>SpaceX will launch its first re-used Dragon spacecraft aboard a Falcon 9 Thursday, beginning the CRS-11 resupply mission to the International Space Station. Falcon 9 will lift off from the Kennedy Space Center – making the hundredth flight from the historic Launch Complex 39A – at 17:55 Eastern Time (21:55 UTC).
nasaspaceflight.com
Patrician Stream:
>nasa.gov
Plebeian Normalfag Stream:
>youtube.com
good luck mice & fruit flies
that tape measure style solar array is pretty cool as well
This is the first reuse of any capsule, isn't it?
(of course, there's the space shuttle, but it wasn't exactly a capsule)
Russians did it once with the VA capsule. Unmanned
>not reusing a Falcon 9
Pussies.
large scale 1st stage reuse is coming soon. The next launch on the 15th will be. Anyways I think the crs contract doesn't allow for it in the current form
>large scale
What did you mean by this?
Do the stages grow in size between flights?
As a side-note, this thing was rolled out for the first time today
"extensive"
as in the majority of launches will be reused 1st stages
T-2h.20min
Let's get this thread rolling.
Falcon Heavy will launch this year, r-right?
DREAM ON MARS MAN
Probably late this year.
The worry is SLC-40 rather than the rocket itself.
Welp just read that launchpad planned to return to service in August. Hopefully it will be this year.
Also adjusting 39A to be able to launch FH will take 6-8 weeks.
...
>"climate change is real"
>launches two dozen kerosene fueled rockets a year
Hypocrisy?
Destroying that Facebook satellite was part of his plan, right?
each launch takes kerosene as much as a single boeing flight, of which hundreds if not thousands are made each day.
It really is inconsequential.
fuel is loading
but weather is no go as of now
Are they landing this rocket today?
>each launch takes kerosene as much as a single boeing flight
No.
Rockets account for a very small part of the total carbon we put into the atmosphere, if you're going to fight climate change it makes far more sense to focus on making electric cars and making the grid get it's power from clean sources like solar.
Yes
>clean sources like solar
>if we can launch today
The Soyuz can launch in a fucking blizzard, why can't our rockets launch in rain?
yes, on land.
Sorry, I was off by an order of magnitude;
Transatlantic 747 flight - 220 tons of Co2.
2.900 tons per falcon 9 launch
So a single launch is 10 transatlantic flights.
what?
Soyuz is derived from an ICBM. ICBMs are designed for almost all weather. War doesn't wait for clear skies.
The Falcon isn't for launching warheads.... yet. So they err on the side of caution. One/two day scrubs aren't that big of a deal. Better than loosing the vehicle
Soyuz is based on an ICBM so initial design was already all-weather.
So, an (over)abundance of caution.
Additionally, Soyuz doesnt really have to deal with lightning, while the cape does.
Stream is up.
youtu.be
HYPE
Y
P
E
Scrub because of weather Se
>48 hr scrub
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
NO
O
Fuck, at least we got to listen to spacex fm...
Its been years since I saw a singing shark meme.
>"We want to eventually make spaceflight routine and an everyday thing like airlines"
>"Oops. Thunderstorm nearby, scrubbing launch for 2 days."
They can't afford blowups at this point
And this F9 rocket is not the rocket that will deliver routine space flight
Thunderstorms and other heavy storms can fuck shit sideways
It's terrible that delays happen, but unless you want to play the "will this explode" game, and gamble with hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment and all the people on board, you gotta eat it
ahaha this
Why do they need to wait anyways? For good orbit?
Just where and how do you think they get the rare earth metals which are required to create solar panels? Just how do you think they create the tough treated glass?
ISS orbit / ISS schedule / need to replace the time critical stuff in dragon (mice/flies)
If we didn't piss away money, We'd get it from space and be 100% clean
all the pollutants could be flung into the sun or reprocessed into useful shit
>the rare earth metals which are required to create solar panels
>the tough treated glass
Oh god, another one of these monkeys. Neither "rare earth metals" nor "tough treated glass" are required to create solar panels, which can be produced in a huge number of different ways.
It's not inherently environmentally unfriendly to mine materials or manufacture things like glass anyway, and any rare elements used can be recycled indefinitely once the first generation of solar panels are built (i.e. more scarce materials aren't needed as the old units fail from age or breakage).
...and before you get into it, no, the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) of solar is already excellent with current technology, and the technology continues to rapidly improve. In the best places, solar installations repay their initial energy investment within a year. Often EROEI is calculated based on an assumption of a 20-year or 25-year life for the panels, but that's extremely conservative, and we can realistically expect them to last 50 years or more. EROEI is therefore as good as or better than oil. Similarly, cost per joule of electricity is already lower than coal in the best locations. (And no, the "best locations" aren't a scarce resource either.)
Current solar industry is fairly environmentally unfriendly, largely because it's done in China, where there's little environmental regulation, and often uses materials mined irresponsibly in the third world. That's by no means inherent to the technology, though, it's part of a general globalist policy to drive industry out of the orderly first world.
It's always hilarious when people harp on only certain technologies for their production methods and not others
I never hear anyone say "lol don't use a house since copper in the pipes is environmentally unfriendly"
ariane launch in 15 min
And the same people currently working on 40 are the ones who will upgrade 39A for FH, so FH launch is strictly dependent on getting 40 going again.
ISS launches are effectively instant-window launches so they can have the best approach to match its orbit.
Weather scrubs are because heavy winds, lightning, etc.
>ISS launches are effectively instant-window launches so they can have the best approach to match its orbit.
I don't see why this is, other than the fact NASA requires it to be that way
gotta minimise orbital changes and time to docking/berthing, bruh. It takes a while to "catch up" when you're above/below an orbiting object.
lol, dude wtf are you talking about.
He's actually only off by one order of magnitude as it turns out. A 777-200LR flying from Paris to Montreal will burn about 48,000 kilos of Jet A-1. A Falcon 9 first stage holds ~500,000 kilos of RP-1.
Correction, an entire Falcon 9 holds about 500,000 kilos of RP-1.
>I don't see why this is, other than the fact NASA requires it to be that way
ISS has an orbital inclination of ~52 degrees. It's closer to a polar orbit than to an equatorial one. If they're not directly under it, they have to make a big turn, which costs a lot of rocket fuel.
Also, with its propellant densification Falcon 9 has a slow re-cycle time, and they hate using extra performance that could go into mission assurance for booster recovery, so they generally either have long launch windows or treat them as instantaneous ones.
It's not a NASA requirement. Atlas V launching Cygnus has about a half-hour window.
The 747-400ER has capacity for over 190 tonnes of fuel.
>The 747-400ER has capacity for over 190 tonnes of fuel.
So less than three times as much fuel in a Falcon 9.
aircraft has ~300 people on board falcon 9 can do 3-7
Wouldn't this thing tear itself apart at the slightest malfunction?
and it was perfect, as usual.
it better be. Those frenchies have to launch the JWST....
>please dont blow up please dont blow up please dont blow up..
ya but spacex is THAFUTURE
not to mention the fucking CRAZY deployment process
just look at this shit youtube.com
So much that can go wrong.
But if they have any Hubble-ish problems after deployment, that might just provide the pork for some proper SLS missions out to L2
>some proper SLS missions out to L2
There's no way an SLS/Orion mission is going to the Sun-Earth L2. After JWST launches, it's taking a full month to get to its target orbit.
This + launch will be the most stressful thing I ever watched.
no
It holds both LOX and Kerosene, with there being 4.5 times as much LOX
Is the Dragon even human-rated yet? When are they going to do this?
Liquid oxygen is cheap on Earth, though, both in dollars and in joules.
test flight is later this year. manned missions start 2018.
both Boeing and SpX are having issues getting to a loss of crew number of 1 in 270, though. Mostly due to micrometeorite modeling.
and the lack of spacesuits.
>both Boeing and SpX are having issues getting to a loss of crew number of 1 in 270
In other words, having issues satisfying the absurd requirements of NASA for Commercial Crew, which have been dialed down or casually brushed aside for every NASA manned flight in the past.
The NASA people are taking far longer than agreed to do required analyses and answer questions. This sort of thing is why NASA has always had to have cost-plus contracts in the past: they impose all sorts of unreasonable costs and delays on the contractors, which they never acknowledge beforehand. The thing about firm-fixed-price contracts is that both parties need to be able to perform to the original agreement.
There's no way you can get a reliable loss of crew probability far below that of all previous systems before the first flight.
An airplanes fly thousands of times a year, completely overshadowing any CO2 contribution from rockets.
Sort of. It isn't all red tape: spacenews.com
spacesuits are done for Boeing, and almost done for SpaceX. They're producing production samples of it; they just haven't revealed it to the public yet.
It's gonna come in lots of colors. Not pink, though, according to shotwell
You just know that unless the models wearing them are anything less than white and male, /pol/ and this board will go into a "muh SJW affirmative action work program liberal dreams" mode for days. Enough rage to fuel Musk's MCT into orbit
well Musk just left Trumps advisory team so the space suits will probably come in LGBT friendly colors
My point is that there is only like 100 tons of RP-1, with the rest of the fuel filling out with LOX
Fuck Musk.
Fuck you too for shill that shit.
Did he touch you somewhere?
He wanted to play astronaut. His uncle wanted to play alien abduction
wonder if spacex makes weird bobble head suits too like boeing. should spacesuits be like a uniform and not all sorts of colors? why not pink?
It'll launch in 6 months. It'll ALWAYS be 6 months.
elon said they have to be "badass"
this chart is outdated, but we've been closing the gap pretty well since then. it'll be q3, mark my words
So what happens when if Musk gets his way and Mars missions become a regular occurrence and a ships is returning to earth waiting to land?
Do they delay landing for clear weather or what?
This may be a surprise to you, but they could land somewhere else, as long as there's a proper landing pad.
parking orbit
weather doesn't look too good lads
50% favorable
You wouldn't feel cold in a vacuum. It would feel warm.
i remember when the cuirosity was about to be launched and seen the sky crane animation i have the same feel
5:07PM EDT
CRS-11 HOSTED WEBCAST
youtube.com
CRS-11 TECHNICAL WEBCAST
youtube.com
5:07PM EDT
For the yuropoors out there, EDT = UTC-0400
nope. that connection in the wings houses mechanical connections that allow either side to mimic each other even in the case of control malfunction.
if the left side power goes out those connectors allow the right side to drive the left mechanically. vice versa is also true. even the flaps in the tails.
Make no mistake this thing is for flying true... not for maneuvering.
scrub, just because.
A massive boner?
It's complicated.
On the one hand, you're basically in a thermos (aside from radiative heat loss). Vacuum's a good insulator. Therefore, you should feel warm from your internal heat generation, even if you're not in sunlight.
On the other hand, you're sweating into hard vacuum. Water will evaporate extremely quickly, and will be drawn out of the body in ways that it normally wouldn't due to the pressure difference. Therefore, you should freeze very quickly.
The Apollo moon suits used a brilliant passively-regulated cooling system, which allowed water to evaporate through pores: the water would freeze in the pores, to a depth (and therefore exposed surface area, therefore sublimation rate) controlled by its temperature. The warmer the suit got, the farther out the ice layer would be pushed, and the faster it would sublimate, so the faster it would cool itself.
It comes down to the specifics of why you're concerned with how warm or cold it feels. With space suits, you generally worry about cooling, not heating, but the corpse of someone tossed out an airlock will likely be frozen if recovered before it dries out completely.
plus everything is boiling off of your skin/eyes/tongue
...just make sure to exhale beforehand. Clarke was annoyed when they filmed the pod bay door scene in 2001, since that was one of the days when he wasn't on set to be a technical advisor. As a result Bowman kept his mouth closed in the airlock - which you shouldn't do!
90% chance of GO weather
We need one of those pics with a smug-ass cloud. The weather over Florida seems a bit unsettled right now, though right over the cape it looks a bit quiet on radar.
Oh, and another one of those maymay picks with a boat, too.
NASA TV coverage started a while ago, and the SpaceX streams just started playing music
About the same as the chance of explosion, then?
now both streams are live