It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SpaceX To Attempt Rocket Landing For Second Time

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   


CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — A space weather satellite is poised to blast off Sunday for a destination 1 million miles away, but it's the rocket's ocean landing that is stealing the spotlight. The SpaceX company will take a second stab at landing a booster on a platform floating off the Florida coast; last month's experiment ended in a fireball.

SpaceX To Attempt Rocket Landing For Second Time

I for one will be staying tuned to this second attempt. Crossing my fingers and hoping against hope. If Space X pulls this of on just the second attempt I will be highly impressed. I remember the sci-fi of my childhood where the spaceship landed in a fiery, thunderous but perfect landing. I never thought to see a rocket return like this in my lifetime.




posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

My fingers are crossed, break a leg SpaceX!

(technology can always use a little superstition)
edit on 7-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Did some quick googlling:
aviationweek.com - NASA, CNES Warn SpaceX of Challenges in Flying Reusable Falcon 9 Rocket...

“This is a difficult thing to achieve,” he told an annual U.S. Export-Import Bank conference in Washington April 25. “A lot of people in the aerospace industry think it's not possible, and most in industry have given up on it. But we think it's possible.”

Among the doubters is NASA Deputy Associate Administrator Dan Dumbacher, a former Space Shuttle engineer who leads the agency's exploration systems development. Dumbacher says the agency learned a lot from its experience with the orbiter's reusable Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs).

“We tried to make the engines reusable for 55 flights,” he said in Paris last month. “Look how long and how much money it took for us to do that, and we still weren't successful for all parts.”

Reading that suggests to me they've a lot of problems to overcome.

Here's another link looking critically at this:
www.univ ersetoday.com - Guest Post: Spaceflight is on the Verge of a Revolution, but don’t Count your Rockets Before they Land..

.....
The conception of the Space Shuttle was a result of a marriage between NASA, the Air Force, and other partners. Each wanted their own design specifications, which ended up producing a wieldy vehicle with no well-defined purpose, and it became the “catch all” of the space industry. Mainly, it was that the amount of maintenance required after every mission was greatly underestimated by NASA. After each flight, the entire vehicle had to be essentially rebuilt: tiles replaced, engines inspected, boosters refurbished. In particular, the trio of RS-25 main engines had to be taken apart and checked for every possible defect that could cause a failure, and when things broke, there wasn’t a healthy supply-line that could replace them easily, causing the cost of spare parts to skyrocket, and maintaining a workforce ready and able to refurbish the Shuttle quickly became a money-sink that NASA was never able to recover.
......
Fundamentally, we must decouple re-landing, refurbishment, reusability, and financially viable and rapid reuse from each other. It can be a difficult concept to grasp that all four are distinct, and the success of one does not imply the next step is guaranteed. Because of this, question marks still remain over the cost, time, and complexity of the final steps necessary for SpaceX to complete its reusable rocket master plan. For example: re-landing a rocket does not necessarily make refurbishment nonexistent. This is the take home story of the Space Shuttle.

A landing alone doesn’t revolutionize rocketry; rather, we may only realize the revolution of refining rocketry into an airline-like model has occurred well only by looking back in the rear view mirror.
.......

edit on 7-2-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

A history of failure for a government organization no matter how well funded they were does not compare to the resolve of a company who's bottom line is directly attached to its ultimate success.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

NASA can suck it, imagine what could be done with the resources that they squander.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

If they manage to pull this off in this second attempt tomorrow they can tell that to everyone.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Indeed, there are so many bleeding edge components to this that need to work correctly.

I imagine that the big one is probably the single fuel distribution system to the control thrusters.
edit on 7-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Attitude adjustment electronic controls has gotten a lot better as a result of improvements in electronics used in smart phones and the related software. Feeding control signals to the rockets that control the vehicle attitude during decent uses electronics and software that simply did not exist just a few years ago.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence


CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — A space weather satellite is poised to blast off Sunday for a destination 1 million miles away, but it's the rocket's ocean landing that is stealing the spotlight. The SpaceX company will take a second stab at landing a booster on a platform floating off the Florida coast; last month's experiment ended in a fireball.

SpaceX To Attempt Rocket Landing For Second Time

I for one will be staying tuned to this second attempt. Crossing my fingers and hoping against hope. If Space X pulls this of on just the second attempt I will be highly impressed. I remember the sci-fi of my childhood where the spaceship landed in a fiery, thunderous but perfect landing. I never thought to see a rocket return like this in my lifetime.


It says that its launching a weather satellite in the OP and then in the link its delivering supplies to the Space Station. I know that is irrelevant to the point of the thread, a re-usable rocket, but did "delivering supplies to the International Space Station" just become the (metaphor/euphanism/go to phrase) for performing secret missions.

A bit like saying, Im just going to drop the kids off at the pool....



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

I blame "copy paste" + lazy reporters for that error. Possibly evidence of a machine intelligence produced article. Nah couldn't be.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Well if the top NASA honcho says it cant be done, then obviously its impossible.


When did NASA start recruiting and employing people that can't do as opposed to people who can?
LoL

That's half there problem right there i imagine.


I say go for it, private space exploration is the future! NASA is simply a dinosaur these days, and an expensive one at that!
edit on 8-2-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: jonnywhite

NASA can suck it, imagine what could be done with the resources that they squander.


It's not NASA's fault. It is the politicians who mess up NASA priorities and budgets. NASA consists of the same brilliant scientist that work at SpaceX, Boeing etc... If politicians let the scientist control what they do at NASA and fund them appropriately without the political cost involved we would likely have colonies in our solar system by now.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

No it doesn't. It says the previous attempt was during a launch that delivered supplies to the space station. This launch is a climate observatory to the L1 Lagrange point.

SpaceX is one of the primary launch contractors for the ISS resupply so NASA doesn't have to. Once the Dragon is certified for people they'll launch astronauts to the ISS as well.
edit on 2/8/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: jonnywhite

NASA can suck it, imagine what could be done with the resources that they squander.


It's not NASA's fault. It is the politicians who mess up NASA priorities and budgets. NASA consists of the same brilliant scientist that work at SpaceX, Boeing etc... If politicians let the scientist control what they do at NASA and fund them appropriately without the political cost involved we would likely have colonies in our solar system by now.


I would alter that to say that if the private sector had been allowed to openly compete in the world space market, we might possibly have practical helium 3 fusion and a functional moon base already.

But, yes, I have no beef with the scientists. They are no more responsible for the tunnel vision, ineptitude and wastefulness of NASA than DPW workers are responsible for your town's planning department.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

No it doesn't. It says the previous attempt was during a launch that delivered supplies to the space station. This launch is a climate observatory to the L1 Lagrange point.

SpaceX is one of the primary launch contractors for the ISS resupply so NASA doesn't have to. Once the Dragon is certified for people they'll launch astronauts to the ISS as well.


This is one of the humdingers that really gets me. No state sponsored space program has ever had to create an escape vehicle for a return capsule.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Am I right in assuming that the landing of the Falcon 9 rocket will not be streamed live? Just like the last attempt.

Will we have to wait a few hours?

______




posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: jonnywhite

A history of failure for a government organization no matter how well funded they were does not compare to the resolve of a company who's bottom line is directly attached to its ultimate success.

Exactly

infact i bet boeing and lockheed have been overcomplicating things on purpose as they were on a gravy train with nasa

In fact seeing as space x have halved earth to orbit costs so far without doing anything id say boeing and lockheed deffinatly were takeing nasa for a ride!



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: jonnywhite

NASA can suck it, imagine what could be done with the resources that they squander.


It is not nasa fault,

They hate the squandering as much as anyone.

Its the monkeys in suites that you vote to sit in DC that waste money.

When you have senators who think the universe is 6000 years old dictating nasa goals you have a problem...,

When you have senators that use NASA as a gravey train to fund pork barrel projects for them, you have a problem.

When goverments change every 5 years and have the power to change nasa goals with it leaving them directionless, you have a problem,
edit on 8-2-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Tried watching the launch live, but it got scrubbed with about two-and-a-half minutes left to launch due to a no-go with tracking, or something. So no launch for today.



posted on Feb, 8 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ArchAngel_X

Thanks for posting this update I was watching as they scrubbed the launch but I am grilling. Not much time for internet between turns on the grill.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join