]

I doubt that's particularly accurate. The fairings are very hard to make, very large monopiece carbon fiber, and they're ~$6M. I can't imagine that a titanium fin the size of a bed (which is way smaller than the fairing, and a much easier to handle material) costs as much as half of the fairing. The legs do have substantial amounts of carbon fiber IIRC, but not with the same shape/size requirements as the fairing. I could imagine those are a ~$1M apiece.


Either way though, I was never doubting the value of keeping them off, only their direct impact on rocket performance.

Woohoo, tomorrow is another day. Spacex message>
[QUOTE]
SpaceX
Twitter › SpaceX
Standing down today due to a violation of abort criteria, vehicle/payload in good health, next launch opportunity tomorrow, July 4th!
2 minutes ago · Twitter[/QUOTE]
So, don't really know why and the customer might also be grouchy by I like an Independence Day launch.

link via [URL="https://plus.google.com/u/0/107049823915731374389/posts/dgV8n7cHaoX"]Ed S [/URL] on Google+. This is just under 10 minutes. It feels long but it is pretty good and a nice injection of something needed for today. The fins come out at around 5 minutes but I still want to see an R2D2 arm making adjustments.
[QUOTE]Published on Jun 27, 2017
Here is a launch montage I've been working on for a while. I was able to finally finish it recently because of all the good day time launch and landings we have had. Each tile follows a single mission from launch to landing and they all synchronize at the end.[/QUOTE]
[YOUTUBE]4FU0l2JHhGs[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE]
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Replying to @SpaceX

We're going to spend the 4th doing a full review of rocket & pad systems. Launch no earlier than 5th/6th. Only one chance to get it right …
11:01 PM - 3 Jul 2017[/QUOTE]
.

Third try. [URL="http://www.spacex.com/webcast"]Webcast just went live[/URL].

.
[QUOTE]Elon Musk
Twitter › elonmusk
@SpaceX @INTELSAT Thanks @INTELSAT! Really proud of the rocket and SpaceX team today. Min apogee requirement was 28,000 km, Falcon 9 achieved 43,000 km.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
The European and Japanese satellites that make up the BepiColombo mission to the Planet Mercury are being put on display on Thursday...
The event will take place at the European Space Agency's (Esa) technical centre here in Noordwijk, Netherlands...The double mission is due to get under way in 2018...however. It is going to take seven years for the satellite duo to get to their destination.
[/QUOTE]Press article (in English): [URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40513818[/URL]

[QUOTE=Nick;462802]Press article (in English): [URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40513818[/URL][/QUOTE]

I think this is the first mission that will use a solar-electric third stage, though it also has a chemical engine for the Earth-departure and Mercury-capture impulse burns

Monday's scheduled SpaceX includes some High performance computing hardware that is Not specifically hardened for military/space. They plan to run it for a year and see how tunable parameters help resilience/reliability.

[URL="https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/11/why-hpe-is-sending-a-supercomputer-to-the-iss-on-spacexs-next-rocket/"]Why HPE is sending a supercomputer to the ISS on SpaceX’s next rocket[/URL]
[URL="https://www.nextplatform.com/2017/08/11/one-small-step-toward-supercomputers-space/"]One Small Step Toward Supercomputers in Space[/URL]
[QUOTE]The system itself is running standard RHEL 6.8 across its benchmark suite and has features common to much larger supercomputers, including the Infiniband connections. “We went with the 56Gb/s optical interconnect because we imagined with copper, we would get more of a reaction from the radiation and magnetic fields. We also eliminated the spinning rust—there is no traditional hard disk because it would be affected by the same conditions. On each node there are eight solid state disks; four of those are small but fast, the others are large but slow so we can see what effects there might be on one versus the other,” Fernandez explains.

Overall, the miniature space supercomputer is capable of a teraflop of performance—an order of magnitude above anything that is aboard ISS currently. While it is far from a Top 500-class system (after all, this is just two nodes), Fernadez says he can see a future where they scale this to a large number of nodes for more ISS compute capability. The goal for now, however, is determine what (if any) effects real-world applications will suffer in terms of errors in particular.

“We are taking a macro look at hardening a system for space conditions. Traditional hardening looks at a specific type of radiation or magnetic field then analyzes the physics to see what components might be affected to guide the protection or build strategy,” Fernandez says. “There are many knobs to turn that we usually don’t touch in the BIOS, CPU speeds, memory, and turbo modes.” He adds that there are parallel systems at the company’s labs in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin that are serving as the control group to compare HPL and other results with. The systems are running tests in 2.5 hour increments constantly and will continue for the next year.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.wftv.com/news/local/spacex-set-to-launch-iss-resupply-mission-monday/590439843[/url]
[QUOTE]The launch window is set for 12:31 p.m. Monday with weather forecasts showing a 70 percent likelihood of favorable conditions during the launch window.[/QUOTE]

Spacex's stage one reentry/landing was pretty coming back to the Florida cape. This url is a jump to that time:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLxWsYx8dbo&feature=youtu.be&t=1034[/url]

Full video:
[YOUTUBE]vLxWsYx8dbo[/YOUTUBE]

Can some one remind me how many orbital flights Blue Origin has? How many up to 150 miles and landing?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;465550]Can some one remind me how many orbital flights Blue Origin has? How many up to 150 miles and landing?[/QUOTE]

I believe none so far, though I may well be mistaken. They've focused on developing the reusability technology before scaling that to orbital -- a very, very different approach from the one taken by SpaceX (probably driven by the fact that Bezos was significantly richer than Musk, and still is even, though perhaps by a lesser factor than previously).

Another day, another rocket. Today's launch from Vandenberg and stage one drone-ship landing possibly lost lots of money because it is fulfilling a commitment for a long-delayed satellite launch that was purchased inexpensively and stayed with SpaceX despite scheduling setbacks.

[URL="https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-will-lose-millions-on-its-taiwanese-satellite-launch/"]SPACEX WILL LOSE MILLIONS ON ITS TAIWANESE SATELLITE LAUNCH[/URL]

SpaceX launched, and landed, another rocket today. I guess it's starting to become somewhat normalized.

:smile:

[QUOTE=Dubslow;467352]SpaceX launched, and landed, another rocket today. I guess it's starting to become somewhat normalized.

:smile:[/QUOTE]
Do we know the price per pound to send stuff up? I figure that should be the metric that really tells us how far we're getting. Or, price per kilogram for the non-Americans.

I think someone once said if we can get to below $100/pound, that's when things would really start to take off. But opinions are like buttholes, we all have them and they all stink.

(just added buttholes to the local dictionary, guess I've never used that word on this install)

[QUOTE=jasong;467515]Do we know the price per pound to send stuff up? I figure that should be the metric that really tells us how far we're getting. Or, price per kilogram for the non-Americans.
[/QUOTE]

Depends on the orbit, and currently prices are still mostly flat per mission regardless of customer payload.

But, they can do around 10,000 kilograms to LEO or ~5,000 kg to GTO for ~$60M, though prices may drop in the near future as reuse picks up steam.

The arithmetic is left as an exercise for the reader.

[URL="http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/spacex-launches-10-iridium-next-satellites-iridium-3-mission/"]SPACEX LAUNCHES 10 IRIDIUM NEXT SATELLITES ON IRIDIUM-3 MISSION[/URL]
[QUOTE]The Oct. 9 launch was the 42nd Falcon 9 flight since the rocket design began flying in 2010 – the 14th in 2017. It was also the 6th SpaceX mission from Vandenberg Air Force Base, four of which occurred in 2017.

[B]Should the next Falcon 9 launch on schedule, it will fly less than 60 hours later at 6:53 p.m. (22:53 GMT) Oct. 11, 2017, from Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39A in Florida.[/B] That launch will see the SES-11 satellite orbited for Luxembourg-based SES. Additionally, it will utilize a “flight-proven” booster that was first launched during the CRS-10 mission in February 2017. This will also be the first repeat customer to fly on a reused booster.[/QUOTE]

And they did it again.

A Russian launch ISS resupply mission early tomorrow (5:32 a.m. Eastern US time) only orbits Earth twice before docking.
[URL="https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-televise-international-space-station-cargo-ship-launch-docking-0"]NASA to Televise International Space Station Cargo Ship Launch, Docking[/URL]
[QUOTE][URL="http://www.nasa.gov/live"]NASA Television[/URL] will provide live coverage of the launch and docking of a Russian cargo spacecraft delivering almost three tons of food, fuel and supplies to the International Space Station beginning at 5:15 a.m. EDT Thursday, Oct. 12.

Launch of the unpiloted Russian Progress 68 is scheduled for 5:32 a.m. (3:32 p.m. Baikonur time) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

The spacecraft is set to dock to the Pirs Docking Compartment on the Russian segment at 8:56 a.m. Docking comes just three and a half hours, or two orbits of Earth, after launch to demonstrate an expedited capability for potential use on future Russian cargo and crew launches. NASA TV coverage of rendezvous and docking will begin at 8:15 a.m. Progress 68 will remain docked at the station for more than five months before departing in March for its deorbit into Earth’s atmosphere.

Keep up with the International Space Station, and its research and crews, at:

[url]http://www.nasa.gov/station[/url]

Get breaking news, images and features from the station on Instagram and Twitter:

[url]http://instagram.com/iss[/url]

[url]http://www.twitter.com/Space_Station[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;469664]A Russian launch ISS resupply mission early tomorrow (5:32 a.m. Eastern US time) only orbits Earth twice before docking.
[URL="https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-televise-international-space-station-cargo-ship-launch-docking-0"]NASA to Televise International Space Station Cargo Ship Launch, Docking[/URL][/QUOTE]

Launch scrubbed today within last minute. Next launch no earlier than Saturday the 14th of October.

The rescheduled Progress 68 cargo mission to the ISS proceeded well but did not include the originally intended quick two orbits before docking test.

Another Satellite into space...
[URL="https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/10/30/live-coverage-third-falcon-9-launch-of-the-month-set-for-monday/"]Live coverage: Third Falcon 9 launch of the month set for Monday[/URL]
[QUOTE]Liftoff is set for 3:34 p.m. EDT (1934 GMT) Monday from pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. SpaceX’s live video webcast begins around 15 minutes prior to launch.[/QUOTE]

Does anyone know the per pound expense for putting things in orbit? Inflation aside, I've heard it said that that's one of the best metrics for determining how accessible space tech is.

[QUOTE=jasong;471062]Does anyone know the per pound expense for putting things in orbit? Inflation aside, I've heard it said that that's one of the best metrics for determining how accessible space tech is.[/QUOTE]

SpaceX is less than $2500 per pound.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;471063]SpaceX is less than $2500 per pound.[/QUOTE]

It can vary wildly by what form the pound is in and what orbit exactly you're targeting.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;471070]It can vary wildly by what form the pound is in and what orbit exactly you're targeting.[/QUOTE]It cost much more, for instance, to put something in orbit around Saturn than it does for a low earth orbit.

[QUOTE=xilman;471084]It cost much more, for instance, to put something in orbit around Saturn than it does for a low earth orbit.[/QUOTE]

I of course in context meant geocentric orbits :smile: There are also plenty of such orbits which are significantly harder than LEO.

The following is closer, but only just, to the spirit of the original posts in this thread. Once round tuits become freely available again I will attempt to contribute in the original theme.

For the time being, take a look at a speculative view of what [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/your-bedroom-mars-will-look-lot-different-ncna816976"]Martian home furnishing[/URL] might look like.

In other news, a new SpaceX Block 5 Merlin Engine blew up Sunday during testing.
[URL="https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/8/16624022/spacex-merlin-rocket-engine-failure-mcgregor-texas-falcon-9"]SpaceX rocket engine explodes during test at Texas facility[/URL][QUOTE]However, the explosion isn’t expected to have too much of an impact, since the Merlin engine being tested was for the upcoming Block 5 configuration of the Falcon 9. The Block 5 is the final upgrade to the rocket that SpaceX has been developing this last year, which will supposedly have even higher thrust and improved landing abilities. Until that upgrade is finalized, though, SpaceX has been flying a transitional version of the Falcon 9 known as the Block 4.

Now, SpaceX plans to suspend all Block 5 engine testing at McGregor until the accident investigation is included, though Block 4 engine testing will proceed. The company will also start repairing the test bay the engine exploded on, which should take two to four weeks to complete. SpaceX expects repairs to be done before the investigation is over, but just in case, the company has an additional test bay at McGregor it can use. However, that second test bay sustained some minor damage in the explosion, too, but repairs should only take two to three days before testing can resume.

In the meantime, the company will forge ahead with its launches, and SpaceX says it hopes to give public updates on the investigation in the coming weeks.[/QUOTE]
Ars Technica [URL="https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/an-experimental-spacex-rocket-engine-has-exploded-in-texas/"]says[/URL]:
[QUOTE]Sunday's explosion, which was first reported by The Washington Post, occurred before the engine was lit, a source told Ars. It happened during a procedure known as LOX drop, in which liquid oxygen is added to the engine to determine if there are any leaks. At that point, something caused the fluids within the rocket engine to ignite. Testing of the Block 5 Merlin engine will be suspended until the cause of that ignition is found and fixed.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jasong;471062]Does anyone know the per pound expense for putting things in orbit? Inflation aside, I've heard it said that that's one of the best metrics for determining how accessible space tech is.[/QUOTE]
As for ISS resupply, [URL="https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/in-depth-study-commercial-cargo-program-a-bargain-for-nasa/"]Commercial cargo program a bargain for NASA[/URL]
[QUOTE]According to the new research paper by Edgar Zapata, who works at Kennedy Space Center, the supply services offered by SpaceX and Orbital ATK have cost NASA two to three times less than if the space agency had continued to fly the space shuttle. For his analysis, Zapata attempted to mak[B][/B]e an "apples to apples" comparison between the commercial vehicles, through June 2017, and the space shuttle.

Specifically, the analysis of development and operational expenses, as well as vehicle failures, found that [B]SpaceX[/B] had cost NASA about [B]$89,000 per kg[/B] of cargo delivered to the space station. By the same methodology, he found [B]Orbital ATK[/B] had cost [B]$135,000 per kg[/B]. Had the shuttle continued to fly, and deliver cargo via its Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, it would have cost $272,000 per kg.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;471377]As for ISS resupply, [URL="https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/in-depth-study-commercial-cargo-program-a-bargain-for-nasa/"]Commercial cargo program a bargain for NASA[/URL][/QUOTE]

Not quite apples to apples of course, since the shuttle was capable of much more than delivering cargo.

Having said that, I'm glad the shuttle is dead and I'm super glad NASA seems to be still moving in the direction of fixed-price commercial contracts to get shit done. This is definitely better than keeping the shuttle around. I'm excited for the future of NASA (minus the SLS stuff).

[QUOTE=Dubslow;471389](minus the SLS stuff).[/QUOTE]
Stuff some orange tanks together, put some "Mainsail" engines under them and you're good to go :anurag:, just don't show it to Jebediah, else he might fancy a test flight.

[QUOTE=fivemack;323069]Does anyone know how to make optics for that line? NuSTAR is state of the art with depth-graded multilayers, and manages 40 arc-second resolution at 80keV; the papers about unexpectedly high refractive indices of silicon lenses at 2MeV suggest that the 'unexpectedly high' value is still something like n=1+1e-6, at which point you're talking separate lens and detector spacecraft at the very least.[/QUOTE][url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X13002620[/url]

Sorry for the necroposting but a) I only just came across this and similar links and, b) it's about time some posts were made in accordance with the original rules for this thread.

Further to this: the refractive index of a material usually shows extraordinary behaviour at wavelengths close to an electronic transition. The gamma radiation observed in Al-26 decay comes from the de-excitation of the daughter Mg-26 nucleus. Mg-26 is stable, which suggests to me that it may be an interesting optical material.

SpaceX rocket dazzles in California sky as it transports 10 satellites into space
 

[url]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/23/spacex-rocket-dazzles-in-california-sky-as-it-carries-10-satellites-into-space[/url]
[QUOTE]The Falcon 9 booster lifted off from coastal Vandenberg air force base, carrying the latest batch of satellites for Iridium Communications.
The launch in the setting sun created a shining, billowing streak that was widely seen throughout southern California and as far away as Phoenix, Arizona.
[/QUOTE]

...and I saw that trail! :max:
It was striking - with just the last sunlight in the air, highly contrasted.

SpaceX Iridium-4 Webcast
 

SpaceX Iridium-4 Webcast
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtdjCwo6d3Q[/url]

No recovery of the first stage, since this was an old block version (III).

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;474700]SpaceX Iridium-4 Webcast
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtdjCwo6d3Q[/url]

No recovery of the first stage, since this was an old block version (III).[/QUOTE]
Some of the sites I looked at said there was 'no reason given'. That explains things a little.

In addition to the "old block three" explanation, there is some question about whether the Pacific drone ship (Just Read The Instructions) is operational. It's known that it was partially cannabalized earlier this year to repair the Atlantic drone ship (Of Course I Still Love You). I don't believe Spacex has offered an official reason.

When are they going to have a drone ship for the Gulf Coast? Or will OCISLY be used for that too?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;474756]When are they going to have a drone ship for the Gulf Coast? Or will OCISLY be used for that too?[/QUOTE]Don't know if there will be a competition to name it but as Boaty McBoatface has already been taken I suggest
"You did what?!!"

[QUOTE=xilman;474802]Don't know if there will be a competition to name it but as Boaty McBoatface has already been taken I suggest
"You did what?!!"[/QUOTE]

I suggest "Smooth."

Another night time RTLS rocket landing is scheduled for, hopefully, just over 2 hours from now.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;476904]Another night time RTLS rocket landing is scheduled for, hopefully, just over 2 hours from now.[/QUOTE]And they stick the landing, again. :yawn:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;476920]And they stick the landing, again. :yawn:[/QUOTE]

You know launching and then landing again is getting a bit routine when even the SpaceX control room is more than half empty... :smile: :tu:

FH, on the other hand, should be *really* exciting!

[QUOTE=chalsall;476929]FH, on the other hand, should be *really* exciting![/QUOTE]My launch tracking app is saying January 19 as the current date for that show.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;476934]My launch tracking app is saying January 19 as the current date for that show.[/QUOTE]

Don't believe it. Current NET is Jan 29, and that's probably a placeholder.