Skip to main content

The new Falcon 9 v. 1.1 successfully launched into orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California this morning, right on the dot at 9 am PDT as planned, delivering the Canadian Space Agency's CASSIOPE satellite into a polar orbit.  This is a BFD for both the economics and the technology of spaceflight, but is itself merely another step toward greater things.  Details and screencaps below the curl.

First, some videos of the launch - the first is the official SpaceX video, which gets a bit choppy during the second stage flight, and the second is from a nearby suburb (thanks to Clark Lindsey for pointing these out on his NewSpace Watch blog):

No word yet on whether the first stage relight was successful, but apparently there were also moves being made with the second stage whose outcome has not yet been reported.  But the flight itself was picture-perfect and all payloads are in orbit.  No other launch company could achieve this much, this quickly.  None.  Not only a new rocket, but a brand-new launch site too, and they only started on both of them a couple of years ago.

Here are some screencaps from the video up top:

While still on the pad, we get to see the shiny Merlin 1D engine bells relatively closely on the left:

1.1 (1)

A few caps of the launch:

1.1 (2)

1.1 (3)

The second-stage Merlin 1D vacuum engine, optimized for operating outside the atmosphere:

1.1 (4)

1.1 (7)

1.1 (8)

1.1 (9)

The next step for SpaceX, as far as I understand it, is to strap two 1.1 first-stage cores on the sides, work out how to cross-feed the fuel, and then that will be the Falcon Heavy.  That's a huge step in itself, but this flight was the bigger hurdle.  And, of course, we're still waiting on word about their experiment with relighting the engines after stage separation.  If that succeeded, the significance of this flight would go from huge to colossal.  But even if it didn't, this is a big step in both the economics and technology of rocket flight.  The 1.1 is the most advanced rocket ever flown, and will continue to evolve.  It will also, BTW, be the rocket that transports astronauts to the ISS sometime in 2015, subject to ongoing developments with the Dragon spacecraft.

From the largest perspective, the reason this flight is hugely important is that the Falcon Heavy that will derive from it is designed to deliver about 29,000 lbs of payload to Mars (and way, way more to Earth orbit).  The initial flight of the FH is aimed at next year, so the success of this launch means that timetable remains viable.

11:40 AM PT: Here's a better shot of the engine nozzles on the pad:

MVC photo MVC_zps3b873a48.jpg

11:59 AM PT: It's been reported that SpaceX will hold a briefing at 12:30 PDT.  Hopefully we'll get word about the engine relight experiments.

1:21 PM PT: Elon Musk tweets that "Rocket booster relit twice (supersonic retro & landing), but spun up due to aero torque, so fuel centrifuged & we flamed out".  In other words, the relights worked, but during the descent the stage started spinning, the fuel moved to the sides of the tank and stopped being fed to the engines, so they stopped.  But he also tweets, "Between this flight & Grasshopper tests, I think we now have all the pieces of the puzzle to bring the rocket back home."  Sounds like he's confident they have enough data to make it work next time.  Thanks to puppet government for bringing the tweets to our attention.


1:37 PM PT: Details of the relight attempts from the briefing:

1.  2nd stage relight failed, but they know why and think it'll work next time.

2.  1st stage relight involved two ignitions: The first one to slow down the stage at high altitude, and then a second just above the sea to make a soft splashdown.  The first one worked, but the second caused the spin-out and engine shutdown due to fuel centrifuging.  They know why and think they can fix it next time with software changes.

3.  First stage hit the sea softer than it would have without the relight, but still hard enough to break up.  But they recovered some pieces that could be informative.

4.  Won't try to relight on next two launches, but will on third in 2014.

5.  Falcon Heavy test fire in 2nd quarter of 2014 (April-May-June).

6.  Rocket overall performed better than expected.

7.  Next Falcon 9 v. 1.1 scheduled for next month.

2:06 PM PT: Musk says 1st stage on February Dragon flight likely to have landing legs, and the Dragon will be the new version that Musk has said looks very different from the current one, like an "alien spaceship."

5:33 PM PT: Here's another pretty one, really shows how skinny the 1.1 looks in the air:

c3847dc4-6135-44f9-b837-6bfaa38a6509

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Falcon 9 is incredible (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, VeggiElaine, Lawrence
    From the largest perspective, the reason this flight is hugely important is that the Falcon Heavy that will derive from it is designed to deliver about 29,000 lbs of payload to Mars (and way, way more to Earth orbit).
    Super useful! The vehicle we're envisioning in our Mars Project is between 20-100 tons gross weight, so this seems like a perfect vehicle.

    Falcon Heavy, btw, consists of two cores strapped on, for a total of three for the first stage. Amazingly, this is still nowhere near the Saturn V in terms of raw power, but damn if it doesn't have more finesse.

    Personally, I'm not convinced that SpaceX can pull off reusable staging in its current design, but I imagine it's possible. I hope they keep trying. Rockets are such complex and expensive machinery that being able to preserve them would go a long way towards reducing expenditures.

    On that note, it was a good choice for them to use RP-1 for the reusable stage, because it's quite a cheap fuel. Also very stable and (comparatively) environmentally friendly, although it kills the shit out of fish.

    •  I know SpaceX had originally planned to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      evilcommunist, VeggiElaine, Lawrence

      go beyond the FH to even larger rockets, named the Falcon X, X Heavy, XX, and XX Heavy, but I don't know if they're still planning to do that.  It might be simpler to just use a larger number of FH flights for Mars launches, and it's more than adequate for lunar launches too, although SpaceX doesn't really care about the Moon.  But customers could still get there.

      Always apart, always asking Why.

      by Troubadour on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:56:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Another reason... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      to use RP-1 is that it is a dense fuel. By weight hydrogen is more energetic, but its much lower density means that a bigger rocket is needed, which adds to the rocket weight, size, and drag (in atmosphere). The arguments for/against methane are similar, but it's at least bit easier to handle than liquid H2 (H2 bp = 20K; CH4 = 110K).

      •  Methane actually has a huge weakness (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eyesoars, Troubadour

        Namely, its liquid range is about twenty degrees kelvin. That requires a very, very good active cooling system. It's certainly not something you'd want to use outside of the Earth's atmosphere.

        This was what really threw a wrench into our plans for trying out a Martian ISRU refueling system. You can synthesize methane on Mars, but the cryogenics alone would be terrible to imagine.

        •  That was a Real Problem with the DC-X (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubadour

          and hydrogen, I gathered. Hydrogen boils at 20K, but to get the density up, they needed liquid hydrogen "slush" at 14K (H2 melts at 14K). Mixing that with a composite hull (needed to deal with LH2's volume and keep weight down) apparently turned out to be very problematic, as the composite did not take deep thermal cycling well.

          •  Hydrogen has its own problems (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Simplify, Troubadour

            Like someone mentioned, it's not very dense in terms of energy output per liter. And the active cooling required for hydrogen is, as you can see, hell and gone from that required by methane. All that cooling requires power, and power is a luxury you really don't have in space.

            It's all well and good on the ground, though, where you can just run a giant wire over to the gantry and plug it into the grid, if you're feeling particularly crude and low-tech.

  •  smashed (4+ / 0-)

    @elonmusk: "Rocket booster relit twice (supersonic retro & landing), but spun up due to aero torque, so fuel centrifuged & we flamed out"

    But apparently they're planning to try this again with CRS-3 in January, so I guess they think it's fixable in software.

  •  To quote Joe Biden, "This is a big fuckin deal!" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Lawrence

    And it is.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 03:27:10 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site