JCSAT-14 launch in T-15 hours 30 min

...

Are they reusing the booster that landed?

thanks user.
that fucking smile at the end :p

topkek fat american rockets

No. This is a new booster.

Anyway, launch got pushed back to Friday due to weather.

That booster is scheduled to be reused in June if it passes the tests.

What a surprise.

wtf its been moved on a day

>new launch date: May 6
4 delays and counting!

How is this related to aliens? It's a telecommunications satellite for Earth.

Gawd damnit. Is there something special with their launch site and weather? Besides that one fueling-problem they had when they went to super-dense fuels, its always weather weather weather

>Is there something special with their launch site and weather?
It's on the Florida coast. Plus, they want to be able to recover the booster. That's worth millions of dollars to them and imposes additional weather restrictions. It's well worth delaying a few days to get their first stage back.

source on this?

:3

And here I thought I missed I by 6 hours.

Spot on!

>Kept you waitin' huh?

I'd like to remind you all that Orbital ATK, formerly known as Orbital Sciences Corp., has a much better track record than that meme company founded by the marketing guy Elon Musk.

they do?

They havent landed a booster on a barge though so who cares

June would be the earliest use possible, but it will probably be later.

>However, the CRS-8 S1 is hoping to provide the transformed 39A with its first fire and smoke since the final Space Shuttle launch via up to ten static fire tests, per Mr. Musk’s earlier comments.

>It is currently unknown when these tests will take place although the goal is to launch the stage on a future – as yet undetermined – mission, possibly in June. However, following the arrival of the booster at the 39A HIF, Mr. Musk refined that timeline to “3-4 months” until its potential re-flight.

nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/falcon-9-booster-reuse-testing-ksc/

Wonder what the payload will be. Dont they have a bunch of used Dragons from old CRS-missions laying around somewhere? That would give them a chance to test the heatshield for more than one return as well

I'd like to remind you all that Ariane is the timeliest, reliabliest, sexiest and advancedest of them all, including both Orbital ATK, formerly known as Orbital Sciences Corp., and than that meme company founded by the marketing guy Elon Musk.

>timeliest, reliabliest, sexiest and advancedest
forgot explodiest and made with actual engines that were made in the sovietuinonieest

I dont think they are quite as tolerant of weather as others
Might help get better payloads, and ofc landing the rocket would be tricky in high winds/rain.

>3-4 months
Right so by Space-X time that should be early next year at the soonest.
You're thinking of the Antares, for which the work to switch to Freedom-Land made engines is nearly done. Ariane is aEurofag SpacE Agency launch vehicle. It's a decent launch vehicle and relatively affordable if you want to hitchhike with a richer company's satellite. Of course for roughly the same price as being the secondary on an Ariane V you can be the primary on a Falcon 9.

americans fuck up rocket launch
>fugging soviets

>Orbital ATK, formerly known as Orbital Sciences Corp., has a much better track record
Setting aside the "Minotaur" rockets, which are basically ICBMs built by other companies, with Orbital only responsible for stuff like payload integration...

Orbital:
Pegasus: 42 launches, 3 total failures, 3 partial failures
Taurus: 9 launches, 3 total failures
Antares: 5 launches, 1 total failure with destruction of launchpad

SpaceX:
Falcon 1: 5 launches, 3 total failures
Falcon 9: 23 launches, 1 total failure, 1 partial failure

The majority of SpaceX's failures were in the initial learning process, whereas Orbital's are all over the place.

>You're thinking of the Antares, for which the work to switch to Freedom-Land made engines is nearly done.
So we're calling Russia "Freedom-Land" now? Antares is switching to RD-181, a close relative of the Russian RD-180 engine used on ULA's Atlas V, not to any American engine. The main difference between RD-180 and RD-181 is that RD-180 is basically two RD-181s using a shared turbopump.

Florida Fag (30 mins from Cape Canaveral) here.
Weather has been shit for last 3 days.

>for which the work to switch to Freedom-Land made engines is nearly done. A
Ariane: has to dso a termendously amount of effort that is just nearly nearly nearly done to avoid using failed technology from the most evil empire known to western men

Spacex: effortlesly advances technology to science fiction levels of superiority while having all of americans political force against for the whole deal of proceedings

>Ariane: has to dso a termendously amount of effort that is just nearly nearly nearly done to avoid using failed technology from the most evil empire known to western men
What the fuck are you even talking about?

I thought the plan was to switch to a Blue Origin engine. Looking it up I was mistaken, I was thinking of ULA, who are going to use Blue Origin on their next launch vehicle.

>betting
there is no wagering at Veeky Forums, Grandpa

>there is no wagering at Veeky Forums, Grandpa
Yes there is, there's just nothing to win in them but disappointment and wasted time.

So...will it launch this time?

fuck knows. probably. If I wake up tomorrow morning and its been bumped forward again im going to chop musks dick off

>I was thinking of ULA, who are going to use Blue Origin on their next launch vehicle.
ULA shouldn't be making a "next launch vehicle" and they actually haven't made any firm commitment to using BE-4 yet.

Frankly, Vulcan is a token effort at pretending to work toward compliance with sanctions against Russia. From ULA management's perspective, it lets them push for more government funding and keep their engineers busy, while continuing to buy unlimited RD-180s for the foreseeable future.

What ULA wants above all else is to discourage development of and integration with AR-1, a straightforward American-made replacement of RD-180. Most of the development money, in that case, would go to Aeroject Rocketdyne, and AR-1 would likely end up being more expensive than RD-180.

lol, same problem twice, $700 million in the trash

>Three of four launches between 2001 and 2011 ended in failure, including the February 24, 2009 launch of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission[3] and the March 4, 2011 launch of the Glory mission.[4] The failure of the two latest launches resulted in losses totalling $700 million for NASA (not including cost of the rockets themselves).

>payload fairing failed to separate
>payload fairing failed to separate

I don't understand how any of that shit works.
Surely the US gov can force US companies that only get work from the US gov to comply with economic sanctions?

Russian-made engines are nice, but they're hardly the only engines in existence. US aerospace companies are easily large enough and ugly enough to build their own motors.

>lol, same problem twice,
It's not that weird or unusual. These things are hard, and shit happens.

Russian engines are the best. They use metallurgical techniques that not even Americans have been able to duplicate. That is one reason they don't want to use the AR-1, it would be too expensive to research those techniques or work around them with a redesign.

>Russian engines are the best.
So? Everyone else's engines still work fine.
Going without might not be ideal, but I struggle to imagine that these companies couldn't manage without them. Particularly given that competition is so light.

>Surely the US gov can force US companies that only get work from the US gov to comply with economic sanctions?
There are different factions in the government. ULA's owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, two extremely large companies which each have a lot of lobbying power.

They've been getting exemptions from the sanctions.

>Russian-made engines are nice, but they're hardly the only engines in existence. US aerospace companies are easily large enough and ugly enough to build their own motors.
As a matter of fact, to be permitted to use RD-180 within the EELV program, Lockheed Martin had to prove that it could be produced domestically, for exactly this sort of situation, so the US wouldn't be dependent on Russia for strategic launch capabilities.

There's an ongoing fight over this. The US government is going ahead with funding AR-1 development, at the same time as they're giving ULA hundreds of millions of dollars to develop Vulcan, which won't use AR-1.

>prove that it could be produced domestically

those jackasses have had the designs and rights to build the RD180s since the fall of the soviet union

Thing is, the Atlas V was designed with the RD-180 performance in mind (overpowered first stage, underpowered second stage). It would need a complete redesign to use less capable engines. Which is exactly what Vulcan is.

Oh, and just to be extra-delightful, a little after the sanction controversy started (and when Elon Musk suggested that America didn't need Atlas V, but that Falcon 9/Heavy and Delta IV were enough), ULA announced that they were discontinuing their Delta IV with made-in-USA engines.

They're continuing Delta IV Heavy, but priced at about $1 billion per launch.

>two extremely large companies which each have a lot of lobbying power.
>They've been getting exemptions from the sanctions.
Yeah, I know. I'm just saying it's stupid.

>The US government is going ahead with funding AR-1 development, at the same time as they're giving ULA hundreds of millions of dollars to develop Vulcan, which won't use AR-1.
Why is it that space travel can simultaneously made me so hopeful for the future and so depressed at how stupid we can be?

Jesus Christ.

fuck economic sanctions of russia
are you a jew? Because they are bombing terrorists? Or assisting the russian minority in ukraine?

This thread is not for politics.
This thread is not for you.
Go back to

>It would need a complete redesign to use less capable engines. Which is exactly what Vulcan is.
Vulcan is a complete redesign (it will use methane fuel rather than kerosene, and will be 5.4m diameter, as opposed to the 3.8m Atlas V), but BE-4 isn't a less capable engine than RD-180. A single BE-4 is less thrust, sure, but RD-180 is basically two engines stuck together, and BE-4 will be used in pairs on Vulcan.

A pair of BE-4s will be more thrust at a higher specific impulse than RD-180. If anything, this is an upgrade.

Vulcan's more of a Delta IV successor than an Atlas V successor, using Delta-IV-based fuselage and tanks, although it will use the Centaur upper stage of the Atlas V rather than the DCSS of Delta IV.

Assuming they won't just altogether cancel the vulcan after SpaceX reuses their first rocket this year, and lands all 3 stages from a Falcon Heavy

Why would they, when they're getting the government to pay for it?

Anyway, even when SpaceX gets up to speed, implements vertical integration, and is generally ready to provide all launches the DoD needs, it's policy to have alternative launch systems, rather than rely on a single commercial provider, and that's a good policy.

ULA's the established option. It makes sense to keep them running as a backup at least until a credible competitor to SpaceX (such as Blue Origin) is operating.

>and that's a good policy.
yes but after elon musk demonstrates that reusability can bring costs down to like 1/10 of what they charge now it would be criminal to keep paying Ula for 100 million price tags

not ones that are visiting us but if you aren't a religious fundamentalist then you have no reason to deny the overwhelming probability that there are other earth like planets with life on them.

Currently, most payloads cost more than the launch service. Until that's improved on, any decrease in launch cost is a modest overall discount at best.

Eventually, cheap launch will help make the payloads cheaper, but that will take time.

the cost of putting heavy things in orbit cheaply is the problem tho. the price of the fancy shit you want in orbit isn't what is slowing us down.

its mostly development cost tho. mass produce those probes and the price goes down fast

yeah, you illiterate fuck what are you talking about, the main economic problem of any space enterprise is the cost of $/kg to LEO

if you really needed it to, you could have god tier colleges around the world design all the payloads you need, then manufacturing them is trivial the real problem is launch costs.

like, the rocket hardware is cots 60 million and only because spacex is objectively superior number one go team musk... but the hardware only of the satellites is no more than 500.000U$S and im being generous

Satellites aren't cheap or easy either, and there's no option for drastically improving their costs like reusing them.

How much do you expect several tons of microchips to cost? Just because it's a reasonably-sized item is no reason to believe it can be cheap with current technology.

...

Where can I find an up to date version of this Veeky Forums?

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems&oldid=590182048

dude just imagine apple building only one iphone.

Liddle bites, Barron. Liddle bites.

space.com/6839-space-forecast-predicts-satellite-production-boom.html
popularmechanics.com/space/a8401/mass-produced-sats-will-offer-low-cost-access-to-space-14735425/
cubesat.org/index.php/about-us

What, are you imagining now that there will be customers for millions of copies of the same satellite?

There's only so many satellites that can be usefully or safely put up in Earth orbit. Every new LEO satellite increases the risk of Kessler Syndrome, while crowding GEO space will mean the signals interfere with each other.

No, we're already launching about as many satellites as makes sense, and as long as technology keeps advancing and not everybody shares their technology with everybody else, it makes sense for them to be as unique and cutting-edge as they are (comsats already share common "buses" with stuff like propulsion and power supply). Taking advantage of cheaper launch will mostly mean launching stuff other than satellites.

>space.com/6839-space-forecast-predicts-satellite-production-boom.html
This was a 2009 article predicting conditions up to 2018.

And what they were talking about was a quite modest increase in launch volume.

>popularmechanics
You've got to be kidding.

>cubesat.org
Launch cost reductions would hardly even matter to cubesats. You could launch thousands of them on one rocket now. Anyway, they are in no way a replacement for big, expensive satellites.

Again, little bites. Problems are soluble, problems are inevitable.

Anyone Else East Orlando cozy :^)

MAKE SPACE GREAT AGAIN

Theres no such thing as kessler syndrome

Large constellations in LEO are necessary for world wide broadband internet from satellites

youtube.com/watch?v=7TrovtcNhpQ

actually satellites been steadily dropping in price.

and actually, thank you for demonstrating your non knowledge of the subject because microchips drop in price like every month or something, is the reason you have a magic cellphon that allows you to be ignorant over the internet at the speed of ligte

should be quite a bit cheaper than 2,500 $/kg

every fucking time i see this it looks fake. i can't fucking believe we live in the future.

...

we need this. i want elon to make my dream a reality. I want to be a space marine.

>Theres no such thing as kessler syndrome
Don't be stupid, at least look it up.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Orbital space around Earth is currently relatively clean, but there's enough mass in different orbits to make a real mess of it if they start breaking up into shrapnel because they're being hit by shrapnel from other breakups.

>thank you for demonstrating your non knowledge of the subject because microchips drop in price like every month or something
What the fuck is wrong with you? Sure, any given model of microchip goes down in price, but that doesn't mean that a ton of cutting-edge microchips hasn't consistently been worth a fortune for decades.

People don't spend $100+ million building a satellite because they're trying to do something basic and straightforward, but are just really inefficient at it. They're trying to pack in as much functionality as possible with the latest technology.

ok sure, in about 200 years you can have a strategic objective off earth

space marines will be nerdy tipes that are worth psending all the money training costs, they will be mostly people who use machines

unless we dont singularity before

If your launch cost is only 10 million, and you can order it with only a month of notice, then you don't need to spend so much on the satellite, plus you can upgrade them every year or two

>Theres no such thing as kessler syndrome
Not yet, but LEO is getting crowded. Debris is manageable for now, but as we see more launches, without proper debris management, we're going to need more and more avoidance maneuvers. Which means your satellites will run out of propellant sooner which reduces their operating lifespan.

when mars starts acting up we gotta have someone to do the shooting on the ground.

why would they act up, theyre a colony of 2000 scientists, which is fuckloadingly HUGE for outer space standards...

also no weapons and no strategic objectives out there, specialist predict that at current rates it will be like 100.000 years before we even need to begin to worry about solar system resources depletition

scientists are a buncha hippies and commies

you guys are aware it looks like a giantic penis, right?

Welcome to every rocket ever.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your penis looks like a rocket?

according to feminazis and doctor freuds everything that even resembles a stick is us checking prividledges

DON'T EVEN

bumping

T-30 until live stream.
Here's hoping for no fireworks.