Certainly nice looking in the one picture, more should be released in the next few days.

The only real things that will matter is how it works for the user, how comfortable and how usable it is in real situations. I believe this one is a "transport suit" designed for the ground to orbital docking. So survivable in a vacuum as required but more for entry/exit and not necessarily for full EVA in space. Very well could be good for planets with atmosphere (i.e. Mars) but we don't know the material durability etc. (can it withstand sharp rock, self heal etc.)

Still SpaceX continues it's coolness!

Tugg

That looks awesome! Very futuristic. I actually like that they're trying to make it look cool even though function is priority number one.

"Scheduled for Aug 24, 2017
SpaceX is targeting launch of FORMOSAT-5 from Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC-4E) at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
The 42-minute launch window opens on Thursday, August 24 at 11:51 a.m. PDT, or 18:51 UTC. The satellite will be deployed approximately 11 minutes after launch."

Live Feed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4u3ZN2g_MI

I'll be tuning in! SpaceX is firing on all Merlins! There's so much going on and up.

Successful Stage 1 recovery and payload deployment.

Ho hum. Another landing and another deployment without issue.

Clockwork!

Tugg

Congrats SpaceX! Awesomeness. Successful mission in all aspects - again!

Pic or it didn't happen:

Thank you. Looks so innocuous, and not at all like the most important leap in our spacefaring capabilities since the Saturn V.

Incidentally, here's an interview with Gwynne Shotwell I still haven't listened to:

Broadcast 2934 | 22 Jun 2017
http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/22-jun ... e-shotwell

By the way, how come that small Taiwanese sat was launched so many years behind schedule?

SeJoWa wrote:

By the way, how come that small Taiwanese sat was launched so many years behind schedule?

Pretty good article on wired.

https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-will ... te-launch/

Basically the demise of the Falcon 1, coupled with the incidents in 2015 and 2016 basically put Spacex in a tough spot of fulfilling a contract, or taking a total bath.

What we saw as a ho-hum launch yesterday, was probably a nail biter for the operations and sales staff at Spacex.

SeJoWa wrote:

By the way, how come that small Taiwanese sat was launched so many years behind schedule?

Funny, I just read an article on that:
https://www.wired.com/story/spacex-will ... te-launch/

Interesting read and SpaceX essentially lost money on this launch since it was so small and light and intended to be fired on the Falcon 1e. However the booster reuse ultimately changes that calculation.

Basically SpaceX changed its target launch audience and abandoned the Falcon 1, delaying the Formosat launch. Then had to find a secondary payload to bulk out the launch, then had to reschedule several times do to the two launch failures and could not then find additional payload for the insertion timing of this launch.

Tugg

Is that the white Power Ranger?

Tugger wrote:

Interesting read and SpaceX essentially lost money on this launch since it was so small and light and intended to be fired on the Falcon 1e. However the booster reuse ultimately changes that calculation.

Basically SpaceX changed its target launch audience and abandoned the Falcon 1, delaying the Formosat launch. Then had to find a secondary payload to bulk out the launch, then had to reschedule several times do to the two launch failures and could not then find additional payload for the insertion timing of this launch.

Tugg

And to add insult to injury, they had to use a brand new Falcon9 ( not sure if that was contractual or whether they don't have any flight-ready preflown first stages), and had to use the barge for landing even though the small payload meant the rocket had more than enough fuel to boost back to dry land, as their west coast landing pad hasn't been certified yet...

I wonder why they couldn't subcontract that launch to another operator with a smaller rocket rather than lose so much money. They could probably have worked something out with the sat owner...?


And whatever is SpaceX doing with their sizable collection of recovered first stages?
Am I wrong, or have they only reflown hardware once or twice?

Francoflier wrote:

Tugger wrote:

And whatever is SpaceX doing with their sizable collection of recovered first stages?
Am I wrong, or have they only reflown hardware once or twice?

They're working on refurbishing most of them and probably also using each one as a sort of test bed to trim the refurbishment procedures wherever possible. They should have at least one ready for launch already though.

The main reason I'd suspect not a whole lot have been re-flown yet is simply because of contractual reasons. I'd venture a guess and say that a lot of customers aren't yet fully comfortable using refurbished boosters yet and so stipulate that a new one must be used. I'm sure that as more and more refurbished boosters are launched for a second or third time (or more) and demonstrate reliability in doing so that more customers will jump on board.

The next refurbished booster scheduled for a launch is in early October with SES-11 (B1031.2).

SpaceX successfully tests Falcon Heavy rocket’s first stage cores:

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is hoping to launch his company’s Falcon Heavy rocket for the first time in November, and with just a couple of months to go, the company announced that it has completed testing on all all three of the rocket’s first stage cores.

In the tweet, the company says that three first stage cores have completed their testing, and showed off a video of a static test of one of the cores. The company conducted its first static test of the Falcon Heavy’s main core in May.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/2/16246 ... tage-cores

Video:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYheQbWF0dm/

I love that they're using a refurbished F9 booster for this.

I wonder if they'll used preflown boosters on the first FH launch. (Minus the center one which is apparently very different from the others structurally)

Next SpaceX launch is Thursday, launching the much wondered about X-37B. With Irma bearing down I hope it gets off the pad. Irma apparently isn't a direct launch concern.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/ ... 632757001/

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Next SpaceX launch is Thursday, launching the much wondered about X-37B. With Irma bearing down I hope it gets off the pad. Irma apparently isn't a direct launch concern.

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/ ... 632757001/

Tugg

Launch feed. 10 minutes away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M6Zvi-fFv4

Another successful launch and landing! Congrats SpaceX and US Air Force.

Done & done.

Beautiful!

I love how the booster immediately flips around after the second stage is released.

Tugg

The good thing about those military launches is that all the attention remains on the first stage after the second stage separates and goes merrily onwards to its secretive mission...

One thing that will never cease to amaze me is how the rockets plunges engine firsts towards the ground at several times the speed of sound.
When you see how delicate these rocket engines look, it's a wonder they don't suffer more damage than that.

I wonder if a man could survive a trip on that booster (given a spacesuit and a tightly bolted seat)... the reentry burns looks quite fierce, but I have no idea what kind of g force is involved.

Francoflier wrote:

I wonder if a man could survive a trip on that booster (given a spacesuit and a tightly bolted seat)... the reentry burns looks quite fierce, but I have no idea what kind of g force is involved.

Aside from the g-forces, it's probably too hot for a man to survive.

Schweet. One of two Air Force mini-shuttles back in orbit, booster landed on point, more moolah in the kitty. Looks so easy.

Now, to batten down the hatches.

Regarding hitching a ride on the booster, I can answer for the very last burn. Watched the vid and plugged in:
V_lastBurn = 1116 km/h
V_0 = 0
Height_lastBurn = 4.2 km
Returns -1.17 G

Tugger wrote:

Beautiful!

I love how the booster immediately flips around after the second stage is released.

Tugg

I got a kick out of the fact that the Cape was visible during most of the first stage descent.

i'd love to see a 3d representation of the first stages journey, as its obvious the boost back burn doesn't actually do a straight "return the vehicle to origin", which raises questions about which velocity are they showing on those graphics...

Seeing the actual trajectories involved would be a nice visualisation of the entire thing.

@moo:
https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... tion-not-j

https://www.google.com/search?q=space+X ... y&tbm=isch

Any images showing a "sharp" change of direction are wrong.

KarelXWB wrote:

Aside from the g-forces, it's probably too hot for a man to survive.

Not sure what the temperatures would be. The top of the booster is quite far from the engines, and there's a lot of fuel at cryogenic temperatures in there. If anything, it might get too cold.
After landing, it is quite noticeable that the top part of the first stage doesn't suffer from charring like the bottom part. I'm guessing the clear line between the dark and lighter parts is where the diesel kerosene tank stops and the liquid O2 tank starts...

SeJoWa wrote:

Returns -1.17 G

That's quite mild by astronaut standards. I think the re-entry burn might be more violent.

moo wrote:

i'd love to see a 3d representation of the first stages journey, as its obvious the boost back burn doesn't actually do a straight "return the vehicle to origin", which raises questions about which velocity are they showing on those graphics...

I had a few issues getting my head around that maneuver as well, but these helped:

http://zlsa.github.io/infographics/data ... r-rtls.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT50R2d ... e=youtu.be

The way I see it, the first stage just follows a standard ballistic trajectory, except the boostback basically inverts the lateral speed vector of that parabola. The resulting trajectory is very roughly the mirror image (along a vertical pane) of what the freefall trajectory would have been.

This is why the first stage speed indicated on the broadcast slows down but never zeroes out. The booster is still climbing, and the boostback only affects its 'sideways' speed.
There is a point along that boostback, however, where the booster's ground speed goes to naught and then accelerates again in the other direction.

But that's only from my layman's perspective.

WIederling's first linked image illustrates the trajectories well, and also says:

Reentry burn - hypersonic three engine burn
Landing burn - single engine terminal burn

Francoflier wrote:

The good thing about those military launches is that all the attention remains on the first stage after the second stage separates and goes merrily onwards to its secretive mission...

One thing that will never cease to amaze me is how the rockets plunges engine firsts towards the ground at several times the speed of sound.
When you see how delicate these rocket engines look, it's a wonder they don't suffer more damage than that.

I wonder if a man could survive a trip on that booster (given a spacesuit and a tightly bolted seat)... the reentry burns looks quite fierce, but I have no idea what kind of g force is involved.

It amazes me too that the rocket engines survive a prolonged period of hypersonic flight essentially flying backwards. The engine bells must be under some serious stress during the free-flying stage. They do have a lot of stress management designed in them though for the way in which they contain the rocket plume during liftoff, so can handle this without being bent or burned to ribbons.

I wonder if the cold fuel circulation systems help here as well? Keeping the leading parts of the engines from overheating?

As for a man, forget it! Raspberry jam inducing burns by the look of it,fast and heavy deceleration to essentially stop the booster and reverse its direction.

A better shot of the suit...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BYyvO2WA3Ra/

Well, at least SpaceX isn't above making a video poking fun at their landing failures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ&list=PLnFnv9bs1tRHL47drWnuoMeVulU3aUaGD&index=234

Trololzilla wrote:

Well, at least SpaceX isn't above making a video poking fun at their landing failures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ&list=PLnFnv9bs1tRHL47drWnuoMeVulU3aUaGD&index=234

Pretty cool actually. Check out the action starting at 1:20.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Trololzilla wrote:

Well, at least SpaceX isn't above making a video poking fun at their landing failures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ&list=PLnFnv9bs1tRHL47drWnuoMeVulU3aUaGD&index=234

Pretty cool actually. Check out the action starting at 1:20.

Tugg

Blimey. Amazed it came back in one piece! Wonder if that's what prompted the Optimus Prime.

Tugger wrote:

Trololzilla wrote:

Well, at least SpaceX isn't above making a video poking fun at their landing failures:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ&list=PLnFnv9bs1tRHL47drWnuoMeVulU3aUaGD&index=234

Pretty cool actually. Check out the action starting at 1:20.

Tugg

Apparently, Elon Musk edited most of the video, per this tweet:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/908254645809692672

Nik Jovanovic‏ @jovanik21 Sep 14

This has your humour written all over it. Did you do the editing?

Elon Musk‏ @elonmusk
Replying to @jovanik21

Most of it

^That's fantastic. I'd been wondering that myself, since it seems precisely like something he'd do.

Lot's of updates today:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ase-on-oon

Elon Musk has unveiled plans for a new spacecraft that he says would allow his company SpaceX to colonise Mars, build a base on the moon, and allow commercial travel to anywhere on Earth in under an hour.

The spacecraft is currently still codenamed the BFR (Big Fucking Rocket). Musk says the company hopes to have the first launch by 2022, and then have four flying to Mars by 2024.

Full presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4FY894HyF8

Loved the presentation. I'm so excited by this. I have some doubts they'll be able to stick to the planned schedule, but even if it gets a couple of years delayed.. it will be awesome.

Set aside for now, how realistic this new rocket and spacecraft are for Moon and Mars travel...

...I don't know if cost reductions for satellite launches really will come from a giant rocket like this -- if Musk wants it to replace the Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy. Scaling size up in aerospace leads to exponential cost increases - even with reusability (Space Shuttle). And as we learned with the Ariane-5, multiple large satellites on the same rocket is not efficient...which is why ESA is going to build a moderate-sized launcher. So be skeptical about this whole plan.

Continuing to tweak the Falcon-9 for more cost reductions and increasing production for economy of scale seems a better solution for launch cost reductions.

QuarkFly wrote:

Set aside for now, how realistic this new rocket and spacecraft are for Moon and Mars travel...

...I don't know if cost reductions for satellite launches really will come from a giant rocket like this -- if Musk wants it to replace the Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy. Scaling size up in aerospace leads to exponential cost increases - even with reusability (Space Shuttle). And as we learned with the Ariane-5, multiple large satellites on the same rocket is not efficient...which is why ESA is going to build a moderate-sized launcher. So be skeptical about this whole plan.

Continuing to tweak the Falcon-9 for more cost reductions and increasing production for economy of scale seems a better solution for launch cost reductions.

Except if you include reusability, then a larger heavy rocket carrying more fuel into space is cheaper that any other rocket. THAT is the key, there is no way around it. You can lob a single satellite into orbit on the BFR at a lower overall cost than a smaller "purpose built/size perfect" rocket that is not reused because the sunk cost of the rocket is spread over multiple launches. If SpaceX can keep this up, improving the reusability ot its launch systems then (forgive the pun) the sky's the limit! And every other launch system is going to have to adjust to meet that challenge.

Reusability is critical to his dreams. But it is important to recognize that even if it does not improve as dramatically as hoped for, the cost is still slashes two- to three- to four-fold over conventional "disposable" launch systems. AND based on past experience with things we humans build, I see little reason to doubt that high-lifecycle launch systems will not ultimately be successful.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Except if you include reusability, then a larger heavy rocket carrying more fuel into space is cheaper that any other rocket. THAT is the key, there is no way around it. You can lob a single satellite into orbit on the BFR at a lower overall cost than a smaller "purpose built/size perfect" rocket that is not reused because the sunk cost of the rocket is spread over multiple launches. If SpaceX can keep this up, improving the reusability ot its launch systems then (forgive the pun) the sky's the limit! And every other launch system is going to have to adjust to meet that challenge.

Reusability is critical to his dreams. But it is important to recognize that even if it does not improve as dramatically as hoped for, the cost is still slashes two- to three- to four-fold over conventional "disposable" launch systems. AND based on past experience with things we humans build, I see little reason to doubt that high-lifecycle launch systems will not ultimately be successful. Tugg

Maybe, but other evidence from the commercial aerospace world, points to a different answer...

In aviation, airliners are completely reusable. Yet. the world is moving away from large A380 / 747 size aircraft to high-frequency quick turnaround, smaller A320 / 737 sized aircraft -- and where necessary for long distance, the 787 / A350. These smaller aircraft slowly grow in size and passenger-count over time...but they are honed by the manufacturers and airlines for super-efficient low-cost travel in a way super-jumbo aircraft cannot be tailored. I think the same thing will apply to satellite launches in the future.

People are just waving their hand at the difficulties of quickly turning around a multi-stage 12-million lb thrust rocket with cryogenic fuels, needing customized interfaces to multiple satellites, complicated ground handling, subject to weather restrictions at launch and having huge safety, regulatory and launch range complications. I like what SpaceX has done...Musk should not throw out the Falcon-9 for this pipe-dream.

QuarkFly wrote:

Maybe, but other evidence from the commercial aerospace world, points to a different answer...

In aviation, airliners are completely reusable. Yet. the world is moving away from large A380 / 747 size aircraft to high-frequency quick turnaround, smaller A320 / 737 sized aircraft -- and where necessary for long distance, the 787 / A350. These smaller aircraft slowly grow in size and passenger-count over time...but they are honed by the manufacturers and airlines for super-efficient low-cost travel in a way super-jumbo aircraft cannot be tailored. I think the same thing will apply to satellite launches in the future.

Quite possibly true! But even then I would point that SpaceX has (and likely will have going forward) vastly more experience with smaller scale reusable rockets that anyone else. So if the market only wants smaller, high frequency launches then SpaceX should be the best positioned to provide that. Even if they do go off and have the BFG in their overhead, unless someone begins to match their launch expertise in reusable rockets (Blue Origin? ... definitely not there yet) they should still be able to compete on price etc.

Tugg

This was one of the most interesting SpaceX presentations I've seen, and I very highly recommend watching it - there's nothing superfluous and loads of information on their plans. I'm still a bit dazed by it all - it's respect laced with some skepticism, but holy cow, the ambition and daring.

Also doubt if the Falcon 9 will be so readily replaced, as integrating multiple satellites and timetables may well prove a lot more onerous and less rewarding than imagined.

But the idea of filling the kitty with earthside passenger travel... this would call for a proven level of safety unheard of in any rocket yet. Those folks at SpaceX, be they in California, Texas, or Florida, are operating at a pace that beggars belief.

I'm riveted.

It's very ambitious, but with Musk it always is.

The level of detail shown isn't even a fraction of what's included in the NASA Mars DRM's. I suspect he's got a lot more work left than he realizes. With Musk, there always is.

With as familiar as we are in the commercial airline world about the objections to noise from operations, I got a laugh out of his suggestion that he'd like to launch rockets from just off the shores of New York City.

Tugger wrote:

Except if you include reusability, then a larger heavy rocket carrying more fuel into space is cheaper that any other rocket. THAT is the key, there is no way around it. You can lob a single satellite into orbit on the BFR at a lower overall cost than a smaller "purpose built/size perfect" rocket that is not reused because the sunk cost of the rocket is spread over multiple launches.

Falcon 9 is reusable as well, and by definition much cheaper than BFR. So why not keeping Falcon 9 for small satellite launches?

And according to Gwynne Shotwell [speaking @MIT some days ago], they'll attempt to recover a Falcon 9's upper stage next year, though not in order to reuse it. Nevertheless, I'm pretty positive that sensitive government payloads will still go on the Falcon 9s. Source:

https://twitter.com/charlottelowey/stat ... 7407206403

There's also more good info to be had there.

The far side isn't always dark, of course, but is very isolated from terrestrial radio sources.

As far as more practical, only if the base is already there... and you still have to land things on the moon, which costs a lot of lander mass.

So there serviceability/simplicity has to outweigh simply launching to L1 and risking a DOA space telescope.

I'm struck by comments questioning Musk like those made by KarelXWB.

While it certainly is true that not all what Musk hopes for comes to fruition look what he has accomplished is quite significant.

He may not colonize Mars but if he does nothing else he has exceeded expectations.

And don't kid yourself those folks at NASA, ULA and Ariane Space all wish they had what SpaceX has.