Business, Space, Technology and Society

SpaceX

28 Comments

They got the go-ahead a while ago to start fueling. Things are on schedule, as far as I know.

[Update a little over an hour before launch]

Everything still progressing nominally.

Here’s some good technical background on SpaceX’s quest for reusability. Assuming it’s accurate (and I didn’t see any obvious problems), that is a great, detailed description of the Falcon 9 (and its history).

[Update after scrub]

They scrubbed, primarily (it seems) due to a range radar problem.

No, I don’t have strong opinions about this at all…

28 thoughts on “SpaceX”

  3. I hope like heck I’m wrong, but I will be surprised if they succeed in landing this time. The reentry profile is very, very severe; the F9 1st stage will be going much faster at reentry interface than they’ve ever tried before. Although they’ve modeled the trajectory profile, there are a lot ways in which (like higher than modeled hydraulic fluid usage last time) where reality could differ from the model, and thus bite them. My gut read is a 50-50 chance of recovery due to the very challenging reentry, plus all the other unknowns.

    However, as the old saying goes, this is why you have a test program – to learn from it. The data they get from this attempt is directly applicable to downrange FH center core recovery – the entry profile would be very similar.

    1. Yeah the reentry is pretty harsh. Then again if they manage to do a controlled reentry for a flight like this a regular GEO or LEO launch recovery is going to seem like a breeze in comparison.

  7. I got the impression that there was also an issue with a transponder on the first stage, in addition to the Air Force radar.

    1. As far as I could tell there was an issue that had to be cleared by the T – 2 minute mark and they were working to do that. I didn’t hear what, precisely, it was, though I thought I heard the announcer say it was revealed in telemetry. It’s unclear whether or not they resolved that issue in time. They mentioned that if they did not clear it that there couldbe no rollback of the count nd that the thing had to take off at precisely Zero as the window was highly constricted.

    2. I read elsewhere that the problem was a video transmitter on the first stage. If true, that just would’ve meant the loss of a video feed which isn’t critical.

  8. I read your book link, Rand. Can SpaceX implement GPS tracking on their own, or is radar tracking an Air Force requirement?

  9. Predictions of a 50/50 chance of successful recovery are nuts, not lest from a PR point of view. I’d guess it’s more like a 10% or 20% chance of recovery and it’ll take half a dozen attempts to make one stick.

    Which is absolutely fine!

    Also much better PR to play down the chances, I’d have thought.

    1. They were 99.99% of the way to a successful recovery last time, and that still counts as a failure. 50/50 is not unreasonable.

      1. Sure .. 99.99% of the way last time. And probably 99.999% of the way to success this time. And 99.9999% of the way the time after. Pretty soon adding a 9 each flight they’ll round to 1.0, but I wouldn’t bet on it being this time.

        I’d love to be surprised!

    2. I was flabbergasted that they came so close to a soft ocean landing on the very first try, with CASSIOPE. I was certain that the first few attempts would break up in the atmosphere during boostback and re-entry. They seem to have that part nailed down.

      They’ve made much faster progress than I expected. I think they have a good chance for a successful landing this time.

    1. Peter, it’s the government. Between NASA and the Air Force, I’m sure they can (and have) come up with a thousand reasons not to upgrade the radar system, while simultaneously requiring an operating radar system. By the way, SpaceX, that nice new radar you probably offered to install was turned down because it didn’t go through the bureaucracy’s acquisition process.

    2. Air Force Space Command has been saying for over 10 years that both the Eastern and Western Test Ranges need serious upgrades. Back in the 1960s, they were launching much more often so the ranges were more robust and the equipment was newer. Since then, the launch rates have decreased and many of the old radars were closed to save money. The current ranges can take days to reconfigure from one type of launch to another. Also, the systems are old, unreliable, and expensive to maintain. Despite all that, they have not received the funding to improve the ranges. GPS tracking is a possibility but who knows when (or if) it’ll ever be approved for use for launches out of the Cape or Vandenberg.

  11. It seems late last night, they decided to scrub Monday due to predicted poor weather and try again Tuesday.

    1. That poor weather allows for another prime time launch attempt. Maybe I am cynical but I think this points to SpaceX being rather confident in success. Maybe that is a function of scheduling luck but it could be by design. Either way I’m glad I don’t have to be awake at 3am.

  12. If it were important (ya know, like if votes were involved) they could just tie into a mobile (land, sea or air) radar. But it is not, so who cares if it costs a private company a few extra dollars? or that unused radar is not put to good use?

  14. Does anyone know if the Space-X feed that we watch will switch to the landing platform when the thing is trying to land?

Comments are closed.