Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Musk Announces Return-to-Flight Date For Falcon 9 Rocket

Posted by timothy on from the there-and-back-again dept.

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.

114 comments

  1. just a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:just a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      SpaceX oaid congress to get their certification instead of doing the engineering documentation properly. However, this is expensive enough that they'll scrub it if they don't have the problem ID'd and a good solution implemented. Musk hires slimy people, not stupid people.

    2. Re:just a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How insightful. Hopefully SpaceX reads your post and decides to look into what caused the previous failure.

    3. Re:just a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    4. Re: just a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey blowhard or amightywind, musk did not hire you. Ula did that. Shows that ula hires the slime and trash.
      And the kock bros really want you to wipe your mouth when going from to the next. They hate that sloppy millionth feeling that you give.

  2. looking up planet willis on alphabet.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    any fair sized rock will do? some landscaping & we all can breathe again,, grow vegetables,, become victims of nefarious wmd on credit subscriber cabals?... we can come back after the never ending wmd on credit holycost finally ends (& it will)? there'd still be plenty to do? in the moms we trust... truth & mercy = justice spirit of creation remains undefeated since/until forever... hand in hand we stand... it's in all the manuals...

    1. Re:looking up planet willis on alphabet.com by Rei · · Score: 2

      Word salad crunches gracefully over pineapple sunsets.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
  3. Hope there's one scrub by afidel · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:Hope there's one scrub by Rei · · Score: 1

      Here's the 10-day forcast - hope that that "chance of rain" on the 19th turns into "thunderstorms and strong upper level winds" ;)

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    2. Re:Hope there's one scrub by lgw · · Score: 2

      I used to live in Orlando - by my faulty memory one Shuttle launch in five or so went up on the planned day, so this guy's odds are good I think.

      There's an urban legend about how the Cape got picked despite the troublesome weather: someone looked at the average wind velocity there and the daily average was almost zero! (The always-present coastal winds reverse direction in the evening.) Silly, but it would explain a lot.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Hope there's one scrub by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      a delay that allowed me to watch the launch would be awesome.

      And the launch is the more boring part! With more notice (and not the week before Christmas!), I would have hopped in the car and motored the boy down to Fla. to see history in the making. Musk is messing with the fanbois - expect a scrub or two. ;)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Supercooling by excelsior_gr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Supercooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Supercooled" is the wrong word in the summary. "Cooled more than is typical" would be more appropriate.

    2. Re:Supercooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "WayCoolO2"

    3. Re:Supercooling by trout007 · · Score: 1

      This is more of an engineering term. If you let Liquid Oxygen sit around at ambient conditions it will be at the boiling point. Getting it colder requires additional systems to lower the temperature.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    4. Re:Supercooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Emptying the oxygen tank will cool what's left, so the problem with O2 just above its freezing point is freezing it solid. Lets hope someone did a proper thermal analysis and realizes this. The "additional systems" required may actually be heaters!

    5. Re:Supercooling by Rei · · Score: 1

      You realize that what's in the tank is liquid oxygen, right? And that it's pressurized by helium? More to the point, hot helium?

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    6. Re:Supercooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely correct. What a maroon. As Bugs would say.

    7. Re:Supercooling by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      It really should be "densified" propellant. They'll be cooling the Kerosene to below zero to allow more to be loaded

    8. Re:Supercooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually an interesting question. The pressurant tank is inside the LOX tank, and the heat capacity of the helium isn't that great, so the helium is going to end up at approximately the same temperature as the LOX. The pressurant tank will cool as the helium moves into the LOX tank - therefore any LOX in contact with the pressurant tank could cool down to the freezing point. The pressure inside of the LOX tank, however, goes up and this lowers the freezing point - also the LOX is pushed away from the pressurant tank. Anyway, I'm sure they have taken any such simple interactions into account in the design. You know, rocket science and all that.

    9. Re:Supercooling by Rei · · Score: 1

      so the helium is going to end up at approximately the same temperature as the LOX.

      Only after losing its heat to the LOX. The helium is heated by the engines.

      And yes, all of this has more than been accounted for - although it can be fun to be a Slashdot Rocketician sometimes ;)

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    10. Re:Supercooling by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I thought as well. I suspect that there's an arts graduate somewhere in the writing/ editing chain. But no, I didn't bother to RTFA - if it's got this sort of error, and the submitter didn't know enough to catch it for themselves, then it's probably not worth the effort.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. landing location by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:landing location by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Turnaround is much easier when the stage is nearly empty. First off you have air resistance killing off part of your lateral momentum for you, and you already have altitude. Your stage is vastly lighter as well, having used up most of its propellant and separated from the second stage and payload. Your last kilogram of propellant delivers about 23 times more delta-V than your first (in a way it's kind of problematic - even with just one engine operating and throttled all the way down (70%) it can't "hover", it still has way too much thrust). So turnaround is actually quite doable, if you have a little margin left over. It depends on how heavy your payload is and what sort of trajectory it's being launched to.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    2. Re:landing location by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The first stage is probably all about altitude and so can 'fall' down in place. Only when the craft is above most of the atmosphere does the lateral buildup of speed to orbital insertion begin.

    3. Re:landing location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space X has been using Cape facilities so far. They are renovating a Kennedy Space Center launch pad (a few miles away) that was used by the last shuttle. I saw it a couple weeks ago, about 30 people working on it (SpaceX logos everywhere in the area). They plan to launch from KSC, with the launch room outside any government facility in the nearby public areas. This allows them to have non-badged employees working on the launch.

      Not sure where at Cape Canaveral they are planning on landing. Perhaps the north end of the massive runway?

    4. Re: landing location by D.McG. · · Score: 4, Informative

      Launch Complex 13 was leased to SpaceX and has been renamed Landing Complex 1.

    5. Re:landing location by trout007 · · Score: 1

      They renovated LC13 and it's now a landing pad.

      http://spacenews.com/spacex-le...

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    6. Re:landing location by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Generally, rockets begin a roll maneuver that starts them heading downrange very soon after clearing the tower. For instance, the Saturn V would perform its roll maneuver about 20-30 seconds after liftoff.

      A huge fraction (90% ?) of the energy an object must gain in order to reach orbit is tangential velocity. By comparison the gain in potential energy from gaining altitude is relatively small.

    7. Re:landing location by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Have they finished that? I remember seeing that article back in February, but haven't heard anything since. Conceptually it shouldn't be hard to renovate it as a landing pad, doesn't need nearly the infrastructure of a launch pad, but I have no idea what details might be involved.

      I certainly hope so, a stationary surface should simplify landing, and I'm sure SpaceX could use a triumphant return to operation.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:landing location by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember it's 95% for low Earth orbit - theoretically less for higher altitude/slower orbits, but I think most launches aim for LEO first.

      So yeah, the vertical energy needed is a tiny fraction of the total, and since the first stage is typically designed to deliver most of the energy required, it is far more concerned with speed than altitude. They go for altitude quickly mainly to reduce the efficiency losses due to air resistance at high speed.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:landing location by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Ah, shame on me for not reading the summary better. Sounds like they still don't have approval for use, but are hoping to get it in time to land the next launch. Here's hoping.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:landing location by solartear · · Score: 1

      They have always publicly said no to the idea of launch in Texas and land at the Cape, at least for now. Musk even detailed that with Falcon Heavy the side boosters would not be able to reach the Cape and the central core would go too far past Florida.

      They have long detailed the plan as try at sea at first and later have it return directly to the original launch area. Although, with some launches of Falcon Heavy they expect to only be able to try landing the central core downrange at sea, if at all.

    11. Re:landing location by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, there's still not official word from the FAA approving land-landing, only from the Airforce.

      Also, depending on the mass of the payload, and with the Full Thrust upgrade, they should have enough propellant margin to attempt landing every rocket they send up from now on, but not necessarily enough to redirect all of them back to the launch site.

      And when the Falcon Heavy finally takes flight, while the side boosters should be able to return to the launch site, the central core will probably need to land on the barge far out at sea.

    12. Re:landing location by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      On Space Shuttle the SRBs were purely to gain altitude, which is why they could be recovered near the Cape. It was main engine thrust that took it to orbital speed after SRB staging.

    13. Re:landing location by Rei · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, first stages are limited in how fast they can accelerate due to aerodynamic drag, and they face far more gravity losses. The first stage pays for most of the "losses" that the craft will encounter in its ascent. Lastly, the first stage is only 32% of the total burn time. The most important part of any first stage is to get the craft out of the atmosphere so that the second stage engine can be optimized for vacuum. A first stage can be built for more burn time, but its nozzle - having been optimized for atmospheric usage - won't be as efficient.

      (and the answer concerning the ratio is "about 90%").

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    14. Re:landing location by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Quite right about getting out of the atmosphere being a priority, as I mentioned. That's why they go almost straight up for the early part of the launch - to reduce air resistance as much as possible before putting on speed. But as I recall most first-stage rockets are optimized for the extremely low ambient pressures experienced for the majority of their burn, though obviously there's some compromises made for the sake of the initial low-altitude portion of the flight that can be eliminated for the second stage (in fact I imagine one of the big incentives to a two-stage design is being able to fully optimize the second-stage rocket for vacuum)

      Still, speed is a priority for the first stage as well - not only to reach orbital velocities, but to reduce the amount of "support force" wasted by the rocket - the closer you are to orbital speed the less force is needed just to keep you from falling. So long as there's some atmosphere you can potentially harness some aerodynamic lift as well, but without proper wings I suspect most rockets don't gain much from that.

      But on to real numbers - a casual search turned up numbers from the Cassiopeia launch, which I will take as typical for a Falcon 9: separation occurred at roughly 100km and 2000m/s. So compared to an unusually very low earth orbit of 200km and 7,800m/s we're talking about the first stage delivering roughly half of the potential energy, and about 1/16th of the kinetic. I'll admit that's a lot less than I expected speed-wise, so I will cede the floor.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:landing location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, first stage gets to about half orbital velocity before separation.

    16. Re:landing location by Rei · · Score: 1

      What you call "support force" I call "gravity losses" - see above :). The first stage pays both aero losses and most of the gravity losses, which usually eat up what would otherwise be an additional 1000-1500 m/s delta-V per launch. And the first stage is only a third of the total burn time. And has to be a lot more acceleration-limited during the earliest parts of its flight to minimize aero losses, otherwise you waste even more energy fighting the air (and put more stress on your vehicle at max-Q, which means you'd have to build it stronger and heavier, aka, wasting even more energy). Falcon 9 doesn't even start its gravity turn until 55 seconds in - and first stage burnout is 160-185 seconds, so for a third of its flight there's no horizontal component at all.

      So yes, there is some horizontal component. But the first stage's main task is like any other first stage's - getting the second stage out of that pesky atmosphere :) You may have noticed how the ratios of sizes of the side boosters - on rockets that use them - to the rockets they're attached to are far less than the ratios of a main stage to the stage stacked vertically over it. That is to say, your typical vertically stacked stage is dramatically larger than what sits on top of it, but side boosters are usually smaller than the rocket that they attach to. Sometimes that's in part due to the core having a less dense propellant combo (such as LOX/LH)... but a large part is due to the above - you want enough thrust in the atmosphere to minimize your time at low speeds and thus gravity losses, but not so much thrust that you face huge aero losses - and you ideally want burnout time once the craft gets out of the atmosphere.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
  6. Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      " it's lack of comprehensive communications "

      Speaking of communications, it's means it is.

    2. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AS far as I can tell, no Elon Musk company has ever had any intention of communicating anything except glowing press releases. Paypal, Tesla, SpaceX all basically treat information like it was oxygen and getting updates or anything significant is like pulling teeth. I've never had to deal with SpaceX, but PayPal and Tesla are notorious for not saying squat to existing or prospective customers. I imagine the same holds true here.

    3. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by delt0r · · Score: 2

      It is a private company. They are not required to tweet every 15min to keep you entertained. If your a client i am sure it would be a little different.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    4. Re: Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. The Elon Musk fanboys don't care about little details like how anything works or what people do and stuff. They're just in it for the hipster factor.

    5. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      SpaceX is it's lack of comprehensive communications

      As others have mentioned it's a private company and like pretty much all have no intention of communicating anything except glowing press releases. There is NASA though they perform a wide range of activities though much of their communications gets bogged down in guvmint bureaucracy.

      Speaking of communications, I sometimes scour the internet for techie stuff on communication systems used by spacecraft but I don't find anything of value. Of course govt and companies are not going to post entire documentation (wiring diagrams, specific components, boards, source code). What I find are either cutesy PPT diagrams or very esoteric stuff. Unlike back in 20th century where QST magazine had article on Apollo communication system showing S-band and VHF comm links (freq and modes) between earth, spacecraft, and astronauts on EVA. It seems all there is online is glowing press releases and fluffy PPT slides. Whenever there is detail, it is usually political/business analysis and arguments. I have found lots of interesting stuff on Apollo and some early Shuttle stuff, I know there is some interesting ISS techie stuff out there, I only find political analysis and arguments. Of course there are technical stuff online but you need to know where to look, and if you already know then you don't need to search for it. Maybe that's the trend these days. Take a look at other subjects, many companies have less technical documents on their webpages and more "investment opportunities" pages.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    6. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's the trend these days.

      Just look at what happened to slashdot.

    7. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information?

      Lawyers.

      Even though FAA rules don't preclude company communication during an accident investigation, ass-covering lawyers insist on a total shutdown anyway.

      And since you're paying your lawyers to cover your ass... you do what they say.

    8. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by yogibeaty · · Score: 1

      How about ever? I put down a deposit on a Model X, as did my brother. 2 years late and we didn't have a single communication. Not one. Same with PayPal.

    9. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was an utterly useless post. Of course they're not required to tweet on any schedule. That's both trivially true and completely useless in this context. The GP wasn't condemning them for breaking a law, he was venting at how little they communicate.

      Next time, close the browser instead of spouting inane irrelevancies at us.

    10. Re: Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, the X is in production. If you really ordered one, you know that.

    11. Re: Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You are kidding. Right? Spacex has always given far more information than ula, Boeing, l-mart, ball Northrup , O-atk, etc. They may not give you what YOU want and when you want it, but it is still more information and sooner than others.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re: Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by yogibeaty · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha ha. "In production"? Really? Have you seen one? A demonstrator? Photos?

      Anyway, its a little over 2 years after laying down $5K that I asked for my money back (about 7 months ago. At that time, they would not talk about a time line. Last week, my brother got an email asking him to design his X, and a note that it would be a minimum of 10 weeks before delivery.

      Anyway, the point is that Musk's business model doesn't involve communicating, which isn't really up for discussion.

    13. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found that you should (general hints, apply to anything engineering or science or whatever):
      - Ignore any "news" or "press" sites / pages / subdomains
      - If you find a scientist or engineer's name, Google it and drill down into their personal pages or project pages mentioning them. Likewise any technical or project terms (e.g. instrument names for space missions)
      - If you've found a website that doesn't look very slick and hasn't had any graphics design work done on it, you've probably arrived. If it looks like some sort of ugly beast from the 90s, you've definitely arrived. Time to stop skimming and start digging around.

    14. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      If it looks like some sort of ugly beast from the 90s, you've definitely arrived.

      I found a couple of those, also makes it nice to print or save in case the site disappears (in that case, archive.org to the rescue). Your suggestion of ignoring "news" or "press" sites sounds good (hmmm, do a search with the term followed with "-news"?)

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    15. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      If it looks like some sort of ugly beast from the 90s

      I found one! Looks very 1990s Geocities but has diagrams, charts, etc. http://spaceshuttleguide.com/s...

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    16. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      And your contribution to the internet today was?

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    17. Re:Why Doesn't SpaceX Provide Timely Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's fast but I didn't think it was a rocket.

  7. Quite a lot to be tested by Thunderf00t · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:Quite a lot to be tested by Rei · · Score: 1

      Indeed... really they just need to land one successfully for now before going onto the next stage, which is working to prove that they can demonstrate and refine a process for refurbishment and return to flight in an affordable manner. One first stage returned intact gives them something to work with.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    2. Re:Quite a lot to be tested by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Quite. I imagine there will still be lots of refinement of the landing process for some time to come, but once they have landed one, then they can start figuring out what's necessary for refurbishment. I wonder if there will be a period of high-risk, cut-rate launches to test early refurbished rockets? I imagine there are a lot of projects out there where the cost of getting to orbit dwarfs the cost of the satellite itself, so that a high failure rate of early refurbished rockets would be an acceptable risk. Might even continue with rockets approaching end of life if they can't be recycled more cost effectively - it's probably going to be a long time before the need disappears to launch food, water, spare parts, and other low-value goods into orbit.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Quite a lot to be tested by Rei · · Score: 2

      Oh, sure, no question. Pretty much anything that's large and what you would call a "technology demostrator" (solar sail, experimental reentry system, large tether experiments, inflatables, anything of that nature) would go crazy for a cheap, even if high risk, rocket - when your spacecraft only costs a couple tens of thousands of dollars to build (or less) but launch costs are in the tens of millions, who cares if you lose the craft if it can save you a relevant chunk of the launch price? No question that SpaceX will find a market for reused rockets even during the high-risk initial phase.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    4. Re: Quite a lot to be tested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that, I wonder why spacex halted launches during the investigation. Why not continue launches while saying "90% launch success rate so far, take it or leave it".

    5. Re: Quite a lot to be tested by Rei · · Score: 1

      Because like any company they'd much rather be able to charge $65m per rocket rather than $30m per rocket ;) They want the Falcon 9 series to be seen as dependable and thus worthy of higher-value payloads - even if they haven't refined relaunch yet. It's particularly important because they plan to use it for humans, so it needs to be seen as safe - at least for the new rockets fresh off the line.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    6. Re: Quite a lot to be tested by Immerman · · Score: 1

      They're already less than half the price of the competition, IIRC, and I'm sure there's plenty of folks who would be willing to take the chance. I'd say more likely it's mostly a combination of two things that you've hit on: Keeping insurance costs as low as possible on their standard flights, and maintaining good PR. Plus the raw cost - I seem to recall hearing that they're currently barely breaking even on a launch, i.e. the launches are priced to get someone else to cover the costs of an R&D launch, with the idea being that once they work out the major kinks (and especially start getting a handle on reusablity), *then* they'll start making bank. Not much incentive to launch under those circumstances until you know exactly why the last launch drove up your insurance costs and have taken steps to repair it.

      On the PR front I'd consider including a bright yellow-and-black diagonal stripe paint job on the refurbished rockets - yeah, it blew up, but anyone seeing photos/videos of the landing can clearly see the whole thing was covered in "hazard warning", obviously it's something completely different than their normal launches.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re: Quite a lot to be tested by Rei · · Score: 1

      Haha, love the idea ;) Maybe paint the words "Mun Or Bust" on the sides in sloppy children's handwriting just for added emphasis ;)

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
  8. Republican welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Space Nutters hates us and want us to die. They will never let us live. Ever. They say moo. Moo.

    1. Re:Republican welfare by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Wow, is this an example of a metatroll?

  9. Good thing ULA was there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    to clean up the mess that SpaceX and ATK made with the losses of their rockets. Atlas V has perfect mission success. They are obviously incompetent. It makes you wonder why NASA doesn't just launch all cargo on Atlas V and cut the drama.

    1. Re: Good thing ULA was there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ULA shill.

    2. Re:Good thing ULA was there by Dantoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Good thing ULA was there by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    4. Re:Good thing ULA was there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    5. Re:Good thing ULA was there by bobbied · · Score: -1, Troll

      Yet, if you count the launch failures, the Atlas is more reliable by far than the Falcon family currently looks. Falcon will literally have to be perfect for nearly 50 launches to match the Atlas' reliability. Some how, I just don't see that in the cards for Falcon and SpaceX...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Good thing ULA was there by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    7. Re:Good thing ULA was there by bobbied · · Score: 1

      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
    8. Re:Good thing ULA was there by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    9. Re:Good thing ULA was there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinks. Quite a few 'kinks' rained down on the Atlantic. Those astronauts got pretty skinny waiting for Musk to send them some cookies.

    10. Re:Good thing ULA was there by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Because an Atlas V launch costs 2-3 times as much as a Falcon 9

    11. Re:Good thing ULA was there by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      About the only thing in common between the Atlas V and the previous Atlas family of rockets is the name.

    12. Re:Good thing ULA was there by Rei · · Score: 1

      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.
    13. Re:Good thing ULA was there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    14. Re:Good thing ULA was there by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      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

  10. The solution is simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "MOAR STRUTS!" - Jebediah Kermin

    (seriously, I hope they nail it. Good luck, SpaceX team!)

    1. Re:The solution is simple... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      LOL hahahahaha! Indeed, more struts helps a lot :-D

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:The solution is simple... by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unlike during the last Falcon 9 launch, I hope that they don't get impatient and turn on time warp again - everyone knows that it makes the physics unstable.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
  11. Any tips for attending the launch? by frank249 · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Any tips for attending the launch? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Should be viewable from just about anyplace in Central Florida, east of Orlando... Coco Beach would be nice, but Daytona Beach would work on a clear day. Heck, hop on Turtle mound road at New Smyrna and drive as far south as you can and hit the beach there, or stand in a clearing in Titusville looking east. Thousands of places to see this.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Any tips for attending the launch? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Space View Park in Titusville has line-of-sight to Pad 39, I was there for the last Shuttle launch. I don't know specific of other pads at the cape. There is the Space Walk of Fame, small but very interesting museum, http://www.spacewalkoffame.com... Though view will be miles away, and probably may not have 500,000 people including those that stop right in the middle of the freeways, maybe these SpaceX launches are like carnivals of enthusiasts like for Shuttle launches, https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    3. Re:Any tips for attending the launch? by frank249 · · Score: 1

      Much appreciated. Thanks.

      --

      Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    4. Re:Any tips for attending the launch? by frank249 · · Score: 1

      Good tips. Thanks. This may be an historic landing.

      --

      Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

    5. Re:Any tips for attending the launch? by frank249 · · Score: 1

      Launch complex 13 (now Landing Pad 1) is located closer to Coco Beach so perhaps I will try there first.

      --

      Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.

  12. Space Launches Schedule by frank249 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Space Launches Schedule by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to mention Falcon Heavy planned for around April to May of 2016 - which probably means "summer". I'm so looking forward to that one... 55 tonnes to LEO for somewhere around $100m... can you imagine what sort of probes we could launch with that kind of launch economy? Picture any probe we've launched thusfar and imagine what the designers could have achieved on that mission if they'd been given five times the mass budget.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    2. Re: Space Launches Schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see the SpaceX PR department is here in full force...

    3. Re: Space Launches Schedule by Rei · · Score: 1

      So saying that SpaceX schedules will inevitably slip makes me the SpaceX PR department?

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    4. Re: Space Launches Schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see the SpaceX PR department is here in full force...

      This is Slashdot...we are the PR department to this type of stuff.

    5. Re:Space Launches Schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so looking forward to that one... 55 tonnes to LEO for somewhere around $100m... can you imagine what sort of probes we could launch with that kind of launch economy?

      considering SpaceX is barely able to put a paltry 6 tonnes to the ISS (only about 2 tonnes of that is actual payload) for $133m, I'm so looking forward to my tax money not being squandered by the sniveling Elon Musk.

    6. Re:Space Launches Schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main reason Heavy had been delayed so long is that there are not many customers for this sort of payloads. Actually the trend right now is to launch smaller and smaller satellites with same capabilities.

      Where this sort of vehicles makes sense is for deep space missions that require good initial impulse to save years of travel time and what I personally look forward to is space station building. Cannot wait when someone starts to actually build stations instead of dock more modules. Not to mentioning when they start creating artificial gravity on them through centrifugal forces, at least for toilets and sleeping quarters, those poor astronauts...

      Another alternative is for delivering fuel to space fuel stations, however it may be covered cheaper by asteroid mining in near future.

  13. here's hoping by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:here's hoping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second last attempt, they plumb ran out of hydraulics and wouldn't have been able to do anything even if the pad was larger. The last one, a propellant valve was stuck, making the rocket unable to react to conditions as quickly as it ought. Not sure if a larger pad could have helped that one either. In any event, have you seen the pictures of the pads in Florida? They're not very big, they might not be any larger than the drone ship (the contingency pads might be smaller).

  14. As.. by Alioth · · Score: 1

    As every KSP player knows, moar struts.

    --
    Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    1. Re:As.. by GNious · · Score: 1

      if less than 1/3 of your spaceship, in parts-count, are struts, you're not doing it right.

    2. Re:As.. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yup. ;)

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    3. Re:As.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure you cannot put some more? I still see some empty space in there :)

  15. Picture of SpaceX Landing Pad by frank249 · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Picture of SpaceX Landing Pad by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Huh, curious end-quote positioning, if it had been

      >"There are no plans to utilize the contingency pads in order to enable landing multiple stages at once"
      or even "[at once]", I would have accepted that as obvious - multiple stages will by their nature land at very different times. The second stage is after all going all the way into orbit, performing its mission, and only then returning at its leisure, with the option to land pretty much anywhere since th entire planet is "downrange" once you're in orbit. And if the second stage has to abort during launch it seems unlikely that it would aim for the far up-range landing pads.

      Perhaps the author was simply unfamiliar with standard punctuation for paraphrasing quotations. Or I suppose it could be a typo.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Picture of SpaceX Landing Pad by Rei · · Score: 1

      You forgot something: the Falcon Heavy, which begins launching next year, is basically two Falcon 9s hooked to an extra-long Falcon 9. Here's a video of the concept - basically, the side boosters simultaneously return and land, then the center booster returns and lands, while the third stage (which is the 2nd stage on the Falcon 9) isn't recovered. The design really stresses the SpaceX line of thinking - use as much duplication of parts as you can so that you can get economies of scale on production as well as and gather test data faster. Thankfully they don't take it as far as the OTRAG concept did! ;)

      SpaceX is of course taking this incrementally. Right now they need to prove that they can reliably land the boosters and refurbish them. Only once they can show that returning and refurbishing them is a profitable activity will they need additional landing pads.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
    3. Re:Picture of SpaceX Landing Pad by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Fair point, I did forget about that. That would likely call for three independent landing pads - you don't want the engine wash from a landing rocket to knock over one already on the ground, to say nothing of having shrapnel from a failed landing tearing through one that landed successfully. I.e. don't drop bombs on your own valuable assets.

      What problem do you see with the OTRAG? From the wikipedia article it sounds like an extremely viable concept. A bit lacking in technical elegance perhaps, and with less long-term cost-reduction potential than reusable rocketry, but potentially very cost effective all the same.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Picture of SpaceX Landing Pad by Rei · · Score: 1

      OTRAG takes things too far. Yes, propellant and raw materials costs are only a small fraction of the total, but that doesn't mean that you can just toss ISP out the door. When you have to make a veritable mountain to launch a tiny payload you're giving yourself massively increased overhead costs - and unlike propellant costs, overhead is a big part of rocketry costs. You're also putting yourself in a far harder situation concerning environmental permiting, and the heavy (frequent) staging requirements and heavy steel boosters mean your craft is basically a bomber. Also the need for massive staging greatly increases the risk of catastrophic failure - staging is one of the most frequent areas of failure - yet they want to shed vast numbers of stages on every launch with low-budget boosters.

      They took very real concept - that mass production reduces costs, and propellant costs aren't that critical - and walked way too far with it. And it's worth pointing out that there's also a very real concept that is precisely opposite that which underlies OTRAG - the "Big Dumb Booster" concept, which argues that single huge stages tend to be far cheaper than numerous small stages. Both of these are facts and yet they contract each other ;) I really think SpaceX hit the balance on this one: they pursued mass production, but not at the cost of performance or breaking things down too far. Because in rocketry performance really does matter, particularly on upper stages.

      --
      Nothing says 'welcome to the neighborhood' like a gunny sack full of dead squirrels.
  16. I have one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wear a flak jacket.

  17. Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course Bezos' was a suborbital test flight, not a commercial, money-making flight.

      Both Bezos and Musk still have a ways to go.

    2. Re:Been there, done that by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The full thrust version of Falcon 9.1 has sufficient performance to fly back to the Cape without needing the barge. The barge will still be used for heavy GEO sat launches (which couldn't be recovered before), and the core stage of Falcon Heavy which will be too far down range to return to the Cape

    3. Re: Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have not given up on the barge. But they have shown to the faa that they can control the descent and they now have a landing pad.