Slashdot Mirror
Musk Announces Return-to-Flight Date For Falcon 9 Rocket
Rei writes: After being grounded for six months after a strut failure doomed the launch vehicle, Elon Musk has confirmed rumors that SpaceX plans to try for launch again on December 19th, with a static test firing on December 16th. SpaceX will also attempt a landing of their first stage — not at sea, but on land. Lastly, this will be the first launch of a Falcon 9 "Full Thrust" variant, where the propellants are supercooled (with the oxygen just above its freezing point) to increase their density and thus fuel flow and thrust.
This return to flight launch is going to be scrutinized by a lot of folks. Hopefully SpaceX has truly determined the problems for the accident. A landing back at the Cape would be awesome.
Word salad crunches gracefully over pineapple sunsets.
Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
I'm selfishly hoping that they have to scrub the launch on the 19th, I'm going to be in the Orlando area on the 20th and 21st so a delay that allowed me to watch the launch would be awesome.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Aren't supercooled materials actually cooled below their freezing point, but kept in a liquid state? Oxygen "just above its freezing point" is damned cold, but not supercooled. So, which one is it?
I'm a bit confused. I thought the reason for the barge was because it was pretty far downrange. If they are launching from the Cape and then landing the first stage there too, won't that be a pretty massive turnaround for the first stage? Of course maybe that's why they are going with the "full power" mode. My understanding is that eventually they plan to launch from Texas and land the first stage at the Cape. Is this still what they are saying?
One of the things that has frustrated me about SpaceX is it's lack of comprehensive communications about the status of the analysis, what are the corrective actions and what is it's return to launch (and beyond plans).
I just took a look at their website (http://www.spacex.com/) and what do I see? CRS-7 Updates, dated July 20th. Under "Updates", the last entry is July 20th. On twitter, the last time Musk commented on the Falcon issue was July 5th.
The dearth of timely web page updates and information just doesn't fit with a company that wants to build excitement about spaceflight (and their products and approach to spaceflight).
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Hopefully they truly uncovered the issue in the launch vehicle, and don't suffer any more mid-launch explosions. Aside from that, the part that interests me is the continued testing of the reusable first stage. Reviewing the video of their failed sea attempt, it's apparent that they were tantalizingly close to success there, and I can't help but wonder if they decided on a land attempt to mitigate environmental factors (ex. crosswinds) that may have been more prevalent at sea. It would be pretty amazing if they could prove the concept with this next attempt.
We will never be the change to the weather and the sea
Wow, is this an example of a metatroll?
ULA shill.
It might be because the Atlas flies on Russian RD-180 engines? If the entire manned space program ended up depending on the continued goodwill of the Russians; well it would be sort of embarrassing at that point.
It makes you wonder why they don't always spend 2 1/2 times more per launch? Really, that's something you don't understand?
Atlas is the 7th generation of a rocket family that's been around since 1957. One would hope that they'd have gotten most of the kinks by now. By comparison, Falcon 9 is a 2nd generation of a rocket family that's been around since 2006.
Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
"MOAR STRUTS!" - Jebediah Kermin
(seriously, I hope they nail it. Good luck, SpaceX team!)
Is there a public viewing area? Is the space centre and museums still open on launch days?
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
The entire concept of a manned space program is an embarassment at this point. It's a throwback to the 1960s and is little more than a historical recreation society.
SpaceX has a number of launches coming up according to Space Flight Now including:
* 19 Dec - Falcon 9 rocket will launch 11 second-generation Orbcomm communications satellites.
* Dec ? - Falcon 9 rocket will launch the SES 9 communications satellite.
* Jan - Falcon 9 rocket will launch the 10th Dragon spacecraft on the eighth operational cargo delivery mission to the International Space Station.
* Jan - Falcon 9 rocket will launch the Jason 3 ocean altimetry mission. Jason 3 will measure ocean surface topography to aid in ocean circulation and climate change research for NOAA, EUMETSAT, NASA and the French space agency, CNES.
* There are others scheduled for early 2016
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
They've proven they can put it down in a preselected area, the only hang-up appears to be the landing which judging from the last two attempts is due to not having a decent sized pad more than a control difficulty. Here's hoping that a landing on a much larger pad gives them the area they need for success.
Again: "Atlas is the 7th generation of a rocket family that's been around since 1957. One would hope that they'd have gotten most of the kinks by now. By comparison, Falcon 9 is a 2nd generation of a rocket family that's been around since 2006." Not sure how you missed that part. When the Atlas family was 9 years old, it was still undergoing regular failures. Atlas LV-3A, which was used from 1960 to 1968 (and would thus be the development-time equivalent of the Falcon 9) had 49 launches and 38 successes, or a success rate of only 77%.
Now, of course, that was a different time. The had less knowledge and technology base... although contrariwise they had far larger inflation-adjusted budgets. But let's just say that the technology issue means that Falcon 9 should prove itself much faster than the Atlas family did. Okay, so maybe the comparable level is to how Atlas was performing in the 1970s? The two Atlas rockets active in the 1970s (Atlas SLV-3C and Atlas SLV-3D) had a success rate of 84%. Okay, let's say the 1980s. The Atlas SLV-3D extended into the 80s, and there was also the atlas G, with a 67% success rate. It wasn't until the 1990s that they got up to a nearly 95% success rate - decades after the creation of the family.
You want perfection in under a decade of the creation of a new orbital rocket family. Please point me to a single case where that's happened, with a statistically significant number of launches under their belt. Proton? Nope. Soyuz? Nope. Delta? Nope. Arianne? Nope.
Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
As every KSP player knows, moar struts.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Article and pic here. SpaceX is planning a main landing pad as well as four contingency landing pads at Launch Complex 13 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, according to a June 2014 environmental impact statement.
The U.S. Air Force announced Feb. 10 that SpaceX has signed a five-year lease for Cape Canaveral’s Launch Complex 13, which was used to launch Atlas rockets and missiles between 1956 and 1978. In its new role, it will serve as a landing pad for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy booster cores launched from Florida, the Air Force said.
“The contingency pads would only be utilized in order to enable the safe landing of a single vehicle should last-second navigation and landing diversion be required. There are no plans to utilize the contingency pads in order to enable landing multiple stages” at once, the assessment said.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
If you are going for "man rated" in the commercial world, having a structural failure should *not* happen. The last Falcon 9 launch was due to a structural failure, long before it reached maximum G-loads as I recall.. I'd accept a valve, turbo pump, or even a control system failure as the cost of learning, but a structural failure that costs you the vehicle is a really bad indicator. Man rated systems should have significant safety margins, epically in its structure. I realize that this literally is "rocket science" but structural design and QA of structural components is really basic stuff here.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It was a structural failure from a third-party part that didn't even approach its claimed specs. And it's not like SpaceX never tested the struts - they did, just not every single strut. The third party (which has reportedly had their contract terminated) clearly had process consistency problems.
SpaceX has never had a problem with its turbopumps.
Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
Kinks. Quite a few 'kinks' rained down on the Atlantic. Those astronauts got pretty skinny waiting for Musk to send them some cookies.
Wear a flak jacket.
Given up on the barge. They are going to need that power to fly back up range. It would have been an awesome feat if not for Jeff Bezos. Been there, done that.
Because an Atlas V launch costs 2-3 times as much as a Falcon 9
About the only thing in common between the Atlas V and the previous Atlas family of rockets is the name.
Maybe between Atlas II and Atlas V, but Atlas V shares a lot in common with Atlas III. Atlas III was a real learning experience, and it shows in what was changed between III and V - for example, dropping the first stage balloon tanks in favor of isogrid (balloon tanks give great performance but they get you in the handling costs). And III was of course an evolution of II - even though II and V now have relatively little in common.
Read "Atlas V Launch Vehicle Service Guide" Appendix A about the history of the family. It's clearly an evolution, not a new development. They even use the same RD-180s.
Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
There was so much time after it became obvious that they have problem and until it blew up that astronauts could have just walked away from it, not even worth mentioning escape systems that astronauts rated capsules will have.
Ok, I'll give you the common engine between the Atlas V and the Atlas 3, but the tanks (material, diameter and construction), thrust structure and avionics are completely new with Atlas V. The Atlas 3 wasn't even designed to use the solid boosters frequently used with Atlas 5. It doesn't even use the same launch pads at CCAF and SLC-3E had to be completely rebuilt to support it. Lockheed clearly played down the differences during the EELV process as a way of leveraging the "long" history of the Atlas program