Discussion in 'Techforge' started by gturner, Dec 17, 2014.
Two of the three needed engines failed to relight. It hit the water at 300 mph.
After seeing the successful launch of the Falcon Heavy (and the even more impressive recovery of the two boosters) I'm actually starting to believe that something is going to come about from Space X's efforts. When you have an actually flight ready heavy lift booster it opens all sorts of possibilities. I'm also impressed that a modern heavy lift rocket is finally moving away from solid fueled boosters.
Should have been The Man Who Sold the Moon
The absolute coolest part for me was the camera that was tracking the one booster in as the engines re-lit for landing. It was like a scene out of NuBSG, but real!
Elon Musk (aka Ol' Musky) arriving at work this morning:
Does anyone know what SpaceX's goal is for booster retrieval and what percentage they need get back to stay profitable? 2 out of 3 sounds pretty good to me but does it make their goal?
Or maybe like that?
They're keeping their cards pretty close as far as what is needed for profitability. I think their goal is for 100% retrieval. I don't know how many flights the things are good for. My Estes lasted about 5 before they got lost on someone's roof.
They are pretty close to 100% landings of boosters for the latest Falcon 9 launches. I think the only one they let go was a geosynchronous launch that didn't have enough fuel to make it back. google google:
In January 2016 Musk evaluated the likelihood of success to approximately 70 percent for landing attempts in 2016, hopefully rising to 90 percent in 2017; he also cautioned that the company expected "a few more RUDs", referring to the term Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly, a humorous euphemism for destruction of the vehicle. As of 15 December 2017 Musk's prediction was not far off the mark, as five out of eight flown boosters (63%) were recovered in 2016, and 14 out of 14 (100%) so far in 2017. Three GTO missions for heavy payloads were flown in an expendable configuration, not equipped for landing.
Landing the core booster on a Falcon Heavy presents greater challenges. I think they'll get it right soon. But there aren't many customers for Falcon Heavies. For what it's worth, the two outer boosters were previously-flown Falcon 9s. Something that made FH more cost effective to build now.
Starman's in for the full ride:
More at link
Man that gif looks just like a clip from a 50's sci-fi flick.
Two candles coming down! (You'll want the sound on.)
And yes, those were sonic booms you heard.
Perhaps, but that's undignified for a #bondvillain
I can see my house!
[flatearther]Also, proof that the earth is flat!!! [/flatearther]
Round and round she goes!
Not mentioned in the article is that the car's in a bit of a Mars cycler orbit, meaning it'll pass close to Earth in about 11 years. So, when that happens, both Tesla and SpaceX can expect a lot of free publicity.
Somebody needs to photoshop a beat up version of the Tesla into the pics of V'ger.
SpaceX delays launch until the 21st.
This is a clever bit of commerce on the part of Musk. The first customers to use these satellites will be Tesla owners. Right now, the latest Tesla models all have a permanent $G wireless connection, so the cars can get software updates and send data back to Tesla (as well as providing an onboard wifi hotspot for the cars). By launching these satellites, Musk can ensure a locked-in customer base with Tesla owners, thereby giving both SpaceX and Tesla a constant revenue stream.
And SpaceX released a new pic of the roadster they shot into space.
SpaceX fails to catch rocket faring with giant mitt. https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/22/17039860/spacex-falcon-9-payload-fairing-mr-steven-net-catch
I wonder why they didn't land the 1st stage on that one? Can't find any commentary on it. LEO it should have had enough gas to get to Just Read the Instructions.
Might have to do with the weight of the satellites. If they're heavy enough, then going to LEO would mean that there wasn't enough reserve fuel for them to attempt to land the booster.
More on SpaceX's BFR.
And this is a bit of hope for the future:
Does it have a car in it?
SpaceX to launch 10 satellites on a used rocket today.
The upcoming used Dragon/Falcon launch is slightly more interesting from a risk standpoint. They don't give the launch date/time for that. Plus they may try to land that booster.
As to why they didn't try to land the booster, the story I read said that SpaceX is retiring it's older boosters to make room for a new generation. I'm sure they're trying to figure out just how often they can re-use them and what they need to do to get more launches out of them.Tesla's having it's problems, but it looks SpaceX is pretty much on course.
Not sure. Tucker pointed out each launch is to a different orbit and some may not lend themselves to a landing. It may also be they have an excess of used boosters on hand, the costs of recovery may not see a return, but I think this is less likely.
SpaceX hits its goal of 1 launch every 2 weeks. I suspect in a few years, they'll be aiming for daily launches. https://arstechnica.com/science/201...e-promised-land-of-launching-every-two-weeks/
It looks like SpaceX is off the hook for the loss of the Zuma package. Losing a payload is never good for anyone, but it looks like Northrup/Grumman didn't trust SpaceX and wanted to use their own payload adapter. LINK
SpaceX to launch planet hunting satellite for NASA today. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/spacex-to-launch-a-small-planet-hunter-for-nasa-on-monday/
Russia is pretty much surrendering and getting out of the commercial space launch business. Back in 2913 Russia's state owned commercial rocket launch company had a 50% global market share but with companies like SpaceX, China's state owned rocket launch company, and a whole host of low cost private companies coming online... Well, Russia's market share has dropped to just 4% of the global market. To compare SpaceX now has 50% global market share and it's commercial prices are just a fraction of everyone else's.
Separate names with a comma.