DSCOVR Launch

louis · 2015-02-11 17:09:34

Looks like another successful Space X launch.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

RobS · 2015-02-11 17:11:11

Incredibly beautiful. You could see the staging in the log range cameras, the turn around of the first stage, and the separation of the payload shroud. Never seen it so clear before.

SpaceNut · 2015-02-11 19:54:04

The majority of the Falcon 9 rocket will attempt to safely land itself on an autonomous drone ship floating in the Atlantic Ocean. If the feat is successful, it’ll be a big step toward a future in which reusable rockets may become the norm.

Now for the DSCOVR has waited 17 long years to get into space, making this launch particularly exciting. Scientists will use DSCOVR's Earth observations to study ozone, clouds, and vegetation. The satellite will also help track the amount of solar energy falling on the planet versus the amount of energy it gives back to space - an important measure for understanding climate change.

The satellite will be used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to monitor the Sun. The $340 million mission will measure fluctuations in the supersonic solar wind streaming toward Earth from the sun designed to orbit the Earth and keep a lookout for incoming solar storms that can muck up communication and power systems.

The DSCOVR spacecraft is heading for an operating post at the L1 Lagrange point nearly a million miles from Earth in line with the sun. It will provide warnings on hazardous outbursts from our star.

The Sun can hurl vast clouds of charged particles and radiation towards Earth, disrupting a range of critical services from GPS to electricity distribution. DSCOVR will give forecasters up to an hour's warning on the arrival of the huge magnetic eruptions from the Sun that occasionally occur called Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs)," the largest geomagnetic storms at Earth, some of which can severely disrupt our technological society, causing loss of communications with aircraft, particularly those flying over the poles; damage to satellites in orbit; and even damage to power grid equipment on the ground.

Rxke · 2015-02-12 02:04:42

I thought it remarkable some people said DISCOVR isn't that costly, so if it goes wrong, no big loss. This thing waited almost 2 decades to launch... Shows how little money or interest there really is for scientific research in space.

Almost better to piggyback on navsats and comsats if you want a sci payload in orbit...

Last edited by Rxke (2015-02-12 02:05:44)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-02-12 08:32:45

its hard to sell them on sending a probe to go explore Earth from a distance when the Earth is right under their feet.

Mark Friedenbach · 2015-02-12 10:20:11

Rxke wrote:

I thought it remarkable some people said DISCOVR isn't that costly, so if it goes wrong, no big loss. This thing waited almost 2 decades to launch... Shows how little money or interest there really is for scientific research in space.
Almost better to piggyback on navsats and comsats if you want a sci payload in orbit...

Actually no one knows how costly DISCOVR was. The thing is since it was in an indeterminate state for so long, much of the ongoing or storage work that was done was accounted for in other budgets. So the low number that is being passed around is not representative... Here's a better estimate:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/02/a … cheap.html

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-02-12 11:35:37

SpaceX successfully landed a rocket in the ocean
Business Insider
By Jessica Orwig and Kelly Dickerson
17 hours ago
SpaceX_successfully_landed_a_rocket-29679270d56d5054791f5fd452dd441e
Jon Ross at @zlsadesign and zlsa.github.io Artist's impression of a SpaceX rocket landing.

After three attempts followed by three scrubbed launches, SpaceX successfully launched a Falcon 9 rocket on Wednesday at 6:03 pm ET.

For some, the launch was less exciting than the company's attempt to land a rocket on a barge in the Atlantic. If successful, the landing would have been the first in history, pioneering the way toward a new era or reusable rocket technology.

But SpaceX announced on the day of the scheduled, potentially historic landing, that the ocean waves are rocking the barge too much for a safe attempted landing. Instead, they would attempt a soft landing in the ocean, in which they try to control the rocket enough to land it vertically, though not on the drone ship.

Shortly after launch, SpaceX CEO and founder, Elon Musk, tweeted that the rocket had made it safely into the rocky ocean:

"The drone ship was designed to operate in all but the most extreme weather," SpaceX stated in a recent report . "We are experiencing just such weather in the Atlantic with waves reaching up to three stories in height crashing over the decks."

Musk, retweeted this chart from TWC Space Weather showing just how high the waves have grown in the last few hours:

After Wednesday's launch, SpaceX will have 16 more chances in 2015 to attempt a rocket landing on the barge.

Musk didn't have high hopes for the success of this water-soft landing to retrieve the first stage for re-use, though:

SpaceX has never recovered a rocket for reuse. And they're taking extra precautions by not attempting the landing this time around because the first time around ended in a fiery explosion.

The rocket had trouble on its most recent attempt, because it ran out of hydraulic fluid, sending it careening out of control on its way onto the drone ship:

louis · 2015-02-12 19:03:21

Think you're being a little negative about Space X's technology. The last attempt came very close to success. It's a novel technology - so we shouldn't be surprised there are novel technologies. I must admit I am not quite sure why if you can land it on a platform at sea, you don't land it on terra firma...Is it to do with launch trajectories?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

SpaceX successfully landed a rocket in the ocean
Business Insider
By Jessica Orwig and Kelly Dickerson
17 hours ago
http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/M8ZYc … d452dd441e
Jon Ross at @zlsadesign and zlsa.github.io Artist's impression of a SpaceX rocket landing.
After three attempts followed by three scrubbed launches, SpaceX successfully launched a Falcon 9 rocket on Wednesday at 6:03 pm ET.
For some, the launch was less exciting than the company's attempt to land a rocket on a barge in the Atlantic. If successful, the landing would have been the first in history, pioneering the way toward a new era or reusable rocket technology.
But SpaceX announced on the day of the scheduled, potentially historic landing, that the ocean waves are rocking the barge too much for a safe attempted landing. Instead, they would attempt a soft landing in the ocean, in which they try to control the rocket enough to land it vertically, though not on the drone ship.
Shortly after launch, SpaceX CEO and founder, Elon Musk, tweeted that the rocket had made it safely into the rocky ocean:
"The drone ship was designed to operate in all but the most extreme weather," SpaceX stated in a recent report . "We are experiencing just such weather in the Atlantic with waves reaching up to three stories in height crashing over the decks."
Musk, retweeted this chart from TWC Space Weather showing just how high the waves have grown in the last few hours:
After Wednesday's launch, SpaceX will have 16 more chances in 2015 to attempt a rocket landing on the barge.
Musk didn't have high hopes for the success of this water-soft landing to retrieve the first stage for re-use, though:
SpaceX has never recovered a rocket for reuse. And they're taking extra precautions by not attempting the landing this time around because the first time around ended in a fiery explosion.
The rocket had trouble on its most recent attempt, because it ran out of hydraulic fluid, sending it careening out of control on its way onto the drone ship:

SpaceNut · 2015-02-12 19:47:49

Return path down range from launch site. I read that the first stage fired for just 2 minutes and 40 seconds before stopping and seperating for the second stage to take over. At just 70 to 80 seconds the rocket was at max q which happens at a little above mach 1 at about 25 miles up.

Mark Friedenbach · 2015-02-12 23:30:10

louis the rockets purposefully launch over open ocean for safety reasons so if something catastrophic happens it just falls in the sea. Returning to land would require significantly more fuel, meaning less payload delivered to orbit.

louis · 2015-02-13 06:24:47

Mark Friedenbach wrote:

louis the rockets purposefully launch over open ocean for safety reasons so if something catastrophic happens it just falls in the sea. Returning to land would require significantly more fuel, meaning less payload delivered to orbit.

Thanks for explaining that.

One wonders if any consideration has ever been given to building a permanent (stable and bigger) platform out to sea on the model of oil platforms.

Last edited by louis (2015-02-13 06:25:56)

Decimator · 2015-02-13 08:19:42

louis wrote:

Thanks for explaining that.
One wonders if any consideration has ever been given to building a permanent (stable and bigger) platform out to sea on the model of oil platforms.

Oil platforms are tremendously expensive; even a cheap ancient one is $77 million. Still, they're probably considering it.

GW Johnson · 2015-02-13 09:32:44

Oil platforms require a bottom to rest upon and be anchored too. If you go far enough offshore, past the edge of the continental shelf, the bottom is unreachable at over 2 miles down. In deep water, a self-positioning barge is the only answer.

To return the stage all the way to launch site requires a lot more propellants. They're already burning off a load just to ease the atmospheric entry speed (that's the 3-engine apogee deceleration burn) and control the fall (that's the long 1-engine burn) with supersonic retro propulsion now.

Stage recovery propellant cuts into payload, but not as much as my first intuition would have suggested. The powered landings they want to do just might be survivable at their low inert mass fractions. Chute landings in the ocean not.

GW

Decimator · 2015-02-13 10:09:41

GW Johnson wrote:

Oil platforms require a bottom to rest upon and be anchored too. If you go far enough offshore, past the edge of the continental shelf, the bottom is unreachable at over 2 miles down. In deep water, a self-positioning barge is the only answer.

A semi-submersible oil platform is what I was referring to.

Void · 2015-02-13 10:14:59

I buy into everything you say GW, but I have found this:
http://spacenews.com/spacex-leases-cape … -landings/

So I would say that the intentions are very plain, and I am sure every part of our space industry including defense wants them to make it work.

The barge thing is a calibration process I think. Extracting boosters from such a barge would be very costly I think.

As you have said a reversal to launch site would be energy costly, I expect they intend to launch from a more western location when the process is calibrated and proven.

It seems to me that California, New Mexico, and Texas would be good launching sites, Is that west enough?

It is really exciting. Like the dawn of the space age I think.

I am sure part of the calculation is to first prove that the boosters can be targeted to a site where they can crash without incurring massive damage costs, and then of course to actually be able to recover the majority of them in a state for reuse.

Not really any more risky than landing a space shuttle.

But maybe I don't understand can these boosters do one orbit of Earth? In that case they can launch from Florida, and land in Florida. Maybe some time in the future other boosters would do it that way. A sub-orbital once around the Earth.

I was really pleased when Tom pointed out that the Falcon Heavy would use 3 ea. Falcon 9's. That is not what I expected at all. It means the heavy lift is likely not all that far off, if they manage to land a Falcon 9 some time.

I think I would bother to go see a landing, if that is allowed in the future.

Last edited by Void (2015-02-13 10:18:36)

Quaoar · 2015-02-13 11:37:34

GW Johnson wrote:

Oil platforms require a bottom to rest upon and be anchored too. If you go far enough offshore, past the edge of the continental shelf, the bottom is unreachable at over 2 miles down. In deep water, a self-positioning barge is the only answer.
To return the stage all the way to launch site requires a lot more propellants. They're already burning off a load just to ease the atmospheric entry speed (that's the 3-engine apogee deceleration burn) and control the fall (that's the long 1-engine burn) with supersonic retro propulsion now.
Stage recovery propellant cuts into payload, but not as much as my first intuition would have suggested. The powered landings they want to do just might be survivable at their low inert mass fractions. Chute landings in the ocean not.
GW

Why not buying some land on a Caribbean island on the rocket course, and land the first stage on it?

JoshNH4H · 2015-02-13 13:06:22

Launches leaving from Florida typically don't fly over the Carribbean, and likewise there typically aren't islands that aren't on the Continental shelf.

GW Johnson · 2015-02-13 13:32:14

It looks to me that the lease of the old USAF pads at Canaveral means Spacex really does mean to pay the propellant load penalty for launch site fly-back in Florida. That will reduce payload a bit, unless they already "built that into" their rockets.

Meanwhile, they are building a privately-owned commercial launch site at the southern tip of Texas, right on the Gulf coast, also for eastward launch like Canaveral. There are islands in the Gulf and Caribbean that could serve as real dry-land recovery sites, with min recovery propellant cutting into payload.

As far as I can tell, any polar stuff will go out of Vandenburg in California. Not sure what they intend to do there for any recovery (no islands southward of Vandenburg, that's abyssal plain Pacific floor out there, 2.5 miles down), but as far as I know, their polar stuff is only Falcon-Heavy stuff for USAF. Pricing benefits from recovery may not be that much of an issue for USAF. I think Spacex has a pad already built for Falcon-Heavy at Vandenburg, but I'm not sure about that.

They are building Falcon-Heavy facilities at Canaveral, and from what read, the South Texas facility will handle both Falcon-9 and Falcon-Heavy. I'm guessing that a bit extra payload for otherwise the same cost will be their "draw" for the Texas commercial launch site.

The only other thing I heard was that the new future giant rocket that some call the "Mars Colonial Transporter" will fly out of the Texas site. If so, it will have to be built in Texas, probably on site, as its stages will be far too big to ship across country.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-02-13 14:55:14

Von Braun Spaceship Designs

Although Wernher von Braun is best known for his work on rockets, he was also a prolific designer of spaceships. Nowhere are von Braun's skills in spaceship design more on display than in his plans for the exploration of Mars. Not only were his designs radically different from anything we know today, they were on an incredibly ambitious scale.

Von Braun's spaceship designs were first outlined in his 1952 book, Das Marsprojekt (The Mars Project). The work was the first technically comprehensive effort to design a human Mars mission, and they helped to popularize its author and his cause in ways that he couldn't have imagined when he wrote it.

Von Braun envisioned a fully reusable, three-stage winged ferry rocket standing 265 feet tall and 64 feet in diameter for flights into Earth orbit. The first and second stages would splash down in the ocean and be recovered for reuse with the third stage landing like a conventional aircraft. The spacecraft would travel to an enormous, spinning space station similar to the one depicted in "2001: A Space Odyssey."

Forty-six ferry spacecraft would be used to assemble a fleet of 10 Mars ships weighing 3,720 metric tons apiece in Earth orbit. The fleet, which would include three passenger ships and three cargo ships, would require 950 launches over eight months to assemble.

Once the ships were ready, 70 men would set off on a 260-day voyage to Mars. The 10 astronauts on each passenger ship would live in 20-meter diameter habitation spheres. Small spaceships would shuttle crew and supplies between ships during the outbound leg.

After the expedition arrived at Mars, the cargo ships would deploy three 200-metric ton winged vehicles, known as landing boats, that would carry 50 members of the crew down to the surface for a 443-day stay.

Once they had thoroughly explored the surface, the landing crew would reunite with the group in orbit and begin a 260-day return trip. They would arrive back on their home planet after a 963-day expedition.

Von Braun's grand vision for conquering space excited the editors of Collier's magazine, which ran a series of articles in eight editions from 1952 to 1954. The articles dealt with all aspects of space travel, including the orbital space station, bases on the moon, and the expedition to Mars.

Von Braun's spaceship designs were illustrated by famed illustrator Chesley Bonestell and other artists. These spacecraft designs and articles formed the basis of three books and three episodes in Disney's anthology series about space travel, Across the Space Frontier (1952), Conquest of the Moon (1953) and The Exploration of Mars (1956). These works helped to make von Braun a well-known figure. Although he helped land men on the moon, von Braun never got to build his flotilla of Mars ships. He underestimated the cost of such an expedition and did not foresee the development of robotics probes that could explore Mars much more cheaply and without the risk of human life. However, Von Braun's spaceship designs and expansive vision helped to inspire a generation of engineers and scientists to explore the heavens. His work continues to provide inspiration to today's space explorers. Von Braun Mars Expedition - 1952 - See more at: http://www.rocketcityspacepioneers.com/ … DlK6e.dpuf
th?&id=HN.608035350871083248&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
Von Braun Spaceship Designs

Void · 2015-02-13 16:27:17

It's odd, but North America seems to have virtually the ideal setup.

Texas to launch for fuel efficiency, fly over the gulf? Land in Florida? Then can the inter coastal canal system allow movement of the boosters back to Texas?

Then again launch from Florida, and fly back may have a fuel penalty, but I think that will be addressed in time.

I recall reading that Elon Musk seemed to say that the hardware was much more valuable to recover than the cost of fuel.

I also see the notion that if these boosters have a life cycle and that gets measured, then at some point they could be sacrificed to lift heavier loads to orbit.

Florida and Texas are linked to the whole North American (NAFTA) infrastructure, so cost of machine items should be cheaper than for some place such as French Guyana. Trucks, Canals, Trains, and Planes to get stuff to a focus point. Pretty much the best deal on the planet I think.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-02-14 08:06:31

You know Von Braun had the idea of retrieving bottom stages of rocket boosters and reusing them. What SpaceX is trying to do was Von Braun's idea.

Void · 2015-02-14 10:07:38

He was certainly a genius. Someone like him with life extension would have to potential to be an asset to the human race more than was the case.

You have prompted me to look into the Raptor Engine. 6 times as powerful as the Merlin 1D, and Methane/Oxygen.

I wondered why Methane. The reason I wondered, is I think Elon Musks plans are more for sending things to Mars than bringing things back.
The Raptor Engine was originally going to use Hydrogen, but it seems that around 2007 NASA tested a Methane engine, and those results were apparently good. So the Raptor will use Methane.

The advantages of Methane are a reduction of tank insulation weight penalty, and due to a more compact fuel, a reduction in tank size weight penalty. And of course Methane could be manufactured on Mars, but as I said, I don't think their primary objective is to leave Mars.

The above indicates why it is important to keep NASA as it is. It is like a coarse adjustment in a calibration. They get you into the ball park of something that has potential, and then other more specific and focused organizations can do a finer calibration on the process. Further even though NASA is necessarily pork barrel, it also causes the formation of industrial processes that can be used by entities like SpaceX.

Void · 2015-02-14 10:19:06

So what if;
-Send a person transporter to Mars, composed of;
-Lander without;
-Parachute.
-Heat Shield.
-Canted Engines.
-But including;
-A booster capable entering the atmosphere of Mars and landing if emergency requires.
-Extra strap on tanks.

In my mind the ideal action would be that the booster with external tanks would;
-Use the fuel in the external tanks to put speed and trajectory to a situation where the booster could enter the
atmosphere;
-The tanks would be ejected prior to atmospheric entry.
-The booster with the lander on top of it would do the atmospheric entry, and would help get the lander situated
on the correct path.
-After the atmospheric entry was achieved, the lander would separate, and complete the landing on it's own.
-Ideally the booster would push to Mars orbit, and be parked there, but it could be disposed of to crash.
-The lander not burdened by parachute, heat shield, or canted engines would land at a location with supplies already
in position on the ground.

Several abort modes might be available;
-If a lander problem was discovered prior to atmospheric entry, then the booster could abort itself and the lander to
orbit.
-If a lander problem was discovered during entry, then I would hope they could try to land the whole stack using the
booster.
-I would think it would be tipsy with no landing pad, so I don't like that and also it might not be possible to use the
lander as habitat.
-In such a situation, I suppose you could hope to repair the lander, and either hop it off of the booster and onto
the ground or abort to orbit.

In orbit should be a supply ship which used SEP, and gravity assists, and magnetic aerocapture, to achieve the orbit of Mars. Of course it would be robotic. It would have landed supplies on the ground which the person lander would intend to land near enough to.

And that brings up another possible abort situation where, if during descent it was discovered that landing in the proper location was not possible, then an abort to orbit using the booster or the lander only should be entertained to the level of what can be possible.

I would think that this could also satisfy the desire of some to visit multiple sites. The lander I presume with direct and not canted engines and with positioned supplies might be able to hop through the atmosphere to multiple locations for checking on the best possibilities.

Of course it it not prohibited to have more than one (Except by cost).

The above notion might also satisfy the problem of the size of a lander which some here have been puzzling about quite a bit.

Anyway I was happy to read about the raptor engine which may be developed.

Go ahead and let me know what the flaws are in the above. I would rather know than not know. But politeness does not hurt. Keep in mind that if a nerve only ever delivers pain, sometimes the body will eliminate it.

Fun is much better than pain.

Last edited by Void (2015-02-14 10:51:36)

SpaceNut · 2015-02-14 11:31:02

VOID wrote:

So what if;
-Send a person transporter to Mars, composed of;
-Lander without;
-Parachute.
-Heat Shield.
-Canted Engines

Anything entering Mars upper atmosphere and headed towards a landing will need a heat shield of some sort and that is why Mars uses PICA rather than the heavy metal shield of orion. That said that a material must be found that can widthstand the heat of entry but be as light as possible and still get the job done is a must.

Parachutes can only be removed if you used a powered descent which can include canted engines if used for more than final 100 meter or feet of descent to touch down and a lifting body of some sorts both have there own respective penalties to make a successful landing.

SpaceNut · 2015-02-14 11:38:05

void wrote:

I was really pleased when Tom pointed out that the Falcon Heavy would use 3 ea. Falcon 9's. That is not what I expected at all. It means the heavy lift is likely not all that far off, if they manage to land a Falcon 9 some time.

I suspect that a triple core heavy will have its own set of problems with useability from the fact that it will look like a wing once it starts a return path and that is due to the larger width shape of being 3 barrels wide. That said now on reentry each unit will seperate from the other now needing seperate glide paths and landing platforms to allow for recoverability.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2015-02-11 17:09:34

DSCOVR Launch

#2 2015-02-11 17:11:11

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#3 2015-02-11 19:54:04

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#4 2015-02-12 02:04:42

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#5 2015-02-12 08:32:45

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#6 2015-02-12 10:20:11

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#7 2015-02-12 11:35:37

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#8 2015-02-12 19:03:21

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#9 2015-02-12 19:47:49

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#10 2015-02-12 23:30:10

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#11 2015-02-13 06:24:47

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#12 2015-02-13 08:19:42

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#13 2015-02-13 09:32:44

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#14 2015-02-13 10:09:41

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#15 2015-02-13 10:14:59

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#16 2015-02-13 11:37:34

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#17 2015-02-13 13:06:22

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#18 2015-02-13 13:32:14

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#19 2015-02-13 14:55:14

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#20 2015-02-13 16:27:17

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#21 2015-02-14 08:06:31

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#22 2015-02-14 10:07:38

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#23 2015-02-14 10:19:06

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#24 2015-02-14 11:31:02

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#25 2015-02-14 11:38:05

Re: DSCOVR Launch

Board footer