Here's to something less than a full RUD
...although half of me wants Elon to use that awesome quote again.
Actually no, having grown up on the Jetsons, it's about damn time rockets could land.
Elon Musk's SpaceX will attempt – for the second time – to land one of its reusable Falcon 9 rockets on a floating hover-ship out at sea, just a month after its last effort ended with a catastrophic explosion. Blast off of the rocket is expected to happen later today, Sunday, when it is scheduled to launch a space weather …
This launch will likely change the future world in two ways:
1) The DSCOVR satellite was built in 1998. While it was being built it was "discovered" (NPI) that it could be used to accurately measure the Earth's albedo. This measurement will likely end the so-called "scientific" debate over man made global warming for good. This is why the deniers applied considerable pressure (funded by the Koch brothers) and had the satellite sidelined for 17 years (at storage costs which exceeded the launch costs.) This satellite is the deniers worst nightmare come true.
2) The day of expendable rocketry is over. The last attempt to recover the booster was tellingly close to success. A successful recovery will put SpaceX 30-40 years ahead of NASA, ULA, ESA, Russia, China, et alia. ESA is already panicking that the Arianne 6 may be non-competitive and SpaceX is already launching commercial satellites for 42% of what ESA charges for the Arianne 5 --- an is profitable whereas the ESA depends heavily on government subsidies.
1) The DSCOVR satellite was built in 1998. While it was being built it was "discovered" (NPI) that it could be used to accurately measure the Earth's albedo. This measurement will likely end the so-called "scientific" debate over man made global warming for good. This is why the deniers applied considerable pressure (funded by the Koch brothers) and had the satellite sidelined for 17 years (at storage costs which exceeded the launch costs.) This satellite is the deniers worst nightmare come true.
This also has the potential to backfire on either side. "Likely" is a possibility just as "unlikely" is until the data is in. Given the ire and ill-will from both sides, I'm surprised they just didn't destroy the thing a long time ago.
I guess I'll get downvotes from both sides for seeing that this will be good for one side and not for the other. Oh...well.... seeing both sides of this has a price.
This post has been deleted by its author
Reusable rockets are a big deal, but let's not go too far over the top. SpaceX has not even been in business 13 years, not 30-40, and this reusable rocket notion is a fairly recent development*. Once Musk proves it can be done others will have no choice but to start a crash program to reproduce his successes. The work is probably already begun.
* Pulp science fiction notwithstanding. It had been roundly dismissed as infeasible for so long that everyone had a good laugh when Musk said he would do it. Sheepish looks and cold lager all 'round.
"and this reusable rocket notion is a fairly recent development*."
Reusable rockets have only been used since the 1940s. On the scale of human history that is new, but probably not as new as you're thinking.
"* Pulp science fiction notwithstanding."
Beside the disposable V-2 rockets, ze Germans also flew reusable rocket planes. (Well, they were reusable when they didn't leak and cause the pilot's flesh to combust.) Subsequently, there were all manner of reusable rocket motors and complete vehicles (e.g., RATO units, X-15). The shuttle had a long run with reusable solid rocket boosters and reusable liquid motors. The DC-X also made repeated vertical takeoff and landing flights about 20 years before the SpaceX Grasshopper.
That's not pulp science, that's decades of engineering proof.
The satellite, originally called "Triana", was a project begun in 1998 to provide a stream of images of the Earth from L1 (Lagrangian Point #1), as proposed by then Vice President Al Gore. Before it it could be launched, Mr. Gore lost the 2000 election and the incoming Republican majority scoffed at the idea, referring to it mockingly as "GoreSat"; the project was mothballed.
Then in 2009 they pulled it back out, added some new instruments, and rechristened it "DSCOVR." Now it will produce both the images of Earth as well as monitoring space weather for CMEs. (see also: http://www.npr.org/2015/02/06/383618359/satellite-set-to-stream-daily-images-of-earth-from-space)
Probably won't work but....
Instead of landing on a hard surface perhaps a heat proof fabric attached to floating pontoons would be a bit easier on the craft if it went a bit wonky like last time ? Even a huge net would make for an easier landing Until the tech is perfected.
..perhaps a heat proof fabric attached to floating pontoons..
I suspect that would make it much harder as the fabric wouldn't present such a good, solid radar signal.
They've proved the basic tech with their tera firma take-offs and landings. They're now taking the next step in trying to bring a craft all the way from space. Landing on a platform at sea seems like a good safety trade-off (as tera firma doesn't roll around as much as a vessel on water)
The water landing also lets you land a rocket anywhere, you don't have to constrain your launches so that your return will be in the right place, or carry extra fuel to get there.
Eventually they will land back at base once the saving by retrieving them is enough and the customer can be more flexible on launch and payload - at the moment Nasa is their only, and inflexible, customer.
Where did you get the idea NASA is their only customer? On the 27th of this month they are scheduled to launch for Asia Broadcast Satellite. In Q2 one for SES World Skies. Orbcomm by midyear. Launches this year for Argentina and Turkmenistan.
Cite: http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php
"The water landing also lets you land a rocket anywhere, you don't have to constrain your launches so that your return will be in the right place, or carry extra fuel to get there."
Large hardware like the Falcon 9's first stage will have fairly high splash down speeds even if it is under Shuttle SRB-scale parachutes. It'd be wise to carry some extra fuel for braking prior to landing. A powered braking maneuver also cuts the amount of time in hypersonic conditions, reducing heat loads on the structure. The fuel can be worth it even in water landing scenarios.
A good follow-up question is: does the reinforcement needed to survive a splashdown exceed the weight of fuel for powered landing? By having sufficient fuel for powered landing you gain the options enabled by, well, more fuel. For example, you can fly the rocket in an expendable manner to put more payload in orbit. Or you can land on a barge down range. Or you can save enough fuel to return the first stage back home. But with reinforcement and parachutes for a passive splash down, you have no such flexibility - just dead weight.
"at the moment Nasa is their only, and inflexible, customer."
It might be worthwhile to look at the list of Falcon flights on Wikipedia. NASA is hardly their only customer.
Er'm nonsense.
Simply spraying the mesh with a conductor would give an excellent radar signature. Or if you don't want to do that then some standard small ships masthead reflectors (metallised three intersecting planes perpendicular to each other (think a cube without the skin but the middle bits linked) would act as excellent disposable reflectors of radar at about a couple of quid (if that) each.
" Even a huge net would make for an easier landing Until the tech is perfected."
An issue with a huge net is that the Falcon 9's first stage would be changing the landing loads from 4 landing gear to the entire rocket's body. In other words, the rocket is going to fall over in the net, and rockets made out of thin aluminum tankage like the Falcon 9 don't like that sort of treatment. The shuttle's SRB's got away with that sort of treatment because they were thick walled (1-2.5cm) stainless steel. It'd be a considerable re-design to make the Falcon 9's first stage robust enough to survive a net landing.
Also, SpaceX has demonstrated the landing with its Grasshopper. The hard part seems to be the faster, higher speed flight of a rocket launch.
Since the alternative is to end up with the booster at the bottom of the ocean, I'm not sure what "tab" you're referring to.
The cost of getting the barge out to sea and repairing any damage is borne by SpaceX. The extra cost of the landing equipment on the booster and the extra fuel (and hydraulic fluid!) is built into the cost of the launch and therefore borne by SpaceX.
Now if they're successful, the savings on the next launch because they can re-use a booster all accrue to SpaceX, in which case the investment has paid off. Although realistically they'll have to offer a steep discount to get someone to be the first customer of a refurbished Falcon 9.
Not sure about that. Would you pay more for a flight on a plane that has made a successful test flight or is just being towed out of the factory?
We got a very good discount for Cluster to fly on the first Ariane V - that didn't work out too well.
[[Although realistically they'll have to offer a steep discount to get someone to be the first customer of a refurbished Falcon 9.]]
Since SpaceX have said something like 98% of the price of a launch are the rocket parts they have to throw away after several minutes' use, I think they'll find it quite easy to set an attractive sale price on a light-used rocket*. ;)
(* Well, first-stage. They're not recovering the second stage yet.)
Personally, I'm keen to see them land this because I want to see the ULA folk sweat.
They just halted countdown at 2:26 (meaning a scrubbed launch for today) due to a range safety problem. One of the tracking radars was malfunctioning so the air force called a hold.
Next launch window is tomorrow evening. And just when I managed to tune in right on time for a change.
Just in case anyone else is wary of those mystifying time zones and such, there's a nice, clean, easy-to-understand countdown right from the source (and there seems to be data for other upcoming launches as well...)
Hot off the press from the spaceX twitter:
Launch UpdateSpaceX, NOAA, NASA, and the Air Force are now targeted to launch the DSCOVR satellite aboard Falcon 9 on Tuesday 2/10 at 6:05pm ET, with a backup launch opportunity on Wednesday 2/11 at 6:03pm ET. Watch the launch live here tomorrow, beginning at 5:45pm ET.
The reason seems to be unfavourable weather conditions
"The reason seems to be unfavourable weather conditions"
An afternoon of rain storms and overcast skies: one not conducive for flight, the other not conducive for optical tracking. It's a shame about the launch being cancelled Monday, the skies were nearly cloudless and viewing conditions awesome.