Quote from: andrewsdanj on 05/02/2017 03:49 pmLEO mission so the 2nd stage should have deorbited before making a single orbit - into the danger area in the Indian ocean posted a ways back?You need L2 access.
LEO mission so the 2nd stage should have deorbited before making a single orbit - into the danger area in the Indian ocean posted a ways back?
Quote from: Star One on 05/02/2017 03:55 pmQuote from: andrewsdanj on 05/02/2017 03:49 pmLEO mission so the 2nd stage should have deorbited before making a single orbit - into the danger area in the Indian ocean posted a ways back?You need L2 access.Also, just look at the warning zones listed earlier in this thread. They span more than the usual time for second stage reentry. My guess was that the second stage was going to coast for a couple of orbits before trying for a deorbit burn. I doubt very much that the stage is still alive now, more than 24 hours after liftoff, if it is still up there at all. - Ed Kyle
There could have been ride share CubeSats that S2 deployed. I believe the planned de-orbit was planned for orbit 3. saw that somewhere on NSF...
Quote from: Wolfram66 on 05/02/2017 04:57 pmThere could have been ride share CubeSats that S2 deployed. I believe the planned de-orbit was planned for orbit 3. saw that somewhere on NSF...I might be missing something but wouldn't the NRO not be very keen on rideshares? My expectation was zero cubesats, as their orbits might give away info about the primary bird.
Quote from: Lar on 05/02/2017 06:40 pmQuote from: Wolfram66 on 05/02/2017 04:57 pmThere could have been ride share CubeSats that S2 deployed. I believe the planned de-orbit was planned for orbit 3. saw that somewhere on NSF...I might be missing something but wouldn't the NRO not be very keen on rideshares? My expectation was zero cubesats, as their orbits might give away info about the primary bird.unless the cubesats were NRO's and are testbed for future technologies.
There is a "naysayer roadmap" on the Internet for it Falcon 1 is not provenContract with NASA is not provenFalcon 9 is not provenDragon is not provenISS resupply is not proven1st stage return is not provenBarge landing is not provenReuse is not proven=== You are here ===Falcon Heavy is not provenEconomy of reuse is not provenDragon 2 is not provenCrewed flights are not provenLunar flyby is not provenCapsule propulsive landing is not provenRed Dragon is not proven
An interesting note about this is that "Economy of reuse is not proven" is pretty much non-falsifiable. SpaceX has already reused a rocket without going bankrupt and they claim to be profitable. What more can they prove?
Quote from: gospacex on 05/02/2017 02:06 pmThere is a "naysayer roadmap" on the Internet for it Falcon 1 is not provenContract with NASA is not provenFalcon 9 is not provenDragon is not provenISS resupply is not proven1st stage return is not provenBarge landing is not provenReuse is not proven=== You are here ===Falcon Heavy is not provenEconomy of reuse is not provenDragon 2 is not provenCrewed flights are not provenLunar flyby is not provenCapsule propulsive landing is not provenRed Dragon is not provenAn interesting note about this is that "Economy of reuse is not proven" is pretty much non-falsifiable. SpaceX has already reused a rocket without going bankrupt and they claim to be profitable. What more can they prove?
Point. In which case we may never know.... no announcement, no orbital elements, nothing.Want to keep a really big secret? Wrap it in outer layers of secrets that are themselves hard to penetrate and not necessarily relevant/related. Include some false secrets too... (see "Footfall" for a plot device example of that)
The issue boils down to the question - when do they make more money by reusing rockets than they spent on making them reusable?...IOW, how much money could you have made by simply using the maximum capabilities of your rocket?
This is why ULA likes the idea of just recovering the engines with a parachute, it puts much less of a dent in the maximum capability of the rocket.
Quote from: Star One on 05/01/2017 11:33 amOdd that I didn't spot any military bods in mission control for an NRO launch. Did Space X keep them out the way somewhere to keep the cool image going.I'm sure the "military bods" were monitoring from a SCIF. Too bad, they were probably focused on their payload during that amazing 1st-stage recovery video.
Odd that I didn't spot any military bods in mission control for an NRO launch. Did Space X keep them out the way somewhere to keep the cool image going.
Quote from: sanman on 05/01/2017 06:57 pmWow, there sure were some great close-ups of the returning booster - anybody notice that? Yes... multiple times in both the UPDATES and DISCUSSION threads. And, yes, they are fantastic images.
Wow, there sure were some great close-ups of the returning booster - anybody notice that?
Quote from: JMS on 05/02/2017 03:10 amQuote from: sanman on 05/01/2017 06:57 pmWow, there sure were some great close-ups of the returning booster - anybody notice that? Yes... multiple times in both the UPDATES and DISCUSSION threads. And, yes, they are fantastic images.How come such amazing camera work this time around? Any chance we'll see nice close-ups like that from now on? Or does it get special love because it's for NRO? It really does look awe-inspiring to see it such closer detail when it's coming down like that - flames and all!