SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Update: I noticed that the YouTube Live Feed page now shows the launch to be scheduled for 20:42 UTC -- a 30 minute delay. This is confirmed by SpaceX's Twitter feed. --martyb]
[Update 2: Another hour and 5 minutes of delay. T-0 scheduled for 5:47 PM EDT (21:47 UTC). --takyon]
[Update 3: The rocket aborted the launch sequence at T-58s. Launch window tomorrow at 4:14 PM EDT (20:14 UTC) to 6:21 PM EDT (22:21 UTC). --takyon]
[Update 3: The rocket aborted the launch sequence at T-58s. Launch window tomorrow at 4:14 PM EDT (20:14 UTC) to 6:21 PM EDT (22:21 UTC). --takyon]
[Update 4: Launch and booster landing successful. --takyon]
A Falcon 9 rocket has gone vertical on Thursday morning at Launch Complex 39A in Florida, and SpaceX is on track for the liftoff of a brand new version of its workhorse booster. The launch of the Bangabandhu Satellite-1 to geostationary transfer orbit is set for 4:12pm ET (20:12 UTC) Thursday, with a launch window that stretches for a little more than two hours.
The highlight of this flight is the debut of the Block 5 version of the Falcon 9 rocket (which Ars previewed thoroughly last week). SpaceX founder Elon Musk has said this will be the final "substantial" upgrade to the Falcon 9 rocket, optimizing the booster for reuse. The company hopes to be able to fly each Block 5 first stage 10 times before significant refurbishment is required.
[...] Ten flights of an individual booster would be hugely significant, as SpaceX has thus far only ever reused each of its Falcon 9 rockets a single time. Additionally, the company hopes to reduce the turnaround time between launches of a Falcon 9 booster, now several months, to a matter of weeks.
The launch will be live-streamed on YouTube:
SpaceX is targeting launch of Bangabandhu Satellite-1 on Thursday, May 10 from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The launch window opens at 4:12 p.m. EDT, or 20:12 UTC, and closes at 6:22 p.m. EDT, or 22:22 UTC. Bangabandhu Satellite-1 will be deployed into a geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) approximately 33 minutes after launch.
A backup launch window opens on Friday, May 11 at 4:14 p.m. EDT, or 20:14 UTC, and closes at 6:21 p.m. EDT, or 22:21 UTC.
The Bangabandhu Satellite-1 mission will be the first to utilize Falcon 9 Block 5, the final substantial upgrade to SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Falcon 9 Block 5 is designed to be capable of 10 or more flights with very limited refurbishment as SpaceX continues to strive for rapid reusability and extremely high reliability.
Following stage separation, SpaceX will attempt to land Falcon 9's first stage on the "Of Course I Still Love You" droneship, which will be stationed in the Atlantic Ocean.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 10 2018, @07:16PM (5 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Full_Thrust#Block_5 [wikipedia.org]
7-8% more thrust for Block 5, rather than 5%.
Will this translate to an increase in payload for Falcon Heavy? Because if it was straight up 63.8 (tons to LEO for Falcon Heavy) * 1.08 = 68.904, then suddenly the SLS Block 1's 70 ton capability is looking not so superior. And even though you would have to expend all components to reach 63.8 tons or higher with Falcon Heavy, it's still many times cheaper than SLS.
If Falcon Heavy could hit 70 tons of payload to LEO, 2X to lunar, etc., then SpaceX has a way to attack the SLS program before it even flies. And given that SLS Block 1B is likely to be delayed [soylentnews.org], BFR could come in and finish the job.
In other words, if they can increase the thrust of Falcon Heavy, there may never be a time when SLS outperforms SpaceX's top operating rocket.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday May 10 2018, @07:45PM (4 children)
Don't really want to see that happen. We need SLS and we need at least one more viable launch provider. You never want to have all launches in the hands of a single provider. Failure is always an option at this stage of the space game. Kaboom! happens and will continue to happen. And when Kaboom! happens that vehicle is going out of the launch game for months while an investigation occurs and the bugs fixed. Can't have all launches grind to a halt when that happens. Better if there are three or more competing companies using different enough tech that a failure on one won't ground them all. The competition between three or more providers would also be a good thing, but you can't just say whoever is a little cheaper at a single moment is the winner and everyone else should close up shop. That is how we got Walmart in the 1990s, it is how we are getting Amazon now.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 10 2018, @08:26PM
They can already get what they need from SpaceX, ULA (Atlas + Delta, and Vulcan later), Orbital ATK, and soon Blue Origin (New Glenn [wikipedia.org], which is also providing BE-4 engines to competitors to use instead of Russian engines) and Rocket Lab (tiny dedicated payloads). Non-national security payloads (like JWST) can also fly with Arianespace.
There is no need for SLS. They should cancel the program and distribute the funds to some of the launch providers listed above, especially the ones attempting reusability (SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA with Vulcan), or back into making new science payloads. They can continue to develop Orion if they want.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Thursday May 10 2018, @08:42PM (1 child)
Redundancy and competition just needs two - SpaceX and Blue Origin will give you that just fine, two launch providers for a fraction of the cost of SLS.
Of course it does depend if you are really buying rockets or pork...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 11 2018, @03:49PM
Two is an oligopoly. They collude to raise prices. It's effectively a cartel.
You're doing OK when nobody has more than 15% market share (any way you measure it) and you're doing well when nobody has more than 10% market share.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday May 11 2018, @07:59AM
SLS is not a launch provider though. It is a government owned job-program. It will never be a viable commercial competitor.
I agree with you on principle, but as a launch competitor, it might be better to hope for Amazon's (ironically) rockets.