Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Livestreams Sunday's Rocket Launch (space.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the having-a-blast dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Space.com: A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying the 10 satellites for Iridium Communications is scheduled to liftoff from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 1:25 p.m. PDT (4:25 p.m. EDT/2025 GMT). The live webcast is expected to begin about 1 hour before the opening of the launch window, and you can watch it on SpaceX's website, or at Space.com. This is the second of eight planned Iridium launches with SpaceX. The launches will deliver a total of 75 satellites into space for the $3 billion Iridium NEXT global communications network. "Iridium NEXT will replace the company's existing global constellation in one of the largest technology upgrades ever completed in space," according to a statement from Iridium. "It represents the evolution of critical communications infrastructure that governments and organizations worldwide rely upon to drive business, enable connectivity, empower disaster relief efforts and more."
After the mission the booster rocket will attempt to land on a droneship. The droneships name is "Just Read The Instructions."

74 comments

  1. Other recent SpaceX launches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    were only mentioned on slashdot after the launch - if at all.

    Why the change?

    1. Re:Other recent SpaceX launches by Rei · · Score: 1

      Slow news day.

      Reminds me of news in Iceland. I remember one time reading an article about how two Icelanders were at an episode of the Tonight Show or something like that. Not on the show, just in the audience ;) Checking the news right now, I see one article about an unattended rooster seen walking around a national park.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    2. Re:Other recent SpaceX launches by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anyway, spoiling it for those who didn't see it: nice clean landing (despite the stormy weather at the landing ship and the new experimental titanium grid fins), SECO completed as nominally, awaiting startup 2 after the S2 coast phase (40 mins).

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    3. Re:Other recent SpaceX launches by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      An incredibly scenic country, and kudos for the well-done hiking trails. Now if only you could teach the British to build trails that were not designed to funnel rain directly down the trail to create a mud bog at every local low point.

      And your whales are really tasty - like filet mignon.

    4. Re:Other recent SpaceX launches by Rei · · Score: 1

      Not sure which trails you went on, but glad you enjoyed them. :) They're of course mixed quality - the Reykjadalur one used to be a "mud bog" trail, but they've since fixed it because it got popular. But in general we do a good job, I think. Especially given that "mud bog" is kind of the default state around here ;)

      And your whales are really tasty - like filet mignon.

      Speaking of that... ;)

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    5. Re:Other recent SpaceX launches by Rei · · Score: 2

      And there is goes, all 10 satellites successfully deployed. Another nice mission.

      Can't wait until the first Falcon Heavy launch... now that's going to be something that Slashdot ought to have an article on ;)

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    6. Re:Other recent SpaceX launches by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yes, we descended Reykjadalur on the first day after climbing Hengill, as well as touring the Hellisheiði power plant. Snow and sleet in June, and I've never seen so many different shades of moss.

    7. Re: Other recent SpaceX launches by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Looks like spacex got their ducks in a row in.terms of launches. This will allow them to catch up past due launches and get money flowing again. Hopefully this year, they will get FH flying, followed by dragon 2 in early part of 2018. Add to that Boca launch site and SX is then sitting pretty.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Other recent SpaceX launches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell you what. This is important news. *The* hot technology in space currently is reducing the cost of access to space. Its enabling, and its disruptive. I believe we'll be able to look back at these times and see an important inflection point in space community.

      Especially because the rest of the launch providers are going to be forced to react to improve their offerings as well.

  2. Impressive! by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Troll

    We will be living on Mars any time now!

    1. Re:Impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism is evil. We should be spending this on food for the hungry and cancer instead.

    2. Re:Impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you focus on getting the US government to divert even 1% of military funding to those causes, would be a lot more than what SpaceX is spending.

    3. Re:Impressive! by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they are hungry why would you want to give them cancer?

    4. Re:Impressive! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We should be spending this on food for the hungry and cancer instead.

      Getting food and medicine to those most in need requires reliable communications to remote locations in places like central Africa, and rural India. One why to do that is with communication satellites designed for exactly that.

    5. Re:Impressive! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is evil. We should be spending this on food for the hungry and cancer instead.

      The whole lame 'priorities' argument doesn't apply to private-sector projects. Go harass some government program.

    6. Re:Impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Getting food and medicine to those most in need requires reliable communications to remote locations in places like central Africa, and rural India.

      Maintaining medicine stockpiles in tropical regions is difficult because the parrots eat 'em all.

    7. Re:Impressive! by nnet · · Score: 1

      cancer needs food you insensitive clod!

    8. Re:Impressive! by nnet · · Score: 1

      because yeah, there's been 0 comm sats up there before today, and STILL there's millions starving.

    9. Re:Impressive! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      because yeah, there's been 0 comm sats up there before today, and STILL there's millions starving.

      There are many, many fewer people starving, and better communications is a big part of the reason. African economies are growing at over 4%, and growth is far better in areas that have cell coverage. With reliable communications, logistics is way more efficient, people can compare prices, report corruption, lookup information, and even do internet banking. Collectively, these things make a big difference.

    10. Re:Impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do spend a vast percentage of our resources on medical care and sustaining ourselves (food, shelter, etc), pure research/exploration barely shows as a rounding error in federal spending (around 1%) let alone overall resource expenditures. Using a few percent of our resources to further our understanding and exploration of our environment is advantageous to our species. If we had maintained your mindset throughout history we'd still be living in thatched roof mud huts, dying from simple infections and starving to death when the weather killed our crops.

    11. Re:Impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got problems.

      Seriously, you complain in any article about this stuff about space nutters when the only nutter is you and your obsession with shitting on this stuff.

      You never add anything remotely interesting, insightful, intelligent or new to any discussion - maybe consider taking a break if this is the best you've got.

      In other threads you seem to have things worth saying, but when it comes to space you don't. Did you get molested at space camp or something?

    12. Re:Impressive! by deathguppie · · Score: 1

      Let's not also forget the fact that the humanity is headed toward a self induced extinction event. When people are willing to spend trillions killing each other a few million to try to expand humanities horizon is nothing if not necessary. If we cannot learn to live outside this planet then we are all doomed to die together on it.

      --
      once more into the breach
  3. I am guessing... by Compuser · · Score: 1

    ...somebody wanted to name the droneship RTFM and the politically correct management screwed it up.

    1. Re:I am guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Iain M. Banks. Look it up :)

    2. Re:I am guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh - I find it pretty cool that someone out there is a banks fan and is putting it into practice :)

      I only wish banks would write books faster!!!!

    3. Re:I am guessing... by VDragon99 · · Score: 2

      Not sure if you are joking, but Iain Banks died in 2013.

    4. Re:I am guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aaaand, this is were you turn in your geek credentials... and with a 5-digit slashdot ID no less, such a shame...
      Both SpaceX drone ships are named after (sentient) Culture spaceships from Iain M. Banks novels (well, actually from just the second novel in the Culture series, we'll see if they expand in the future).

    5. Re:I am guessing... by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 2

      It's unlikely that Mr Banks is going to be writing books faster. (He's dead Jim)

      --
      VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
    6. Re: I am guessing... by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's still faster than George R R Martin

    7. Re:I am guessing... by Compuser · · Score: 1

      Never heard of this guy. Not sure how it applies to geek credentials but yeah, between this and not liking Star Wars I am guessing I am not a proper nerd. Oh well. Nothing against nerd culture btw.

    8. Re: I am guessing... by nnet · · Score: 2

      and far, FAR, FAR more interesting.

    9. Re:I am guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were into sci-fi, you'd have at least heard of him.
      Also, the fact that you consider Star Wars the same kind of "geek" as hard sci-fi is also troubling. Star Wars fans are into swords, magic etc usually quite far from science stuff.
      Yeah, turn in that geek card if you still have it...

    10. Re:I am guessing... by nnet · · Score: 1

      "we'll see if they expand in the future"? Jim, he's bread.

    11. Re:I am guessing... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I only know him (and bought his books) because of the SpaceX drone ship names.

      So the "geek credentials" bit is not really about knowing a particular author, but about not having come across any mention of these drone ship names and their origin even though they have been mentioned many times in articles about SpaceX, webcasts, tweets, etc...

    12. Re:I am guessing... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ian Banks, aka Ian M. Banks.

      Novelist and SF writer, most famous for his Culture novels:

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

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

      My favourite collection of books.

      In the culture series there are powerful AIs/ALs, called "Minds". They control space ships and orbitals/habitats.

      They usually have names like: "Peace makes plenty", "Attitude Adjuster", "So much for Subtlety" etc.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      He has also interesting ship classifications: ROU - rapid offensive unit, VFP - very fast picket (usually a demilitarized ROU), GSV - general systems vehicle, a kind of super super carrier with build in war ship factories.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:I am guessing... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I haven't memorized the list, but I recognised the style.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:I am guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darn. I guess I should turn mine in, too.

      I'm only a working scientist who creates video games in my off hours, but because I don't like reading sci-fi I'm not a geek, I guess.

      What a stupid fucking notion.

    15. Re: I am guessing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sales figures would tend to disagree with you

  4. More inhospitable for humans in 2030 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The surface of Mars
      or
    The surface of Earth

    1. Re:More inhospitable for humans in 2030 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The surface of Mars

        or
      The surface of Earth

      Definitely NOT Mars. Earth will still have air & plenty of water.
      And once again, there is still no Planet B

    2. Re:More inhospitable for humans in 2030 by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Mars' atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide, and has less than 1% the pressure of Earth's. Even if we were somehow able to add enough nitrogen and oxygen to Mars' atmosphere to give it Earth-like pressure, the CO2 already there would give it 15x more CO2 than the Earth.

      Mars is going to be more inhospitable than Earth until we're technologically capable of terraforming on a planetary scale. And if we can do that, we can just fix Earth's atmosphere.

    3. Re:More inhospitable for humans in 2030 by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Why would 15x more CO2 be a bad thing? Plants love CO2, and some extra greenhouse effect is probably more than welcome at that distance from the sun.

    4. Re:More inhospitable for humans in 2030 by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Because CO2 is toxic to humans at that concentration would be a starting point. More specifically high concentrations of CO2 make it impossible to breath out the CO2 from your blood stream irrespective of the level of oxygen.

  5. Yu0 Fail It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    JOIN THE GNaA!!

  6. Cynical much? by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Slow news day.

    Maybe for you. I find launches like this to be Must See TV. Doesn't matter if it's SpaceX or someone else. If you don't find satellite launches fascinating then you are either impossible to impress or you don't understand what is happening. Or maybe you are just being snarky for no good reason.

    1. Re:Cynical much? by nnet · · Score: 1

      or option 3, not interested/don't care. or other options not yet considered.

    2. Re:Cynical much? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I actually watch and enjoy them all. But Slashdot does not.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    3. Re:Cynical much? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Maybe for you. I find launches like this to be Must See TV. Doesn't matter if it's SpaceX or someone else. If you don't find satellite launches fascinating then you are either impossible to impress or you don't understand what is happening. Or maybe you are just being snarky for no good reason.

      If you leave out the reusable rockets we've been shooting satellites into orbit for 60 years. it's a bit like gawking at a horseless carriage. And not to piss on SpaceX's parade, but even this rocket's unlaunched big brother isn't nearly as big as the Saturn Vs they launched in the 60s. Nor has SpaceX to my knowledge delivered a single payload outside earth's orbit. Landing the first stage is a neat trick to cut costs further, on top of their already relatively cheap launch prices and that's all very neat and the plans for Mars are grand. It's not exactly moon landing class "Must See TV" though, just doing things cheaper and saving NASA a few hundred millions isn't that exciting. The day Musk tries to land on Mars instead of Earth then I'll be glued to my seat.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Cynical much? by barc0001 · · Score: 2

      I dunno, I've seen a ton of satellite launches (on TV and online) since the 80s and they're mostly pretty run of the mill. What SpaceX is doing with the landings is still a new frontier and it seems they keep pushing for more complex landings - on Friday they had the rocket come back "hotter" than any other they've tried because of the altitude they needed the first stage to reach and had to do a 3 engine landing - and they nailed it. Today it was sketchy weather, you could see the booster hitting heavy turbulence about 10 seconds before landing, and again they nailed it. At this rate someday we'll just yawn when they stick 3 Falcon heavys landing in the middle of a hurricane, but for now each is exciting and new.

    5. Re:Cynical much? by Rei · · Score: 1

      but even this rocket's unlaunched big brother isn't nearly as big as the Saturn Vs they launched in the 60s.

      By far the largest existing today. And not costing over a billion dollars per launch, or cost a meaningful fraction of the US's economy to develop.

      Nor has SpaceX to my knowledge delivered a single payload outside earth's orbit

      First off, that's a weird remark. The launch vehicle has nothing to do with what the payload does after it's launched; interplanetary transfer stages aren't part of a launch vehicle, they're just mass that it has to deliver. Secondly, DISCOVR does not orbit Earth; it orbits the Sun-Earth L1 point, and if it did not experience stationkeeping it would slowly drift away.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    6. Re:Cynical much? by imadeyoureadpoop · · Score: 1

      re:"other options not yet considered" sig relevant

      --
      Hanlon's Razor -- Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
    7. Re:Cynical much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By far the largest existing today

      Falcon heavy does NOT "exist" yet.

      Given that FH is basically 3x Falcon9 strapped together, F9 which had not even lifted 10 tonnes to LEO individually, FH (when actually built) is in no way "by FAR the largest" compared to the likes of Proton M, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, Long March 5...

  7. Drone Ship by TWX · · Score: 1

    After the mission the booster rocket will attempt to land on a droneship. The droneships name is "Just Read The Instructions."

    You know, if you can't go with, "Read The Fucking Manual," the joke loses something.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Drone Ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, two people failing on the reference in the same thread.

    2. Re:Drone Ship by PPH · · Score: 1

      Well, so much for subtlety.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Drone Ship by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Where's the attitude adjuster when you need it?

    4. Re:Drone Ship by stjobe · · Score: 1

      It's the name of a starship in Iain Banks' novel "Player of Games".
      Their other drone ship, "Of Course I Still Love You" is also named after a starship in that novel.

      You should check out Banks' Culture series of novels, they're really good reads.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    5. Re:Drone Ship by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      You know, if you can't go with, "Read The Fucking Manual," the joke loses something.

      The droneship being named "Of Course I still Love You" while the rockets were crash landing makes up for it.

  8. No heat shielding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it that the Falcon 9 first stage can re-enter the atmosphere at over 6000 km/h and not be burnt to a crisp? Cryo?

    1. Re: No heat shielding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The three engine re entry burn creates an envelope that acts as a heat shield.

    2. Re: No heat shielding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the burn is only 20 seconds and the vehicle is still going 6000+ km/hr at the completion of the burn (still only just at the top of the atmosphere too). There must be more to it. Maybe 6000 km/hr is not enough to generate significant heating? What did the shuttle re-enter at? 17000 km/h?

    3. Re: No heat shielding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the launch 2 days ago finished the reentry burn at 6500 km/hr and it started slowing pretty quickly after that point

      the shuttle reentry speed was 17500 m/hr which is over 28,000 km/hr

      so it really does boil down to the reentry speed not being that high. Remember that the first stage is not getting anywhere close to orbital velocity

    4. Re: No heat shielding? by Rei · · Score: 1

      20 seconds, 3 engines at nearly-empty is some pretty significant delta-V.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  9. Something fell of the secondary @27:17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something fell of the secondary @27:17

  10. Block 5 by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    It seems this is Falcon 9 block 5, because of the titanium fins.

    Block 5 also has 8% more thrust and " thermal-protection coating instead of paint on the first stage to help protect it from reentry heating"
    This is probably the first recovered stage that won't need refurbishing

    1. Re:Block 5 by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Or they just decided to test the fins on the current generation model before going all-in on them with block 5.

      I don't know, but if it was really a new version, I think they would have mentioned it.

    2. Re:Block 5 by Rei · · Score: 1

      Also, the paint on the first stage still looks scorched as usual after landing.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    3. Re:Block 5 by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      It's not scorched. It's covered in soot from the engine exhaust.

    4. Re:Block 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't make sense. Even if the exhaust were that sooty, it wouldn't explain why the sections protected by the landing legs during entry remain white

  11. Bored by life by sjbe · · Score: 1

    If you leave out the reusable rockets we've been shooting satellites into orbit for 60 years.

    Yes and what is your point? It's still cool as shit. If you think it isn't cool as shit I have to wonder why you are posting someplace like slashdot.

    And not to piss on SpaceX's parade, but even this rocket's unlaunched big brother isn't nearly as big as the Saturn Vs they launched in the 60s.

    Again so what? Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it is no longer interesting.

    The day Musk tries to land on Mars instead of Earth then I'll be glued to my seat.

    Oh so you're just being a hard to impress hipster. I get it. So sorry you are so bored by life.

    1. Re:Bored by life by Rei · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Personally, I'm impressed by the constant stream of new innovation work - it seems every other launch is trying something new, even if minor - some new part, some new extreme in the flight or landing envelope, some new attempt to work towards additional parts recovery or reusability, etc. I love how they're experimenting with fairing recovery. If they keep improving the durability of their F9 stages like they've been doing incrementally (e.x. in this launch, the titanium grid fins), we may well get to the point of seeing second stage recovery. SpaceX used to dismiss it as unlikely but now talks about it as a long-term goal.

      I imagine it will be a while, but I look forward to seeing how their reuse cost savings works out. We should be able to get a rough sense by tracking how quickly they're turning around stages, as that corresponds with man-hours. There's all sorts of tangential things they're ultimately going to need to reduce in price as well related to ground and communication services, things that used to be an insignificant fraction of the total cost but become more relevant the cheaper the rocket cost-per-flight gets. I'm an optimist on this; I think they're going to ultimately get turnaround very cheap indeed. I see no fundamental reason why turnaround must cost seven figures, or even six, per flight. Orbital rocketry is a tougher flight envelope than aircraft, but ultimately, you adjust your hardware to make maintenance turnaround as cheap as possible, just like aircraft designers do, based on your experience flying the craft. That which you can make last, you make last; that which you can't, you make it as cheap to swap as possible. You determine how much you can fly each part before it needs service, and build a maintenance schedule around that which minimizes labour and downtime. Etc.

      People often point to Shuttle reuse as a counterpoint to reusability economics, but the Shuttle program couldn't do the above. The orbiters were made once and then production stopped, versus the Falcons which are designed to be affordable even in a disposable, series-production flight mode. The Shuttle tanks were never reusable, and the SRBs (by nature of being solids) fundamentally required a full disassembly/recasting/rebuild each time. This is all ignoring how the program was economically compromised from the beginning due to budget cuts, difficult imposed design requirements, and a few bad decisions. The short of it, the Shuttle never had the option to make its engines or TPS maintenance-simpler, it never had the option to get rid of the side-mount that caused so many headaches (weight, vibration, debris strike, etc), couldn't change that the SRBs got seawater soaked after a highway-speed crash into the ocean, and on and on. SpaceX can continually change anything that hinders their reuse economics. It's a massive advantage, and I think ultimately it'll pay off massively.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  12. orbital manoeuvres in the dark by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know how the deployment is planned to happen ?

    From the webcast it seems they waited to be around the opposite side from launch, probably at apoapsis, then release the 10 sats in short bursts.

    Were they in a stable orbit at the time (would force you to deorbit stage 2) ? or were they with a low apoapsis (you only get one shot to stabilize) ?

    How do they plan to distribute the sats equidistantly along the orbit ?

    Please explain this to a Kerbin University graduate

    1. Re:orbital manoeuvres in the dark by Rei · · Score: 1

      They're in a stable orbit.

      The maneuvers required for the satellites to achieve their individual orbital parameters require only a minimal amount of dV. The constellation is 7 different planes of 10 satellites each, so they just need to vary TA with respect to each other. As a Kerbin University graduate, you're aware that you do this by making a small burn to increase or decrease orbital velocity, and thus orbital period, then recircularizing as you cross back over the orbital plane at the desired TA.

      The second stage does a deorbit burn (this is done upon completion of every LEO mission) to dispose of it in the ocean (after issuing a NOTAM for the expected debris ellipse).

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    2. Re:orbital manoeuvres in the dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ed: Cross back over the orbital plane is bad wording. "Reintersect the orbital ellipse" would be better. You never go out of plane.