Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Sets Feb. 24th Target Date For Next Launch

Posted by timothy on from the safely-after-groundhog-day dept.

Rei writes: After some consternation about the pacing of Falcon 9 upgrades, SpaceX has announced that it plans to launch again from Cape Canaveral with a target date of February 24th. While the primary mission will be to place the SES-9 communications satellite in orbit, this will also mark their fourth attempt to land the first stage on an autonomous drone ship, after their last launch touched down softly but fell over when one leg failed to latch. SpaceX is working to significantly accelerate the rate of production and launches — they are reportedly moving the factory from 6-8 cores produced per year to 18 at present, and expect to reach 30 by the end of the year. After the upcoming launch, they expect to launch one rocket every two to three weeks.

42 comments

  1. Launch into OBLVIOON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then there were none!

    1. Re:Launch into OBLVIOON! by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

      "Launch into Oblivioon" sounds like a particularly bad anime, in which a group of teenagers is transported into a shadowy realm in which they, as the last hope of humankind, must do battle with an evil force bent on destroying our universe--but mostly they just walk through weird forests and talk about whether character X merely likes character Y, or if he/she like-likes her/him.

    2. Re:Launch into OBLVIOON! by NEDHead · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, this TV series treatment is proprietary and your unauthorized disclosure is a copyright violation. Consider this to be a Takedown Notice, and act accordingly, or suffer unimaginable consequences.

      Yours Truly,

      Hollywood

  2. Enough crash videos, might as well succeed by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    We have enough landing crash videos to last us a while. Might as well land one successfully now.

    1. Re:Enough crash videos, might as well succeed by Rei · · Score: 1

      If they keep giving us crash videos, someone's going to have to make a compilation video set to the song "Yakity Sax" ;)

      Seriously though, they've made clear progress every time. So there's good reason to be hopeful here.

      --
      We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
  3. spirit of creation new horizon event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we hang on to our hemispheres? in the moms we trust....

  4. Kessler, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they are reportedly moving the factory from 6-8 cores produced per year to 18 at present, and expect to reach 30 by the end of the year

    Hooray for more space junk!

    1. Re:Kessler, anyone? by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not seeing the connection. Somebody's going to be launching satellites either way, whether it's SpaceX or a competitor.

      Also, don't confuse cores with launches. The Falcon Heavy is three cores. Of course, offsetting that, there's the potential for reuse of rockets...

      --
      We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
    2. Re:Kessler, anyone? by Eloking · · Score: 1

      they are reportedly moving the factory from 6-8 cores produced per year to 18 at present, and expect to reach 30 by the end of the year

      Hooray for more space junk!

      And since when this is a problem?

      --
      Elok
    3. Re:Kessler, anyone? by legRoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not seeing the connection. Somebody's going to be launching satellites either way, whether it's SpaceX or a competitor.

      Not that I am at all opposed to more satellite launches, but... how can you possibly believe that SpaceX increasing the global supply of (relatively) cheap rocket launches won't affect the quantity of stuff launched into orbit?

      This is like, economics 101 - when supply goes up and prices go down, demand increases in response.

    4. Re:Kessler, anyone? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't expect a huge shift in the size of the global launch market at current Falcon 9 pricing. Now, with reusable Falcon 9s, or multiple payloads from Falcon Heavies at current quoted launch prices, that could be a different story...

      --
      We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
    5. Re:Kessler, anyone? by legRoom · · Score: 1

      Arianespace and United Launch Alliance have both basically announced that they're replacing their current launch vehicles specifically to be more competitive with SpaceX (although perhaps not in so many words). Clearly, SpaceX is having a real impact.

      It may not be a world-changing impact, but all the OP said was, "more space junk!" Even the Kessler syndrome allusion is not that unreasonable, considering that some people think we may have already crossed the point of no return.

    6. Re:Kessler, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the things SpaceX and others are emphasizing for "the future" is small, expendable cubesats in LEO, e.g. for SpaceX's Internet plan. This is low enough that atmospheric drag brings things down relatively quickly. If launch costs are low enough, and SpaceX's satellite factory and general commoditization of satellite components keeps progressing, this could be beneficial as far as the space debris problem is concerned.

    7. Re:Kessler, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but it also increases the cheapness/opportunities of sending up debris cleaning satellites as well. The space faring nations of the planet should develop/build several classes (cubesat, small, medium, large) of debris cleanup satellites. Form cooperative agreements with the launch companies to the effect that whenever a space launch has some capacity that would otherwise go wasted fill out that spare capacity with the appropriate debris cleanup satellites as a secondary payload.

    8. Re:Kessler, anyone? by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Hooray for more space junk!

      And since when this is a problem?

      What about all the poor animals who have to live in the environment up there, polluted with space-junk? Particularly if that space junk ends up in their breeding grounds?

    9. Re:Kessler, anyone? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Of course they're taking business from other players - but that's not the question. The question is if they're making new business that otherwise wouldn't be there. Thusfar, I haven't seen anything to suggest that.

      But, the potential is there in the future if they can keep bringing down costs, as they're hoping.

      And IMHO, we're not even remotely near the point where space junk is going to stop us from launching things into space. Not even close. Particularly in LEO where orbits decay relatively quickly. It's always a threat, a threat that rises with the launch rate, but as far as being prohibitive... no. And there's some good evidence that things are moving in a positive direction - increasingly, nations are passing laws mandating that satellites be moved to disposal or graveyard orbits at the end of their service life, rather than just leaving them out there as potential collision/debris generation hazards.

      --
      We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
    10. Re:Kessler, anyone? by D.McG. · · Score: 2

      The SpaceX internet communication satellites are expected to be in the smallsat-class of 100-to-500 kg (220-to-1,100 lb) mass; which are intended to be orbiting at an altitude of approximately 1,100 km (680 mi). There's far less drag at 1,100 km than on the ISS; which has an apogee of 416 km (258 mi).

    11. Re:Kessler, anyone? by legRoom · · Score: 1

      Of course they're taking business from other players - but that's not the question. The question is if they're making new business that otherwise wouldn't be there. Thusfar, I haven't seen anything to suggest that.

      But, the potential is there in the future if they can keep bringing down costs, as they're hoping.

      Again, economics 101 - they have already brought costs down across the industry, and the burden is on you to prove that demand for satellite launch services is completely inelastic in this price range. Otherwise, the OP's claim of "more space junk" cannot be reasonably rejected.

    12. Re:Kessler, anyone? by Rei · · Score: 1

      No, they're making the claim that there will be an increase in the launch rate, an increase that we haven't seen. The burden falls on them to prove that one is suddenly going to materialize. It's their claim. My counter is simply: "where is it?" Where is this supposed surge?

      --
      We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
  5. Solid firmament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going to crash, as always. The firmament is made of solid material.
    Laugh while you can.

  6. Why not support the top of the booster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not use some sort of collar made of cables on some masts around the deck to support the top of the booster? When the booster come in, the hoop is wide open so as not to obstruct. As it passes though, the loop tightens and the booster is kept upright even if it tips. By the time it lands, the loops is snug against the top of the rocket and the booster is secure, even if the platform rocks.

    1. Re:Why not support the top of the booster by Rei · · Score: 1

      Complexity. Money. Risk of inadvertent rocket damage.

      Best just to learn to land the rockets right.

      --
      We should start dealing in those black-market beagles.
    2. Re:Why not support the top of the booster by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      The booster isn't strong enough. Much of it is about as thick, and as strong, as a coke can (but much bigger). There are just enough structural ribs and the like to support the load during launch (and after landing) but if you grab it in the wrong place it will just break. The mass is mostly at the bottom (engines) so I gather it's quite stable once it's sitting on its feet and they weld covers over the feet to hold it in place for the voyage home.

    3. Re:Why not support the top of the booster by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Why not use some sort of collar made of cables on some masts around the deck to support the top of the booster? When the booster come in, the hoop is wide open so as not to obstruct. As it passes though, the loop tightens and the booster is kept upright even if it tips. By the time it lands, the loops is snug against the top of the rocket and the booster is secure, even if the platform rocks.

      That was actually my first reaction: "Oh, obviously it'll be something like 'this' that they'll be using...", the first time I heard they'd be landing them at all.

      Then I got really annoyed at them not having something like that, and trying to land on a pitching platform.

      The platform landings themselves make sense, particularly if you locate the launch and landing facilities out in international waters so that the world really has no say in whether or not you are allowed to launch and/or land, but really: there's a lot simpler tech that would work to avoid losing the things over and over again.

      That said, once they get it right (assuming they ever do), and assuming the weather cooperates all the time, having solved the problem, the per launch additional equipment costs will be marginally lower than they would have been, had they gone with a "hug truss" system in the first place.

      Personally, I was thinking they were going to do a least three dirt landings to give them a confidence interval and more data, since that data may change what they decide to do in the process of landing, which in turn might add complications to the water landings that they had not yet considered.

    4. Re:Why not support the top of the booster by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:Why not support the top of the booster by tlambert · · Score: 1

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

      Yes.

      However, if I am designing an experiment, I try to limit any simultaneous changes to dependent variables.

      That's not to say that I *won't* (I have) vary multiple independent variables at the same time, but if I do, I usually have at least a "hunch" that the direction I'm moving them both (all) is toward a saddle point.

      Perhaps the person deciding this has already concluded the independence of the variables and the probable location of the saddle point. If so, good on them; from outside, I really haven't reached the same conclusion, but, alas, I do not have all of the data they have.

      Which is why I stated my comment the way I did, rather than accusing them of bad judgement.

    6. Re:Why not support the top of the booster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's not necessary, they seem to have the rockets landing pretty dialed in. They just need to work on some reliability issues with the engine throttling and landing legs (possibly icing issue). Adding all of that would simply impart more things that could go wrong and more things they would have to tweak. Also remember that recovering their first stage is merely a bonus at present. Falcon 9's recovery seems to be a "proof of concept", the major (see full) reusability will come with their next rocket family "if" (I'd say it already is, but some would say it is still questionable) the Falcon 9 is successful.

  7. More Elon Must Stories Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It seems since our new Slashlords have taken over there have only been 1 in 10 stores about the great Elon. WTF Timmy? Work harder.

    1. Re:More Elon Must Stories Please by Eloking · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems since our new Slashlords have taken over there have only been 1 in 10 stores about the great Elon. WTF Timmy? Work harder.

      Yeah! And let's stop those repetitive posting about Linux altogether, we have enough of them already! /sarcasm

      More seriously though, why are you complaining? A quick search of the tag "x elonmusk" show about 1 story per week. Furthermore, I'm very interested to follow those space launch and rocket engineering kinda fall into the spirit of /. afaik.

      --
      Elok
    2. Re:More Elon Must Stories Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems since our new Slashlords have taken over there have only been 1 in 10 stores about the great Elon. WTF Timmy? Work harder.

      Yeah! And let's stop those repetitive posting about Linux altogether, we have enough of them already! /sarcasm

      More seriously though, why are you complaining? A quick search of the tag "x elonmusk" show about 1 story per week. Furthermore, I'm very interested to follow those space launch and rocket engineering kinda fall into the spirit of /. afaik.

      What are you smoking Eloking (877834)?

      There have been THREE Elon Musk stories TODAY.

      afaik? You don't know shit.

  8. Some "facts" by Terman · · Score: 1

    - 100% of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust landings have been successful.
    - 0% of the Falcon 9 v1.1 landings have been successful.
    - There has been one F9 FT flight so far.
    - The F9 FT has (among others) improved thrust (and thus more reserves for the return flight) and improved landing gear.
    - After the successful return of the F9 FT some things were noted about the FT drives and launches were pushed back 4-6 weeks as it looks right now.

    1. Re:Some "facts" by tlambert · · Score: 1

      - 100% of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust landings have been successful.
      - 0% of the Falcon 9 v1.1 landings have been successful.
      - There has been one F9 FT flight so far.
      - The F9 FT has (among others) improved thrust (and thus more reserves for the return flight) and improved landing gear.
      - After the successful return of the F9 FT some things were noted about the FT drives and launches were pushed back 4-6 weeks as it looks right now.

      Or the ground landing was a "Oops! We accidentally landed successfully! Let's blame the equipment! Back to the barge! Arrrrrr, maties!".

      Multiple successful ground landings would have been good. But they aren't planning to refly the thing even if it's a successful landing at this point. But that does move us 3 launches to reuse from first landing to probably 6 launches to reuse. If they have money to burn on it because they are rolling it into launch costs, it makes sense to roll as much of it as you can into the costs before you end up being forced to drop the prices.

      And yes, I know: being cheapest, they aren't "forced", but visible reuse would encourage others more, if it had corresponding visible cost reductions.

  9. Olgino trolls / bots by avgapon · · Score: 2

    Judging from many comments posted so far in this topic it looks like the presence of Olgino trolls / bots is increasing on /. This is even more evident in politically charged discussions. So, congratulations to /. -- it's finally has been noticed and taken seriously.

    1. Re:Olgino trolls / bots by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? I've just checked, your recent posts are basically the same thing over and over and over again, just with somewhat different wording.
      Seems that you are an actual bot. Or insane.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  10. Crediblity on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk and SpaceX have no credibility on schedule. They are clearly straining to credibly enter the geosynchronous market. I look forward to the spectacular video of their next launch failure.

    1. Re:Crediblity on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And before CRS-7 you had nothing to say, so just shut up.

    2. Re:Crediblity on schedule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "credibility on schedule"

      With most of the launch market the schedule doesn't matter so much as GETTING THE SATELLITE INTO ORBIT. In that regard SpaceX has been quite successful, only one full fledged failure which appears to have been caused by an outside supplier rather than an actual design flaw/procedure issue. Give any organization (non defense contractor at least) looking to launch something into orbit a choice on a "pick any two" diagram between "cheap, on time, high chance of success" and they'll choose "cheap, High chance of success" and leave "on time" by the wayside every time.

  11. More cores? by marciot · · Score: 1

    Is SpaceX taking a page out of AMD's playbook now?

    1. Re:More cores? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      AMD Lego cores. Snap together as many as you need.

  12. same number of launches planned as UAL by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Both SpaceX and United Launch Alliance plan 14 launches this year according to nasa launch maniefest. Antares and Orbital two each. Russia plans 17 Soyuz and Proton launches.

    1. Re:same number of launches planned as UAL by frank249 · · Score: 2

      The point of the second article was that SpaceX wants to Dramatically Accelerate Its Launch Frequency and, if all goes as planned, the company will achieve a launch rate of once every two to three weeks. They have 40 Falcon 9 missions and 6 Falcon Heavy missions on their manifest. The more launches, the more chances for problems but for now the only constraining factor appears to be the number of cores they can produce. They need 61 cores for their current manifest (40 x1 F + 7 x3 FH) so even if they increase production to 30 cores per year, it will still take over 2 years to produce all the cores they need for their current manifest.

      --

      Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.