Boring SpaceX lobs another sat into orbit without anything blowing up ... zzzzz

It's almost routine now. After previous thrills and spills, Elon Musk and his team now don't just make rocket science look easy – they make it look like a quick trip to the corner store. On Friday, SpaceX successfully launched another Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral in Florida, and then landed it successfully at sea, …

[PhilipN]

The Future Starts Here

When space travel got boring. The moment we have been waiting for for 10,000 years. Starting with the horse, then the chariot, then etc.

"Bye, dear. Just popping out (back down to Earth) to stock up on Mars bars, Milky Ways, Galaxy ..."**

**Apologies for distracting resonance but I only just realised how many things at the sweet counter carry an astronomical theme.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The Future Starts Here

I'd argue we got close to it already, but now can add "re-useable". So now it's boring and hopefully getting cheaper. :)

[yoganmahew]

Re: The Future Starts Here

You forgot the best of the lot - Star Bars!

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

Re: The Future Starts Here

I think the true test of whether it's boring might be when the rapturous cheering outside SpaceX mission control, as each mission stage is successfully completed, is replaced with polite applause ala golf.

[Barry Rueger]

Ob: Pournelle

Every time I see one of these land, I think of the line attributed to Jerry Pournelle:

"Rockets should land on their tails, the way God and Robert Heinlein intended."

[Number6]

Re: Ob: Pournelle

I think of Thunderbirds 1 and 3, which have been successfully doing this since the 1960s.

(OK, so TB1 technically isn't a space-going rocket, but it still manages to land on its tail back under the swimming pool)

[Weapon]

Re: Ob: Pournelle

Except the Thunderbirds are a figment of imagination. Where as this is real life.

[Pomgolian]

Re: Ob: Pournelle

>Except the Thunderbirds are a figment of imagination

Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!

You have just destroyed my childhood. Next you'll be telling me that hiding behind the sofa so the Cybermen wouldn't find me was unnecessary. I was damn certain they were real when they were in black & white and I was five.

[Richard Boyce]

Re: Ob: Pournelle

It would not be real life if it had not first been imagined.

[John Tserkezis]

Re: Ob: Pournelle

"Except the Thunderbirds are a figment of imagination. Where as this is real life."

Blasphemy!

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Ob: Pournelle

You must forgive the young for thinking the modern cartoon/CG fictionalised version of the original live action documentary is the only version available. Luckily, ignorance can be cured with education.

[DropBear]

Re: Ob: Pournelle

Of course Thunderbirds are real! I piloted them myself many times through my trusty Speccy clone...

[Number6]

Re: Ob: Pournelle

Except the Thunderbirds are a figment of imagination. Where as this is real life.

But Thunderbirds is still set in the future, despite using 1960s technology (the episode where Gordon is wandering around inside Fireflash shows this really well) and an old kitchen clock. Who's to say that SpaceX isn't laying the groundwork for TB3?

[Number6]

Re: Ob: Pournelle

Here we go, hypersonic technology, 60s style...

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

This time they included some live onboard footage from the first stage, post-separation, which I thought was nice. We got to see the re-entry burn, before the lens got covered in what I assume was unburnt fuel and/or ice once the burn ended.

And one of the grid fins caught fire.

[Mark 85]

For those who missed it live (like I did) here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jEz03Z8azc

Not boring at all, IMO.

[Ashley_Pomeroy]

I realise it's sped up, but I hadn't appreciated how difficult the process was until I saw that video. That rocket deserves a pay rise.

[DCFusor]

Musk's goal closer and closer

If I recall correctly, Elon said that they'll be "there" when this gets boring. Real close now, but I still go "F YEAH" when I see this work so nicely.

[Richard Boyce]

Re: Musk's goal closer and closer

This is just a taster for landing three stages at once from the Falcon Heavy. I am SO looking forward to that. They'll need a big storage area soon.

[cray74]

Re: Musk's goal closer and closer

This is just a taster for landing three stages at once from the Falcon Heavy. I am SO looking forward to that.

Obligatory Falcon Heavy CGI

Got to watch it from a hot dog joint about 15km away, and peeled the young nieces away from their iSlabs to see the launch until it disappeared into a clear blue sky. The launch rumble managed to overcome nearby road traffic noise for about a minute.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Musk's goal closer and closer

"Obligatory Falcon Heavy CGI"

Is there an F9 configuration that uses four boosters? Looking at the landing area, the two boosters land on two of four outer circular pads while the primary 1st stage comes back later and land in the main central pad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Musk's goal closer and closer

Adding one more would unbalance the vehicle, but I see no reason preventing two, or possibly four more boosters. Not sure that there are any unitary loads big enough to justify such an overpowered monster tho...

[Vulch]

Re: Musk's goal closer and closer

Turns out there's not much gained by adding extra boosters. The second stage becomes the limiting factor even if you start going disposable on the first stage cores, and if you do that the cost goes up rapidly. And if you're going to redesign the second stage you might as well also build a bigger first stage to match it that doesn't need boosters.

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

Re: Musk's goal closer and closer

Ignoring the impracticality of the thing, seven cores and 63 engines lifting off would be something to see!

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor article

What is the point of this article? If you think that this is now routine, then don't cover it. For the rest of us, this still represents the cutting edge of aeronautical recovery techniques, and is still an amazing feat.

Please learn some basic facts about the 3-engine descent before writing about it and showing your ignorance.

[cd / && rm -rf *]

Re: Poor article

"If you think that this is now routine, then don't cover it"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

You're welcome.

[Elmer Phud]

Re: Poor article

Delta v

You have made one (1, uno) post and managed to totally miss what was being said in the article.

This is El Reg, we've done all the 'engine' stuff before, if you'd beeen around earlier you'd understand the 'boring' bit.

Please don't behave like the person who only goes the the pub once a year and only watches football once a year and doesn't settle in to the game before asking which City player is Rooney.

[Andy france]

Re: Poor article

In Delta V's defence the article was factually wrong to say that "The Falcon was landing using only three of its nine engines in a bid to save fuel". Were they to use all 9 engines to land the deceleration would be so fierce it would destroy the rocket which is by then comparatively light due to most of the fuel having been used.

There are two options when landing: using one engine or using three engines. A single engine landing is simpler and safer than a three engine landing but uses more fuel as the rocket is hanging around in the air longer fighting gravity. A three engine landing involves falling like a stone until the last possible instant then firing three engines to decelerate like crazy and come to a halt on the deck, and even then they have to transition to a single engine slightly before landing to stop shooting back up again.

The previous time then landed they had 3 seconds of fuel left.

[Trollslayer]

Re: Poor article

As engineers we protect people from complexity.

That mobile phone in your pocket you whine about has more than 500 billion transistors switching hundreds of millions of times a second and can detect signals slight stronger than the static from a flea rubbing it's legs together.

Does that put it into perspective?

[Roq D. Kasba]

Re: Poor article

'Engineers ... protect people from complexity' - I like that, nicely put.

An old lecturer of mine also had a nice phrase 'Engineering is approximate physics for profit' which dovetail nicely :)

[DropBear]

Re: Poor article

"Engineering is approximate physics for profit"

I find it slightly ironic that the very subject that brought this up - construction of rockets, and by extension the original Space Race and flight to the moon - could only possibly define "profit" in a very roundabout and indirect sense, as pertaining to the Saturn era efforts...

[Dave 126]

Re: Poor article

>What is the point of this article? If you think that this is now routine, then don't cover it.

You miss the point. We* have admiration that SpaceX is now making rocket launches and first-stage landings *boring*. Furthermore, we are all excited by the possibilities that *boring* and cheap access to orbit and beyond will bring. It is boring (and expensive) rocket launches of the past that have given us satellite communications, advanced weather forecasting and GPS. These things we take for granted today, but once would only have been seen in the pages of magazines like Amazing Stories!

*Boring* is meant as a compliment, as in 'reliable'. Take commercial air travel - you don't want it to be exciting, you just want to get from A to B. The same is true of any tool. I don't want my phone to imaginatively reboot itself mid-call. I don't want the knife I am using to excitingly turn into a snake. I don't want the bricks in my house to decide on a whim that they have had enough of this solid lark, and will have a go at being liquid.

* I'm summing up the general consensus of Reg Commentards as seen on previous SpaceX threads.

[Dave Bell]

We were getting bored with successful Apollo flights, 7 manned launches in a row, and then, on April 14th 1970, at 03:07:53 UTC, they had a problem.

Boring is good, but we shouldn't expect it.

[Boris the Cockroach]

I was impressed

with the live feed from the drone ship.

Stage one landing... vague glow appears in top right corner, picture drops out, and the next shot is a stage one sitting on the deck.......... we never saw it actually land... its a different ship... what is SpaceX hiding from us?

Its a conspiracy I tell you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Speeded up view from Stage 1's perspective of landing.

https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc

Impressive how it stops the spin, very early on. Then well, just nails it!

[et tu, brute?]

Re: Speeded up view from Stage 1's perspective of landing.

Thanks for finding it and posting the link! That's really amazing footage!

[Will Godfrey]

Yay!

Well? What else can you say?

[energystar]

They're not entertainment Company. The news here is the build-up of confidence on reuse. Something I never hold of 'Shuttle' vessels [Too complex beautiful BEASTS].

Are they going to start selling recharged flights? They should -AT HIGH DISCOUNT-, even if also loosing high on INSURANCE. On cargo easily and quickly replaceable, like supplies. [not one of kind Science Loads].

Supplies should be delivered on disposable cocoons, by the way.

The point here is getting buyers into gambling at the stakes, 2nd hand launches. :)

[Bronek Kozicki]

They do have NASA contract for ISS supplies, 3 in this year, of which the nearest is planned on 16th July. Seems like perfect opportunity to test Falcon 9 reusability :)

[phuzz]

SpaceX are saying there'll be a 30% discount for flying on a second-hand booster.

Lets face it, that's 'only' $40M for a flight, they're practically giving it away!

[Bronek Kozicki]

For a little bit of excitement

Two tweets from Elon Musk

Rocket landing speed was close to design max & used up contingency crush core, hence back & forth motion. Prob ok, but some risk of tipping.

Crush core is aluminum honeycomb for energy absorption in the telescoping actuator. Easy to replace (if Falcon makes it back to port).

(for lack of better icon)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: For a little bit of excitement

Wow. A crush core? Awesome. These guys thought of EVERYTHING.

(Even if it's a retrospective "idea"... "We totally meant to do that". ;) )

[Fink-Nottle]

Re: For a little bit of excitement

... start a petition to get Jeremy Clarkson appointed to the SpaceX board.

[a_yank_lurker]

Good Job

Space X seems to be on the brink of making space launches cheap. This has lost of implications such as the ability to have standby rockets ready for space rescues and other emergencies.

[JeffyPoooh]

"...angular velocity..."

"...Meanwhile, the second stage was still blasting away, giving the satellite more angular velocity..."

How much 'angular velocity' do satellites in geostationary orbit carry?

[energystar]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

360º/24h angular velocity, for geostationary ;)

[Dwarf]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

Did you just de-bunk a little bit of rocket science ???

[oldcoder]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

Angular velocity decreases as the orbit gets larger... but to go from a low orbit to a higher one you need a larger angular velocity at the lower orbit to get there...

[Dwarf]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

@oldcoder. Think you are wrong.

Based on the original posting of 360 degrees /24 hours being for geostationary orbit, then this holds for all altitudes, so you would need to go FASTER at higher orbits, not slower.

[AndyS]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

Dwarf, orbital speed is entirely defined by altitude, therefore "geostationary" is as much a term of height as it is a term of speed. All geostationary sats are at the same height.

Go higher, you orbit less often. Stay lower, you orbit more often.

[Steve Todd]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

@dwarf, if an orbiting rocket applies a burst of thrust in the direction of the orbit then the altitude of the orbit will increase and the velocity will decrease until there is once more a balance between gravity trying to pull the rocket down and Newtonian physics trying to keep it going in a straight line. Climbing out of the gravity well takes energy, and that energy is subtracted from the kinetic energy (mass x velocity) of the craft. It seems counter intuitive, but low orbits are fast orbits.

[Dwarf]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

@Steve, @Andy.

I get what you are saying, but disagree with you. Geostationary - which by my understanding (and verified by a quick check on Wikipedia) is that the satellite appears motionless when observed from the earth (hence the stationary bit) see the Wikipedia article This is why we can watch Sky TV 24 hours a day without having motorised dishes.

The world goes round once a day, so the geostationary satellites go round once a day as well. This holds true for any altitude, otherwise it would not be geostationary. I get that for various reasons (including those that Steve details) the chosen height is ~22K miles. clearly the velocity (angular velocity) must be higher for larger distances as its a bigger circle to cover in the same period of time.

So, going back to @enerystar's post about 360º/24h, then he's right.

[Bronek Kozicki]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

... the geostationary satellites go round once a day as well. This holds true for any altitude, otherwise it would not be geostationary

... and the only altitude where a satellite can remain stable in a circular orbit and at speed matching Earth's rotation, is just this one, roughly 22.2k miles. Additionally for a satellite to remain in a fixed location relative to Earth it must be above equator (and not any other great circle). Hence, what we normally call geostationary orbit is just this one, at a specific altitude and relation to Earth rotation. Which is why it is called the geostationary orbit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

Presumably the mass of the object affects the geostationary orbit that it can enter into? That is, does a "heavier" object fly higher?

I guess most satellites have a similar mass anyway.

[Brangdon]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

No, the orbit height depends on the mass of the planet, but not the mass of the satellite.

[MisterNineThousand]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

To be fair the exact height of a geostationary orbit depends on the combined mass of the satellite and the planet and the planets rotational speed, but since the mass of the satellite can be safely rounded to 0% of the mass of the system, and the rotation of the Earth is pretty reliable, it's just the altitude.

Geostat orbits need to be equatorial and perfectly round and and a super specific height (35,786 kilometres (22,236 mi)) But there are geo synchronized orbits that can are any inclination or eccentricity so long as the period is 24 hours, and will appear at the same point at the sky at the same time every day. That said though they will appear to move a lot through out the day. (Kerbals taught me everything I know!)

[DropBear]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

"... and the only altitude where a satellite can remain stable in a circular orbit and at speed matching Earth's rotation, is just this one, roughly 22.2k miles. "

Nonsense! There are at least TWO altitudes for a stable circular speed matching Earth's rotation - the one you mentioned, and altitude zero: I'm matching Earth's rotation quite stably, circularly and effortlessly right here where I am sitting, thank you very much...

[Patrician]

Re: "...angular velocity..."

Any satellite above or below 22k would need to burn fuel to hold a geostationary orbit; at 22k they wouldn't as orbital speed at 22k = the Earths rotation.

[David Roberts]

Only storage for three or four reusable stages?

Does this hint that the program is going far better than expected?

[Patras]

seems so

Craigslist: 36 Used rocket engines, $10 million each. Only used one time, less than 30 minutes flight time. Must have own transport to collect. [e-mail]

Also see our "cheaper by the dozen" ad.

[Bronek Kozicki]

Falcon 9 home

Despite noticeable tilt, the Falcon 9 booster made it safely back to SpaceX facilities in Florida. Here are the pictures