SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Blasts Off From Florida 112
An anonymous reader writes After two months of delays, SpaceX was successful today with its launch of six Orbcomm telecommunications satellites. All six satellites have been successfully deployed in orbit. The 375-pound satellites will offer two-way data links to help customers track, monitor and control transportation and logistics assets, heavy equipment, oil and gas infrastructure, ships and buoys, and government-owned equipment. From the article: "SpaceX plans to use Monday's launch to test a landing system it is developing to fly its rockets back to the launch site for refurbishment and reuse. During Falcon 9's last flight in April, the first stage successfully restarted some of its engines as it careened toward the ocean, slowing its descent. The rocket also was able to deploy stabilizing landing legs before toppling over in the water. The booster, however, was destroyed by rough seas before it could be retrieved by recovery ships. Monday's launch was the 10th flight of Falcon 9 rocket, all of which have been successful."
So was the landing successful? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article is pretty vague about potentially the most important part of this launch - the reusable landing system. The article says they were going to "test" this. First, they're unclear as to whether that's a full return-to-launch test, or another "soft landing in water" test. Then they don't say whether that test was successful - they switch weirdly from past tense when describing the launch to future tense when describing the test, despite them being pretty much the same event.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounded to me like what they were testing was successful (did the legs deploy, did the engines restart, did the vehicle slow down, etc), but that it wasn't a full test with the goal of being able to reuse the rocket as it was a water landing. And due to rough seas, the rocket was destroyed once it was in the water.
Re:So was the landing successful? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And any decent engineer would expect the first production test of so complicated a system to fail in some way, and they're doubtlessly going to be incorporating feedback about how well various elements worked into a future launch.
Re: (Score:2)
No, if you'll read TFS more carefully, that's the description of the test in April. I doubt they have much info on the latest test to make public yet.
Re:So was the landing successful? (Score:5, Informative)
https://twitter.com/SpaceX [twitter.com]
Rocket booster reentry, landing burn & leg deploy were good, but lost hull integrity right after splashdown (aka kaboom).
Detailed review of rocket telemetry needed to tell if due to initial splashdown or subsequent tip over and body slam
Re: (Score:1)
For the curious; The landing was quasi successful this flight in that, although the booster touched down under power with legs extended, it was then destroyed in something a tweet from musk described as a 'AKA kaboom'. It's not clear if that was due to the touchdown or falling over after touchdown.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing it was probably related to a thing designed to land on land landing instead on ocean. Still. It will be fun to look at the data.
Re: (Score:2)
The rocket launched Monday suffered a similar fate. "Rocket booster re-entry, landing burn & leg deploy were good, but lost hull integrity right after splashdown (aka kaboom)," Musk wrote on Twitter.
The failure may have been a bit on the energetic side; trying for a soft touch down with enough rocket fuel ant oxidiser to do a soft touch down is always potentially exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
trying for a soft touch down with enough rocket fuel ant oxidiser to do a soft touch down is always potentially exciting.
I knew Spacex has done some new and inventive things in propulsion systems.
But oxidising rocket fuel ants? That's just plain weird...
I guess the new facility in Texas will include their own ant farm to keep down cost.
Re: (Score:1)
I was super tempted to moderate this "Flamebait" but the meta-pun wasn't worth the hit to your karma. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a anthropogening Climate Change Sceptic, one more flamebait wouldn't have made any difference.
Re: (Score:1)
"Only conservative idiots like you could come up with something like that. No doubt if you saw Jesus rise from death 3 days later, you idiots would ask what took him so long?" Since the general consensus is that only conservatives believe in Christ and that anyone who believes in Christ is an idiot, and pretty much the definition of Christian is believing that he rose on the 3rd day, exactly who is the target of your question?
Re: (Score:2)
What does anything he said have to do with liberalism versus conservatism?
Congratulations on being the core part of the problem with the US Government - partisan blinders.
And the recovery system? (Score:1)
The Reuters article makes no mention of the landing attempt this time -- that's probably because it exploded the instant it touched the water. [spaceflightnow.com] My guess is superheated engine nozzles do not like ice cold seawater.
Re: (Score:2)
exploded the instant it touched the water.
How would that not make the highlight reel for the launch?
Re: (Score:3)
exploded the instant it touched the water.
How would that not make the highlight reel for the launch?
Because nobody was there to film it?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently (and this is my understanding with no inside knowledge, so take it with a grain of salt), they don't have live video telemetry from the stage during decent. They have a variety of engineering data, but to get decent video, they need to get the stage back. Given that it blew up, I'm guessing that's unlikely. Last time, they had some spotty video relayed off a tracking aircraft, but they had to wait for the aircraft to land before anyone saw it. Maybe the same will happen here? Also, as a comp
Re: (Score:2)
The previous telemetry that they recovered from the previous Falcon 9 rocket (not the one that flew today) was literally recovered from a pizza pan that somebody bent over their knee and stuck a radio receiver to the back and then pointed it out of a private aircraft towards the rocket during descent in one of the most jury rigged pieces of apparatus you could possibly imagine. That they got any kind of data at all is freaking amazing.
This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, but rather that the tel
Re: (Score:2)
Would be more exciting to go all the way to the winged, manned, flyback Saturn V first stage proposal.
lost hull integrity right after splashdown (Score:1)
why didn't they route power to structural integrity ? An ensign would tell you that, its basic.
Man I'm happy for SpaceX (Score:1)
I'm overjoyed that SpaceX is constantly pushing the envelope. I hope that SpaceX one day will announce that they are sending people to Mars or who knows maybe even further then that. If anything I hope SpaceX sprouts more "space companies".
Re:"An anonymous reader" (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, SpaceX spent about the same amount of money to build a new rocket engine and two new rockets and launch them into orbit as NASA did to put a fake upper stage onto a Shuttle SRB and launch it into the ocean. They've also probably spent less developing their stage recovery system than NASA has spent over the years on studies of how they might think about recovering rocket stages.
But, yeah, it's all Reagan's fault. Or something.
Re: (Score:3)
"Man-rated" is not on SpaceX's advertising brochure. Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
"Man-rated" is not on SpaceX's advertising brochure. Yet.
It wasn't on the Shuttle's, either. But killing the crew less than one time in sixty can't really be that hard, can it?
Re:"An anonymous reader" (Score:5, Interesting)
It wasn't on the Shuttle's, either. But killing the crew less than one time in sixty can't really be that hard, can it?
Actually it's quite hard. That's why only 3 countries have managed to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's quite hard. That's why only 3 countries have managed to do it.
I believe that would be 'all three countries thave have actually launched astronauts'? Or have I forgotten any?
Re:"An anonymous reader" (Score:4, Insightful)
Russia as a country has assumed all treaty obligations and considers itself to be the legitimate heir to the Soviet Union. Very few people really disagree.
Besides, the Soviet Union really was a greater Russian empire anyway. The language, the culture, and in many cases the people at the top were all from Russia. That is also one of the causes of the issues in the Ukraine as the "Russification program" to deliberately wipe out whole cultures was occurring there to transplant culturally Russian peoples into the conquered areas (like Ukraine) and then do a similar transplantation of the "locals" to other areas still so they would lose their cultural identity. They expected this would take several generations, and was incomplete, but in areas where it was done there are now ethnically Russian people (like the Crimea) who want to "return home".
So yes, "Soviet Union" == "Russia" for all practical purposes. Especially in the realm of spaceflight.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try. If you want to continue the Soviet era propaganda that was trying to convince the west that they really were one big happy family and that the Soviet Union was just as friendly to each other as the European Union is right now, continue that daydream. It should be telling as soon as the opportunity to bolt out from under Russian control, that the former Soviet Republics all left. Heck, you even have admitted the "-stan" republics were quick to expel the Russians as soon as they could. This woul
Re: (Score:2)
For this discussion it is the same country, because the space hardware developed in Soviet times was not magically made to disappear when capitalist Russia took over.
Re: (Score:2)
"Capitalist Russia" Now that is funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it was.
No, it wasn't. Man-rated would mean, for example, having abort options at every stage of launch from the ground to orbit. Shuttle couldn't do that.
Re:"An anonymous reader" (Score:5, Insightful)
3.6.1.2 The space system shall provide abort capability from the launch pad until Earth-orbit insertion to protect for the following ascent failure scenarios (minimum list):
a. Complete loss of ascent thrust/propulsion (Requirement 58613).
b. Loss of attitude or flight path control (Requirement 58614).
Rationale: Flying a spacecraft through the Earth's atmosphere to orbit entails inherent risk. Three crewed launch vehicles have suffered catastrophic failures during ascent or on the launch pad (one Space Shuttle and two Soyuz spacecraft). Both Soyuz crews survived the catastrophic failure due to a robust ascent abort system. Analysis, studies, and past experience all provide data supporting ascent abort as the best option for the crew to survive a catastrophic failure of the launch vehicle. Although not specifically stated, the ascent abort capability incorporates some type of vehicle monitoring to detect failures and, in some cases, impending failures.
Re: (Score:2)
Two space shuttles suffered catastrophic failures during ascent, it just took longer for the damage to Columbia to become apparent. It was doomed by the time it reached orbit.
By that reasoning, they both suffered from catastrophic design choices. It just took some time for the consequences to show. Thus, neither were vehicle operation failures at all.
I think it's reasonable instead to classify the failure by where it manifests even if the trigger events happen earlier. Among other things, it fits with any remedies that one could attempt. For example, launch aborts might have saved the Challenger crew, but wouldn't have done a thing for the Columbia crew.
Re: (Score:2)
"Soyuz crews survived the catastrophic failure due to a robust ascent abort system"
Soyuz has had two situations where the LAS was necessary, but I can't recall a single US launch that ever encountered a situation where one would have been of use. Its probably not a bad thing to have as it is a situation that will eventually occur, but the there are other failure modes that deserve more attention (heat shield failure, booster damage recognition, etc).
Re:"An anonymous reader" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't help to to have a LAS system when you have no way of knowing to use it before your spacecraft explodes. If Challenger had known what was about to occur they may have been able to jettison the SRB's, throttle back on the SSME's and eventually disconnect the ET in a controllable fashion. Even a straight disconnect from the ET/SRB stack may have been survivable. Admittedly a traditional (capsule on top) configuration would have been the best for escaping an exploding stack but it wouldn't mean mu
Re: (Score:2)
If the Shuttle had been using liquid boosters then the Challenger accident would not have happened in the first place...
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has data that shows the Challenger crew was still alive when they hit the water. They were just all unconscious because of a lack of oxygen. Oh, and the rockets didn't explode in the traditional sense - the fuel tank ruptured causing LOX and LH to spill out forming a giant cloud, which was then ignited by the still firing SRBs. If you watch the film, you can see the SRBs continue to boost out of the fireball.
A proper launch abort system, with a proper rocket stack (payload on top, liquid fueled boos
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't help to to have a LAS system when you have no way of knowing to use it before your spacecraft explodes.
Burn through of the sort that destroyed Challenger is detectable before everything goes boom. And liquid fueled means you don't have to go as far to survive the heating from the resulting fireball.
Re: (Score:2)
"Burn through of the sort that destroyed Challenger is detectable"
And yet it wasn't, while the investigation did focus on the SRBs fairly quick, it was months before they were sure. The ET tank explosion was enough to rip the shuttle to shreds, the only part of the spacecraft to survive the explosion intact was the heavily reinforced cockpit. And even that was believed to be heavily damaged. A capsule that had been caught in the explosion, exposed to 20 G's as it was ejected from the rocket, may have bee
Re: (Score:2)
"Burn through of the sort that destroyed Challenger is detectable"
And yet it wasn't
Just because they didn't bother to look doesn't mean that they couldn't. But my point was not to second-guess NASA for this accident but to point out that the failures of the Challenger accident are not something that can't ever be avoided - particularly with today's technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Has no bearing on the man rating of shuttle.
It demonstrates that the Shuttle can't meet the only man-rating standard NASA has issued.
Re: (Score:1)
AC is right.
"Man rated" means "we refuse to calculate the odds that it will fail because by definition it will never fail".
And then it fails.
Re: (Score:2)
The space shuttle had abort options .... including an emergency landing in Spain and Africa.
Those abort options didn't cover the entire launch trajectory. For example, there were no abort options after the Space Shuttle cleared the launch tower unless you were able to ditch the solid rocket boosters.
Man-rating by NASA requires abort options every step of the way from the ground all the way up to space.
Re:"An anonymous reader" (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't on the Shuttle's
Yes it was.
The Shuttle was never 'man rated'. It kiled its crew one time in sixty and had long periods during launch when an abort was not survivable. There's no way in Heck that NASA would put astronauts a SpaceX launcher that was as dangerous as the Shuttle.
Re: (Score:2)
There was only 1 loss on ascent and 1 loss on decent with too few flights to show if those single losses had a probability of greater than 1 in 500.
Now you're really getting into wacko-world.
Re: (Score:3)
There was only 1 loss on ascent and 1 loss on decent with too few flights to show if those single losses had a probability of greater than 1 in 500.
Columbia was doomed by the time it finished ascent, it just took until descent for the scope of the damage to become apparent. Arguably both losses in the shuttle program can be considered "on ascent".
Re: (Score:3)
"Man-rated" is not on SpaceX's advertising brochure. Yet.
The brochure is printed with toxic ink? ;)
Re:"An anonymous reader" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"An anonymous reader" (Score:5, Informative)
SpaceX is not competing with NASA, because NASA doesn't make rockets. NASA has input on the design requirements, but all the real work is done by private contractors, like Lockheed and Boeing. SpaceX is just a new contractor and they operate just like the others. They have some interesting new engineering approaches that may reduce costs, but it's not any fundamentally new business model.
Actually, it is a fundamentally different business model. You are correct that it was always private companies that did the final design and construction of the rockets, but historically Congress forced many decisions on NASA based largely on spreading the money around. For instance, NASA wanted the Space Shuttle to use liquid fueled boosters, but Congress insisted on the SRBs specifically so Thiokol Corporation of Utah would get the business. The same thing is happening with the STS under development now. Congress is forcing NASA to use Shuttle components in the first generation STS specifically to funnel money into certain congressional districts. Under the non-commercial contracts, Congress and NASA actually make design decisions that may not be optimum from an engineering perspective.
The rules under which SpaceX performs NASA missions, are much different. NASA does not get involved in the design of the rocket/spacecraft beyond listing requirements that must be met. Some seed money is provided, for companies that win bids to compete. But ultimately the winners are paid a fixed price - which is also a big difference. Historically, these contracts were cost plus. This new approach does appear to be saving money and it is also leading to competing designs which is interesting as well. For instance with commercial crew, Boeing is building a fairly conventual capsule that lands under parachute, Sierra Nevada is building a lifting body that will reenter and glide like the shuttle, and SpaceX is building a capsule that will land propulsively (parahutes will only be deployed if there is a malfunction in the engines.)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is not competing with NASA, because NASA doesn't make rockets.
The obvious counterexample here is that if NASA gets their Space Launch System (SLS) built and SpaceX does the same for its Falcon Heavy, then they will be competing with each other. It doesn't matter that NASA contracted all that work out. NASA's fortunes would be tied to the success of the SLS which would vary inversely with the success of SpaceX's rival platform. That's the nature of competition.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess the key aspect of the Soviet/Russian system was that it essentially was a wartime economy. They could use resources on rockets which America had to divert to refrigerators and cars. Military officers ran the development programs. In other words "tyranny gets shit done".
Spaceflight gave the Soviet military and intelligence apparatus supposedly valuable PROPAGANDA successes. That carried them a long way until their leadership themselves realized their economy was sucking big-time.
So if you can keep yo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's anything flimsy about the SpaceX design. Structurally, it is perhaps one of the best if not the best designed system in my opinion. The tanks are stir-welded and there's simply no better welding technique out there. It's all state-of-the-art as far as I'm concerned. I highly doubt, though, that any changes would need to be made to the material thickness away from the stress concentration points. The design, as far as I can tell from public documents, has some degree of tweakability. Si
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the point you're inarticulately trying to make(namely objecting to the privatization of spaceflight supported by government subsidy) misses a crucial fact about NASA. The things NASA actually launched weren't manufactured and designed by government employees. Sure the projects were managed by NASA's various facilities.
But the actually shuttles, rockets, and satellites were bought by the government from private contractors.
You're framing a slight shift in project centering to a sudden and
Re: (Score:1)
That's funny, I read from TFS that a private-sector launch (SpaceX) has successfully inserted satellites that are intended to facilitate private-sector business. I must have missed the part where this private-sector launch was taking over fundamental aerospace exploration and research operations for NASA.
Or did you think that SpaceX is going to be directing programs
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me that NASA should simply contract those basic research payloads on top of SpaceX rockets, if SpaceX can get them into orbit for fewer dollars than NASA's own internal teams can. Why waste resources?
That's the way NASA currently does business: launch services are purchased.
SpaceX developed Falcon-9 on a NASA contract, specifically in order to be a vehicle that can be purchased for launch services. ("Commercial Orbital Transportation Services" was the name of the contract.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, what's relevant here is that it launched from Kennedy. It's the first SpaceX launch from that location.
That and they're going to try to recover the booster. That's new too, but you covered that under 'launch technology'.
This is not the first time that SpaceX has launched from Cape Canaveral (technically no longer Kennedy.... that is only the VAB and the NASA facility itself although Florida at one time did call it Cape Kennedy... and changed that back in the 1990's).
The facility at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (who actually "owns" the property... although SpaceX does have a long term lease) is known as SLC-40... the pad just next to LC-39 A&B where the Space Shuttle and the Apollo rockets all were launched from. T
Re: (Score:3)
unless Elon Musk turns out to be amazingly altruistic in his old age
He just donated another $1M to the Tesla Museum [seattletimes.com].
Okay, so $1M isn't exactly going to bankroll the next Hubble, but he's only 43 years old, not exactly "old age" yet. I'd say he's on track to be amazingly altruistic, sure.
Re: (Score:1)
He donated some money to a "museum" dedicated to advertising one of his products, no samples of which are so unique or old that they deserve to be in a museum. And that suggests an altruistic tendency? I'm not saying he doesn't have any but that is NOT an example of one.
Re: (Score:3)
He donated some money to a "museum" dedicated to advertising one of his products, no samples of which are so unique or old that they deserve to be in a museum. And that suggests an altruistic tendency? I'm not saying he doesn't have any but that is NOT an example of one.
You ought to read links before spouting off drivel that you don't understand. The museum is one dedicated to Nikola Tesla, the namesake of Tesla Motors to be sure, but somebody of very significant historical interest. The building that the museum is housed in happens to be formally recognized already as a National Historic Landmark. There will not be anything in this museum (except very tangentially) about Tesla Motors or any other Elon Musk company except perhaps a small note listing donors to the museu
Re: (Score:2)
The sad part is, I live in Edison, NJ. Formerly Menlo Park, Raritan, NJ, renamed in 1954 in honor of Thomas Alva Edison, who did much of his work here in the late 19th century (invented the phonograph, "invented" the light bulb). It's especially sad that a fuckwit like Edison gets a whole town of over 100,000 named after him but Tesla is virtually forgotten, being eclipsed by an electric car bearing his name.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It was the Luddite lobby, not "Reaganomics" which has prevented NASA from doing anything significant in manned programs. The ONLY way we will ever return to the Moon or explore Mars will be in the private sector. Companies like SpaceX are using orbital contract work to develop the flight experience they will need for the big missions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Because absolutely no technology came out of the Apollo program that benefited society in any way.
Nobody went hungry because we went to the moon. Nobody died because we went to the moon. No less people were educated because we went to the moon.
Re: (Score:1)
Guaranteed - there are no black engineers involvedin this.
Oh, how sad, you're not just a racist fuck. You're also wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Right... Charles Bolden must be white.... as is his boss too.
That is just scratching the surface. BTW, Bolden didn't get his job because of his skin color either, and IMHO he is also one of the best qualified NASA administrators that America has ever had. The general stars that he earned (in the USMC no less) weren't honorary either.... and his degree is in engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Telling an astronaut with several actual missions in space that they know jack about engineering, science, or math is pretty damn bold.
What a load of dung here.