back to article Fifth time's the charm as SpaceX pops satellite into orbit

After four aborted attempts, SpaceX's latest and greatest Falcon 9 rocket has successfully delivered the SES-9 communications satellite into orbit. The rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral right on time at 1835 ET (2335 UTC) and the first stage burn and separation occurred as planned. The rocket's second stage then made …

Page:

  1. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two buildings?"

    How are we going to get to Mars if we can't get a video feed feed back from a barge parked just 600 miles off shore?

    Hint: A 2nd smaller barge, stable for satellite feed since rockets aren't landing on it, with a ~1km fiber optic cable from one to the other. Easy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two buildings?"

      Ah, so SpaceX is now so good they are tacitly expected to just deliver the satellite reliably, and also provide better mid ocean movies of their booster prangs?

      Oh well, I guess that's the price of success.

    2. Mark 85
      Coat

      Re: "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two buildings?"

      And here I was just being fat, dumb, and happy that Musk is still trying to land the thing. I guess I should clammer for a full 360 degree live feed video with surround sound.. and of course, since it's Friday, a free beer.

    3. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two buildings?"

      Hint: A 2nd smaller barge,

      I thought there was a support ship already. While the barge is fully autonomous during the landing itself it is crewed on the way in an crewed on the way out (if it survives). That crew has to go somewhere in the meantime.

    4. DropBear

      Re: "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two buildings?"

      ...just when I thought White Knight was Branson's ship, not Musk's...

  2. Kharkov
    Trollface

    Moving the goalposts a bit...

    So, launching a rocket? Yawn.

    Sending a bird on its way to GEO? So old hat!

    Getting (almost) your 1st stage back? Yesterday's news!

    Failing to supply a video feed? Proof - PROOF! - that SpaceX are failures at this space launch stuff & we should return to the tried & trusted (and yes, expensive) ULA. After all, THEY'VE never had a video feed cut out while they were recovering one of their 1st stages...

  3. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Missing the point...

    The barge video is a *recurring* failure. As soon as the rocket enters the video frame, the barge rocks, the satellite dish is knocked off alignment, the link is dropped. It's a *recurring* pattern. As far as I can remember, the only rocket landing *video* that worked was the one on land.

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to change on their own. They're insane in that they're offering up a live video feed from the barges, for their adoring fans, that NEVER works.

    They should fix that. I've already explained how they might do it. Another option would be an aircraft qualified uplink system as they can handle fast changes to pitch and roll (like ~30°/s). Another option would be an Inmarsat L-band aircraft system where the -3dB beamwidth from the antenna is 40° wide. Those systems can still uplink at least 500 kbps by bonding two bearers, so combined with h.265 encoding one could get SD video back at a reasonable frame rate (good, but not full quality). It'd be perfectly reliable unless the rocket landed on it.

    The SpaceX rockets are very nice, but 'How are we going to get to Mars if we can't get a video feed feed back from a barge parked just 600 miles off shore?' They're falling down on the Comms.

    I assume you all, being space fans, immediately recognized the "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two buildings?" quote.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Pint

      Re: Missing the point...

      If stabilized satcom is what you are looking for the US Navy, and a bunch of other people out there including civilians, have been doing this since forever. Then it comes down to how fast you want the antenna to slew.

      Just something I used to work on ages ago.

      Icon: For the SpaceX folks. Awesome delivery.

      1. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: Missing the point...

        Jack of Shadows "...US Navy... ...antenna to slew..."

        A satcom designed for aircraft applications likely has a better slew rate than one designed for a warship. And with L-band and a 40° beamwidth antenna, it would be essentially impossible to knock the antenna out of alignment. L-band can support video uplink, just not quite 'full' SD frame rate. h.265 would help.

        I wonder if they've made the elementary mistake of ordering a satellite transponder nearly directly overhead, where the common 2-axis mounts can get tangled up with themselves at the zenith? Either get a 3-axis mount, or avoid the zenith by ordering a satellite at a middling elevation.

        A pair floaty FO cables to the support ship could be a much better concept...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Missing the point...

        could be though, that even though onboard rocket video seems to survive just fine and it's at the epicenter of all these stresses, that the ability for landing video to fail is a "plausible deniability" sort of thing?

        It seems like every landing we heard "there's no video available" for a week until suddenly there WAS video and it shows up everywhere. Its as if SpaceX thinks videos of KABOOM on landing are a bad thing until they've been looked over first? Not sure what the point would be but getting video to work from a barge (and even surviving a 'hard landing') is nothing significantly new especially compared to the rest of the program's hardware capabilities.

    2. Jimbo in Thailand
      Facepalm

      Re: Missing the point...

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to change on their own."

      That would be trying to land a freakin' rocket vertically on a floating barge out in the constantly-moving unpredictable ocean, which is obviously an absolutely insane task. Since SpaceX has the proven capability to accurately and dependably return a rocket directly to, but not on, a floating barge, they should instead opt for a non-drifting not-pitching non-rolling landing pad on terra firma. In fact, it's already been done successfully by rival space outfit Blue Origin, the Jeff Bezos company.

      While watching SpaceX's first barge-landing attempt, I remember thinking, "HOW EFFING STUPID!". When you were a young student ever try to get your pencil to stand up vertically, flat eraser end down, on a flat surface? (I was bored in that class, OK?) FFS, it's extremely difficult because the tall thin pencil is inherently unstable in that orientation. Obviously, a tall thin rocket is similar, even if it has short landing legs to help stabilize it. It makes much more sense to pursue this ocean barge folly by transitioning the returning rocket from a vertical attitude to horizontal prior to touchdown then gently catching it in a huge kevlar or ??? high-temp super-strong, yet flexible, net, suspended above the barge. This technique should improve the odds of a successful non-damaging landing exponentially.

      The bottom line is why Elon Musk's team continues to try to defy basic physics is beyond me. Where is the quadruple facepalm icon?

      1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

        Re: Missing the point...

        Landing on land isn't an option for most flight paths, the trajectories and above all the fuel availiable for bringing the first stage back simply won't allow that. (As we're doing quotes on this thread, how about "Aw, physics, thou art a heartless bitch!") Making more fuel availiable would mean more weight to be launched - for which you'd need more fuel. Most of the fuel burned is used to lift fuel, rocketry just works that way, and there is no way around that outside the realm of science fiction.

        Rockets are surprisingly frail things because they are made as lightweight as possible. Some designs work basically as a pressurised container, a bit like a blimp. When not pressurised, the thing is very delicate to handle and very, very easily damaged. You can see this in some of the 'well, back to the drawing board' test footage from the 1950ies and 1960ies, rocket stages folding and tearing like tinfoil. In order to make the first stage reusable, it has to be sturdier already = more weight = more fuel = even more fuel, see above. But it's still a design that relies on the idea that the main forces it has to handle occur along its vertical axis. If you want to land it horizontally you'd have to convert the flying pressure tank in something very much like a widebody airframe, sturdy enough to cope with a carrier landing. Possible, of course, but (in comparison) very big, very, very heavy and needing very, very, very much fuel. And a bigger barge.

        As a fellow commentard likes to say: Rocket science isn't actually that hard. Rocket engineering is.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Missing the point...

          "When not pressurised, the thing is very delicate to handle and very, very easily damaged."

          One way of handling this is to carry gas to maintain the pressurisation. A gas such as say, helium....(Hint, they already do this)

          Elon's gone from almost successfully landing and retaining a LEO booster to almost successfully landing and retaining a GEO booster. They weren't really expecting the latter to work but seeing as the stuff was kicking around, why not try?

          Perhaps 'chutes or drogues would be worthwhile in the latter case(*) but the fact that spacex can even put the descending booster and the barge in the same place at the same time is pretty mind boggling all in itself, given the size of the target and the size of the ocean.

          (*) Dump them a few thousand feet up?

      2. A Non e-mouse Silver badge
        Mushroom

        @Jimbo in Thailand

        In fact, it's already been done successfully by rival space outfit Blue Origin, the Jeff Bezos company.

        Small point: Jeff's rocket may have gone up and down, but it certainly didn't go high/fast enough to put anything in orbit, let alone a geostationary orbit.

        Oh, and Elon's rocket has landed on Terra Firma before too. As has been mentioned several times, this one couldn't reach land due to lack of fuel (due to putting something into a high geostationary orbit)

      3. DocJames

        Re: Missing the point...

        Is Jimbo in Thailand laughing at us all falling for his parody? Or really that incapable of reading the article?

        I wonder about Poe's law.

        1. Alistair
          Windows

          Re: Missing the point...

          @ Doc James:

          I just want some Coles Law.

      4. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Missing the point...

        The bottom line is why Elon Musk's team continues to try to defy basic physics is beyond me. Where is the quadruple facepalm icon?

        Go back to your high school math and start to learn about differential equations, control systems (aka cybernetics) and stuff. You know, the principles behind the machinery which magically pops out all around you. Said machinery must have been extruded from the sphincters of unicorns, otherwise there is no rational explanation how these things can exist, right?

        Where is the quadruple faceplam icon, indeed.

      5. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: Missing the point...

        JiT "try to get your pencil to stand up vertically, flat eraser end down..."

        If the returning first stage booster was transparent, you'd be able see that most of the mass is very low down.

        To assist your visualization of this point, some tidbits.

        1) rockets are made as light as possible (it ain't cast iron)

        2) on return, the tanks are nearly empty

        3) there are nine big rocket engines on the bottom

        In your mind, the C-of-G mark should be quite low.

        I hope this helps to clarify your thinking on this point.

      6. cray74

        Re: Missing the point...

        When you were a young student ever try to get your pencil to stand up vertically, flat eraser end down, on a flat surface?

        My pencils didn't have 90% of their mass in the bottom quarter of their length, nor did my pencils have 4 legs with a span:height ratio of 1:2. A better analogy than a pencil would be attempting to stand a flat-topped hammer on its head.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Missing the point...

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to change on their own."

      Like constantly criticising and carping in the comments section about everything that Space-X, Tesla and Musk do?

      1. JeffyPoooh
        Pint

        Re: Missing the point...

        Musk has many adoring fan-boys. Some disturbingly so, not that there's anything wrong with that... You can tell by the way that they leap to his defence, even when a particular, often narrow, criticism is perfectly valid. They should give their heads a shake; it's unhealthy and counterproductive to the greater good.

        Face facts. Elon Musk's SpaceX couldn't get a video back from a barge parked off shore, even if their life depended on it. They've obviously spent a lot of money trying, repeatedly. But the video cuts out every single time. That's called a 'FAIL'.

        It's not about the video itself. It's about the repeated failures. It's a clear sign that the organization is immature and hasn't implemented all the processes they should have.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          WTF?

          Re: Missing the point...

          That's called a 'FAIL'. It's a clear sign that the organization is immature and hasn't implemented all the processes they should have.

          Because JeffyPoooh is an ITIL foundation specialist and has solved many operational problems from the first line helpdesk. He has the flowcharts and the reboot killmarks to prove it.

          1. JeffyPoooh
            Pint

            Re: Missing the point...

            DAM "JeffyPoooh is an ITIL foundation specialist..."

            Not even in my worst nightmare.

            1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

              Re: Missing the point...

              You should try it's actually kinda fun (it obviously depends on the teacher, got lucky, and the venue was class 1 deluxe)

              1. JeffyPoooh
                Coffee/keyboard

                Re: Missing the point...

                DAM "You should try, it's actually kinda fun..."

                ITIL fun?

                [Rarely-used icon alert.]

                1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
                  Holmes

                  Re: Missing the point...

                  Then why are you even complaining about "missing processes"?

                  1. JeffyPoooh

                    Re: Missing the point...

                    DAM "Then why are you even complaining about 'missing processes'?"

                    Because ITIL is Yet Another ISO9000, CMMI, Six Sigma, CobIT, eTOM, DO-178, etc. ...have I left any out? Yes I have, there are dozens more. The endless proliferation of these flavour du jour, expect no more than "one line of code per day" (are you kidding me?) for the coding phase, Quality Method / Development Models gets a bit tiresome.

                    I hope that your view doesn't stray into viewing ITIL as a religion...

                    Perhaps SpaceX is still reviewing the ITIL manuals trying to figure out what to do next.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Missing the point...

          " It's a clear sign that the organization"

          Has higher priorities and chooses not to waste resources unncessarily on PR

          If you set up a committee to discuss some form of emergency communicator for hikers, they'll keep adding on features and end up taking half their time arguing about the colour of something whose battery lasts a day at best, when all that's actually needed is a EPIRB with a battery rated for 10 years storage.

          This is a test that at least one multimillionaire uses to test his new hires. He wants the rogue element that suggests the EPIRB

          1. JeffyPoooh
            Pint

            Re: Missing the point...

            AB "...Has higher priorities and chooses not to waste resources unnecessarily on PR."

            They installed the satellite system (expensive), booked satellite time (moderately expensive), advertised that it was on the timeline (PR), switched to the live feed (PR), and then the system FAILED... ...again.

            Your claim (quoted above) is pure 'Apologist BS', and obviously so.

            1. Charles 9

              Re: Missing the point...

              "They installed the satellite system (expensive), booked satellite time (moderately expensive)"

              Expensive compared to what? Last I checked, satellite links tended to go maybe five figures tops. Meanwhile, space flights in the past routinely hit nine figures. Meaning compared to the space flight itself, the sat com unit is probably just a nick off the roll.

              1. werdsmith Silver badge

                Re: Missing the point...

                It's not about being a Musk fan. It's just that it is so great that a billionaire is using cash to do this kind of bleeding edge stuff instead of just hoarding it. I really enjoy the vicarious pleasure of watching these guys setting high bars and trying to reach them.

                More of this please, much more.

                Those that are not interested, there are plenty of caves to provide you with shelter and even more rocks from which to attempt to make rudimentary hammers to eke out the last piece of nutrition from bone marrow.

        3. Graham Dawson Silver badge

          Re: Missing the point...

          The cameras on the rocket - the important ones that can used to visually assess performance and which, crucially, operate in a much more extreme environment than the barge camera - were working just fine for the entire flight. The fact that they can get a reliable video feed from a camera parked right next to a rocket exhaust, operating in a vacuum and in a very high orbit tells me that they have all the engineering skills, knowledge and experience necessary for this sort of thing.

          Like the man said, the barge camera isn't a high priority and is treated accordingly.

        4. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge

          Re: "Obvious"

          They've obviously spent a lot of money trying, repeatedly.

          ...have they?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Missing the point...

      Some people just like taking offence on behalf of other poor billionaires - Don't go spoiling their fun with your facts and relevant quotes.

    5. Steve Knox

      Re: Missing the point...

      No you're missing the point. The barge video is not an operational priority.

      It's PR/infotainment, which is less important than getting the actual functional engineering to work.

      1. DropBear

        Re: Missing the point...

        "No you're missing the point. The barge video is not an operational priority."

        Once upon a time there was a fairly well known guy in my country who once wrote something roughly along the lines "if you bother doing something, you really should make the effort to do it properly". Musk is of course under no obligation whatsoever to get a live video feed working - but I'm with that first guy: get it right, or just don't bother.

        1. ian 22

          Re: Missing the point...

          "Do it right or just don't bother..."

          "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity..."

          It seems to become expert at something requires 10,000 hours of doing it over and over. Based on that, it does appear that expecting a different result (I.e. Expertise) is not insane at all.

      2. yet_another_wumpus

        Re: Missing the point...

        Which leaves the question: what possible value is increasing public relations among those who watch the real-time launch/landing videos and could the benefits of such possibly cover the costs in fixing it?

        My guess is UVA fanboys can't believe anybody could miss a chance to spend money.

    6. Charles 9

      Re: Missing the point...

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the results to change on their own."

      Ah, but the counterpoint...

      "Doing the same thing over and over again and actually getting a different result on its own is praised...as persistence."

      1. John H Woods Silver badge

        Re: Missing the point...

        "Doing the same thing over and over again and actually getting a different result on its own is praised...as persistence." -- Charles 9

        Indeed. In fact the stupid statement about insanity bugs me even when it isn't mistakenly attributed to Einstein. Ther original quote (in an NA pamphlet) is about making the same mistakes over and over again. Almost nothing that is worth achieving can be achieved without some measure of doing the same thing over and over again.

    7. Vic

      Re: Missing the point...

      The barge video is a *recurring* failure.

      I'm sure that if you write to them, they'll give you a full refund.

      Vic.

  4. Ian Easson

    Failure IS an option

    As Musk said, if you don't fail, you are not trying to succeed!

    1. Known Hero

      Re: Failure IS an option

      Or you're just that damned good ! ;)

  5. happy but not clappy

    Its managing public perception

    I believe they do have footage, but it runs on a delay loop, because they only want to show success.

    Pictures of detonating rockets is bad for business, and SpaceX's competitors are not nice people.

    Thus we get no footage, even some time after the event.

    1. et tu, brute?

      Re: Thus we get no footage, even some time after the event.

      Uhm... what about the following links?

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/10/spacex_rocket_falcon_9_drone_ship_landing_fails/

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/14/spacex_falcon_landing_barge_iss_resupply/

      And Elon tweeted a link as well:

      https://www.instagram.com/p/BAqirNbwEc0/

    2. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Its managing public perception

      >I believe they do have footage, but it runs on a delay loop, because they only want to show success.

      Believe what you want.

      Meanwhile, SpaceX have provided footage of their past failed landings.

      On their last attempt, that resulted in an explosion, Musk tweeted that it won't be their last RUD. (Rapid Unplanned Disassembly). On this attempt to land, Musk said they were not expecting a successful landing (because of the amount of fuel required to get the satellite to its orbit).

      >Pictures of detonating rockets is bad for business,

      The customers need to get satellites into orbit. They only have a few suppliers to choose from. They do due process, weighing up a lot of factors, and bash out contracts with insurance clauses. i.e it is not an emotional decision that would be influenced by a picture.

      SpaceX have had one rocket explode on the way up (destroying its customer's patyload), but all their landing attempts have been done after doingthe job they were paid to do.

      1. happy but not clappy

        Re: Its managing public perception

        Sure, but if I were him, I would want to check footage before releasing it. Real-time really isn't that hard as my fellow commentards have pointed out. To do otherwise would be oddly un-businesslike, which he is not.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: Its managing public perception

          Frankly I want to see more failed landings.

          Then one could have end-of-year "Rocket Jackass" retrospectives, better than the "best family accidents" stuff one can find on TV.

  6. Gene Cash Silver badge
    Pint

    Got to see it

    I saw the launch from my back yard. It was very bright until it left the cloud layer, then I saw the little white dot of the first stage separate from the little white dot of the second stage. A minute or later, it went over the horizon (actually into the ground haze)

    Wheee! Let's do that again, Unca Musk!

  7. James Loughner
    Holmes

    Easy fix

    Move the launch to an area that has land under the end point. Launch from Colorado and land in Nebraska

    Ok probably not politically feasible

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like