SpaceX launch thread - SSO-A - thread #2

[Anonymous No.10178522]

FIRST THIRD FLIGHT OF AN ORBITAL-CLASS BOOSTER AND A WHOLE LOTTA SMOL SATELLITES edition

WHEN: December 2, 18:31:47 UTC / 1:31:47 PM EST / 10:31:47 AM PST; launch window is 30 minutes long
STREAM: https://www.spacex.com/webcast
Probability of weather delay: tbp, but the high altitude winds that delayed the 1st attempt are decreasing.
Backup launch window: tbp

~ Primary Mission ~
Launch site: SLC-4E, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California (West Coast)
Booster & previous flights: B1046.3; [Bangabandhu-1, May 2018, LC-39A] [Merah Putih, August 2018, SLC-40]
Payload: “SSO-A”; ~64 satellites, organized by Spaceflight Industries
Payload mass & destination orbit: ~3000kg; Sun-synchronous 575 km x 575 km ~98º
SpaceX press kit: tbp
Customer press kit: http://spaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Spaceflight_SSO-A_Presskit.zip
Payload information:
>http://spaceflight.com/sso-a/
>https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/sso-a
>Relatively accurate list of payloads: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38551.msg1839535#msg1839535
>Stack assembly video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp-5iJONtzs

~ Secondary Missions ~
First stage landing: YES, on droneship Just Read the Instructions
Fairing catch: No

Stay in the loop:
https://twitter.com/SpaceX
https://twitter.com/elonmusk
https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/
https://www.spacex.com

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightInc
http://spaceflight.com

Want to view the launch?
>drive to the Hawk's Nest on Azalea Lane off of Highway 1 just a half mile south of Vandenberg Air Force Base's main gate
>the Hawk's Nest gates will open at 9:00 a.m. PST and close at 10:15 a.m. PST

Stats:
This will be the 32nd landed first stage, the 18th re-fly of a 1st stage, the 1st re-re-fly of a 1st stage, and the 64th Falcon 9 launch. It is the 19th SpaceX launch of 2018.

[Anonymous No.10178524]

[Anonymous No.10178525]

[Anonymous No.10178527]

[Anonymous No.10178532]

[Anonymous No.10178541]

She's so hot

[Anonymous No.10178543]

>>10178541
indeed

[Anonymous No.10179023]

the first of anything is always interesting, I hope it blows up desu

[Anonymous No.10179045]

>>10179023
no u

[Anonymous No.10179076]

Elon needs to fly on the second manned Dragon2. I want to see his shitposting tweets from space.

[Anonymous No.10179086]

>>10179076
he probably won't go to space for a while. iirc he once said that he'd wait for it to be more routine before hitching a ride

[Anonymous No.10179091]

>>10179086
it's like the interstellar probe thing where if you send one too early it'll just get overtaken except that instead of being useless it''ll just be more expensive

[Anonymous No.10179098]

meanwhile, static fire for the next CRS mission is completed:
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1068715609397940224
two launches in two days!

[Anonymous No.10179102]

>>10179091
This problem always stumps me. How would we actually get around this? It almost seems inevitable if we wanna actually explore.

[Anonymous No.10179104]

>>10179102
there are a lot of fucking targets and if the starship is good enough to survive its thousand year colony ship journey then you should just let them have that star system and send your newer faster better ships to another star

[Anonymous No.10179105]

>>10179102
just keep sending shit and don't care about waiting a few years for better tech. We're never going to get better than like .1 c anyways.

[Anonymous No.10179107]

>This will be the 32nd landed first stage, the 18th re-fly of a 1st stage, the 1st re-re-fly of a 1st stage, and the 64th Falcon 9 launch
So HALF of all F9 launches will now have resulted in a landing. Future, bro

[Anonymous No.10179252]

Stupid NRO, if it weren’t for them this would be a RTLS launch

[Anonymous No.10179304]

>>10179102
Explore stuff at or before the point where the probe would get passed up by newer designs.

Don't be overly ambitious. Going to another star in current year is overly ambitious currently, so we don't do it

[Anonymous No.10179636]

So are we gonna have one long-ass deployment stream with it blomping out 64 minisats all night long? Cause thats kinda cool

[Anonymous No.10179639]

>>10179636
That’s what I was thinking too

[Anonymous No.10179662]

>>10179252
This is because they don't want to risk important hardware and infrastructure for pointless PR stunts involving rocket landings of all things.

[Anonymous No.10179697]

>>10179662
>saving money is bad

[Anonymous No.10181074]

who /hype/ here? Another nail in the coffin for expendable rockets

[Anonymous No.10181094]

>>10179662
Reusable rockets are a complete waste of time.

[Anonymous No.10181107]

>>10181094
But not a waste of money.

[Anonymous No.10181108]

>>10181094
Ok

[Anonymous No.10181113]

SpaceX press kit: https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/ssoa_press_kit.pdf

YOUTUBE livestream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq8kS6UoOrQ

[Anonymous No.10181118]

>A backup launch window opens on Monday, December 3 at 10:32 a.m. PST, or 18:32 UTC, and closes at 11:00 a.m. PST, or 19:00 UTC.

[Anonymous No.10181121]

[Anonymous No.10181134]

[Anonymous No.10181625]

lots of space shit this week!
thanks Scott Manley I guess (gosh I'm retarded)
how do you guys keep up with space news

[Anonymous No.10181639]

>>10181625
I watch Scott Munley and Everyday Soistronaut, they pretty much cover everything.

[Anonymous No.10181672]

>>10181625
follow Jeff Foust, Jonathan McDowell, NSF Chris, etc on Twitter

[Anonymous No.10181675]

>>10181121
>>10181134
I absolutely love how fucking dirty it is

[Anonymous No.10181676]

>>10178522
your a dipshit if you believe outer space exists and that we're not on a flat plane

[Anonymous No.10181691]

>>10181675
According to elon they are scorch marks and not soot, technically

[Anonymous No.10181697]

>>10181691
I'll believe him, RP-1+LOx burns pretty clean, right?

[Anonymous No.10181715]

>>10181675
>Virgin expendable rocket

vs

>Chad flight proven rocket

[Anonymous No.10181716]

hmmm, Mr Steven is puttering out right now. Fairing catch attempt?

[Anonymous No.10181758]

[Anonymous No.10181762]

[Anonymous No.10181801]

>>10179102
For probes, you don't. Just send them.
For human manned trips, wait until the technology advances to a point where you can make the trip in under the mean time for a significant advantage to appear and then send.
Obviously you don't want to send people on a 20 year cryosleep trip to an exoplanet and then 10 years later finish technology that reduces the trip time to 5 years.
It would be an impressive troll, though.

[Anonymous No.10181806]

>>10181697
More like they cleaned the soot off, but you can't clean scorch marks off, only strip and repaint, and it's not worth it.

[Anonymous No.10181863]

>>10181806
Kek after like 5 or 6 flights these first stages will be black as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10181881]

>>10181863
BLACKED

[Anonymous No.10181962]

Called off. Retry on the 3rd.

[Anonymous No.10181998]

>>10181962
STOP KEKING ME ELON REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10182112]

Hope this thing doesn't knock into one of the micro sats when it decouples.

[Anonymous No.10182118]

>>10181962
>>10181998
Do you think they delayed it to give Mr Steven time to get into position for fairing recovery?

[Anonymous No.10182139]

>>10182118
Na, they said it was for checks on the second stage.

[Anonymous No.10182171]

I hope this one explodes again so the we can put an end to this anti-space pr campaign.

Critical times are coming for important space programs and we can't allow public perception to be diverted from traditional well proven engineering to some scifi pr campaigns.

[Anonymous No.10182177]

>>10182171
I secretly hope all rockets explode.

[Anonymous No.10182215]

>>10182171
>>10182177
t. Bruno

[Anonymous No.10182218]

>rumors of crashed dragon test article following severe parachute failure
>delays already confirmed by nasa admin

And fanboys were saying spacex will take the flag from the ISS instead of Boeing - a corporation that literally has decades of space experience! I can't wait to see your tears and excuses hahahahaha

[Anonymous No.10182227]

>>10182218
Proof?

[Anonymous No.10182233]

>>10182227
Anon why are you replying

[Anonymous No.10182234]

>>10182227
>usatoday article, administrator of nasa;
>"january is a "very low probability"
>"attributed the delay to parachutes."
Just few days after stating 7th for the launch.

Destruction of the test dragon so far unconfirmed besides through unofficial channels.
All I can say is muskrats utterly destroyed.

>m-muh mars in 2035
lmao

[Anonymous No.10182238]

>>10182218
I'm not seeing any sources for this.
Its no secret that NASA has some concern with SpaceX's parachutes and that they're working on it, but SpaceX next parachute test is supposed to be a launch abort test. So I don't know where this test you're talking about is coming from.

[Anonymous No.10182249]

>>10182234
>>"january is a "very low probability"
>>"attributed the delay to parachutes."
Yeah, this is hardly news.

[Anonymous No.10182253]

>>10181639
>Everyday Soistronaut
I bet you've got gyno from even watching that

[Anonymous No.10182275]

>>10182253
Yeah pretty much man, but he does have good info and analysis.

[Anonymous No.10182356]

>>10182275
Somewhat.
He kept getting mixed up doing the Insight landing saying shit that could easily make a viewer believe that there was zero delay in the data coming from the lander, did a poor job trying to explain the 7~8 minutes of terror and some other stuff.
He gets most of his accurate information from his discord, and he does want to give accurate information, so I'm not going to harass him too much for mistakes, but you got to keep in mind that if he is talking about something he is less familiar with then he probably hasn't had time to go over it with his discord group and there's gonna be more mistakes in it.

[Anonymous No.10182436]

>>10182112
*bonk*

[Anonymous No.10182562]

>>10181625
>https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

[Anonymous No.10182565]

>>10182562
more like that one asteroid rendezvous mission which has something happening soon

[Anonymous No.10182570]

>>10181962
Elon cocktease Musk

[Anonymous No.10182895]

>>10181697
They run it fuel rich though to help with cooling so they do make a lot of soot.

[Anonymous No.10182907]

>>10182895
that seems kind of dumb to me, but if your engine can't handle stoichiometric(sp?) burn it's probably better than running it LOx rich (you ever seen steel burn? I have)

[Anonymous No.10183079]

>>10182907
Most if not all engines can't handle stoic ratios. The choice is always fuel rich or engine rich.

[Anonymous No.10183082]

>>10183079
interesting
I know H-LOx engines burn with extra hydrogen because it results in higher exhaust velocities

[Anonymous No.10183130]

>>10181697
Part of the reason they're developing Raptor for BFR is that methane burns cleaner than kerosene and doesn't coke up the engine so much, making it easier to re-use them.

[Anonymous No.10183133]

>>10183130
it is also: easier to manufacture from elemental or simple ingredients, easier to purify, and doesn't it give better performance?

[Anonymous No.10183165]

>>10183133
Better than kerosene but the primary is the ability to manufacture the fuel beyond Earth. Kerosene bfr would also work but will be limited to Earth-only and maybe Moon operations and that naturally introduces the need for separate vehicles for all the martian mission requirements. Will likely look quite a bit different too due to fuel density and the implications on reentry aerodynamics.

[Anonymous No.10184051]

Steve in position

[Anonymous No.10184056]

[Anonymous No.10184061]

[Anonymous No.10184062]

[Anonymous No.10184276]

>>10182234
>parachutes
It's NASA's fault they couldn't use the superior propulsive landing.

[Anonymous No.10184294]

these launch threads have had a lack of grimes as of late.
We truly are in the best timeline.

15 hours till launch. Then another 24 for CRS-16!

[Anonymous No.10184343]

>>10184294
Grimes is a fucking nutjob but I'm pretty sure she is encouraging his rampant twitter shitposting so I can't be too mad.

[Anonymous No.10184346]

>>10184343
her lack of grammar on twitter is infuriating. I'm sure he help Elon's mental stability somewhat. If you put two crazy people together they usually get less crazy over time.

[Anonymous No.10184620]

F9 is vertical (again).

meanwhile, the 100th orbital launch of 2018 is happening tomorrow morning. Soyuz MS11, with a Canadian, American, and Russian onboard.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/12/100th-orbital-launch-2018-international-trio-space-station/

[Anonymous No.10184949]

>>10184620
I'm watching it.

[Anonymous No.10185332]

>>10184276
What's superior about it exactly?

[Anonymous No.10185341]

>>10185332
pin point accurate landing, quick retrieval of time-sensitive experiments without waiting on sea recovery, probably easier capsule reuse too since they don't have to worry about salt water exposure.

[Anonymous No.10185384]

>>10185341
Does Nasa even want capsule reuse?

[Anonymous No.10185387]

>>10181625

[Anonymous No.10185426]

>>10185384
They don't want to use or reuse anything.

[Anonymous No.10185505]

>>10185384
No, Crew Dragon capsules that fly crew will not be reused for crew missions, but will instead be used for CRS missions.

[Anonymous No.10185555]

Couple hours left before the steam starts

>>10185505
Which makes sense; there will only be a couple of SpaceX crew missions a year.

[Anonymous No.10185599]

she sexy

[Anonymous No.10185607]

heh

[Anonymous No.10185614]

>>10185607
you can listen to the Poland sat if if you're a HAM nerd, and win a prize:

https://pw-sat.pl/en/ham-contest/

[Anonymous No.10185632]

>>10181625
>how do you guys keep up with space news

nasaspaceflight.com is all you need

[Anonymous No.10185679]

Look at those legs.
They've been used before, alright.

[Anonymous No.10185682]

soyuz docked, OSIRIS-REx arrived at Bennu, SpaceX launching, CRS-16 & Ariane launch tomorrow. good couple days for spaaaaaaaace

[Anonymous No.10185709]

Why they not land at landing zone?
I'm pretty sure they could, given it's LEO.

[Anonymous No.10185712]

>>10185709
NRO/ULA is worried that if the returning booster fucks up, the debris will destroy their fancy NRO satellite and fat Delta IV which are out at the ULA facility right now. In other words, ULA a shit

[Anonymous No.10185718]

>>10185712
So. Do they cover the extra cost of sending a fleet at sea to recover the booster, or is SpaceX being nice?

[Anonymous No.10185766]

Stream is live

[Anonymous No.10185767]

>>10185679
Did they ever manage to actually retract them like they planned or are they still disassembling and reassembling them?

[Anonymous No.10185770]

>>10185766
Habbiding!

[Anonymous No.10185771]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq8kS6UoOrQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq8kS6UoOrQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq8kS6UoOrQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq8kS6UoOrQ
music started

>>10185718
SpaceX is being nice. It's not ULA's fault SpaceX had to delay so that there was this conflict.

[Anonymous No.10185776]

>>10185771
Better music for waiting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1sutuChdXc

[Anonymous No.10185779]

>>10185771
We've yet to see a booster fail to land on land.
Just saying.

[Anonymous No.10185781]

>>10185767
they've been doing tests with a new solar powered Tesla-motor powered retraction thingy

[Anonymous No.10185782]

Shut it down

[Anonymous No.10185784]

>>10185782
Wut?

[Anonymous No.10185786]

>>10185782
so IoT cubesats are now encouraging terrorism? hmmmm

[Anonymous No.10185788]

Seeing as the ASDS is closer to shore this time, do you think we might actually get an uninterrupted stream of the landing for once?

[Anonymous No.10185790]

>>10185784
Hiber is launching small cubesats for IoT connectivity. For a few bucks a year you can sign up and send 144 byte data packages to their sats from practically anywhere in the world, with super small antennas. Pretty neat

[Anonymous No.10185791]

>>10185788
If it's 50 km away, can you actually see it from the shore?

[Anonymous No.10185792]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq8kS6UoOrQ

Time to launch 10 minutes

[Anonymous No.10185798]

Also:
No fog!!!
Fake as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10185799]

>>10185791
I heard it's possible, if you're at a high enough elevation.

[Anonymous No.10185800]

>>10185782
>compagnies

[Anonymous No.10185802]

>>10185790
So what is it? Twitter in space?

[Anonymous No.10185803]

>>10185791
the burn, but not the landing I think

[Anonymous No.10185808]

GOOOOOO STEVE

>>10185802
just really cheap IoT connectivity for fridges, buoys, whatever

[Anonymous No.10185810]

Private companies have no place in space.

[Anonymous No.10185812]

>>10185790
>IoT connectivity
fuck this shit for crowding ISM band with garbage

[Anonymous No.10185813]

>>10185808
>IoT connectivity
So, in case your fridge is in the middle of the desert or something?

[Anonymous No.10185814]

>>10185782
>"Crazy people using Twitter as an outlet for their crazyness" Part 784

[Anonymous No.10185817]

WE

[Anonymous No.10185818]

Arms coming off now, less than 3:30 min now

[Anonymous No.10185819]

erector is de-erecting

[Anonymous No.10185821]

>literally putting the we wuz kangs meme in space
what a timeline

[Anonymous No.10185822]

>>10185817
WUZ

[Anonymous No.10185824]

WE WUZ ASTRONAUTS AND SHIET

[Anonymous No.10185825]

Glad to see the viewer count is just not letting up on those launches.
People really are excited for this shit.

[Anonymous No.10185827]

must be lunchtime in hawthorn. can hear forks clinking

[Anonymous No.10185828]

SHIEEEEEET WE ON FIRE NIGGA

[Anonymous No.10185829]

>that fucking fake Egyptian

I don't believe it.

[Anonymous No.10185832]

T-minus 1 minute

[Anonymous No.10185837]

>no cat pressing launch button poster
where you at

[Anonymous No.10185839]

>it blew up

[Anonymous No.10185842]

spaaaaaaaace

[Anonymous No.10185845]

Come back, baby!

[Anonymous No.10185846]

good bye booster!

[Anonymous No.10185847]

I'm going to reread the ULA study stating reusability is economically impossible.
>meanwhile at spacex
>third reflight

[Anonymous No.10185849]

Wow, I think the stage one is actually burning slightly downwards

[Anonymous No.10185852]

*blue Danube starts playing*

[Anonymous No.10185855]

>>10185846
that was a really incredible shot of stage separation, which has always been beautiful, ever since Apollo

[Anonymous No.10185857]

>>10185847
>b-b-but the few months inspection must cost hundreds of millions!!!!!

[Anonymous No.10185856]

>>10185837
over here today >>>/pol/195480966

[Anonymous No.10185862]

>>10185849
huh, thought I was going crazy for a second when I saw that pitch angle

[Anonymous No.10185863]

N E A T

[Anonymous No.10185864]

>>10185847
Third flight. Second reflight.

[Anonymous No.10185866]

>>10185862
if it was still moving upwards, boosting down will make it hit the atmosphere less hard

[Anonymous No.10185869]

This is their third re-use of rocket right?

[Anonymous No.10185872]

>>10185864
Wait, why don't they transmit to the main land directly with the feed. The drone ship is right fucking there.

[Anonymous No.10185873]

>>10185863
related

[Anonymous No.10185874]

Another perfect landing. Gotta give it to them.

[Anonymous No.10185875]

USA USA USA USA USA

[Anonymous No.10185876]

>>10185869
this is the first time they've used a rocket three times, yeah
WOOOOOOOOOAAAAAA THAT TELEPHOTO SHOT NICE

[Anonymous No.10185879]

>>10185872
Nvm, they are good people.

[Anonymous No.10185880]

Now, that was fucking epic.
Flat Earth confirmed.

[Anonymous No.10185881]

>>10185863
fuuuuck that reentry burn

[Anonymous No.10185883]

This can't be happening this is impossible this shouldn't be happening

[Anonymous No.10185885]

Arianespace eating the bullet.

[Anonymous No.10185886]

now for a fairing catch! go Steve

[Anonymous No.10185887]

>>10185883
this is all fake, green screens and cgi to suck investors money

[Anonymous No.10185888]

>yfw first fourth flight of a falcon 9 incoming

[Anonymous No.10185891]

I'm so happy they did this kind of landing shot again, we haven't had one for years.

[Anonymous No.10185892]

>no deployment video

[Anonymous No.10185893]

>>10185847
>meanwhile at ULA
>swimming in 1 billion dollars won from the airforce

[Anonymous No.10185895]

>>10185847
>I'm going to reread the ULA study stating reusability is economically impossible.

Lockheed to Boeing: We won't try if you don't try
Boeing: deal.

[Anonymous No.10185897]

[Anonymous No.10185898]

ULA on abortion pills

[Anonymous No.10185901]

The third launch and landing of this same booster... THIS YEAR
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1069663373485174784
that's pretty intense

[Anonymous No.10185907]

>>10185901
>y-you need at least 24 months of refurbishment!
>it'll be c-cheaper to just build new ones!
>w-what would the workers do if you didn't build rockets!?
>somebody open the windows i cant breathe its like a tomb in here

[Anonymous No.10185908]

for a low energy mission like this, it's probably pretty likely they're catching a fairing.
Just gotta keep refreshing elon/spacex's twitter..

[Anonymous No.10185910]

Next launch... Tomorrow.
Just wait until SX starts launching their comsats, it's gonna be fucking insane trying to follow launches.

[Anonymous No.10185918]

64 satellites on the 64th launch... Hmmm

[Anonymous No.10185920]

the countdown net has new graphics! check our the parabola the 1st stage made today

>>10185918
it would have been like 73 but some of the cubesat companies didn't get their FCC paperwork sorted out in time

[Anonymous No.10185922]

>>10185910
Ive just to enjoy a coke and some candy/snack when they launch. Was cool back in 2015-2016 when there was some time between launches. At this rate i might develope Type 2 by next summer

[Anonymous No.10185925]

Imprison this conman already!

Why america is so corrupt!?

Rockets are dangerous no civilian must have rockets!

[Anonymous No.10185929]

Next step, SpaceX BTFO Russia and Boeing and becomes the sole provider for Human space launch.

[Anonymous No.10185931]

[Anonymous No.10185932]

>>10185929
Russia definitely but Boeing never. Too much congressional support and its very likely they'll even delay crew dragons until boeing can win the CTF game.

[Anonymous No.10185933]

>>10185910
speaking of which, I'll stick the CRS-16 launch thread up in a bit. LZ-1 landing!

[Anonymous No.10185934]

>>10185931
Right in the middle. A PERFECT landing, once again.

[Anonymous No.10185936]

/sci/ is one of those falcons gonna beat space shuttles in numbers of landings and reflights?

[Anonymous No.10185938]

>>10185931
seems like there was some serious vectoring at the last second

>>10185934
makes me think that one day they'll reduce the safety zone size for the RTLS landings. would be cool to be pretty close to it when the booster comes down. Statistically if it's as safe as landing a plane, why not be up close? you can sit outside of airports all day.

[Anonymous No.10185940]

>>10185932
Or, you know CST-100 could be shit? and astronauts ashamed of flying on it.
Also you training for it would mean you're stuck with their production line.

[Anonymous No.10185943]

>>10185936
would need to refly 40 times to beat Discovery I think

[Anonymous No.10185944]

>>10185943
Did any shuttle ever launch thrice in one year though?

[Anonymous No.10185948]

>>10185944
yep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions#Shuttle_flights

[Anonymous No.10185952]

One answer we never got is how much re-entry wrecks engines, and how much of them were actually re-used.
I'd kill for that statistics, and so would a lot of people in the industry.

[Anonymous No.10185959]

>>10185943
It would need to do only 11 missions to beat Challenger.

[Anonymous No.10185960]

>>10185952
I think that they've stopped pulling engines now. The first couple block 4 re-uses sometimes had new engines here or there, but nowadays they just do some inspection and that's it. after all, the boosters don't go back to Hawthorn for engine swaps, they can do the referb at the launch sites in the integration facilities/storage buildings.

and the engines are certainly dirty enough to be the originals ones

[Anonymous No.10185967]

>>10185960
Well, for all we know, they could have only saved the tanks from the whole thing. And dirtying an engine with sooth would be easy.
Are you sure some of them didn't go back to Hawthorne?

[Anonymous No.10185968]

>>10185944
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions#Shuttle_flights
I think that 4 times a year was a record.

[Anonymous No.10185969]

>>10185948
Huh. Guess I underestimated the shuttle in that regard.

[Anonymous No.10185970]

>>10185952
SpaceX is learning and is the only one doing it proper currently. Space Shuttle required full refurbishment of their engines, so the damage would be considered extensive.

[Anonymous No.10185974]

>>10185967
>And dirtying an engine with sooth would be easy.

Behold, the absolute state of OldSpace shills in these trying times..

[Anonymous No.10185977]

>>10185969
Well, technically it wasn't the whole vehicle, the most important part that took the whole thing in the sky always burned in the atmosphere. Shuttles were just glorified capsules.

[Anonymous No.10185978]

>>10185967
nah, I'm pretty sure that they've yet to replace an engine for block 5 boosters. Some NSF forum autists are keeping track on L2 I think.
Consider - each engine is fired like three times before launch to begin with. Then another fire before the re-flight. The bathtub curve of reliability is a thing...

so, B1046.3 merlins have probably 8 burns under their belts?

[Anonymous No.10185981]

>>10185974
Oh, I'm really not, but this is unknown data.
I'm sure some engines take a serious hit after a few launches and are replaced.
The question is what percentage.

[Anonymous No.10185985]

>>10185978
>>10185981
there was a 4-engine booster spotted, but I forget why it only has 4 or which core it was

[Anonymous No.10185989]

>>10185981
Those engines are sturdier than you think. The biggest problem is that before spacex there was no way to actually recover them and reuse.

[Anonymous No.10185990]

>>10185978
Launch profiles are a factor as well.
Did you see the night launch with balistic re-entry profiles?
That shit's ablating as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10185992]

>>10185967
>And dirtying an engine with sooth would be easy
wew lad

[Anonymous No.10185993]

>>10185967
>Are you sure some of them didn't go back to Hawthorne?
Are you high
How the fuck do you think SpaceX would hide that, it's a fucking rocket, especially at Hawthorne where people are looking all the time for new booster sightings.

[Anonymous No.10185997]

>>10185985
>so what do you do for a living
>I drive rockets around

[Anonymous No.10185998]

>>10185981
Atleast one of the merlin engines had debris intake that was causing some fluctuations in one of their static tests. So this problem has been known for a while. Either they have made iterative changes since then to rectify this issue or they accepted this possibility. Given that they use many small engines, a few losses is acceptable.

[Anonymous No.10185999]

>>10185992
Tinfoil hat on, I guess.
It's not likely at all, but maybe they're just throwing their engines away.

[Anonymous No.10186001]

>>10185985
For that booster they moved the integration of some engines to Texas since they test them down there anyway.

[Anonymous No.10186009]

press folk got some good footage from land

>>10185997
plus police escorts pretty often. must be a comfy job, even if any mistakes result in a 40 million dollar rocket being damaged

[Anonymous No.10186011]

>>10185985
>inb4 eco terrorist destroys one of those

[Anonymous No.10186012]

>>10185998
don't forget the micro cracks in the engine bells or whatever that issue was. Think they've fixed it though, it was mentioned in a NASA comcrew report

[Anonymous No.10186014]

>>10186009
HOLY SHIT! THE EARTH WAS ROUND AFTER ALL! WHO COULD'VE KNOWN!

[Anonymous No.10186016]

>>10185782
wtf is this?

[Anonymous No.10186017]

>>10186012
Turbo pumps. NASA made a lot of noise about that supposed issue despite the shuttle engines having it as well.

[Anonymous No.10186019]

>>10186014
Wait, how could they film a rocket landing 50 km away if the Earth is spherical?
It's all a fucking hoax, I tell you.

[Anonymous No.10186022]

>update in 30 min
>posted 35 min ago

STAGE 2 MUST HAVE EXPLODED OH NO MISSION FAILURE RIP SPACEX
F

[Anonymous No.10186023]

They are going to disassemble this rocket and science the shit out of it. They need data about each part, this one ain't gonna fly no more.

[Anonymous No.10186030]

>>10186023
Why?
Do you expect anything to go differently after a 3rd flight compared to a second?
I say it's gonna fly 4 times and more, hopefully.

[Anonymous No.10186031]

>>10186023
the difference between two flights and three flights probably aren't that bad. The whole point of block 5 was that they fixed the shit on block 4 that needed to be replaced. B5 cores (should) be good for 10 flights before maintenance

imo they should just keep throwing cheapo payloads on B1046 and fly it until it explodes. give the customers a discount or whatever

[Anonymous No.10186032]

>>10186023
This way it'll take a decade until they hit 10 on a rocket.

[Anonymous No.10186037]

>>10185940
CST-100 not flying is actually beneficial since it will make the SLS and Orion even more important. I don't doubt Boeing would gladly trade it if the latter is the replacement. Don't think it's a joke, SLS servicing the station instead of commercial crew was an actual proposal by lobbyists and the idea just like an old lich hasn't died at all and reanimates very easily.
>>10185943
First stage vs orbiter. Quite different.

[Anonymous No.10186044]

>>10185874
see here sonny, back in my day, there would be bingo cards for where boosters landed on the droneships. Not anymore

[Anonymous No.10186046]

>>10185985
>Trojan Magnum

[Anonymous No.10186053]

>>10186037
SLS/Orion to the ISS.
There would be riot on the street if NASA wasted money for this.
Maybe if they bring a new module with them.

[Anonymous No.10186055]

https://twitter.com/motherboard/status/1069670232007024641

This article's really making the Shuttlefags reeeeee; they fail to remember that the Shuttle was a Space Plane that required expendable rockets (and a fuel tank) to reach orbit, not a rocket itself.

[Anonymous No.10186057]

Is falcon 9 the most successful rocket currently flying? I could think only of soyuz.

[Anonymous No.10186063]

>>10186057
It's looking good.
What's funny is, at the rate they're going, it's only gonna take SpaceX a few years to surpass ULA/Russia in the reliability statistics.

[Anonymous No.10186065]

>>10186057
yep. F9 is just as reliable as Ariane, is cheap, and can throw shit into a multitude of orbits. it really only lacks good C3 numbers or something like that.

>>10186055
partly expendable rockets that cost more to refurb than building a new one, lol

[Anonymous No.10186069]

deploy confirmation

[Anonymous No.10186071]

>>10186055
Ironically had the shuttle stack wasn't tied to the shitty orbiter it would have been pretty useful on its own even if expendable.

[Anonymous No.10186073]

>>10186069
Wasn't there supposed to be 64 small satelites?

[Anonymous No.10186077]

>>10186071
yeah if they went the Energia route, it would be a monster for big shit to LEO

[Anonymous No.10186080]

>>10186065
>C3
Just throw a falcon heavy at it.
They still have to recover center core from it, but they only had 1 try, and it was close.
Actually, it's amazing how SpaceX has managed to not loose any booster since forever if you don't count FH.
In fact, they've been spending most of the last year throwing away stages they didn't need.
They're gonna build a fleet in no time.

[Anonymous No.10186086]

>>10186073
deployment happens in different phases for different parts of the spaghetti stack:
>>10182112

[Anonymous No.10186092]

>>10186080
if you want kaboom, wait for the pad abort test. They're destroying the 1st/2nd stage on purpose

>At the point of breaking up, the stages would be carrying the following approximate fuel loads of LOX and RP-1:
>Stage 1 LOX: 631,300 pounds
>Stage 1 RP-1: 257,500 pounds
>Stage 2 LOX: 168,100 pounds
>Stage 2 RP-1: 65,000 pounds
>The extra LOX carried as ballast for the abort test would provide an environment that is oxidizer rich and would promote combustion of the remaining RP-1.

[Anonymous No.10186097]

>>10186092
Yeah, I miss my esplosions.

[Anonymous No.10186101]

>>10186092
>yfw the abort will be used as example of disastrous failure by shills and shitposters
If there are hitpieces we might even get some politicians to mention it as they did the "engine explosion".

[Anonymous No.10186109]

>>10186101
>yfw Boeing doesn't need to abort test.

[Anonymous No.10186120]

>>10186109
>simulations are just as good as physical data good goy
>hmm, testing a new Atlas config? nah, we don't need to

[Anonymous No.10186121]

>>10186109
>yfw its considered a good thing and a sign of experienced engineering and traditional aerospace knowledge

[Anonymous No.10186124]

>>10186109
It's funny how spaces just have some boosters worth millions of dollars just lying here and there to blow them up.

[Anonymous No.10186131]

>>10186124
Well, SpaceX does.

[Anonymous No.10186138]

>>10186092
*in-flight abort; pad test has already happened

[Anonymous No.10186141]

>>10186092
At what altitude are they destroying the rocket?

[Anonymous No.10186151]

>>10186141

[Anonymous No.10186153]

>>10186138
Ok, just curious.
Are they, just maybe gonna try recovering this booster in case it survives separation at maxQ?
The drop-off from maxQ is very fast, especially if you shut down engines.
Booster should be full of fuel.
More than enough to stear it at apogee if it doesn't flip 180° at sep.
Just saying.

[Anonymous No.10186156]

fairings didn't make it.

god damn Steve, get your shit together

[Anonymous No.10186163]

>>10186153
in the FCC doc ( https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=45279.0;attach=1528723;sess=0 ) says that they tried to find a flight profile that could result in saving the stage, but nothing would work

>SpaceX originally considered recovering the Falcon 9 first stage booster during the abort test by conducting a boost-back and landing at LZ-1. However, due to the abort test mission parameters requiring Dragon separation at max Q, SpaceX was unable to create a trajectory that would allow boostback and landing. Similarly, SpaceX evaluated having the first stage re-light after Dragon separation and fly further out in the Atlantic Ocean, either for a droneship landing or impact with the ocean 124–186 miles offshore. Issues with achieving approval for flight termination qualification after the Dragon separation event proved impossible for these options

[Anonymous No.10186175]

which one of your nerds is replying to /ourguy/ Jeff Foust about the motherboard shuttle shaming

I know it's one of you

[Anonymous No.10186176]

>>10186156
I hope SpaceX are going to do what they should have done in the first-place: make the fairings waterproof, much less cooler but far more practical than the net.

[Anonymous No.10186178]

>>10186176
that's dependent on the ocean being calm though. They'll catch em eventually.

[Anonymous No.10186179]

>>10186175
It's me, you can tell because it's basically a copy paste of this: >>10186055

[Anonymous No.10186180]

>>10186163
What I take from this is It was close to being do-able.
If they smart, they don't auto-destruct it, so medias don't get their click-bait.

[Anonymous No.10186184]

>>10186179
But the boosters were re-used.
It's 'only' the orange tank that went to waste.

[Anonymous No.10186185]

>>10186180
either way the media gets to clickbait the fuck out of the in flight abort test
>SPACEX BOOSTER EXPLODES 90 SECONDS AFTER LAUNCH
>article image: booster exploding

[Anonymous No.10186193]

>>10186185
Are you sure they'll trigger FTS after sep?
I don't see a reason why.
So they might let it drop in the ocean.

[Anonymous No.10186199]

>>10186184
Cutting something up, replacing 90% of it, heavily refurbishing the sections that made it and reassembling while having it cost twice as much as just building a new one doesn't really count as re-use

[Anonymous No.10186200]

>>10186193
from the report:
>The baseline Autonomous Flight Safety System would be used, with destructors on both stages. Deviations from the crew configuration include no pyrovalve for thrust termination on the second stage. The qualified version of the safety system at the time of the abort test would be used.

[Anonymous No.10186206]

>>10186184
If you read about the processes involved, they basically rebuilt the recovered boosters and only reused some salvageable segments of the O-rings. It was actually found to be more expensive to rebuild the boosters than build them from scratch.

[Anonymous No.10186207]

>>10186200
Just guessing.
We won't get a live stream, will we?

[Anonymous No.10186209]

>>10186206
Really makes you think why they kept on doing it.

[Anonymous No.10186212]

>>10186207
It will be live-streamed, according to SpaceX

the launch timeline will be funny.
>”And now we’re coming up on some events in short succession, max-q, followed by a gigantic explosion”

[Anonymous No.10186216]

>>10186212
Meh, it will be CRS-7 all over.
I just hope they don't pack a real 2nd stage in this mission that should never happen.

[Anonymous No.10186217]

>>10186216
The 2nd stage will be partially plumbed, but will lack an engine bell and some other bits.

[Anonymous No.10186226]

>>10186217
SX decided this was a good idea back in the days.
Back in the days where they didn't know how strong retards would go against them at the slightest sight of weakness.
It's actually not a requirement, but they told NASA they'd do it to prove their vehicle.

[Anonymous No.10186230]

>>10186019
Fucking drone ship dude

[Anonymous No.10186234]

>>10186185
That mission is heavily advertised as an abort test. They'll say it's a deliberate destruction of the booster

[Anonymous No.10186238]

>>10186230
But, wouldn't it be below the horizon?
It looked like that camera had a 100 km more to give.

[Anonymous No.10186240]

>>10186234
Congressmen will still be surprised it exploded.

[Anonymous No.10186248]

>droneship 50 km away.
Why did they bother?
They should have landed it in the fucking port.

[Anonymous No.10186256]

>>10186248
NRO has a very expensive very spoopy payload over in ula’s chunck of VAFB. They complained about the possibility of debris hitting it if a RTLS landing occurred

[Anonymous No.10186273]

>>10186256
But the port is not in the airforce base.

[Anonymous No.10186279]

>>10186184
SRBs have most of their cost in the propellant unlike liquid boosters. Another example of very bad decision making going on in the design driven by politics and propaganda rather than cost analysis and good engineering.

[Anonymous No.10186293]

>>10186256
Yeah, we all know RTLS is risky.
It literally failed 0 times since SX has been landing boosters.
Also it has contingency failsafe until very late in the landing burn.
It's literally aiming wrong until a few seconds before landing.

[Anonymous No.10186303]

>>10186055
Good god, sow much of an autist can you be to argue about that? Shuttles were just a payload of the rocket, not the rocket itself.

[Anonymous No.10186304]

>>10186240
Half of California goes into a frenzy each time one of those things flies at night-time, so my expectations are kinda jaded

[Anonymous No.10186307]

>>10186240
>"can we trust SpaceX with the lives of our American astronauts when they had one of their rocket explode mid flight recently?"
>"Let us not also forget this is the company who lost a very valuable American satellite just few months back, and even another one during a very dangerous explosion on the pad while fueling the rocket with a dangerous unproven and very dangerous experimental procedure they wish to use even for the manned flights with American astronauts on board the rocket."
>"America needs safe, assured access to space, and this is why NASA has been developing the largest most powerful and safest rocket system ever made, the Space Launch System."
>"It is important to note the Space Launch System has had no launch failures whatsoever, and is all American made and the largest most powerful rocket ever designed."
>"Being the largest most powerful rocket ever designed American mad rocket, the Space Launch System is the only launch system that can provide safe and assured American access to space and will even make possible the construction of an actual American space station around our very Moon"
>"USA USA USA"
>"SLS SLS SLS"

[Anonymous No.10186311]

>>10186307
>congress circa few months from now

[Anonymous No.10186320]

>>10186307
Yeah, I wouldn't even surpised.
Let's launch SLS to the ISS, holy shit.
Aren't you impressed?

[Anonymous No.10186322]

>>10186293
SpaceX probably wanted DOD good boy points for doing a ASDS landing. They want as many NRO missions to come their way; and NRO is probably still slightly salty after ZUMA even if it wasn’t SpaceX’s fault

[Anonymous No.10186327]

>>10186322
I can't even remember when it was they didn't land a booster. Except FH core booster.
Holy shit, can you?

[Anonymous No.10186335]

>>10186322
What happened with ZUMA?
Did DoD fuck up and blame it on SpaceX?

[Anonymous No.10186337]

>>10186327
And the issue with main booster of FH was such a stupid issue too. They just run out of ignition liquid.

[Anonymous No.10186339]

21 hours until another SpaceX launch

[Anonymous No.10186343]

>>10186335
Official unofficial story is Northrop Grumman messed up with their custom detachment mechanism for the sat and it was deorbited along with the upper stage during its scheduled debris clearing maneuvers at the end of the flight. It literally got where it should and failed to separate. Had they used the normal spacex stuff it might have actually worked but you know how secrets work.
That or it was all a cover story but the shit thrown around by the likes of wapo and some congressmen does not support that theory.

[Anonymous No.10186348]

>>10186343
The other theory is that the mission was full success but they wanted to cover it up so no one is looking for spy satelite.

[Anonymous No.10186349]

>>10186343
So. It should be trace-able who got fired from DoD at this time.

[Anonymous No.10186362]

Is retro propulsion gonna be more reliable than shuttles landing? You are not gonna build civilization on mars if the booster exploads once in 50 flights.

[Anonymous No.10186374]

>>10186362
But you are?
People will die, for various reasons. Booster esplosion being one of them.
It's not a free ticket to a new life.
It's a ticket to adventure. However shit it may turn out.

[Anonymous No.10186381]

>>10186362
Not many alternatives in places beyond our own planet. Parachutes and "airbags" are quite... limited and not very recommended for use on anything big or fleshy.

Going horizontal also puts some structural requirements on the vehicle and complicates things with the only gain being landing on runways on Earth. That is rather pointless I think unless you really like the space plane aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.10186402]

>>10186381
A 'shuttle' is useless on Mars.
Those wings would only somewhat incresas the drag coefficient and be a weight pain.
I don't like BFS having more wings, even though SX must have computed it was more safe to have it, despite the payload lost.

[Anonymous No.10186408]

>>10186402
The wings double as the landing legs, so really they're getting the best bang for their buck by using the legs to slow velocity on descent

[Anonymous No.10186483]

>>10186339
depends if they can fix the rodent food mold problem. Might be a delay

[Anonymous No.10187062]

>Looking at CST-100 cg launch animation
>It doesn't have a launch escape tower
mmmh.

[Anonymous No.10187129]

>>10186348
I'm thinking even if ZUMA failed to reach orbit, they'll still want to make it look like a cover up. So that anyone tracking spy satellites will waste time looking for a sat they're never going to find, drawing some attention away from the existing spy sats.

[Anonymous No.10187143]

>>10185997
>>10185985
i live right by vandenberg and i was on the 166 going to my solar job in cuyama at 4 am and one of these trucks and a fuck load of police ran me off the road.

[Anonymous No.10187172]

CRS-16 thread is up >>10187099

[Anonymous No.10187298]

>>10187172
eventually you're going to need to stop making individual threads for launches and it'll just become SpaceX general and then it'll all go to shit

[Anonymous No.10187717]

>>10187298
I think consistent weekly launches is probably enough for me to stop making threads. But that’s a bit of ways away.

[Anonymous No.10188967]

>>10187129
I wonder if anyone has investigated if military ships were around the reentry point for s2? They probably wanted to make sure nothing survived and was floating around

[Anonymous No.10189029]

>>10185938
>Why not be up close?
Even using a water sound suppression system rocket launches measure in the 140-200dB range which does permanent irreversible hearing damage. I'd assume landings are a little quieter than launches but still within that range.