T-00:00:00 - Falcon 9 lift-off. Stage 1's nine Merlin engines produce 1.3M pounds of thrust.
T+00:00:07 - Falcon 9 clears the launch tower.
T+00:01:00 - Altitude: 6km, Velocity: 241m/s, Downrange distance: 1km
T+00:01:10 - Falcon 9 achieves supersonic speed.
T+00:01:23 - Falcon 9 achieves maximum dynamic pressure (Max Q).
T+00:02:00 - Altitude: 30km, Velocity: 1km/s, Downrange distance: 23km
T+00:02:30 - Altitude: 51km, Velocity: 1.8km/s, Downrange distance: 59km
T+00:02:41 - MECO (Main Engine Cut-Off) Altitude: 80km, Velocity: Mach 10
T+00:02:44 - Stage 1 separates from Stage 2.
T+00:02:45 - Stage 2's single Merlin engine ignites.
T+00:03:25 - Dragon's nose cone is jettisoned.
T+00:04:21 - Altitude: 148km, Velocity: 3.2km/s, Downrange distance: 346km
T+00:05:22 - Altitude: 182km, Velocity: 4km/s, Downrange distance: 541km
T+00:06:24 - Altitude: 200km, Velocity: 4.6km/s, Downrange distance: 767km
T+00:07:31 - Altitude: 210km, Velocity: 5.6km/s, Downrange distance: 1,080km
T+00:09:40 - SECO (Second-stage Engine Cut-Off)
T+00:10:15 - Stage 2 separates from Dragon.
This will be a historic moment if the recovery succeeds, ushering in a new era of space travel due to the massively reduced operating costs of recoverable engines.
Fri Apr, 18 2014 2:45 PM EDT — Fri Apr, 18 2014 4:00 PM EDT
... targeted to launch on April 14 at 4:58 pm EDT ...
Edit: Actually, just checked, that might not be the case. The link in the original submission will somehow, somewhere lead to a livecast. Still checking.
This may be another option, but I'm not entirely sure:
http://hnrankings.info/7609667/
Dropping suddenly from 3rd to 20th on the front page suggests some sort of penalty being applied, but is it community driven, or automated? Even with the new openness about the actions of the moderators on HN I still find some things deeply confusing.
Added in edit: This does bring home just how important upvotes are. I've seen how disproportional the effect is of downvotes on an item's ranking - one downvotes out-weights many upvotes. If you like something, upvote it, or see it sink without trace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4
In this video, the copter is actually HOVERING ABOVE the rocket as the rocket descends back down to the launchpad. The only time I've ever seen something like that before was Hollywood (Apollo 13, and then when the footage was re-used in Austin Powers 2).
The other day I went out to watch the ISS fly over and some random passers-by asked what I was doing. When I explained they were, quite frankly, incredulous. They had no idea that there were people flying around the Earth in an oversized tin can, in constant danger of being hit by space debris, doing experiments and increasing our understanding. No idea. I'm still not convinced they believed me.
The general population doesn't care.
The older shuttle launches generally had less penalty for missing their launch window because they were not going to ISS (or Mir or Hubble) and didn't have to wait for a very specific launch window for rendezvous, which can take days.
Apollo never had a scrub, which is nice because missing your launch window to the moon can mean waiting another month. The Saturn V could turn around in 2 or even 1 day, theoretically. They did have to do a few holds.
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-79.71987/c...
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/457190623640969216
Anyone know where the stage is supposed to be coming down?
I think you mean flagging as there is no down voting of submissions as far a I am aware.
<fx:shrug />
It works only intermittently from northern Europe. It only plays back for a few seconds and then stops for buffering...
pip install livestreamer
apt-get install rtmpdump
pip install python-librtmp
livestreamer ustream.tv/nasahdtv best
Instead of going to ISS directly, they have put the Dragon to some cheaper point in the space with some speed vector. After that, it will turn around Earth multiple times, until the orbits of the Dragon and the ISS are closer.
But it's very short and partially incorrect (as they may also have a few correction boosts)
Edit: We took the penalty off several hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7611240
For a more exhaustive understanding, further explanation and exploration, you will enjoy the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_plane_%28astronomy%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_phasing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_rendezvous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_and_berthing_of_spacec...
Certainly I thought the discussion was interesting.
FWIW, it's not me who has down-voted you. Not least, of course, I can't since your comment is a reply to mine. Personally I think your comment should not be down-voted - it's certainly of value.
That said, I have said the following before, but I will repeat it here. These launches are important, in a time when, "[...] in the U.S., I think there has been an under-current feeling for the last several years, that could perhaps be paraphrased as, "Where are we heading, as a nation?" I think it is easy for us to lose touch with the pulse of the nation when we are head-down in code at a start-up or elsewhere, but I think this feeling is real. So, this is perhaps at the root of at least some of this passion and excitement. It perhaps affirms, in some way to us, that the collective "We" are still builders." [1]
We have no way of knowing which of these posts are particularly significant. Many people seem to upvote anything with SpaceX in the title, and I'm skeptical that it should be on the front page so often. Since you say this one is unusual, I believe you.
But really, please send questions like this to hn@ycombinator.com rather than posting them in the threads.
p.s. Downvoting that comment is fine; it's an efficient way for users to communicate that I made a mistake there. That's better than posting a low signal-noise reply.
Edit for clarity.
Punishing worthy, interesting stories because there are too many other stories about the company seems really wrong.
"Last known state for rocket boost stage is 360 m/s, Mach 1.1, 8.5 km altitude and roll rate close to zero (v important!)"
So it appears it may be a failure, we'll find out soon what went wrong this time. More from Elon regarding what success would be, telemetry wise:
"Rocket boost stage reaching 0 m/s in one piece :) Will know soon. Odds not high." [1]
Regardless, they've demonstrated that the landing-leg module can survive the stresses of liftoff and fully powered flight, particularly at Max Q. This is quite an achievement, and vital for future tests.
I believe it was in Dec of 2010 but not sure.
Ideally, you'd use something like a Predator or Reaper with long endurance and stabilized optics. At $4MM per drone (new), that's not outside the realm of possibility.
Soyuz made first direct ascent last year, docking within few hours instead of days as usual.
Last known state for rocket boost stage is 360 m/s,
Mach 1.1, 8.5 km altitude and roll rate close to zero
(v important!)
This rocket was only doing 360 m/s, but importantly, wasn't rolling at all -- Their last 'test' failed when the rocket started rolling at a very high rate of speed and they lost engine power.
Musk was then asked:
if anything could go better, what would it be?
Rocket boost stage reaching 0 m/s in one piece :)
Will know soon. Odds not high.
Some pictures: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/photos/of/ships/photo_keywor...
From a Naval Book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tkGDkpkQh-sC&pg=PA272&lpg=P...
* 4 diesel engines
* 24,480bhp, 2 shafts
* 18 knot cruising speed
* World's most powerful salvage tug (at the time)
* Two 8-ton cranes, one 3-ton crane
The only issue is that it's not always obvious which stories are the worthy, interesting ones.
Please kindly read my entire previous comment (the one in the link that I provided in the text that you are responding to)... note that I said that I was, "Speaking as an American, here [...]" before I said the quoted text. I believe that the context of my entire previous comment is important.
Respectfully, your interpretation is incorrect. That was not my intention at all, and it does not represent the type of person that I am.
You make a good point about stuff sitting on the front page for hours, though. I've been wondering whether the mega-popular posts of the last day or two are choking out good new stories.
Google/Facebook/Twitter are on the front page all the time, every time they make some little burp. I like those companies and what they do, but SpaceX is 1000x more interesting to me than any of those.
> * Two 8-ton cranes, one 3-ton crane
I had joked on Reddit in the CR3 thread that Putin would brazenly try to snag the first stage. Now it doesn't seem so funny.
Success!
"Data upload from tracking plane shows landing in Atlantic was good! Several boats enroute through heavy seas."
Congrats to the SpaceX team if this is the case. I've been glued to my laptop since the launch. I can finally say we've made a significant breakthrough in aerospace during my lifetime.
The last time a breakthrough of this magnitude occurred was during the Apollo program.
1. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/457307742495993856
UPDATE: Further confirmation.
"Flight computers continued transmitting for 8 seconds after reaching the water. Stopped when booster went horizontal."
It appears that we've witnessed history today ladies and gentlemen.
Link: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/457307742495993856
IIRC it's usually like this over holidays.
I was probably unnecessarily optimistic, but I'm so glad they are making this much progress so quickly!
... Ah, to hell with it. A modified Falcon 9 rocket stage did a powered landing for the very first time. Eventually this could cause launch costs to plummet, and open up space in earnest. EEEEEEE!!!! :-D :-D :-D
The space shuttle did have recoverable boosters but the refurbishing process offered much less cost savings.
I believe no other rockets provide for booster recovery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_d...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zDaDSvIww
"Dirty" water "geyser" rose up as high as the rocket itself :) Looks like water from acoustic suppression system had created a puddle under rocket?!
So:
sudo apt-get install python-dev
pip install cffi
sudo apt-get install librtmp-dev
pip install python-librtmp1. The shuttle itself - this needed extensive maintenance work done to it after each flight.
2. The big orange fuel tank - this couldn't be reused
3. The solid rocket boosters on either side - these had to be completely rebuilt after they splashed down in the ocean (it is easier to splash them down in the ocean than the Falcon 9 first stage, as they separate at a lover altitude).
Overall this didn't save much on costs, with the average cost of a flight (inclusive of development costs) being about US$1.5 billion.
Even the slightest look into this would have revealed why it is special.
Including complete rebuilds for the three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), they were I gather somewhat needlessly too high performance/sports car types of devices.
In general, the Space Shuttle design was twisted by various unnecessary requirements (e.g. while the Air Force didn't want it, it could originally do a single polar orbit mission, which required extreme heat shield technology to land back at the same location while the earth turned underneath it. This was later mitigated by replacing a lot of those tiles with a ... glass fiber mat???), and to minimize development costs. Solid fuel booster you can't turn off were formerly considered to be unacceptably dangerous for manned missions, but they were the cheapest to develop.
Operating costs? Well, NASA post-Apollo makes the most sense if you view it as a public works project.... Low launch rates, especially post-Challenger after more people realized what an abomination it was, plus a huge fixed work force made it very expensive to operate.
(Yes, and it seems like I've been flagged for saying it!)