Slashdot Mirror

That said I don't think the barge was ever the target landing location. I think the barge was necessary to get regulatory approval to come in over the land. Prove you can hit your target first where you won't hurt / destroy anything then you can try it here.

I read some comments by Elon from earlier today that mentioned the F9 could get the payload/2nd stage to 100km and 5000m/s and land back at the launch site, OR to 100km and 8000m/s and land on a sea platform. So it sounds like the barge/platform might still be in the cards at some point.

Here is a great post from Elon with background on tonight's launch: http://www.spacex.com/news/201...

http://www.spacex.com/sites/al...
I don't know if it's clear what launch it's from. Several have gone into the ocean, both from attempts at landing on the barge, and ditching in the ocean.
This is the top of the first stage. There may be an empty helium tank inside this acting as flotation. The helium tanks are really robust, and have separately survived even really fast impacts.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.c...

At the end of the video Elon hands out a bunch of keys for the first few VINs. I'm really hoping to see a repeat of that when the Dragon V2 is introduced!

That said, it is pretty stupid that Space X has not been testing random parts to confirm they meet the requested specifications.

From the article:

That led the company to test what Elon Musk described as an “enormous” number of struts, where they found another strut that failed under the same conditions.

How many struts would they a have to randomly test to catch the two out of an "enormous" amount that actually failed? And do you honestly think they aren't already testing parts?

But, clearly you know better than they do, so here, go show em. Maybe there is "strut tester" in there somewhere.

Check out this video of Falcon Heavy. They plan to land and reuse all 3 boosters at the landing site they have leased at the Kennedy Space Centre. Saving 9 engines from a Falcon 9 is a considerable savings but saving all 27 engines from a Falcon Heavy launch would bring the cost per kg down to perhaps $100.

Their whitepaper, starting on page 39.

And this is so insane I wouldn't be surprised you're collecting your urine in jars and getting the help to order cases of peanut butter.

http://www.spacex.com/news/201...

Uh... okay, pal. But you're the only one talking about this stuff here. Not us.

No, it wasn't the first, no matter how many capitals you use, Elon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

You weren't even the first private developer of space vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You're a few decades late to that party.

And this is so insane I wouldn't be surprised you're collecting your urine in jars and getting the help to order cases of peanut butter.

http://www.spacex.com/news/201...

Yes, a reusable tin can that blows its load getting a few pounds of Tang to Low Earth Orbit is the "key to making human life interplanetary".

Yup. Uh huh.

SpaceX had to scrub its launch today. The launch was 'racing' to beat a weather system moving through the area ('attached anvil cloud') and had to scrub the launch with just 3min to launch. There will be another try, tomorrow. http://www.spacex.com/

Didn't you hear that Elon Musk wants to build an Internet of Things on Mars? He'll be landing stuff there in no time using his 3D-printed engines.

(OK, OK, I'll show myself out...)

From the website

Postponed east coast launch until Feb. 11, 6:03pm EST.

SpaceX Webcast

Don't tell us, tell them!

http://www.spacex.com/careers/...

The larger the frontal surface area of the vessel, the harder it is to control. Wave motion and tidal forces become more pronounced as the vessel gets wider, making it harder to hold position.

This "barge" isn't a standard cargo hauler, though. You can see a photo of it at the link below. It was definitely custom-built for this purpose.
http://www.spacex.com/sites/sp...

Musk has been clearly stating that one of his long term goals is exploration and colonization of Mars. As an example: Elon Musk: The Case for Mars. That mission statement is written right into SpaceX documentation: About SpaceX

At this point they are the best way to send cargo to the ISS and in a few year will be the best way to send astronauts in LEO, but if they want to go any further they're going to need a new rocket (stronger than the Falcon 9 heavy).

Uh, you do realize the Falcon Heavy has a payload of 13200 kg to Mars and will be more powerful than any current operational rocket?

NASA as the actual plan for their SLS while SpaceX only has ideas for now.

They have a great plan, but they don't have the money. The Falcon Heavy is funded and should be operational in the first half of next year while NASA is years away from a date that's probably slipping. And I'm not sure why you're saying SpaceX is the one on the drawing board, the boosters are essentially "headless" Falcon 9s while the SLS is a new design. Sure, when or if the SLS flies it'll be in a class of its own we haven't seen since the Saturn V. I wouldn't hold my breath though, while the Falcon Heavy seems very likely that will happen.

Spacex could put 70,000 metric tons in an orbit that would eventually end up falling into the sun. Even if a couple of rockets burn up in our atmosphere, we would pollute our planet less than any other failed solution we have tried so far. The financial cost would probably be less than what has been spend on just looking for storage locations.

maybe

http://www.spacex.com/about/ca...
A Falcon heavy costs $85 million to put 21 tons into geosync orbit. More can be put into low orbit, but that may not be a good idea.
We make about 2,000 tons of nuke waste a year, so it would only take like 90 launches a year ( ~ 7.5 billion) from now on plus the 3,000 launches ( $250 billion) to catch up. We can afford that.

I don't know off-hand what sort of load could be launched into the sun (nor do I see why when the moon is much cheaper to shoot at), but getting beyond orbit would be more expensive.

By continue their "own" path you mean take our tax money and spend it on shit we don't care about?

I know. All those fuckers wasting American tax dollars.when we could be spending them on important things.

SolarCity? The Gigafactory (which hasn't even been built yet)? Tesla?

The common denominator in all these businesses: tiny market share.

And the iPhone, iPad, iPod? Huge market share.

So, I guess Musk is a genius at making stuff nobody wants.

Tesla Motors, Inc.'s Demand Is Growing Faster Than Production

Model S has been an enormous success. Not only has the all-electric luxury sedan been outselling all comparably priced cars in North America in 2013, but Tesla is expecting sales to increase by more than 50% this year. Most surprising of all, however, is that Tesla is achieving this without spending any money on advertising.

People want the car, but most people can't afford it and Tesla still can't build the car fast enough to keep up with demand. But I suspect you knew that. You also probably know that consumer reports is calling the Tesla Model S the best car it has ever tested. The Gigfactory is part of the plan to price the Model 3 such that the middle class can afford it.

And you forgot to mention SpaceX which has single handily brought commercial satellite launches to the US. And supplies cargo missions to the ISS. And just won a bid for commercial crew to transport astronauts to the ISS. And have a launch manifest with over 40 launches on it worth over $4 billion dollars. In other words, SpaceX is in demand.

None the less, they are real spacecraft that have life support systems which have been operating as if they could be occupied. One of them had some biological specimens (I think some insects) and it was definitely pressurized in the interior volume, not to mention that Bigelow has gained the experience of operating these modules over a long period of time.

Bigelow Aerospace is currently slated to send up a vehicle next year on a Falcon 9, and supposedly a Falcon Heavy has also been sold but not on the manifest right now. With the current launch rate that SpaceX has been pounding out lately, this seems pretty likely to happen unless it is Bigelow who isn't ready.

Try http://www.spacex.com/missions instead.

CRS-8 is 3 missions prior to a "Bigelow Aerospace" mission, according to the current SpaceX launch manifest. This mission is scheduled for 2015, not 2016. Do you have any sources to cite for your conflicting information? I can't find any statements from Bigelow one way or the other.

Actually, SpaceX already has a Bigelow Aerospace launch on their manifest scheduled for 2015.

Bigelow Aerospace makes inflatable space habitats. They have two small-scale prototypes in orbit already, and this next launch is likely to carry their first full-size station.

Bigelow has already partnered with SpaceX (as well as Boeing) for launch services related to crew rotation and supply missions for this endeavor.

SpaceX and Boeing, described as "the exciting choice" and "the safe choice,"

Yeah, people's lives are on the line here. You've got to go with the company who's got a proven track record in safely launching a modern human-capable spacecraft.
http://www.spacex.com/dragon

Wait, which is the exciting choice then?

Compare Space-X's launch manifest from a year ago with their current launch manifest. They're six months to a year behind their launch schedule. There were supposed to be three Space-X ISS resupply flights this year, #4, #5, and #6. Flight #4 is currently scheduled for September. There are five commercial customers waiting for their scheduled 2014 launches.

Some of this isn't Space-X's fault, and some of it is. All these are Falcon-9 launches, some with the Dragon capsule. No major new hardware is involved. It's not clear where the holdup is coming from. There have been problems with scheduling at Canaveral. 2014 was supposed to be the year that Space-X caught up on their launch manifest, but that's not happening. Unclear why.

Right now, it's communication satellites. Take a look at the current launch manifest.

They haven't shown any interest in space tourism, but they would probably be happy to provide launch services for a company that would arrange it. Bigelow Aerospace is another space startup working on flexible space station modules, which could be used on a NASA space station or a commercial/tourist station.

Long term, in order for SpaceX to realize their dreams of transporting passengers to Mars, there will probably need to be a new major industry in space. I have no idea what it will be. Space mining, maybe. The main problem is that most activities in space, such as mining asteroids, have the potential to make space exploration a lot cheaper (refuel in orbit rather than launching a huge rocket to get a tiny amount of fuel into space) but don't provide any economic benefit back on Earth.

Musk strikes me as a lot of things... Carnegie and Franklin aren't among them.

He's an emerging master at PR and managing public opinion, and his fan base (very prevalent here on Slashdot) just laps it up.

His rockets get to orbit with RP-1, not PR. You don't get a $5 billion launch manifest with PR.

Yes, there are delays and difficulties with both Tesla and SpaceX. Now show me someone that is building more compelling electric cars than Tesla. Owner's of Tesla's love them. If it wasn't a good car, it wouldn't have the satisfaction ratings it does. Car magazines wouldn't be raving about it.

Show me a "new space" company that is delivering cargo to the the ISS, returning mass to Earth, developing a manned capsule, self-funding reusability development, self-funding development of seriously big rocket engines for Saturn V size rockets.

I'm an unabashed fan because he's making interesting shit happen. The main reasons I've seen for people bagging on him are envy or ideology (Tesla got a government loan - that they paid back, SpaceX got NASA money - to deliver cargo cheaper than any competitor, etc...)

Falcon9Heavy.... http://www.spacex.com/falcon-h...
Hasn't flown yet, but if it does redundancy and has as many fail-safes as the current Falcon9, I bet it will do well...

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

@13:38 he explains that all the critical functions needed to operate the spacecraft are available as manual (physical) buttons in the middle of the (locking-into-place) instrument panel. That includes a joystick for maneuvering.

You think the democrats don't have contractors and cots.

Well, it was Raw until YouTube re-compressed the hell out of it. Seriously, I don't think you have any shot if you start off with this YouTube footage. If they really want help we need the actual raw bitstream. I/Q output from the receiver would be even better. Even better than that would be diversity receivers. Aren't those guys the rocket scientists?

Available for download: This is the location for the original raw ".ts" file. A second link is also given to a repaired raw ".ts" file showing the results of their efforts. If preferred, you can also get the original ".ts" files at the spacex website near the bottom of that webpage.

Well, it was Raw until YouTube re-compressed the hell out of it. Seriously, I don't think you have any shot if you start off with this YouTube footage. If they really want help we need the actual raw bitstream. I/Q output from the receiver would be even better. Even better than that would be diversity receivers. Aren't those guys the rocket scientists?

Available for download: This is the location for the original raw ".ts" file. A second link is also given to a repaired raw ".ts" file showing the results of their efforts. If preferred, you can also get the original ".ts" files at the spacex website near the bottom of that webpage.

Well, it was Raw until YouTube re-compressed the hell out of it. Seriously, I don't think you have any shot if you start off with this YouTube footage. If they really want help we need the actual raw bitstream. I/Q output from the receiver would be even better. Even better than that would be diversity receivers. Aren't those guys the rocket scientists?

Available for download: This is the location for the original raw ".ts" file. A second link is also given to a repaired raw ".ts" file showing the results of their efforts. If preferred, you can also get the original ".ts" files at the spacex website near the bottom of that webpage.

There's a lot of information missing to be sure, but it's still worth pointing out that SpaceX posted the raw transport stream data that they got from the rocket, so reconstruction can be done on the raw data rather than YouTube.

It still is raw. If you follow the link in the summary "looking for help" http://www.spacex.com/news/201... it takes you to their page where they show you the before and after videos via youtube and give you access to the raw footage. Here's the link they provide to the raw footage: http://www.spacex.com/sites/sp...

It still is raw. If you follow the link in the summary "looking for help" http://www.spacex.com/news/201... it takes you to their page where they show you the before and after videos via youtube and give you access to the raw footage. Here's the link they provide to the raw footage: http://www.spacex.com/sites/sp...

Order your manned flight to the ISS here. Space-X is doing various "abort tests" NASA insists on, and the first manned launch for NASA isn't supposed to happen until 2017. But Space-X may send their own private astronauts into orbit next year.

Space-X has been sending Dragon spacecraft to the ISS for some time now. The fourth one was supposed to launch this week, but the USAF had a fire at one of their tracking stations and all Cape Canaveral launches are on hold.

Elon Musk and Robert Bigelow have been able to get together. In fact, Bigelow Aerospace has a couple flights on the SpaceX manifest, with a flight that is scheduled for some time next year (assuming SpaceX can push through some of its current customers that are scheduled for this year). I can only imagine that with a flight coming up so soon that the hardware which is going to fly on that rocket is near completion if not already finished.

The largest hang-up right now for Robert Bigelow is that he is insisting on at least two different launch vehicles for passengers and crew made by different companies, both made in America flying on American hardware. In addition to the SpaceX Dragon (which still needs FAA-AST approval for commercial crew flights), there is the Boeing CST-100 that Robert Bigelow has dumped some money into as a joint partnership with Boeing. There are other companies developing spacecraft which could work as well, so it may turn out there may be multiple options for sending crews into space in the near future.

Both the CST-100 and the Dragon are on the fast track to supplying crew flights for NASA astronauts to the ISS, so I think FAA-AST approval is going to be mostly pro forma once NASA has given their thumbs up. In other words, crewed space stations operated by Bigelow Aerospace is going to be happening very soon, at least within this decade if not on a much shorter time frame.

At one time I believed that the space elevator was the only way we would ever be able to move into space on an economic basis. All rocket based methods were just too expensive. That was until I read what Elon Musk had to say about it http://www.spacex.com/news/201.... The real reason that space exploration is expensive is that we throw away the spacecraft after a single use not the fuel used to get there. Space elevators are very energy efficient and would have great longevity, however, the practical and economic problems of building a 30,000 mile long cable is vastly larger than the problems of solving reusability of spacecraft. SpaceX is well on the way to solving the reusability problem. They have a practical road map and are executing it in spectacular fashion. They have already tested and proven vertical rocket powered landing technology and on their next Space Station resupply mission they will be testing booster landing leg deployment and engine restart to try and achieve a soft splashdown in the ocean. There last attempt of restart was successful however the descent became unstable and they had to abort. It is believed that the landing legs will provide extra aerodynamic stability allowing for a successful soft splashdown. I believe it is only a matter of a few years until they have a fully reusable system. This innovation will drive down the cost of space travel by a factor of 100. In 10 years the average upper middle class American will be able to afford a vacation in space. Travel to Mars will still be expensive but not unattainable for many.

Lifting all the "strands" necessary would take many thousands of launches.

Not from what I'm seeing. At least one source says that a 'starter' cable can be had as light as 9 metric tons. Another says 20.

A Falcon Heavy can lift over twice that to orbit, though maybe not all the way to geosync...

After you get the first thread down, you use that thread to lift more mass to increase capacity.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9
500 tons of rocket.
Let's say it's all fuel (90%+ is).

It's RP1/LOX.
You need 2.5:1 liquid oxygen to RP1.

1980s NASA was paying $.08/kg for LOX. Let's say $.20 now.
And $.20 per kg for RP1 - at most 100% over spot oil price.
$1/kg is reasonable.

Making the average cost per launch for 150 tons of RP1 and 350 tons of LOX about $150K+$70K = $220K.
The quoted price is $56M - or the fuel cost is under half a percent.

http://www.spacex.com/missions shows ORBCOMM sending up with spacex in a bit. That's private money. Loral is another one of their customers. Iridium has quite a few flights over the next few years. So, while a lot of their payloads are governmental now, not all are. And as they get their processes down, and their costs come with it, even more private companies will be launching with them. They're getting to a point where they plan to do weekly launches, and that's an economy of scale that will make it truly affordable.

Slap a capsule on a SpaceX rocket for going to from LEO.

You mean the Dragon?

Elon's got ya covered.

Nope the USA let capitalism get in the way..

...and we're such utter assholes for doing it, too. /sarcasm

"Curiosity comprised 23 percent of the mass of the 3,893 kg (8,580 lb) Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) spacecraft, which had the sole mission of delivering the rover safely across space from Earth to a soft landing on the surface of Mars."

That's about what the Atlas V can take to GTO. I don't know how that translates to "grossly overpowered" in your simple world.

So you make the wheels heavier, so now you need stronger motors, that need a bigger RTG to power them...

Now you need to make the MSL bigger to be able to support the heavier rover through all stages of the mission... Which now needs more fuel to maneuver the heavier rover around.... Hmm, but I'm sure you've solved that too?

But let's see, you seem to know a lot about tires on spacecraft that go on other planets AND the rockets we should be using to launch them there!

Send your CV here:

http://www.nasa.gov/about/career/index.html#.UrUtlOLtd0Q

http://www.spacex.com/careers/list

I think you're pretty much guaranteed a job if you know as much as you seem to. Tell those pointy-headed PhDs a thing or two about common sense!!

When will Space-X do that ?

I mean, let's start up some REAL COMPETITION !

If you believe this news report, in either 2015 or 2016, as a part of the Google Lunar X-Prize competition.

The launch was earlier listed on the SpaceX manifest, although it currently isn't on that page. Plenty of other interesting flights are on the books though.

"SpaceX hasn't ramped up its production yet because the Falcon 9 v1.1 is the one they were planning to ramp up."

Yes they have, and here's proof.

Note that these are v1.1 cores, with the "octoweb" thrust structure.

"booked" is not the same as having it in the bank. They need to launch or they don't earn the money.

There is no way SpaceX ramps up its production line without customers paying something up front, and I'm pretty sure that one of the requirements to get the $56.5 M price is payment in full before launch. Either way, according to SpaceX and many comments from Musk, SpaceX is already profitable and cash-flow positive. They have development funds from NASA for the Dragon capsule and $1.6 billion in Falcon 9 launches alone. At this point, they seem to be a viable enterprise and will have to screw up really seriously to run out of money.

"booked" is not the same as having it in the bank. They need to launch or they don't earn the money.

There is no way SpaceX ramps up its production line without customers paying something up front, and I'm pretty sure that one of the requirements to get the $56.5 M price is payment in full before launch. Either way, according to SpaceX and many comments from Musk, SpaceX is already profitable and cash-flow positive. They have development funds from NASA for the Dragon capsule and $1.6 billion in Falcon 9 launches alone. At this point, they seem to be a viable enterprise and will have to screw up really seriously to run out of money.

Yes, SpaceX is cheap, and yes, they could trivially match the Indian Mars probe price. You know how I know that? The Price Sheet says a Falcon 9 launch is $56.5 million. Leaving plenty of slack to build a little Mars probe. Considering a ULA launch costs literally 10 times as much, cheap is an understatement.

They've been profitable for 5 years and their price has never been higher than that. Since they're profitable, they're obviously not loss leaders. Why would it go up now? Especially considering SpaceX has already won the lucrative government contract that was available, namely Space Station resupply.

But no, the Chinese are not quaking in their boots. Long March rockets do cost more to build than Falcons, probably a lot more, but the Chinese don't care. They're building them for national pride, not customers, and they're damn well going to make absolutely certain they work, no matter how much it costs. They have to.