If things go as scheduled, we should get three Falcon 9 missions tonight, spread over just a few hours.
As I write, we've already had the first launch, the European Eutelsat 36D, a communications satellite bound for a geostationary orbit. That was at 5:52 PM local time. There were thin high clouds but as the Falcon 9 got behind those clouds it was going into the final moments of the first stage's burn and the thin clouds were enough to mask our view of MECO and stage separation.
Eutelsat 36D, built by Airbus, will be replacing Eutelsat 36B at 36° East where it will provide over 1100 broadcast channels and other connectivity across Africa, Russia, and Europe. The satellite features 70 Ku-band transponders to enable constant data flow to the ground. The satellite is expected to have an operational lifetime of 15 years.
The schedule lists two more launches for the day (Eastern US time), making three launches this evening. A second mission from SLC-40 of Starlink group 6-45 was originally scheduled for 9:02 but has been moved to 9:30 PM ET, or 3 hours 38 minutes after that first launch. Finally, the last launch of the day is another group of Starlink satellites, Group 7-18, this time from Vandenberg SFB at 10:30 PM ET, 7:30 Pacific. Three launches in 4 hours 38 minutes. Each of those launches has schedule slop of at least an hour, so while this focuses on the scheduled time, we won't know until all three are launched.
An interesting aside to this schedule is that
today is the anniversary of the first time SpaceX launched and landed a
used Falcon 9 booster. March 30, 2017; seven years ago.
I watched the first launch on NASASpaceflight.com's YouTube feed, and one of the guys there voiced the thought I regularly have: we're saying things that a few years ago no one would have thought would be said. For example, that booster was flying its 12th mission (I think - can't find a real reference) and it seemed sooty for a rocket with only 11 previous flights. Even a couple of years ago, when 10 flights was the announced goal, did you ever think you'd say something like that? Did you think you'd ever see a rocket with 5 or 6 missions and say, "look at how clean that is; it looks like a new rocket?"
I watched the EutelSat launch, and it was spectacular. To see Fairing Separation, and watch the two sections come fluttering down, was spectacular. And even though Heinlein gave us big, gleaming, silver rockets that took off and landed on their tails, real life is a bit different. Kind of like seeing a 24 Hours of Le Mans race car in before and after pictures; Pretty beat up and dirty looking after the race. Or a brand-new F-18 Hornet vs one that's "Got Some Hours On It".
ReplyDeleteFalcon's are like akin to the small block Chevy engine, good solid design and manufacturing. They stuck with them and made small but critical generational improvements without fixing what ain't broke. How they could be better yet good enough is good enough as Ol' Remus might put it. Along similar lines how mules where such an integral part of farms prior to diesel tractors displacing them. Things which just work superbly well, always something most gratifying about that.
ReplyDeleteOn that note I think Super Heavy may end up being a pretty awesome launch vehicle, living out a pretty relatively long series, how it possibly could be there are problems having to do with simply its such a large powerful rocket and nothing can be done about that except accepting it and that will prove to be a catalyst for a new kind of launching technology such as an earth anchored platform/lift elevator, if some form of carbon nano tube like super strong yet light weight cable is developed, maybe Jerry Pournelle's story idea of the ultimate stage zero SpaceX has built, but employing the launching laser/ablative concept. That could be super fast launch cadence at least for freight, might be a tuffy to make it man rated though.
Anyone have projected practical numbers of what a Super Heavy costs in fuel and turn around overhead yet translating into price per kilo to LEO with full recovery of both stages? Any word of expected life cycle of Raptor engines once SH goes into its expected cargo/passenger launch schedules? Its pretty cool how SpaceX is undoubtably developing what Elon quipped as the Raptor running at the ragged edge of upper most E=MC2 physics possible employing a combustion engine, and how they must in no doubt manufacture absolute possible reliability into them to make the whole system be a quick return to launch evolution. So much reliability while attaining such amazing performance numbers. it is a thing unto itself of just superb engineering accomplishment taken in totality. And what strikes me as stunning is how much visible light those Raptors produce, up in the burn chambers. Its almost pure white, looks kind of like welding arc frequencies seen from distance. Maybe that is what Elon referred to regarding the limits of physics in a fuel burning engine. I'd think you would have to reach a pretty high ratio of a perfection in fuel to oxidizer mix/burn rates, like pretty much near perfect if its possible?
PS,
ReplyDeleteWhats even more, whats possible when the penultimate moment arrives we get the whole shebang with Quantum physics? True warp like drives? Gravitational engines and "tractor" beams? An engine which uses a form of time travel that creates thrust numbers at fractions of speed of light? Or more like commercially feasible fusion thrust engines, how that would require highly effective reliable magnetic containment instead of just materials, how that could turn out you might not need an engine, per say, simply a system of magnetic pinch points after what creates your fusion source?