DSCOVR/Triana/GoreSat Launched
DSCOVR Launched (with video)
“The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying NOAA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory spacecraft, or DSCOVR, lifts off from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.”
Keith’s update: DSCOVR has been launched and is now in orbit. Al Gore’s silicon avatar has left the planet after a 17 year wait.
Again failed to hit the launch time and NASA is serious about putting humans on this Rocket??? Failure is Failure
Failure: the state or condition of not meeting a desirable or intended objective
The scrub was due to USAF range tracking equipment and had nothing to do with the rocket, so your desired intended objective of using the scrub to diss SpaceX is a resounding failure.
Have they ever hit a launch on time…….It sounded like a LV issue to me
The call to scrub clearly came from the range. I was listening to the live feed and it was unambiguous that is where it came from.
I agree. I was listening. Range called the scrub. No doubt about it.
Range issue
Old fashion radar!!
Wasted my money and time because USAF/Cape tracking system is in the dark ages.
Add Brian
Made correction before I saw your comment but thanks π
USAF, not NASA.
Thank Congress, they have repeated cut funds for the 45th year after year.
Funny to me that congress pays ULA a billion dollars a year for assured access to space but doesn’t pay the 45th enough to assure they can get a rocket off the pad??
Most of the antenna systems are over 40 years old.
Get the government off our backs!
Just because something is “old fashioned” doesn’t make it bad, or mean that something newer is better.
Why did it not work???!!!
Hell if I know, other than things break. That includes the GPS receiver in a telemetry system too. I do neither rockets nor ground systems.
Imagine if the radios broke at an airport. Nobodies flying today the controllers can’t get the jets safely in the air.
Yeah that happens. Generally a software failure.
If the range operates like flight test you have redundancy but a mission rule that you can’t start unless all systems are working.
Everything can break. It’s time to accept that. You should know that after seeing so many launches scrubbed due to technical issues on the launch vehicles.
I wouldn’t think maintaining/operating a radar system compares with a rocket.
I would think anyone with the slightest amount of technical or scientific knowledge would understand that any system can fail, that no system is immune to failure.
For the record there have been system failures at airports. It happens. I suggest you look up something called “entropy.”
there was a power outage. so really, our aging electrical infrastructure is to blame.
Perhaps. But this wasn’t an issue of something breaking because it was “old fashioned” in its design. It was about something breaking because it was old chronologically: operated continuously for decades and worn down, but receiving almost no new parts, and only “bandaid” fixes.
A ’65 Mustang lovingly maintained will eventually outlast its 21st Cntry contemporary with all its high-tech gear, but then uses a nickel & dime approach to maintenance and repair.
Except in my case!
Yes. Several of their launches have gone off without a hitch.
http://forum.nasaspacefligh…
“NOAA Satellites @NOAASatellites Β· 42m 42 minutes ago
#DSCOVR: Launch has been scrubbed for today. There were two issues: a first stage transmitter and an issue with a range radar.”
The “stage transmitter” was the rocket camera transmitter, which they would fly without. The range radar was the killer.
A range failure in ground-based radar/tracking equipment operated by the USAF does not count for a Falcon9 failure; They’re the ones who waved off this launch.
The lack of knowledge about space flight now being displayed on other sites is appalling. Everyone is screaming about the scrub, in one breath, and blaming SpaceX in the next.
In fact, the only issue with the F-9 was the first-stage rocket cam TM link, which would have been nice to have, but was not mission critical. The F-9 would probably have launched.
The problem was with the Eastern Range tracking system(s), much of which is elderly, or in need of maintenance due to restrictive budgets.
Nor do people understand why instantaneous launch windows exist; some people are asking why SpaceX doesn’t just gas up and launch later. Unfortunately, Newton says no.
What this says about the state of public education and discourse is very depressing.
Most people watching this launch today had no clue about the booster landing attempt. People would thank me for explaining because they know so little. Its sad!
Yeah because we are all idiots….. everyone comes to this site like FB…….If Space-X lost Comm it’s on them, It’s a freaking Launch
USAF made the call because their range system went down. Not SpaceX. If you do not like this site then go somewhere else. Have a nice day.
Vsmack
My point was that even people interested enough to come watch a launch appear to be for what ever reason not very informed about space today. It was not a negative comment as you imply. Just an observation
The comm was from a camera on board. There is no reason for that to stop the flight. SpaceX said it wouldn’t. Nothing from that camera would have anything to do with the flight. The flight is automated. The video is a nice thing to have for a post-mortem, but totally non-essential.
The flight was scrubbed because an air force radar went dead. Tracking is important so Range aborted the launch.
No doubt a good reason for SpaceX to build that launch facility they’re planning in Texas.
Yep. Florida really screwed up in not aggressively going after-and keeping- space flight, particularly HSF. Our governor believes that the free market solves all problems.
One reason for the declining knowledge is that launch providers provide less information today than in the past. DSCVR is to replace ACE. Compare the 2-page SpaceX information release with the full blown press kit released by McDonnell Douglas prior to the Delta 247/ACE launch in 1997.
Doubt that’s the whole story. I’d put it down mainly to the declining interest in all things STEM and the lack of respect shown in scientific merit by pollies, general media, etc. But that’s only my view.
Cheers
the press kit on the DSCOVR side is extensive.
http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/…
I think the bulk of the information should come from NASA/NOAA. SpaceX is just a hired hand in this case; merely giving the bird a ride.
If anyone says something stupid, challenge them to educate themselves at JPL’s Basics of Space Flight. It’s a free course and very enlightening…even to folks like myself who thought that they were already adequately enlighted to spout off opinions online. π
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/ba…
I believe other launch vehicles have transitioned to using GPS for launch tracking but SpaceX hasn’t. A Aug 1 GPS launch marked the last Air Force use of C band tracking. Perhaps it was SpaceX’s fault. Any word on when SpaceX plan’s to start using GPS for launch tracking instead of radar?
Relying on GPS means you’re relying on the vehicle’s telemetry, and the associated ground receivers. Radar is much simpler and more reliable.
No, I believe GPS launch tracking uses an independent avionics package and is separate from the normal vehicle telemetry.
I think there may be two issues here. For normal, in flight guidance, I think GPS has become the standard. I’d be surprised if the Falcon 9 didn’t use it. But for range safety, the immediate, post-launch tracking to make sure the rocket is on course, not malfunctioning and not about to crash on a populated site, I believe every launch complex still uses radar. Note that I said launch complex, not vehicle. Range safety is done by the complex not the vehicle.
Will brownville use old fashion radar or modern GPS to track its rockets????
The problem with GPS is that it requires working telemetry from the rocket. And it is when the rocket is not functioning properly that you most need tracking data.
SpaceX will have either it’s own system or one operated jointly with their educational partners at Brownsville. I understand they’re investing a lot in the educational arena in the area. Since SpaceX likes to be in control, my bet is their own facility which should eventually include deep space as they’ve indicated that their Mar’s missions will probably launch from there.
Cheers
This is a good question that I’m not sure I’ve seen an answer to yet. The amount of manual labor involved in maintaining the USAF eastern range for each launch is rather surprising for this day & age, so one would hope that a completely new, private launch site could leverage newer, less antiquated range management technology.
I wonder if GPS has the granularity of radar.
GPS requires that the target (launch vehicle) be actively receiving GPS signals and actively transmitting the received position back to the ground. Radar can track multiple targets that are not transmitting for whatever reason (e.g. a “bad day” for the launch vehicle).
They could always go with something like Honeywell’s Range Safety and Telemetry System used at Kodiak.
Phased array radars from the newly created U of Texas – Brownsville/SpaceX partnership, STARGATE.
This is hilarious. When asked what is it that they actually do, the people in question could respond that they’re involved in, uhm, “deep space radar telemetry”.
Brilliant name! Absolutely relevant.
Are the range radars up to launching people? Or do they need replacing first?
The USAF will have to ask Congress for the money.
I doubt someone like Senator Shelby would vote for anything that helps commercial along. Especially if it means reducing the amount of scrubbed launches.
Mr. @torybrono said that range problems are not uncommon and ULA had a resent range issue delay.
Thank you torybrunowatch.com π
I put a tinker in his ear lol,
Now we’re talkin! π
@John_Gardi
I nominate this as Best use of Photoshop, 2015.
I PROMISE to send Elon’s office a case of champagne when he is having dinner on Mars even if he burns the pizza. HOWEVER, as of this point, he has not landed anything on the moon much less gotten anyone on the moon much less brought anyone back from the moon. #Wishing him well. Recognizing reality.
Mr Musk’s aim is to make Humanity a multi-planet species, hence setting sights on Mars. The moon couldn’t matter less to this plan.
He will ultimately be proven wrong on this, I believe. Even if/when the cost of rockets drops, our future in space includes learning to live in microgravity or developing some sort of spin tech. Getting in/out of deep gravity wells adds too many $$$.
But I’m just a guy with a computer in Florida.
I suspect that over time humans will live in every possible niche in the space zoo; the Moon, Mars, colony ships, asteroid tunnels, etc…..
There really isn’t much at all to develop in terms of “developing some sort of spin tech”. For Mars trips, you can connect the stage used to get you to Mars and back to the “hab” module via long cables and spin it during the trip to and from Mars. This approach would work on any long duration space mission.
The first and AFAIK the only artificial grav tether spin so far was Gemini 11 in 1966. Very cool way to travel (as long as you don’t look out the window too long)
You can see it starting at 10:20 (but the whole video is cool): https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Why would you want to do that when we can get so much more money from the tax payer studying micro gravity effects on humans. Did you not watch the presidents speech? We are going to send a man/hero in to space for a whole year to see what happens to him!!! Amazing!
NASA should be planning missions for Musks hardware just like Noofqsc said instead they build expensive one cost stuff with their old Space buddies. Boeing and the like.
What is the Air Force punishing SpaceX?
Elon hasn’t put his retirement program in place π
I have to say, I think this is the best image of GoreSat yet.
I wish they’d had the balls to do that.
Elon’d probably be tempted, but I bet starched-shirt NASA would pooh-pooh it as being “undignified” and not for a “noble scientific” endevour.
Yet I do remember the giant Pizza Hut logo on that Russian Proton rocket back in 2000. (I also remember NASA complained on that too, but Russia ignored them)
Too bad CEOs like Elon aren’t allowed to have this kind of fun. Great image edit!
High altitude winds – SCRUBBED
next attempt Wednesday
This quick trip to Florida is getting long.
If they don’t go tomorrow, next window is Feb. 20. You might want to stay at disney world. Low off-season rates and you can throw-up in the Mission Space ride (barf bags are in front of each seat).
I know the feeling, having driven down for many a Shuttle launch. You get used to checking out of your hotel in the morning then checking back in at night.. Best of luck seeing it go off tomorrow, with hopes that it will be a historic day.
While waiting to watch the second Spacex launch attempt at a boat ramp in Titusville, a 74 year old lady that was a secretary at Goddard at the time of the challenger disaster, told me that “Goddard said not to launch because it was to cold. She said she heard this found the horses mouth, and had promised to not say anything till they were dead and gone. She added that it was her understanding that the reason for the launch attempt was because Margaret Thatcher was in town and they had orders/pressure from above to launch!
I didn’t ask her name π
That doesn’t make sense at all. For one thing, Goddard had little-to-nothing to do with shuttle launches (except for the occasional payload). And I don’t know if Margaret Thatcher was in the country at the time, but she certainly was NOT in Florida to watch the launch! That woman was lying or repeating silly rumors.
Goddard built the primary payload for that mission (TDRS-B), so was heavily invested in that particular flight.
(edit: TRW built the system, Goddard managed the program)
I saw the lady the next day at the Spacex launch. I asked again if it was the Goddard people or someone else? She said it was her boss and others at Goddard. She said tat when it blow up she was told to never speak about it.
She repeated that the reason for the pressure was because Margaret Thatcher was in the States.
Was she here or not? Did she watch the launch or not? Anyway to find out??
She also said her boss was German and so smart that she believed others were jealous of him.
I didn’t ask her his name nor did she volunteer it.
????????????
She didn’t seem the type to make up stories
Was the president with Margaret Thathwr at the time of the launch???
Well, if a complete stranger said it, it must be true. Since there’s no way to verify her statements, there’s a limit to the credibility of those statements. I’d suggest, in the future, weighing the credibility of statements and the person saying them against available evidence rather than just repeating gossip as if it must be true.
What was the purpose of my post?
To find out out if the ladies claim could be verified.
Not spread rumors.
Have we not heard that others in NASA tried to stop the launch?
Just trying to find out the truth Mr. Squared!
“She didn’t seem the type to make up stories.”
What a statement given how deeply you knew that stranger.
Prime Minister Thatcher was not in the U.S. at the time of the Challenger disaster in January 1986. Her only visit to the U.S. in 1986 was for two days in mid-November. I’m going to have to call bullshit on your nice little old lady acquaintance’s story.
Thanks, just saying what she said
‘just saying what she said’ β¦ to the detriment of the level of discourse
Don’t forget that the ORIGINAL purpose of GoreSat/Triana was to provide a close to real-time “blue marble” image. My computer wallpaper is usually from NOAA (see http://goes.gsfc.nasa.gov/g… ) on my Linux (and Mac OS X) systems (all I need is a cron job) so, admittedly, the “blue marble” view, if updated frequently enough, will likely be something I’d like, especially since the earth is turning.
All right, that, to me, is not the exciting bit.
Recovery– even if initially only to be torn down to SEE the wear-and-tear so the margins needed to ensure reusability will be– of the F9 first stage is an exciting bit of “emergent” work. That the F9 could find the barge reliably was, to me, amazing.
I’m a systems guy, I like to see infrastructure. Reusable F9 cores will be an AMAZING bit of infrastructure.
Look, the F9 is VTVL… and, if regulations are relaxed enough (especially noise) the F9 can deliver itself from the factory; Load it up in a big parking lot (yeah, right) and light the candle and it’ll land where it is needed (I suspect in “ferry mode” an F9 can go a lot further than when it has a lot of extra mass to push) and I half expect Mr Musk to have fun with “really really really fast package delivery”.
So, yeah, it’s a launch of a satellite that might give us space nerds some cool “near-real-time” wallpaper on our computers, but the infrastructure to bring costs down is what excites me.
[SRMD] I wonder, though, if SpaceX is considering doing their Dragon in-flight abort testing on July 4th with someone pushing the button to activate the FTS. If they’ve got a used F9 able to fly a second time it would be a whole lot more impressive as a fireworks display. [/SRMD]
Finally, curiosity about space will likely pick up when Dragon is able to carry passengers. As much as I’ve admired some of Boeing’s work in the past, I have little faith that they’ll demonstrate anything before SpaceX does (especially since SpaceX is actually going to actively test their abort system in the real world). SpaceX is showing, not telling; Once something is shown, those who care will look, dig and read. (About education and ignorance, look up “Surely You’re Joking Mr Feynman”.)
No landing attempt on this flight – bad weather at sea:
“The drone ship was designed to operate in all but the most extreme weather. We are experiencing just such weather in the Atlantic with waves reaching up to three stories in height crashing over the decks. Also, only three of the drone shipβs four engines are functioning, making station-keeping in the face of such wave action extremely difficult.
The rocket will still attempt a soft landing in the water through the storm (producing valuable landing data), but survival is highly unlikely.”
Bummer
The next launch at the end of February will have no legs, so no landing.
The next barge attempt may be at the end of March with either the TurkmenSat (possibly too heavy) or Jason 3 launches.
If the California barge is ready, Jason 3 should be the one for sure.
Else there is a ISS cargo flight in early April.
How does “landing weather” impact the ability to launch once the system becomes fully operational? Are there going to be back-up landing sites or will they just ditch the first stage in order to maintain a launch commitment?
The barge is for F9 use until landing on land is approved after some barge landings.
The atlantic and pacific barges will be used later for recovering the F9 cores and FH center cores when they are using so much fuel that flying back to land is too wasteful.
This DSCOVR launch is one that uses so much fuel that fly-back is out.
So… if the flight cannot be delayed, and if land recovery is out, and the barge cannot be used, then the core goes into the drink.
I have seen reference to SpaceX leasing island space for downrange landings, but nothing certain.
In Florida the landings will be at LC-13.at the Cape.
At Vandenberg in california, the landing site is SLC-4W.
This is how a fully land return flight goes (in this case an FH from pad 39a to a return nearby at LC-13:
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
I would be interested in your references to downrange island landing ideas
I think they might make sense in a future high launch rate environment and recovery of the Falcon heavy core stage and other launches with a heavy payload
http://yellowdragonblog.com…
http://yellowdragonblog.com…
My expectation is that when they transition to the S. Texas landing site, the first stage will land in Florida.
Even without a braking burn, the first stage splashes down less than 200mi down-range, any suitable landing site in Florida would be about 900-1000mi downrange (and on the wrong side of the peninsula.) It would cost more fuel to continue to Florida than to turn around and return to the launch site.
Also, landing in Florida would limit you to a single useless launch inclination, without a huge cross-range fuel penalty, pretty much rendering Browsville/Boca-Chica useless for 90% of clients.
So no.
[Edit: Looks like down-range varies wildly depending on mission. The DISCVR launch had a recovery of 600km (~400mi) but that’s more than most launches where I’ve found actual numbers. Apparently the F9v1.0 first stage could impact up to 1000km (~600mi) down range depending on trajectory. The v1.1 cuts the separation velocity from 3km/s to 2km/s and is therefore proportionally more vertical at staging, so the down-range is usually much less.]
Purely ballistic impacts downrange is more like 500 miles?
So a recovery and landing after a ballistic trajectory appeals to me
does not work from Brownsville
It’s too far away and not along the right path.
Island landing architectures mentioned here
http://www.nasaspaceflight….
my take on this from July 2014
http://yellowdragonblog.com…
this is pre drone writing π
At the rate Elon is improving SpaceX will be launching several times a week from both coasts the weather be damned!
Plus 12 times per year from Texas to begin with.
Through 2022 according to the FAA.
Just about the time the BFR rolls out
It will never fly. You heard it here first π
Thank you for the prediction, spacemunkie! ;-p
Anyhow, since its launching from brownsville and you live in Florida, you best hope it at least flies straight!
Few years ago I heard FH will never fly. And even earlier that SpaceX will surely fail.
Yawn.
launching several times per week from multiple launch sites will require an enormous launch market that currently does not exist and will take years to develop.
If you build it(cheaper), they will come.
well, maybe.
it’s still going to take several years for the market to catch up once prices go down, and SpaceX will need to dramatically increase their rocket production rate.
It’ll be interesting to see if Elon will really launch even half of his 2015 manifest. He had 6 launches last year. 8-12 this year would be very good progress.
Although they certainly aren’t sitting on their hands waiting, given the recently announced project to build 4000 satellites for space-based broadband. I suppose you could see this as providing their own customer, but I think it’s also an attempt to get the economy of scale working in the satellite manufacturing market also. After all, what’s the point of a $10M launch if your satellite still costs $200M?
those will be small satellites, so they will be launched in batches. there won’t be 4,000 launches.
are you suggesting that expensive payloads should always use more expensive rockets?
the point is that if your satellite costs $200 million, if your rocket costs $400 million you need to have $600 million. if the rocket only costs $10 million, then you’ve saved $390 million – enough to build and launch another satellite and still have money left over.
Yes, I believe I guesstimated at least 60 launches for the network, plausible but significant. You are certainly right that there is always benefit in a cheaper launch vehicle, but the important question is whether that benefit becomes marginal at some point, i.e. is the satellite market elastic or not? If they could handle the volume, SpaceX could capture almost the entire commercial market near their current prices. But does cutting the prices after that point significantly raise the volume of total launches? (very important for their business model) If the cost of satellites becomes the limiting factor, probably not.
If SpaceX can reuse a 1st stage even 10 times, that would cut their launch price about in half. If they can do that, I’d guess they will corner about 85% of the launch market (much of the rest likely being national defense / space agency launches, China, Russia, etc. where national pride is on the line).
in theory, cutting the price below that might enable lots of things that simply aren’t possible now. high school / college / university teams could build experimental cubesats in class and purchase a launch for them within a reasonable budget, for example. small nations could afford to have a space program. other commercial opportunities open up. but as i said, that could take years to develop.
it will take time to demonstrate that reuse is possible. it will take time to develop confidence that a reused stage is safe. it will take time for new commercial ventures to raise the capital to make new things.
it will be a slow ramping up. this will not be happening overnight.
Space, according to Douglass Adams, is really, really big. So true.
Still I wonder how many birds can fly in orbit until crowding becomes an issue.
Or as Steven Wright said, It may be a small world, put you wouldn’t want to paint it.
it depends where they go. the geostationary orbital level is pretty crowded now, but most other orbital levels and inclinations aren’t.
With a sufficient reduction in launch cost new markets become feasible, such as very large constellations of low-altitude and low-cost communications satellites, or space tourism. Conversely, without a reduction in launch cost we will never see more than a handful of people in space.
Two major reasons for expensive satellites is, for geo satellites limited slots, and very importantly, with hugely expensive launches, you want the biggest baddest payloads. When you buy a USPS flat-rate shipping box, you pack it solid.
That is a complaint the Pentagon has made that they are stuck with a small amount of expensive satellites due to launch costs.
Low-cost launchers mean a huge ramp-up in low cost, quick response missions.
I’ve thought a reusable Falcon-like first stage could make a fine launcher for hypersonic cruise missiles.
it certainly could do that, but a rocket the size of the Falcon 9 really is overkill for that application.
i think this launch sets the precedent that SpaceX is unwilling to delay a launch just to wait for better landing conditions.
their practices may change in the future, of course, but for now it seems that if the weather is unfavorable for landing, they will simply splash the stage.
SpaceX has always said that the primary mission is the customer’s launch.
Painful, but it makes sense. Landing stages is still a new concept, and they don’t want potential customers thinking that it will change how their launches are treated. Their message is “the landing thing is our problem, don’t worry about it”
Maybe that would be a price option, customers would get a lower rate if they are willing to accept delays caused by landing weather.
Perhaps, although once they ditch the barge, sorry “drone ship”, it is likely that launching weather == landing weather
“it is likely that launching weather == landing weather”
Although not always. Launch forecast is for a short time period in the very near future so they can often shoot through a hole in the weather if they feel certain it will stay within limits during that short window. However landing forecast is farther out and requires more certainty in the forecast. So especially during dynamic Florida weather conditions it is quite conceivable that they could be green for launch but red for landing.
Perhaps you were already alluding to this with your qualifier “it is likely”
Launch to landing is 10 minutes, so not a lot of time for significant change, and I would be surprised if low clouds etc. would actually matter. But I am curious as to the ground wind restrictions for landing. With an almost empty stage coming down, it would not surprise me if they are more stringent than the allowable conditions for takeoff.
I agree completely if the recovery is on land, which it will have to be to be practical. There were a number of Shuttle launches when the seas in the recovery area were to rough for the SRB ships to do anything but follow the boosters until conditions improved.
The stage lands in-what? 10 minutes or so?
“The stage lands in-what? 10 minutes or so?”
About eight minutes, according to analysis by SpaceWorks:
http://www.sei.aero/eng/pap…
If you figure a final readiness poll at say T-13, then that means they would be forecasting 21 minutes out for landing weather at the time of go/no go decision.
Again I am not talking about nice clear days like this past Wednesday, I am talking about dynamic weather days where minutes count. It’s not hard to find past examples, just looking at Falcon there was the AsiaSat 6 launch this past September. Scheduled for 12:50am, they were dealing with thick clouds at the cape caused by remnants of a tropical wave. At T-20 weather was observed go for launch. Then just four minutes later at T-16 the forecast changed and they reset the launch time to 1:00am. At final readiness poll at 12:47am weather was go and launch occurred at 1:00am.
And that was just having to deal with a launch forecast, if in addition they had to also forecast the landing weather twenty minutes out that could have changed the situation.
For a long window like AsiaSat had that might not be a problem. But for short or instantaneous windows during dynamic weather situations, afternoon thunderstorms for example, I expect that it would be even more of a challenge than it already is.
How many launches might get scrubbed in this scenario? Probably very few, I would guess even fewer than Shuttle scrubs due to landing weather at the cape or TAL sites. All I am saying is that I think it could happen on occasion, it’s not far fetched.
Another factor we don’t know yet is whether range will have stricter rules for landing than for launch. I can’t think of a reason why they would, other than some people are liable to be more nervous about a powered vehicle heading towards a populated area instead of way from it.
If you’re getting a reusability discount, that will have to be the case. If you want expendable, you pay for expendable. Same rule that applies to flying as a secondary payload – you get the discount, but you get the inconvenience.
Right now clients are paying for expendable, landing is an in-house SpaceX test. It makes sense to not expect the client to be inconvenienced by that test.
yes, eventually they will get reusability working and then they will have to change their contracts so customers agree that if a downrange 1st stage recovery is necessary and the weather is bad there, it’ll be a no-go for launch. but they’re not there yet.
That could certainly cause a delay cascade in their anticipated launch tempo.
with 4 launch sites i don’t think it will matter that much. and delays are better than losing a first stage. there will be delays due to weather, etc. anyway.
VAB is a specialty site with very limited commercial usability. Boca Chica is limited to 12 launches per year, 2 of which can be an FH till at least 2022. If you got one launch every 3 weeks from 39 and 40 that is around 35 launches per year for the CCAFS/KSC area. Wouldn’t take a whole lot to start a jam, considering the tempo SpaceX has projected, which is far greater than the above.
Vandy is great for Northward launches. some satellites need to be in those orbits, for example, the Iridium and SAOCOM launches on SpaceX’s manifest are all going to be out of Vandy. probably most of its military launches will be out of there as well.
let’s say you’re limited to 6 launches per year from Vandy, 12 per year from TX, and the same number for SLC-40 and LC-39A
that’s 42 launches per year.
i don’t see SpaceX approaching near that for another 6-8 years, maybe more.
so there’s really nothing to worry about.
Perhaps. Lets look at the past launches of ULA as an example Atlas V 36 at CCAFS, 10 at VAB. For all Delta 4′ s, 23 at CCAFS and 5 at VAB.
That’s still roughly a third of all launches. IOW, if SpaceX has 12 launches per year at Canaveral we could easily expect 4 at Vandy.
I could easily be wrong, but I do not see any reason for them to use the barge once they are approved for onshore landings.
The barge(s) will be used for the single 1st stage core of the F9 or the center core of the FH when a mission that demands so much fuel or trajectory requirements that a flyback is not possible. This DSCOVR launch was a perfect example. This flight was a great test. It reentered at twice the velocity of a “normal” flight and experienced 4 times the heating.
Beyond the niceness of a successful barge landing, I bet that SpaceX would have really wanted to see the effects of the flight on the stage,
That’s certainly possible but the new SpaceX video shows all three FH boosters landing back at the Cape, which might require a little more fuel but would eliminate the cost and uncertainty of ocean recovery. That appears to be their plan.
There are different recovery (and non-recovery) scenarios based upon the specific mission profile. For example, an FH launch carrying maximum possible payload would empty all 3 cores and be lost. Other scenarios would be side cores only recovery, side cores fly back and barge center core, or all three flyback.
It won’t impact the system at all. As the core will return to SLC40 rather than land on a seaborne platform in the ultimate operational configuration, it would be very odd for conditions to be okay for launch but not landing.
LC-13.
On this launch, the barge was 600 km downrange, if memory serves. Weather can therefore be different between the launch and landing site if the barge is used.
In the future, the plan is to land on a concrete landing pad near the launch site. So, if weather is good enough for a launch, it will hopefully be good enough for a landing too.
A GOREious day. π
GOREgeous!
SpaceX: “While extreme weather prevented SpaceX from attempting to recover the first stage, data shows the first stage successfully soft landed in the Atlantic Ocean within 10 meters of its target. The vehicle was nicely vertical and the data captured during this test suggests a high probability of being able to land the stage on the drone ship in better weather.”
A picture-perfect launch with some of the best ascent images that I’ve ever seen (thanks, NASA ground tracking assets). The image that I suspect will be on Elon’s desktop is a picture from the U/S of the Earth falling behind after the Trans-Lagrange Injection burn. “Soon, sucker, soon,” was probably what was going through his mind.
where is the video of the first stage landing on the barge?
there is none. it did not land on the barge.
didn’t they have a camera on the first stage? They broadcast the ascent portion so why not the descent? I don’t care where it landed, on the barge or the sea, I want to see it, Musk saying that it was successful means nothing.
I would like to see the video too, but SpaceX does not owe us anything. They choose when and what information is made public. So far, F9 has a perfect record of mission success. The stage recovery test is a freebie they are doing at their cost. Last time, they showed us the stage crashing on the barge. Neither ULA nor Boeing would do this kind of experiments to advance the technology, unless specifically getting paid (cost plus) for it by Uncle Sam. So, if Elon Musk says the stage landed softly on the water, I believe him.
I think we will see the video eventually.. please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall any attempt where we the public have gotten nothing afterwards.
Also keep in mind what happened last time.. at first, Elon & Co. said there was no video of the first barge landing attempt, saying it was too dark. What was it, 2-3 weeks after we got that scary failure video?
It may be safe to say now that SpaceX will be forthcoming to the public every launch.. but at their pace, not our “but I want it now!” Veruca Salt fandom speak.
Scary to you, but friggin cool to me π
I agree. It was major crazy with the flaming stage roaring in out of nowhere, blasting into the barge, and flying over the edge in a fireball!
I just wouldn’t want to be a deck hand at the time!
He may not have seen the video recovered from the physical media on the barge at that time. There’s every chance he was talking about remote recording from the stage, for example.
SpaceX has released at least one photo from the soft landing sequence. Frankly, however, I rather doubt that SpaceX is concerned about your belief or that of others like you in their claims. It’s obvious that no matter what SpaceX does, you’ll always be opposed to what they do.
With that said, SpaceX did show footage of the crash landing of that last attempt on the barge, and that’s something that I rather doubt ULA or anyone else would do.
Recall how Sierra nevada, after its quite successful test glide released a video that ended just before the makeshift test landing gear failed and the craft flipped. No guts.
This Sierra Nevada comment reminds me of the days when the Shuttle was grounded for MONTHS, with a persistent hydrogen leak(s). Contractors and NASA folks were busting their tails working the issue, which was as complex an issue as one could have in this business. The stack had to be rolled back and forth the VAB and the Pad. A huge undertaking. Yet, some people were complaining about it “taking so long to launch” and “do you guys know what you are doing?” kind of thing… The Sierra Nevada mishap video would have (no doubt in my mind) been used out of context without any of the caveats that we all knew about to show it as a failure. Monday Morning Quarterbacking by ignorant fools, I say.
It is unbelievable the tidal wave of criticism that engulfs anyone who is actually trying to actually do something.
βSome people insist that ‘mediocre’ is better than ‘best.’ They delight in clipping wings because they themselves can’t fly. They despise brains because they have none.β
β Robert A. Heinlein
There were many published reports that the 1st stage barge landing was called off before the launch due to sea conditions.
SpaceX did say, however, that the telemetry indicates the first stage did achieve a soft, vertical landing in the ocean.
Seas were extremely rough and there was no possibility of landing on the barge. The report from SpaceX indicated that the booster was soft-landed in the ocean next to the barge under full control. The Atlantic can be as calm as a fishpond, but it can also be frightening. I remember being in that area on the Redstone, which was a big ship, about 600 feet, but was rolling like a cork in waves of 20 to 30 feet. There is no way to do anything requiring precision in that kind of weather, and it was not uncommon even when it was calm enough to launch back at the Cape. There were times when even the the heavy steel Shuttle SRBs were bent like tin cans. Ocean recovery of launch vehicles and spacecraft is simply not cost effective.
The Eastern Test Range has had multiple opportunities to evaluate the navigational accuracy and guidance of the returning boosters. It’s my hope that they will have the confidence to allow SpaceX to touch down on solid ground without further delay, with the breakthrough reduction in cost that this will permit.
So you think Musk and his employees are engaged in a conspiracy to lie? Really? Expect the video any day. Not that it matters to you. For some reason you want the most innovative, disruptive, revolutionary system, one that will allow space to finally be opened, to fail? Why??
As to the barge, you somehow got out of the loop. Before the flight spacex announced that due to three story waves they were not doing a barge landing, but the water landing went perfectly
Great response! There is a person who comments in Spaceflightnow who swears the videos were faked by SpaceX to “lure” investors into giving them money. It can be quite the clown show over there. Thanks for the photos… Soooooo, WHERE is the video? Ha Ha Ha!
I don’t care if they fail or not, I want to see it so I can learn something from it.
2 images:
A) Falcon 1st stage
landing in waterreentry burn andB) a view back at the whole Earth from Falcon 2nd stage
How cool to be EM, looking at that photo of the home planet: “I made that”.
Anyone notice the fins are updated — shorter, wider, maybe a bit thicker compared to the ones on the first fin flight on Grasshopper.
Baby steps of progress!
From Musk:
Planning a significant upgrade of the droneship for future missions to handle literally anything. Maybe give it a Merlin for good measure π
That Musk never does anything right the first time. He constantly has to fix his mistakes!!!