It's important...
to keep a sense of humour about things like this.
SpaceX will be launching a cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station this evening. It will be the seventeeth Falcon 9 launch - and SpaceX are attempting to land the first stage in a controlled vertical descent to a floating platform once again. Were the rockets – typically jettisoned once the primary stage of …
Well the landing barge is named "Just Read The Instructions" and the next one is to be named "Of Course I Still Love You".
Both in honour of Iain M Banks of course, but it does show that someone there has a sense of humour (and good taste in reading material).
Plus if I remember correctly the Falcon rockets were named after the Millenium Falcon, and the Dragons after Puff the Magic Dragon. The latter would certainly count as humorous.
Well they're obviously doing something right, with 16 Falcon 9 launches in 4 years so far, and 10 more this year. Looks like things are on the up-and-up.
It would be great if they could do "the impossible", and land a rocket after use. Even more impressive to do it on a barge at sea.
I also look forward to seeing them get a manned capsule working.
This is truly exciting. Space has been a bit of a dead-end since the early days of the shuttles. Sure there were always lots of interesting things going on, but we always seemed to be just refining stuff we'd already done, or doing it in different combinations. But mostly using the same basic technology.
But for the last 5-10 years we've had a bumper crop of unmanned space probes, doing all sorts of exciting and difficult things. Trundling round Mars and landing on comets.
And now we seem to have progress in launcher technology again. Not only are SpaceX (and others) making it much cheaper - but every time they launch, they're trying something new - or running tests to allow them to on the next launch.
And they're doing it with a sense of proportion, and a sense of humour. So they can say mission accomplished, when they get the payload to the ISS - and still say KABOOM when the rocket doesn't quite manage to land on the platform after doing so.
Oh, and another exciting thing. One of the Bigelow inflatable habitats is being / has been sent up to the ISS. So we now have the prospect of much cheaper living space - which means cheaper space science, and another step closer to commercial manned use of space. Eventually leading to space hotels, space hookers, space nookie and space cops with laser guns...
"Someone needs to commercialise velcro socks, footboards and headboards first"
I can think of a few positions that ought to work ok in micro-gravity without Velcro or straps. The "tree" position for starters. And you don't need to be so fit if you don't have to hold the weight of your partner. Maybe you need to experiment more often if you can't come up with creative solutions without artificial aids. Maybe you can get a research grant?
Paris...because...wel it's bloody obvious, innit.
All very, very true. But there is a rather good interview (find it on YouTube) with Elon and his brother (who was a big investor in SpaceX too) where the brother says that the results of first few tests - which all ended in, errr, well, I believe Rapid Unscheduled Dissassembly is the current phrase - were almost cool enough to warrent the expenditure in their own right. And the expression on Elon's face suggests that he didn't quite see it that way ...
It got boring because the shuttles were manned so things had to be done more carefully. Then one exploded and things had to be done even more carefully. Then ... well, the Shuttle became a dead (sic) end.
It's the Astronauts fault really, as they wanted control - they didn't want to be "Spam in a Can".
not really, if I remember what I read correctly, it was the fault of the military, they wanted cross range so that forced the shuttle design on NASA if they wanted the funding..
It is a shame really, the latest ideas from NASA seem to be a natural progression from Apollo...
The fact that Astronauts wanted control has been an issue since the Redstone boosters. They are PILOTS not monkeys.
The Apollo Moon project actually benefitted from manual control on a couple of occasions as the automatic systems could not handle the rock field that the LEM was going to land in and they had to go to manual control. Docking the LEM to the main Apollo module was frequently done manually.
Later the shuttle had to be flown on manual control for landings several times due to weather.
If any of you remember, the shuttle only exploded because the O Ring seal on one of the solid fuel booster rockets failed, not because of manual pilot intervention.
However, those who know the sequence of events that day will say that a certain president was more concerned about a photo opportunity than safety and forced the launch when several engineers were dead set against it.
Neither was mine, the shuttle was "developed" as far as the "flying bathtub" 1960's design could go. The Military version (XB-37) is completely unmanned but aparently has room for a passenger. Go figure...but it is not a dead end, just a waypoint on the journey. There will be more shuttles.
The reason why the "Commercial" shuttle even has a cargo bay that size is due to the fact that the standard Poseidon ICBM on a US nuclear sub just fits in it. This was an offshoot of the "Starwars" program and I actually saw the "rack" for those missles already designed in CAD when I took my first CAD class at Bell Aerospace. The military influences many such designs.
However, there is no appreciable reason why a "rocket plane" design like the X15 or the SR-71 Blackbird could not work as a shuttle if the correct engines were utilized. All you need is the Time, Money and Will.
The problem is that there is no momentum to design anything like that until we have another world war.
"there is no appreciable reason why a "rocket plane" design like the X15 or the SR-71 Blackbird could not work as a shuttle if the correct engines were utilized. "
WTF are you talking about? The SR-71 was an air-breathing jet (admittedly it used exotic synthetic fuel). It wouldn't have a hope of working like a shuttle. Air breathing, not enough power, not enough fuel capacity, no re-entry protection, not strong enough, no payload.....I could go on and on. Basically you're talking rubbish. As for the X-15....all the above problems and more but worse (except for air breathing).
If you want a more detailed riposte go and ask your question on the PPRUNE forum and see how long you last
Personally I think you're a 13-year old kid without a clue
Well they're obviously doing something right, with 16 Falcon 9 launches in 4 years so far, and 10 more this year.
10 more scheduled, there's bound to be slippage on some of them unfortunately. On the other hand the two launch abort tests for the crew Dragon and the Falcon Heavy demo flight don't appear to be included in that count.
Lockheed and Boeing are also now talking about their ULA Atlas and Delta replacement heading towards reusability, although also going for the FUD about how many times a stage needs to fly before it's cheaper to reuse than expend. Interestingly they've got a press conference due half an hour before the Falcon launch...
"how many times a stage needs to fly before it's cheaper to reuse than expend. "
I would say that the answer is 2... Or will be once it becomes the norm. Although I would love to see them be able to do it with the possibility of all stages being able to land softly (apart or together) so that once you hit lift-off, you are no longer forced into one of two results : Launch goes perfectly or something goes wrong and you have to go recruit a couple more astronauts...
"I also look forward to seeing them get a manned capsule working."
Isn't it already effectively man-ready but it's just that it has to be "proven" with multiple un-manned successful uses first? Then again, they've not tried landing one yet. Or have they? Wow! There's so much exciting stuff going on with space stuff these days I'm losing track of it all!
Isn't it already effectively man-ready but it's just that it has to be "proven" with multiple un-manned successful uses first?
John Brown (no body),
No. The SpaceX Dragon capsule isn't man rated. And I don't think it ever could be. It's just designed to get the dinner up to the ISS. Only half the capsule is even pressurised and heated.
The one they showed at the end of last year is the Dragon 2. Perhpas they should have called it Double Dragon...
Anyway there are several things that you need to do to get man-rating. You need extra redundencies built in. I believe the Falcon rocket (and ESA's Arianne) meet the requirements, not sure if either have bothered with the paperwork yet. You also need a history of successful launches, which Falcon has obviously done pretty well at building.
Next you need an escape tower, to get the capsule away from the launchpad in case of a pad fire. SpaceX aren't proposing to have one of these. As the Dragon2 will have fast-start multi-use engines for driving around in space and for landing, they propose to use those instead. So that will save a bit of cash, and should be no less safe.
Obviously they'll have to build the Dragon2 and do some test orbits, to prove it's safe. And then get it man-rated. And then prove it can safely dock with the ISS. And then prove that it can survive in orbit for a decent length of time (I think 6 months is what Soyuz is rated for), as the ISS team who use it to get up there keep it as a lifeboat (and to go home in).
The Dragon2 is also supposed to be re-usable, and lands on engine power on land, rather than parachuting into the water. And it's also designed to be able to land on the Moon or Mars. If it all works as planned, it'll be a very capable space exploration workhorse. Elon Musk does not lack ambition. But then he also seems to keep meeting the engineering tests he sets himself. It's deeply impressive.
In 5-10 years time he's looking to have his own space base in Texas, the Falcon 9 re-usable booster to get to the ISS and launch satellites, plus the Falcon Heavy, which will be almost as big as a Saturn V - and so could launch flights to the Moon - or new ISS or Mars-ship modules. Falcon Heavy will be made up of several Falcon 9s, and will almost all be able to land back at Texas after launch to be reused. Except the ones that go further, which he plans to land on his barges (and also re-use. Plus he'll have a re-usable man-rated capsule that can land at Texas too, and so doesn't get all contaminated with horrible seawater, and has the ability to be launched direct to the Moon, and be it's own lunar lander too. Plus you could use Falcon Heavy to launch bits of a ship to go to Mars (or an asteroid), assemble them in orbit, and send some Dragon capsules along to use as the shuttles.
FYI, one of the ex-ISS Dragons is at the Kennedy Space Center visitor's center, next to the "space shop" for a limited time, next to the Orion capsule & Dreamchaser mockups.
I'm hoping the weather stays clear until 4:30 so I can see things. The last attempt was at night, so I got to see the huge plume of the stage reignition.
"Anvil clouds....."
I never thought of it before, but in reality Florida must be a really stupid place to launch from. Whenever I've been there (admittedly much further north than Canaveral) theres been a better than even chance of a thunderstorm mid-afternoon. Must be really frustrating for all involved