Quote from: SweetWater on 11/18/2017 09:38 pmQuote from: biosehnsucht on 11/18/2017 09:12 pmAre the chances of FH static fire (much less launch) for 2017 now dashed with the Zuma delays?I don't know if they're dashed, but the delays with Zuma certainly don't help. Last I had read, there are still about 3 week of pad mods needed at 39A to get it ready for FH. Even if Zuma had launched on-schedule, FH was a tight fit this year. On a strictly practical level, every day Zuma is delayed makes it less likely we'll see a FH static fire/launch this year.It's also true that some kind of failure on Zuma (or another upcoming launch), whether of fairing deployment or another aspect of the mission, would probably delay FH indefinitely while a cause was investigated and a fix implemented.If you read ChrisG's article at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/spacex-aims-december-launch-falcon-heavy/ dated Nov 1 - with Zuma launching on Nov 15 a static fire targeted for Dec 15 [if everything goes well] that led to a NET Dec 29 FH launch if everything went smoothly.Since Zuma can launch no earlier than Nov 20th now, that means at least a 5 day slip which says the best case date is Jan 3.I have no special knowledge, I'm just adding the known 5+ day slip of zuma to the schedule in Chris's article.Carl
Quote from: biosehnsucht on 11/18/2017 09:12 pmAre the chances of FH static fire (much less launch) for 2017 now dashed with the Zuma delays?I don't know if they're dashed, but the delays with Zuma certainly don't help. Last I had read, there are still about 3 week of pad mods needed at 39A to get it ready for FH. Even if Zuma had launched on-schedule, FH was a tight fit this year. On a strictly practical level, every day Zuma is delayed makes it less likely we'll see a FH static fire/launch this year.It's also true that some kind of failure on Zuma (or another upcoming launch), whether of fairing deployment or another aspect of the mission, would probably delay FH indefinitely while a cause was investigated and a fix implemented.
Are the chances of FH static fire (much less launch) for 2017 now dashed with the Zuma delays?
Hard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?
Quote from: shuttlefan on 11/26/2017 01:01 amHard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?There's no way it can be rotated anymore. The tracks it ran on have been severed. See this view from Google Maps.
Quote from: rpapo on 11/26/2017 09:45 amQuote from: shuttlefan on 11/26/2017 01:01 amHard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?There's no way it can be rotated anymore. The tracks it ran on have been severed. See this view from Google Maps.Thank-you!
Don't want to take this as fact from a low resolution picture, but I think SpaceX might have added the remaining 2 south booster hold downs. Mainly gathering that as it is very symmetrical, and not staggered as it would look if they were not in place, though it is certainly hard to tell.Picture from Instagram posted 11hrs ago at time of writing.https://www.instagram.com/p/Bb6YeQfH5oO/
Quote from: rpapo on 11/26/2017 09:45 amQuote from: shuttlefan on 11/26/2017 01:01 amHard to tell by pictures whether or not the RSS 'tractor cab/motor' has been removed and if not, can it still be rotated?There's no way it can be rotated anymore. The tracks it ran on have been severed. See this view from Google Maps.Rotated-understood. But are the actual wheels still located on the rails that are present? Wasn't there some sort of special precautions that were undertaken during the last HURCON initiation on 2017 which specified some sort of additional chains or hardware to prevent the RSS from moving?
Perhaps they're test-removing the F9 plugs, or removing them and making them easier to install and remove (Such as using bolts rather than welding them on, I'm not sure what they did to attach them to begin with), for Crew Dragon and the eventual move of CRS missions to 39A.
Quote from: IanThePineapple on 11/27/2017 07:43 pmPerhaps they're test-removing the F9 plugs, or removing them and making them easier to install and remove (Such as using bolts rather than welding them on, I'm not sure what they did to attach them to begin with), for Crew Dragon and the eventual move of CRS missions to 39A.the plugs use only large locking pins.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 11/28/2017 01:05 amQuote from: IanThePineapple on 11/27/2017 07:43 pmPerhaps they're test-removing the F9 plugs, or removing them and making them easier to install and remove (Such as using bolts rather than welding them on, I'm not sure what they did to attach them to begin with), for Crew Dragon and the eventual move of CRS missions to 39A.the plugs use only large locking pins.So they can already be easily removed?
If true then I guess space does the same thing, limit the number of cryocycles by never letting the tanks warm up.