[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 676 KB, 807x985, QUSoLHy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9628585 No.9628585 [Reply] [Original]

>SpaceX is targeting Friday, March 30 for a Falcon 9 launch of the Iridium-5 NEXT mission from Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E) at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. This is the fifth set of 10 satellites in a series of 75 total satellites that SpaceX will launch for Iridium’s next generation global satellite constellation, Iridium® NEXT. The instantaneous launch opportunity is at 7:13 a.m. PDT or 14:13 UTC and the satellites will begin deployment about an hour after launch.

Press kit: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/iridium-5_press_kit.pdf
Stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0TW8vkCLg
Mr Steven (fairing catcher) tracking: https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9744465

This is the 51st launch of Falcon 9. The 1st stage has flown once before, on Iridium-3. There will NOT be recovery of the 1st stage (it is an outdated block 4 booster).

Current weather forecast from Desch (Iridium CEO):
>Weather forecast looks excellent for our launch tomorrow morning. Light northeasterly winds should hopefully hold the marine layer offshore for a takeoff about 15 minutes after dawn.

>> No.9628612

almost forgot to add: this will be the 10th reflight of an orbital-class rocket booster! It's getting quite routine.

>> No.9628623

>>9628612
Strange, huh? A year ago we would have 1-2 treads reaching the bump-limit before a launch, now maybe you get 100 replies (not counting shitposts ofc).

>> No.9628627

>>9628623
FH was a nice shitshow, but yeah you're right. Bangabandhu-1 should be a busy thread since it's the first block 5 launch. Then the in-flight abort test should be extra fun thread too. Everything else is just another regular F9 mission

>> No.9628676

spacex is scam pls buy proton is cheap

>> No.9628681
File: 1.28 MB, 1100x899, bfr.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9628681

>>9628676
shoo shoo Ivan

>> No.9628718
File: 17 KB, 407x379, 1518963865184.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9628718

>>9628585
Does SpaceX PR make all of these well-formatted threads for every single launch? Like I don't know of any regular person who would do this. It's clearly the same poster because they're always written the same way.

>> No.9628729

>>9628718
it's just me, I've been making SpaceX launch threads on /sci/ for like two years.

Data presenting is a pet peeve of mine. I always hated group projects in college since people didn't put any effort into making the charts and graphs look nice.

Edward Tufte is sort of a hero to me. The challenger disaster could have been avoided with simple improvements to the egregious material that was presented to the NASA engineers...

>> No.9628778

>>9628718
autism is a hell of a drug m8

>> No.9629176

https://streamable.com/hd2vq

>> No.9629206

NASA employee here. Hope it blows up. Sick of muh give your budget to SpaceX. I got a family to feed!

>> No.9629264

>>9628718
>Like I don't know of any regular person who would do this.
You haven't been to many boards, have you?

>> No.9629382
File: 681 KB, 1051x1080, 1496349718368.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9629382

>>9628585
No booster recovery yet again? Just another failed experiment from one of the most dishonest companies in the history of private space travel. Seriously each launch following the Falcon family as they “revolutionize the launch industry” has been indistinguishable from the rest. Aside from the meme landings, the company’s only party trick has been to overwork and underpay its employees to reduce launch costs, all to make the mythical “full and rapid reuse” seem effective.

Perhaps the die was cast when Musk vetoed the idea of ambitious yet realistic missions like Red and Grey Dragon; he made sure the company would never be mistaken for an innovative force to anything or anybody, just ridiculously questionable government contracts for his companies. SpaceX might be profitable (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-NASA in its refusal of wonder, science and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the landings are cool though
"No!"
The camerawork is dreadful; the landings of the charred boosters are boring. As I watch, I noticed that every time a Falcon 9 lands, Musk said either “self-sustaining civilization on Mars” or “imagine if you had a 747 and you threw it away after one flight.”

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time one of those phrases was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Musk's mind is so governed by clichés that he has no other style of thinking. Later I read a poorly-written news story on SpaceX by some fat web blogger. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are watching these launches now, surely they will work for SpaceX in the future and they too can have paychecks based off of government handouts." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you are a SpaceX fan, you are, in fact, trained to be a mindless supporter of government-funded billionaires.

>> No.9629414

>>9629382
>look mom! i posted it again!

>> No.9629425
File: 357 KB, 1200x900, SpaceXFanboy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9629425

>>9629414

>> No.9629523

>>9629382
Stale

>> No.9629529
File: 32 KB, 1200x800, DZfdx1rU0AAvOOJ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9629529

F9 is vertical
>>9629264
>>9628778

h..hey I'm pretty normal.

>> No.9629538
File: 1.44 MB, 3000x2000, iridium5_vertical.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9629538

sooty

>> No.9629556
File: 1.30 MB, 992x1070, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9629556

Desch made his mark in the soot

>> No.9629563

>>9628718
there's an entire board with well formatted general threads
Pasta is a thing

>> No.9630083

7 hours to go lads

>> No.9630089

>>9629425
>look mom! i posted it again!

>> No.9630112
File: 150 KB, 1034x672, DZgQbneWsAAx8Qm.jpg-large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9630112

think they'll nail the fairing landing this time?

>> No.9630117

>>9628585
earth is flat

>> No.9630132

>>9630112
No.

>>9629538
I like them sooty Falcon 9s.

>> No.9630209

>>9628729
Thanks m8. I always appreciate the press kits

>> No.9630215

Are they recovering anything this time or do we have to wait for Block 5?

>> No.9630223

>>9629382
> this Company is cheating!
Oh my, iam outraged! No other company would do somerhing like this!

>> No.9630226
File: 558 KB, 905x576, ISS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9630226

T minus 5 hours

Get comfy faggots

>> No.9630273

>>9630215
Still testing 3 engine soft landings on water.

>> No.9630606

>one hour delay
Damn it.

>> No.9630608

not much point watching a rocket launch without a landing attempt ! Or even a live stream of the it

>> No.9630633

>>9630608
Then why does every other launch provider do it then?

>> No.9630637

We live now.

>> No.9630640
File: 320 KB, 287x713, 1475010672052.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9630640

>>9630637
Get HYPE

>> No.9630644

>>9629382
SpaceX can swindle the federal government out of 10X what it allegedly does now and I wouldn't care one bit. They're making headway towards viable and sustainable human exploration of space in a way that no other organization has before.

>> No.9630647

>NOAA restrictions
Bullshit.

>> No.9630650
File: 85 KB, 388x218, 1470440711074.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9630650

>>9630647
What are they hiding?

>> No.9630651

>>9629556
> WASH ME

>> No.9630653

>>9628585
>Rocket leaking before it has even started
WHAT A FAILURE LMFAO

>> No.9630655
File: 82 KB, 1200x800, maxresdefault.0[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9630655

>>9630650
CHEMTRAILS!!!!!!
NOAA'S MAKING THE FROGS GAY!
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

>> No.9630656

>>9629538
WTF? Are those clouds? Where are they?

>> No.9630659

Actual reason for NOAA restrictions: https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-government-controls-sensitive-satellite-data/

>> No.9630661

T H I N G S
H
I
N
G
S

>> No.9630664

>>9630656
That's fog. They're above it.

>> No.9630665
File: 42 KB, 480x542, 1500225796541.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9630665

Does anyone else get nervous when watching the launch countdown?

>> No.9630667

HOLY SHIT HAPPENING IT EXPLODED

>> No.9630669

Why do all their rockets looks likes dicks?
is Elon Musk homosexual?

>> No.9630670

>>9630669
Ive yet seen a rocket looks like a vagina

>> No.9630671

That flame look like it was crawling up the side of the booster a bit. Is that an exhaust from the turbopumps instead?

>> No.9630673

HOT BALL OF FURY

>> No.9630674

Why didn't they took off the landing legs? It all is so wasteful. Economy is uneconomical.

>> No.9630679

this is clearly an edited film, look how much clearer that thing in the foreground is than the earth

>> No.9630680

>>9630674
Pretty sure SpaceX knows what is most economical for them better than some autist on /sci/.

>> No.9630681
File: 147 KB, 400x324, 1328967201415.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9630681

5 launches on only 3 rockets

>> No.9630682

>>9630680
sorry elon

>> No.9630683

>>9630671
exhaust recirculation. It looks even stranger on other vehicles. On Saturn V it crept halfway up the first stage!

>> No.9630684

>>9630674
>take off the landing legs
That would probably screw up the rocket's center of gravity and aerodynamics.

>> No.9630688

>>9630674
They're doing a simulated landing

>> No.9630693

>>9630680
>for them
I wasn't talking what is economical for them, but for entire human effort.

>> No.9630694

S A T E L L O I T S

>> No.9630695

>due to restrictions from Noah

the nigga that built the Ark?

>> No.9630697

>>9630695
Nah senpai NOAA

>> No.9630698

>>9630688
They can do that with simulated legs, then.

>> No.9630699

>>9630697
oh well why would they care about SpaceX broadcasting tape from that area?

>> No.9630700

>>9630697
The energy drink?

>> No.9630701

>>9630674
They're doing simulated landings with three engines. This means they need the booster to be the same aerodynamically as it would be when actually landing, so they would go through the process of even deploying the legs before it touches down on the ocean surface. If they don't then they won't get good data.

>> No.9630704

>>9630699
noaa has a lot of observation satellites in that area, the video feed might be on a frequency that is too similar to NOAA's that they'd get worried about crowding out

>> No.9630705

>>9630695
>>9630704
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/979724382221291521
>F9/Iridium5: NOAA public affairs officer says he's not aware of any NOAA restriction on Falcon 9 rocketcam video

maybe they're deploying something for NRO and using NOAA as the cover

>> No.9630708

>>9630693
Retard

>> No.9630711

>>9630705
>NOAA public affairs officer
Should he be aware of any NOAA restrictions on the Falcon 9 rocketcam?

>> No.9630715

>>9630711
I would think so, public affairs officers should be aware of anything of media noteworthiness that their agency is up to and I'd imagine he'd check with people at NOAA to see what's what before repsonding.

>> No.9630729

>>9630715
"should be" and "actually is" are two different things

>> No.9630761

Go for launch

>> No.9630779

Why is NOAA cock blocking the live feed? The narrator said they couldn't broadcast video past a certain time.

>> No.9630785

>>9630779
Starman butthurt.

>> No.9630807

>>9630785
Wat?

>> No.9630822

>>9630807
Some bureurat somewhere was inspired by the inspiring video to check if such footage counts as remote sensing.

>> No.9630823

>>9630779
NOAA for some reason issues licenses for earth observation sensing. A GoPro on a F9 2nd stage apparently counts as that - and SpaceX for some reason didn't get a permit this time around

>> No.9630829

Next F9 launch is Monday - CRS-14 at 4:30 PM EDT. No recovery as well

>> No.9630849
File: 90 KB, 1200x674, DZi0553UMAYNBjW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9630849

>> No.9630886

>>9630669
these rockets are made by engineers and engineers are homosexuals

>> No.9630899

>>9630647
>>9630659
>>9630711
>>9630704
>>9630779
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/979748665479876609

some buttblasted NOAA employee reclassified the 2nd stage cameras as earth sensing equipment

>> No.9631078

So the fairing recovery failed. Apparently the parachute twisted up because of airflow around the big fairing. They're going to do helicopter drop tests to work it out.

>> No.9631083

>>9631078
aka something these cheap skates should have done to start with

>> No.9631085

>>9631083
The parachute landing is the last little piece of the problem. Launches make a far better test.

>> No.9631092

>>9631083
the previous attempt was almost a success. Remember, it took like 8 failed S1 landings before they nailed it. These things take time

>> No.9631100
File: 2.79 MB, 1280x610, CAUTION SLIPPERY WHEN WET.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9631100

>>9628585
>got the date wrong by a day

God damn it.

>>9628718
>>9628729
I do it sometimes.

>>9630665
You couldn't have pushed a greased BB through my sphincter the day they were launching the car on the Falcon Heavy.

>> No.9631103

>>9630899
Holy fucking shit want a money grab.

>> No.9631106

>NOAA
This is just a warning muskrats.
Humans will reach Mars on a Boeing rocket.
Be happy you are even allowed into LEO.

>> No.9631107

>>9631085
so far they've failed twice, and would likely fail more times before success

>>9631092
They still had a a hopper for testing, and an F9R
Could have bought some aluminum test "vehicles" to get the software/concept working.

>> No.9631115

>>9631107
failure isn't a bad thing buddy, it's how you learn

>>9631103
could be a simple mistake, but probably not

>> No.9631122

>>9631107
They've been doing fairing-recovery-related tests for longer than the two recovery attempts. They only started actually trying to catch it once they had reasonable confidence that it might work.

>> No.9631210

>>9630708
At least not a neoliberal.

>> No.9631330

>>9631083
But they are launching rockets and dropping fairings anyway.. It isn't like they are going to hold launches until they figure out the fairing recovery, so might as well practice during actual launches

>> No.9631380
File: 246 KB, 3614x2409, Pedz6a9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9631380

speaking of 'chutes, the dragon 2 parachute tests are going well

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/parachute-testing-lands-partners-closer-to-crewed-flight-tests

>> No.9631405

>>9628718
I want to find people that get excited about Blue Origin or ESA or whatever but they don't really exist

Maybe when New Glenn starts

>> No.9631414 [DELETED] 

SERIOUS Q:

what happens to the Merlin engine after is deposits satellites into sapce?

>> No.9631439 [DELETED] 
File: 621 KB, 1698x1040, Screen Shot 2018-03-30 at 1.50.10 PM 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9631439

>> No.9631440

>>9631414
Flips back and decelerates enough so it crashes into the planet.

>> No.9631458

>>9631440
Does the second stage completely vaporize during re-entry or do little pieces of it make it to the surface? I assume they must plan for it to breakup over the Pacific somewhere if that's a possibility.

>> No.9631467

>>9631405
Come back in 2020 then.

>> No.9631504

>>9631458
I believe reentry totally destroys it

>> No.9631629 [DELETED] 

>>9631504

and were more interested in saving fuel tanks?

>> No.9631689

>>9630899
What the fuck? Since when is the NOAA allowed to dictate that?
Wasn't the whole point of the satellite launches in the late 50s to set a precedent of no one owning the space above countries?
Why are there greater restrictions on your own country's companies than on foreign nations?

>> No.9631695

>>9631458
I'm pretty sure it deorbits into the Pacific.
Most things don't burn up completely in the atmosphere.

>> No.9631759

>>9631689
here's their official response

http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-statement-on-todays-broadcast-of-spacex-iridium-5-launch

it's a nonanswer...

>> No.9631805

>>9631759
It's exactly as specific as it should be. There are national security restrictions on operating cameras in space. The more information they reveal about the restrictions, the more information they're giving away about where they don't want people to look.

>> No.9631837
File: 22 KB, 300x300, rage-face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9631837

>>9631759
>National security

Fuck this answer is a load of shit.

>> No.9631848

>>9631837
>>9631805
According to congress it’s for national security. The law in particular is 15 CFR part 960. It’s not like noaa is making this up

>> No.9631860

>>9631380
I'm disappointed that they are going for propulsive landings.

>> No.9631901

>>9631848
That doesn't make it not a load of shit.

>> No.9631922

>>9631805
>>9631848
They do realize that other countries don't have to abide by their rules right? I mean, someone has to have told them....right?