/sci/ - Science & Math

Looking forward to it.

Don't get your hopes up for the recovery, though. They have low propellant margin for recovery on this demanding launch (the first Falcon 9 launch beyond Earth orbit), so they'll be doing minimal recovery burns.

>>7055812
Isn't the sat super light though, so they will have more fuel than normal?

>>7055806
lel'd

>>7055818
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/02/07/new-challenges-await-spacexs-next-rocket-landing-attempt/
My understanding is that they are boosting to a higher speed before separating, and doing only two burns rather than three this time.

Even if the last landing had succeeded, trying it this way would be an important development step. This is closer to the final way it should work.

Live coverage

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/02/07/dscovr-mission-status-center/

>>7055806
Should've turned on SAS.

Why does that thing look like but has a gigantic dong

>>7055806
what game is this

>>7056038
Kerbal Space Program.

Although, just to be clear, that's the real landing video of the first Falcon 9 barge landing attempt, with the KSP interface superimposed over it.

Bumping for awareness. Three and a half hours until the launch.

Become part of the history.
>>Where were you when the first orbital rocket booster landed like a Buck Rogers space ship, and everything started to change?
>I was discussing it on the site where I mostly used to masturbate to drawings of loli dickgirls vomiting on their fathers, but that day, we were watching rockets on the site where people mostly used to look at cats doing funny things.

>>7055784
So they're finally launching DSCOVR, a satellite with a very storied history. DSCOVR was ready to launch years ago aboard the space shuttle, but Bush cancelled the launch right after he got elected. It remained in storage for a decade.

http://www.universetoday.com/118310/politics-kept-a-mission-in-cold-storage-for-10-years/

DSCOVR might even definitively show that the radiation leaving earth is less than the radiation entering earth and that the radiation leaving earth is steadily decreasing. This would make an indisputable case for climate change.

>>7056002
cuz it's gonna fuck ET's mom

>>7056435
>http://www.universetoday.com/118310/politics-kept-a-mission-in-cold-storage-for-10-years/
Politics created the mission. It has been called "GoreSat".

Supposedly impartial reviews of the science have produced conclusions that it was and wasn't just a PR exercise.

>DSCOVR might even definitively show that the radiation leaving earth is less than the radiation entering earth and that the radiation leaving earth is steadily decreasing. This would make an indisputable case for climate change.
Unlikely, considering that it will only watch one side of the Earth, and therefore won't be able to see all of the radiation leaving Earth.

It's a leftover from a time when there was an effort to turn NASA into a global warming movement propaganda machine. NASA's always been a propaganda machine, I mean, the Apollo program flag-planting exercise certainly didn't have any practical purpose. However, this was a shot at turning it into a partisan propaganda machine.

Launching this obsolete probe isn't a science mission, it's a middle finger from Obama to the Republicans.

2hr to launch bump

>>7056470
Politically speaking, at the moment it's more of a proving-ground type mission for SpaceX. The Air Force hasn't fully qualified them for DoD launches yet so they set them up with a low-priority mission with very specific orbital insertion requirements to see how they perform.

yay for space

>>7056656
Kind of reminds me of the Interstellar Ranger

>>7055784
>Let's hope they make the barge landing this time around
Am I the only one who's hoping for another SpaceX fail?

>>7056667

i was at cosmodrome drinking hydrazine when boris calls,
"Antares is kill"
"no"

>>7056667
>i too want to see musk fail

>>7056667
what the fuck happened to her

>>7056683
>what the fuck happened to her
she got old, son.

>>7056680
ayyyyy! Hope we see some SpaceX Rapid Unplanned Disassembly tonight!

>>7056676
Oh man, that just reeks of desperation.

This from a company founded in a double-bailout after both (competing) parent companies utterly failed to meet their cost targets even with substantial development subsidies, and had to be merged into a heavily-subsidized cartel to survive, and since then haven't developed squat.

>>7055806
It's much better with sound

>>7055806
>No KIA

less than one hour to wait
>ladies and gentlemen, place your bets please.

>>7056720
>launch cancelled due to winds

>>7056656
this too will be a fun mission. This reentry test vehicle will launch on Vega on the Wednesday the 11th.

>>7056720
>tfw Dragon V2's heat shield is better than Orion's

>>7056691
worse, ULA was a shotgun marriage when both Boeing and Lockheed were discovered to have stolen sensitive technology from each other. It was less embarrassing to make them one company than to settle the lawsuits.

>>7056710
blame Max

>>7056656
really looking forward to this one, this combined with reusable 2 stage rockets will really get the cost down.
I hope they get out of the test fase soon and start building one for passengers.

>>7056743
Dream Chaser was our closest hope but that's not funded anymore.

>>7056743
>>7056744
Dragon V2 is under development for NASA, first manned flight may happen as early as 2017.

>>7056744
the wiki page doesnt agree with you.

>>7056744
maybe euos fly it on the new ariane... they doing some "studies" so who knows

>>7055806
[X] dying

>>7056749
>>7056751
Clarification: SpaceX and Boeing are in CCtCap for crew transport, Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser) missed out but still receives funding under CCiCap and can hope to work with NASA in the future.

how long after launch will the landing attempt be?

>>7056804
9 minutes.

>>7056804
not much

youtube stream's starting up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWlnkVK5xpQ&ab_channel=SpaceX

>>7056804
If ti works, SpaceX will know within 30 min of launch. Likely to be announced right away.

If it doesn't work, SpaceX will know in same time but unlikely to announce success/failure until much later.

>>7056373
Saved for posterity. Will frame if you're correct.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

KSP OST BOYS

twitter.com/elonmusk

Rocket reentry will be much tougher this time around due to deep space mission. Almost 2X force and 4X heat. Plenty of hydraulic fluid tho.

yeay time for SpaceX waiting music

fuck, how long before take off?
I need to go to sleep, fucking euro time.

Daytona Beach here (1hour driving north of the cape). I'll try to get a pic of the rocket trail.

>>7056829
20 min for launch

30 for landing

>>7056823
>Plenty of hydraulic fluid tho.
Yeah, but there's no boostback burn this time. Just supersonic-retro and the hoverslam.
This means that for the control back to the ASDS, the first stage is completely reliant on aerodynamic control from the grid fins.

It's got more hydraulic fluid, but it needs to use more too.

ROC

ROC

GODDAMNIT ROC

>>7056830
Test pic

Somebody wake up the range controller

>>7056683

Most child actors become far worse when they get older.

>>7056841
>Playing KSP on console

T-10 minutes

There's an issue they are trying to solve apparently http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36580.120

>>7056839
Good work anon, please post that here after the launch.
Remember to fully enjoy it before, though!

>>7056852
Did Chris forget to restrict forum access?

>>7056839
I wish you a happy hunting camera-bro.


Oh noes range radar has issues!

>>7056857
It's not in the L2 section.

>>7056857
they did a server update, so for the moment servers are still ok

Marcia Smith
#DSCOVR working two issues: range radar problem and transmitter on F9 first stage

Damn.

>>7056863
Sometimes the admins will close access to ALL forums during heavy traffic. (happened during Antares crash)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36580.120
>XP screenshots

The stream on youtube seems a little bit choppy

FUCK

NO GO

SELL TESLA STOCK

Was that a no go for launch?

>>7056866
twitter where

>>7056860
>Oh noes range radar has issues!
Fuck. I was thinking a few minutes ago, perfect weather, vehicle is behaving, "what if something SpaceX isn't responsible for breaks?" Fucking range radar. I hope it didn't catch fire again.

Boca Chica can't come soon enough.

ABORT

damnit can they not get it right

:(

>>7056881
Range radar is USAF's responsibility.

I know the next launch window is tomorrow, does anyone know what time (UTC)?

Scrubbed for the day.

>>7056879
Is it possible they could put the launch back on track if the range radar stops having issues? They haven't dumped fuel yet

>scrubbed for today
fug

GET READY LADS

>>7056890
"Instantaneous launch window"

They launch at 6:10:12 PM or they don't launch.

>>7056887
>Range radar is USAF's responsibility.
Lemma teach ya for suin' us. Set fire to our own radar, hah!
>>7056890
No, the launch windows is instantaneous for L2 insertion.

>>7056890
no, the launch window was instantaneous

>>7056888
"tomorrow evening"

>>7056890
No. They had a 1-second instantaneous launch window at 6:10PM EST.

>>7056890
nope, instantaneous launch window.

why don't they fix stuff and then launch?

>scrubbed

>>7056887
there was also a problem with first stage avionics apparently

>>7056902

like my life

>>7056895
> L2
I mean L1

I'm sick and tired of always having reason to post this image

Well, at least it didn't blow up.

>>7056901
because Earth isn't facing the right way anymore

>>7056893
slowpoke.exe

>>7056893
NVM

Elon Musk @elonmusk · 1m 1 minute ago
Air Force tracking radar went down. Launch postponed to same time tomorrow.

>US Air Force in charge of not fucking up

>>7056909
it was chairforce's fault this time. But hey, at least they didn't go antares.

L3 never

>>7056918
Ironic considering the Air Force is certifying SpaceX.

Daytona Beach anon here.

Weather was clear for taking a picture. The clouds coming in tomorrow, if launch is go, will be a hindrance. BTW, I am just using the in back camera in my Nexus 10.

I was in Florida on holiday back in July with my family. We visited Kennedy and were excited to see a launch was planned. We were less excited that a launch had been planned every day for the past several months.

I wonder if this is the same rocket that still isn't launching.

>>7056918
>same time tomorrow
>late shift finally pays off

Why do you need radar for a rocket launch?

>>7056931
Make sure it doesn't head for the White House

>>7056931
To track the rocket?

>>7056931
>Know if the rocket is in the right place at the right speed
>telemetry downlink
>FTS ('blow it up if shit happens') uplink

why do they give an insanely small window of time to launch the thing

>>7056935
Couldn't you use GPS?

>>7056937
A lot of that seems like radio features not radar.

>>7056925
It isn't, just in case you're not joking. This was the first attempt.

>>7056938
>orbital mechanics

>>7056941
Need redundancy

>>7056925
nope lol, different rocket and have you ever heard of launch windows? Shit play more KSP.

spacex must be run by a bunch of assholes

>>7056938
This isn't a walk to the grocery store

Orbital insertions are very precise

Especially to langaragang points- it takes like 100 days for DISCOVR to make it there

>>7056948
This wasn't SpaceX, their rocket was fine.

Air Force fucked up on this one.

>yfw you waited a whole day for nothing

>>7056955
*airforce
apologies

Meanwhile at the ISS...

>>7056941
They don't want big muskie going "aloha snackbar" and guiding the rocket to disneyland or the whitehouse.

>>7056962
I don't think this one is heading for the ISIS

>>7056969
Of course, just commenting on the change to the ISS video.

>So uh.. we can't buy rockets from you until you can prove you are reliable
>Like your radar?

>$61.2m per launch up in smoke

Is Tesla really doing that well?

>Another FUCKING FAIL

Fuck SpaceX, fuck that smug shithead Musk. And fuck all these idiotic fanboys.

>>7056977
Read the thread. This was Air Force's fuck up.

BUT, I can see it was successful at putting blame on SpaceX, their goal after all.

>>7056977
ULA go home

>>7056973

b-but it didn't explode

>>7056984
Every launch costs $61.2m

>>7056962
I can't feel my legs! Please help. It's been a month and I still can't feel my legs! My legs, I can't feel them, HELP. Seriously, when are you gonna fix my legs!

Why'd you give me legs if I can't even use them humans. WHY??

>>7056995
link?

>>7056989
And they get paid enough to make some profit.

>>7056989
even scrubbed launches they can keep fueled?

>>7056989

>>7056934
9/11/1986, never forget when terrorists with boxcutters took over the space shuttle and flew it to New York.

>>7057001
my legs. Please send help.

https://clapway.com/2015/01/05/issues-occur-after-nasa-robot-is-unpacked123/

>>7056977
orbital pls go

>>7056977
US Congress plz go

>>7056977
common sense, american taxpayers, anti-shill... please go!

Imagine the Apollo rockets,and being able to reuse them like spacex wants to do so.

>>7057318
Now you're imagining the next generation of SpaceX rockets, powered by Raptor, fueled with cheap LNG, and with the upper stage as well as the lower stage reusable.

>>7057333
How LNG?

>>7056947
In KSP you would get your shit to orbit first. Then set a manouver node, cause no trajectory planning before liftoff. Then discover there is no L1.

GG, k bye

>>7057366
>How LNG?
What are you asking?

LNG is Liquefied Natural Gas, which ranges from mostly to purely methane. SpaceX is saying "methane", so presumably rocket-grade LNG is not going to have a lot of heavier hydrocarbons, but there are impulse density advantages to having some, so who knows?

Methane and oxygen have very similar melting points, and you need a roughly equal volume of each for rocket propellant, so maybe you can even use identical tanks, further simplifying the design of your rocket.

Methane's kind of a funny middle ground, in a way it has the advantages of both kerosene and hydrogen, which is why it's being developed for use in the future, and in a way it has the disadvantages of both, which is why it hasn't been used in the past.

>>7056977

SLS fanboy pls go

>>7057566
He was probably asking how LoNG to next gen spaceX

>>7057577
I mean how can we use propane to launch rockets?

>>7057577
but, it would be nice to know that as well*

>>7057597
LNG is Liquefied Natural Gas: methane, not propane.

LPG is Liquefied Petroleum Gas: what is commonly called "propane" (although it often has quite a lot of butane in it as well).

LPG would work fine as a rocket fuel too. It's just shorter-chain hydrocarbons than the kerosene which is the current standard for hydrocarbon rocket fuel. Interestingly, propane has a very wide range between its melting point and boiling point, so it is liquid at the same temperature as liquid oxygen. It also has the safety advantage that if you have to dump it, it vaporizes, inside of splashing down on the ground and making a burning puddle below.

Do you understand that liquid-fuelled rockets are generally bipropellants, with a fuel and an oxidizer? There are a lot of options for the fuel, although relatively few decent oxidizers. The current standards are kerosene (like jet fuel, but a higher grade) with liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen with liquid oxygen, and UDMH (unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine) or MMH (monomethyl hydrazine) with NTO (dinitrogen tetroxide).

>>7057611
Alright. How expensive is oxygen\ compared other oxidizers? What are the disadvantages for the others?

>>7057611
>>7057597
Incidentally, the propane (for BBQs) and nitrous oxide (for cars) you could go out and buy tomorrow make a pretty good rocket propellant combination together. They're what the new Dream Chaser engines will use, if they ever manage to find funding.

>>7057649
Oxygen's super cheap, non-toxic, and gives the best performance short of fluorine. Basically, you just liquefy and distill air. Very straightforward. Hobbyists have done it. However, it's a cryogenic liquid, so you've got all of the awkwardness of handling liquid nitrogen, plus the troublesome quality of forming dense explosive mixtures with anything combustable, including things like greasy fingerprints. Really, it's the only thing that makes the slightest bit of sense with liquid hydrogen (except, again, fluorine, which is ultra-nasty and expensive).

NTO's also cheap, except handling it is expensive because it's horribly toxic. It's liquid at room temperature. This is the stuff they react with water to make nitric acid, so yeah... it's nasty. Gives pretty good specific impulse. It's hypergolic (means it reacts instantly on contact) with energetic fuels like UDMH and MMH, which simplifies the engine design considerably. You could use it with kerosene, but nobody bothers. NTO/MMH is the standard now for space-storable fuel, since both components are liquid at room temperature, and won't boil off to nothing if stored for long periods of time. The Apollo spacecraft used 50-50 instead of MMH, which was a 50% mixture of UDMH and true hydrazine, which gets a little better performance than UDMH.

Fuming nitric acid (red or white) has also been used, mostly in missiles. It has a lower melting point than NTO, so it's easier to use in battlefield conditions. But other than that, it's bitch to handle because of how corrosive it is (NTO isn't, unless you get water in it, which makes acid).

Hydrogen peroxide (near-pure stuff, not the dilute kind you buy at the drug store) is also pretty cheap, and much less toxic than NTO. But it's more energetic and less stable. Gives really good density impulse with kerosene, but middling specific impulse. Has attracted a lot of interest, but not seen much use.

>>7057668
Nitrous oxide is similar to hydrogen peroxide. It's less reactive (which makes it easier to handle), but it also doesn't have hydrogen peroxide's high heat capacity. It's mostly used in pressure-fed hybrid rockets, which have solid fuel (a tube of rubber or plastic, which the nitrous oxide is blown into, over a catalyst bed that causes it to decompose into very hot nitrogen and oxygen).

With either nitrous oxide or hydrogen peroxide, you tend to use a lot of oxidizer and a little fuel. For just about any combination, most of the propellant mass will be oxidizer, but N2O and H2O2 are even more that way. That's where hydrogen peroxide's high heat capacity comes in handy, since you can use it to cool the engine. If you try to rely on the fuel for this, there just isn't enough. However, in more conventional propellant combinations, it's usually the fuel that's used for engine cooling. With nitrous oxide, it's just awkward, with little fuel and an oxidizer which too easily overheats and explodes, which is one of the reasons it's not used more.

>>7057668
>Fuming nitric acid
also tends to make corrosive pink clouds when things go wrong

Pic related, one of china's rocket mishaps, killed and injured several technicians when they rushed into the clouds to shut off the fuel valves.

>>7057739
How well do they get paid in China for China?

Do they have a comfy Chinese middle class life?

>>7057801
paid in china for Chinese*

are they trying again today?

>>7058212
Yes, 18:07 EST / 23:07 UTC

>>7058227
How long?

>>7058228
what?

>>7058246
How long is it until then?

>>7058247
~8 hours and half

>>7058250
i thought its tuesday

>>7056676
I don't think this is real.

It's Tuesday now

>>7056902

>>7058317
>DANGER
>ERECTION

So when will we get comercial flights to space?

>>7058459
2020s

When will space x be building their next gen rockets?

>>7058475
2020s

>>7058227
so, 6:07 est today?

>>7058481
delayed until the 2020s... no, tomorrow.

>>7058474
I can live with that.

>>7058478
That's too late.

>>7058485
Oh, okay.

>>7058490
Well, by "next gen" I assumed you meant the Raptor/MCT. If you were referring to the Falcon Heavy it's later this year.

>>7058490
>That's too late.
Too late for what?

They're already developing the next-gen rocket, starting with the engines. To actually get them flying, they'll need a new factory, new launchpads, new test facilities, etc. And they're still both learning how to do things like fly boosters back, and getting regulatory support for such activities.

They haven't even flown the Falcon Heavy yet, and this is 2015. Of course it's going to be a few years before they actually fly another generation of their rockets.

>>7057739
Sure looks nasty.

They cancelled again, better luck tomorrow.

Daytona Beach here. Weather is overcast with a very slight rain. Picture is looking toward the general direction of the cape. Forecast in my area says it is clearing up over the week. So pictures possible if launch is go the next few days.

>>7058325
Thanks, airforce.

NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Air Force and SpaceX issued the following statement Monday:

The next launch attempt for the DSCOVR mission will now be Tuesday, Feb. 10, at 6:05 p.m. EST with a backup launch opportunity on Wednesday, Feb 11 at 6:03 p.m. Weather for an attempt on Monday, Feb 9 is unfavorable. If that attempt were to scrub for weather, we would lose either the Tuesday or Wednesday launch opportunity due to crew rest requirements for the Air Force.

>>7058714
How much staff does the USAF need to monitor this launch?

>>7059101
the chairforce needs anybody it can get

>>7059101
I don't know, but I do know they're organized for occasional launches, not frequent ones.

This is one of the reasons SpaceX wants their own launch facilities.

>>7059167
Srsly, this looks more like a labor union stuff, than an enthusiastic science stuff.

>>7059167
>This is one of the reasons SpaceX wants their own launch facilities.
For decades, it has been the norm to bill the customer (US taxpayers) for any delays.
Now we are dealing with a private company!!

>>7059101
Probably because they like the idea that they can launch six spy satellites for the price of one,and they don't want something bad to go wrong.

Launch tonight get hype

What is spacex? Could look it up but answers will bump the thread.

>>7060101
hoho boy, you are one of today's lucky 10,000

read this: http://www.vox.com/cards/private-space-flight/spacex-dragon

then this: http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/the-elon-musk-interview-on-mars/

less than 6 hours left!

>GET HYPE

x marks the spot

Which is a bigger concern for people folks like the air force?

The cost of launches or the cost of what's being launched?

>>7060711
Cost of launches

>>7060711
This is kind of a chicken and egg question.

Because the launches are expensive, there is limited motivation and limited opportunity to control costs on the payloads. If you fail to get the most out of your expensive launch, a cheap payload is false economy, and you can't afford to do a lot of experiments, so you have to (very expensively) make sure things will work without testing them in space.

So in the short term, reducing launch costs doesn't reduce total costs very much. But in the long term, after five or ten years, cheap launch costs will make the payloads cheaper.

This is part of why it's been so hard to get anyone to seriously reduce launch costs.

>>7060740
US government's face when they realize that Space x could get 810 launches for the price of 135 shuttle missions.

>>7060800

Stream is up
http://youtu.be/uq-ylPYwaA4

how much time between the launch and landing of the stage 1 part?
And will they actualy show it live or only after when it doesnt explode on touchdown?

>>7060830
9 minutes

it won't be live

>>7060834
pitty, i'm staying up for this (eu time)

>>7060840
I'm Moscow Time, stop being a pussy.

>>7060845
Bitch I'm singapore time get on my level

>>7060863
>>7060840
Probability of successful recovery is very low on this one.

They have hardly any excess propellant for the boost-back, so they're doing a minimal two-burn return attempt, rather than the three-burn return they did last time, and there's lots of wind shear today.

Maybe you should just be getting a good night's sleep. Plus we're all just going to be watching the recovery video after the fact, if there is any. We're only watching the launch live, and it's nothing new.

>>7060845
Good for you and dosvidania

>>7060878
No, if I don't watch it live, I won't be able to tell my grandchildren while I'm on Mars where I was when the spaceflight industry changed forever.

>>7060903
The problem is that the change is happening by incremental steps.

They've landed stages on test flights. They've brought stages to a hover sea level. They've made their first barge landing attempt and impacted on the target barge. Even if they stick the landing, the stage might not be in shape to reuse. Then there's going to be the first reflight of a landed stage. Then the first rapid reuse of a stage. Then the first rapid reuse of a stage and a capsule together.

Then there will be the next generation of vehicle, with a whole new set of firsts, including the first landing of an upper stage. While the partially-expendable Falcon 9/Heavy family is a significant step forward, it's not going to be revolutionary like the first fully and efficiently reusable launch vehicle, which might not even be SpaceX.

>>7060928
This is IMHO the most important of all the incremental changes.

Daytona Beach reporting in. Mostly cloudy looking toward the cape. Low probability of getting a good picture of the rocket trail.

Weather forecast shows upper level winds remain in red status, unlikely that they will change. Launch will more than likely not happen today

>>7055806

NASA DOES IT AGAIN

HOW MANY MILLIONS IN TAXPAYER MONEY WILL THEY PISS AWAY THIS YEAR?

ITS HIGH TIME BASED ELON TOOK OVER THIS FAILING AGENCY AND GET SPACE TRAVEL BACK ON THE RIGHT TRACK

>>7056470

>prove climate change is occurring
>prove that humans are responsible

these are two very different things m8.

>>7061020
>fuck

Can someone sticky this thread for free, please?

>>7061035
Better for space x to be patient and cancel today rather risk than destroying a vehicle like orbital sciences.

>>7061037
I second this

It makes me think- what board needs the least amount of moderation? Probably /diy/ or something

>>7061037
Why? It's a pretty unimportant event. Wasn't even in the news.

>>7061050
I'd say it is pretty important. It's a big step towards cheaper spaceflight if they stick the landing, and even if they don't its still progress.

>>7061050
>The importance of events is determined by the media.
Anon (2015)

>>7061037
no, it would be too embarrassing when the ScrubX launch is delayed yet again.

>>7061050

oh right and the hourly 'atheism versus religion' and hurr do my homework threads on here are just so fucking important

>>7061067
Noboyd is demanding a sticky for them.

>>7061073

which is why this should be stickied, so it can stay above all the bullshit threads

If high-level winds don't subside by T-15, then hold will be called at the T-13 readiness poll.

KSC countdown clock (for go/nogo poll timings):
http://countdown.ksc.nasa.gov/elv/

IIRC, limit is 30, and current upper-level windspeed is 31. Not looking good.

>dat porn music on the SpaceX stream

Daytona Beach here again. No good for taking a picture due to heavy clouds. Weather tomorrow should be much better for launch and reduced clouds.

>dem clouds moving that fast

no way they are launching in that weather

FUCK. Again.

Daamn.

Confirmed, no launch today.

LOL SKRUBT

Nooooo gooooo

Window tomorrow is at 2304 UTC, right?

Stupid atmosphere

WHAT A SURPRISE, NASA ONCE AGAIN FAILS TO DELIVER

Why not wait for the wind to die down? It's not even 23:04 yet

:(

>>7061117
wind speed is 151%, needs to be bellow 100%

>>7061125
Yeah and they could wait for it to die down. They called scrubbed before they'd given the wind a chance. They still had several minutes till the launch window.

>>7061117
Instantaneous launch window to reach L1.

JUST LAUNCH IT

BETTER THAT I GET TO SEE A ROCKET EXPLODE THAN NOTHING AT ALL

>>7061130
I suppose they can predict that kind of stuff precisely enough

In other news, SpaceX has made a deal for a landing pad at Cape Canaveral:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/02/10/54625/

So it's not going to be barge landings for much longer.

ScrubX

>>7061142
They're building another barge so it will probably be used: barge landings save payload compared to the return to launch site, especially for Falcon Heavy center core, so I suppose F9 or FH launching some "limit" payloads will use barges for landing.

>>7055784
by the way, the previous Dragon capsule has just left the ISS and will be splashing down in the Pacific in a few hours.

This would be a pretty eventful day for most aerospace companies! At SpaceX it's just another Tuesday.

>>7061169
Right on.

>>7061169
It's a pretty big day for SpaceX too. They're a long way from operations being totally routine for them.

Anyway, tomorrow's going to be interesting. We've got another attempt at this launch, and ESA's lifting body re-entry test vehicle is going up on a Vega.

>>7061147
lel

>>7061176
>ESA's lifting body re-entry test vehicle is going up on a Vega.
Oh shit, is it IXV time already?

>>7061193
prepare your body for an Italian dick-shaped rocket

VEGA

>>7061205
>VEGA
Distaste for soilid-propellants

>fuck yea yurop launch first

>>7061130
Weather prediction on timescales that short is actually really accurate.

>realize I'm an hour late
>panic, look for streams, can't find shit
>go to 4chan

thank god they aborted it again, almost missed it...

>>7061222
they're not bad for small launchers when you are using the technology for other things. The US got Minotaur out of their ICBM program (but Super Strypi got delayed to next year). They also did a whole lot of research and tech development using the old Scout launcher. Japan's Epsilon is repurposing the H-II boosters, and Vega is repurposing the Ariane 5 boosters.

>>7061315
You almost missed your chance to witness it being aborted live tomorrow.

is it possible to make home made model rockets at home in Australia? (STRICT regulations on everything)

>>7061504
>Australia

No fun allowed (™).
Authorized by the Australian Government, Canberra.

>>7061525
answered when i remove my post. why!!!

>>7061530
These regulations are designed to ensure your safety.

>Authorized by the Australian Government, Canberra.

How does Musk sleep at night?

>>7061222
But solid propellant is the shit for boosters and lower stages.
>Dem glorious towering smoke trails

new tries today.
>get hype vol. XVI

ESA IXV launch should already be streaming:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Launchers/IXV/Watch_IXV_launch

>>7062145
Stream's working here:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/02/10/vv04-mission-status-center/

http://www.arianespace.tv/

this is the better stream

SpaceX just announced that the waves are too high where the barge is stationed, and one of its four positioning thrusters has failed, so they are not going to attempt a barge landing today. Instead, it will just be a hoverslam into the ocean like previous attempts.

>>7062652
Thank you Air Force for not having a working radar when the weather was good.

>>7062652
That satellite has been in storage for 10 years waiting for launch! Why would they launch it today if the weather doesn’t allow a barge landing? I would think that testing the re-usability of the first stage is far more important than launching a decade-old satellite today instead of tomorrow.

>>7062652
lol fags

Less than 2 hours until launch. Rocket fueled up and on stream. http://www.patrick.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070716-028.pdf Weather looks to be a go.

Also, Daytona Beach guy again. Barely any clouds in sight. Weather is go for picture taking from my view.

>>7062747
Nobody cares anymore. They're not doing the landing today.

>>7062652
http://www.spacex.com/press/2015/02/11/dscovr-launch-update

LIVESTREAM WHERE

>>7062839
Just go to NASA TV. SpaceX stream 'starts' in about 40 minutes.

>>7062839
streams prolly not up yet, but
http://www.spacex.com/webcast/
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/

>>7062844
>>7062865
thanks

>>7062781
They're probably still going to land it like the first attempted landing. Splash down in the ocean right-side up.

>>7062881
Yeah, but they've done it before, the stage won't be recovered, and there's never going to be video of the landing.

It'll be interesting for the SpaceX engineers, who are getting detailed data to analyse on this two-burn re-entry, but for the rest of us, it'll just be a tweet from Elon tomorrow.

I hope there's another reason they delay it, so they can try when the weather's more decent.

>>7062888
>and there's never going to be video of the landing.

there's been videos of every landing so far tho

>>7062892
videos of ocean landings, nope.

also, why the f*** can't they postpone the launch if barge landing today is no-go.

>>7062902
you seem confused

http://youtu.be/uIlu7szab5I?t=31s

Cba making another thread about this so will ask this hear.

What do you think of the private space venture on the other side of the pond, Skylon.

>>7062713
The people who own the satellite. As much as we believe the cool/important thing about this launch is the barge recovery, SpaceX is actually being paid to launch DSCOVR.

And from that perspective, the important thing is to get the satellite launched. The attempt to reuse the launch vehicle is the thing that can wait. (If we really wanted to see a rocket land on a barge, we're free to pool our resources and buy a launch ourselves. That's pretty expensive if we don't have a payload to put on the rocket, which is why even Musk isn't crazy enough to do it. From his perspective, his job is to launch the satellite, and only after it's successfully deployed does he get to say "Hey! Free rocket!" and play with the launch vehicle as it returns to earth.)

>>7062908
Considering that all skylon has ever actual produced is a precooler prototype, I don't think much of them. Reaction Engines only intends on making the engines, so even if they succeed, they'll have to find companies willing to invest the billions it will take to build a space-worthy vehicle around the engine. I really hope they'll succeed, but I just can't see it happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvHJSIKP0Hg

juan minute, SpaceX stream

>>7062923
Why not nuclear powered scramjets for cargo?

>>7062906
ok, that was the first ocean landing i saw.

still, no reason to wait for calm seas vs calm winds. they should postpone the launch for 24h.

>>7062934
Due to the moon, a delay would push it to next week.

>>7062934
SpaceX is cranking new rockets out from its factory, and has a long backlog of payloads to put in orbit.

Much as they want to experiment with reusability, they HAVE TO increase their rate of putting payloads up.

>>7062922
The people who bought to launch this thing have waited for 10 years! They can wait for one more day if that is what it takes to attempt to land on the barge!

>>7062939
I almost want to hope for another delay but at that point it's only another week until eutelsat is supposed to go up. Then again I'm not sure if they can attempt a landing with that.

>>7062943
The dscovr team is probably losing a lot of money because they have to have their ground support team on stand by 24/7. Ground support for a big science mission like this involves a lot of people and logistics, so delays aren't cheap.

>TSLA price falling from the sky because elon wants to play with his rockets right now instead of holding Q4 call

Every time they do their precheck lists they sound exactly like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hooKVstzbz0

Today, ROC was not a faggot.

>>7062934
they are either pressured by the company or don't want to try it this time for other reasons.
Maybe they'll try and release the footage only if it's successful.
Maybe the cargo is too heavy for extra fuel.

>>7062943
There's 10 meter tall (about 30 feet) waves in the landing zone.

Postponing another day or two would not help that.

>>7062929
T-7m

>>7062967
>their launch window isn't a round number
my autism is tingling.

>>7062923
The cryogenic precooler is the really hard part. Once you have the air superchilled, compressing it for use in a rocket engine is not enormously difficult ('air' breathing rockets have been developed before using liquefied air).
The big question is whether a totally reusable SSTO air-breathing launcher can be chepaer than a partially-reusable (SpaceX aren't intend to start upper-stage reuse until BFR now) conventional rocket, and whether the ESA are willing to go big or go home in funding development, or are willing to wait until ULA unveil their engine-only-reuse design and copy that (they've publicly stated their goal of innovating and not following, but the ESA isn't that well funded at the moment).

Daytona Beach here. Ready.

>>7062975
is this close to the launch site?

>>7062975
Good luck.

>>7062982
An hour drive to the Cape. Can see the rocket trail from here.

Godspeed SpaceX.

3 minutes

Go

For

Launch

>>7062987
RIP

>>7062988
nice. take a vid and post it.

1 minute

Here we go

euphoria

>that sunset

God speed!

>camera on rocket

welp at least we got to see the first stage using its thrusters

>>7063010
That's normal. NASA being on top fucking form capturing stagesep, fairing sep, and FUCKING REENTRY ALIGNMENT BURNS from the ground cam is awesome

Holy shit NASA TV still has a lock on the first stage. Prepare for supersonic retro burn!

>>7063008
First stage: good bye, but well done! We will not see you landing on the barge!

>Elon's net worth increases

>>7063005
>>7063010
aw yeah! sunset/sunrise launches are the best!

the sunlight on the clouds of vapor pre-launch was also quite beautiful

Remember the first stage will still go full retro and hoverslam, just over a choppy ocean rather than a barge. We will probably still get some video, just maybe not live.

Whoo, tankcam!

Is Nasa TV showing anything different to the official livestream?

Official livestream is following stage 2

>>7063026
Tankcam is bestcam.

If you're watching the NASA TV feed, keep an eye for shots from inside SpaceX's control centre. The last time they attempted a stange landing, there were some shots from onboard the first stage during retro firing on the monitors visible

Almost waited too long before I went outside. I thought it would take longer for it to get high enough.

>>7063031
But not this time.

>>7063019
Thanks!! At least the weather was good at your location!

>>7063027
I didn't expect that.
Now I have 2 streams open.

>>7063027
http://dev.marshallbrekka.com/spacex.html
Courtesy one of the only tolerable places on reddit, /r/spacex

>>7063032
Whoops, quoted wrong post. Meant >>7063030
At least splashdown was confirmed, so there was live telemetry

>>7063030
They also had a few shots from inside the fuel tank, although they cut away pretty quickly whenever it showed up.

>>7063036
>/r/spacex
>tolerable
>not a homo convention
>not the aerospace equivalent of bill gates fans
plz die

>>7063026
>>7063029
Are the tanks pressurised? Or to put it another way, how do they keep fuel flowing in 0g?

>>7063042
CRS-5 had a LOT of nice tank-cam shots.
>>7063044
If you want simulation data from elsewhere, enjoy paying for L2 access.

I liked the zoomed in video following the rocket's ascent that was clear enough to see the fairing separation and some first stage orientation movements after separation.

>>7063046
Yes, they are pressurised, but that doesn't help in 0g. For that, you need ullage motors.

0g fuel flow is a MASSIVE BITCH, and a whole field of study in it's own right.

Congrats spacex

Can't wait for the next CRS flight with a barge attempt

Creating webm now.

>>7062987
so, when is the next landing attempt?

>>7063052
>Ullage motors

Thanks man.

>>7063065

Apparently CRS-6 which will be around April 8th. I think a non-landing mission will occur prior to that in the meantime.

>>7063046
0) Ullage Motors!
1) Fire Ullage motors.
2) Move everything in your ship, including your fuel moves towards the bottom.
3) Now that everyting is at the bottom, we can fire the engines.
4) Fire the engines. The space ship moves forward, and the fuel remains at the bottom of the tank.
5) The rocket flies just like in the cartoons.

>>7062974
>The cryogenic precooler is the really hard part.
They've only demonstrated part of the cryogenic precooler, on a non-flight-weight system, stationary at ground level. Rather than using subcooled liquid hydrogen as the heat sink and a flight-weight heat engine to remove the heat to it, they are simply dumping the heat into an open vat of liquid nitrogen.

They have a long way to go before it's established that it can be relied on in a real, reusable vehicle.

Furthermore, while this is the hardest part of the engine, the whole vehicle doesn't become easy to develop just because you have the engine. If you accept the assumptions the Skylon crew have been making in concluding Skylon will work, it becomes a mystery why nobody has built an SSTO yet with conventional rockets.

>Once you have the air superchilled, compressing it for use in a rocket engine is not enormously difficult ('air' breathing rockets have been developed before using liquefied air).
It's really not a rocket engine, but a jet/ramjet engine. The air will only be chilled, not liquefied, so they will have to compress it with a gas-phase turbine and accept a much lower combustion chamber pressure, and it can't chill enough air to combust with the hydrogen used to chill it, even with subcooled liquid hydrogen, therefore there is a conventional ramjet side duct where much of the hydrogen will be burned.

>The big question is whether a totally reusable SSTO air-breathing launcher can be chepaer than a partially-reusable (SpaceX aren't intend to start upper-stage reuse until BFR now) conventional rocket
The BFR will fly long before Skylon, if Skylon ever flies at all. The only way Skylon could win would be if the BFR just didn't work. Not that a SABRE-based vehicle would necessarily be unable to compete, but the specific Skylon design is a rather inefficient one, taking all of that unnecessary mass to orbit and back.

AAARRRGGHHH HOW DO I REMOVE THE AUDIO SO I CAN UPLOAD THE WEBM.

>>7063101
Right click > mute audio?

Or settings > sound options

I think....

Successful second burn and payload separation according to twitter.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

>>7063019
thanks for the shots, Daytona. Beautiful launch, eh?

>>7063110
Yeah. I could see the light of the engines which are not captured in the pictures.

>>7063081
Yup. Eutelsat has gotten an OLD core without the leg mounting points (let alone grid-fins), one that kept getting passed up in favour of testing the newer cores.
After that is Jason 3, which is from the West coast (and the ASDS isn't ready there yet).

>>7063089
>The BFR will fly long before Skylon, if Skylon ever flies at all.
I don't think BFR will be coming anytime soon. Raptor is still in the early test stages, and Musk seems to be going full N-1 with a crazy-ass multi-engine design (20+ for the first stage alone).

>>7063089
There's also the use of SABRE for a suborbital design. In the current climate it would go the same way Concord did, but if emission regulations continue to tighten on kerosene turbofan driven aircraft, it might bring the playing field up to where a passenger Skylon is competitive.

>>7063101
how did you get audio in the webm to begin with?

"Rocket soft landed in the ocean within 10m of target & nicely vertical! High probability of good droneship landing in non-stormy weather."

-Elon's Latest tweet


This bodes well for the future!

More importantly, DSCOVR is on a nominal injection to L1.

>>7063136
Took video with my tablet (Nexus 10) so it was saved as an mp4. with sound from the mics.

Good olde SUPER media converter. It may have some malware with it, but it works.

>>7063144
I use this for webm's.

https://github.com/WebMBro/WebMConverter

>>7063130
>I don't think BFR will be coming anytime soon. Raptor is still in the early test stages
And SABRE isn't? SpaceX develops rocket engines pretty quickly, and this is a much simpler, more conventional design than SABRE. It wouldn't surprise me to see a complete Raptor on the test stand in 2016, and Grasshopper-like hover tests in 2017.

>and Musk seems to be going full N-1 with a crazy-ass multi-engine design
All the more reason to expect fast development. Small engines are easier to develop quickly, and SpaceX has experience with engine-out design. People called Falcon 9 a crazy-ass multi-engine design, and then they had an engine blow up and the rocket just carried on to orbit.

And N-1 didn't have failures because of the multi-engine design, but because of underfunding, rushing, and the test-by-flying philosophy. They were desperately trying to catch up to an American effort with far more money to spend, so they took big risks.

>>7063139
Oh shitbuckets! That's happy news!

God damn, I want to see this thing land on a barge.

>>7063149
Thanks.

Next flight from the Cape is Falcon 9 again on Feb 27.

captcha: ooyea

>>7063152
>and the test-by-flying philosophy
Have not not noticed how SpaceX do things?

>>7063144
there is one board in 4chan that supports audio... should have uploaded it there.

>>7063169
/wsg/ and /gif/, two boards support audio

I was thinking the other day, spaceX should set a 10x10 meter square net with buoys attached. In case something went not as expected and landing on barge became unnececary risk. Should have called Elon, oh well...

>>7063166
Their recovery attempts are an exception to the way they normally do things, and that's largely due to the difficulty of getting approval to land the rocket anywhere. The Grasshopper tests were limited to quite a low ceiling, so they couldn't fully test their recovery system. Things have been held up in New Mexico, where they were supposed to continue the Grasshopper program all the way up to space, so they've had to attempt untested recovery methods on working launches, which makes their rapid progress toward reusability all the more impressive.

Anyway: the actual way SpaceX does things is to test the everloving shit out of everything they can on the ground, not like the N-1 program at all. That's why the Falcon 9 and Dragon worked on the first try, and on every try after that, even if they have had some anomalies along the way.

This is an advantage of designing for reusability: every component, and many complete systems, can be tested extensively before use, without becoming worn or damaged.