SpaceX launch thread - KoreaSat 5A

[Anonymous No.9264471]

Welcome!

Launch planned for October 30th 2017, 15:34 - 17:58 EDT (19:34 - 21:58 UTC)

launch countdown: http://spaceinit.com/en/launch/view/1048

This LC-39A launch is of the 3500kg KoreaSat 5A to GTO. The first stage will land on the ASDS Of Course I Still Love You.


SpaceX's 16th launch of 2017! (44th launch of F9)

[Anonymous No.9264618]

>>9264471
i really wish they would get to a dragon2 or a falcon heavy launch.

[Anonymous No.9264632]

[Anonymous No.9264638]

[Anonymous No.9264642]

[Anonymous No.9264664]

[Anonymous No.9264678]

>>9264471
Why can't they just build the bloody Mars rocket already

[Anonymous No.9264709]

>>9264678
Building rockets takes time.

[Anonymous No.9264715]

>>9264678
they're already setting up and purchasing the tooling. It'll fly before SLS at least.

Yeah, looking back at it the FH is a waste of time, but it's hard to predict these things.

[Anonymous No.9264729]

>>9264715
FH is F9 parts slapped together.

the F9 isnt' even in final iteration yet.

[Anonymous No.9264745]

>>9264715
>It'll fly before SLS at least.
I hope so. I wanna go to Mars. RIGHT NOW.

[Anonymous No.9264856]

Youtube says the stream starts at 5:34 AM (6 Eastern), but everything else says 3:34 PM Eastern.

Somebody dun goof'd?

[Anonymous No.9264863]

>>9264856
That's weird

If OP's time of 19:34 UTC is correct then it shouldn't start for another 16 hours - not 6 hours like your screenshot

[Anonymous No.9264914]

>>9264745
A single BFR could launch every single F9 payload launched to date

I’m pretty giddy for it

[Anonymous No.9264929]

press kit was released

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/koreasat5apresskit.pdf

[Anonymous No.9265362]

>>9264618
The heavy is either going to launch in December or January as it’s basically just sitting in the hangar waiting for them to modify the launch pad. The Dragon 2 is likely to launch in the spring or summer, but I’m not sure if SpaceX are waiting to launch it with a Block 5 or not so it could be a longer wait.

[Anonymous No.9265406]

>>9264856
Reads October 30th 6:34AM for me in Eastern USA on the video feed. Obviously that is incorrect. It'll happen 3:34PM.

[Anonymous No.9265656]

>>9265406
Man your text rendering is shit dude

[Anonymous No.9265704]

>mfw it explodes and takes the pad with it

[Anonymous No.9265721]

>>9264715
SLS is flying 2020 at worst.

[Anonymous No.9265734]

>>9264729
>FH is F9 parts slapped together.
the core is different, who knows how much reinforcement they had to add

[Anonymous No.9265736]

>>9265734
>it takes 8 years to add a bit of reinforcement

[Anonymous No.9265739]

>>9264715
>looking back at it the FH is a waste of time
FH should have at least 3 years of flying at a high launch rate, and more likely 5. They'll probably fly it at least 50 times, and F9 at least 100 times. Not a waste.

Furthermore, it'll build confidence for their many-engined booster (9 to 31 is a big jump, 27 to 31 is a small one), let them experiment with upper-stage recovery, and possibly let them flight test the Raptor on an upper stage.

FH is important to dominate the launch market. We'll likely see manifested F9 launches moved to FH for reusability savings and enhanced satellite longevity.

[Anonymous No.9265852]

>>9265739
I just want to see all 3 first stages of a FH land back safely after launch

I will literally cum buckets seeing three first stage landings from a single FH launch

[Anonymous No.9265985]

This thread needs more shitposting.

[Anonymous No.9265998]

webcast has started with funky music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUjH14vhLxA

[Anonymous No.9266000]

OH SHIT

>Music confirmed

[Anonymous No.9266006]

>>9265852
>tfw still hoping it'll fly 2017
0% chance, right?

[Anonymous No.9266007]

[Anonymous No.9266008]

[Anonymous No.9266011]

>>9266008
Tip top post

[Anonymous No.9266012]

>>9266007
dream on, mars man

[Anonymous No.9266014]

FH 2017 LAUNCH CONFIRMED

GET HYPE

[Anonymous No.9266015]

STREAM BROKE AHHHH

[Anonymous No.9266021]

>T MINUS -00:10:00

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.9266022]

>>9266015
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.9266023]

>worst korea

[Anonymous No.9266029]

The fuck is wrong with the stream?

The audio is balls and feed keeps cutting out

[Anonymous No.9266030]

hype

[Anonymous No.9266031]

Geostationary insertion and 3500 kilo payload.

how hard is this going to be on the first stage?

[Anonymous No.9266032]

>>9266031
Probably won't fly again

[Anonymous No.9266033]

>58k people watching

[Anonymous No.9266034]

>>9266031
no return to landing site, but some boostback burn to the drone ship. Harder then say a CRS mission, but not that toasty compared to previous 6t to GTO missions

[Anonymous No.9266035]

>>9266030

[Anonymous No.9266036]

>>9266032
>won't fly again
Heh, nothing personal kiddo

[Anonymous No.9266038]

>>9266032
one toasty mission booster was turned to FH side booster. might fly again.

[Anonymous No.9266042]

Boom.

[Anonymous No.9266053]

>>9266036
Well not likely anyway.
I don't see cores going on intense missions like this being reused often untill Block 5
>>9266038
True but I don't think they'll risk it untill Block 5 cores.

[Anonymous No.9266057]

rip

[Anonymous No.9266058]

>Lost the Stage 1 camera feed

[Anonymous No.9266059]

Signal ((((lost))))

[Anonymous No.9266060]

WE DID IT REDDIT!!!

[Anonymous No.9266061]

Stage 1 on fire.

[Anonymous No.9266062]

>"a little toasty"
>fucking stage on fire
its dead.

[Anonymous No.9266063]

[Anonymous No.9266064]

A LITTLE TOASTY

[Anonymous No.9266065]

>Stage 1 on fire

[Anonymous No.9266066]

Doesn't look too good.

[Anonymous No.9266068]

uh oh

[Anonymous No.9266069]

>>9266062
say that to ULA. The stage is designed to reenter from 100+ km through hypersonic retropropulsion. Some fire on the side? meh.
>>9266065
better launch something orbital first before talking shit baldy

[Anonymous No.9266071]

>>9266066
One more stage had that issue.
I think there might be something worth investigating...

[Anonymous No.9266072]

RIP in pieces toasty Stage 1

I cry everytiem :_:

[Anonymous No.9266075]

>tfw it didn't explode and thunderf00t can't make a video about it

[Anonymous No.9266077]

>Survive launch and re-entry
>Burn to death at sea

[Anonymous No.9266078]

>>9266066
You can see its insides? Did a panel fall off?

[Anonymous No.9266080]

>>9266066
That stage is toast, it's literally leaking burning rocket fuel.

[Anonymous No.9266082]

>Implying a little fire is going to hurt the booster
Ye of little faith

[Anonymous No.9266083]

>>9266031
>>9266032
>>9266036
>>9266038
>>9266053
Please explain why it would be unusable after this mission

I understand that reaching GTO is harder than reaching LEO, but in what ways *specifically* would this affect Stage 1 so much that it can't be used again?

[Anonymous No.9266084]

>>9266083
The re-entry is harder as the rocket goes faster through the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9266091]

>>9266080
They'll activate fire suppression, it'll be fine

[Anonymous No.9266093]

[Anonymous No.9266094]

>>9266093
neat

[Anonymous No.9266100]

>>9266084
Fair enough. I'm guessing they'll reuse whatever they can though.

Have previous GTO rockets been unusable then? I mean surely even if some bits are fucked (one of the engines, a bit of the fuselage, whatever) then they can still use other bits that are fine. Like propellant tanks and whatever.

[Anonymous No.9266102]

>>9266083

[Anonymous No.9266104]

wtf is this Zuma payload for northrup grumman?

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/10/18/spacex-targeting-november-mystery-zuma-launch-falcon-9-kennedy-space-center-ksc-florida/775284001/

[Anonymous No.9266105]

>>9266093
fuck off reddit

[Anonymous No.9266107]

stage 2 teleported to Africa and back

[Anonymous No.9266108]

The comment section on the facebook livestream somehow manages to be cringey, depressing and hysterically funny all at the same time

[Anonymous No.9266109]

>>9266104
Spysat. DOD payloads are divine gift to SX not only do they pay nicely they also build up connections which is important when you have deal with existing buttblasted and useless industries.

[Anonymous No.9266111]

>>9266100
They've reused one that went on a GTO mission I believe so far.
Also one of the side boosters for Falcon Heavy was a GTO that had a tough landing, the leaning tower of thaicom.
Considering Block 5 is built for constant reuseability I imagine more boosters that will go on GTO missions will be reused then.

[Anonymous No.9266112]

>>9266105
Takes one to fucking know one, bud.

[Anonymous No.9266122]

>>9266100
Reuse of rockets recovered so far is basically experimental. The Block 5 will incorporate changes to make reuse much more practical.

[Anonymous No.9266126]

>>9266066
Is that a sprinkler in the bottom? It's moved a bit on the next image when the fire's off. Hope they didn't use saltwater.

[Anonymous No.9266130]

>>9266126
>Hope they didn't use saltwater.
It can't be too vulnerable to seawater. They'll have ocean spray on it no matter what they do.

Falcon 9 was originally designed for splashdown recovery, so it's very tolerant of salt water.

[Anonymous No.9266137]

We're going, boys!

[Anonymous No.9266138]

>>9266126
it is, yes. And no, it isn't saltwater.

[Anonymous No.9266140]

>>9266111
>>9266122
Fair

[Anonymous No.9266153]

>>9266126
They have I think 4 powerful remote controlled water hoses on the ASDSs

[Anonymous No.9266167]

So how does this satellite maintain its orbit?

Does it have any method of propulsion so it can fine-tune its orbit?

[Anonymous No.9266171]

>>9266167
>So how does this satellite maintain its orbit?
yes
>Does it have any method of propulsion so it can fine-tune its orbit?
yes

[Anonymous No.9266172]

>>9266167
yes it does. a hypergolic apogee engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_apogee_engine

Also, small thrusters of the same kind, or of the monoprop kind ( hydrazine). Also, ion engines for station keeping are used on quite a few sats. Some sats even forego hypergolic prop engines and are totally 'electric'- ion engines for orbit raising as well as station-keeping.

[Anonymous No.9266179]

>>9266172
Also, some use reaction wheels. Others use the magnetic field of the earth as a cusion with a Hall effect thruster thingy too.

[Anonymous No.9266181]

>>9266179
that's for attitude keeping / pointing, not orbital position / station keeping though. Also important, and present in sats, but a different requirement.

[Anonymous No.9266228]

>>9265739
The F9 upper is the same as the FH upper, they could do all that experimentation with the F9 if they wanted to
Could do orbital refueling, both to test + cover anything the FH could do

[Anonymous No.9266264]

>>9265736
They has to redesign the entire rocket because of that reinforcement.

[Anonymous No.9266284]

>>9266171
>>9266172
What if it runs out of fuel?

[Anonymous No.9266290]

>>9266284
that's why graveyard orbits exist.

[Anonymous No.9266335]

>>9266284
When the BFR becomes a reality. They could send one up just to collect derelict satellites and bring them back. not only would this make space less hazardous. You can recycle the valuable elements, and study old sats to improve future ones.

[Anonymous No.9267481]

Stay tuned for today's launch of Orbital's Minotaur-C, which is effectively the return to flight of the rebranded Taurus. It had two fairing separation failures in a row due to fraudulent materials certification by a contractor.

The launch is scheduled for 2:37 PDT from Vandenberg.

[Anonymous No.9267484]

>>9266335
Who is going to pay for that? The scrap of old satellites is not worth millions of dollars, fucking recycling memes

[Anonymous No.9267608]

>>9267481
>It had two fairing separation failures in a row due to fraudulent materials certification by a contractor.

$550 million taxpayer dollars in flames

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2017/08/after_failed_space_flights_nas.html

[Anonymous No.9267996]

>>9267484
Supposedly it's going to be as cheap as an airline ticket for the sub-orbital flights, so an orbital flight wouldn't be that much more. You probably wouldn't make a profit from the scrap, but it would be cheap enough to be worth cleaning up certain debris/orbits.

Of course it all depends how how re-usable they can really make things. It's liable to end up like the shuttle where the whole thing has to be overhauled before it's flight ready again.

[Anonymous No.9268003]

>>9266007
>h
Dream on mars man.

[Anonymous No.9268890]

>>9267996
>as cheap as an airline ticket for the sub-orbital flights

Per ticket, if you load the rocket with several hundred passengers. A single launch is going to cost somewhere near $6 million. Maybe not cheap enough to make money recovering scrap, but definitely cheap enough for a government program to pop up focusing on cleaning up space debris and dead spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.9268906]

>>9267484
Don't underestimate envirotard emotion logic and some ruthless desire for government gibs making use of them.

[Anonymous No.9269092]

>>9268890
In most cases, they don't need to recover it, just shift it into a decaying orbit so it burns up.

Also, you can do recovery on the same mission as a payload launch, so when the orbits coincide, it'll be basically free. When they do GEO launches (assuming they go all the way to GEO, and don't just release it in GTO, like they currently do -- it makes sense to burn more fuel on the reusable rocket than build a circularization motor on the satellite), they'll be able to grab up some old dead GEO sats. Most polar launches are probably close enough to the orbit of some dead old sats for affordable rendezvous, too.

[Anonymous No.9269123]

>>9269092
Only if they are doing direct insertion to GSO
Then they could pick up a few satellites + head home

[Anonymous No.9269124]

>>9269123
Oh you said that

I still dnno if it will be worth it, space is a big place

[Anonymous No.9269171]

>>9269124
>space is a big place
Earth orbit isn't all that big.

The trouble with satellites is that there's no guarantee they'll stay in one piece. While you might not be worried too much about colliding with one 5-ton satellite, five million one-gram fragments whizzing around at several kilometers per second is much more of a hazard, especially if you want to put something up there for years. Even milligram fragments are a hazard up there.

And once one breaks up, the bits are going to tend to collide with and break others up.

At some point, we have to start cleaning things up. We can't just keep launching garbage up there and leaving it, or local space will become unnavigable.

[Anonymous No.9269195]

>>9269171
The problem is crowded low earth orbit, where satellites are going in all sorts of directions

Not so much GSO where everything is going the same way + speed

[Anonymous No.9269307]

>>9269195
They only keep going the same way and speed as long as their orbits are actively maintained. Once that stops, it doesn't take long for them to start swooping around unpredictably at bullet-like speeds relative to the ones going the same way and speed.

[Anonymous No.9269478]

So, how did the landing stage do? Last i saw it was somewhat burning, any news since then?

[Anonymous No.9269496]

>>9269478
[math]\color{orange}{\mathfrak{A\ little\ toasty,\ but\ it's\ still\ good}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.9269723]

>>9269496
what the fug

[Anonymous No.9269838]

>>9269723
[math]\color{crimson}{\mathfrak{Art\ thee\ perturbed?}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.9269848]

>>9269838
go away swaglord

or is this some spookyween latex nonsense

[Anonymous No.9269865]

>>9264678
Saturn V LEO payload: 127000
BFR LEO payload: 150000
So BFR can only bring 18% more payload mass to LEO.

Saturn V brought 3 people to the Moon, and BFR is supposed to bring 100 people to Mars with only 18% more LEO capacity? How is this even possible?

[Anonymous No.9269867]

>>9269848
[math]\color{crimson}{\mathfrak{Nay,\ friend.\ 'Tis\ an\ apparition\ caused\ by\ mischievous\ spirits.}}[/math]

[Anonymous No.9269876]

>>9269865
They're refuelling it in LEO, that's why

They send the first ship up into a parking orbit, then the BFR rocket comes back down, picks up a modified version of the spaceship that contains propellant and nothing else, then they take that up and refuel the people-carrying spaceship in LEO

[Anonymous No.9269885]

>>9269865
>it's also fully reusable

expendable BFR would be a beast, but that's not the point

[Anonymous No.9269905]

>>9269865
>>9269876
Whereas of course Saturn V didn't do that, and therefore ALL of the propellant for the journey to the moon (AND back) had to be contained in the rocket that was sitting on the launch pad.

Whereas with the BFR they don't carry propellant for the return journey. They plan to make that on Mars.

>>9269885
Yup, expendable BFR can carry much more weight, pic related - source: http://spaceflight101.com/spx/iac-2017-spacex-slides/

If expendable, it can carry 250,000 tons instead of 150,000

[Anonymous No.9269911]

>>9269885
>>9269905
Shit forgot to attach picture.

Also I didn't mean 250,000 tons, I meant 250 tons, which is 250,000 kg.

Reusable: 150 tons / 150,000 kg
Expendable: 250 tons / 250,000 kg

[Anonymous No.9269914]

>>9269911
To explain, top picture shows payload mass for full reuse, and bottom picture is payload mass if rocket is expendable (this is because if you don't carry the propellant needed for the propulsive landing then you can take more payload into space instead)

[Anonymous No.9270501]

>>9269911
what happened with the original one that could take absurd amounts of cargo? why did they shrink it?

[Anonymous No.9270676]

>>9270501
Dunno. They just did.

[Anonymous No.9271089]

>>9270501
bit too big for their finances & timeline I imagine

[Anonymous No.9271398]

>>9271089
also too big in general. The amount of custom tooling and the size of the necessary factory would be prohibitive

[Anonymous No.9271429]

>>9271398
They'll be going bigger later, when time and finances are less of an issue
Full reuse is what is needed, size of the rocket is largely irrelevant compared to that.

[Anonymous No.9271461]

>launch goes well
>landing goes alright
>everything is on fire
hey, 2/3 ain't bad.

[Anonymous No.9271497]

>>9271461
A little fire's nothing compared to firing rocket engines and atmospheric entry heating. It's probably just from purging the fuel lines: they sprayed kerosene out an engine nozzle, and it caught on fire. It wouldn't have damaged anything.

[Anonymous No.9271972]

so when will spacex tell us how the refurbishemt works and what they have to change to make it work?

[Anonymous No.9271976]

>>9264471
sheeple believing in spaceytry how adarable
http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-sun-a-light-bulb/