SpaceX Successfully Launches and Lands Its Falcon 9 Rocket On the California Coast (theverge.com) 59
SpaceX successfully launched and deployed three RADARSAT Canadian satellites into orbit this morning. Despite heavy fog, the company also landed the Falcon 9 rocket on the California coast. The Verge reports: The trio of satellites going up on today's flight are part of the RADARSAT Constellation developed by the Canadian Space Agency. The spacecraft are meant to operate nearly 400 miles up, where they will observe Canada's land and waters, as well as the Arctic. The goal is to gather data on sea ice in nearby oceans and the Great Lakes, as well as the changing ecosystems within Canada. Such information will be useful for many groups, including mariners who navigate in Arctic waters and scientists who want to understand the impact of climate change in the region. Satellite imagery from RADARSAT could also help with disaster relief.
SpaceX is using one of its used Falcon 9 rockets for the mission, a vehicle that previously flew the company's Crew Dragon capsule on its very first flight to the International Space Station back in March. After that launch, the Falcon 9 landed on one of SpaceX's drone ships off the coast of Florida in the Atlantic, but now it's ready to make a ground landing on the opposite coast. The first and only time that SpaceX has landed a Falcon 9 rocket on California land was in October of 2018. Nearly all of the company's attempts to land on solid ground have been successful, save for one that missed its pad in Florida and landed in the ocean instead.
SpaceX is using one of its used Falcon 9 rockets for the mission, a vehicle that previously flew the company's Crew Dragon capsule on its very first flight to the International Space Station back in March. After that launch, the Falcon 9 landed on one of SpaceX's drone ships off the coast of Florida in the Atlantic, but now it's ready to make a ground landing on the opposite coast. The first and only time that SpaceX has landed a Falcon 9 rocket on California land was in October of 2018. Nearly all of the company's attempts to land on solid ground have been successful, save for one that missed its pad in Florida and landed in the ocean instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would "fog" bother a robot lander?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Source on the reduction from $400M to $100M. K. Thx.
Actually, costs have dropped even more, recently. https://www.ibtimes.com/ariane... [ibtimes.com]
> It currently costs a client more than $60 million to launch on a Space X Falcon 9 vehicle.
>
> In contrast, it costs some $170 million (â150 million) to launch a commercial satellite on an Ariane 5.
Here's the thing... government-run space programs tend to be wasteful pork barrel projects. To win supporting votes from senators for budget appropriations, con
Well that's not very useful (Score:5, Funny)
We've already been to the California coast. What sort of "exploration" is that?
Re: (Score:1)
"Haha, SUCKERS!!! Watch out for short-selling pedos, BITCHES!!" - Elon Musk flies by on a rocket holding a Goldshlager margarita, finding a curb of water to splash on your white blouse somehow incredulously, considering it's a rocket.
Whoosh, gone. Just vapors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it was to finally get uncensored/unsuppressed pictures of this particular domicile [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
We've already been to the California coast. What sort of "exploration" is that?
Things change fast there. Wait not much longer and it will be like exploring Mexico.
Re: (Score:1)
The point is that smog-prone areas shouldn't be used for space launches. Isn't there a bunch of land in other places?
Re: (Score:2)
I felt like... (Score:4, Interesting)
I felt like I was living in the sci fi future when the two first stages landed side by side together.
If SpaceX really wants to seal the deal, they should relocate the rockets between the east and west coasts by just flying them there.
That would seal the deal for me. :D
Re: (Score:1)
that was the argument that ULA made against SpaceX. If a company can launch reliably at a competitive price, they will have customers.
This was the most expensive payload that SpaceX has ever launched, but satellite manufacturers have not caught on to the fact that the launches are now FAR cheaper (approaching 1/10) than they used to be, and are going to get cheaper still. This is why Musk fired the management of the Starlink division, they could not wrap their heads around the idea that you don't have to ha
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Why the fuck would you dither around with SpaceX or its affiliates?"
Because they have successfuly launched to orbit while all those startup rocket companies still haven't done so.
not to mention that SpaceX can launch heavier payloads than anyone else (even the plain F9 outperforms anything but the Delta-V)
Re: (Score:2)
China is chock full of extremely good quality rocket companies with prospectuses ready. Why the fuck would you dither around with SpaceX or its affiliates?
Fascinating. The FUD bot has evolved. And the new evolution is even stupider than the original.
China has zero rocket companies of any kind. The Long March is built by the Chinese government. And when we say "built by the Chinese government", we fucking mean it. It's China. They don't mess around with bullshit contractors. You work on a Chinese government project, you're working for the Chinese government. No middleman with their rake-off. Occasionally they will create a "company" to do work. When
Re:I felt like... (Score:4, Insightful)
they should relocate the rockets between the east and west coasts by just flying them there
While that would be fun, rockets are still expensive and not that efficient. The fuel cost, the probability and cost of failure are still too high.
Re: (Score:2)
as i 43 year old seasoned consultant, husband, and father of two let me say "omfg that would be cool!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If SpaceX really wants to seal the deal, they should relocate the rockets between the east and west coasts by just flying them there.
Odds are Starship will relocate itself that way as much as possible. It's so huge that dragging it around using conventional transport is fantastically expensive and difficult. Admittedly it's not as huge as it was originally intended to be, but its diameter is still way past inconveniently large.
Just wait until Canada takes over the world... (Score:2)
Then you'll all be sorry.
Liberal speak translation (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Is SpaceX design actually a good idea??? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
By re-usable, you mean everything except the main fuel tank, the side boosters, the heat shield, large parts of the shuttle engines and everything else they replace in the months between launches? Sure it was re-usable.
Re:Is SpaceX design actually a good idea??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the fuel is (largely) expended, the centre of gravity of a booster rocket is right down near the engines. They’re the heaviest part of the thing, the rest is empty fuel tank. As such, on re-entry, the whole thing is more like a shuttlecock than a rocket. Given 41 successful landings for SpaceX, I think the idea is pretty sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, landing on legs keeps the engines out of the corrosive sea water, which is a huge bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of it is convenient mounting points, but 5 doesn't give very good redundancy. You're very close to tipping with one leg gone, and if the two adjacent legs sag a bit you're going over anyway: you need 6 or more for effective redundancy. 4 gives a better base of stability than 3 without the mass penalty of 6. NASA did all sorts of analyses for Apollo and similarly settled on four legs there.
Starship has other factors to consider. It (as of the last details made public, there's been mention of changes sin
backgrounds etc (Score:2)