SpaceX Launch Thread - CRS-14

[Anonymous No.9637403]

SpaceX is targeting Monday, April 2 for an instantaneous launch of its fourteenth Commercial Resupply Services mission (CRS-14) at 4:30 p.m. EDT, or 20:30 UTC, from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.

This launch will feature a used Block 4 booster. It previously flew on CRS-12. The Dragon is also used, having flown on CRS-8. The first stage will NOT be recovered.

Press kit: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/crs-14presskit2018.pdf
Payload overview: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/spacex_crs-14_mision_overview_high_res.pdf
Webcast: http://www.spacex.com/webcast
NASA TV: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/#public
Weather forecast: http://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/documents/Weather/Launch%20Info/L-1%20Forecast%202%20April%20Launch.pdf?ver=2018-04-01-133225-547 (80% GO)


>seven new ways to grow plants in space are onboard, it's pretty neat

[Anonymous No.9637482]

>Quick update from the previous F9 mission
even though the fairing parafoil failed, it appears that Mr Steven (fairing catching boat) recovered an intact half of the fairing.

>Elon news
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/980518020358463489
>"important news in a few hours"
It's April 1st do don't get your hopes up

[Anonymous No.9637582]

Pre-launch conference is starting. I'll post updates

>20% chance of weather violation for launch; 77°F
>this dragon has additional water sealing, so it had less parts replaced during refurbishment
>Dragon 1 is qualified for max of 3 flights per vehicle

[Anonymous No.9637595]

go for good launch

[Anonymous No.9637597]

>>9637582
>looking for additional opportunities for 1-year crew members
>Block 5 is expected to be reused for 10+ flights
>this particular mission will be expended, as it will be used to fly a trajectory towards the "limits" of the F9 capability for data collection

[Anonymous No.9637603]

>>9637597
>no restriction on 2nd stage video stream

and that wraps up the Q&A

[Anonymous No.9637653]

Will this be the block 5 falcon 9?

[Anonymous No.9637659]

WHEREVER I GO I MUST ALSO SHITPOST IN SPACEX THREAD

[Anonymous No.9637661]

>>9637653
Block 5 will fly first for the Bangabandhu-1 mission on the 24th. As stated in the OP:
>"This (CRS-14) launch will feature a used Block 4 booster. It previously flew on CRS-12. The Dragon is also used, having flown on CRS-8. The first stage will NOT be recovered."

[Anonymous No.9637668]

>>9637661
Have they said if they are just going to be using block 5s from that launch onward? Would be cool if they work as promised and they chuck them back up after a quick inspection.

[Anonymous No.9637677]

>>9637668
Iridium-6, TESS, and the in-flight abort test will all use block 4. Plus one more I believe.

After that it's all block 5, baby

[Anonymous No.9637729]

>>9637597
>>looking for additional opportunities for 1-year crew members
What does this mean?

[Anonymous No.9637733]

>>9637729
ISS astronauts who will stay onboard for an entire year

[Anonymous No.9637745]

Friendly reminder that "space" is fake and the earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.9637756]

>>9637745
(you)

[Anonymous No.9637784]

>>9637745
Friendly reminder that the "Earth" is fake and space is stacked.

[Anonymous No.9637792]

EXCLUSIVE FOOTAGE OF SPACEX LANDING ON MARS

[Anonymous No.9637798]

>>9637784

That's one of NDT's theories and I agree with it.

[Anonymous No.9638117]

>>9637745

We are on a plane. Kurt Cobain, Frank Sinatra and Pewdiepie agree.

[Anonymous No.9638725]

17 hours to go

[Anonymous No.9638760]

This is Flight (Apparently names are disabled for the duration of the april fools event) Thank you for continued Space-X coverage. It's one thread type I intentionally avoided making, feeling it more fitting to stick with NASA manned spaceflight specifically, and to leave the Space-X coverage to those interested parties.

[Anonymous No.9638943]

>>9637482
Per elon, the fairing landed fine!

[Anonymous No.9638988]

>>9638943
Oh nice they snagged half of it. Next tine theyll have solved the problem and will have the whole thing. Shits incredible man.

[Anonymous No.9639028]

>>9638988
the question remains how they will recover both halves with only one Mr Steven. Two separate smaller nets? Delay one fairing and catch the other, then quickly get the caught half off of the net to make room for the other one? Or, just build another Mr Steven?

[Anonymous No.9639101]

>>9639028
>Or, just build another Mr Steven?
This.

Fairings cost something like 3mil, so if they catch a few halves they can fund another Mr Steven.

[Anonymous No.9639108]

>>9639101
cadence will be an issue. Boats can only go so fast, and if SpaceX is launching three times a week that means a quick turnaround with getting the fairings to shore.

[Anonymous No.9639132]

>>9639108
The more they recover the more boats they can build.

[Flight No.9639160]

>>9639132
This sounds like one of those"You see Ivan" jokes...

[Anonymous No.9639205]

>>9639108
Build moar boats

[Anonymous No.9639239]

>>9639108
Not really, how far are the fairings out there? 1000 km max? A ship can make it back to shore within a day or two.
Also they can go bigger for a more stable platform and catching 2 at once.

They aren't launching more than 2 times a month from each launch site either
And Dragon capsules don't need fairings.

[Anonymous No.9639464]

>>9637597
>>this particular mission will be expended, as it will be used to fly a trajectory towards the "limits" of the F9 capability for data collection
cound you ad to this?

[Anonymous No.9639467]

>>9639108
>>9639132
>>9639205
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8T095mFdW8

[Anonymous No.9639479]

Where is the live stream for CRS-14?

The SPESSEX website is still showing the Iridium-5 replay?

[Anonymous No.9639483]

Stop disrupting markets.

[Anonymous No.9639497]

>>9639479
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPQHG-LevZM

[Anonymous No.9639504]

>>9639479
It's not starting for another 9 hours or something anyway.

[Anonymous No.9639647]

>Falcon 9’s first stage previously launched SpaceX’s twelfth resupply mission for @NASA last year, and Dragon flew to the orbiting laboratory in support of our eighth resupply mission in 2016.
Noice.

[Anonymous No.9639707]

how long until spacex is launching once a week?

[Anonymous No.9639726]

>>9639707
next week

[Anonymous No.9639754]

>>9639464
They’re going to do some extreme testing of the core to see if their engineering predictions hold true

>>9639483
>t. Bezos

>>9639707
Late this year

[Anonymous No.9639758]

>>9639754
Jeff who?

[Anonymous No.9639803]

>>9639758
Kisses

[Anonymous No.9639806]

>>9639464
Unless they explain further my guess would be doing a shorter entry burn, maybe a steeper entry angle, something that'll put more stress on the core as it reenters but would save them fuel.

[Anonymous No.9639911]

>>9639803
Jeff Kisses who?

[Anonymous No.9639992]

>>9639108
The catcher-type craft is fast-moving, and they can transfer the fairing-halves to a cheaper transport ship so the catchers don't need to return to port if there are multiple launches that day.

Plus they can build more boats as needed. It only takes a few catches to pay for a new boat.

[Anonymous No.9640003]

>>9639911
you mom' lips

[Anonymous No.9640060]

[Anonymous No.9640118]

Cape countdown clocks counting to 16:30:38 EDT (20:30:38 UTC) for liftoff

[Anonymous No.9640338]

90 minutes

[Anonymous No.9640409]

Less than one hour to go fuckers

GET HYPE

[Anonymous No.9640463]

Rockets make my peepee hard.

[Anonymous No.9640492]

explode pls i'm from the eu and don't like the idea of falling too far behind

[Anonymous No.9640496]

>>9640492
Go find your lost telemetry arianenigger.

[Anonymous No.9640500]

>>9639707

Whenever Starlink launches get underway. 1-2 years.

[Anonymous No.9640505]

>>9640492
>EU has a space agency

go away larping burger

[Anonymous No.9640506]

>music has started

OH SHIT NIGGAS

[Anonymous No.9640508]

>inb4 no cams because noaa

[Anonymous No.9640513]

>>9640508
Nah apparently they have the proper beauracrat approved piece of paper now.

[Anonymous No.9640515]

>>9640505

[Anonymous No.9640519]

liv

[Anonymous No.9640521]

Elon makes my peepee hard
also started

[Anonymous No.9640526]

Why don't they land shit any more

[Anonymous No.9640528]

>>9640526

They're getting rid of the old non-block 5 rockets.

[Anonymous No.9640529]

camera whitebalance is fucked. The rocket looks blue where it should look gold and white

[Anonymous No.9640532]

>>9640526
Older versions of the booster are not useful or cost effective to maintain.

They only land the new V5 set.

[Anonymous No.9640537]

MARS WHEN?

[Anonymous No.9640539]

>>9640528
>>9640532
Seems like it's not very good to just dump them though.

[Anonymous No.9640540]

Yo where is the anti SpaceX sperg? That guy is like clockwork normally with these threads.

[Anonymous No.9640545]

>>9640515
>doubles down on his retardation


https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ESA/ESA_and_the_EU2
>ESA is an intergovernmental organisation, whereas the EU is supranational. The two institutions have indeed different ranges of competences, different Member States and are governed by different rules and procedures.

[Anonymous No.9640548]

>>9640537
Soon brother.

[Anonymous No.9640549]

>>9640539
They are actually testing aggressive landing procedures with these boosters because there is 0 risk of damaging the droneship and the data will improve landings of V5

[Anonymous No.9640554]

Looks windy.

[Anonymous No.9640558]

>>9640554
Is wind a high risk for rocket launches? (sry I'm a brainlet)

[Anonymous No.9640560]

>>9640558
What the fuck do you think

[Anonymous No.9640561]

>>9640558
Wind is one of the most common reasons for launch scrubs.

[Anonymous No.9640564]

Why did he say they have contracts for 20 ISS missions?

I thought they've been awarded two CRS2 missions on top of the 20 CRS ones?

[Anonymous No.9640567]

>Nanoracks

Delicious flat chests

[Anonymous No.9640568]

>>9640554
80% go for launch, doesn't look windy.

[Anonymous No.9640569]

>>9640558
They check wind speeds with weather balloons within hours of launch to confirm it's within limit.

FYI Russia's Soyuz can launch in snow blizzards

[Anonymous No.9640570]

>>9640558
Over a certain level, yes. Under that level, no.

[Anonymous No.9640572]

>>9640569
Falcon 9 is the longest/stringiest rocket, that makes it most vulnerable to crosswinds blowing it in half. Soyuz is short and stubby.

[Anonymous No.9640574]

its going to blow up

[Anonymous No.9640576]

>>9640549
Where do you get this information?

[Anonymous No.9640579]

>>9640574
Doubt it 2bh

[Anonymous No.9640580]

ONE MINUTE

[Anonymous No.9640581]

>>9640572
Don't forget the genital warts sideboosters

[Anonymous No.9640585]

[Anonymous No.9640589]

It's getting a bit boring now. It's so reliable.

[Anonymous No.9640591]

>>9640576
They just mentioned this on today's livestream.

[Anonymous No.9640592]

>>9640574
hah not today my roscosmos friend :D

[Anonymous No.9640599]

Was a clear explanation ever posted for the NOAA restriction last time?

[Anonymous No.9640603]

>>9640599
NOAA considers the 2nd stage cameras to be an remote sensing system which require a film license.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/spacex-launches-a-rocket-but-noaa-prevented-some-of-it-from-being-shown/

[Anonymous No.9640604]

>>9640599
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxZ0sC8a7eY

[Anonymous No.9640606]

>>9640589
kek

>>9640599
The official line is """National Secutity"""

[Anonymous No.9640612]

>>9640604
>space x

[Anonymous No.9640622]

>>9637403
HE'S DONE IT AGAIN

[Anonymous No.9640623]

>nominal

Why do Americans love spamming these tacticool phrases so much?

It's gay as hell

[Anonymous No.9640628]

What are those array panels?

[Anonymous No.9640630]

Welp, see y'all in another 2 weeks.

[Anonymous No.9640631]

Next launch is TESS in 2 weeks.

[Anonymous No.9640632]

Cool they made it once again.

When is the next Falcon Heavy launch, and what is it carrying?

[Anonymous No.9640633]

>>9640628
Solar panels

[Anonymous No.9640636]

>>9640628
Solar panels

[Anonymous No.9640638]

>>9640632
Next Heavy launch looks to be STP-2 for the Air Force, NET June 13. That should be a good one

[Anonymous No.9640640]

>>9640623
Normalfags love them
That's literally the only reason

[Anonymous No.9640641]

Is there going to be a press conference? And when?

[Anonymous No.9640642]

>>9640638
The STP-2 (DoD Space Test Program) payload is scheduled to be launched aboard a Falcon Heavy in 2018. The payload is composed of 25 small spacecraft.

Included is COSMIC-2, a cluster of six satellites, with a mass of 277.8 kg each. The primary role of the COSMIC-2 satellite constellation is to provide radio occultation data with an average latency of 45 minutes. The six satellites will be placed on an orbit with an inclination of 24 to 28.5 degrees with six separate orbital planes with 60 degree separation between them. The payload stack will be integrated using EELV Secondary Payload Adapter. Two ESPA Grande rings will be used to mount the six COSMIC-2 satellites beneath the ESPA ring hosting the DSX payload and avionics modules. STP-2 will also host up to 8 CubeSat nanosatellites deployed with P-PODs (Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployers).

Other secondary payloads include LightSail carried by the Prox-1 nanosatellite, Oculus-ASR nanosatellite, GPIM, and the Deep Space Atomic Clock.

[Anonymous No.9640649]

>>9640632
If you don't want to miss it, download SpacexNow in the app store. It tells you when the next launch is due.

[Anonymous No.9640658]

>>9640633
>that pic

Fucking hell man.

[Anonymous No.9640661]

Did they land the 1st stage this time?

[Anonymous No.9640666]

>>9640661
read

>>9640528
>>9640549

[Anonymous No.9640668]

Is this a dumb theory:
I feel like the Falcon Heavy will perform better with heavier payloads.

Since they never managed to get asparagus staging right, they throttle down the core booster until the side booster separate.

But rocket engines can't be throttled down below a certain number, and having the side boosters at 100% with the core booster at 30% when carrying a light payload (i.e. the car) would produce immense TWR that would be wasted in the thicc atmosphere after launch, and cause a lot of stress on the rocket.

Therefore, I imagine that on light payloads the side boosters are also throttled down, and this causes a loss of Delta V.
This is also why the core booster and the side boosters ran out of fuel so close to each other in the demo mission, they were both running at reduced thrust.

If my theory isn't dumb, heavier payloads will work better on the Falcon Heavy.

[Anonymous No.9640673]

https://youtu.be/wwMDvPCGeE0

NASA is replaying launch footage from different camera angles they have around KSC. Pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.9640692]

>>9640673
>KSC
I immediately read Kerbal Space Center...

[Anonymous No.9640729]

https://youtu.be/wwMDvPCGeE0

NASA providing a LIVE update from Mission Control

[Anonymous No.9640921]

post launch conf starting

[Anonymous No.9640941]

>>9640668
>Therefore, I imagine that on light payloads the side boosters are also throttled down, and this causes a loss of Delta V.
>This is also why the core booster and the side boosters ran out of fuel so close to each other in the demo mission, they were both running at reduced thrust.

they throttle down right around max q on every flight to prevent the rocket from destroying itself, f9 and fh can't actually carry anything near their stated maximum payload capacity without reinforcing them structurally to handle the high acceleration at that point in the flight.

pic related.

[Anonymous No.9641052]

>>9640941
>f9 and fh can't actually carry anything near their stated maximum payload capacity without reinforcing them structurally to handle the high acceleration at that point in the flight.

I know for a fact that the FH's centre core and second-stage have been structurally reinforced in multiple ways, which is is why they are not interchangeable with single-stick Falcons; this is further reinforced by the fact that Elon has referred to the FH core as a 'frankenstage', and that the second-stage of the FH has already shown itself as superior to the normal variant due to it's ability to coast to GEO which a base Falcon 9 cannot do.

The regular Falcon 9 on the other hand has never flown and likely never will fly a payload heavy enough to structurally compromise it. This is due both to the Falcon 9's reusable nature, as the F9 can't carry anything over 12 tons and land; as well as the current satellite market, as currently there are hardly any satellites over 8 tons in weight being built by the commercial sector, with the industry also leaning towards smaller satellites for the future as well. The only way for the base F9 to carry to much weight would be a large satellite rideshare, but the F9 lacks a fairing to fit more than one bird of this size anyway.

[Anonymous No.9641196]

>>9640623
Nominal was chosen in its space meaning because it could be understood better than "normal" when using VOX-switch communications.

[Anonymous No.9641202]

>>9641052
Drone ship landing only costs like 15% of payload off the F9
The fairing is gigantic, have you ever seen an image of the size of these sats? Even the big ones? They are tiny compared to the fairing

[Anonymous No.9641283]

>>9641202
The Iridium stack fills the payload.

[Anonymous No.9641284]

>>9641283
I mean fairing.

[Anonymous No.9641288]

Next spacex launch is TESS, April 16th 2018, 18:32 - 18:33 EDT (22:32 - 22:33 UTC). It's an exoplanet searching probe

[Anonymous No.9641365]

>>9641283
>>9641284
iridium stack is not particularly dense
And I believe its not totally full either, just that adding more sats would involve redesigns.

[Anonymous No.9641552]

>>9641365
I guess you're right, but then you also can't fill up the fairing completely either.
Although it looks like it, there probably isn't enough space for one more set of sats.

[Anonymous No.9641591]

>>9641052
>the second-stage of the FH has already shown itself as superior to the normal variant due to it's ability to coast to GEO which a base Falcon 9 cannot do.
No, that's not particular to FH, the FH launch was just a good time to test it.

[Anonymous No.9641710]

[Anonymous No.9641996]

>>9640668
Core booster didn't run out of main propellent, it ran out of reignition fuel, the stuff used to light the main propellent.

[Anonymous No.9642032]

>>9640673

Fakest shit I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.9643316]

rip http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/03/family-4-killed-in-florida-crash-after-seeing-spacex-launch.html

[Anonymous No.9643583]

>>9641552
I don't think its worth the effort to try to fill it up, and as your payload gets taller with a higher center of gravity, the max weight decreases rapidly.