BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
By the way, at T-~50 minutes now, RP-1 kerosene is being loaded onto both Stage 1 and 2 at this time, the launch readiness poll having been conducted about 25 minutes ago. All systems are GO for launch at this time, the weather is 90% GO with the only concern being a violation of the Thick Cloud Rule over the launch site. But 90% is pretty good odds, and everything is progressing nominally at this time!
+1
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
T-20 minutes, LOX loading began about 10 minutes ago, the live stream should start in 5-10 minutes, here's the link again!:
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
SpaceFM has started playing! We have some soothing tunes on the livestream!
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
One of these late launches, you just know it's gonna be young people hosting the stream. Ugh.
Give me John Insprucker or give me death!
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Can Narwhal post enough to fill an entire page by himself?
Only one way to find out!
Tanks are filled aside from Stage 2 LOX, webcast is just about to begin, we are T-12 minutes to launch!
+1
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
No, wait, totally John Insprucker! Best day!
+1
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
John confirming what we all surmised: No landing due to rough seas, will still perform soft water landing test, big ol' payload heading out to a geostationary transfer orbit
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
T-5 minutes, one last post of the ol' live stream link, settle in for the show, folks!
I also refuse to get tired of the second-stage engine nozzle glowing like that.
I never post to confirm second stage ignition until I see the whole nozzle glowing
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
edited March 2018
SECO, and we are in orbit! Time to coast :whistle:
BeNarwhal on
+3
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Okay, that video made it apparent how big this bird really is. 6000kg is hard to wrap your head around sometimes (let alone all the other staggering numbers involved in any given rocket launch!).
As opposed to the previous one, which so rudely refused to blow up upon crashing like it was supposed to until they sent someone out to scuttle it...
Just violating ITAR without a care in the world, that silly booster! :P
You're not supposed to float, you're not supposed to be intact! There are rules!
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Really John, you couldn't even hang with us for 3 and half minutes? Feeling unloved right now.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Payload deployed into a nominal ('very accurate' according to Mr. Insprucker, even!) geostationary transfer orbit, complete mission success! 50 successful launches of the Falcon 9, great way to cap off the first week of March!
Not to move along too quickly, but next up on the launch manifest is a Soyuz out of French Guiana, flying for Arianespace, delivering 4 satellites for O3b Networks into polar orbits. That launch is on Friday March 9th at 8:37am Pacific, 11:37am Eastern, 1637 UTC. I may well be around to provide coverage on that one if I can sneak out of my group session a little early :P
+3
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
If someone knows anything more about the payloads of these satellites and the networks they are attached to? I hear a lot of names thrown around, but don’t really know where to start in terms of learning what is up there and what they are all doing.
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
If someone knows anything more about the payloads of these satellites and the networks they are attached to? I hear a lot of names thrown around, but don’t really know where to start in terms of learning what is up there and what they are all doing.
Saw this launch from the north side of the 528 causeway, a couple of miles from the pad. I grew up around here, but moved away for a few years. This is the first launch I could get really close to since I’ve been back.
There really is nothing quite like a night launch, they never get old. Heard someone nearby asking how we would know when it was starting and I just grinned.
Pretty sure I saw MECO, 1st stage separatation, and 2nd stage engine start with just my unaided eyes. Could track the second stage for decent bit due to the exhaust gases expanding and making a halo around the engine.
Is it just me, or does the falcon 9 stage pretty low altitude wise?
+6
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Saw this launch from the north side of the 528 causeway, a couple of miles from the pad. I grew up around here, but moved away for a few years. This is the first launch I could get really close to since I’ve been back.
There really is nothing quite like a night launch, they never get old. Heard someone nearby asking how we would know when it was starting and I just grinned.
Pretty sure I saw MECO, 1st stage separatation, and 2nd stage engine start with just my unaided eyes. Could track the second stage for decent bit due to the exhaust gases expanding and making a halo around the engine.
Is it just me, or does the falcon 9 stage pretty low altitude wise?
The Falcon 9 both stages unusually early AND unusually low compared to other launch vehicles operating out of the Space Coast, absolutely!
Today it happened about 2m40s into the flight, and right about 60km in altitude, which is fairly common for a Falcon 9. An Atlas V, for comparison, stages about 4m10s into flight, and at about 140km in altitude. Just the nature of the launch vehicle! Compared to the Atlas, Falcon 9's second stage is huge, but that's because it's kerosene rather than hydrogen. It's basically a trade-off on what part of the launch vehicle you want to do the bulk of the work.
The Falcon 9 was always designed with recovery in mind, so staging as early as possible while still maintaining a respectable payload capacity is basically the goal. Now, in the end the Merlin 1D proved more than capable, but there was a time that the Falcon Heavy was going to be truly necessary for heavier payloads (like the one this morning!), rather than just a niche launch vehicle for certain profiles / destinations.
BeNarwhal on
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Hmm, it looks like SpaceX came up a little short on last night's launch
The industry "standard" for a GTO transfer orbit is to leave the customer (the satellite) with about 1800m/s in delta-v required to circularize their orbit to a geostationary orbit. SpaceX typically bests that by 100-300 m/s, which is always a bonus for the customer.
Yesterday's geostationary transfer orbit ended up a little shy of reaching out to the altitude of geostationary orbit, and left the customer with about 2100 m/s in delta-v required to reach a geostationary orbit. Nobody's gonna be happy about that, and I think it means they now know they have to fly expendable for missions with that kind of mass, OR they'll need the Block 5 version of the Falcon 9 to perform these kinds of missions with recovery in mind.
SpaceX took it on the chin yesterday, despite a successful launch - left their customer a little shy of the agreed orbit, lost a set of titanium grid fins to the ocean, and all of this delayed by almost two weeks thanks to first a problem with the fairing, and second a problem with range availability. Mixed results, but still a very pretty launch! :P
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Hmm, it looks like SpaceX came up a little short on last night's launch
The industry "standard" for a GTO transfer orbit is to leave the customer (the satellite) with about 1800m/s in delta-v required to circularize their orbit to a geostationary orbit. SpaceX typically bests that by 100-300 m/s, which is always a bonus for the customer.
Yesterday's geostationary transfer orbit ended up a little shy of reaching out to the altitude of geostationary orbit, and left the customer with about 2100 m/s in delta-v required to reach a geostationary orbit. Nobody's gonna be happy about that, and I think it means they now know they have to fly expendable for missions with that kind of mass, OR they'll need the Block 5 version of the Falcon 9 to perform these kinds of missions with recovery in mind.
SpaceX took it on the chin yesterday, despite a successful launch - left their customer a little shy of the agreed orbit, lost a set of titanium grid fins to the ocean, and all of this delayed by almost two weeks thanks to first a problem with the fairing, and second a problem with range availability. Mixed results, but still a very pretty launch! :P
Hmm, it looks like SpaceX came up a little short on last night's launch
The industry "standard" for a GTO transfer orbit is to leave the customer (the satellite) with about 1800m/s in delta-v required to circularize their orbit to a geostationary orbit. SpaceX typically bests that by 100-300 m/s, which is always a bonus for the customer.
Yesterday's geostationary transfer orbit ended up a little shy of reaching out to the altitude of geostationary orbit, and left the customer with about 2100 m/s in delta-v required to reach a geostationary orbit. Nobody's gonna be happy about that, and I think it means they now know they have to fly expendable for missions with that kind of mass, OR they'll need the Block 5 version of the Falcon 9 to perform these kinds of missions with recovery in mind.
SpaceX took it on the chin yesterday, despite a successful launch - left their customer a little shy of the agreed orbit, lost a set of titanium grid fins to the ocean, and all of this delayed by almost two weeks thanks to first a problem with the fairing, and second a problem with range availability. Mixed results, but still a very pretty launch! :P
I take it there is no way to fix that?
Not after the fact, nope. The satellite will have plenty of fuel onboard to put itself into the orbit still, it just comes at the cost of longevity.
Every satellite in a geostationary orbit uses a little fuel over the years to maintain their position above whatever point they want to be above on the globe. If you can get them there using less of their fuel, it's a bonus for them because it means they can do this station-keeping for longer, and theoretically keep the satellite functioning longer. The inverse meaning they won't be able to do as much station-keeping, so the satellite may run out of fuel prematurely and start to drift from its assigned orbit.
Hispasat probably isn't thrilled, in other words.
+3
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Once we have ACES/ w/e else, would refueling be possible, or still not worth it.
Also, on missing the exact final parameters, I'll give them a little bit of a break, because this is in fact rocket science.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Was this a particularly chunky satellite or something? Also, that's a big(ish) delta-v relative to what Space-X usually provides, any ideas on what happened?
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Was this a particularly chunky satellite or something? Also, that's a big(ish) delta-v relative to what Space-X usually provides, any ideas on what happened?
6000kg satellite, so one of the biggest birds they've ever launched to a geostationary transfer orbit, yeah. And the largest they've ever launched while still trying for a landing (even if it ended up just being into the water).
In hindsight, they should have reworked the flightplan to be an expendable launch and used up every bit of that first stage fuel to get the second stage going as fast as possible.
But hindsight is often 20/20, as they say.
+2
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Once we have ACES/ w/e else, would refueling be possible, or still not worth it.
Also, on missing the exact final parameters, I'll give them a little bit of a break, because this is in fact rocket science.
I think it will take until proper spacecrafts like the BFR are flying before refueling becomes cost-efficient / worth it.
ACES will be able to do most interplanetary stuff on its own anyway, it won't need refueling.
Fake edit: Although just briefly reading their stated design goals, they do have orbital fuel depots / orbital refueling in mind for ACES, so there you go! They want that stage to be a little spacecraft in and of itself, which is pretty neat. Except without reentry capabilities, which is fine.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Whats the typical margin of error on a ULA/Soyuz launch?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Whats the typical margin of error on a ULA/Soyuz launch?
I haven't followed enough non-crew Soyuz launches to say, but I can say that the crewed flights are typically pretty accurate
Geostationary transfer orbit launches are their own unique beast, but typically like I said the target is ~1800m/s of delta-v left for the customer.
ULA has missed by similar margins before, and they've also overshot (to the benefit of the customer) by similar margins as SpaceX.
150m/s on either side wouldn't really make anyone bat an eyelash.
Being 300m/s short is legitimately a bit embarrassing, though.
ULA can also do direct-to-geostationary-orbit launches sometimes, much like the Ariane 5. And those are typically accurate to within ~50m/s.
I'm trying to think of the next GTO or GEO launch that a Soyuz will do, but to be honest they usually prefer to just leave those up to the Ariane 5 - just wait for a second payload (it can launch two satellites at once) and do a rideshare on the heavy lifter
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I would have never guessed you can pull data off weather satellites like this with homemade equipment. This would be a fun project!
The accelerations involved in some of the launches still impress me at times - that 150m/s margin they're aiming for is something like three or four seconds' worth of burn time on the Falcon 9's second stage.
+1
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
The accelerations involved in some of the launches still impress me at times - that 150m/s margin they're aiming for is something like three or four seconds' worth of burn time on the Falcon 9's second stage.
Yep, particularly when you're nearing the end of a stage's burn, every second counts!
Posts
Give me John Insprucker or give me death!
Only one way to find out!
Tanks are filled aside from Stage 2 LOX, webcast is just about to begin, we are T-12 minutes to launch!
That was a hell of a light show on launch there, that was a thing of beauty!
I never post to confirm second stage ignition until I see the whole nozzle glowing
They don't make a point of streaming those like they did in the early days
Plus this time of night, I doubt you'd see much for very long!
Elon's jet is over the area to get eyes on it though, in case it survived again like the last "soft water landing" booster did :P
Looks like his jet is headed back to land now, which suggests to me confirmation that it blew up like it was supposed to, heh.
Just violating ITAR without a care in the world, that silly booster! :P
You're not supposed to float, you're not supposed to be intact! There are rules!
Not to move along too quickly, but next up on the launch manifest is a Soyuz out of French Guiana, flying for Arianespace, delivering 4 satellites for O3b Networks into polar orbits. That launch is on Friday March 9th at 8:37am Pacific, 11:37am Eastern, 1637 UTC. I may well be around to provide coverage on that one if I can sneak out of my group session a little early :P
This doesn't quite answer your question, because at this time of night I don't quite possess the brain function to find the answer to what you asked, but here's a fun site I like: Stuff In Space - be careful, it's a big load, and it might look overwhelming at first!
But it's a lot of fun to play around with!
There really is nothing quite like a night launch, they never get old. Heard someone nearby asking how we would know when it was starting and I just grinned.
Pretty sure I saw MECO, 1st stage separatation, and 2nd stage engine start with just my unaided eyes. Could track the second stage for decent bit due to the exhaust gases expanding and making a halo around the engine.
Is it just me, or does the falcon 9 stage pretty low altitude wise?
The Falcon 9 both stages unusually early AND unusually low compared to other launch vehicles operating out of the Space Coast, absolutely!
Today it happened about 2m40s into the flight, and right about 60km in altitude, which is fairly common for a Falcon 9. An Atlas V, for comparison, stages about 4m10s into flight, and at about 140km in altitude. Just the nature of the launch vehicle! Compared to the Atlas, Falcon 9's second stage is huge, but that's because it's kerosene rather than hydrogen. It's basically a trade-off on what part of the launch vehicle you want to do the bulk of the work.
The Falcon 9 was always designed with recovery in mind, so staging as early as possible while still maintaining a respectable payload capacity is basically the goal. Now, in the end the Merlin 1D proved more than capable, but there was a time that the Falcon Heavy was going to be truly necessary for heavier payloads (like the one this morning!), rather than just a niche launch vehicle for certain profiles / destinations.
The industry "standard" for a GTO transfer orbit is to leave the customer (the satellite) with about 1800m/s in delta-v required to circularize their orbit to a geostationary orbit. SpaceX typically bests that by 100-300 m/s, which is always a bonus for the customer.
Yesterday's geostationary transfer orbit ended up a little shy of reaching out to the altitude of geostationary orbit, and left the customer with about 2100 m/s in delta-v required to reach a geostationary orbit. Nobody's gonna be happy about that, and I think it means they now know they have to fly expendable for missions with that kind of mass, OR they'll need the Block 5 version of the Falcon 9 to perform these kinds of missions with recovery in mind.
SpaceX took it on the chin yesterday, despite a successful launch - left their customer a little shy of the agreed orbit, lost a set of titanium grid fins to the ocean, and all of this delayed by almost two weeks thanks to first a problem with the fairing, and second a problem with range availability. Mixed results, but still a very pretty launch! :P
I take it there is no way to fix that?
Not after the fact, nope. The satellite will have plenty of fuel onboard to put itself into the orbit still, it just comes at the cost of longevity.
Every satellite in a geostationary orbit uses a little fuel over the years to maintain their position above whatever point they want to be above on the globe. If you can get them there using less of their fuel, it's a bonus for them because it means they can do this station-keeping for longer, and theoretically keep the satellite functioning longer. The inverse meaning they won't be able to do as much station-keeping, so the satellite may run out of fuel prematurely and start to drift from its assigned orbit.
Hispasat probably isn't thrilled, in other words.
Also, on missing the exact final parameters, I'll give them a little bit of a break, because this is in fact rocket science.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
6000kg satellite, so one of the biggest birds they've ever launched to a geostationary transfer orbit, yeah. And the largest they've ever launched while still trying for a landing (even if it ended up just being into the water).
In hindsight, they should have reworked the flightplan to be an expendable launch and used up every bit of that first stage fuel to get the second stage going as fast as possible.
But hindsight is often 20/20, as they say.
I think it will take until proper spacecrafts like the BFR are flying before refueling becomes cost-efficient / worth it.
ACES will be able to do most interplanetary stuff on its own anyway, it won't need refueling.
Fake edit: Although just briefly reading their stated design goals, they do have orbital fuel depots / orbital refueling in mind for ACES, so there you go! They want that stage to be a little spacecraft in and of itself, which is pretty neat. Except without reentry capabilities, which is fine.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
I haven't followed enough non-crew Soyuz launches to say, but I can say that the crewed flights are typically pretty accurate
Geostationary transfer orbit launches are their own unique beast, but typically like I said the target is ~1800m/s of delta-v left for the customer.
ULA has missed by similar margins before, and they've also overshot (to the benefit of the customer) by similar margins as SpaceX.
150m/s on either side wouldn't really make anyone bat an eyelash.
Being 300m/s short is legitimately a bit embarrassing, though.
ULA can also do direct-to-geostationary-orbit launches sometimes, much like the Ariane 5. And those are typically accurate to within ~50m/s.
I'm trying to think of the next GTO or GEO launch that a Soyuz will do, but to be honest they usually prefer to just leave those up to the Ariane 5 - just wait for a second payload (it can launch two satellites at once) and do a rideshare on the heavy lifter
Yep, particularly when you're nearing the end of a stage's burn, every second counts!