SpaceX News

[KitemanSA]

The supplier of the component that failed on that Falcon9 launch seems to have a quality control problem. If they spec a component at a certain strength, a buyer should be able to count on it not being grossly short of that spec.

As for the competition dropping out, good for SpaceX, not good for the industry as a whole.

Not only do they need to spec a strength, but a toughness, a quality control spec, and probably a dozen other related specs. You DON'T use COTS for such systems.

[mvanwink5]

Wow, it is nearly December and SpaceX still has TBD for December launch dates. Does anyone have an update as to what the issue is? At this point it is starting to look questionable for a 2015 return to launch for Falcon.

[Maui]

Currently word is mid-December with one more before the end of the year. 3rd has been pushed to Jan.

Reddit is a good place to stay caught up on SpaceX

[Tom Ligon]

Jeff Bezos shows Elon Musk how it is done. Although not on a barge.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/24/technol ... t-landing/

The friendly digs between the two are kind of fun. Musk reminds Bezos that the actual orbital trips of the Space X rockets make the mission much harder, although Musk's tests so far have shown repeatedly that the hard part is the last seconds at touchdown.

[paperburn1]

Personally I think that when musk decided to land in a barge his engineers didn't understand the difficulty of going from water to solid surface. A long time ago in a place far far away the Marine Corps had the same problem with crossdecking the Harrier on to some of the ships. This is why there is now a flight restriction on doing RVL landings on board ships. The instability when crossing onto the deck was problematic. When I Harrier lands on board a moving vessel or still vessel it first stabilizes next to the vessel and then crosses over. This allows for a more smoother transition with less turbulence. Reason why this brings to mind is just a few months ago we had a pilot try to do an RVL landing and broke another airplane.Perhaps or maybe some information that musk could use the Harrier program helping him with his water landings of his spacecraft

[Skipjack]

Jeff Bezos shows Elon Musk how it is done. Although not on a barge.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/24/technol ... t-landing/

The friendly digs between the two are kind of fun. Musk reminds Bezos that the actual orbital trips of the Space X rockets make the mission much harder, although Musk's tests so far have shown repeatedly that the hard part is the last seconds at touchdown.

To be fair, Musk has to bring a rocket back from Mach 6 horizontal velocity (and probably more with the new improved version they will be testing soon) and 160 km or more altitude. Bezos rocket only goes to Mach 3 and straight up to 100km altitude. His rocket is also much, much smaller than the F9 first stage. Also Musk had to land on a moving target.
That said, I am absolutely delighted at Blues success and I hope that we will see more successful test flights very soon.
This landing looked a tiny bit wobbly and I am sure they will refine their guidance software for the next flight based on the experience with this landing.

[paperburn1]

I agree, what he is doing is hard as hell. But if he can get it to work he is going to drop the cost to orbit by half or more. IMHO

[paperburn1]

Found it
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-34941462
looks like some of the falcon

[williatw]

SpaceX's Elon Musk battles with Blue Origin's Jeff Bezos in a new space race



Nov. 24 -- Blue Origin's New Shepard Space vehicle flew to space on Monday and then landed back on Earth. “Now safely tucked away at our launch site in West Texas is the rarest of beasts—a used rocket,” Jeff Bezos, founder of Blue Origin, said in a sta...

SpaceX’s Elon Musk and Blue Origin’s Jeff Bezos do not like each other. That fact was demonstrated once again, as Business Insider noted on Wednesday, by a series of tweets Musk sent concerning the successful launch and landing of Blue Origin’s New Shepard, a suborbital rocket intended to take paying passengers on jaunts into space. The flight was the first time a rocket reached space, albeit barely, and then landed on Earth under its own power. Musk has been trying to land the first stage of his Falcon 9 on a barge in the middle of the ocean, thus far unsuccessfully.




At first Musk offered his congratulations to Blue Origin on its feat. But, not being able to leave well enough alone, he also sent a series of tweets attempting to downplay his rival’s accomplishment. Falcon 9 is designed to go to orbit, a more difficult thing to do than a suborbital hop. A SpaceX rocket called Grasshopper has already done a vertical takeoff and landing maneuver, albeit without having gone into space. And so on.

Blue Origin finally had enough and released the following statement:

“SpaceX is only trying to recover their first stage booster, which is, of course, suborbital. The SpaceX first stage does an in-space deceleration burn to make their re-entry more benign. If anything, the Blue Origin booster may be the one that flies through the harsher re-entry environment. Finally, the hardest part is probably the final landing segment which is the same for both boosters.”

This game of one-upmanship with two men engaged in a fight over which one of their rockets is better is not the first time the two companies have clashed. As the Washington Post reported last March, Blue Origin engaged SpaceX in a patent dispute over the technique of landing rockets on a floating barge. Before that, they squabbled over which company would get to use the shuttle era NASA launch complex 39A.

Musk won that battle, but not before exercising considerable snark.

“If they do somehow show up in the next five years with a vehicle qualified to NASA’s human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs…Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct.”

In other words, a new space race has developed between two companies that is driven by personal animosity as much as it is the desire for profit. The only thing left for observers of the space scene is to make some popcorn and watch as Musk and Bezos battle it out, driven to accomplish great things by their dislike of one another. It is the stuff of high drama.

http://www.examiner.com/article/spacex- ... space-race

[paperburn1]

Spacex tries out those new brackets tonight.
8 To 9 PM

[paperburn1]

Spacex tries out those new brackets tonight.
8 To 9 PM
http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

[Skipjack]

They will attempt to land on land and they have pre- chilled fuel, a longer stage and the full thrust engines. And of course they replaced those struts. A lot of new components for one launch. This will be interesting. If they manage to do a good landing tonight, it is somewhat sad that it will be at night without a clear view.

[TDPerk]

Not only do they need to spec a strength, but a toughness, a quality control spec, and probably a dozen other related specs. You DON'T use COTS for such systems.

I have no idea why you think that wasn't done. The whole point of such standards as AMS2750E is to make it possible to treat common components made by certified suppliers as a commodity within the aerospace industry. I understand the failed part was actually a bolt holding the strut.

Given the very small fraction of their stock of parts which failed in exhaustive post-failure 100% testing, and the fact they all failed the suspect characteristic way, there's really no question but that they were supplied with some parts which did not meet the spec'ed standards.

The manufacturer was wrong or fibbed.

[Skipjack]

Not only do they need to spec a strength, but a toughness, a quality control spec, and probably a dozen other related specs. You DON'T use COTS for such systems.

I have no idea why you think that wasn't done. The whole point of such standards as AMS2750E is to make it possible to treat common components made by certified suppliers as a commodity within the aerospace industry. I understand the failed part was actually a bolt holding the strut.

Given the very small fraction of their stock of parts which failed in exhaustive post-failure 100% testing, and the fact they all failed the suspect characteristic way, there's really no question but that they were supplied with some parts which did not meet the spec'ed standards.

The manufacturer was wrong or fibbed.

I fully agree with that. There are certified parts that cost more for a reason. Otherwise, why bother?

[Skipjack]

Launch delayed until tomorrow (21st), per Elon Musk:

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk
Just reviewed mission params w SpaceX team. Monte Carlo runs show tmrw night has a 10% higher chance of a good landing. Punting 24 hrs.