SpaceX Launches Block 5 Falcon 9
That's the 25th landing for @SpaceX pic.twitter.com/kq2SjQwso8
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) May 11, 2018
That's the 25th landing for @SpaceX pic.twitter.com/kq2SjQwso8
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) May 11, 2018
Congratulations to SpaceX on their successful launch of the satellite via the new Block 5 Falcon 9! Looks like they nailed the first stage landing…again!
That is one. Six more to go! Ahhh yes – how rich Robert LeBranche. SLS is the back up to commercial crew. Remember when you said that?
We are only left to imagine how much further down the line we would be if the politicians would not have screwed up NASA, commercial crew, and budgeted accordingly.
Remember, it started with the imposition of Project Constellation on NASA by Dr. Griffin. SLS is just the Ares V on Steroids with Orion added on.
Exactly.
PS. TY Keith
Congratulations! Another perfect flight
Now all they need to do is a fractional fueling, and, perhaps on a special “extra” barge, launch it back to the primary launch site for quicker turnaround.
Yeah, yeah, that _might_ be considered much later on.
I’d also expect the specialized launch “barge” would be more like the FLIP ship for stability.
Or launch out of Spaceport America to designated down range landing areas. Then relaunch would be simpler. And the 3,000 to 4,000 ft altitude will add a bit to performance.
Better yet, launch out of a brand new SpaceX launch facility on the Gulf Mexico; land the first stages at that facility or on barges in the Gulf; and then bring the barge landed first stages back to the SpaceX facility.
I doubt the the extra 3000-4000 feet that Spaceport America offers adds anything significant in terms of performance. Besides, isn’t Spaceport America’s financial future pretty shaky right now?
Now really. But in any case SpaceX could buy it for a song. I recall from seeing the feasibility study for basing the Shuttle there, when it still had the flyback booster, it added about 3-4% to the performance. But the biggest advantage is the more stable weather compared to the coastal locations, which will be a factor if he wants to fly 2-3 times a week deploying Starlink.
I don’t even think it cost a song at this point. Maybe a short jingle.
“Better yet, launch out of a brand new SpaceX launch facility on the Gulf Mexico; “
At the Block 5 pre-flight presser Musk confirmed Boca Chica is for BFR. And, most StarLink launches will be to high or high-ish inclinations and that likely means Vandenberg.
The big problem with the Boca Chica site is that the EIS limits them to only 12 launches a year and none during Sea Turtle nesting season. It was never intended for a high volume of launch.
If they wanted a high volume launch rate they should have gone further up the coast to the old Matagorda AFB, it is even far enough around the Texas Bend to allow high inclination launches.
“none during Sea Turtle nesting season”
Interesting. Living very near the coast I’m aware of lighting restrictions, as both the mom and the babies are very sensitive to lights (and folks are quite self-compliant on this issue); but how periodic daytime activities would affect turtles isn’t clear.
It’s difficult to prepare for a launch without working the night before.
I wonder if they could land at the texas site? Or to far away? The drone ship is like 180 miles offshore?
Roswell Air Center is about that far and they could just build a pad in the old ICBM field or at one of the satellite fields it had for fighters.
To the Northeast you have Cannon AFB and a lot of empty land around it.
If he is launching the Starlinks from there he could just put a pad in near Stallion Point just off the range by U.S. 380.
I think this is a bit irrelevant. If SpaceX or anyone else can land a rocket safely, they are capable of doing so at a verity of sites. West Texas verus the high desert in California isn’t a huge, engineering issue.
True, but almost all of the flight path will be over WSMR if launching from Spaceport America, a good safety factor.
I’m a little under-informed on SA, which I understood was designed for commercial ‘space planes’ like those built by Mr. Rutan, and not to support orbital-class vehicles?
my understanding is it lay idle and is slowing being reclaimed by the desert
Nope. There’s actually a surprising amount of activity, much of it fueled by “hope”, but still; VG has 21 employees, for instance. And there are launches, too.
Bu it’s VG that’s the anchor tenant, and they are some time away from having a capable machine.
Yes, they have done a number of sounding rocket launches over the years, but no one notices.
Who’s flying the sounding rockets? I didn’t think NASA’s sounding rocket used that Spaceport and I can’t think of anyone else who flys sounding rockets.
I posted some links to the commercial firms above. The NASA rockets, especially the astronomy ones, are still flying out of the WSMR.
I based my comments on “The Space Barons”, which I just finished. Can’t find anything to back up that claim that there are any sorts of current launches.
Guess the author didn’t do their research… Some links.
http://www.upaerospace.com/
http://www.mveda.com/blog/u…
https://www.lcsun-news.com/…
https://www.space.com/15312…
Lockheed did a launch just after it opened.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4…
Then there are the student launches at the spaceport for the Spaceport America Cup event.
https://www.spaceportameric…
So its not just Virgin Galactic, but most of the money spent was to meet Virgin Galactic’s needs.
While I was working on my Ph.D. I was part of the Southwest Regional Spaceport Task Force in the 1990’s, the fore runner of Spaceport America.
The Spaceport America site was selected in the 1990’s specifically for TSTO/SSTO vehicles like the proposed DC-1 and VentureStar. The site was one of 16 studied in the state. That is why it is in a remote valley on the West side of WSMR. Flight paths were mapped out from it by teams from WSMR for launches to the ISS, high Inclination (60 degrees) and due East. All were designed to allow any debris from a booster failure to fall within the spaceport or WSMR.
There was even consideration given to rail launch system since there is a mountain range to the East of it with a number of slopes going up to 6,000 ft with direct atmospheric ascent over WSMR. Recall that WSMR is the leader in building and operating high mach number rail sleds.
The commercial rocket planes were never part of the original site selection and came later when Sir Richard Branson and Peter Diamanis sold them a bill of goods. Indeed, rather that operating from the remote site, VG, and the state of New Mexico, would have been far better off having them operate out of Las Cruces International Airport and putting that $200 million into simply extending one of its runways, or Roswell Air Center and not needing to do anything (it has a 13,000 ft runway) but build a fancy terminal for him.
Failure very early in the launch would fall into WSMR, but pretty quickly the booster would be over populated areas. Sparsely-populated perhaps, but still some risk. Range safety currently only has to be concerned about keeping an errant booster from heading to the coast. But over land even if they send the command to destroy the booster they can’t control where the pieces rain down. Statistically it would probably be pretty safe, however public perception would be that every launch puts lives at risk. I know a comparison could be made with jet airliners flying over populated areas constantly, however at least for the foreseeable future I don’t think the public will see rocket launches the same as airplanes. Just like we saw a lot of angst about Tiangong-1 even though the odds of it killing anyone was very low.
The Air Force originally planned to launch missiles from a site in California, since that would be within proximity of defense contractors, however Mexico would not allow overflights, partly as a reaction to an errant V2 from White Sands that landed in a cemetery outside of Juarez. Thus they instead selected Cape Canaveral. Fortunately the government of the Bahamas did not have the same objection as Mexico.
WSMR has been doing off range launches of IRBMs since the 1950’s without major incidents. The IRBM’s are launched from Green River UT into the range, both for testing, and since the 1980’s for ABM tests.
The simulations for the orbital launches showed that by the time potential debris field leaves the range with will be very dispersed, it won’t be like China where they are dropping intact boosters. It will actually be less risk than an airliner blowing up at cruise altitude, just dispersed over a much larger area. They also noted that most failures occurred early in the boost phase of the launch.
BTW the simulations for the VentureStar showed it would be more dangerous during a breakup during re-entry because it would be approaching off range. The predicted debris field was very similar to the one from the Columbia Accident and it was noted that risk was the same as for the Shuttle overflying the US, which it did for thirty years without any strong objections.
The high inclination launches would not be going over Mexico, they would be going NNE towards the plains of Eastern Colorado, so there is no issue with Mexican airspace. A southerly would put El Paso at risk. VAFB must launch south because it’s location on the California prohibits northerly launches.
BTW the Juarez V2, whose 71 anniversary is coming up, was not the only rocket we launched into Mexico. There were a couple of Pershing rockets in the 1960’s, one of which they never found as it disappeared in the Sierra Madre.
I remember one of the engineers from the “Mexico Club” (folks who accidentally launched rockets into Mexico) discussing it. The other ended up becoming a famous UFO “crash” case the folks at WSMR still laugh about.
Well you’ve got me convinced (actually I already was) but fear is not usually rational, after all how many people are deathly afraid of flying on an airplane but feel perfectly safe in their car. Ironically the same people are perfectly fine with airplanes flying over their house, but would likely be afraid of rockets flying over. It would just take one self-aggrandizing state politician to whip up some hysteria about launches. I’m just saying that if another site was available along the coast that is a plus because then they don’t have to deal with that. Maybe not the determining factor in a decision, but a factor that I think would be considered.
The issue with Mexico was not related to orbital flights but missile testing, the proposed El Centro, California launch site would have used Baja California as the range.
Actually a survey that I did on attitudes toward rocket overflight showed the public was indifferent. It’s probably the FAA CST that would be the issue since it would be something they are not used to. Still, they allow VG to flight test SS2 over populated areas even after the VSS Entetprise accident came close to landing on a truck on one of the highways in the area.
That is until Senator Notinmyby gets everybody whipped up. I’m not sure what survey results about Tiangong-1 would have been if taken prior to it getting so much attention in the media in the weeks prior to reentry which is what got so many people unnecessarily worried . Hopefully that wouldn’t happen for an inland launch site, and after they have been operating for a few years with no issues people would eventually ignore it. However I’m not sure if a company wants to be the first one to test this theory, especially if they have an alternative coastal site available. Each site being considered will have pluses and minuses, and again I’m just saying I think this would be a minus that would be considered at least to some extent by someone deciding on a launch site. Especially if some negative press starts appearing about the proposal. It’s easy for us to say they should just ignore all of that based on the rationality of the safety arguments, but being a business they will have to at least factor in public perception of any safety risks to the public whether warranted or not.
True, but the folks in the region are pretty used to it. In the mid-1990’s one of the rockets, I think it was a Scud, landed on some range land outside of Datil and killed a couple cows, but it was just a local story. They have also been dropping the boosters in the Jemenez mountains without issue.
But then like Nuclear Power the EcoKooks could see a way to make an issue of it and inflate the risks. They are already trying to make the case SpaceX is bad for the environment with its frequent launches.
https://www.globalcitizen.o…
The SpaceX Launch Was Actually Really Bad for the Environment
“The astrophysicist Ian Whittaker wrote that the SpaceX rocket that launched from the Kennedy Space Center on Merritt Island, Florida, on Wednesday burned a massive amount of fuel.
The rocket held 440 tons of jet fuel, which has a high carbon content, meaning it releases a lot of carbon dioxide into the air when burned. If
SpaceX meets its target of launching a rocket every two weeks, then the company will be releasing roughly 4,000 tons of carbon into the
atmosphere each year, Whittaker calculated.”
“Global Citizen campaigns on environmental sustainability and you can take action on this issue here.”
Maybe that is the answer to the Fermi Paradox, the environmentalists won and the ETI went back to living in sustainable mud huts, until an impact event wiped them out. 🙂
“The rocket held 440 tons of jet fuel”
He’ll need to recalibrate for methane…
Are you guys imagining a deep inland launch site? Not over water?
Yes, a radical idea, one only made possible when you are not throwing your rocket boosters away. But launching in nice dry desert air at 4,500 ft has some advantages over launching from a coastal swamp land.
For this flight, I read the drone ship was 340 miles downrange.
I have a question for the experts.
Before the Falcon 9 Block 5, the Falcon Heavy lift capacity to LEO was listed in Wikipedia as a stone’s throw away from SLS Block 1. Now, F9 Block five lists a huge initial thrust increase over F9 Full-Thrust and more than double that of the first Falcon 9.
So, are we there yet? How close is the FH to SLS now that it is using Block 5 boosters? My numbers come from wikipedia. It doesn’t say which version of the Falcon 9 it is using for its FH numbers, but it looks like the same number that I’ve been using for years to describe the FH.
Musk said even NASA’s NLS II mission calculator doesn’t have the correct numbers for Falcon Heavy Block 5, and the FH test flight ran at partial throttle, so Boeing’s comparisons are wrong. They’ve been trying to get NLS II updated.
Fear not. If FH has indeed caught up, Congress will require Europa Clipper to increase further in mass until only the SLS can launch it on a direct trajectory.
The Wikipedia number comes from SpaceX’s FH homepage, the number on that page is already the Block 5 performance (with increased thrust).
As an frequent editor, if you have a better reference or better information, I’d be happy to update the Wikipedia article.
The Wikipedia number is correct, probably just need a note to indicate it’s already the Block 5 number, so there won’t be further increases due to the change to Block 5.
A lot of info in the recent pre-launch teleconference, you can find the full transcript at the end of this article: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/0…
In it he talked about Block 5 Merlin sea level thrust is increased to 190,000 lbf. 190,000 x 27 = 5,130,000 lbf, which is the FH thrust displayed on SpaceX’s FH page (also the number used by the Wikipedia FH page), so we can conclude that the FH numbers on the SpaceX page is already for Block 5.
Not according to Musk’s presser on Bk 5. He gave FT as 1,700,000 lb thrust and Bk 5 as 1,900,000 lb
Wikipedia currently lists FH FT numbers. (thrust = 1,700,000 lb)
Block 5 = 1,900,000 lb
Great! Please keep reporting on Space X. It is sad that NASA requires 7 Block 5 launches when Block 5 changes are actually improvements on a proven design rather than a whole new rocket. If there was a level playing field between Space X, Boeing, and SLS we would all be better off.
Each change in launch vehicle design or procedures, in some respects, creates a new rocket. As Chang showed in 2006 based on histories of all the major launch vehicle programs, in general the demonstrated reliability of a launch vehicle (as opposed to the arbitrary numbers we might calculate from a failure analysis model) is quite low for its first launch and increases substantially over the first five or six launches, as design problems are identified and corrected, before reaching an optimum level.
The great benefit of the Falcon (and also the Atlas) over SLS is that it is economically feasible to require that much flight experience.
Yes, but new versions of a vehicle are not always a restart to qualification. A 2018 Toyota Camry isn’t the same as a vintage 1990 Camry. But the track record and the performance of the older versions provide information. In the same way, the performance of the Falcon Block 4 says something about the Falcon Block 5’s reliability.
Agreed, however almost every major system has undergone significant changes between the Block 4 and Block 5, and SpaceX frequently makes minor changes. The great thing about the SpaceX business plan from the safety point of view is that they do so many unmanned launches that even relatively minor design changes could fly first on an unmanned launch.
As most catastrophic booster failures are deterministic rather than random in nature, they often occur the first time the new desitgn flies, as in the simultaneous early shutdown of both boosters on the first Delta IV launch due to unanticipated cavitation in the LH2 feed lines, or the SpaceX pad explosion the fist time the launch procedure included the use of subcooled helium below the freezing point of oxygen.
Funny you should mention Toyota. They would have benefited from following more aerospace-style processes for developing their engine control software. It seems likely lives were lost because they didn’t.
https://www.slideshare.net/…
Yes, but that standard is based on throwaway rockets…not rockets that you bring home after the launch and teardown and inspect and then refly. They haven’t upgraded the second stage, other than the upgraded engine, and it just beat it’s seven-flight test because there are nine of them tested per flight. They’ll take this one to Brownsville and find anything that almost failed.
Doesn’t matter though anyway. This is only May. The first uncrewed flight counts too so it won’t be long now…three or four months. I think they’ll be well past it before Winter.
They also still have an in flight abort test. Will it be on a Mark 5? I read somewere that they’ll fly the booster back and land it instead of setting off the flight abort explosives and letting us see a real simulated accident. 🙁
The second stage had a major failure earlier in the program after a change in the manufacturing and supply process for the outsourced helium tank support struts. Once the failure was understood appropriate quality controls were implemented.
I guess the good thing is SpaceX could achieve the 7 Block 5 Launches in 2 Months if they really attempted
It just never gets old.
But I want it to get old. In the 1930s, people hung out around air fields for the novelty of seeing an airplane take off or land. These days, very few people do that (unless they are at the airport anyway and waiting for their flight.) It might not sound right, but I’d really like to see launching and landing rockets to get old. So routine and ordinary that no one bothers watching it as a spectacle.
I agree and SpaceX is moving the needle in that direction. Unfortunately NASA has taken the path of a high-profile exploration program which is dependent on public enthusiasm for rare and spectacular missions. If spaceflight, even human spaceflight, is to become routine and practical, it must have a routine and practical justification.
There’s a *reason* it doesn’t get old: because you are seeing the future, right there in real time. You are seeing those SF novels, the dreams of you in space, of me in space, all of it, through the fiery breath of a current day dragon’s breath.
You are seeing a dream come true. We know what those landings mean and for now it’s the hand of the future reaching back, grabbing us by the butt, and pushing.
No, never gets old.
I cant wait for the triple booster landing show four times per year.
Just a thought. If the plan is to build 30 Falcon 9 Block 5 and each one is able to fly 100 times that would equal 3,000 launches. Even at an increase launch rate to a 100 a year that would be enough to last SpaceX for decades. I expect most will only do 20 flights each before BFR is available.
He said 30-50 .. so upwards of 5000 potential launches .. but he is going to retire it after about 300 .. so closer to 6 times each?
Good question. Actually in many ways it’s a test vehicle for the BFR in terms of airline line turnaround – fuel, safety check, fly.
But don’t forget Starlink. It will probably take a few hundred launches to deploy the 4,000 plus satellites by the FAA deadline. So expect a lot of Falcon 9 launches in rapid succession when he starts the deployment. But still, it’s hard to see Falcon 9 doing 3,000 to 5,000 launches before BFR comes online.
“It will probably take a few hundred launches to deploy the 4,000 plus satellites by the FAA deadline.”
Not really. They’ll launch about 36-40 400kg StarLink birds per launch, so about 113 launches (4,025÷36) assuming,
1) they don’t deploy a DoD EELV Class 3 (long) fairing, or
2) they don’t launch the second half of the constellation using the BFR “Chomper” satellite deployer.
If either 1 or 2 happen the number of Starlink 1 launches nosedives.
Then comes StarLink 2: 7,000+ more birds in VLEO.
Two factors create the over-production. Customers insisting on fresh vehicles, and customers needing expendables.
If you are launching 40 times per year and just 5 are expendables. That’s your whole fleet of 30 burned up in 6 years. And flip-side, if just 5 customers per year insist on freshies, that’s a required production of 30 in 6 years. (Hopefully the two will be in sync like that, as well.)
Expendables.
Personally I can’t see SpaceX flying any more expendables, except perhaps for a FH launching something extra large.
Anything that would require a F9 expendable will be transferred to FH. If necessary pricing will be adjusted to make sure this happens.
Reusable F9 $40-50,
Reusable FH $60M
Expendable F9 $65M
This will be handled by pricing. If someone insists on throwing a good B747 away after a flight they should be prepared to pay a price high enough to replace it. The biggest problem will probably be NASA since they seem reluctant to buy into the idea of using flight proven hardware versus unproven hardware straight off the assembly line.
Reminder : SpaceX has said they will be party to launching a constellation of internet satellites to LEO that would number in the THOUSANDS of small discrete satellites to create an orbital world wide web. Even if those satellites are not there own, which they may be. Regardless, hundreds and hundreds of rapid turnaround F9 launches would seem to be requisite for that. If Elon is correct and all a Falcon 9 B5 needs to fly again is 24 hours in the garage , add the 2nd stage , tank up the fluids, and ignite… that is less than $ 500,000 cost per launch plus whatever a 2nd stage throwaway costs , but nowhere near $ 30- 60 million.
The launch market can go in any direction in any number .
I’m not sure about those hundreds and hundreds of launches. It depends on the satellites and orbit, but a single Falcon 9 launch could put 40 or 50, 200 kg satellites into a 500 km polar orbit. (200 kg is a guess, but when people talk about huge constellations, they are usually talking about smallish satellites.) All in the same plane, admittedly, but I don’t know what the plans for the constellation are. But 1000 spacecraft in 20 planes with 20 launches might work.
SpaceX flew two prototypes of their StarLink websats on a launch earlier this year … February , piggybacked on Hispasat ? They appeared to be about 18 inches square and 3 -4 feet long. I’m guessing they weighed about 300 lbs, each. You’ll have to take Spacex’s word on this, but they’ve applied to FCC to license up to 12,000 of these satellites. Not a typo : twelve thousand. Here’s one article alluding to all that , and the other companies’ proposals , of which there are many . https://www.zdnet.com/artic…
That just presents a different bottleneck. How many second stages can SpaceX build per year? Those aren’t recovered, so they will have to build 100 per year to fly 100 per year.
Now the countdown begins next year when SpaceX has more launches under it’s belt in a year than the Shuttle entirely.
That would be quite a jump – there were 130 shuttle flights, while SpaceX is planning to launch 27 times this year. Still, their cadence is increasing year by year: never say never.