SpaceX News

[ladajo]

Seriously? I was watching dual feed, Webcast General with talking head, and the technical cast. The technical was running about 20 seconds ahead of the media cast, and I saw the clock freeze. Didn't stick around long enough after that to hear any reason why.

[Tom Ligon]

According to the news (and we all know that's so dependable), the launch was delayed by a boat entering downrange waters, but that's only indirectly why the launch aborted.

When the countdown resumed, the engines ignited as planned, but when clock hit zero the system aborted and shut down. Apparently there were a couple of overpressure alarms in the system, probably due to the launch delay.

One of the overpressure alarms was in the helium pressurization system, and we won't blame them for taking that seriously. Better a no launch than a spectacular air burst.

[Maui]

Some Florida hick drove his boat into the restricted zone

That hick turned out to be a US Navy supply ship.

I had no understanding before that this super-chilled LOX thing was going to take away the ability to deal with all but the smallest delay. That seems like a huge sacrifice. Have to wonder is SpaceX is having any second thoughts on this (though I know it is fairly key to their re-usability gambit)

[Skipjack]

Some Florida hick drove his boat into the restricted zone

That hick turned out to be a US Navy supply ship.

Even worse then. They did not get the message, or what?!

[paperburn1]

I had no understanding before that this super-chilled LOX thing was going to take away the ability to deal with all but the smallest delay. That seems like a huge sacrifice. Have to wonder is SpaceX is having any second thoughts on this (though I know it is fairly key to their re-usability gambit)

My understanding it gives them a 15 percent boost in weight to LEO. It allows a wider variety of customers .

[Maui]

My understanding is that the performance boost is most important to SpaceX in terms of having enough fuel available to land the first stage for GTO launches. While that performance could also allow for heavier payloads, I didn't get the impression that there was a lot of opportunities they were missing out on because of it. Could be wrong.

Whatever the reason tho, having to abort for every delay seems a pretty high price to pay. How many fewer launches per year might this add up to in the long run?

Also, turns out the rumor that it was a US Navy ship is probably wrong:
https://twitter.com/orbitalpodcast/stat ... 1905489920

[paperburn1]

jonas B. Bjarnø of DTU Space wrote an article recently (in Danish) where he explains it depends on if you're going for a downrange landing on the barge, or back to the launch site.
If we're going for a Downrange landing 300 km offshore, then 20 tonnes worth of fuel or ca. 6% of the total fuel mass, and a deltaV of 1.6km/s is required. But thats not cheap. In relation to the weight of the payload where the 1st stage is lost, only 80% of the capacity will be available.
However if you want the 1st stage to return all the way to the launch site, then 38 tonnes (ca. 10% of the total fuel mass in the 1st stage) and a deltaV of 2.7km/s is required, but then the payload will drop to 62% compared to the solution where the 1st stage is lost.
Edit: Not sure where he gets these figures from, but he has a PhD from the Danish National Space Center (at DTU), used to work at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and is a current member of Copenhagen Suborbitals, so im just gonna assume hes not too far off.

[paperburn1]

By aborting , if they can improve there success rate of objects to orbit and save payloads it is worth the wait. Musk is already kicked himself in the butt for not having a disaster recovery loads to the space station via dragon a mistake they will not make again.
So aborting for another launch with the fast turn around could save the satellite company millions by waiting for a few days.

Side note I heard a rumor that they were wanting to launch attempt again today but the air force vetoed that idea.

[ladajo]

1 March launch, same window. Confirmed by SpaceX website.

[Skipjack]

jonas B. Bjarnø of DTU Space wrote an article recently (in Danish) where he explains it depends on if you're going for a downrange landing on the barge, or back to the launch site.
If we're going for a Downrange landing 300 km offshore, then 20 tonnes worth of fuel or ca. 6% of the total fuel mass, and a deltaV of 1.6km/s is required. But thats not cheap. In relation to the weight of the payload where the 1st stage is lost, only 80% of the capacity will be available.
However if you want the 1st stage to return all the way to the launch site, then 38 tonnes (ca. 10% of the total fuel mass in the 1st stage) and a deltaV of 2.7km/s is required, but then the payload will drop to 62% compared to the solution where the 1st stage is lost.
Edit: Not sure where he gets these figures from, but he has a PhD from the Danish National Space Center (at DTU), used to work at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and is a current member of Copenhagen Suborbitals, so im just gonna assume hes not too far off.

This is seems way to much. This is a first stage, not a second stage. So payload losses should be much less. Also, IIRC, the extra fuel needed to land on a barge downrange was measured in kg, not tonnes.

[Diogenes]

Whatever the reason tho, having to abort for every delay seems a pretty high price to pay. How many fewer launches per year might this add up to in the long run?

I think they will fix this problem. That errant ship probably did them a favor by allowing them to learn of a condition of which they were previously unaware. Now they know about it, and nothing bad happened other than a delay.

[paperburn1]

Wind shear

[ladajo]

Poop.

[Skipjack]

They simply have no luck with this launch

[hanelyp]

I say again, they won't get where they want with space launch if they have to delay on account of mildly inclement weather.