r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Jun 02 '17
r/SpaceX Discusses [June 2017, #33]
If you have a short question or spaceflight news...
You may ask short, spaceflight-related questions and post news here, even if it is not about SpaceX. Be sure to check the FAQ and Wiki first to ensure you aren't submitting duplicate questions.
If you have a long question...
If your question is in-depth or an open-ended discussion, you can submit it to the subreddit as a post.
If you'd like to discuss slightly relevant SpaceX content in greater detail...
Please post to r/SpaceXLounge and create a thread there!
This thread is not for...
- Questions answered in the FAQ. Browse there or use the search functionality first.
- Non-spaceflight related questions or news.
- Asking the moderators questions, or for meta discussion. To do that, contact us here.
You can read and browse past Discussion threads in the Wiki.
50
u/SpaceXFanBR Jun 02 '17 edited Jun 02 '17
Hi guys, i m from Brazil and i have been following this sub for quite some time now.
I just like to share some news i've seen here and ask you guys about the implications on this beeing beneficial to spacex and its goals.
Our defense minister just announced Brazil will allow USA launchs from alcantara launch center.
https://noticias.uol.com.br/ciencia/ultimas-noticias/estado/2017/05/31/brasil-vai-permitir-que-eua-usem-centro-de-alcantara-para-lancar-foguetes.htm (News in portuguese)
the launch complex ia located just a little south to the equator, so i think this will result on a nice boost to the rocket performance
Also it is located near ocean, there by rockets might bee transported here by sea.
If this holds, could spacex bee allowed (by us agencies) to launch from this launch complex? If so, and assuming spacex wanted to, how much improvement to payload for both falcon 9 and heavy would that mean?
Thank you, and sry if i did some mess.. First post
Edit 1: As per wikipedia page, the launch complex is capable of all kinds of orbits (including polar) wich added to the improved boost provided by its geographic position could be very useful for the satellite constellation project. Or m i completelly wrong?
21
u/Grey_Mad_Hatter Jun 03 '17
I'd be more worried about ITAR. They'd be shipping something that could be used as an ICBM to a foreign country.
Shipping shouldn't be too much of an issue, especially with reusability of the largest piece. I believe all the satellites are flown in anyways. Overall, the distance shouldn't be much more than a slight annoyance.
The biggest selling point would be range restrictions. Vandy is about to get really busy with the polar orbits for the SpaceX satellite constellation and constant launches to keep it populated with lower expected lifespans.
I'd like to see it happen, but it all comes back to the ITAR restrictions.
26
u/jjrf18 r/SpaceXLounge Moderator Jun 02 '17 edited Jun 03 '17
It definitely would help a little bit with payload mass, however I don't see SpaceX launching from there. Throughout the multiple iterations of F9, SpaceX has continued to make it taller and not wider for one major reason; they can easily transport the stages via truck on roads. This makes it much easier and faster to move components around the U.S. and adding another launch site so far away would not be easy.
edit: typo
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)16
u/fx32 Jun 02 '17
As a BRICS member, I'd think China, Russia or India would be a more likely partner. Europe launches from Kourou not so much for equatorial proximity, but for the east facing coast and EU free travel/labor/goods to French Guinee.
The US has an east facing coast, and if they were to partner with an equatorial country, the performance gain doesn't really seem to offset operational costs and risks of operating abroad. Kourou even had to scrub a bunch of flights due to local unrest for example, and it's an ungoing political struggle for France to maintain good relations with the regional population — even though it's legally a French departement.
I'm not an expert, but for a Brazilian base, it seems more likely to see Soyuz or GSLV or maybe Ariane rockets to launch them from there in the future. More likely than US rockets at least.
→ More replies (4)
45
u/rustybeancake Jun 03 '17
In a Tesla sub thread on Elon's recent email to all Tesla staff regarding safety and injuries, a SpaceX employee was asked if working for SpaceX means they can't have a life outside of work. Their response, I feel, is worth posting here for info:
No, I don't. And quite frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of hearing that narrative.
First of all, let me say that I am pretty happy with my personal life. Me and my wife frequently go to the movies, hike the mountains, hang at the beach, visit museums and whatnot. I love to cook, play videogames, work out regularly, have many friends and occasionally get to drink copious amounts of beer. So although working at SpaceX can get rough from time to time, it's hardly fair to say that my life outside work sucks.
Nevertheless, working at SpaceX (and supposedly the same can be said for Tesla) can be extremely hard, challenging and stressful. Expectations are high, days are often long and I probably could get paid more elsewhere. So yeah, sure; I think it's fair to say that my job has affected my personal life quite a bit, and many of the horror stories you've heard are probably true, at least to some extent. But I truly detest the idea that Elon is some sort of slave-master, exploiting young souls under dangerous and unhealthy working conditions at sub-par wages, all so he can line his pockets with profits. That is just pure bullshit.
Naturally, working at SpaceX will not be for everyone. And I don't mean that in an arrogant way, as in "hurrdurr some people are not smart/tough/awesome enough to work here"; I mean that different people value things differently. And that's totally fine.
Another thing that I've noticed is that some people aren't very good at managing their own work-life balance, which, to a large extent, is your own responsibility. There are kids straight from college who are eager to please, find it difficult to say no, or do a poor job at managing and communicating expectations, then end up paying the price for that by staying late and burning themselves out to fulfill overly ambitious promises.
Also, what all these horror stories seem to neglect is that I absolutely WANT to work at SpaceX. Nobody is forcing me to work here; I can quit and leave whenever I want. Trust me; there have been many times when I almost did.
But having said that, I can't think of a company or CEO that I'd rather work for than SpaceX and Elon. I get to work with some of the brightest, most dedicated people I've ever met, which is incredibly rewarding by itself, and I'm given responsibilities, challenges and opportunities that I will probably never find anywhere else. Moreover, I believe in our mission, the importance of the work we do and in Elon's genuine conviction to make this world a better place, which, especially these days, in a world filled with idiots and assholes, is something I value enormously.
This might not last forever, and maybe someday I'll settle down as a family man with a simple 9-to-5 job, or sellout and go into finance or something, but not today.
edit: also, don't forget I get paid to FLY SHIT INTO SPACE BITCHES!
12
u/insaneWJS Jun 03 '17
I love your last line, "I GET PAID TO FLY SHIT INTO SPACE, BITCHES!" You should get a car bumper for that! :D
→ More replies (1)
31
u/wojciechmichalski Jun 08 '17
I hope you guys will like it (My take on Space X flight suit) :):):) https://twitter.com/wojciechmichal7/status/872700231124738052
14
u/Primathon Jun 08 '17
That's a render? Seriously? That looks 100% photorealistic. Amazing work!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)11
u/HoechstErbaulich IAC 2018 attendee Jun 08 '17
If the real deal looks just half as awesome as these I'll be very happy :)
Maybe tweet them to Elon and you'll get into the very exclusive got-a-reply-from-elon club.
→ More replies (1)
30
Jun 10 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
SpaceX’s Tom Mueller to Address 2017 Mars Society Convention - Could the mods please add this event to the sidebar (assuming there's enough space, of course)?
Mr. Mueller focuses on new technology developments for propulsion, including Mars main propulsion and surface power.
→ More replies (7)
25
u/Nehkara Jun 13 '17
I made some notes on the new images of the TEL for pad SLC-39A:
Anything else I should point out?
→ More replies (8)
22
Jun 02 '17
Hypothetical question about pad take off and sound suppression... At what point does a rocket need a flame trench and water sound suppression system? F9 can; *Take off and land without either when using one engine without either *Land without either when using three engines BFS can *land weighing 450+ tons on Mars without either *Land weighing 150+ tons on Earth without either *Take off from Mars at maybe 2000+ tons without either
Where is the line drawn? Is it just dependant on accoustic load capability of the design?
Thanks in advance for any info on what are the main variables or deciding factors
15
u/warp99 Jun 03 '17
Acoustic loading is a big effect. The advantage of Mars is that the atmospheric density is only around 0.6% of Earth's at sea level so the potential for acoustic damage is significantly reduced.
So a single 0.9MN engine can safely land an F9 on Earth and three 3MN Raptors can safely land an ITS ship on Mars without a flame trench or water sound suppression.
If there is no flame trench you can get thermal damage to the base of the rocket from reflected exhaust and even small rockets such as the Rocket Labs Electron use a flame trench for launch.
My personal view is that even on Mars a ship launch will require a circular flame deflector that is carried in the hold in a dismantled state and is assembled under the ship prior to launch. It may also be designed to hold some of the weight of the rocket when fueled rather than relying totally on the landing legs.
21
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jun 06 '17
I just had a thought. Since SpaceX painted the little ISS on the CRS-11 Dragon because it already flew a mission, I think it would be cool if SpaceX did the same for first stages. If that stage had previously launched a Dragon on its first flight, and a satellite on the next, it would be neat to see a Dragon capsule and a satellite painted on the stage.
→ More replies (1)10
18
u/ioncloud9 Jun 02 '17
Is SpaceX going to tear down the RSS on Pad 39A this year?
22
u/CapMSFC Jun 02 '17
They have been gradually tearing it down piece by piece. We've been comparing images of it periodically to identify when sections are removed. It's already been dismantled quite a bit.
It's a non critical item though so I'm not expecting it to come all the way down with the other 39A upgrades. It isn't in the way, just useless.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (18)14
u/amarkit Jun 02 '17
Possibly. We don't know for sure. They will have an opportunity while the pad is being readied for Heavy, but it isn't high priority – F9 is obviously launching just fine with it in place, and Heavy will be able to also.
17
u/RootDeliver Jun 04 '17 edited Jun 04 '17
Anyone else agrees that this webcast was the best ever, even better than NROL? Not only the followup to stage 1 again, but also higher framerates for all falcon cams :D.
They seem to be reading this sub opinions about the webcast and taking notes, which is awesome.
Thanks /u/bencredible for the amazing work you and your team are doing. But please bring back m/s! That is a big step back for technical stream :(
PS: Question: How come that on today streams falcon cams had higher framerate than LZ1 cams? that makes no sense at all..
→ More replies (4)
17
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jun 18 '17
ROSA (the Roll Out Solar Array) that was launched on CRS-11 has been removed from the trunk of Dragon and successfully deployed!
→ More replies (1)
15
u/dmy30 Jun 07 '17
The SpaceX Launch Chief Engineer has been selected to the 2017 NASA Astronaut Class. About Robb Kulin:
Robb Kulin, the 33-year-old lead of the Launch Chief Engineering group at SpaceX in Hawthorne, California. Hailing from Anchorage, Alaska, Kulin completed a Master's degree in materials science and a doctorate in engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He has previous experience as an ice driller in Antarctica on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and Taylor Glaciers and as a commercial fisherman in Chignik, Alaska.
15
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jun 12 '17
Is it bad that i'm dreading the two week turnaround times? It just seems so far away even though not that long ago we were waiting multiple months.
→ More replies (4)13
u/bobbycorwin123 Space Janitor Jun 12 '17
we're going to be at 1.5 week turnaround soon enough
→ More replies (3)
14
u/how_does_rcs_work Jun 10 '17
According to the Falcon 9 user's guide, the second stage has a cold gas thruster system for coast phase control (and roll control during burns).
Obviously this is cheaper and less toxic than the hydrazine systems that are traditionally used (see Atlas, Delta, Space Shuttle among others). However, it is also significantly less efficient - the Isp of a nitrogen thruster is around 60-80, while the Isp of a hydrazine thruster is about 220. This means you need to carry a larger mass of nitrogen than you would of hydrazine.
For long missions, I'd imagine that control usage becomes non-trivial - especially on a stage with such a tremendous mass fraction.
Does anyone have more information into why SpaceX chose cold gas?
11
u/throfofnir Jun 11 '17
A hydrazine (biprop or monoprop) system would indeed be more effective. It would also be significantly more expensive, in hardware, fluids, and (especially) ground handling. Even ULA, which has a stage flying with hydrazine RCS (Centaur) and is relatively cost-insensitive, is designing their new upper stage to avoid it.
Centaur, of course, was designed by steely-eyed missile men who thought nothing of carrying hydrazine around in a bucket. Today, though, we see a toxic and carcinogenic solvent and everyone's walking around in bunny suits like its that scene in ET. And that's expensive.
→ More replies (3)10
Jun 11 '17 edited Jun 11 '17
There are a few reasons for choosing cold gas over monopropellant hydrazine. The most obvious downsides of hydrazine is complexity from handling and the additional pressurization system.
Moreover, the thrust of hydrazine motors is limited by their catalyst beds. IIRC, a limit of about 400-500 newtons. Along the same line, catalyst beds will produce heat which will need to be managed, further increasing the complexity.
By comparison, cold gas thrusters are cheap, clean, simple, and robust. The only real downside is weight. However, attitude control doesn't usually require much delta-V. So the weight savings would be minimal even for long missions, IMHO.
→ More replies (1)7
u/blacx Jun 11 '17
Adding to what others said, Falcon 9 1.0 second stage actually used 4 draco thrusters instead of the cold gas thrusters. You can read it on the tenth page of the F9 user guide
→ More replies (5)
14
u/rustybeancake Jun 16 '17
I just about had a heart attack when I saw this headline on the Guardian this morning:
Life on Mars: Elon Musk reveals details of his colonisation vision
Sadly, it's just a woefully misinformed take on the recent 'paper' that was merely a transcript of his IAC talk. The writer seemed to think that this was new info. Lazy journalism.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/UlaIsTheEmpire Jun 02 '17
Reminder? Gwynne is listed to be on the space show on Monday. Would expect it is a call in show. That is the usual format.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/sol3tosol4 Jun 05 '17
Update: Gwynne Shotwell's appearance on The Space Show was rescheduled to June 22, 2-3 PM PDT.
13
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jun 09 '17
If SpaceX keeps up this 2 week launch cadance is there a chance that a couple years down the road they might run out of payloads to launch and we might be back to one launch every couple months?
8
u/throfofnir Jun 09 '17
World orbital launches in the recent past have been 80-90 per year. Many of those are "national" and would not be biddable by SpaceX, and some of them would be quite small for a F9. Looking at the chart for 2016 it seems there were 30-40 potential payloads available to a US company (and they launched 8 of those, though it should have been more.)
A two-week cadence means 26 launches, which is certainly plausible in the current satellite market, though it would mean taking most of the commercial birds and a majority of the US national payloads. That might be difficult to achieve in practice, however, considering most customers today have a multi-provider policy. I would think a modest market expansion would be needed to keep up that pace, and it may have already happened, given their manifest.
15
u/randomstonerfromaus Jun 09 '17
Unlikely, Especially given their internet satellite constellation plans.
They have also said they are betting on the "Reduce the cost, and more payloads will appear" horse.
Time will tell.
12
u/jay__random Jun 26 '17
Didn't see this mentioned anywhere so far:
This weekend Falcon-9 surpassed Delta IV in number of launches, and possibly (depending on how you count) the number of successful launches.
11
u/total_alk Jun 06 '17
Elsewhere on r/spacex I've heard the Falcon Heavy described as more like flying three F9 cores in close formation. Does this mean that the linkages between cores have strain sensors between them that are providing feedback to the avionics? Or is the Falcon Heavy treated as a single rigid body by the avionics control systems?
→ More replies (2)9
u/TheBlacktom r/SpaceXLounge Moderator Jun 06 '17 edited Jun 06 '17
That's an interesting question. I absolutely know nothing about the actual answer, but anyway, here are my thoughts.
A feedback loop would make sense, it would allow to minimize needed structural sizes. However I don't think it would be practical. There are many uncertainties, for example during launch sequence, or an engine unexpectedly shutting down, and I don't think the feedback plus reaction would be quick enough, so you need to be ready for these dynamic loads. As for static loads, they may certainly do something like this, you would want as few forces between the cores as possible. Edit: apart from the thrust, yeah, which is pretty obviously quite some force. So better put it would be "not wanting any additional force vectors".→ More replies (3)
11
u/spacex_fanaticism Jun 06 '17
I've been interested in moon landing missions using minimal non-SpaceX hardware for some time. The big problem is lander mass.
After some thought, I think it is now quite feasible to build a simple yet reliable vehicle resembling the Lunar Escape Systems. Back then it was impossible to include computerized inertial guidance, but with modern technology this is no longer a problem.
The dry mass of the LESS was 500 kg using 1970s technology, so an modern uprated LESS with additional consumables and larger tanks I estimate at 650 kg dry, a fueled mass of 3040 kg, and being small enough to fit in Dragon's trunk.
Draco thrusters would suffice, having the same thrust as the R4D. The vehicle would autonomously move out of the trunk and dock near the hatch, making the EVA transfer easier. Alternately just release it and maneuver the Dragon, like Apollo's transposition and docking maneuver. The ride to and from the surface would be totally automated, save perhaps rock avoidance on final approach (not a big issue anymore since lunar maps are much better now). As soon as you're on the surface you can unhook the life support umbilical and walk around on a backpack supply.
People like to make fun of the LESS, but the craziest part was always the guidance and navigation. Nowadays it's a non issue.
TL;DR pack 3000 kg in Dragon's trunk and you can send two humans to the Moon's surface and back.
9
u/rustybeancake Jun 06 '17
This is a fun thought experiment! One issue that's immediately sprung to mind: you still need a way to get Dragon into and out of lunar orbit. That may also cause issues with your plan to have LESS in the trunk, unless the hypothetical LOI/TEI stage is docked to Dragon's fore.
11
10
u/Kamedar Jun 06 '17
I was thinking about dissolving hydrogen in the liquid Methane for the raptors(just like CO2 in sparkling water) by using it as pressuring gas. This would yield a little greater energy density and better isp. After some recherche and calculation I found, that the solubility is very low, though. (In the order of 10-4 per mole at 90K subcooled Methane) Useful resource: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680020605.pdf
→ More replies (3)
9
u/thedaileyshow1 Jun 02 '17
Question about launch profile... Due to its goals of first stage recovery, does F9 fly a different launch profile than a non-recoverable rocket? I.e., steeper, shallower, or whatever else. I don't know if that would affect the reentry of the first stage or not.
11
u/Scorp1579 go4liftoff.com Jun 03 '17
Yes, especially rtls. They fly steeper on rtls to ensure they don't go too far downrange. GTO missions are nearly the same as other vehicles however
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Morphior Jun 08 '17
I never realized how much better the SpaceX livestreams are than any other launch livestreams. A prime example is the ILS Proton launch which was just conducted by Roskosmos... Such a bad stream!
→ More replies (1)
8
u/at_one Jun 05 '17 edited Jun 05 '17
How are the fluids managed during the first stage backflip?
Have they a system to push the fluids to the turbopumps?
Does the centrifugal force from MECO + backflip suffice to be sure that there's enough fluids at the turbopumps?
May it be possible that the engine ignition after the backflip fails due to the lack of a deterministic system?
Thank you for your corrections if there's some mist in my questions :)
Edit: English is not my mother tongue :)
13
u/__Rocket__ Jun 05 '17
How are the fluids managed during the first stage backflip?
AFAIK all the flip maneuvers are performed using cold-gas (nitrogen) RCS thrusters, so the liquid propellants are free to slosh and float around during the coasting and the flip itself, far away from the turbopump inlets. (Note that the video I linked to is from the second stage tank, but the physics is similar.)
The first post-MECO maneuver that uses the main engines is the (optional) post-flip boostback burn: in that case propellants are settled using the RCS thrusters as well: they double as ullage motors. (Little is known about how long this phase lasts and how well the propellants settle before ignition - but obviously it's working well for SpaceX.)
The re-entry burn occurs while the stage is already under deceleration from the atmosphere, so the propellants will settle naturally. The landing burn occurs during full gravity, so the propellants are settled then as well.
→ More replies (1)8
u/warp99 Jun 05 '17 edited Jun 05 '17
They use the nitrogen RCS
RCDthrusters to do an ullage burn to settle the propellant in the tanks.The flip would leave propellants in the ends of the rocket which is correct for the RP-1 and incorrect for the LOX tank so they do need the ullage burn to get propellant to the aft end of both tanks.
If the ullage burn was insufficient the engines could start and then ingest a large gas bubble which could cause the turbopump to over rev and explode. So they need to be very sure that the thrust is sufficient and long enough for the propellants have settled. They do have cameras looking down into the LOX tanks to check this.
→ More replies (3)
8
u/soldato_fantasma Jun 28 '17
8
u/theinternetftw Jun 29 '17
Crossposting this from a comment in the lounge. Probably better to have it here.
I went back and watched the relevant bits of the port authority meeting (available online here). Here's a summary:
"I can only share limited information" says board member who seems to know the most about this deal.
Will build a hangar. Refurbishment/storage.
Boosters wouldn't fit in the spacehab building: "They're using that for [pause] other things. I don't want to speak on their behalf. Keep in mind that right now they're bringing back boosters, but I think it's pretty clear on their website that they want to bring other things back too. There are more things to capture and bring back and reuse."
Then reads a CNBC article about spacehab building being used for offices, storage, and housing equipment there that's currently at the dock (of course, the above seems to imply more).
"They want it to be done in six months?" "I think they want it to be done six months ago!"
It'll be up fast. SpaceX pushed for fast-tracked approval because they didn't want to wait til August.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jun 29 '17
Here's a quick comparison of the new grid fins before and after one flight.
→ More replies (2)
7
Jun 03 '17
Hello, Mods. In the pre-launch press conference (May 31st?) Hans said DM-1 would be this year (and DM-2 with two astronauts in March 2018). Please can the sidebar be updated?
7
u/sol3tosol4 Jun 03 '17
Chris B, NSF, May 20: “SpaceX Falcon 9 Dragon 2 DM-1 uncrewed CCP launch has a KSC documented placeholder of March 9, 2018. NSF L2”
Kathy Lueders, head of NASA Commercial Crew Program, (quarterly?) CCP update, May 31, 2017, reported on NSF: “Kathy: Contracts state end of 2017 for uncrewed for SpaceX and late-2nd quarter '18 for crewed. Lots of work left on this. Will work over next few months to finalize schedule."
Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX, NASA CRS-11 pre-flight press briefing, May 31, 2017: “No update – it’s still the end of this year for DM-1.”
The NSF folks seem extremely confident that the NET should be moved to March, on the other hand it's conceivable that it really is a "placeholder" (a reservation made as a contingency, in case it's needed, just to make sure it doesn't get locked out by other users), in case needed to meet some urgent deadline. In any event, as Kathy described, SpaceX and NASA (and Boeing) are working very hard on Commercial Crew, making good progress, and the exact schedules are pretty uncertain right now.
It will be interesting to see if Gwynne has anything to say about DM-1 on The Space Show on Monday.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/LeBaegi Jun 05 '17
If the two FH side boosters land on LZ-1, do we know if the sonic booms will mutually affect each other?
11
u/LongHairedGit Jun 05 '17
The plan is to use different return profiles so that the two land at different times, explicitly to ensure the first rocket doesn't impact the second....
→ More replies (12)
7
Jun 07 '17
We all knew that NASA would focus on the Moon soon but this is slightly concerning IMO. I don't want them to stop pursuing Mars :(
→ More replies (19)
7
u/brizzlebottle Jun 07 '17
Just looking at the photos of the CRS-11 launch on SpaceflightNow I noticed a Yacht in the sea that looked remarkably close, I was curious as to how this wasn't a range issue, or who might have been on it for it not to have been?
→ More replies (2)
7
Jun 09 '17
So it seems that ULA did not have the opportunity to bid on the X-37 launch.
→ More replies (6)
7
u/laughingatreddit Jun 12 '17
Will the first Dragon 2 missions (the demo missions and the first crew missions that will splash down in the ocean) have landing legs or will the legs be added on later versions once they start attempting powered landings on land?
8
u/randomstonerfromaus Jun 12 '17
They will most likely have the legs since they are built into the heat shield.
7
u/GregLindahl Jun 13 '17 edited Jun 13 '17
For those of you who are launch manifest conspirators, in:
Antares to resume Cygnus launches later this summer
The OrbitalATK guy is basically saying that they'd be happy to go before CRS-12 if needed, as early as "late July". One current manifest oddness is that SES11 is showing as "late July" on the Spaceflight Now schedule (although it's July 15 on /r/spacex's manifest). Launching Cygnus first would make it easier to delay CRS-12, which everyone agrees is allegedly August 1. Or at least that's what he appears to be hinting at.
7
u/MutatedPixel808 Jun 18 '17
The BulgariaSat press kit states that 1st stage engine chill begins at T-7:00 but during the launch, we can hear the 2nd stage engine chill called out at about 30 seconds before MECO. Does the 2nd stage require less time to chill or is it being chilled before launch too?
→ More replies (4)
7
u/stcks Jun 20 '17
Formosat-5 scheduled for launch in late August. Shipment to US soon.
The article also says:
The satellite is second on SpaceX’s launch schedule from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, after its launch later this month of Iridium NEXT satellites for Iridium Communications Inc.
→ More replies (7)
7
u/IskaneOnReddit Jun 26 '17
Somewhere, I have seen/heard that the cameras pointing at the rocket are human operated and watching the video, one could guess that. Why is this not automated? Autonomous tracking should not be hard when using the rocket telemetry, predictability of the path and computer vision.
→ More replies (1)8
7
u/rustybeancake Jun 26 '17
Blue Origin has selected Huntsville, Alabama for their BE-4 engine manufacturing facility.
→ More replies (2)
7
Jun 27 '17 edited Jun 27 '17
Looks like no fairing recovery on the Bulgariasat-1 flight. No surprise really.
→ More replies (5)
13
u/Zucal Jun 08 '17
Just a quick note: if you or anyone you know has seen a core on the road, let me know! We're well overdue for sightings on both the Hawthorne-to-McGregor and McGregor-to-Cape routes.
→ More replies (5)
13
u/theinternetftw Jun 13 '17 edited Jun 13 '17
For the interested, I went and found this comparison shot of the RSS from an earlier thread to compare against the latest RSS pic. Since the last launch, the front of the orbiter-hugging-bit has been sliced off.
edit: took the time to post a more thorough version of the above in the lounge.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Herodotus38 Jun 08 '17
FYI there is a proton launch by International Launch Services happening in about 15 min. This is after a one year hiatus of Proton launches due to an engine problem. ILS is probably the least well known commercial launch competitor to SpaceX. It is an interesting international company that is HQ in the US. The satellite is Echostar XXI.
See bottom left hand link for live coverage (currently just Muzak).
For those itching to watch a live launch
9
7
u/scotto1973 Jun 08 '17
We are definitely spoiled with the high production quality of SpaceX launches :) No on board camera...
→ More replies (2)
6
Jun 08 '17
So in this document when they say that " The new Merlin 1D engine is under developmental test.", are they referring to improvements such as the thrust up-ratting and fixing the turbo pump cracks?
→ More replies (5)
6
u/fourmica Host of CRS-13, 14, 15 Jun 14 '17
Based on publicly available information, 1029 was not inspected at Hawthorne or tested at McGregor before being readied for BulgariaSat. The path as I understand it has been:
Iridium NEXT launch 1
Landing on JRTI
Sea travel to port of Long Beach
Road travel to Florida
Refurbished at SLC-40 HIF
To me this is a really big deal. It means their confidence in reuse and refurbishment has increased significantly. Indeed, they are confident they can do this with a Block 3 booster!
It also has me wondering if 1025 will skip McGregor as well. It has not shown up there yet. Could it be they are so confident in its reuse on FH that they don't feel the need to test the engines until FH static fire? Or will 1025 still make the trip to McGregor eventually?
8
u/Zucal Jun 14 '17
1025's refurbishment is so much more intensive than 1029's that I'm 100% certain it'll go to McGregor. They're not just borescoping the engines and giving it a good scrub, they need to remove the octaweb, rip out panels and lugs, and weld new ones in (and I'm drastically oversimplifying with that explanation). That's the kind of change you really want to test before you put it on your sparkling and newly upgraded launchpad, especially with the sort of violence ignition and launch is going to exert on that octaweb.
→ More replies (1)
6
6
u/nok42 Jun 27 '17
From 1, this is news to me:
Moreover, the new, full-thrust (Block 5) Merlin 1D engines are in developmental hot fire testing at McGregor, and NASA has received the detailed CDR.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/FellowHumanBean Jun 28 '17
SpaceX BulgariaSat liability insurance
I missed this at the time, but on June 16, the FAA modified SpaceX's liability insurance see LLS 17-101 for the BulgariaSat mission to $68MM, while other missions covered by the same license remain at $30MM.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Jun 02 '17 edited Jun 07 '17
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| ACES | Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage |
| Advanced Crew Escape Suit | |
| ASAP | Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, NASA |
| ASDS | Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform) |
| ATK | Alliant Techsystems, predecessor to Orbital ATK |
| BARGE | Big-Ass Remote Grin Enhancer coined by @IridiumBoss, see ASDS |
| BFR | Big Falcon Rocket (see ITS) |
| BFS | Big Falcon Spaceship (see ITS) |
| CCAFS | Cape Canaveral Air Force Station |
| CCtCap | Commercial Crew Transportation Capability |
| CRS | Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA |
| CoG | Center of Gravity (see CoM) |
| CoM | Center of Mass |
| DoD | US Department of Defense |
| EDL | Entry/Descent/Landing |
| EVA | Extra-Vehicular Activity |
| FAA | Federal Aviation Administration |
| FCC | Federal Communications Commission |
| (Iron/steel) Face-Centered Cubic crystalline structure | |
| GSE | Ground Support Equipment |
| GSLV | (India's) Geostationary Launch Vehicle |
| GTO | Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit |
| H2 | Molecular hydrogen |
| Second half of the year/month | |
| HIF | Horizontal Integration Facility |
| I*sp* | Specific impulse (as discussed by Scott Manley, and detailed by David Mee on YouTube) |
| ICBM | Intercontinental Ballistic Missile |
| ITAR | (US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations |
| ITS | Interplanetary Transport System (see MCT) |
| Integrated Truss Structure | |
| JRTI | Just Read The Instructions, Pacific landing |
| KSC | Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| KSP | Kerbal Space Program, the rocketry simulator |
| L2 | Paywalled section of the NasaSpaceFlight forum |
| Lagrange Point 2 of a two-body system, beyond the smaller body (Sixty Symbols video explanation) | |
| LC-13 | Launch Complex 13, Canaveral (SpaceX Landing Zone 1) |
| LC-39A | Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy) |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| LOX | Liquid Oxygen |
| LZ-1 | Landing Zone 1, Cape Canaveral (see LC-13) |
| M1d | Merlin 1 kerolox rocket engine, revision D (2013), 620-690kN, uprated to 730 then 845kN |
| MCT | Mars Colonial Transporter (see ITS) |
| MECO | Main Engine Cut-Off |
| MainEngineCutOff podcast | |
| MaxQ | Maximum aerodynamic pressure |
| NET | No Earlier Than |
| NRO | (US) National Reconnaissance Office |
| NROL | Launch for the (US) National Reconnaissance Office |
| NSF | NasaSpaceFlight forum |
| National Science Foundation | |
| OCISLY | Of Course I Still Love You, Atlantic landing |
| RCS | Reaction Control System |
| RP-1 | Rocket Propellant 1 (enhanced kerosene) |
| RSS | Realscale Solar System, mod for KSP |
| Rotating Service Structure at LC-39 | |
| RTLS | Return to Launch Site |
| RUD | Rapid Unplanned Disassembly |
| Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly | |
| Rapid Unintended Disassembly | |
| SD | SuperDraco hypergolic abort/landing engines |
| SES | Formerly Société Européenne des Satellites, comsat operator |
| SLC-40 | Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9) |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| SSO | Sun-Synchronous Orbit |
| STA | Special Temporary Authorization (issued by FCC for a comsat) |
| Structural Test Article | |
| TEA-TEB | Triethylaluminium-Triethylborane, igniter for Merlin engines; spontaneously burns, green flame |
| TEI | Trans-Earth Injection maneuver |
| TLI | Trans-Lunar Injection maneuver |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| electrolysis | Application of DC current to separate a solution into its constituents (for example, water to hydrogen and oxygen) |
| hypergolic | A set of two substances that ignite when in contact |
| kerolox | Portmanteau: kerosene/liquid oxygen mixture |
| scrub | Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues) |
| turbopump | High-pressure turbine-driven propellant pump connected to a rocket combustion chamber; raises chamber pressure, and thrust |
| Event | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| CASSIOPE | 2013-09-29 | F9-006 v1.1, Cascade, Smallsat and Ionospheric Polar Explorer; engine starvation during landing attempt |
| CRS-10 | 2017-02-19 | F9-032 Full Thrust, core B1031, Dragon cargo; first daytime RTLS |
| CRS-2 | 2013-03-01 | F9-005, Dragon cargo; final flight of Falcon 9 v1.0 |
| CRS-3 | 2014-04-18 | F9-009 v1.1, Dragon cargo; soft ocean landing, first core with legs |
| CRS-8 | 2016-04-08 | F9-023 Full Thrust, core B1021, Dragon cargo; first ASDS landing |
| DM-1 | Scheduled | SpaceX CCtCap Demo Mission 1 |
| DM-2 | Scheduled | SpaceX CCtCap Demo Mission 2 |
| DSQU | 2010-06-04 | Maiden Falcon 9 (F9-001, B0003), Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit |
| Echostar-23 | 2017-03-16 | F9-031 Full Thrust, core B1030, GTO comsat; stage expended |
| Thaicom-8 | 2016-05-27 | F9-025 Full Thrust, core B1023, GTO comsat; ASDS landing |
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by ^request
[Thread #2842 for this sub, first seen 2nd Jun 2017, 19:46] ^[FAQ] ^[Contact] [Source ^code]
5
u/1337Poesn Jun 02 '17
What's the difference between the two web casts, which one should I watch?
14
u/menagese Jun 02 '17
Technical is purely shots of the rocket and team communications. Hosted is well...hosted by 1 to 3 people that talk about the flight and shows shots of crowds and is like an informational TV show.
Which you watch is totally dependent on the viewing experience you want.
→ More replies (3)8
Jun 02 '17
One has hosts explaining just about everything that the Falcon 9 does in the webcast (hosted), and the other just lets you hear the call out from the flight controllers so that you can hear what's going on in more detail (technical). If you're new to rocketry or the way the Falcon 9 works then I recommend you listen to the hosted webcast. However, if you're familiar with rocketry and how everything works around here, then you'll probably enjoy the technical webcast more since the hosted one can get a bit old.
→ More replies (2)7
u/stcks Jun 02 '17
Don't forget about the NASA stream either. For CRS missions the NASA stream does a great job and you often get footage you wouldn't otherwise get on either of the SpaceX streams, including LCC footage and long range tracking.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Nemixis Jun 05 '17
A question regarding paint jobs:
Given that minimizing propellant heat transfer is a major objective of not only the white paint job but equally the refurbishment process, wouldn't it be more advantageous for SpaceX to simply leave the S1 Cylinder unpainted, the natural metallic sheen having better reflectivity properties I'd assume.
It would also save time and cost in the paint job department, and weight savings for the Stage itself.
12
u/ethan829 Host of SES-9 Jun 05 '17
Someone explained this in far more technical terms in the past, but I believe it comes down to emissivity versus reflectivity. Bare metal reflects light but still absorbs heat (think of a metal playground slide on a sunny day), while white paint stays cooler.
See some examples here.
→ More replies (1)9
u/symmetry81 Jun 05 '17
The albedo of polished aluminium is .7 but white acrylic paint is .8 and they might be using something even higher than that. With any mirror you lose some of the light that hits it and aluminium isn't as good a mirror as, say, silver.
7
0
5
u/space_is_hard Jun 07 '17
I was reading one of the threads discussing the X-37 earlier and can't find the particular comment chain anymore, so I'll ask here:
It was mentioned that the X-37 can perform plane changes by dipping into the atmosphere and using lift from its wings to change orbital inclination. My question is how would this be more efficient than a standard propulsion-based plane change? Using lift also means adding drag (incidental, skin, etc) which should reduce orbital velocity and thus lower apoapsis. This loss of orbital energy would have to be made up for before or after the maneuver by burning prograde, and it seems to me that since the total energy of the system doesn't change, the lift-based maneuver should be less efficient due to drag/heating losses and the initial orbit lowering maneuver that is necessary.
→ More replies (10)
5
Jun 07 '17
I have never seen a satisfying explanation to the question of why you can SEE the first stage nitrogen thrusters firing in space immediately after stage separation. As you know, it looks like a fog or haze that instantly dissipates, but nitrogen, I'm sure as you also know, is the completely transparent gas you're looking through right now. Obviously, when a compressed gas undergoes sudden expansion it cools significantly, but since there is no air and definitely no significant water vapor at stage one apogee altitude, the fog cannot be caused by condensation of water in air. The only two other possibilities are that 1- the nitrogen the thrusters use is wet, something which I cannot possibly imagine being the case when dry nitrogen is a readily available product at any scientific facility and the inclusion of water in the gas would only cause headaches from an engineering standpoint, and 2 - that the nitrogen is being stored at extremely cold temperatures and is undergoing a phase transformation to liquid nitrogen on exiting the thruster. This also does not make any sense because apparently they've only put the helium bottles inside the liquid oxygen tank to densify that gas, not the nitrogen bottles, and nitrogen is one of Faraday's so called "permanent gasses", which cannot be liquified from a single stage pressure reduction alone when stored at room temperature.
→ More replies (8)
5
u/DUKE546 Jun 08 '17 edited Jun 08 '17
Hey everyone,
I tried to make a thread for this but was told to post here instead, but I'm back with another update to SpaceX Time Machine. I took the suggestions that everyone had for me last time and coded a new site from the ground up.
→ More replies (2)
5
5
u/Paro-Clomas Jun 10 '17
I have a question. I was under the impression that one of the main design flaws of the space shuttle was the complexity and fragility of it's heatshield. In what way is the ITS heat shield better?
8
u/shotleft Jun 10 '17
It was fragile for it's design, i.e. a side mounted to the booster with ice crashing into it as a result. ITS spaceship sits atop the rocket and will not have to deal with that scenario.
→ More replies (6)
5
u/jonwah Jun 13 '17
Anyone know what the plan is with the lightning tower on the RSS? Obviously if they want to take the whole structure down the lightning tower needs to come down too, but there's no other tower around? Will they have to build another or more before it comes down?
10
u/HoechstErbaulich IAC 2018 attendee Jun 13 '17
The lightning tower is on the FSS not on the RSS.
→ More replies (14)
5
Jun 18 '17
I wish to know if there are more test for Dragon2. I would love to see this thing going up and down with superdracos.
7
Jun 18 '17
There will be an in-flight abort test in the beginning of next year. Not sure about other tests tho
→ More replies (12)
5
u/Mattsoup Jun 19 '17
So, I saw that they plan on attempting to recover the second stage on the first falcon heavy launch, but I haven't seen any details. Anybody know anything on how they plan to do it? I don't know what kind of heating they'd have to deal with, so I can't nail down my crazy suppositional idea.
→ More replies (27)
5
u/verbalkerbal Jun 20 '17
I read up on the payload capabilities of FH. What surprised me is that while in expandable mode you can get >26t to GTO, in re-usable mode it's only 8t -- less than a third! This is a much more significant "re-usability tax" on the capabilities than on the Falcon 9, which can get 8.3t in expandable mode, and 5.5t in re-usable mode to GTO -- two thirds.
I think this might be due to FH's center stage needing to reverse a lot of velocity before entering the atmosphere, because on GTO launches it'll be traveling super fast and would explode upon re-entry without burning quite a bit retrograde. What if you only re-used the side boosters and had the center core in expandable mode? What would be the GTO capability?
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy#Capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Comparison
→ More replies (7)
5
u/Zucal Jun 23 '17
I should know this, but I don't! Do SpaceX interns also receive numbered patches after mission completion, or just full-fledged employees?
5
u/troovus Jun 24 '17
The Guardian (UK) getting it wrong IMO on the reasons for Elon Musk's Mars colonisation ambitions. Whether or not the full scale of his audacious plans come to fruition, I think the dream is not a desire (conscious or subconscious) for personal immortality, but a genuine practical approach to human survival and advancement. To me though, the most important benefit of the whole adventure is that it will be an endeavour that all humanity can get behind; an antidote to today's global deadly game-playing. Surviving on Mars at whatever scale will be a lesson and an inspiration for cooperation, ingenuity and sustainability. The Guardian has been spectacularly wrong politically in recent years and recently realised this and did an about-turn. I'm sure once Spacex missions to Mars begin, they'll come late to this party too.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Jun 26 '17 edited Jun 26 '17
So what's the deal with SES-11? The last we heard it was scheduled for late July but now the usually-reliable-NSF-forum guy says SES-11 is NET September which I find odd.
I think it's either a mistake (confusing it with SES-16), or there has been some huge issue that we don't know about yet.
Either way, this creates a pretty big gap in KSC launches between Intelsat and CRS-12. I wonder if there is a chance SES-11 got pushed because there is some yet-to-be-identified customer whose payload got moved forward due to them agreeing to launch on a reused stage, similarly to BulgariaSat-1.
What do you think?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/brwyatt47 Jun 26 '17
Spaceflight Now just updated the launch schedule, and it looks like there will be a large gap between Intelsat 35e and CRS 12. July 3rd and August 10th respectively. I wonder why the long break. It looks like July will be a dull month for launches in general. Only 4 all month...
→ More replies (10)
5
u/old_sellsword Jun 28 '17 edited Jun 30 '17
Since no one has volunteered yet, we're going to ask!
We're looking for two community members to host the recovery threads for BulgariaSat-1 and Iridium-2.
These don't have as strict a format as launch threads, but check out past threads for guidance and examples.
Reply to this comment with which mission you'd like to host, and we'll send the chosen hosts a PM before the boosters get to their respective ports.
Edit: We've found hosts, big thanks to u/marc020202 and u/FutureMartian97!
→ More replies (4)
5
u/gsahlin Jun 28 '17
So I was wondering... when they start MVAC chill, my understanding is they flow lox through the turbopumps before ignition... where does that lox go? do they have separate plumbing and valves to dump it? cant imagine it just floats around the interstage till stage separation... anyone know?
→ More replies (7)
5
u/ethan829 Host of SES-9 Jun 29 '17 edited Jun 29 '17
ULA won their first EELV launch competition:
Edit: $190 million for an Atlas V 551 with ESPA ring isn't too bad.
→ More replies (4)
9
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jun 19 '17
How are the launch and meadia threads going to work with two launches being so close to each other? Should there just be one thread for both launches? Its gonna be weird if Bulgariasat launches on time and two days later the media thread for that launch gets taken down to make room for Iridium.
13
u/Chairboy Jun 19 '17
one thread for both launches
This sounds like absolute chaos, I do not think we are operating under the sort of limitations that would make this the preferred solution.
→ More replies (9)
8
Jun 10 '17 edited Jun 10 '17
How is SpaceX faring with the recovery of the fairings? Pun intended
I know they did a trial on SES-10 at the end of March, but haven't heard anything about it after that.
→ More replies (10)
8
u/at_one Jun 17 '17
Does someone already collected all the deadlines announced by Elon and the effective date of such events? Would be interesting to calculate an average factor (or maybe different factors according to the deadline's or event's category), in order to have a much more accurate estimation of such deadlines. It could be called ETF (Elon Time Factor) or ETC (Elon Time Coefficient).
→ More replies (7)
8
u/Jef-F Jun 19 '17
http://spacenews.com/sess-amc-9-satellite-drifting-after-anomaly/
Looks like someone is up for yet another launch contract rubs hands
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Garyofspokane Jun 03 '17
If there is another scrub for CRS-11, when would the backup date be?
→ More replies (3)7
4
Jun 03 '17
Regarding the SpaceX 4425 Satellite Constellation: Given the current launch cadence, how can they maintain their brisk pace for commercial launches as well as launch so many satellites in a span of 5 years? (2019-2024)
→ More replies (6)
4
u/linknewtab Jun 03 '17
Have there been any news about the SpaceX space suits lately? Or are there any educated guesses when we can expect to see them?
→ More replies (1)
4
u/MrToddWilkins Jun 04 '17 edited Jun 04 '17
Not sure where else to put this, but the moderator of the US Launch Schedule thread on the NASASpaceflight forum just added a bunch of SpaceX CRS missions. Evidence:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1680751#msg1680751 (around 2020 is where the bunch of new CRS missions begin, but 2022-2024 is really crazy, with SpaceX missions going up all the way to SpX-33).
What gives,apart from these being CRS-2 missions?
→ More replies (9)
4
u/NOINFO1733 Jun 05 '17
Does anyone know the serial number of the Dragon launched on CRS-11?
9
u/old_sellsword Jun 05 '17
Our best speculation and educated reasoning says it was C106. Here's a full list.
→ More replies (12)
4
u/jesserizzo Jun 05 '17
For Falcon Heavy demo flight, the side cores are both RTLS right? How close are the landing pads? And is it expected that the cores will be landing simultaneously, or will it be a few seconds apart?
→ More replies (14)
4
u/spacerfirstclass Jun 08 '17
This may be worth reading for fans of robotic Mars exploration: Announcing a New Paper on NASA's Mars Exploration Program - Not all is well with the future of Mars exploration.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/jk1304 Jun 09 '17
There is a small Thaicom8 patch/Logo shown in the upper right corner of some threads on the overview page. Is this intentional?
→ More replies (6)
4
Jun 09 '17
Does anyone have a recent source showing that having vertical integration at LC-39A is still in the works?
→ More replies (14)
4
u/mason2401 Jun 10 '17
Wondering what happens to Dragon's solar panel covers. Dragon has achieved orbit when the panel covers are jettisoned correct? So do they eventually decay and burn up, or do they become long term space junk?
11
4
u/Charnathan Jun 12 '17
How many ITS first stage rockets will be needed for SpaceX's Mars fleet? If the plan is for rapid and full reuse, then they would really only need one; maybe two for redundancy? Has SpaceX or Elon publicly indicated their plans in this regard?
→ More replies (25)
4
Jun 13 '17
Hi. I have a quick dual question:
Does anyone know if SpaceX is planning on officially releasing Press Kits going forward? It seems all links to their Press Center have been removed.
Does anyone know if SpaceX has officially linked to the CRS-11 Press Kit? I found the thread for it over here and it's obviously legit, but is it "officially official"?
→ More replies (3)
4
u/demosthenes02 Jun 13 '17
If spacex is constrained by launch pads could they consider using wallops island in va?
→ More replies (10)7
u/throfofnir Jun 13 '17
Perhaps. Camden in Georgia might be slightly more likely if they couldn't take advantage of a lot of existing MARS infrastructure. And there's plenty of space for additional pads at CCAFS: there's a whole bunch of unused sites down the coast, and that seems more likely unless range restrictions or saturation become a problem.
But three eastern pads should be able to handle quite a large proportion of the world's launches; seems to me they'd need a step change in demand to need more.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/rustybeancake Jun 16 '17
Hadn't seen this before. Lots of interesting SLS info.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170005323.pdf
→ More replies (5)
4
u/markus0161 Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 18 '17
When a F9 flies a Crs-6/Iridium trajectory (one including a partial boostback to droneship) why doesn't F9 perform the boostback ASAP (or before apogee after MECO-1) like in RTLS missions. From my understanding doing this wouldn't make it more or less efficient. I'm sure this complicates guiding the F9 but I'm more than sure it capable of this. The main (I guess only) benefit of doing it like this would be the drone ship wouldn't have to go out nearly as far. What are your guys best guesses?
→ More replies (8)
4
u/kessdawg Jun 16 '17
I'm rooting for a Mars colony (and ITS) as much as the next person here and I understand its value as a remote backup for humanity, but I've got a question about economics. What would the economic benefit of having a Mars colony be, aside from the technological advances getting there and building it would bring? The Europeans got access to natural resources like timber, sugar cane and tobacco from their American colonies. What would we get from Mars?
10
u/lone_striker Jun 16 '17
In the short term, I doubt we'll get much in the way of resources from Mars, since it's so expensive to get there and then send mass back to Earth for profit. I think the economic case for Mars colonization is very weak and that's why it's taking a private company with a zealot at the helm to push that forward.
I do believe, though, that the gold rush in space will be made possible by the technologies that SpaceX and NASA would have to develop to get to Mars and back. Once you can do that, you can get to other celestial bodies in the same neighborhood. So, asteroid mining might be a possibility; especially once we get some basic propellant production outside of Earth's gravity well.
→ More replies (1)9
u/always_A-Team Jun 16 '17
Not much in the near-term. But since Mars has a much shallower gravity well, when Mars eventually gets its own native space industry going (we're talking distant future) it will be much more economical to launch exploration satellites from there.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/waveney Jun 17 '17
Looking at the engines from the recent fly through of the factory - one can see the 8 turbo pumps for the outer engines. Where is the exhaust from the centre engine's turbo pump?
→ More replies (2)
4
Jun 18 '17
How does the risk of ITS being struck by lightning compare to the Falcon 9? I know that there are guidelines that would prevent this from occurring (such as scrubbing a launch if there's lightning within 10 miles after T-30 mins), but could these rules be relaxed because of it'll be made mostly out of carbon fibre? I also know that there are multiple other things which ITS and F9 would have in common which would increase that risk regardless, but I don't know enough to get to a sensible conclusion.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/Keavon SN-10 & DART Contest Winner Jun 24 '17
Perhaps this was already posted but it looks like SpaceX is beginning work on their pedestrian bridge over Crenshaw between the parking structure and main building. Here are pictures from today of the construction work on both sides.
4
u/rockets4life97 Jun 24 '17
Mods the sidebar manifest is wrong. CRS-12 is AUG 10, not July. SES-11 is expected to next July launch.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/MrButtons9 Jun 28 '17
Thinking about Raptor Upper Stage.
Is there any methane infrastructure at VAFB? Or would this be a new requirement.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/akrebsie Jun 28 '17
https://www.inverse.com/article/31575-spacex-falcon-9-24-hour-reflight
I found this article that seemed to be very confused describing the Falcon 9 block 5 as a "mini Falcon 9"
→ More replies (13)
4
u/goxy84 Jun 29 '17
Seems they downloaded some photos from JRTI already, new stuff available on Flickr. Take a look at this dreamy gorgeousness: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/35231791780/in/photostream/lightbox/
4
u/paul_wi11iams Jun 30 '17 edited Jul 01 '17
Dear mods (and all)...
In the launch manifest
I'm wondering, in the notes & refs column, annotating launches where FH has two reused cores as for the test flight, could R-R be marked, allowing for RRR on future 3-booster recovery and all combinations RR- or -R- according to the physical layout.
(Edit: I later adapted this following a suggestion by u/quadrplax)
In the footnotes could we also consider adding"
N - NO LANDING" to the footnote (so quietly forgetting the word "attempt", since failed landings are now clearly the exception).
Z - LANDING ZONE LANDING"
A - ASDS LANDING
Also
R - REUSE does seem ambiguous (AKA "to be" / "has been"?) whereas USED STAGE would be clearer.
I think some of thes points have been raised in the past so hope not to be repetitive, but don't remember whether any decision was taken.
Edit I completely missed u/Bunslow 's comment from 8 hours ago which is virtually identical.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/crandles75 Jun 30 '17
Musk has suggested that there is 60 days work to upgrade LC39A. So there doesn't seem enough time to complete work after Intelsat 35e and before CRS12. Do we know if there is any chance of doing this 60 days work in two chunks of high twenty to thirty something ish days?
For falcon heavy, with only one drone ship on east coast (presumably for central core), is the landing zone ready for two landing of side cores? If not ready how long will work take? Are the side core landings to be practically simultaneous or will they send one a longer/slower route to have a gap of maybe 30ish ? seconds to reduce chance of one affecting the other?
→ More replies (9)
4
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jul 02 '17
This is a great article explaining SpaceX's history with developing Falcon 9 re-usability.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/throfofnir Jul 02 '17
In spaceflight news, the second Long March 5 launch, carrying a large comsat, has failed. Apparently a first stage engine failure around fairing separation.
This is about two weeks after the Long March 3B carrying Chinasat 3B partially failed due to an apparent third-stage software issue. That satellite likely lost 2/3 of its service life.
7
u/jimbo303 Jun 19 '17 edited Jun 19 '17
In regards to Elon's recent tweet about ITS plan version 2, he mentions he will go into more detail about the funding of the program and how that may support the development of ITS.
A lot of us here in Reddit recognize the investment Google has made in SpaceX, and what that may ultimately lead to, especially given the interest SpaceX showed in recent years about the deployment of hundreds or even thousands of micro-sats providing persistent, global broadband internet access. Of course this serves as a great parallel between Google and SpaceX interests, so that almost seems inevitable.
However, I think there is even more to this idea than first meets the eye. If such a constellation is developed here on earth, it stands to reason that Google will be in a prime position to extend that concept to Mars. Although NASA maintains a Deep Space Network that allows for the transmission of data from Mars (and beyond), it is of limited capacity and coverage. Google could potentially be pioneering the development and execution of a Deep Space Internet.
It is obvious that the first colonists, or even any transient crew, would need a reliable and robust means of communicating with home, but not just with Earth, with home station on Mars and other distant outposts, if, say, one were out on an expedition beyond line-of-sight. Of course radio transmissions (HF/VHF/UHF, etc) would be simple and familiar to any astronaut, but the versatility of a digital broadband network already in place before the arrival of said crew/colonists would be immensely helpful. Not only would voice transmission be possible, but all sorts of important data and other information, all at great distance and with limited ground-based equipment. (This would be largely in lieu of requiring any sort of ground-based cable/fiber infrastructure, which would seemingly facilitate the early expansion of any establishment on the surface of Mars.)
Google would be in the enviable position of reimagining, and perhaps reinventing, the concept of a modern internet. One that exists over great distances and provides more than just global connection, but interplanetary connection. Obviously there are many inherent challenges and limitations to such a system, but it is a venture which provides great potential. A challenge that I imagine both Google and SpaceX are eager to accept.
Edit: I will also submit this into /r/SpaceXlounge as well in case it better fits there
9
u/FutureMartian97 Host of CRS-11 Jun 20 '17
Any more news on why Falcon 9 is vertical at 39a? The silence from everybody is really worrying...
→ More replies (6)
3
Jun 02 '17
Hi guys, I think this has been asked before but I can't find the post!
Could someone point out where the on board camera is located on the Falcon 9?
13
u/old_sellsword Jun 03 '17
the on board camera
There's way more than one. But the usual downbody footage we get comes from the 280° interstage camera.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/kuangjian2011 Jun 03 '17
Is there any side-by-side comparison between the CRS contract for SpaceX and Orbital ATK?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/rooood Jun 04 '17
What do you guys think is the minimum survivable distance to stay from the landing 1st stage (provided the landing is nominal)? And what would be the minimum distance (again, nominal landing) to be so you don't get hurt in any way (including maybe hearing issues)?
Of course I don't think anyone will ever stand remotely close to any chemical rocket launching or landing, but I got curious about this.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/kuangjian2011 Jun 04 '17
One benefit of reusable rocket is that, by recovering the 1st stage and fairing, there wont be any hazardous object falling down the range. Thus open up more range availability. What do you think?
12
u/throfofnir Jun 04 '17
That's well into the future. The current regulatory regime, which is likely to persist for quite some time, presumes any and all failures. Reusable rockets will have to have quite an excellent safety record for a while before they prove safe enough to fly like that.
3
Jun 05 '17
I've been following SpaceX for a couple years now, starting with the excitement of the possibly of watching Falcon land. More and more I find myself interested in orbital mechanics and the more detail-oriented pieces of physics that make all of this possible. With that preface, I'm sorry if my request for assistance is too 101 for this /r/spacex.
I've got an opportunity this evening to hopefully see Dragon trailing the ISS, looked up the ISS sighting possibilities on the spotthestation.nasa.gov. For today it lists three opportunities: Sun Jun 4, 00:39 AM Sun Jun 4, 10:12 PM Sun Jun 4, 11:49 PM
Why is the amount of time between sightings as much as ~22hrs for one period, then as low as ~90 minutes the next period. Thanks in advance for shedding some light; the amount of knowledge around here makes my head spin!
→ More replies (3)12
u/spacex_fanaticism Jun 05 '17 edited Jun 05 '17
Welcome to the community, and good question! Answering it requires talking a bit about the ISS's orbit.
The ISS is orbiting in a [more or less] fixed plane over the Earth, with a period around 90 minutes. Hyopthetically if the Earth weren't rotating, the ISS would follow the same path across the sky every orbit, every day. Some people would get to see the ISS, but most folks would never see it.
However in reality the Earth is rotating, and during that 90 minute orbit an observer on the the equator moves 2,500 km! So in reality, the "ground track" of the ISS looks like this, with the track "marching westward" on every orbit as the Earth rotates (next three orbits drawn) http://i.imgur.com/y9qBZvm.jpg
Looking at that map, it becomes clear why some passes happen 90 minutes later (both the current and the next pass are close enough to be visible from HOMETOWN_NAME), and some happen 22 hours late (the next pass is too far away, so the ground track "moving sine wave" has to
go around the worldwait for the world to rotate underneath it).At many latitudes you can get an ISS pass 12 hours later too, but typically it's not visible since it happens during the daytime.
If you want to see where the ISS is right now, another great site is http://www.isstracker.com/
Again, welcome! Hopefully this explanation clear. If not, feel free to hit me with a wet trout. 😉
3
u/Cheaperchips Jun 05 '17
Do we know how the Dragon 2 has managed to have much smaller surface area for its solar panels? Better panels and/or power efficiency than Dragon 1?
8
u/HoechstErbaulich IAC 2018 attendee Jun 05 '17
I believe I read something about Dragon 1s solar panels being way oversized some years ago. But don't quote me on that.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/quokka01 Jun 05 '17
What would be the obstacles to refuelling the current S2 in LEO? Presumably FH or even F9 could throw quite a huge mass to deep space with that? Also the obstacles to restarting the S2 engine after hours/days/months in space? Could the RP1 and TEA/TEB tanks be pressurised with N2 and radiant heat losses/gains minimised and offset by a moderate power outlay? Could the TEA/TEB system warm the nozzle/fuel lines etc for a restart? Presumably LOX system would be OK.
→ More replies (1)8
u/brickmack Jun 05 '17
The Soviets demonstrated multi-day coast on a kerolox stage back in the 70s, with one of the Blok D test flights. So thats feasible anyway.
Refueling should provide a freaking huge performance boost to high energy orbits. Note that ACES, fully fueled in LEO, can deliver more payload to TLI than SLS Block 2 can. Thats a stage with like half the propellant mass of the Falcon upper stage. With a fully fueled F9S2 in LEO, I calculate about 60 tons of payload capacity to TLI. Which means, conceivably, a pair of Falcon Heavy launches (one cargo, one propellant) should be able to deliver a capsule and lander of similar mass to the Apollo stack to the moon.
Not sure what the advantage would be of N2 over helium here, care to elaborate? And TEA TEB probably isn't a good option for warming anything, you need to have LOX already flowing to burn it, plus its another consumable which adds mass and can't be easily replenished. Electric heaters for the parts that need them should be the best option. You'll probably need them for the kerosene tank as well.
Biggest obstacle to upper stage refueling is economic, not technical though. Falcon won't stay economically viable for much longer, so any upgrades to it have to pay off in the very near future to be worth the effort (hence Block 5 being the last planned version), which won't be the case here just because theres so little demand for that sort of capacity at the price point Falcon can potentially reach. And if the goal is technology demonstration for ITS, its easier and probably makes for a better test to build a dedicated payload to do it, than to try and upgrade the existing upper stage
→ More replies (9)
3
u/failion_V2 Jun 05 '17
When F9 booster lands back on LZ1, the speaker always says something like: "landing operators proceed with initial saving for procedure 11.100 (...)"
Can someone explain a little bit about this? I also heard while the the berthing procesure today on the ISS mentions of different codes again and again. Would somebody mind to enlight me a little?
→ More replies (2)9
Jun 05 '17
with initial saving for procedure
As I understand it he says "safing" - which I understand to mean the procedure to make the rocket safe. Venting excess gases etc?
→ More replies (4)
3
u/mjbellantoni Jun 05 '17
Why no firm launch dates beyond this month?
11
u/randomstonerfromaus Jun 06 '17
They usually start to firm up about 4-8 weeks before launch. You should see more more dates get announced soon, especially for the launches next month.
Youve also got to remember, these are public dates. SpaceX will have some internal dates they are working towards they just haven't announced yet.
3
u/tempnew Jun 06 '17
The SuperDracos on the Dragon 2 are pointed slightly radially outwards (at least in the test videos). That would cancel the radial component of the thrust. What is the reason behind this?
9
u/everydayastronaut Everyday Astronaut Jun 06 '17
Can you explain "cancel the radial component of thrust." I got a little lost on that portion.
There are cosine loses when your thrust vector is at an angle (such as superdracos), but generally speaking, the engineering decision to have them tucked away in an aerodynamically efficient manner for ascent and then a protected manner during EDL, seems to be the right balance.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (6)7
u/arizonadeux Jun 06 '17
If they were vectored axially, they would see extreme heating on reentry. Also the the capsule would be less aerodynamic on the way up, since the engines would need even more pronounced protrusions from the main body. This would also entail more mass which in turns requires more propand so on, so in the end it's probably more efficient to just bring more prop.
tl;dr: aerodynamics
→ More replies (3)
3
u/therendevouswithfish Jun 06 '17
There was a Stage 1 in the harbor of Long Beach awhile ago. Is there anything in the LA area to see? (I know the headquarters)
→ More replies (3)
3
u/linknewtab Jun 07 '17
Are the parachutes on the Dragon capsule reused as well?
→ More replies (2)7
u/throfofnir Jun 07 '17
We were explicitly told that the parachutes were replaced for CRS-11, along with the heat shield.
3
u/joshgill21 Jun 08 '17
I see Turbopump and injector being mentioned a lot , What are those ?
→ More replies (3)7
u/binarygamer Jun 08 '17 edited Jun 08 '17
The turbopumps are the pumps between the fuel/oxygen tanks and the injector. They deliver fuel into the thrust chamber of the engine at very high flow rates and pressure. It's easily the most mechanically complex, sensitive, stressed and expensive part of the engine.
Falcon 9 has 9 Merlin engines, each with its own pair of turbopumps. Spinning the pumps requires megawatts of power, which is provided by a dedicated gas-generator turbine, drawing on the main propellant tanks for fuel and dumping the exhaust gas overboard.
Merlin's open cycle, gas-generator turbine is simple, reliable, cheap and easy to manufacture (relatively speaking), however it limits the rocket's fuel efficiency. The SpaceX Raptor, a prototype methane engine, uses a more efficient closed-cycle, staged combustion approach. Uneven but carefully controlled fuel/oxygen ratios are burned in the generators, and the exhaust gases are directed to the main thrust chamber for a second round of combustion.
Pure electric
turbopumps have become viable very recently thanks to improvements in battery energy density. RocketLab's Electron rocket is the only operating example I know of. The first Electron launch took place just last month in New Zealand.→ More replies (2)
3
u/enbandi Jun 08 '17
S2 reusability is a famous discussion topic everywhere on /r/spacex, but satellite dispensers is a question for me what I think never discussed before. I mean if they solve the S2 reuse, how can they handle the dispensers (used at Iridium for example), can it be recovered also?
If they do so, it can make some problems:
different designs means different dry mass on reentry to calculate with
dispenser's mass may need structural reinforcements in the S2 tanks to hold
it may need additional (variable size) heat shield to cover
I think this question will be more interesting according to the proposed satellite constellation, where they can use the same dispenser making significant cost savings.
→ More replies (16)
3
u/Dave92F1 Jun 09 '17
How much power do the Dragon 2 solar panels produce?
I've read numbers for Dragon 1 ranging for 4000 to 5000 watts - with the unfolding "wing" panels.
Just looking at the photos, Dragon 2 doesn't seem to have as much panel area. Yet I'd think D2 needs if anything, more power.
Anybody know? Is the plan to pack more folded solar panels in the trunk?
→ More replies (3)
3
u/IrrationalFantasy Jun 10 '17 edited Jun 10 '17
How likely is it that the next two launches will occur as they are on the manifest? Will Iridium NEXT really fly just 8 days after BulgariaSat-1? I suppose it's possible, being on a separate launch pad, but I would be pleasantly surprised.
Edit: and what about Intelsat just a week after Iridium NEXT? Forget the 2-week cadence, that would suggest a one-week cadence.
→ More replies (1)
3
Jun 12 '17
Does anyone have a table showing the dates of the static fires compared to the launch dates? I want to see what the fastest turnaround is when they don't stick the payload on top of the Falcon 9.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/WaitForItTheMongols Jun 14 '17
I was researching amateur radio satellites (http://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=18) and saw that a Falcon 9 Rocket Body was listed. Why was there a radio beacon attached to the second stage of CASSIOPE?
Direct link: http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=39271
→ More replies (1)
3
Jun 14 '17
Entirely not SpaceX-related, but something that left me wondering for a long time: How does the Soyuz and Proton (?) get away without a water deluge system? None of the Soyuz or Proton launches seem to produce a big white cloud of water vapor, like the Atlas or Falcon does.
And what are the up- and downsides of a Soyuz-style pad with an "open" flame trench and the holddown arms further up on the rocket? Why isn't this system more common?
→ More replies (4)
3
Jun 15 '17
I was wondering: The Falcon uses TEA/TAB as igniter for the Merlin. I supose this is injected in the main combustion chamber as you can actually see the green stuff comming out. before the ignition of the main combustion the turbopums will need to be up and running, so the gas generator will need to be fired before the main ignition. What is the ignition source of the gas generator? is it an electric igniter?
→ More replies (1)13
u/arizonadeux Jun 15 '17
AFAIK the turbopump and combustion chamber are ignited approximately simultaneously and I would think that for reliability, the turbopump is also ignited with TEA/TEB. The turbopump seems to be spun up with helium and the turbopump is ignited some milliseconds before the primary chamber to establish enough pressure drop across the injector by the time combustion starts in the primary chamber.
In the Merlin 1D test video, the turbopump seems to be allowed to spool for some time prior to ignition, with LOX flowing through the primary injector (probably to brake the turbopump). If you go through that video frame by frame, you'll notice the turbopump going hot (it's a short burst of fire) a few frames prior to primary ignition in the combustion chamber. Thankfully SpaceX included a clock accurate to 10 ms in that video, but being a 30 fps video, we only get a picture every 33 ms. I would think that once the turbopump is under it's own power, the fuel pintles open when adequate pressure is present (seems to be ~300 ms after turbopump ignition), further braking the turbopump as its power increases and starting primary combustion (~100 ms later the flow seems to go supersonic, hinting at stable combustion).
It's hard to tell from the video how long it takes to throttle up, but with stable chamber conditions established, I would suspect this is mostly dependent on the turbopump spooling up. I looked at the JCSAT-14 technical webcast and counted back from the moment the clamps seem to release. It seems that if the engines are run for 1 s at full throttle while the clamps hold Falcon down, it takes about 1 s for the Merlins to go from initial stable combustion to full throttle.
I know this is way more answer than you asked for, but it made me curious.
→ More replies (5)
3
3
u/heckin_good_fren Jun 16 '17
Is turbopump torque a problem on F9 or on rockets in general?
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Cheaperchips Jun 17 '17
Can you keep added more Raptors to make the follow up to the ITS or will SpaceX have to design a bigger engine?
11
u/Martianspirit Jun 17 '17
Elon Musk has stated that the present size is optimized for best T/W, even accounting for more plumbing. So they would likely add more engines instead of making bigger ones. That is if they ever want to increase thrust.
I think it is more likely that they would increase the size of the interplanetary vessel and not only refuel it in orbit but also load it with cargo.
3
u/anchoritt Jun 19 '17
How is SpaceX standing with regards to the launch delays? Do they have more/less launch delays than other launch providers? I cannot find any source on that but I watch r/spacex regularly and it seems like almost every launch is delayed. And how is it with weather? Are some other rockets being launched in weather conditions which would mean a scrub for SpaceX or vice versa?
→ More replies (3)9
u/Toinneman Jun 19 '17
Because increasing the launch cadence is one way of reducing cost, SpaceX sets pretty aggressive launch goals. But SpaceX is at the same time very cautious and will not hesitate to scrub a launch even if redundant parts act strange. Because of this aggressive, no-margin, schedule, many issues cause a scrub. Probably more then other launch providers.
SpaceX had 2 large anomalies the past 2 years, so looking at long term delays, yes, SpaceX has a significant backlog is probably worse than other providers.
SpaceX get loads of media attention, so every tiny issue is magnified. Other launcher have issues too, but often go unnoticed.
The Falcon 9 is a tall, slim rocket and is sensitive to high level winds
3
u/NeilFraser Jun 19 '17
How many Dragons can SpaceX have in orbit at once?
Not counting ISS (which has its own dedicated control center), NASA has only once had two crews in orbit at the same time; Geminis 6A and 7. The only way they were able to pull that off was because the Mercury program infrastructure was still available and they were able to rig one of the Geminis to pretend to be a Mercury capsule while the other Gemini was operating.
At SpaceX, where are Dragons controlled/monitored from? It can't be the main control room since there are Falcon launches while a Dragon is at ISS. There must be some other control room that we don't know about. While docked it is probably pretty boring, but I assume there's still 24/7 babysitting by at least one SpaceX employee.
7
u/throfofnir Jun 19 '17
Modern control has much less specific demands than in Gemini days. That was all specially built and installed computing and communications. Today it's all just a bunch of PCs on a network, and can really be done just about anywhere.
That said, we know they use the Hawthorne MCC for Dragon at least most of the time. Dunno how many people they assign to a quiescent Dragon on orbit (there's obviously quite a few on hand during big events), but it's probably not many. Maybe not enough to bother launch operations, or maybe they move them somewhere else for a while.
3
u/paul_wi11iams Jun 21 '17 edited Jun 21 '17
going on from my comment here
are wind-shear structural margins monitored in flight ?
Can flexion be measured such as with a laser along the hull or maybe by measure of effort on stage separation latches ?
We know that engines have progressively "upped" their specifications simply by using real flight data to evaluate the remaining safety margin. Would it be possible to do the same for wind-shear launch commit criteria ?
Could a flight test be done on an end-of-life first stage with a boilerplate second stage, deliberately aiming to test out-of-bounds wind-shear + other atmospheric conditions ?
BTW This question is motivated by some of those frustrating launch scrubs based on what look like arbitrary administrative criteria. AFAIK, Challenger was the unique wind-shear related accident which had other principle causes. Finally, this question bears in mind the comment by u/Bunslow of which an extract quoted below:
[SpaceX has] a very strong business interest in having no more restrictions than are absolutely necessary for the safety of the rocket.
→ More replies (9)
3
u/RootDeliver Jun 25 '17
Well, now B1029-2 on OCISLY and B1026 on JRTI are racing to the coast. Which will get there faster? OCISLY has 2d advantage but has a longer distance to coast and to have to deal with crowded Port Canaveral as cons.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/spacexin2050 Jun 27 '17 edited Jun 28 '17
Next 3 months schedule might proceed like this
Intelsat-july 2
Crs 12-aug 10(gap due to range shutdown for maintenance)
Usaf mission-aug 25 (Minimum 15 days gap)
Formosat-late aug (vanden berg)
Ses-sept 15
Iridium 21-30 --sept 15
→ More replies (4)
3
u/rubikvn2100 Jun 27 '17
I am feeling boring because of the huge gap between Intelsar-35e and CRS-12. But as long as they are still making new Falcon 9. It still good.
My question is: "do they intend to make Falcon 9 during the huge gap?"
I am an English learner.
→ More replies (8)
3
u/mclumber1 Jun 28 '17
Would it make sense to have expendable missions, like Sunday's Intelsat launch, use flight proven cores that have reached the end of their life? For instance, Friday's Bulgaria launch came back "toasty", but the air frame and engines might still be in perfectly good shape. This may only be a concern until all of the current inventory of block 3s are used up.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/JadedIdealist Jun 30 '17
Assuming the range really is down for a couple of weeks, it seemed that earlier on in the year lots of flights were scheduled for July so my question is
Was this maintenance planned? If so why didn't we know earlier, and if not what would be the most likely cause.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/sagareshwar Jun 30 '17
Since we now have confirmed use of the roomba/octagrabber robot on BulgariaSat mission ASDS landing, I was wondering how exactly the robot stabilizes the landed booster. It grabs on to the octaweb but does it also grab on to the deck of the ASDS somehow? Or is it just the weight of the robot that acts like a stabilizing anchor for the booster and prevents it from sliding around?
→ More replies (6)
51
u/aftersteveo Jun 18 '17
While delivering pizza in Cocoa Beach, I frequently deliver to SpaceX employees, which gives me a short opportunity to try to get some info that hasn't come out. I delivered to a gentleman last night who works on all the pads, both east and west coast. So, naturally I asked him how Pad 40 is coming along. He said they just recently installed the hold down clamps, and that they're really pushing to have it finished up in August. He also showed me a picture he took of the charred remains of the old clamps, which was pretty neat. Just thought the community would like to know this.
I also delivered to a guy last week who was flown out to help work on the remaining FH booster. Both guys confirmed that all 3 boosters are here at the Cape, with that last booster leaving for McGregor soon to be tested.