KarelXWB wrote:

MatthewDB wrote:

How about the second stage 3rd burn? Was that ever caught on video?

I'm pretty sure SpaceX has it on video. I guess we will have to wait for the next episode of How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster.

I am not saying that SpaceX does not have video of the event. But do you under stand the radiation environment that the 2nd stage was flying thru before starting this burn? This takes quite a toll on CCD's in cameras.

itchief wrote:

I am not saying that SpaceX does not have video of the event. But do you under stand the radiation environment that the 2nd stage was flying thru before starting this burn? This takes quite a toll on CCD's in cameras.

Are the CCDs not rad hardened?

zanl188 wrote:

itchief wrote:

I am not saying that SpaceX does not have video of the event. But do you under stand the radiation environment that the 2nd stage was flying thru before starting this burn? This takes quite a toll on CCD's in cameras.

Are the CCDs not rad hardened?

Expensive to be thrown away after a few hours. This was not a low earth orbit flight with the protection of the earths magnetic field. I am not saying I know the reason why, I am just looking at the facts.

Funny as hell:
“Here’s the photo Musk is hiding from us.”


From an article about the discussion going on in Russia about how their space program is not succeeding. Is not matching the advances being seen with other nations and SpaceX in particular.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/vbp ... cex-launch

Tugg

Did the Tesla roadster detach from the Falcon 2nd stage? Or are they orbiting the sun as one?

HAL

HAL wrote:

Did the Tesla roadster detach from the Falcon 2nd stage? Or are they orbiting the sun as one?

HAL

Orbiting as one. Second stage contained all of the avionics, comm equipment, and batteries.

Though I am sure the Roadsters batteries were drained to zero charge for safety, I had fun realizing that the Roadster could have actually been started and run up there is space.

Tugg

according to what I've read, the roadster had it's entire powertrain removed.

LightningZ71 wrote:

according to what I've read, the roadster had it's entire powertrain removed.

(Over)discharged Li-Ion are about as dangerous as overcharged ones.

parapente wrote:

...
This is where it's possible his enthusiasm for Mars is getting in the way of commercial realities.It is the F9/FH that is making the money so that 'his' BFR can be built. Make a wrong turn with the bread winners and he's toast.
His rationale for BFR is it can launch circa 4 seats in one go.But is that really what the market wants? Is the market even geared that way in timing terms - not forgetting very different orbital requirements.Personally I think it's total hogwash - just like going to Sydney in 20 mins.
...
You have a winner - now is the time to stamp on the oppositions throat,not go off doing other things.Ot they will stamp on yours.

I'm also wondering how combining disparate launches is supposed to work, and agree that it seems remiss to not leverage the Falcon 9's experienced team and growing track record [substantially lowering insurance rates].

Hops to Sydney in 20mins can work, but with accident rates similar to commercial aviation? It would take a very long time indeed to establish that as a given.

Great video of the twin landings that Karel posted, by the way.

Funnier than hell, via Tugger's link:

https://twitter.com/linnlilu/status/961000031888297991

Tugger wrote:

Though I am sure the Roadsters batteries were drained to zero charge for safety, I had fun realizing that the Roadster could have actually been started and run up there is space.

Tugg

I am not that sure, Space is very cold outside the sunlight and batteries are usually kept above -80°C in order to work .....

I would think there where no batteries in it.....

best regards
Thomas

The next couple of years will be very interesting I think.There maybe some really unexpected announcements.At the moment the gig saw does not fit together at all.Something will need to give but hard to say what.
We know this period will be key for launching 3 different man capable spacecraft.
Clearly the present administration wishes to cut funding for the space station making way for more commercialisation.Possibly a blend of the two? With additional funding for a Moon programme? Think that's likely.
Will ULA get even closer to bed with Blue Origin?- it's possible.Depends on progress with the new engine (BE -4).A full merger is not impossible imho.
Something has got to give re the SLS.It will launch and most likely work perfectly.Then you have to build 'stuff' for it to carry into space.
Whether it be ( big stuff) orbiting the Moon or landing on the Moon,this is the veichle that can do it.But they have to start building whatever it is soon I would have thought.
Although I did note ULA are looking to launch the Bigelow 330 in the near future.Could thus become the key component ?
Lots of questions and no answers at least from me!
As for Spacex.No doubt they will continue to dominate commercial (and some military) payloads with the F9 thus making money.Which is critical - but not sure what else.
But with NASA,ULA,Blue Origin and Spacex all developing new rockets - and that's just the US.Something has got to give surely?

New droneship landing platform : A Shortfall of Gravitas to join the east coast fleet. This should help in cases where the load requires the boosters to be too far out to sea.
Wonder why there isn't a 3rd as they might need three platforms?

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech ... 330356002/

Musk also confirms that the shortage of lighter fluid is the culprit in the core Rapid Unplanned Disassembly due to High Kinetic Energy Impact event.

casinterest wrote:

New droneship landing platform : A Shortfall of Gravitas to join the east coast fleet. This should help in cases where the load requires the boosters to be too far out to sea.
Wonder why there isn't a 3rd as they might need three platforms?

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech ... 330356002/

Musk also confirms that the shortage of lighter fluid is the culprit in the core Rapid Unplanned Disassembly due to High Kinetic Energy Impact event.

I am going to guess that if you need to run the two boosters out that hot that you then need to run everything you can put of the final stage which is where you should gain the most performance right?

casinterest wrote:

New droneship landing platform : A Shortfall of Gravitas to join the east coast fleet. This should help in cases where the load requires the boosters to be too far out to sea.
Wonder why there isn't a 3rd as they might need three platforms?

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech ... 330356002/

Musk also confirms that the shortage of lighter fluid is the culprit in the core Rapid Unplanned Disassembly due to High Kinetic Energy Impact event.

I give credit to the Florida Today reporter who can accurately convert "about 100 meters" into "about 300 feet."

The LA times reporter failed http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s ... story.html . "About 100m" became a precise "about 328 feet."

Sorry, it's a major pet peeve of mine. The worst was reporting of AF447 where they were searching in water "About 16,345 feet deep."

A thought - be interesting if anybody thinks it has any merit - or not!

The SLS first launch has slipped to 2020 ( may slip further who knows)
New Glenn is pencilled in for 2020 (but absolutly nothing is known)
BFR has an aspirational Mars date of2022.(If so then first test flights 2020 or later)

I don't believe anybody believes the SLS will get cancelled (yet) due to massive political (state) funding/backing.
But everybody is tearing their hair out due to the mindbending incredible costs being incurred.Once again.
But around 2020/1 everything comes roughly together in timing terms.

What everybody knows is 3 heavy lifters is (at least) 1 too many.But until other vehicles are proven, the 1970's SLS will continue.
And it would be unwise to ignore the continuing congressional state political pressures.

But what everybody thinks is that it is black or white.Either the whole SLS programme is cancelled or it is not.
BUT
What about a half way house?One that keeps half or more of the politicians on board?
The SLS is made of many modules built in many places.But the horrendously expensive and wasteful part is the first stage and boosters.

In max form they can lift 130 tons into LEO.The BFR 150 tons.Pretty close with a little spare margin.
But the big trick ,as we know ,is that this first stage comes back and is used over and over again making it the cheapest first stage ever as opposed to the most expensive first stage ever.
SO
Once the BFR first stage has been proved to work.Offer it (and only it) to NASA.
They still have their second stage and possibly third and their deep space system and capsule etc etc.They can still build their lunar orbit space station and indeed a Moon base if that's what they have been charged with doing.
They just do it at a fraction of the cost by using the BFR first (returnable/reusable) stage.
Ok Boeing looses out and who ever makes the old SRB's.But everybody else above the first stage is 'saved' and this keeps the support of those senators and congressmen.And little face is lost.

Is that a decent all round compromise that might work?

Interesting ideas. I'm not up to speed on SLS, as with the coming cheaper heay lift rockets, it seems like a very expensive boondoggle.

But Chris Kraft of NASA renown isn't a fan, and makes some important points [for me to copy&paste].

Sunday conversation: NASA veteran Chris Kraft upfront with criticism | By Eric BergerAugust 31, 2013
... there are the operating costs of that beast, which will eat NASA alive if they get there. They're not going to be able to fly it more than once a year, if that, because they don't have the budget to do it. So what you've got is a beast of a rocket, that would give you all of this capability, which you can't build because you don't have the money to build it in the first place, and you can't operate it if you had it.

Q: What do you see as the alternative?

A: In the private sector ...
...
A: What's so magic about this being able to lift 120 tons? Why can't you use what you've got and put your vehicles into space in pieces, like you did with the space station? That's the right way to do it.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/n ... 778332.php

And speaking further to parapente's point, while being rather ignorant of specifics, two things I'd like to point out:

- Very inconsistent decision making by politicians over time.
NASA's aims and budget strings have been treated like ping-pong by Congress. It has no choice in the matter but to execute even flawed plans.

- What has worked very well is NASA's relatively cheap COTS program to nurture commercial space ventures.by leveraging the administration's strengths while flying under the budgetary radar. Viz:

NASA Hails Success of Commercial Space Program Private Space Station Resupply Underway, Plans Readied for Astronauts | Nov 2013
...
"The COTS program was a great success -- not only for NASA and the commercial space industry, but also the American taxpayer," said Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX president and COO. "Together, NASA and SpaceX restored cargo transport capabilities to the United States and also laid the foundation for the future transport of American astronauts. SpaceX appreciates NASA’s ongoing support and is honored to partner with them in these efforts."
...
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/november ... N_11G-GO5N

MatthewDB wrote:

Sorry, it's a major pet peeve of mine. The worst was reporting of AF447 where they were searching in water "About 16,345 feet deep."

I would say this is an ample way to shorten 16,345 feet +/-250 feet. I would find it rather surprising if the search area is exactly 16,345 feet at all points....

Same with about 100m/328 feet. 100 meters are not 328 feet, that is still ~2.5% off. So, 100 meters are about 328 feet.

But then again, I am not sure if position precision at impact even is accurate to within an inch, so pretty much any arbitrarily precise number would still be "about".

To find a way back to topic, does anyone know how precise SpaceX can track the stages coming back? At my work we do 0.6 inch precision, but that is for fairly slow moving objects.....

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

MatthewDB wrote:

Sorry, it's a major pet peeve of mine. The worst was reporting of AF447 where they were searching in water "About 16,345 feet deep."

I would say this is an ample way to shorten 16,345 feet +/-250 feet. I would find it rather surprising if the search area is exactly 16,345 feet at all points....

Same with about 100m/328 feet. 100 meters are not 328 feet, that is still ~2.5% off. So, 100 meters are about 328 feet.

But then again, I am not sure if position precision at impact even is accurate to within an inch, so pretty much any arbitrarily precise number would still be "about".

To find a way back to topic, does anyone know how precise SpaceX can track the stages coming back? At my work we do 0.6 inch precision, but that is for fairly slow moving objects.....

Best regards
Thomas

It seems that GPS is in play and therer may be a patent issue brewing with blue origins

https://space.stackexchange.com/questio ... rge-pad-is

I think that within a meter or even 4 is probably good enough for spacex. I would assume that their are multiple GPS's across the drone ship and the fixed landing pad so that a "Relative" safe central landing zone can be aimed for by the rocket. Standard GPS with some software algorithmic fixes probably seals the deal.

casinterest wrote:

I think that within a meter or even 4 is probably good enough for spacex. I would assume that their are multiple GPS's across the drone ship and the fixed landing pad so that a "Relative" safe central landing zone can be aimed for by the rocket. Standard GPS with some software algorithmic fixes probably seals the deal.

One thing you need to take into account with this sort of operation is that GPS errors are generally errors in the received signal. So if the ship and booster are both using the same signals, the errors cancel out. They don't need to know their absolute position that well. Just their position relative to each other.

SpaceX will attempt to catch the nose fairing on today's launch.

"Going to try to catch the giant fairing (nosecone) of Falcon 9 as it falls back from space at… https://www.instagram.com/p/BfgHKDNAplx/

6:08 AM - 22 Feb 2018"

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/966676057784020992

Launch in 4 minutes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p-PToD2URA

Boom. Done.

Only SpaceX can make a legitimately spectacular rocket launch boring... They've spoilt us.

Another perfect mission from a preflown booster, slowly making (partial) reusability commonplace.

I'd like to know if they tried something with the first stage or if they just let it crash.

Still no word on fairing recovery. Last update was 20 minutes ago:

Made it back from space and fairing parafoil just deployed. Now trying to catch it

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/966682218411143169

Francoflier wrote:

Boom. Done.

Only SpaceX can make a legitimately spectacular rocket launch boring... They've spoilt us.

Another perfect mission from a preflown booster, slowly making (partial) reusability commonplace.

I'd like to know if they tried something with the first stage or if they just let it crash.

As much as I love SpaceX this is the normal thing for when things become almost normal. Just how many Atlas V or Ariane V launches get talked about unless something bad happened.

Like this is a great thing to happen. When stuff like this becomes routine. But you do lose a bit of that wonder on the 50th launch compared to the first. A good loss, but still a loss.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Boom. Done.

Only SpaceX can make a legitimately spectacular rocket launch boring... They've spoilt us.

Another perfect mission from a preflown booster, slowly making (partial) reusability commonplace.

I'd like to know if they tried something with the first stage or if they just let it crash.

As much as I love SpaceX this is the normal thing for when things become almost normal. Just how many Atlas V or Ariane V launches get talked about unless something bad happened.

Like this is a great thing to happen. When stuff like this becomes routine. But you do lose a bit of that wonder on the 50th launch compared to the first. A good loss, but still a loss.

This is true. But it's quite difficult to beat the previous launch! The Falcon Heavy launch was absolutely amazing.

Hoping they managed to catch that fairing with their ship. I'm a bit sceptical of the design, just 5-10m off the mark and it will hit the bridge of the ship. But I'm not a rocket scientist.

Missed it:

Missed by a few hundred meters, but fairing landed intact in water. Should be able catch it with slightly bigger chutes to slow down descent.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/966692641533390848

First pic of the fairing:





https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/sta ... 4652383232

KarelXWB wrote:

First pic of the fairing:

No bad . Missed it by <..> that much

What happened to the other half? If it's not salvageable as a fairing, it would make a nice boat hull.

The second half is not yet equipped with GPS and chutes. This will happen once SpaceX is able to recover the first half.

Hm. If they can build a fairing that withstands extreme aerodynamical loads... can't they cover the satellite crate with something that makes it sea-water resistant?


David

JetBuddy wrote:

What happened to the other half? If it's not salvageable as a fairing, it would make a nice boat hull.

And the engine they fit this boat with is awesome!

Tugg

Spacex continues to impress.The fairing looks in v good condition.
I thought they were going for a 'hot' booster landing but I guess they changed their mind.

PS I note the Military are helping to fund 'vertical stacking' of the F9/Heavy not sure of the significance of that.
Also talk of a generally bigger faring too.Again not sure why would it be ?-for Bigelow?

parapente wrote:

Spacex continues to impress.The fairing looks in v good condition.
I thought they were going for a 'hot' booster landing but I guess they changed their mind.

PS I note the Military are helping to fund 'vertical stacking' of the F9/Heavy not sure of the significance of that.
Also talk of a generally bigger faring too.Again not sure why would it be ?-for Bigelow?

My understanding with the Heavy is that in the expendable mode it will essentially bulk out before it hits max load. So you'll need a bigger fairing to make full effective use of the expendable capability.

I'm joining this conversation rather late, so I apologize if someone has already commented on this.

It was not commented on much, but this morning's launch out of Vandenberg AFB, besides carrying the Spanish Paz satellite, also carried SpaceX's Microsat-2a and Microsat-2b prototypes. The plan is to launch 4,425 of these small spacecraft in low-Earth orbit to provide global Internet service. You can read more here:
https://www.wired.com/story/watch-space ... atellites/
and
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/microsat-2.htm

And, on a related note, here is my photo of the January 14, 2017 Falcon 9 Iridium NEXT 1–10 launch from Vandenberg AFB, taken from Pismo Beach, about 35 miles north of there.

SpaceX managed to fish the fairing out of the water:


https://twitter.com/ShorealoneFilms/sta ... 7817075712

Look at that thing float...
Forget about the giant catcher's mitt. Just stick a Mercury outboard to the back of it and sail it to shore.

Seriously though, I'm guessing it's mostly made of composite materials and wouldn't suffer much from a short stint in salt water, especially if it's that buoyant. Do they really need to go through the trouble of trying to steer it into a giant floating net if it can just make a soft splashdown and be recovered shortly afterwards?

Small point.On the basis they clearly do want to try and catch it in a net.What happens to the second half?
They must both come down at the same time.Either you need two catchers mits or one must soft land in the water.No?
Perhaps if it works they will build another.But on a windy ocean using a parasail it must be a hell of a tricky place to do a really 'spot' landing.
Either way it's a tremendous achievement.
The speed at which they develop further improvements must leave their competitors gasping for breath.

If when they sort out the Raptor engine as a second stage (with the US Military behind them) there will be nearly nothing the F9 can't lob into space.

Francoflier wrote:

Just stick a Mercury outboard to the back of it and sail it to shore.

Can't you fly that as a lifting body? ( add some control surfaces at the rear end. Would it fly belly up or belly down

Following SpaceX is always interesting.
First of all, more money in the kitty once again, and yes, it's nice that reused rocket launches are becoming routine.
More of this, please, insurance rates will go down further!

The scale of their internet-by-microsat-constellation plan is breathtaking. Once again.
Projected revenues seem mind boggling. I need to read up on this, they're moving so fast.

The project to recapture fairings is really interesting too, because the budget is comparatively minuscule for it to make sense.
Have to think of those Herc missions to snag film cassettes in flight that were dropped from observation satellites.

Sunday`s Hispasat mission scrubbed due to fairing issues:
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/967270883713679360

Standing down from this weekend's launch attempt to conduct additional testing on the fairing’s pressurization system. Once complete, and pending range availability, we will confirm a new targeted launch date.

OCISLY and companions where already on their way, now facing some waiting time at sea or return?

I really loved the progress they made on fairing recovery and looking at that fairing in the water, they are almost there. Yet their recovery effords tests the customer`s paitience a lot it seems. This was the second fairing related delay.

Looking forward, they need two fast fairing recovery ships, up to three ASDS for FH, three tugs, and three support ships to recover every possible reusable item. That`s a fleet of 8 ships making scrubs pretty expensive in the future. Should add considerable fixed cost having them waiting between down range landing missions.

The russians wouldn`t need those as they have uninhabited space downrange to land their boosters and fairungs if they copy the concept.

Spacex`s recovery concept seems the most promising -and the only working of course- now. I do not understand BlueOrigins concept of using a big ship for landing. Much more dangerous, much more fix costs than a ASDS and a tug with mission only costs, serving other customers in between the missions. And if they have an engine failure like FH center core but hiting the ship, loosing it would be much more expensive than replacing what is essentially a barge with some added station-keeping propulsion. Wil be interesting to see if they really go this way.

dlednicer wrote:

I'm joining this conversation rather late, so I apologize if someone has already commented on this.

It was not commented on much, but this morning's launch out of Vandenberg AFB, besides carrying the Spanish Paz satellite, also carried SpaceX's Microsat-2a and Microsat-2b prototypes. The plan is to launch 4,425 of these small spacecraft in low-Earth orbit to provide global Internet service. You can read more here:
https://www.wired.com/story/watch-space ... atellites/
and
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/microsat-2.htm

Please join the conversation. Spaceflight is awesome!

The Microsat demo satellites are interesting. This "side project" of SpaceX could help a lot of people in less developed countries get internet. I'm a bit concerned over the number of satellites needed though, as injecting more than 4000 small satellites into LEO makes the the space even more full. How are we going to clean this up when they're not needed anymore? I know some satellites de-orbit by themselves and burn up in the atmosphere, but not all of them do.

o0OOO0oChris wrote:

Should add considerable fixed cost having them waiting between down range landing missions.

Well, is the ocean at the splashdown area un-deep enough to anchor those shippies?

By the way: Tomorrow, we have the F9 launch at the same time as the Olympic ice hockey finals, Germany against five colorful rings. Both are around 5 AM GMT. I'm happy!


David

flyingturtle wrote:

o0OOO0oChris wrote:

Should add considerable fixed cost having them waiting between down range landing missions.

Well, is the ocean at the splashdown area un-deep enough to anchor those shippies?
David

No chance:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-Florida-Straits-with-the-cable-and-tide-gauge-locations-Bathymetry-contours-are_fig1_277359846

flyingturtle wrote:

By the way: Tomorrow, we have the F9 launch at the same time as the Olympic ice hockey finals, Germany against five colorful rings. Both are around 5 AM GMT. I'm happy!
David

Unfortunately, we haven`t, you missed the first part of my post.

flyingturtle wrote:

Well, is the ocean at the splashdown area un-deep enough to anchor those shippies?

The barges are station keeping not anchored, right?

WIederling wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Well, is the ocean at the splashdown area un-deep enough to anchor those shippies?

The barges are station keeping not anchored, right?

That's my understanding. The barges are equipped with multiple 360 degrees azimuth thrusters for accurate positioning.

Speaking of which, I thought OCISLY had a couple of those pods taken out when it got bombed by FH... Did they fix it already?
...That was quick.

SpaceX is turning into a booming shipyard business as well.

tommy1808 wrote:

I would say this is an ample way to shorten 16,345 feet +/-250 feet. I would find it rather surprising if the search area is exactly 16,345 feet at all points....

Same with about 100m/328 feet. 100 meters are not 328 feet, that is still ~2.5% off. So, 100 meters are about 328 feet.

But then again, I am not sure if position precision at impact even is accurate to within an inch, so pretty much any arbitrarily precise number would still be "about".

16,345 feet is a conversion from 5,000 meters. If someone says "About 5,000m" it is something more than 4,500 and less than 5,500, unless more accuracy is explicitly stated. In no way did they intend to indicate 5 significant digits. "About 16,000 feet' is as far as one should stretch an "about" conversion.

In the example of 100m / 328 feet, again, too many significant figures. In no way does "about" imply 3 digits of accuracy.

Francoflier wrote:

SpaceX is turning into a booming shipyard business as well.

That begs the question: Who is doing their shipyard work? They seem to be moving quite fast in all of the various new vessels SpaceX needs.