There’s a Star Man, waiting in the sky..

[rockershovel]

I’ve just been watching the SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch, and it was quite immense. A perfectly executed tour-de-force of technical excellence and image-building.

 

What about the simultaneous landings of the two boosters? I’m sure there are already trolls decrying it as “fake news”, but I’ve been to Cape Canaveral and those landing pads are in plain view, with a crowd of thousands. We didn’t see the barge landing, but we know the booster found the barge... wonderful stuff.

 

The images of the space-suited dummy in his red open-top Sportster, complete with David Bowie soundtrack, the sea behind him and DON’T PANIC on the Satnav.. pure genius. Apparently the glovebox contains a copy of Hitch-hikers Guide .. and A TOWEL....

Edited February 6, 2018 by rockershovel

[Coryton]

I’ve just been watching the SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch, and it was quite immense. A perfectly executed tour-de-force of technical excellence and image-building.

 

What about the simultaneous landings of the two boosters? I’m sure there are already trolls decrying it as “fake news”, but I’ve been to Cape Canaveral and those landing pads are in plain view, with a crowd of thousands. We didn’t see the barge landing, but we know the booster found the barge... wonderful stuff.

 

The images of the space-suited dummy in his red open-top Sportster, complete with David Bowie soundtrack, the sea behind him and DON’T PANIC on the Satnav.. pure genius. Apparently the glovebox contains a copy of Hitch-hikers Guide .. and A TOWEL....

 

Incredible indeed.

 

There's now a live view of the car gently spinning in space.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M

 

It looks as if the core got close to the barge, but not close enough. But still an incredibly successful launch.

 

I didn't think I'd ever see a launch as impressive as a shuttle launch - but I was wrong.

[Legend]

Just watched it in the news . Interesting. A bit puzzled at the car though. I know it’s a publicity stunt but isn’t that going to be another bit of space debris or have I missed the bit where he brings it down again?

[Dagworth]

Just watched it in the news . Interesting. A bit puzzled at the car though. I know it’s a publicity stunt but isn’t that going to be another bit of space debris or have I missed the bit where he brings it down again?

With such a launch of unproven equipment it's not worth sending up a useful payload as the risk of loss is too great. For tests they normally chuck a lump of concrete up there... this time they used the car for PR.

 

And it does make a great title for this thread...

 

Andi

[Coryton]

With such a launch of unproven equipment it's not worth sending up a useful payload as the risk of loss is too great. For tests they normally chuck a lump of concrete up there... this time they used the car for PR.

 

And it does make a great title for this thread...

 

Andi

 

It's - sort of - going to Mars.

 

If all goes according to plan, it will go into an orbit round the sun which will take it repeatedly between the Earth's orbit and Mars' orbit.

 

This is how you get to Mars but you have to start at the right time so that when you get to Mars orbit Mars is actually there, and you need a rocket motor and fuel to go into orbit round Mars.

 

As for launching satellites on unproven equipment - the first Ariane 5 carried four research satellites. I believe they weren't charged for the launch as it was experimental. It didn't go well, though they did get some of the pieces back which were in fact in surprisingly good shape considering.

 

It goes to show that there's no such thing as a free launch.

[big jim]

My brother in law works for spaceX and has been involved in this project for a number of years, wonder how he’s feeling this evening?

[Coryton]

My brother in law works for spaceX and has been involved in this project for a number of years, wonder how he’s feeling this evening?

 

Very pleased, I would think!

 

(Unless he was responsible for getting the core back on the barge...)

[Phil Bullock]

On seeing those boosters landing immediately thought of Thunderbirds....

 

Phil 

[rockershovel]

Incredible indeed.

 

There's now a live view of the car gently spinning in space.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBr2kKAHN6M

 

It looks as if the core got close to the barge, but not close enough. But still an incredibly successful launch.

 

I didn't think I'd ever see a launch as impressive as a shuttle launch - but I was wrong.

I did rather suspect that if the core had actually landed, we would have seen it by now. Still and all, if the main negative from this is “making an automated landing on a dynamically positioned target, at sea, needs more work” (was the barge automatically positioned? Because that’s pretty much how modern DP works, even if there is a DP Operator on the bridge) then it’s still an astounding achievement.

[Coryton]

I did rather suspect that if the core had actually landed, we would have seen it by now. Still and all, if the main negative from this is “making an automated landing on a dynamically positioned target, at sea, needs more work” (was the barge automatically positioned? Because that’s pretty much how modern DP works, even if there is a DP Operator on the bridge) then it’s still an astounding achievement.

 

Absolutely - even without the re-usability it would be incredible.

 

They have got pretty good at getting first stages back onto a barge though, so it's not obvious why this failed - I don't think this was any more challenging then getting the first stage back from a regular Falcon 9 launch.

 

If I heard the commentary correctly, the boosters had already each flown once as a Falcon 9 first stage...

[rockershovel]

Absolutely - even without the re-usability it would be incredible.

 

They have got pretty good at getting first stages back onto a barge though, so it's not obvious why this failed - I don't think this was any more challenging then getting the first stage back from a regular Falcon 9 launch.

 

If I heard the commentary correctly, the boosters had already each flown once as a Falcon 9 first stage...

Well, that’s what development engineers are employed for. I dare say they will work it out.

 

Apparently the orbital stage is now going through a series of manoeuvres and tests.

Edited February 6, 2018 by rockershovel

[Coryton]

Well, that’s what development engineers are employed for. I dare say they will work it out.

 

Apparently the orbital stage is now going through a series of manoeuvres and tests.

 

At the moment it's just gently spinning, as can be seen live on YouTube (see link above).

 

There will be another burn in a few hours.

[rockershovel]

At the moment it's just gently spinning, as can be seen live on YouTube (see link above).

 

There will be another burn in a few hours.

Latest as of this morning, appears to be that it was carrying out a test sequence for the US military (no details of this) and has now staged its final burn. Final burn appears to have been successful, but did not achieve the intended trajectory, although the actual trajectory is known.

 

The central core was indeed lost, but it sounds as if they already have a fairly clear idea why, and can work on that.

 

So the main technical failure of the launch involved a technology which they have experience of, and know it can be made to work; the subsequent partial failure of the final burn has provided them with information, and the payload is still otherwise functioning as intended... they have at least one, and not less than three launches already “on the books” which don’t appear to have been compromised.

 

It also appears that some of the “less fully realised” projects, particularly those involving manned flight, have moved down the list of priorities.

 

Watch this space, folks.

Edited February 7, 2018 by rockershovel

[Enterprisingwestern]

You learn more from failures than successes.

 

Mike.

[Coryton]

You learn more from failures than successes.

 

Yes and no.

 

In this case what they could have learned from examining the core stage might have been more useful than finding why it missed the barge (which may not have been related to differences between this and a normal launch).

 

Who knows - maybe the core stage became very close to failing and the only way they'll find out now without being able to look at it is if in a future lunch they have a bit less luck? (Of course this is where just about every other space launch ever has been...retrieving the bits is a bonus).

 

And if you push the "learning more from failures" line too far you'd end up arguing that it's a real shame it didn't incinerate itself on the launch pad.

 

So the main technical failure of the launch involved a technology which they have experience of, and know it can be made to work; the subsequent partial failure of the final burn has provided them with information, and the payload is still otherwise functioning as intended... they have at least one, and not less than three launches already “on the books” which don’t appear to have been compromised.

 

I believe that SpaceX are now saying that it was always the intention to use up all the propellants in the final stage and see how far they could get the car to go.

[PaulRhB]

Sounds like it was a slight miscalculation on fuel for corrections that compromised the barge Look how closely they have always had to be on as more fuel needs even more fuel to carry it, even Eagle nearly ran out

Edited February 7, 2018 by PaulRhB

[Coryton]

Sounds like it was a slight miscalculation on fuel for corrections that compromised the barge Look how closely they have always had to be on as more fuel needs even more fuel to carry it, even Eagle nearly ran out

 

This is what the mainstream media are reporting. The technical sites are saying that this is wrong and in fact two of the three engines used for braking failed to ignite, slamming it into the sea at TGV speeds.

 

This would no doubt have been quite spectacular had it happened to one of the stages returning to land (and it amazes me that they're allowed to land them where they do).

[JohnR]

To put this in perspective, it has just over half the launch capacity of the mighty Saturn V - 65 tonnes against 118.

[Coryton]

To put this in perspective, it has just over half the launch capacity of the mighty Saturn V - 65 tonnes against 118.

 

For full perspective you also need to take the launch costs into account. While any figure for the Saturn V is going to be somewhat arbitrary because they didn't sell launches on it, it's pretty clear that a Falcon 9 launch is quite a bit cheaper.

 

The shuttle lifted a higher mass to orbit than the Falcon 9, but most of that was the shuttle itself so the payload capacity was much less.

 

However...you need to be careful when talking about launch capacity. The Falcons are very good at launching things into low earth orbit. For geostationary transfer orbit or further out they don't compare so well with launchers using hydrogen fuelled upper stages.

[Ozexpatriate]

You learn more from failures than successes.

SpaceX has learned a lot already.

 

[Ozexpatriate]

For full perspective you also need to take the launch costs into account. While any figure for the Saturn V is going to be somewhat arbitrary because they didn't sell launches on it, it's pretty clear that a Falcon 9 launch is quite a bit cheaper.

The notion that an individual (even one as enormously wealthy as Elon Musk) can operate a spaceflight program is pretty stunning. And he's not the only one! Jeff Bezos has one too.

 

The costs of these programs, while material are nothing compared to what was spent on Government programs like Apollo.

 

This article projects an (adjusted to today's Dollar) price for Saturn V of $41B compared to $90M for Falcon Heavy. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Ozexpatriate

[Coryton]

The notion that an individual (even one as enormously wealthy as Elon Musk) can operate a spaceflight program is pretty stunning. And he's not the only one! Jeff Bezos has one too.

 

The costs of these programs, while material are nothing compared to what was spent on Government programs like Apollo.

 

This article projects an (adjusted to today's Dollar) price for Saturn V of $41B compared to $90M for Falcon Heavy. 

 

I haven't read the article, but it's always going to be very hard to make a real comparison.

 

For example, how much of that $41B was research that SpaceX didn't need to do because it was already done?

 

The Falcon isn't a Saturn, but then again it's not a world away from a Saturn 5 first stage either.

 

It's also a bit unfair to compare prices for a manned vs unmanned launch.

 

A better comparison is probably to other current launchers, where you can directly compare the cost of a launch. And Falcon comes out extremely well (though as I said above it's not as good for geostationary orbit).

[Ozexpatriate]

For example, how much of that $41B was research that SpaceX didn't need to do because it was already done?

I don't know how that figure was derived. The article stated launch cost - not Apollo program cost so I would stipulate that the 'already done' argument is moot.

 

Falcon Heavy has more than twice the low earth orbit payload capacity as the Saturn 1B.

 

Were we comparing total program costs, then I would agree with the point you make. It would be more accurate to compare SpaceX program costs with the shelved* NASA project Orion.

 

* The current POTUS has ordered it back on again, but it is not clear whether it is *really* on again.

 

On the subject of Orion and future Mars missions, the NASA Twins Study has demonstrated DNA changes after a year in space by astronaut Scott Kelly.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Ozexpatriate

[BlackRat]

On the same day, various initiatives are launched to combat plastic rubbish in the worlds oceans, some

 

dozy tw@t decides it's now time to pollute space with yet more human rubbish.

 

It would seem all the money in the world (almost) doesn't necessarily mean common sense.

Edited February 7, 2018 by BlackRat

[rockershovel]

At the height of the Apollo programme, NASA accounted for almost 0.8% of US GDP.

 

That’s why I’ve never believed in the moon landings being “faked”. Given the US record of keeping secrets, the idea that an organisation THAT big, employing tens of thousands, could keep a secret of that magnitude and nature is inconceivable.