-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SpaceX has officially said they will not try to recover the booster. The weather in the recovery area is too bad.
Too bad. Launches without a core recovery seem so...anticlimactic. The rocket goes up and the payload separates and then...I feel so emotionally empty and unsatisfied. 
Why launch if you can't land?Too bad. Launches without a core recovery seem so...anticlimactic. The rocket goes up and the payload separates and then...I feel so emotionally empty and unsatisfied.
swaltner
Active Member
e-FTW
New electron smell
Mo City
Active Member
I love landings like everyone else. They are awesome and cool.
However, takeoff is when I get nervous and queasy. It remains and always will be the most dramatic part for me.
However, takeoff is when I get nervous and queasy. It remains and always will be the most dramatic part for me.
26 foot waves prevented recovery. Losing titanium grid fins is the bigger deal in this instance. Timing prevented their removal.
I thought it is just me !! The first minute and half till it goes well past MaxQ, I am prepared for a RUD. And then every separation is a tense moment.
The last GTO launch from Indian space research organization (ISRO) failed because the fairing didn't separate.
Also did you guys notice that the timebar on the bottom of the screen containing important events was incorrect for payload release. When the payload was released the time bar still had another 10 seconds to go.
Wild guess: Since they went expendable, they may have used more fuel to give the satellite more velocity (saving it fuel getting to GEO), and didn't update the timeline.
Can someone please explain the significance of the first burn, coast, and then a very short 2nd burn, and then a coast and then the release?
I believe the first coast is to take to equator. But the 2nd coast is a mystery. Why not jettison the payload right after the 2nd burn and the satellite will still follow the same path whether the 2nd stage is attached to it or not..?
I believe the first coast is to take to equator. But the 2nd coast is a mystery. Why not jettison the payload right after the 2nd burn and the satellite will still follow the same path whether the 2nd stage is attached to it or not..?
The second burn is to adjust the orbit. Due to physics, the location of the burn is critical for the desired result. The coast phase allows time to determine current orbit and to get in position for correction.
At that point, the second stage still has fuel that can be used to adjust the trajectory if needed. The second coast phase allows ground tracking to verify the orbit. If good: detach, if off: do a third burn.
Other info on getting to final orbit:
How to get a satellite to geostationary orbit
YellyYeti
Member
I usually go to spacex.com/webcast, is this the same feed? I have thought in the past that the feed was delayed a good amount, and I was able to confirm it last night. I was able to clearly see MECO and it happened right when the webcast said that MECO was 10 seconds away. Is there a webcast that is more real-time? I remember watching the webcast in a group once in Port Canaveral, and someone had a feed that was several seconds ahead of what I was listening to.
N5329K
Active Member
I wonder if they will ever scrub a launch because of these conditions, where the weather at the launch site is fine, but the landing site is not.
Follow up (now that I watched the launch). Yah, 2nd burn was to get the orbit inclination closer to 0. The burns for orbtial changes take place where the initial orbit intersects the desired final orbit.
It was hard to tell, but the delayed release may also have been to get the satellite in the sun before it had to control its own trajectory/ attitude.
Absolutely.
It’s a little easy to miss the forest through the trees, but the sole mission of every launch is to place a payload in orbit safely and efficiently. Reusing rocket parts is explicitly not the mission. Resusing rocket parts is simply a method by which ‘cheaply’ gets added to ‘safely’ and ‘efficiently’.
The people paying for the launches don’t give a lick about reusability above and beyond the fact that it allows them to launch cheaper and more frequently. Even the oft discussed enhanced reliability of flight proven parts is rather overstated. While some customers may parrot the concept, from the put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is perspective, it’s really just lip service until customers start asking for and paying more for flight proven parts.
If SpaceX's goal is approximately 100 launches pr booster, I believe that this kind of scrubbing sometimes will be a necessary inconvenience. Otherwise it will be difficult for them to determine or predict the logistics and economy of hardware production and launches.
Musk doesn't seem to be afraid of technical challenges, so the problem will presumably be decreased to a minimum. There is for instance a lot of relevant technology used in the marine and offshore industry, and many of those engineers will certainly be exited to work with SpaceX for a even more stable droneship.
In time, when booster landings have become a obviousness, environmental reasons probably will force the launch providers to end sea disposals of rocket stages anyway. I don't know if they today need disposal permissions from relevant authorities, but withdrawal of those approvals, if they exist, will then be quite likely I guess.
