…has been postponed. Elon tweeted that their Monte Carlo runs had indicated a slightly higher probability of landing success tomorrow, and Orbcomm said that they wanted to continue to analyze static-fire data and allow an extra day to pre-chill the LOX. Someone at NASASpaceflight indicated that it might be that, though launch conditions are slightly worse tomorrow (80% chances of good weather as opposed to 90% today), it might be less wind, with less convection to warm the oxidizer. as Jonathan McDowell points out, this may be the first time they’ve ever delayed a launch to improve the chances of a landing, but the customer seems fine with it. As I noted to him, every aircraft operator takes into account landing conditions prior to takeoff.
9 thoughts on “Today’s SpaceX Launch”
Comments are closed.
The forecasts I’ve seen show that wind gusts are supposed to be less tomorrow, and gusting winds could IMHO have an effect on a landing.
I also have to note that Orbcomm posted a somewhat different explanation for the delay, one based on SpaceX wanting more time to review data from the static fire.
My guess is that due to these not being mutually exclusive explanations, both may be true.
My alternative, paranoid theory is that SpaceX is conspiring against me, because while I could have watched live today, I won’t be able to tomorrow. 🙂
If it means we’re getting a successful landing as an early Christmas present, I’m more than fine waiting an extra day.
“…this may be the first time they’ve ever delayed a launch to improve the chances of a landing…”
Not really. There have been a number of times where Shuttle launches were delayed due to bad weather at the Trans-Atlantic Abort site, which wasn’t even a planned landing site, just a contingency.
Here’s an example: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/smg/post113.htm
Yeah, but the Shuttle landed like a space plane. The Falcon will land like any self-respecting rocket really should, under power and on it’s tail. Ask anyone who grew up watching 50’s Science Fiction movies. 🙂
Well, OK, I should have said “planned” landing. Not contingency.
X-15 flights were frequently delayed when the dry lake was flooded.
Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that they are going for a ground surface landing at LC13 rather than aiming for the ASDS (again) THIS TIME, still makes me wonder if that would be the case today had Blue Origin not nailed their landing. Which begs the question as to whether SpaceX’s go-slow approach was more a political than technically driven series of choices.
Note: I was a big supporter of the ASDS landings and the go slow approach mainly because of the bad PR a crash at a surface site would be and the political fall-out from same. The fact that Blue Origin has shown that it CAN be done may be enough to offset any undue panic on the part of the public should a landing go awry. And I believe the odds are good still that for SpaceX’s system it might. But if SpaceX demonstrates the degree of control over the returning rocket they have for the previous attempts there should be no reason for undue fear on the part of the public even if there is a crash and explosion at the landing site. At least that is my hope…
” still makes me wonder if that would be the case today had Blue Origin not nailed their landing. ”
Oh I’m pretty sure it factored in there somehow.
I never liked the barge landings because of the extra factors that added.
Question:
Were the grasshopper vehicles capable of being fueled and flown to 328k meters and then land?
Were the grasshopper vehicles capable of being fueled and flown to 328k meters and then land?
Definitely not Grasshopper. Not sure about F9RDev1 (the one they terminated at McGregor). There were plans to fly F9RDev2 out of New Mexico, and according to this article from NASASpaceflight, Musk alluded to flights greater than 300 kft.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/04/rockets-return-home-spacex-pushing-boundaries/
If they flew one of those vehicles to 100 km and back, they could claim they returned a booster from space. But in a recent Twitter conversation with Rand Simberg, Dave Masten suggests that the F9 first stage stages well below 100 km, something closer to 200,000 feet.