The Planetary Society has a blog post up about The Spacecraft Formerly Known As The Deep Space Gateway And Now Known As Something Else For Totally Not Political Reasons.
Coles-Notes takeaways include the fact that there's actually funding for the thing to the point where it might actually happen at this point, with a contract for the propulsion module to be awarded this fall and another contract for the habitable component next year. The first components are supposed to launch in 2022.
Annnnd the Falcon 9 Block 5s are starting to trundle out of the rocket mines. Here's an article largely going over the history of the Falcons' reuse work over the years, culminating in the Block 5s having a number of small and not-so-small changes pushing them towards not just reusability but rapid reusability. The goals for this rocket - which may or may not be happily met since this is literally rocket science - include same-day turnaround time, up to a dozen flights between refurbishments, and the really fun one, becoming a crew-rated rocket.
Edit: Ack, that teaches me to refresh the thread before replying.
Zibblsnrt on
+1
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Good sleuthing, folks!
Meanwhile, we've got an updated launch time for Hispasat 30W-6, flying on a (Block 4) Falcon 9: March 1st, 0535 UTC. That's 12:35am Eastern, or 9:35pm Pacific on the 28th.
This slides it just ahead of the Atlas V 541 carrying GOES-S which is currently scheduled for March 1st, 2202 UTC. That's 5:32pm Eastern, or 2:32pm Pacific.
Which is pretty neat, because TWO launches on the same day from Cape Canaveral would be the tightest turnaround window for the range, etc. since 1967.
So let's see if these launch times stick, and we can witness some history on Thursday!
+3
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Ordinarily, I would take this opportunity to tell you all that it's unlikely I'll be able to provide coverage of the launch that's at 12:35am :P
But given the potentially historic nature of the day, and given that it appears that they still intend to try and land that booster, I will strongly endeavor to be around to provide coverage of BOTH launches on Thursday!
... Speaking of launches I was unable to cover, I'm happy to announce that Japan's H-2A launch went swimmingly, if without an official livestream due to the "secret" spy satellite nature of the payload. The launch went completely nominal and Japan has one more eye looking down on the Earth - primarily to monitor their ... eccentric neighbor, North Korea. Can't say I blame them.
+3
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Meanwhile, we've got an updated launch time for Hispasat 30W-6, flying on a (Block 4) Falcon 9: March 1st, 0535 UTC. That's 12:35am Eastern, or 9:35pm Pacific on the 28th.
This slides it just ahead of the Atlas V 541 carrying GOES-S which is currently scheduled for March 1st, 2202 UTC. That's 5:32pm Eastern, or 2:32pm Pacific.
Which is pretty neat, because TWO launches on the same day from Cape Canaveral would be the tightest turnaround window for the range, etc. since 1967.
So let's see if these launch times stick, and we can witness some history on Thursday!
I cant wait until two launches in a day are boring, but at this point the expected two a month from SpaceX still sounds crazy to me.
Brody on
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Meanwhile, we've got an updated launch time for Hispasat 30W-6, flying on a (Block 4) Falcon 9: March 1st, 0535 UTC. That's 12:35am Eastern, or 9:35pm Pacific on the 28th.
This slides it just ahead of the Atlas V 541 carrying GOES-S which is currently scheduled for March 1st, 2202 UTC. That's 5:32pm Eastern, or 2:32pm Pacific.
Which is pretty neat, because TWO launches on the same day from Cape Canaveral would be the tightest turnaround window for the range, etc. since 1967.
So let's see if these launch times stick, and we can witness some history on Thursday!
I cant wait until two launches in a day are boring, but at this point the expected two a month from SpaceX still sounds crazy to me.
I'm cautiously optimistic for SpaceX to get over 24 launches in this year - They got to 18 last year, of course, so the jump isn't too huge, but sometimes the whims of rocketry can be a wonderfully frustrating challenge
But they have 4 completed already this year, so they're well on pace, and the manifest theoretically contains up to 30 - 32 launches, depending on where you look or who you ask.
Combine that with some domestic competition (primarily in the form of ULA, but Orbital ATK, and Blue Origin in the future too, perhaps), and it would be too cool to see 50 - 60 orbital launches out of the US in any given year. 5 launches a month would be a neat place to be by, say, 2020?
(For reference, there were a total of 29 orbital launches out of the US in 2017!)
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
29 attempted, 29 successful. And 84 successful launches world-wide. That number seems ridiculous, now that I've looked it up. That averages more than one launch a week!
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
29 attempted, 29 successful. And 84 successful launches world-wide. That number seems ridiculous, now that I've looked it up. That averages more than one launch a week!
BARCELONA (Reuters) - The moon will get its first mobile phone network next year, enabling high-definition streaming from the lunar landscape back to earth, part of a project to back the first privately funded moon mission.
Vodafone Germany, network equipment maker Nokia and carmaker Audi (VOWG_p.DE) said on Tuesday they were working together to support the mission, 50 years after the first NASA astronauts walked on the moon.
Vodafone said it had appointed Nokia as its technology partner to develop a space-grade network which would be a small piece of hardware weighing less than a bag of sugar.
The companies are working with Berlin-based company PTScientists on the project, with a launch scheduled in 2019 from Cape Canaveral on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, Vodafone said.
“This project involves a radically innovative approach to the development of mobile network infrastructure,” Vodafone Germany Chief Executive Hannes Ametsreiter said.
I believe they also told all the other cell phone providers to "Come at me, bro"
The nature of the work involves lots of outdoor surveying, and one day while he's out there he discovers a pretty sizeable crater, and he has to figure out how the fuck it got there to determine if it's part of the cleanup from all the toxic waste they dumped when it was a manufacturing facility.
Turns out, they were using a rig similar to that to test their rockets when one day the tethering broke and it was suddenly an unguided missile with an unknown range. They got really lucky and it zipped around erratically before faceplanting far enough from them that they didn't all die, but close enough it didn't land in suburbia. Big explosion. Lots of brown pants. After that they pointed the rockets at the ground when they tested them.
The nature of the work involves lots of outdoor surveying, and one day while he's out there he discovers a pretty sizeable crater, and he has to figure out how the fuck it got there to determine if it's part of the cleanup from all the toxic waste they dumped when it was a manufacturing facility.
Turns out, they were using a rig similar to that to test their rockets when one day the tethering broke and it was suddenly an unguided missile with an unknown range. They got really lucky and it zipped around erratically before faceplanting far enough from them that they didn't all die, but close enough it didn't land in suburbia. Big explosion. Lots of brown pants. After that they pointed the rockets at the ground when they tested them.
Wonder what that thing's secured with.
Well that sounds utterly horrifying. Maybe you should email SpaceX with that story.
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
edited February 2018
The boosters, fully loaded with fuel, don't have a ton of power - They only initially accelerate at about 1.2g, meaning they have enough thrust to counteract the force of gravity, but only by a small margin.
This increases rapidly, of course, as fuel is consumed and the booster gets rapidly lighter, but that's part of the reason why static fires last less then 10 seconds.
Between the hold-down clamps that attach to the Octoweb (the structure all 9 engines extend from) and the weighted nosecap on top of the booster, SpaceX can be reasonably confident that the booster isn't going anywhere.
Brody is also correct in that they are wired with their "zippers" already in place, so in case something ever DID go awry, a short series of explosions followed by a giant ball of flames and then everyone is saved from the uncontrolled rocket :P
BeNarwhal on
+1
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
@BeNarwhal It looks like that Reddit post was knocking down a whole lot of strawmen that I've never seen argued anywhere.
Also looking at the launch schedules, it seems like at least some of the reduction in numbers of launches was due to satellites getting smaller so multiple ones could be launched at once (one last year launched 104 tiny satellites), instead of one rocket=one satellite. Just more efficient to miniaturize everything going into space, even with reduced launch costs.
+5
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
BeNarwhal It looks like that Reddit post was knocking down a whole lot of strawmen that I've never seen argued anywhere.
Also looking at the launch schedules, it seems like at least some of the reduction in numbers of launches was due to satellites getting smaller so multiple ones could be launched at once (one last year launched 104 tiny satellites), instead of one rocket=one satellite. Just more efficient to miniaturize everything going into space, even with reduced launch costs.
I had seen the occasional mention of SOME of the points in that Reddit post, so I decided to take it on good faith and just address every point (even if I was occasionally a bit tongue-in-cheek about it) just for any Spaceflight neophytes who might be popping into the thread, etc. Of course, given the source of the post it perhaps didn't deserve my good faith, but it was a pleasurable exercise and hopefully useful to people who might misunderstand the significance and purpose of the Falcon Heavy!
That's definitely a good point about the miniaturization of satellites, and also the growing capability of launch vehicles in general re: launch cadence. SpaceX puts up 10 Iridium satellites with every Iridium launch, obviously, Rocketlabs will routinely put up dozens of nanosats with their launches, and of course quite famously the Ariane 5 carries two full-sized birds to Geostationary Orbit with every launch! And as that article you posted points out, India is heavily invested in the micro-satellite game
The goal should never really be about getting a LOT of stuff off the surface of the Earth and into orbit, because getting stuff off the surface of the Earth sucks. Wherever you can, minimize your payload and, wherever you can, reuse your launch hardware. It's a cost-savings strategy AND it's environmentally friendlier!
@BeNarwhal It looks like that Reddit post was knocking down a whole lot of strawmen that I've never seen argued anywhere.
You're lucky. I've seen almost all those arguments--Particularly, "This is the end of all rocketry," "The car is going to Mars," "This is going to replace the need for foreign spacetravel", "Anyone working on the SLS is actively hurting space exploration," and my particular favorite, "No other country should bother wasting their time."
I have changed to wording to be a lot less mean-spirited, to be frank. Otherwise, they all seemed entirely genuine. They certainly claimed to be. Which doesn't mean there aren't "strawmen," out there, there just isn't much of a point remembering sarcastic arguments (just look at my signature). It doesn't reflect on SpaceX somehow (well, aside from some problems with messaging), but it is a thing. Not everyone is as well-informed, otherwise the post probably wouldn't exist.
After all, this is the internet. You will find someone who believes in something, and they won't be alone.
+5
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
BeNarwhal It looks like that Reddit post was knocking down a whole lot of strawmen that I've never seen argued anywhere.
You're lucky. I've seen almost all those arguments--Particularly, "This is the end of all rocketry," "The car is going to Mars," "This is going to replace the need for foreign spacetravel", "Anyone working on the SLS is actively hurting space exploration," and my particular favorite, "No other country should bother wasting their time."
I have changed to wording to be a lot less mean-spirited, to be frank. Otherwise, they all seemed entirely genuine. They certainly claimed to be. Which doesn't mean there aren't "strawmen," out there, there just isn't much of a point remembering sarcastic arguments (just look at my signature). It doesn't reflect on SpaceX somehow (well, aside from some problems with messaging), but it is a thing. Not everyone is as well-informed, otherwise the post probably wouldn't exist.
After all, this is the internet. You will find someone who believes in something, and they won't be alone.
"The Car is going to Mars", "We've destroyed the foreign space industries", and the SLS hate in particular are things I've definitely seen myself, to back you up a little
Now I'm still not a huge fan of the SLS architecture and it will almost certainly cost more than it should, but it's American tax dollars funding American industry so that's not the worst thing in the world
Also NASA likes to involve us little ol' Canadians whenever they can, too, which is always appreciated!
There's a weird tendency towards framing it as, "righteous-sounding accusations of direct harm." Honestly, I'm not even that educated about ULA/Boeing's NASA projects, but there was this boom of arguments made in the very clear tone that irreparable harm was being done to the cause of space exploration.
Okay, it's not exactly stopping the Bengal Famine, but I'm interested in space exploration too. But the laser focus of the argument, as though it were the equivalent of nonstop hacking attacks on SpaceX's design computers and flight data that really stood out. That the responses go from, "You actually think that's the case?" to "Well...okay, but SpaceX can't hire them all, and it burns a lot of people out, or they want to work for their own country..." It feels like the second most common argument on the list, perhaps.
Well, it's The Internet(tm)--and it's today's The Internet, you're either with us, or guilty by association, whatever the crisis may be. It's a reason why Reddit, by and large, repulses me (and to this day, I don't actually know how to use it).
I think the group who wants to run the site actually properly owns the land at this point; they're making noises about breaking ground for it in May. We'll see if that happens, but I've got my fingers crossed.
I grew up near there; leaving aside the Insane Niftiness Factor several hundred long-term jobs wrapped around a regular tourist draw is the kind of thing that region desperately needs.
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Reading Seveneves made me really wish we had some more West Coast launch sites. Maybe Moses Lake.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Also NASA likes to involve us little ol' Canadians whenever they can, too, which is always appreciated!
I reeeeeEEEEEEeeeeally want that polar-orbit launch facility in Nova Scotia that's trundling along to happen.
Why is launching from the equator usually good?
Less fuel used to correct inclination. Very important for geosynchronous orbits. The farther north or south you are the bigger the angle you'll be at when you cross the center of rotation. You also get a slight boost from the rotation of the earth closer to the equator.
Payloads bound for an equatorial or near-equatorial orbit (which is to say most of them, and just about everything geosynchronous) get a bit of a launch discount because they can piggybank on the speed of the Earth's rotation. Something starts off moving about 500kph faster than it would at 45 degrees north, which isn't that much compared to orbital velocities but free speed's free speed.
Polar launches are pricier in terms of fuel requirements because they're going perpendicular to that regardless of where they launch from. The other big concern is anything underneath the rockets' flight paths in case something goes pearshaped - a polar launch from Florida could pass over several countries - so the best polar launch sites are ones which go over open water like Vandenburg on the west coast, or the NS site if that pans out.
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Also my understanding is that ICBMs would be travelling way faster, and if we were going to launch one, we'd launch a significantly larger number simultaneously.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Wouldn't a launch over the pole concern Russia? Would they be able to tell the difference between a nuclear strike and a satellite launch?
They likely have pretty good detection on where the launches come from. Plus everyone kind of gives a heads up for we're launching x around y date.
PSN: jfrofl
+2
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Speaking of launches, we of course have the Atlas V with GOES-S launching from SLC 41 at 2:02pm Pacific, 5:02pm Eastern, or 2202 UTC tomorrow.
Unfortunately, at this time it looks like SpaceX was NOT given the go-ahead to try their launch just 16 hours earlier, so it looks likely that the Falcon 9 with Hispasat 30W-6 will likely slide over to this weekend. SpaceX is in no rush, they don't have any more payloads on the manifest until later this month (Iridium on the 29th might even be the next available one, but I'm not 100% on that so don't quote me!)
Either way, I'll be here for coverage of the Atlas V launch, and I'll keep you posted re: the Falcon 9 launch!
Also, felicitations to the Soyuz spacecraft for making a successful soft landing late yesterday evening (9:30pm Eastern, anyway) and bringing three men safely back to Earth. NASA astronauts Mark Van Hei and Joe Acaba, along with cosmonaut Alexander Misurkin successfully made their way through the atmosphere and are now back on solid ground. Welcome home, gentlemen
Wouldn't a launch over the pole concern Russia? Would they be able to tell the difference between a nuclear strike and a satellite launch?
They likely have pretty good detection on where the launches come from. Plus everyone kind of gives a heads up for we're launching x around y date.
Even super top secret payloads like Zuma or the X-37b are generally telegraphed fairly well. We might not know what it is or what it's doing, but we usually know it'll launch on a particular rocket from a particular pad on a particular date.
All that's probably because of the potential for a launch to set off an early warning system. But at the same time, launching one nuke at a major nuclear power is not a winning move. Not that there are winning moves in MAD, but that's probably the least winning move you can make.
We've learned somewhat from past experiences--or more accurately, we in the general public have been made privy to past experiences (we can be pretty sure that nuclear strategy goes a good bit further past what the general public is made aware of) that have taught both the United States and Russia (inheriting its nuclear strategy from the USSR) to be mindful of unannounced spacecraft launches (whether it be someone forgetting the pass the message on, a mistake on the part of the launching party, etc.), malfunctions of training simulations and technology (putting the wrong tape for example) and so forth.
At least, I hope so. Nuclear weapons have "only" been around for 70 years, so these "first time" incidents have happened within human lifetimes and within human memory.
Also my understanding is that ICBMs would be travelling way faster, and if we were going to launch one, we'd launch a significantly larger number simultaneously.
More to the point, the US and Russia each know exactly where all the other guy's ICBM silos are. They're not the kinds of things that can be hidden, especially with lots of satellite surveillance, and they tend not to be near space launch sites.
Also my understanding is that ICBMs would be travelling way faster, and if we were going to launch one, we'd launch a significantly larger number simultaneously.
No then yes. Satellites rockets travel as fast or faster.
The real thing is that when we’re going to launch we call and tell them. Everyone does for every launch as I understand it
Which of course can be foiled if someone just totally shits their brainpants and forgets to pass the memo around
The Norwegian rocket incident, also known as the Black Brant scare, occurred on January 25, 1995, when a team of Norwegian and U.S. scientists launched a Black Brant XII four-stage sounding rocket from the Andøya Rocket Range off the northwestern coast of Norway. The rocket, which carried scientific equipment to study the aurora borealis over Svalbard, flew on a high northbound trajectory, which included an air corridor that stretches from Minuteman III nuclear missile silos in North Dakota, all the way to the Russian capital city of Moscow.
During its flight, the rocket eventually reached an altitude of 1,453 kilometers (903 mi), resembling a U.S. Navy submarine-launched Trident missile. As a result, fearing a high-altitude nuclear attack that could blind Russian radar, Russian nuclear forces were put on high alert. The Cheget, Russia's "nuclear briefcase," was brought to Russian president Boris Yeltsin, who then had to decide whether to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States.
The Norwegian and U.S. scientists had notified thirty countries, including Russia, of their intention to launch a high-altitude scientific experiment aboard a rocket; however, the information was not passed on to the radar technicians. Following the incident, notification and disclosure protocols were re-evaluated and redesigned.
Hah! Everybody almost died!
Hobnail on
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Which of course can be foiled if someone just totally shits their brainpants and forgets to pass the memo around
The Norwegian rocket incident, also known as the Black Brant scare, occurred on January 25, 1995, when a team of Norwegian and U.S. scientists launched a Black Brant XII four-stage sounding rocket from the Andøya Rocket Range off the northwestern coast of Norway. The rocket, which carried scientific equipment to study the aurora borealis over Svalbard, flew on a high northbound trajectory, which included an air corridor that stretches from Minuteman III nuclear missile silos in North Dakota, all the way to the Russian capital city of Moscow.
During its flight, the rocket eventually reached an altitude of 1,453 kilometers (903 mi), resembling a U.S. Navy submarine-launched Trident missile. As a result, fearing a high-altitude nuclear attack that could blind Russian radar, Russian nuclear forces were put on high alert. The Cheget, Russia's "nuclear briefcase," was brought to Russian president Boris Yeltsin, who then had to decide whether to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States.
The Norwegian and U.S. scientists had notified thirty countries, including Russia, of their intention to launch a high-altitude scientific experiment aboard a rocket; however, the information was not passed on to the radar technicians. Following the incident, notification and disclosure protocols were re-evaluated and redesigned.
Hah! Everybody almost died!
Oh please, we've got waaaay closer to the complete annihilation of humanity as a species.
+3
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Today's Launch Coverage - Atlas V 541 carrying GOES-S to a geostationary orbit
Hello everybody, we are LIVE here at Narwhal Mission Control. The big clock currently reads 12:15pm Pacific, 3:15pm Eastern, 1815 UTC.
This afternoon we have a ULA launch out of Space Launch Complex 41 down at Cape Canaveral Air Force Base. The launch vehicle today is an Atlas V in the 541 configuration - that's a 5-meter diameter fairing, 4 solid rocket boosters to help the launch vehicle get off the pad, and 1 engine on the Centaur Upper Stage.
An image from yesterday of the launch vehicle rolling out to the pad:
Liftoff is currently scheduled for 2:02pm Pacific, 5:02pm Eastern, 2202 UTC!
ULA has helpfully put together a Launch Profile video so you know what to expect as the Atlas V lifts off the pad and heads into orbit:
Because this is a NASA launch, NASA TV will be providing the livestream, which will pick up coverage of activity down at the Cape at 1:30pm Pacific, 4:30pm Eastern, 2130 UTC:
The countdown continues to progress without issue at this time, with weather forecasts suggesting we are 90% GO for launch in that regard.
Any questions, concerns, thoughts, or comments about today's launch are more than welcome, and I'll try to help in anyway I can! I'll be here from now throughout the launch process, aside from perhaps brief washroom and / or meal prep breaks
Posts
Coles-Notes takeaways include the fact that there's actually funding for the thing to the point where it might actually happen at this point, with a contract for the propulsion module to be awarded this fall and another contract for the habitable component next year. The first components are supposed to launch in 2022.
Block 5 booster spotted. I like the unpainted carbon fiber, gives it a sort of practical...uhh spacepunk style.
Oh and they moved the logo up to the lox tank, ha.
Edit: Ack, that teaches me to refresh the thread before replying.
Meanwhile, we've got an updated launch time for Hispasat 30W-6, flying on a (Block 4) Falcon 9: March 1st, 0535 UTC. That's 12:35am Eastern, or 9:35pm Pacific on the 28th.
This slides it just ahead of the Atlas V 541 carrying GOES-S which is currently scheduled for March 1st, 2202 UTC. That's 5:32pm Eastern, or 2:32pm Pacific.
Which is pretty neat, because TWO launches on the same day from Cape Canaveral would be the tightest turnaround window for the range, etc. since 1967.
So let's see if these launch times stick, and we can witness some history on Thursday!
But given the potentially historic nature of the day, and given that it appears that they still intend to try and land that booster, I will strongly endeavor to be around to provide coverage of BOTH launches on Thursday!
... Speaking of launches I was unable to cover, I'm happy to announce that Japan's H-2A launch went swimmingly, if without an official livestream due to the "secret" spy satellite nature of the payload. The launch went completely nominal and Japan has one more eye looking down on the Earth - primarily to monitor their ... eccentric neighbor, North Korea. Can't say I blame them.
I cant wait until two launches in a day are boring, but at this point the expected two a month from SpaceX still sounds crazy to me.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
I'm cautiously optimistic for SpaceX to get over 24 launches in this year - They got to 18 last year, of course, so the jump isn't too huge, but sometimes the whims of rocketry can be a wonderfully frustrating challenge
But they have 4 completed already this year, so they're well on pace, and the manifest theoretically contains up to 30 - 32 launches, depending on where you look or who you ask.
Combine that with some domestic competition (primarily in the form of ULA, but Orbital ATK, and Blue Origin in the future too, perhaps), and it would be too cool to see 50 - 60 orbital launches out of the US in any given year. 5 launches a month would be a neat place to be by, say, 2020?
(For reference, there were a total of 29 orbital launches out of the US in 2017!)
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
This Wikipedia page has one of my favourite graphs of all time
I want to return to the halcyon days of the 60s through 80s ... only, you know, without the Cold War or the political strife. >_>
I probably can't get everything I want there, huh? But three-digit launches per year will still be a cool threshold to hit again!
Yes, you read that right.
I believe they also told all the other cell phone providers to "Come at me, bro"
Also, 1958 looks rather frustrating.
It's really fascinating to me that they test fire in the upright position.
My girlfriend's uncle is a Cal/OSHA inspector nearing retirement.
Earlier in his career he did a lot of work on the Aerojet Superfund site in Rancho Cordova.
The nature of the work involves lots of outdoor surveying, and one day while he's out there he discovers a pretty sizeable crater, and he has to figure out how the fuck it got there to determine if it's part of the cleanup from all the toxic waste they dumped when it was a manufacturing facility.
Turns out, they were using a rig similar to that to test their rockets when one day the tethering broke and it was suddenly an unguided missile with an unknown range. They got really lucky and it zipped around erratically before faceplanting far enough from them that they didn't all die, but close enough it didn't land in suburbia. Big explosion. Lots of brown pants. After that they pointed the rockets at the ground when they tested them.
Wonder what that thing's secured with.
Well that sounds utterly horrifying. Maybe you should email SpaceX with that story.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
This increases rapidly, of course, as fuel is consumed and the booster gets rapidly lighter, but that's part of the reason why static fires last less then 10 seconds.
Between the hold-down clamps that attach to the Octoweb (the structure all 9 engines extend from) and the weighted nosecap on top of the booster, SpaceX can be reasonably confident that the booster isn't going anywhere.
Brody is also correct in that they are wired with their "zippers" already in place, so in case something ever DID go awry, a short series of explosions followed by a giant ball of flames and then everyone is saved from the uncontrolled rocket :P
Also looking at the launch schedules, it seems like at least some of the reduction in numbers of launches was due to satellites getting smaller so multiple ones could be launched at once (one last year launched 104 tiny satellites), instead of one rocket=one satellite. Just more efficient to miniaturize everything going into space, even with reduced launch costs.
I had seen the occasional mention of SOME of the points in that Reddit post, so I decided to take it on good faith and just address every point (even if I was occasionally a bit tongue-in-cheek about it) just for any Spaceflight neophytes who might be popping into the thread, etc.
That's definitely a good point about the miniaturization of satellites, and also the growing capability of launch vehicles in general re: launch cadence. SpaceX puts up 10 Iridium satellites with every Iridium launch, obviously, Rocketlabs will routinely put up dozens of nanosats with their launches, and of course quite famously the Ariane 5 carries two full-sized birds to Geostationary Orbit with every launch! And as that article you posted points out, India is heavily invested in the micro-satellite game
The goal should never really be about getting a LOT of stuff off the surface of the Earth and into orbit, because getting stuff off the surface of the Earth sucks. Wherever you can, minimize your payload and, wherever you can, reuse your launch hardware. It's a cost-savings strategy AND it's environmentally friendlier!
You're lucky. I've seen almost all those arguments--Particularly, "This is the end of all rocketry," "The car is going to Mars," "This is going to replace the need for foreign spacetravel", "Anyone working on the SLS is actively hurting space exploration," and my particular favorite, "No other country should bother wasting their time."
I have changed to wording to be a lot less mean-spirited, to be frank. Otherwise, they all seemed entirely genuine. They certainly claimed to be. Which doesn't mean there aren't "strawmen," out there, there just isn't much of a point remembering sarcastic arguments (just look at my signature). It doesn't reflect on SpaceX somehow (well, aside from some problems with messaging), but it is a thing. Not everyone is as well-informed, otherwise the post probably wouldn't exist.
After all, this is the internet. You will find someone who believes in something, and they won't be alone.
"The Car is going to Mars", "We've destroyed the foreign space industries", and the SLS hate in particular are things I've definitely seen myself, to back you up a little
Now I'm still not a huge fan of the SLS architecture and it will almost certainly cost more than it should, but it's American tax dollars funding American industry so that's not the worst thing in the world
Also NASA likes to involve us little ol' Canadians whenever they can, too, which is always appreciated!
Okay, it's not exactly stopping the Bengal Famine, but I'm interested in space exploration too. But the laser focus of the argument, as though it were the equivalent of nonstop hacking attacks on SpaceX's design computers and flight data that really stood out. That the responses go from, "You actually think that's the case?" to "Well...okay, but SpaceX can't hire them all, and it burns a lot of people out, or they want to work for their own country..." It feels like the second most common argument on the list, perhaps.
Well, it's The Internet(tm)--and it's today's The Internet, you're either with us, or guilty by association, whatever the crisis may be. It's a reason why Reddit, by and large, repulses me (and to this day, I don't actually know how to use it).
I reeeeeEEEEEEeeeeally want that polar-orbit launch facility in Nova Scotia that's trundling along to happen.
I'd be so excited if that becomes fully realized
I grew up near there; leaving aside the Insane Niftiness Factor several hundred long-term jobs wrapped around a regular tourist draw is the kind of thing that region desperately needs.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Why is launching from the equator usually good?
Less fuel used to correct inclination. Very important for geosynchronous orbits. The farther north or south you are the bigger the angle you'll be at when you cross the center of rotation. You also get a slight boost from the rotation of the earth closer to the equator.
Polar launches are pricier in terms of fuel requirements because they're going perpendicular to that regardless of where they launch from. The other big concern is anything underneath the rockets' flight paths in case something goes pearshaped - a polar launch from Florida could pass over several countries - so the best polar launch sites are ones which go over open water like Vandenburg on the west coast, or the NS site if that pans out.
Also it’s not like commercial/scientific launches aren’t publicised etc.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
They likely have pretty good detection on where the launches come from. Plus everyone kind of gives a heads up for we're launching x around y date.
Unfortunately, at this time it looks like SpaceX was NOT given the go-ahead to try their launch just 16 hours earlier, so it looks likely that the Falcon 9 with Hispasat 30W-6 will likely slide over to this weekend. SpaceX is in no rush, they don't have any more payloads on the manifest until later this month (Iridium on the 29th might even be the next available one, but I'm not 100% on that so don't quote me!)
Either way, I'll be here for coverage of the Atlas V launch, and I'll keep you posted re: the Falcon 9 launch!
Also, felicitations to the Soyuz spacecraft for making a successful soft landing late yesterday evening (9:30pm Eastern, anyway) and bringing three men safely back to Earth. NASA astronauts Mark Van Hei and Joe Acaba, along with cosmonaut Alexander Misurkin successfully made their way through the atmosphere and are now back on solid ground. Welcome home, gentlemen
Even super top secret payloads like Zuma or the X-37b are generally telegraphed fairly well. We might not know what it is or what it's doing, but we usually know it'll launch on a particular rocket from a particular pad on a particular date.
All that's probably because of the potential for a launch to set off an early warning system. But at the same time, launching one nuke at a major nuclear power is not a winning move. Not that there are winning moves in MAD, but that's probably the least winning move you can make.
At least, I hope so. Nuclear weapons have "only" been around for 70 years, so these "first time" incidents have happened within human lifetimes and within human memory.
That thing is massive.
More to the point, the US and Russia each know exactly where all the other guy's ICBM silos are. They're not the kinds of things that can be hidden, especially with lots of satellite surveillance, and they tend not to be near space launch sites.
No then yes. Satellites rockets travel as fast or faster.
The real thing is that when we’re going to launch we call and tell them. Everyone does for every launch as I understand it
Hah! Everybody almost died!
Oh please, we've got waaaay closer to the complete annihilation of humanity as a species.
Hello everybody, we are LIVE here at Narwhal Mission Control. The big clock currently reads 12:15pm Pacific, 3:15pm Eastern, 1815 UTC.
This afternoon we have a ULA launch out of Space Launch Complex 41 down at Cape Canaveral Air Force Base. The launch vehicle today is an Atlas V in the 541 configuration - that's a 5-meter diameter fairing, 4 solid rocket boosters to help the launch vehicle get off the pad, and 1 engine on the Centaur Upper Stage.
An image from yesterday of the launch vehicle rolling out to the pad:
Liftoff is currently scheduled for 2:02pm Pacific, 5:02pm Eastern, 2202 UTC!
ULA has helpfully put together a Launch Profile video so you know what to expect as the Atlas V lifts off the pad and heads into orbit:
Because this is a NASA launch, NASA TV will be providing the livestream, which will pick up coverage of activity down at the Cape at 1:30pm Pacific, 4:30pm Eastern, 2130 UTC:
The countdown continues to progress without issue at this time, with weather forecasts suggesting we are 90% GO for launch in that regard.
Any questions, concerns, thoughts, or comments about today's launch are more than welcome, and I'll try to help in anyway I can! I'll be here from now throughout the launch process, aside from perhaps brief washroom and / or meal prep breaks