[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 Grishnakh on Thursday May 10 2018, @06:47PM
Not everything Musk has done has been great (Tesla has made some real missteps, and the all-touchscreen thing in the 3 is dumb), but honestly I feel like the biggest thing he's accomplished is this: totally reusable rocket stages. This can be a real game-changer in bringing down launch costs, and is something that was claimed for a long time to be "completely impossible".
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Thursday May 10 2018, @06:50PM (5 children)
If folks recall, the Tesla Roadster's launch livestream from the 2nd stage was cut due to NOAA broadcast license requirements. The license is contingent on checks to ensure no national security interests are going to be compromised by the (low res, partially obscured, distant...) feed. It comes across as more of a technicality Tesla was slow understand and meet and was just taking care to comply with, rather than some bureaucrat being pushy. Previous launches without licenses went by largely unremarked.
.
( more details: http://spacenews.com/noaa-explains-restriction-on-spacex-launch-webcast/ [spacenews.com] if interested. )
.
Presumably this is all sorted at this point and we get to see the whole thing :-)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 10 2018, @07:01PM
Suuure, I'm still gonna side with "we don't want them to see what the payload actually is".
(Score: 3, Informative) by KilroySmith on Thursday May 10 2018, @07:04PM (2 children)
Actually, the Roadster launch wasn't cut - and because it showed pictures of earth, it pissed off the bureaucrats and the next launch had it's video cut off early.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Thursday May 10 2018, @07:08PM
Yep, my bad. It was after that when launching some Iridium satellites.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 11 2018, @03:36PM
It was an annoyance for United Launch Alliance, who then demanded that the bureaucrats follow the letter of the law exactly.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 10 2018, @07:07PM
Like Kilroy said, it was a Falcon 9 launch that got cut, not Heavy.
Mar. 31: NOAA Just Prevented SpaceX From Showing its Rocket in Orbit [soylentnews.org]
Apr. 6: Camera-Studded Falcon Heavy Launch Blamed for NOAA's Restrictions on Livestreamed Launch Video [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by martyb on Thursday May 10 2018, @07:01PM (11 children)
For those who may have been following along, this is SpaceX's "Block 5" version of the Falcon 9 rocket. It is slated to receive no major changes as SpaceX is attempting to get it certified so it can be used to launch a Dragon module with passengers to the ISS (International Space Station).
As I understand it, there are minor performance improvements on the order of 5% in this block versus the prior Block 4 rockets. Three of these Block 5's, modified somewhat and joined together, are the basis for all upcoming Falcon Heavy flights.
So far, each SpaceX booster has been used only once or twice; no single booster has been flown three times. The intention with the Block 5 design is that each booster is expected to handle 10 flights without a major rebuild. If this does happen, that not only dramatically reduces the cost of each flight (to just cost of fuel and inspection, minor refurb), but it also removes the need to keep creating so many boosters. Though the aspirational goal is to have 24-hour turn around, that may lie years down the road. Even if it takes a month or two for checkout and any needed refurbishment, a fleet of, say 10 boosters, should suffice for handling any remaining Falcon 9 flights. Better still, by not needing to continue to build boosters, that frees up resources that can be applied to their upcoming BFR/BFS (Big 'Falcon' Rockets/Spaceship).
The pace of their advancements reminds me of the original space race and the development of the Mercury, Gemini, and Saturn rockets. My wish is to some day see one of these launches in person.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(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.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 10 2018, @09:39PM
I'm hearing 176 something to 190 something for the thrust on the 9 first stage engines. So a ~7.9545% increase.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 11 2018, @03:53AM (3 children)
Chuckle. Kind of reminds me of the predicted demise of the Boing 737 - about 8 generations ago. I think it now is the most successful commercial airliner in history.
What makes you think there will be any end to Falcon 9 flights any time soon? What makes you believe the nonsense that this is the last update to this design?
Not everything is going to to fly on the BFR.
The Atlas Rocket first flew in 1957, last launch was like last week!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 11 2018, @06:53AM (1 child)
The actual estimate is 30-50 Block 5 cores [reddit.com], not 10, and up to 300 total flights expected. At least according to a teleconference yesterday. Those are shared between Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and some will be expended. Many of the flights may be for the Starlink satellite Internet service.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday May 11 2018, @02:22PM
Thanks for the correction! Still, 300 flights using just 30-50 Block 5 cores is a whole lot less cost to SpaceX than 300 (no re-use), or 150 (single re-use) cores.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday May 11 2018, @02:20PM
Yeah, I was unduly optimistic with that estimate, though I did couch the phrasing as Falcon 9 (i.e. not including Falcon Heavy).
The whole point being that they have dramatically reduced the cost of sending things into orbit. Instead of having to build a new booster for every flight, or for every other flight (at a cost of, what, $30M? I don't know offhand, but that sounds like it is in the ballpark) now the plan is to get 10 flights out of each booster.
For the sake of argument, let's say it was only $20M per F9 booster. How much would it cost SpaceX for 100 flights?
And that is with no allowance for fairing recovery which they are currently working on and which would save on the order of $5M per flight. Never mind reuse of the 2nd stage on which activity is now starting. They really are striving for just: inspect, refuel, and relaunch. Compared to the other launch providers (except for Blue Origin), who expend the whole rocket ever single flight.
Nothing. I don't know where you got that I thought they would end F9 flights -- the whole point of SpaceX's F9 efforts has been increasing their reusability. What I did suggest is that there may be less need for building new F9 boosters.
Last major update to this design. In order for SpaceX to launch Dragon missions to the ISS with passengers, NASA requires something like 7 successful flights of the same rocket design to qualify the design. SpaceX has been tweaking and modifying things all along the way, up until now. Sure, there may be minor changes in the near future, but nothing major which would jeopardize their ability to get their craft rated to accept passengers.
I don't recall saying that everything would be flying on the BFR. Certainly there are circumstances where a bespoke small rocket ala Rocket Lab's Electron, is preferable for some. But, the BFR/BFS is intended to be like an airplane or jet... just refuel, run through the checklist, and launch again. The primary cost is just that of fuel. Unless they can get full reusability out of an F9, it would be less expensive for someone to launch as part of a manifest on a BFR / BFS.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 10 2018, @09:49PM (3 children)
Sequence aborted at T- 58 seconds. 15 minutes thrown on the clock, but it might have to launch tomorrow instead.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday May 10 2018, @11:20PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 10 2018, @11:35PM (1 child)
I can speak to what caused it, but Falcon 9 rockets have always had the ability to sense a problem and shut down the launch sequence in the final minute or so. There was one time where the rocket aborted just 1 second before launch. SpaceX considers this a good thing, better safe than boom.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SpaceX/status/994704699411460096 [twitter.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 10 2018, @11:36PM
*Can't speak to what caused it, since they haven't said anything beyond that statement. It's probably something to do with this being the very first Block 5 launch. Could even be a software bug.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by datapharmer on Thursday May 10 2018, @10:09PM
And the mission was scrubbed do to an error at T-00:58