Launcher
I wonder if Orbital ATK are a bit miffed that they have to deploy their payload on a SpaceX launch vehicle?
Planet hunters will be keeping their fingers crossed this evening as SpaceX flings NASA’s 350kg Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) into a highly elliptical orbit around the Earth. SpaceX, which was awarded "Category 2" certification for the "Full Thrust" Falcon 9 by NASA in January (PDF) despite a notable boom on the …
If my calculations are correct (using Kerbal Space Program) then the rocket scientists who came up with this orbit deserves a pint or gin. In pool parlance this is the equivalent of calculating how to pot the black from break everytime and having the cue ball roll back to the spot.
Not that weird actually. Due to the spinning of the earth they have to launch at a certain time to hit the correct orbit. Since TESS is a relatively light load they have some wiggle room for correction, hence the 30 second window. When launching to the ISS they are close to max load, and have to hit a moving target in an inclined orbit, which means launch windows are instantaneous, launch at the exact second you need to or stay on the ground.A 30 second window is a luxury basically.
SpaceX, which was awarded "Category 2" certification for the "Full Thrust" Falcon 9 by NASA in January (PDF) despite a notable boom on the way to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2015
You say "despite", but there have been 31 successful F9 launches since. That's quite a run. The CRS-7 launch failure was actually a v1.1 configuration, so has no bearing on the configuration that has just been certified (for context, CRS-7 was SpaceX mission 19. TESS will be mission 53). The next launch was the first of the "Full Thrust" iteration. No "Full Thrust" variant Falcon 9 has been lost in-flight.
The Block-4 configuration that NASA have just certified for TESS is actually what they've been using for ISS Resupply Missions for the past year and what they used to stick USAF's Secret-Squirrel OTV Mini-Shuttle into orbit.
The naming conventions are all over the place but effectively you have:
- v1.0
- v1.1 (including CRS-7 boom)
- v1.2 / "Full Thrust" / Block 3 / F9-R (including Amos-6 pad fire/explosion)
- "Full Thrust" Block 4
- "Full Thrust" Block 5
What they called Full Thrust was originally named F9R where the R stood for "Reusable" (or F9U for "Upgrade"). Anything that is "Full Thrust" is capable of landing, but there's been three iterations - the original "Full Thrust" (which was the third major Falcon 9 version - hence Block 3), and then Blocks 4 and 5, which have seen upratings to engines, and improvements made to the design to streamline refurb/reuse.
At this point, CRS-7 is irrelevant. It's >30 launches ago and using a configuration that has been superseded three times. Amos-6 is more recent, but affected Block 3 - so two versions old (though TESS will be on a "flight proven" Block 4, so that's only one iteration on, but Block 4 is well-proven on ISS and defence launches).
> If I were Musk, I would quite happily stand a Falcon 9 that has returned from space in the Atrium of my Company
The first recovered F9 booster stands outside SpaceX HQ in Hawthorne.
Edit: and the first privately-orbited & recovered Dragon hangs just outside mission control and you can see it on every SpaceX webcast.
Edit: and the first privately-orbited & recovered Dragon hangs just outside mission control and you can see it on every SpaceX webcast.
So where's the cheese?
The space cheese that Musk orbited and brought back. You know, the one with the alien mind-control spores in it. The one that's caused Musk to build a re-usable rocket. And why? No! Not to save money launching satellites! But so the aliens can hitch a ride and sneak down to Earth on them. They're coming! They're comning! They're co... .... ...
...
...
Oh, sorry, what was I saying? Mmm, that was a nice cheese sandwich I just had for lunch. Yummy! Elon Musk is my hero. A great humanitarian. We should all buy his lovely cars - so he's got more money to build rockets and go to Mars.