Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy Rocket Launches First Paid Mission, Lands All Three Boosters For the First Time (cnn.com)
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket has successfully launched its first-ever mission for a paying customer. It was also the first time the aerospace company managed to land all three rocket boosters after launch. CNN reports: The rocket took off Thursday from Kennedy Space Center in Florida just after 6 pm ET. It delivered a pricey communications satellite into orbit for Saudi Arabia-based firm Arabsat. For the first time ever, all three Falcon Heavy rocket boosters returned to Earth after launch: The two side-boosters landed simultaneously on ground pads in Florida, while the center core landed on a remote-controlled platform in the ocean a short time later. Reusable hardware is part of Falcon Heavy's appeal. The boosters are guided back to Earth so they can be refurbished and used again. SpaceX says it can drastically reduce the cost of spaceflight.
The Arabsat mission is evidence that some satellite operators will opt for a larger rocket anyway: Arabsat 6A was small enough to fit onto a Falcon 9 rocket. But using the larger rocket allows the company to put the satellite deeper into space, which means the satellite won't need to waste as much of its own precious fuel maneuvering to its intended position. Arabsat 6A will update satellite coverage for Arabsat, which is based in Riyadh and delivers hundreds of television channels and radio stations to homes across the Middle East, Europe and North Africa. Lockheed Martin built the satellite, along with a second one, for Arabsat as part of a batch of contracts worth $650 million. When Arabsat announced the contracts in 2015, it said at the time that it planned to launch the Arabsat 6A satellite aboard Falcon Heavy. In related news, SpaceX has won a contract to launch the first-ever experiment in 2022 to deflect an asteroid through a high-speed spacecraft collision. "NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test, or DART, will ride on a Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at a cost of $69 million," reports Florida Today. "It's expected to launch in June of that year."
The Arabsat mission is evidence that some satellite operators will opt for a larger rocket anyway: Arabsat 6A was small enough to fit onto a Falcon 9 rocket. But using the larger rocket allows the company to put the satellite deeper into space, which means the satellite won't need to waste as much of its own precious fuel maneuvering to its intended position. Arabsat 6A will update satellite coverage for Arabsat, which is based in Riyadh and delivers hundreds of television channels and radio stations to homes across the Middle East, Europe and North Africa. Lockheed Martin built the satellite, along with a second one, for Arabsat as part of a batch of contracts worth $650 million. When Arabsat announced the contracts in 2015, it said at the time that it planned to launch the Arabsat 6A satellite aboard Falcon Heavy. In related news, SpaceX has won a contract to launch the first-ever experiment in 2022 to deflect an asteroid through a high-speed spacecraft collision. "NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test, or DART, will ride on a Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at a cost of $69 million," reports Florida Today. "It's expected to launch in June of that year."
Now it won't be necessary for people to vote up my previously submitted story.
The first Falcon-Heavy was amazing...but this is awesome.
I know folks don't like him, but way to Elon and way to go Space-X!
Space X will never work. Because reasons. ...time passes...
Falcon will never work.
Well ok, but falcon heavy will never work.
I never said it couldn't work. Anyone could have done that. It was obvious.
But thing #101 will never work. Because reasons.
Your stupid if you think they are blind to their data and not moving forward.
Whoosh.
Gonna force me to go do a search for the actual 'good stuff' eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ; Horses mouth.
Although I found your post funny, I would say that looking over the data they get back there is probably plenty of micro-butt-clenching moments they are learning plenty from. :-)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Impressive achievement.
Only a slight exaggeration. The end of dependence on Russia to service the international space station is now in sight. Finally. So sad that Russia fell off the rails so badly, but it happened, and now the only logical course is, just cut every tie, especially ones where lives hang in the balance. Thanks much for not holding the space station hostage these past years, but goodbye and good riddance.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I would assume that you are planning on crashing your car very soon because you clearly are not learning anything at your current driving proficiency. Or perhaps you need to get more communicable diseases to keep your immune system in top form. Either way I personally look forward to your upcoming demise since you are obviously a complete moron.
Why is Snark Required?
but then the main vehicle would need to have duplicates added back on to position and de-orbit, increasing the overall weight
Except it actually did. The Space Shuttle's main engines were not used for on-orbit maneuvering, and were basically deadweight once the external fuel tank was jettisoned. Instead, they had separate orbital maneuvering engines that used hypergolic propellant for all of that stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuvering_System
To truly take out the Russian economy, we need to start producing petroleum products at a much cheaper rate and offer it to their customers.
Or reduce the worlds dependence on said products.
I wouldn't want the Russians to be out of the game for a number of reasons:
1) Russia owns some of the modules on the station, which includes pretty critical roles such as life support and orbit raising.
2) It would be in US interests to keep Russian scientists in Russia rather than somewhere else where their rocketry knowledge can be turned into missiles.
3) Russia still holds a respectable command over flight safety, unparalleled even by the US. If ever the CCtap ships get grounded, Soyuz will be the only way up the station.
It's sad to see Roscosmos rot as it is, especially today which marks the 50th anniversary of Gagarin making it into space.
It's sad to see Roscosmos rot as it is, especially today which marks the 50th anniversary of Gagarin making it into space.
58th anniversary (12 April 1961)
To say I'm excited would be a huge understatement. I am thrilled! This was the highlight of the year - so far!
Mr. Musk might just be one of the greatest men of our time. First man to establish a company that makes successful electric cars (and finally kicking the traditional car manufacturers in the groin to get up and do their own homework, finally) and first man to establish a successful private space launch company. Either of those endeavors would have seemed perfectly impossible just a few decades ago. And yet, a single man has done them both.
So yeah, the Musk adoration exists for a good reason.
As for me, I am looking forward for more of the achievements of humankind, exemplified in the output of SpaceX.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The prior Crew Demo 1 mission had more impact on the ISS than this flight did. Sure, if we were still hoisting ISS parts into orbit, then the Falcon Heavy might be relevant. The Crew Dragon 2 capsule ends dependence on Soyuz, assuming it passes its next tests ok (which it should).
If anything, the Falcon Heavy ends dependence on the Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V, which have a ~18 month lead time due to how long it takes to build a new one just for your launch.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Kennedy Space Center desperately needs to improve their spectator logistics. The biggest single thing limiting the number of people who can watch launches "up close" isn't crowd capacity, it's limited parking and road capacity into KSC.
KSC should try to make a deal with FEC Railroad, Brightline, Tri-Rail, and Titusville Mall:
Titusville Mall is practically dead, has a huge parking lot, and sits a short block away from FEC's tracks. I'm sure its owners would be absolutely thrilled to have an excuse to collect $10/car to park there on launch days.
FEC owns the tracks leading to the spur that goes to KSC itself.
They could lease the vacant lot at/near 3547 S. Hopkins Avenue (south of the Shell Station at Country Club Drive) so they'd have a place for people waiting for the train to stand. To save money, they could build a wood platform (with stairs and a single wheelchair ramp) wide enough to span between two Tri-Rail bi-level cars, and stick additional wood stairs on concrete pads for access to two more cars. It would take some time to get everyone on board, but that's OK... it's not like it would be one station of many for daily commuter rail service. The idea is to keep it cheap enough to be basically "throw-away", so that even if they ended up replacing it with something better a couple of years later, it would be no huge loss.
Virgin/Brightline could use one of their trains for a chartered Miami-Fort Lauderdale-WPB-KSC run before and after major launches. Yeah, in theory, SpaceX is sort of a competitor for Virgin Galactic... but not really. Just about the only thing VG and SpaceX have in common is, "launching rockets into space". Their market segments don't overlap AT ALL. Meanwhile, branding Virgin/Brightline as Florida's official "Space Train" would be an EPIC win for Virgin/Brightline in almost every conceivable way. Combined with the shuttle train(s) between KSC and the off-site parking lot, it would be a huge win for SpaceX as well, by vastly increasing the number of spectators able to watch a launch up close. More spectators = more political support for US space travel = more funding from Congress = more money for SpaceX.
They could additionally rent a couple of Tri-Rail's bi-level coaches for a couple of days before and after a major launch. Tow the coaches from SFRC/CSX to FEC, let FEC pull them up overnight with one of their freight trains, then use a FEC locomotive up in Titusville to haul them back and forth between the temporary mall station and the more permanent station at KSC itself.
The station at KSC itself could be constructed near the Banana Creek Launch Viewing area. People buying expensive tickets (that include admission to KSC) get to use the bleachers at the launch viewing area. People buying cheaper tickets (without admission to KSC, since KSC itself could never actually handle that many visitors on a launch day anyway) have a short bus ride to the Shuttle Landing Facility's runway, which could probably accommodate a quarter of a million visitors without being particularly crowded. Park some food trucks next to the runway, throw down a few dozen porta-johns, done.
They could also offer three different price levels for the rail shuttle... say, $A, $B, and $C. The difference? After the launch (or scrub), there would be three lines to board at the station. The $A tickets would be limited to the total capacity of two trips using the bi-level coaches rented from Tri-Rail. Each time a train arrives after launch/scrub, everyone in the $A line gets to board until they're either all on board, or the train is full. Then the $B line. Then finally, the $C line. After the first "mall shuttle" train (using the Tri-Rail cars) departs after launch, the Virgin/Brightline train would board, and head straight to Miami. With a little luck, the Virgin/Brightline train would reach the mainline and be heading south a minute or two before the mall-KSC train heading back to KSC reached the spur leading into KSC.
Later, once Virgin/Brightline's track to Orlando is
Either way Russia loses, and that's a great thing.
It's so nice to have the bulk of the Western world on the same page wrt Russia. Before Trump most of you were Russian apologists going way back, siding with Russia over the US at every opportunity. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was only the latest example; every vaguely plausible rationalization was offered to justify what was obviously just more Russian aggression.
But now you're so invested in `muh Russia' that Russia no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to be a Russian apologist while simultaneously arguing the Russia is destroying democracy and causing your candidates lose their elections.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I disagree. Bringing back the expensive engines was the only good thing it did. It wasn't worth it - but it could have been, if the second and third generation shuttles had been built, with re-usable liquid fuel boosters and shuttle designs that would have fulfilled the promise of fast, no-touch turnarounds.
The wings, landing gear, huge cabin and having to carry humans for launches that should have been fully automated were Shuttle's major problems. And Buran was only done because the U.S. was doing something similar, Russia didn't see exactly why, but couldn't be left behind if it proved to be for important strategic military reasons. Spoiler - it wasn't: Shuttle was built for silly political reasons.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
The last thing the US wants to do is "take out" Russia's economy, because then we'd have to worry about dealing with an impoverished, destabilized country that owns a large arsenal of nuclear weapons with substantial resale value. It's in our best interest for Russia to be affluent, happy, and feel secure. Politics isn't a football game.
The US is enormously safer and better off when Russia is a stable, wealthy, happy partner to do research and business with. It's fine for the US and Russia to be adversarial, as long as you recognize that an "adversary" isn't necessarily an "enemy". Sometimes, it's good to have a little bit of healthy adversity between worthy opponents... it keeps everyone honest & avoids stagnation. But you don't want it to turn into silly cheerleading and enmity, because that just leaves EVERYONE worse off.
And the fact is, by the time SpaceX really starts to eat into Russia's market share, they'll be following the same path towards reusability and lower cost as SpaceX. Remember, half the battle in inventing something is knowing it's possible. Now they know.
The fact is, Russia's space program isn't going away, even IF it becomes unable to compete with SpaceX on cost, because manned spaceflight is as important to Russia's national pride and sense of identity as it is to America's. If SpaceX undercuts Russia, Russia will follow in SpaceX's footprints, duplicate its success, and will hemorrhage as much money as necessary in the meantime to keep up appearances. Because the alternative is inconceivable to Russians.
Americans were traumatized when the shuttle program ended with no replacement in sight, but we could at least take a small bit of comfort knowing that it wasn't the first time we were temporarily out of the game. The same thing happened in the 1970s... Apollo ended, Skylab crashed, and the Shuttle just kept getting delayed and delayed. Then there was the lapse after the Challenger explosion. And another lapse after Columbia's accident. In contrast, most Russians have NEVER known a world where they didn't have the ability to send men into space. Even when the Soviet Union was disintegrating and Russia was on the brink of civil war, Mir was still occupied. And by the time Mir was deorbited, the ISS was already under construction (and might, in fact, have already had the Russian module in place, though I don't think it was ready for continuous habitation at that point).
Superior Launch System.
"Lands all three boosters for the first time"
Cool!
Now do four!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Whoosh!
Thinking the US (and their allies, for as long as that lasts...) are safe as long as Russia is, is a severe mistake. Why? Because Russia isn't inherently stable in its own right.
Actually it's the other way around, it's inherently unstable, since it's an aggressive, expansionist empire, built along feudalistic lines where the "emperor" only can rely on the loyalty of his supporters as long as he can provide a steady stream of rewards and gratifications to them. Eventually Putin will run into the same problem as all feudal lords through history has run into; he'll simply run out of things he legally or at least semi-legally can claim are "his" to give away. And then, much like the feudal lords of the past, he will have to expand, or perish.
"Fine" I hear you say, "I don't care about the rest of the world". The problem here is that the rest of the world is much, much bigger than the US, and if you abandon the rest of the world to the mercies of the psychopathic robber barons, their power will continue to grow to a point where the US has completely squandered its position by navel-gazing and is utterly doomed.
When dealing with Russia, or indeed any other aggressive, expansionist empire, it's wise to remember Gandalf's words;
"There can be only one Lord of the Rings, only one who can bend them to his will. And he does not share power!"
The leadership of Russia might change, but the nation doesn't. It's as deluded to think you can "share" with them as it was with Nazi-Germany or indeed Mordor.
People have know you could do more-or-less exactly "this" since the 50's. The loss of throw weight had made it no viable for most heavily-funded missions. There were flyback booster options considered for the Saturn V, go research them. It didn't happen because you could afford to do it - Apollo was on the ragged edge of the performance envelope. Similarly, everything else.
Chapeau bas!
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Russia fell off the rails so badly
Well, really, Russia was never ON the rails; they had a brief opening after the breakup of the URSS, but it didn't last. Most Russians appear perfectly OK with a dictatorship that maintains the illusion they're still a world power.
The last thing the US wants to do is "take out" Russia's economy, because then we'd have to worry about dealing with an impoverished, destabilized country that owns a large arsenal of nuclear weapons with substantial resale value. It's in our best interest for Russia to be affluent, happy, and feel secure.
You're way off the mark. Every time Russia starts feeling a bit wealthy it steps up interference with its rivals and oppression of its neighbours. Every. Single. Time. Russia behaved best and almost became a democracy when it was poorest, as in immediately after losing the cold war. That pattern will never change as long as Russia is run by the mafia.
The best thing that could happen to Russia right now is another economic collapse. Best for the free world, and best for itself.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Right, 90%+ of Russians seem to admire and support dictator Putin, making life miserable for the remaining 10%.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
reporting.
Not only did SpaceX recover all three boosters, but they also recovered both halves of the payload fairing in good enough condition to be re-flown.
Why does this matter?
The three cores and fairing were not discarded - so the ONLY things expended while launching a muti-ton satellite out to geostationary orbit (way beyond LEO) were the propellants and the second stage!
This makes this flight of Falcon9H(block5) the single highest ratio of payload-to-expended-stuff of any rocket ever flown. It's a huge "game changer".
Musk used to want to make the second stages recoverable and reusable, which would make Falcon9 nearly as cost-efficient as an SST, but now has the R&D focus on an even greater leap forward, his "Starship". None of this would have happened if we had stuck with defense contractors and "cost plus" contracts.
The rise of commercial space in the USA has been a long one that is only now starting to pay off.
In the 1980s, President Reagan asked NASA to study the possbility of commercializing the space shuttles - transferring ownership of the vehicle fleet and the designs to a private operator who would operate them and build more as needed while selling the government (and anybody else) transport services, like an airline. He hoped to introduce the "animal spirit" of the free market. The shuttles were simply not good enough for this to work economically and thus remained as very expensive government funded projects.
In the 1990s, Clinton and Gore teased the commercial path with the X-33 program which would have tried the Reagan thing but in hybrid form as a joint effort with Lockheed-Martin and the "Venture Star", but the tech was still not ready.
In the early 2000s, The George W Bush administration decided to finally try commercial, for cargo deliveries to the ISS, in parallel with the shuttles and eventually replacing them, and with a path to possible future commercial crew services. This program provided the cash Musk needed for SpaceX to develop and prove the Falcon9.
Then the Obama administration pushed ahead with commercial crew, even as people in both parties in congress were opposed and dedicated to protecting jobs at the big defense contractors in their districts.
Now the Trump administration is opening the door further, teasing out plans to use commercial (and Falcon9H is currently the only one available) to quickly get back to the moon, which is lighting a fire under the butts at Boeing and LockMart who are for the first time actually facing an embarassing competition.
Keep an eye on Boca Chica, Texas (where SpaceX is working on their "Star Hopper" test vehicle and the first orbital version of it - if that monster works, the dreams of decades will be within our grasp.