View from the fairing, full res attached; https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/855830651303538690

In other news, one Falcon Heavy booster (re-done landed Thaicom-8 core) has undergone SF at McGregor and the central core is getting ready for SF too. The second booster is also a rebuilt landed one, unknown which one at the moment.
 

Attachments

  • C-CFbFPXcAALgOl.jpg orig.jpg
    C-CFbFPXcAALgOl.jpg orig.jpg
    411.7 KB · Views: 227
Quite the view we're getting of the Stage 1 boost back. :eek: Jeez, if you guys missed it you need to go check out the video. Full external and onboard coverage of the entire first stage flyback. Pretty incredible.
 
Very impressive video of stage separation and landing.

I wonder what kind of camera rig it took to track the 1 stage like that.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy7HO7mo2Og
 
It's interesting how the engine start appears to use 5 engines before switching to 3. I wonder if that is what is really happening.
 

Attachments

  • Engine Start.jpg
    Engine Start.jpg
    2.7 KB · Views: 176
  • 3 Engine Pattern.jpg
    3 Engine Pattern.jpg
    3.5 KB · Views: 174
Musk had this on his twitter account.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZshpuw0CgE
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUcNq1PhPQk

Payload is save and sound in it's orbit

NRO are pleased, just only US$62 million compare to US$200 million ULA demands
with upcoming Falcon Heavy SpaceX offers for US$124 million, what ULA want US$480 million

Seems ULA worst nightmare come true SpaceX is taking over there customers, follow by Blue Origin in 2019...
 
Michel Van said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUcNq1PhPQk

Payload is save and sound in it's orbit

NRO are pleased, just only US$62 million compare to US$200 million ULA demands
with upcoming Falcon Heavy SpaceX offers for US$124 million, what ULA want US$480 million

Seems ULA worst nightmare come true SpaceX is taking over there customers, follow by Blue Origin in 2019...

Good news for the NRO, a successful first launch by SpaceX. I actually missed the launch, thanks for posting the video Michel Van. B)
 
Just gotta say, the footage of the landing this morning was almost Sci-Fi. :eek: Can't wait until Blue Origin is doing the same.
 
fredymac said:
It's interesting how the engine start appears to use 5 engines before switching to 3. I wonder if that is what is really happening.

Based on the discussion on NASA SpaceFlight, it's just the center engine lighting first with the very broad "ring of fire" exhaust plume, then two others lighting and reshaping the plume into that more linear shape.
 
That's certainly plausible but it's odd how you get a pentastar pattern with a symmetric arrangement of 8 engines surrounding 1.
 

Attachments

  • Falcon 9 Engine Layout.jpg
    Falcon 9 Engine Layout.jpg
    566.3 KB · Views: 116
I remember watching the DC-X flights and thinking a real chance to finally get space industry and tourism off the ground was at hand. As usual, when government funds were inevitably cut off, none of the big corporations involved had the motivation to continue. It may be that Spacex is succeeding solely because it depends on the ego of private billionaire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOsS4SzEWVU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o
 
fredymac said:
I remember watching the DC-X flights and thinking a real chance to finally get space industry and tourism off the ground was at hand. As usual, when government funds were inevitably cut off, none of the big corporations involved had the motivation to continue. It may be that Spacex is succeeding solely because it depends on the ego of private billionaire.

Elon Musk doesn't strike me as particularly egotistical.
 
Not in the sense of being vainglorious but more in having invested his reputation and self image in the eventual success of his efforts. Of course, I have zero idea of whether this is true and he could be simply enjoying a very expensive hobby.
 
Oh yeah, Elon totally made SpaceX to stroke his ego... ::)

Also, re-entry burn was with 3 engines (as always), not with 5.
 
fredymac said:
I have zero idea

You clearly dont. Because a man that spends every penny (literally) of ~100 million he has in the bank to fund an electric company and space company (which are both notoriously difficult industries) is certainly not someone who does it for a "hobby". Neither is it someone who explains those two time after time with "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport" and "make humanity multiplanet species".

Also, writing "It may be that Spacex is succeeding solely because it depends on the ego of private billionaire." is incredibly backhanded towards the 6000+ people working at SpaceX.
 
Yes absolut Sci-fi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGB9gqZVQyY

"The Sky calls" is soviet Sci-Fi movie from 1959!

oh, by the way the entire movie is on Youtube !
is USSR version of 2001 a Space Odyssey
 
flanker said:
fredymac said:
I have zero idea

You clearly dont. Because a man that spends every penny (literally) of ~100 million he has in the bank to fund an electric company and space company (which are both notoriously difficult industries) is certainly not someone who does it for a "hobby". Neither is it someone who explains those two time after time with "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport" and "make humanity multiplanet species".

Also, writing "It may be that Spacex is succeeding solely because it depends on the ego of private billionaire." is incredibly backhanded towards the 6000+ people working at SpaceX.

Your response illustrates precisely the invested ego I am talking about.

Consider your choice of interpretation and your emotions as you wrote your reply. As a working engineer in the defense industry (for 40+ years), I am hardly engaged in a "backhanded" dismissal of all the actual technical staff involved in this effort.

I reiterate my actual thesis. Spacex succeeds due to the vision of one person with the means to pursue it. A vision is a person's projection of his personal desires for the future and necessarily injects the value judgment (ego) that it is worthy of pursuit. It forsakes the "optimal financial returns" and risk calculations that would otherwise drive decision making. Ego is not a bad thing when constructively channeled.
 
If I'm reading you right, Elon Musk is Ayn Rand's Hank Rearden. If so, I'm good with that. Not enough go-getters of means out there these days. NASA (in the day) did the heavy lifting. But, it's up to today's Rearden's to exploit that accumulated knowledge with the creation of the hardware to get us from here to there. Ego is the magic ingredient.

David
 
fredymac said:
That's certainly plausible but it's odd how you get a pentastar pattern with a symmetric arrangement of 8 engines surrounding 1.

You can't get a regular pentagon/pentagram with any firing of five engines in that configuration either. If you look at the later single-engine landing burn, you see flames swirl around the engine exhaust bells in a chaotic pattern. I suspect that short-lived "pentagon" of flames is something similar -- just a quirk of how the exhaust interacted with the airflow around the engines and other structure back there.
 
fredymac said:
flanker said:
fredymac said:
I have zero idea

You clearly dont. Because a man that spends every penny (literally) of ~100 million he has in the bank to fund an electric company and space company (which are both notoriously difficult industries) is certainly not someone who does it for a "hobby". Neither is it someone who explains those two time after time with "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport" and "make humanity multiplanet species".

Also, writing "It may be that Spacex is succeeding solely because it depends on the ego of private billionaire." is incredibly backhanded towards the 6000+ people working at SpaceX.

Your response illustrates precisely the invested ego I am talking about.

Consider your choice of interpretation and your emotions as you wrote your reply. As a working engineer in the defense industry (for 40+ years), I am hardly engaged in a "backhanded" dismissal of all the actual technical staff involved in this effort.

I reiterate my actual thesis. Spacex succeeds due to the vision of one person with the means to pursue it. A vision is a person's projection of his personal desires for the future and necessarily injects the value judgment (ego) that it is worthy of pursuit. It forsakes the "optimal financial returns" and risk calculations that would otherwise drive decision making. Ego is not a bad thing when constructively channeled.

Far better wording in that last paragraph. But using ego in this context is still a very weird word to use.
 
SpaceX, Blue Origin have opened a “window of opportunity” for US Air Force

On Monday morning, SpaceX successfully launched a national security payload for the first time, cracking the market for US military missions. The first stage of the rocket then landed within a couple of miles from where it had taken off less than 10 minutes earlier, marking the tenth time SpaceX has safely returned a first stage to Earth.

The US military has taken note of these achievements, as well as those of Blue Origin and its reusable New Shepard suborbital vehicle—and that company’s ambitions to also build a large, reusable orbital rocket. “This has opened up a window of opportunity and gotten the attention of serious people,” Charles Miller, an aerospace consultant and president of NexGen Space, told Ars.

To that end Miller partnered with a number of Air Force officers at Air University and former Air Force officials to study the potential effects of lower-cost access to space on the US military. The “Fast Space” report, which has been briefed to senior officials in the US military and government in recent months, concludes that the US Air Force can benefit from these commercial developments.

“The USAF can form private sector partnerships to create a virtuous cycle of launch cost reductions of between 3 and 10 times lower than today’s costs,” the report finds. “Doing so could enable completely new approaches for the Air Force to defend American values, protect American interests, and enhance opportunities to exploit the unique global advantages of the ultimate high ground.”

The key concept in the report is “ultra low-cost access to space” enabled by reusable launch vehicle technology.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/air-force-study-says-us-government-should-get-serious-about-reusable-rockets/

And the Fast Space report:
http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/Research/documents/Space/Fast%20Space_Public_2017.pdf?ver=2017-03-10-113507-743
 
This is hella cool!

And is so for me for a personal reason.

Back in 2014 I landed a gig at SpaceX to help wrap up their proposal to do a NRO launch. That was their first foray into that sector of the launch business and it was something entirely different for them. NASA doesn't throw the same requirements on SpaceX to do its launches as does the NRO / Air Force.

So, to even be able to submit bids on a launch, SpaceX had to be "certified" by the Air Force as being able to support such an effort. That meant the company had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get that certification and only once it was in hand could they even begin competing for those launches.

SpaceX had the certification effort underway and was working on their NRO launch proposal in anticipation of getting that certification in time.

Well, after all the effort - and money - expended in developing that launch proposal to the point of its formal submission, the Air Force then decided to simply delay its certification process. That delay meant that there was no way SpaceX could participate in the bidding process for the next NRO launch and that meant the entire effort they'd just expended developing their proposal for it was thus money sunk.

There was no small amount of speculation that the "legacy" launch providers (ULA and Orbital Sciences, et. al.) were the ones behind the Air Force's sudden delay as that delay meant they got to keep that launch contract all to themselves.

It was quite the let down for the SpaceX crew and for me, personally, it meant there was no immediate follow on work from doing the proposal to doing an operational effort.

Thus it's real sweet to see SpaceX now in the NRO business. Good on them!
 
Madoc said:
This is hella cool!

And is so for me for a personal reason.

Back in 2014 I landed a gig at SpaceX to help wrap up their proposal to do a NRO launch. That was their first foray into that sector of the launch business and it was something entirely different for them. NASA doesn't throw the same requirements on SpaceX to do its launches as does the NRO / Air Force.

So, to even be able to submit bids on a launch, SpaceX had to be "certified" by the Air Force as being able to support such an effort. That meant the company had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get that certification and only once it was in hand could they even begin competing for those launches.

SpaceX had the certification effort underway and was working on their NRO launch proposal in anticipation of getting that certification in time.

Well, after all the effort - and money - expended in developing that launch proposal to the point of its formal submission, the Air Force then decided to simply delay its certification process. That delay meant that there was no way SpaceX could participate in the bidding process for the next NRO launch and that meant the entire effort they'd just expended developing their proposal for it was thus money sunk.

There was no small amount of speculation that the "legacy" launch providers (ULA and Orbital Sciences, et. al.) were the ones behind the Air Force's sudden delay as that delay meant they got to keep that launch contract all to themselves.

It was quite the let down for the SpaceX crew and for me, personally, it meant there was no immediate follow on work from doing the proposal to doing an operational effort.

Thus it's real sweet to see SpaceX now in the NRO business. Good on them!

But this particular launch was awarded in 2013 a couple of years before their certification in 2015.
 
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/4/15539934/spacex-satellite-internet-launch-2019
 
On a tangent:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/27/15454604/elon-musk-tunnel-boring-machine-first-photo
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/5/15554568/elon-musk-name-tunneling-boring-machine

(SpaceX seems to be building the hardware for the Boring Company.)
 
Launch 34: Inmarsat-5 F4
Again disposal flight of rocket, until Falcon Heavy is ready
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynMYE64IEKs

there will be one last disposal launch this year in Late June for Intelsat 35e
then in August/September comes first launch of Falcon Heavy with a "silly" payload
follow by first commercial flight of Falcon Heavy for USAF
 
FH wont happen in September, yet alone in August. They need to finish LC-40 first and then they need 60 days to mod LC-39A for FH.
 
flanker said:
FH wont happen in September, yet alone in August. They need to finish LC-40 first and then they need 60 days to mod LC-39A for FH.

One of modification they announce is the removal of old mobil Service structure of Space Shuttle.
And installation of support hardware for Manned mission like crew access, on the Tower next to launch pad.

LC-40 currently scheduled for return to operation during the summer of 2017

Landing Zone 1 currently finish work on additional landing pads, started in July 2016. Needed for Two booster of Falcon Heavy

SpaceX South Texas Launch Site currently scheduled for first operation in late 2018.

The Falcon Heavy Demo features next new Core stage, two re-flights of Boosters B1025 (the Thaicom 8) and B1023 (CRS-9).


source Wiki, news media.
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/spacex-technician-says-concerns-about-test-results-got-him-fired
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom