Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1937
Continuing its breakneck launch pace, SpaceX is preparing to fly its 13th Falcon 9 rocket in the 2017 calendar year. The booster is scheduled to loft one of the U.S. Air Force's two reusable robotic X-37B spaceplanes. However, the fifth Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-5) mission might be facing a delay brought about by the powerful Hurricane Irma.
*Update: According to Florida Today's Emre Kelly, SpaceX confirmed the company was targeting a 5 hour, 5 minute launch window that opens at 9:50 a.m. EDT (13:50 GMT) Sept. 7, 2017.
According to the 45th Weather Squadron on Sept. 5, 2017, the weather for this attempt is anticipated to have a 50 percent chance of unacceptable conditions. The primary concerns are thick and cumulus clouds.
Should a delay of 24 hours occur, conditions are expected to worsen as Hurricane Irma approaches. This will create low-level winds that will strengthen throughout the day. As such, concerns for a Friday liftoff are thick and cumulus clouds in addition to strong winds at launch time. The probability of a weather-related scrub is 60 percent.
In preparation for liftoff, on Aug. 31, 2017, SpaceX rolled its Falcon 9 rocket – sans the payload – up the ramp at Launch Complex 39A to perform its customary pre-flight static fire test. This involved firing up the first stage's nine Merlin 1D engines at 4:30 p.m. EDT (20:30 GMT) for several seconds to throttle up to 1.7 million pounds-force (7,560 kilonewtons) of thrust to verify all was well with the rocket.
Ground teams then lowered the rocket and rolled it back into the nearby horizontal integration facility to attach the payload fairing with the X-37B inside.
SpaceX is streaming the launch on YouTube.
Previously: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/06/09/2236228
Related Stories
The US Air Force has two X-37B space planes, and since 2010 each of them has flown two missions into outer space. Those flights have ranged in length from 224 to 717 days. The X-37B, which is autonomous and looks something like a miniature version of NASA's space shuttle, launches on top of a rocket and orbits the Earth before returning and landing on a runway.
For the first four missions, the Boeing-developed space plane has launched on top of an Atlas V rocket, the military's go-to vehicle manufactured by United Launch Alliance. However, on Tuesday during a meeting of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson revealed that the upcoming fifth mission of the X-37B will be launched into space by a Falcon 9 rocket. That SpaceX launch is tentatively scheduled for August.
Wilson testified that the emergence of the commercial space industry has proven a boon for the US military. "The benefit we're seeing now is competition," she said. "There are some very exciting things happening in commercial space that bring the opportunity for assured access to space at a very competitive price."
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 07 2017, @12:49PM (11 children)
What is the increased rate of launch failure due to flying through thick and cumulus clouds? Won't this need to become routine when there are 100 launches per day?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 07 2017, @12:56PM (9 children)
100 launches/day? Are you thinking of ICBM launches or what?
'Cause I don't see 100 space payload launches/day from the same place any time soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 07 2017, @01:16PM (3 children)
With 100 ICBM launches per day, only a fraction of them need to be successful each day in order to keep the news media distracted.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Thursday September 07 2017, @02:08PM (2 children)
With 100 ICBM launches per day maybe there will be no media left.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 07 2017, @03:18PM
Two possible snarky replies:
1. you seem to suggest disagreement with administration thinking that nuclear war is acceptable, maybe even desirable. (based on a complete lack of understanding of what nuclear war would look like.)
2. you're pointing out that 100 ICBM launches per day might effectively and finally deal with the "fake news". (of course, that is not all that would be destroyed)
:-(
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Thursday September 07 2017, @03:19PM
I wouldn't consider them gone until it is confirmed that all the media that are crammed atop those 100 ICBMs are verifiably engulfed by the sun. Those things are like cockroaches and Twinkies. Give them nothing but dental floss, a 9V battery and a nickel and they'll somehow manage to post something on twitter.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 07 2017, @01:27PM (4 children)
When going to the Moon or Mars costs $1k to $10k per person.
100 Earth to LEO or beyond launches per day globally. Maybe even below LEO for short joyrides.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 07 2017, @05:56PM (2 children)
You have to consider the payload. The amount the payload is willing to pay for a ride to LEO.
Humans are not willing to pay much for a ride to LEO. (Although evidence is that they will pay for a non-orbital amusement park style joy ride to the edge of space, and believe that it is the same thing as being in orbit.)
Nuclear weapons are a payload that is willing to cough up more money for a ride to LEO or even a suborbital ride, as long as the arc is long enough to reach the target.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday September 07 2017, @07:04PM
> Humans are not willing to pay much for a ride to LEO.
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday September 08 2017, @01:23PM
As launch prices continue to fall, suborbital "joyrides" are likely to cease being notably cheaper than getting to LEO. At which point, why settle for a brief joyride when you can take a trip to an orbital "amusement park"?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday September 07 2017, @09:43PM
As I said, it's not gonna happen soon. As such, clouds impeding the launch is not like this is the major bottleneck today - dealing with it now is premature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 07 2017, @01:22PM
They'll probably do it like airports do. Don't fly when there's a major storm overhead or similar adverse weather condition. Further, they'll probably have a lot more launch pads at a variety of locations when they near this launch rate.
And they're over three orders of magnitude shy of achieving that launch frequency with a long ways between now and then. I think it'll be one of those problems that will be figured out when it becomes a problem.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday September 07 2017, @01:12PM
So very "Star Trek: TNG". They should quote a spurious/pointless second significant figure, however.
(Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Thursday September 07 2017, @02:15PM
But it will be awesome view (I hope video!) flying right over this cat5 fidget spinner.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 07 2017, @02:21PM (4 children)
The Falcon 9 won and returned home victorious, striking a triumphal pose on the landing pad.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 07 2017, @05:59PM (2 children)
A sad thing is that the more routine re-landing the booster becomes, the less people will realize what an accomplishment it is.
Of course, the next real test is to see those boosters get re-used more and more.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 07 2017, @06:31PM
The people who need to get it will get it.
We will still get to see bungled landing attempts as Boeing and others develop their own reusable rocket systems. We will probably see SpaceX landing failures on the drone barge.
The true test is for reusability to be reflected in launch prices, currently $62m for Falcon 9 and $90m for the upcoming Falcon Heavy. And I mean the prices listed on their website [spacex.com], not the specially discounted price that SES negotiated [nytimes.com]. SpaceX can list two prices for each launcher: reusable mode and full thrust expendable mode.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday September 08 2017, @01:35PM
How is that sad? New heights are reached standing on the shoulders of the new normalcy.
How many people realize what an accomplishment it is to be able to fly across the country in a couple hours? Or heck, even drive 20 miles in a few minutes? For the entire medieval period, and probably a fair time before it, that was a multi-day journey, and most people never traveled more than 10 miles from where they were born.
Or even more impressive - how many people realize how truly astounding it is to have such a versatile energy source as electricity available at the flick of a switch, easily delivering light, heat, cooling, and many horsepower worth of labor for mere pennies an hour? To say nothing of nearly instantly communicating with people all over the world, and having the collected knowledge of humanity available at their fingertips for the asking (and then using that capacity to watch cat videos)
Compared to that, cheap, reliable transportation into space are unlikely to be anything of significance for the vast majority of the population. Not even when the price for a trip to orbit falls to $1000/person, instead of $1000/pound.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Thursday September 07 2017, @11:41PM
I watched the video. As it came down from its parabolic arc, it hit a max velocity of almost 5k/second. It's short re-entry burn dropped it to about 3k. Can you imagine the Gs in a 2k delta V in 10 seconds?
The the landing. It is still going 100m/second just off the ground and the final burn stops it cold just as it lands. Fricking awesome!
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]