SpaceX nails two launches and barge landings in one weekend No matter what you did over the weekend, you'll struggle to top Elon Musk's after his space trucking venture launched 11 satellites atop two rockets, both of which stuck perfect landings on barges. Mission “BulgariaSat-1” kicked off the fun with a Friday launch of a geosynchronous satellite that will improve telecommunications …
The new titanium grid fins replace the previous aluminium items that tended to, ahem, catch fire on re-entry:
I understand the new fins now hold the record for the largest single-piece titanium forging, so that's something.
Not the fin itself but the ablative coating/paint added to them that burns off during the re-entry burn to keep them intact long enough to do their job when actually reaching a bit of the atmosphere where they are effective. The flames seen in that video are a coating/paint burning off, not the grid fin material itself afaik. --> Plenty of that pretty much guaranteed when re-entering the atmosphere at a balmy 2000 m/s!
Pleased to see some entirely good news based on intelligent, effective science and engineering. NASA ought to be hiding its face in shame considering (a) the serial failures of the ill-conceived, monstrously expensive Shuttle, and (b) how quickly SpaceX has got a working, vastly cheaper reusable system into operation. This is impressive stuff.
I hope they are thinking far enough ahead to be considering future SSTO opportunities. Reaction Engines have been plodding away solidly for years developing tech for this one piece at a time (Sabre engines mostly, I think) and I'd love to see SpaceX-type money and energy put into a venture of that kind. Arguably, it's a bigger priority than Mars, though we do need to get our eggs out of this fragile basket of Earth asap.
Kudos to SpaceX for serious work. It makes Virgin "Galactic's" marketing stunts in the desert look plain childish by comparison. (Vomit-comet lobs to nowhere and "I'm A Big Astronaut, Daddy!" badges for fatheads with more money than sense: heaven help our species).
Whatever happens, old as I am, I'd like to be alive to see the first heavy-metal asteroid inserted into lunar orbit, or parked at a Lagrange point, and for mining to start. It'll feel like humanity is finally arriving, after a faltering start.
"[...] I'd like to be alive to see the first heavy-metal asteroid inserted into lunar orbit, or parked at a Lagrange point, and for mining to start."
Let's hope they devise a "used asteroid" disposal system by then - otherwise near-space will look like a fly-tipper's paradise. Various booms have usually left the disposal problem to a future generation to try to sort out - either on earth or in its orbits. By which time the problem has usually caused a few disasters.
Let's hope they devise a "used asteroid" disposal system by then
Well, the moon is pretty close by and pretty uninhabited..
Failing that, there's an unimportant building in Washington, USA that could do with some remodelling[1]..
[1] Again. Party like it's 1812, just with bigger booms..
That's a little bit harsh on the "sub-orbital lob" companies. Yes, a lot of the money will be from tourists but there are (or were - they have been a bit quiet lately!) a few companies (including VG) who were planning science-only jaunts. Apparently there is a surprising amount of zero-g science you can get done in a few minutes. Even though the time is short, for the same money that you would spend on launch to ISS, or whatever, you can get a _lot_ of 6 minute sessions and you can sit right next to your experiment so the apparatus can be a lot simpler.
<quote>Pleased to see some entirely good news based on intelligent, effective science and engineering. NASA ought to be hiding its face in shame considering (a) the serial failures of the ill-conceived, monstrously expensive Shuttle, and (b) how quickly SpaceX has got a working, vastly cheaper reusable system into operation. This is impressive stuff.</qoute>
Elon Musk is always very careful to put NASA on his thank-you list, and to say that SpaceX couldn't have done what they do without NASA's contribution. How much this is a political (small 'p') gesture I don't know, but do remember that space shuttle design work began before the Apollo 11 landing.
SpaceX's ability to take feedback from missions and get improved parts into operation is truly impressive.
NASA's vote of confidence in SpaceX (and money) saved the company from bankruptcy in its early days. I get the impression they do as much as feasible within the strictures of a political governance.
> NASA ought to be hiding its face in shame considering (a) the serial failures of the ill-conceived, monstrously expensive Shuttle, and (b) how quickly SpaceX has got a working, vastly cheaper reusable system into operation.
NASA's spending is controlled by the US Congress, which has members very interested in ensuring jobs remain in their state, and it bends to the demands of the US Airforce increasing the cost and design complexity.
And you really don't. You're comments about Shuttle and Skylon demonstrate a truly American level of ignorance in both.
Let's put this in perspective.
2 separate launch sites on opposite sides of the country, with 2 completely separate but equally experienced launch crews, manage two launches within 49 hours of each other that land on 2 completely separate landing barges
None of this is a record, which IIRC was 44 hours apart.
Now had they landed both boosters on the same barge that would have been astonishing.
Had they launched 44 minutes apart and rendezvoused in space that would have astonishing. Just the 44 mins apart bit would have been very impressive.
To anyone who knows what resources are available and what's happening this is not amazing. It's competent (and steadily improving) Launch Operations.
None of this is a record, which IIRC was 44 hours apart.
It's a record for SpaceX, which is worth popping a bottle of bubbly as it marks - as you say - a significant evolution in the maturity of their Launch Operations capability.
Once SLC-40 comes back online, it'll be a test of their West-coast team to develop the ability to perform rapid turn around on alternating pads (although 39A will presumably go offline for a period to receive final modifications for Falcon Heavy operations).
It's meaningless.
It's like two service engineers visiting two sites coming from two service depots and (OMG) arriving at the offices of the companies they've come to service at the same time.
Only they didn't.
Sorry but it's just not that impressive. Not even historically as NASA did it with a shorter window (about 44 hr s IIRC) in the 1960's
Had it been a single team rushing between those sites that would have been unprecedented, but it wasn't. .
John,
Elon Musk's wet dream: Launching a rocket, recovering and relaunching within 24 hours.
(Not going to happen for a long time. )
That said, launching from two different sites within 44 hours? NASA hasn't done that, have they?
And both landing and able to be recovered... also impressive. Even the reuse of boosters is impressive.
Now if someone could invent a rail launcher that can safely launch satellites and other non human payloads in to space... even better.
NASA hasn't done that, have they? And both landing and able to be recovered... also impressive. Even the reuse of boosters is impressive.
I think the USAF once simultaneously test launched a pair of ICBMs, but practically speaking SpaceX just did something that:
1) NASA hasn't
2) ULA hasn't
3) ArianeSpace hasn't
4) ILS hasn't
5) ISRO hasn't
etc.
If I'm wrong about getting 2 orbital launches up in less than 3 days, I'd welcome the correction. When it comes to fast, frequent space travel: the more the merrier.
And I'll "me three" the point about NASA's utility to SpaceX. SpaceX wouldn't be here without a lot successes, hard lessons, missteps, and triumphs from NASA.
You are.
1989 Titan at Cape Canaveral and VAFB within 44 hrs.
Also Dec 1966 2 Atlas SLV3's.
It's not as impressive to people with background knowledge of the subject.
And these days getting that knowledge is quite easy.
In this regard I find the 9 days between Gemini 7 and Gemini 6 much more impressive. A crewed launch from the same launchpad (Cape Kennedy, LC-19). Ok, Gemini 6 didn't actually launch as 6A until 3 days later (which is impressive in it's own right given what happened) but that's just technicality. They were ready to launch in 9 days.
In addition to the simultaneous flight (and rendezvous) of Gemini 6A and 7, the Gemini program included numerous side-by-side launches of the Gemini capsule and the Agena Target Vehicle, which was used for various tests including orbital rendezvous and boosting, throughout 1965-66.
During the Gemini 8, 10, 11 and 12 missions, their respective ATVs were all launched approximately 100 minutes ahead of the Gemini capsule.
The Soviets launched two manned spacecraft from the same launchpad less than 24 hours apart in 1962 https://www.seeker.com/the-soviets-first-space-rendezvous-1765928597.html
So it can be done.
Actually they did.
September 1989. Titan III from Cap Canaveral and Titan II from VAFB 44 Hrs later.
It's like a United Airlines 747 taking off from New York at the same time as another United Airlines 747 takes off from Chicago. What are the odds?
The answer is of course "who cares?"
Now landing them both on the same barge 49 hours apart. That would have been phenomenal.
There was a time when I hoped I'd see asteroids being brought to earth orbit.
Then 9/11 happened.
Now I fear what some religious idiot might do if we ever brought asteroids to earth orbit. They really are stupid enough to do it. Especially the ones that want the end times to happen.
One point to be made here -
a) we wont stick the target object in earth orbit - for one, too many artificial satellites already and it would be large enough to cause them orbital perturbation, requiring additional fuel to adjust
b) we really aren't likely to use lunar orbit either - although it would be substantially better than earth orbit the only *SANE* place to stick really large asteroids for (mining/residential rebuilding) will be the L2/L3/L5 lagrange points. And we'd be wisest (given your scenario) to use *only* the trailing lagrange points.
c) asteroid in *solar* orbit inserting to earth atmosphere - easy peasy - theyre usually *well* above entry speed. Getting an orbiting or parked asteroid, no matter *how* large up to entry speed is going to be rather harder than one might think.
"NASA ought to be hiding its face in shame "
Standing on the shoulders of giants. And NASA is one of the bigger giants and it's always nice to learn from the mistakes others made before you got your chance to make those mistakes. That's not to denigrate the achievements of SpaceX, but how long would they have taken to do this without what NASA and others did before them?
All very well, but then again who's shoulders were NASA standing on?
Elephants, its elephants all the way down. ;) Or the Zeta Reticulans who crashed at Roswell.
But more seriously: NASA was really standing on the shoulders of a number of US 1950s ICBM and spy satellite programs, which got a boost from Peenemünde's crowd and then amateur rocketry groups in the 1920s and 1930s.
"[T]he ill-conceived, monstrously expensive Shuttle"
The shuttle design, brilliant that it was, was largely determined by USAF requirements. A rocket launched space-plane like the shuttle is only useful for returning things from orbit. You only need a large space-plane if you intend to bring back large objects (like enemy satellites) from orbit. So basically the Shuttle was just a design run for the X-37. And as you say a monstrously expensive one. But no one ever said the military industrial complex wasn't smart. (Getting the civilians to pay is Trump level smart.) Luckily Musk seems smarter.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
