-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch: CRS-10. Making history (again).
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
Trickster
Member
Just gotta invent anti gravity propulsion
phatmike128
Member
Man, 13 seconds. Was so pumped for this.
Nostremitus
Member
Damn... Aborted...
I stayed up to watch it...
I stayed up to watch it...
phatmike128
Member
I think he said 9:38, 23 minutes earlier. That is at the earliest.
In other words, never.
Oops, wasn't paying close enough attention.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Can someone explain why we should care about these Space-x launches?
phatmike128
Member
Elon Musk‏ @elonmusk
All systems go, except the movement trace of an upper stage engine steering hydraulic piston was slightly odd. Standing down to investigate.
All systems go, except the movement trace of an upper stage engine steering hydraulic piston was slightly odd. Standing down to investigate.
Each launch is a step closer to Mars. And even beyond that cheap space flight benefits human kind in numerous ways.
SpaceX are attempting to push spaceflight into the sort of renewable direction that would make it more like flying in a modern jet than getting fired out of a one-use cannon into a one-use net.
Cannons and nets are expensive. So are jets. But if you can use a jet 50 times then it's a lot cheaper to do that than buying a new cannon every time.
Reducing the cost of spaceflight is an absolute necessity for the long term existence of our species.
PdotMichael
Banned
After killing any space rocket and spacecraft replacement program in the last decade, this is like the only option for the USA to fulfil any future goals in space.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
The space shuttle also did this. Are SpaceX's rockets less limited to low Earth orbit?
The space shuttle did NOT have it's boosters land vertically on a landing pad after launch.
The space shuttle was way more expensive to launch. 450m per mission with almost 23 tons of payload, the falcon 9 25 tons with 61m.
The space shuttle dropped its boosters on ascent... SpaceX is trying to land and re-use them.
Trickster
Member
SpaceX rockets don't have nearly the same limitations that the space shuttle did. The Falcon 9 rockets could carry 4 tons of cargo to mars if they wanted too, according to the specs on their website.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
A lot less limited then. Look forward to seeing what kind of stuff will be done with them, since I don't have much faith in NASA projects. Their funding and government oversight makes it feel like any project could be killed off at any point, and recently administrations haven't cared all that much about it.
Obviously what SpaceX is doing and the shuttle are very different, I was referring to the reusability aspect. Prior to the shuttle nothing was reused. With the shuttle the main vehicle was reused and the boosters were lost. SpaceX is going a step further.
This kind of attitude forces accidents.
Weather. its a bitch
The shuttle and boosters were indeed reused but the costs to do so were huge. Not helped by the boosters splashing down in the sea.
With the F9 they can put a larger payload into orbit but the booster is not reused, or you can put slightly less in orbit and the booster is landed and refurbed, and at a lower cost because it lands.
In the months and years to come we'll see the Falcon Heavy testing (double+ the payload weight of F9), Dragon capsule testing (for manned landing on Mars), and new engine testing.
I suspect space elevators will eventually be built. Even with much better launch vehicles, SSTO's etc they would be much better for transferring large amounts of cargo.
PdotMichael
Banned
Ground based launches will forever stay limited.
You can't ignore the incredible amount of energy necessary to leave the earth orbit. Though automation and space mining in combination with space stations and moon bases will reduce the need of ground based launches massively.
You can't ignore the incredible amount of energy necessary to leave the earth orbit. Though automation and space mining in combination with space stations and moon bases will reduce the need of ground based launches massively.
cebri.one
Member
That is precisely what ULA and BO seem to be going for. You need 7km/s to reach LEO, after that everything becomes much easier.
If only NASA realized this and use SLS for helping stablishing a Cislunar self sustaining economy instead of pursuing a plan which will inevitably led to the cancelation fo the whole program.
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
Still need ground launches to assemble all of that and a whole load of them. Having reusable rockets to do that with would shrink the cost of establishing dramatically.
cebri.one
Member
Yeah, no doubt at the early stage they'll depend on the material launched from the ground. But eventually, using resources in-situ and modern manufacturing tecnhologies like 3D printing, it won't be necessary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxftPmpt7aA
e.j. ACES, the 2nd stage of the new Vulcan rocket, can be refueled in Space and carry cargo around cislunar space. You just need to get some water and obtain H and O2, although the process is not simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi-HStWyk84
I am speaking from a position of total ignorance here, but wouldn't the 3d "toner" or whatever its called have a similar weight?
paradise_circus
Member
3D printing allows to fabricate bone like structures which can save a large amount of material. Bones are denser packed where most of the load is and around joints it looks somehow like this.
The ESA had a nice TED talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbAac9DxM1I
edit: I'm not sure if spacex is using 3d printing like I mentioned though.
cebri.one
Member
Yes, but apart from the mass of the payload, which is key. You have to take also into account the volume. The size of current satellites, interplanetary probes, landers, etc... are limited by the size of the fairings.
Atlas 5 Fairing
Curiosity Rover almost maxing out the size of the fairing.
So we could greatly reduce one of the limitations of current technologies.
However the really neat thing would be to get the printing materials from raw resources of the moon, asteroids, etc.
Jezbollah
Member
Morning Grug. Considering it's 04:49 ET and Falcon 9 has gone vertical at LC-39A I think "no news is good news"
Morning Grug. Considering it's 04:49 ET and Falcon 9 has gone vertical at LC-39A I think "no news is good news"
02/19/2017 09:54
Ground crews have raised th 213-foot-tall Falcon 9 rocket at launch pad 39A as today's launch time is now less than six hours away.
Live: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/10/pad-39a-mission-status-center/
Morning Grug. Considering it's 04:49 ET and Falcon 9 has gone vertical at LC-39A I think "no news is good news"
Nice.
It will be 12:39 am here in Brisbane, Australia but I'm staying up for it.
Jezbollah
Member
Hmm, if they abort today, when is the next launch window?
Jezbollah
Member
Next launch window will be on Tuesday (time to be confirmed)
bobnowhere
Member
Crap I'm early, it's an hour away.
Queenslanders and their refusal to embrace daylight savings!
Preaching to the choir buddy. It does my head in too.
Jezbollah
Member
haha. I have mates in Brissie and they say the same thing about daylight savings
T-1hr - terminal countdown has started. Currently raining at the launch site - weather is no-go but is expected to clear up for the launch.
Second stage TVC (throttle vector control) parts were replaced, so weather is the only thing holding back the launch.
NASA coverage is already live - SpaceX coverage will start with 20 mins to go.
T-1hr - terminal countdown has started. Currently raining at the launch site - weather is no-go but is expected to clear up for the launch.
Second stage TVC (throttle vector control) parts were replaced, so weather is the only thing holding back the launch.
NASA coverage is already live - SpaceX coverage will start with 20 mins to go.
- Status