NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Early Days Archive Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 11/24/2013 08:23 pm

Title: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/24/2013 08:23 pm
Fifth thread for the Falcon 9 v1.1 discussion and updates (not enough "news" for an update standalone thread).

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28882.0

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31514.0

Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31734.0

Thread 4:

There's 750,000 views above!

Remember, this is a big forum. There are lots of threads. You can start a thread if you have a splinter discussion. Off topic posts should be reported and will be deleted for housekeeping purposes.

Thread 4 was pretty much ruined near the end by off topic posts. Offenders will be PMed a notice not to derail threads. Repeat offenders will be removed from the forum.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: jabe on 11/25/2013 02:14 pm
Ok..I am getting all mixed up with new the tech that Spacex is developing and when it will fly.  Is there a summary some where or maybe make sticky thread where the dates can be listed...
for the flight today is the only "new" tech being checked out is if they fixed the 2nd stage engine?
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: solartear on 11/25/2013 04:19 pm
Ok..I am getting all mixed up with new the tech that Spacex is developing and when it will fly.  Is there a summary some where or maybe make sticky thread where the dates can be listed...
for the flight today is the only "new" tech being checked out is if they fixed the 2nd stage engine?
jb

That should be the only "new" tech. But they will be flying a lot deeper into space than they have before, so they will see how well the upper stage handles a trip through the Van Allen belts for the first time, which is useful for future missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Joffan on 11/25/2013 05:44 pm
Ok..I am getting all mixed up with new the tech that Spacex is developing and when it will fly.  Is there a summary some where or maybe make sticky thread where the dates can be listed...
for the flight today is the only "new" tech being checked out is if they fixed the 2nd stage engine?
jb

That should be the only "new" tech. But they will be flying a lot deeper into space than they have before, so they will see how well the upper stage handles a trip through the Van Allen belts for the first time, which is useful for future missions.

... only if SpaceX keeps the upper stage "live" long enough to collect some data on that, but its real job is done long before it reaches that altitude.  I doubt there is much in the way of suitable sensing external equipment on board, so any evaluation would be by indirect means (effects on control systems for example).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JAC on 11/27/2013 05:48 am
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.

Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.

If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: meekGee on 11/27/2013 05:51 am
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.

Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.

If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?

At least some of it has to do with the payload not being present on this WDR.

The rest might have to do with it being a new pad/rocket.   Not everything repeats exactly the same every time.  Tight limits on all parameters, etc.   Then different time of day, or different ambient temperature, and something is a bit off, and the automata stops the count-down.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Kabloona on 11/27/2013 05:37 pm
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.

Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.

If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?

At least some of it has to do with the payload not being present on this WDR.

The rest might have to do with it being a new pad/rocket.   Not everything repeats exactly the same every time.  Tight limits on all parameters, etc.   Then different time of day, or different ambient temperature, and something is a bit off, and the automata stops the count-down.

WDR is also training/practice for the launch team, not just hardware checkout. And if things go wrong in WDR they get further practice running abort, recycle, and anomaly resolution procedures...like the ones they needed to run Monday. There's the adage, "Test like you fly." For WDR, it might be amended to "Practice like you launch." So there's value in WDR on the personnel side, not just the hardware side.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JAC on 11/27/2013 06:54 pm
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.

Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.

If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?

At least some of it has to do with the payload not being present on this WDR.

The rest might have to do with it being a new pad/rocket.   Not everything repeats exactly the same every time.  Tight limits on all parameters, etc.   Then different time of day, or different ambient temperature, and something is a bit off, and the automata stops the count-down.
The first item was reportedly a valve with funny readings. That should have been found. Really. Otherwise the WDR is flawed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Oli on 11/27/2013 06:55 pm
Has anybody calculated the "1500m/s to GEO" GTO payload? Seems to be the standard for Ariane/Proton etc. Or do you think satellite makers will equip their satellites with bigger fuel tanks for Falcon?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JAC on 11/27/2013 06:59 pm
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.

Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.

If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?

At least some of it has to do with the payload not being present on this WDR.

The rest might have to do with it being a new pad/rocket.   Not everything repeats exactly the same every time.  Tight limits on all parameters, etc.   Then different time of day, or different ambient temperature, and something is a bit off, and the automata stops the count-down.

WDR is also training/practice for the launch team, not just hardware checkout. And if things go wrong in WDR they get further practice running abort, recycle, and anomaly resolution procedures...like the ones they needed to run Monday. There's the adage, "Test like you fly." For WDR, it might be amended to "Practice like you launch." So there's value in WDR on the personnel side, not just the hardware side.
First, to go rapid reusability, you cannot have a WDR. Period.
Secondly, if the purpose is to train personnel, then you don't run it once. You run it 3-4 times the same day. Not one WDR once every two month. Run one in the morning, one at midday, and one at night. You should capture most issues this way.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Kabloona on 11/27/2013 07:20 pm
Of course all personnel on the launch team have been "trained" before they ever go live. Nevertheless, WDR does indeed give "practice" to the launch team just prior to launch, and there is some value to repeated practice of launch procedures, and being well-rehearsed just before launch.

I didn't suggest WDR was solely for the purpose of training/practice, merely pointed out that it does in fact exercise personnel as well as hardware. So even if all hardware problems are not caught, it's still a useful exercise for the launch team.

Obviously SpaceX wants and needs to reduce pad time before launch, and that topic has been discussed here before. We'll have to wait and see if/when SpaceX eliminates WDR/static fire. But it bears remembering that this is only the 7th F9 launch, and only the 2nd F9v1.1 launch, and as we saw from the several anomalies, SpaceX is still ironing out some bugs, so they may want to continue the WDR "practice" a bit longer.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: kenny008 on 11/27/2013 08:19 pm
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.

Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.

If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?

At least some of it has to do with the payload not being present on this WDR.

The rest might have to do with it being a new pad/rocket.   Not everything repeats exactly the same every time.  Tight limits on all parameters, etc.   Then different time of day, or different ambient temperature, and something is a bit off, and the automata stops the count-down.
The first item was reportedly a valve with funny readings. That should have been found. Really. Otherwise the WDR is flawed.
Obviously, this valve DID work during the WDR, or they would have seen the problem.  It almost certainly it failed after passing the WDR.  You can only catch things that are broke, not things that work and break later.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: baldusi on 11/27/2013 08:31 pm
Has anybody calculated the "1500m/s to GEO" GTO payload? Seems to be the standard for Ariane/Proton etc. Or do you think satellite makers will equip their satellites with bigger fuel tanks for Falcon?
According to NLS II, Falcon v1.1 can do 4,030kg to 185km x 80,000km x 20.8deg orbit (1,500m/s deficit). But it is a super-synchronous GTO. From the same source, it would be able to do 3,655kg to a 185km x 35,768km x 15deg (also 1,500m/s deficit). The Super GTO require more care (even the Moon is an important factor) and complicated orbital maneuver. I know that Proton-M didn't do it because of Briz-M limitations, at first. But apparently now they can do super GTO.
In general, comm sat operators decide a spacecraft and then try to get one launcher plus a backup. Thus, they might chose to design for a 1,800m/s GTO, to enable Falcon to compete, but then they'll sort of have to pay a lot more than necessary if they chose an Ariane 5, even if they only book the option. Thus, the usual choice is if they built it bigger than what Falcon v1.1 can do at 1,500m/s. But let's not forget that if you have a 6tonne craft, a Proton-M or a Zenit-3SLB can give you a lot more bang-for-the-buck at the business level. Think that a 6tonne craft might give you 50% or 60% extra revenue, and Proton and Zenit are not that much more expensive.
Depending on whether they want to accept the extra risk of super GTO, any craft upto 4tonnes will be able to use a Falcon v1.1 (if NLS II data is correct). Else, they'll consider the F9v1.1 only upto 3.6tonne craft.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: WHAP on 11/27/2013 08:34 pm
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.

Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.

If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?

At least some of it has to do with the payload not being present on this WDR.

The rest might have to do with it being a new pad/rocket.   Not everything repeats exactly the same every time.  Tight limits on all parameters, etc.   Then different time of day, or different ambient temperature, and something is a bit off, and the automata stops the count-down.
The first item was reportedly a valve with funny readings. That should have been found. Really. Otherwise the WDR is flawed.
Obviously, this valve DID work during the WDR, or they would have seen the problem.  It almost certainly it failed after passing the WDR.  You can only catch things that are broke, not things that work and break later.

It is not obvious that the valve worked during WDR.  Something occurred during the WDR that appeared to be related to the LOX loading system.  Was it related to this valve?  Did it cause a subsequent problem with this valve? 

There are a lot of absolutes being thrown about in the last couple of posts.  The point of WDR is to exercise the launch vehicle system, from the GSE to the vehicle to the operators, and maybe beyond.  To provide data for all of those systems to identify problems, and even impending problems.  To build a family of data for comparison during subsequent events, and to allow the setting of limits.  Sometimes an obvious problem is only just a symptom, not the cause, and requires thorough data review and evaluation, and maybe additional troubleshooting.  To say that something absolutely should have been caught or did or did not happen without knowing all of the facts, which none of the previous posters appear to have, is pure bluster. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JAC on 11/27/2013 08:41 pm
There are a lot of absolutes being thrown about in the last couple of posts.  The point of WDR is to exercise the launch vehicle system, from the GSE to the vehicle to the operators, and maybe beyond.  To provide data for all of those systems to identify problems, and even impending problems.  To build a family of data for comparison during subsequent events, and to allow the setting of limits.  Sometimes an obvious problem is only just a symptom, not the cause, and requires thorough data review and evaluation, and maybe additional troubleshooting.  To say that something absolutely should have been caught or did or did not happen without knowing all of the facts, which none of the previous posters appear to have, is pure bluster.
Perhaps not so much bluster, as frustration at the cancelled launch... ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: johnmoe on 11/27/2013 08:48 pm
Did anybody listen to the SpaceX/SES phone call*?  What was the part about being able to increase the engines to 160,000 lbs sea level thrust?  Have we ever heard that before?


* http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2013/16399975
Quote
US\Canada:  (855) 859-2056
International: (404) 537-3406
Conference ID:   16853657
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 11/27/2013 08:58 pm

First, to go rapid reusability, you cannot have a WDR. Period.
Secondly, if the purpose is to train personnel, then you don't run it once. You run it 3-4 times the same day. Not one WDR once every two month. Run one in the morning, one at midday, and one at night. You should capture most issues this way.

Yes, you can. Period
And you can't run multiple WDR's in a day. 
And a WDR once every two months is sufficient for training.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/27/2013 09:26 pm
Has anybody calculated the "1500m/s to GEO" GTO payload? Seems to be the standard for Ariane/Proton etc. Or do you think satellite makers will equip their satellites with bigger fuel tanks for Falcon?
That's a good point, and the answer to your second question is: actually, sort of. Boeing has a SEP-only spacecraft which uses electric propulsion to do insertion and thus has more delta-v to spare (although this is a trade versus time spent, obviously). They're light enough that two can be launched on a single Falcon 9 to GTO. (Of course, you can dual-launch them on other vehicles, too.)
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.page

Two Falcon 9 launches (at least?) are set to dual-launch these electric-only birds (a total of four). (If I'm incorrect at all here, please correct me.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: WHAP on 11/27/2013 10:05 pm
There are a lot of absolutes being thrown about in the last couple of posts.  The point of WDR is to exercise the launch vehicle system, from the GSE to the vehicle to the operators, and maybe beyond.  To provide data for all of those systems to identify problems, and even impending problems.  To build a family of data for comparison during subsequent events, and to allow the setting of limits.  Sometimes an obvious problem is only just a symptom, not the cause, and requires thorough data review and evaluation, and maybe additional troubleshooting.  To say that something absolutely should have been caught or did or did not happen without knowing all of the facts, which none of the previous posters appear to have, is pure bluster.
Perhaps not so much bluster, as frustration at the cancelled launch... ::)

I should have added, "IMO".

As far as the frustration bit, it really is just a comsat.  And it's launch #2 of this configuration.  And the launch wasn't cancelled, just postponed. 

If successful, the actual launch isn't going to prove anything significant.  SpaceX has gotten to the point of being ready to launch.  They've shown what their integration time is for a typical comsat.  They'll improve from here.  Sure, it's the first US launched commercial sat in 4 years.  It might affect someone's ego or another person's balance sheet, but if it happens Thursday, or Friday, or two weeks from next Tuesday, it's not going to make much difference in the long run and it won't prevent them from reaching their ultimate goal.  Been there, done that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Prober on 11/27/2013 10:16 pm
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.

Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.

If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?

At least some of it has to do with the payload not being present on this WDR.

The rest might have to do with it being a new pad/rocket.   Not everything repeats exactly the same every time.  Tight limits on all parameters, etc.   Then different time of day, or different ambient temperature, and something is a bit off, and the automata stops the count-down.
The first item was reportedly a valve with funny readings. That should have been found. Really. Otherwise the WDR is flawed.
Obviously, this valve DID work during the WDR, or they would have seen the problem.  It almost certainly it failed after passing the WDR.  You can only catch things that are broke, not things that work and break later.

Sorry, but your assuming here......
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: QuantumG on 11/27/2013 10:19 pm
If successful, the actual launch isn't going to prove anything significant.

I believe it's the cost of the launch which is the most relevant point. That's what was said at the SES press conference, anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cartman on 11/27/2013 11:30 pm
So SpaceX has Thursday and Friday available


https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/405592929323843584 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/405592929323843584)
Quote
Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes

FAA: We've OK'd SpaceX's launch-window requests for Nov. 28 & 29 after refusing requests for 26/27th because of heavy holiday air traffic.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: beancounter on 11/28/2013 12:36 am
If successful, the actual launch isn't going to prove anything significant.

I believe it's the cost of the launch which is the most relevant point. That's what was said at the SES press conference, anyway.
Well yes, that and reliability.  SES and no one else will stand losing their payloads although they did say this one's fully insured.  Was there some problem with insurance in the past?  New vehicle perhaps?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: yg1968 on 11/28/2013 02:35 am
Did anybody listen to the SpaceX/SES phone call*?  What was the part about being able to increase the engines to 160,000 lbs sea level thrust?  Have we ever heard that before?


* http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2013/16399975
Quote
US\Canada:  (855) 859-2056
International: (404) 537-3406
Conference ID:   16853657

Thanks for the information! Here is a zipped mp3 recording of the pre-launch teleconference from last Sunday:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/23879140/SpaceX+-SES-8+Pre-Launch+Conference+Nov+24+2013.zip
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: PreferToLurk on 11/28/2013 03:03 am
Did anybody listen to the SpaceX/SES phone call*?  What was the part about being able to increase the engines to 160,000 lbs sea level thrust?  Have we ever heard that before?


* http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2013/16399975
Quote
US\Canada:  (855) 859-2056
International: (404) 537-3406
Conference ID:   16853657

Thanks for the information! Here is a zipped mp3 recording of the pre-launch teleconference from last Sunday:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/23879140/SpaceX+-SES-8+Pre-Launch+Conference+Nov+24+2013.zip

Thanks for the file!  the exact quote from Elon is: 
Quote from: Elon Musk
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 pounds of sea level thrust per engine.

I tried to put in all of Elon's little speaking quirks just to eliminate any of my own paraphrasing errors. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: clarkeo on 11/28/2013 04:28 am
Just uploaded the recording to sound cloud might make it a bit easier to listen to

https://soundcloud.com/matthew-clarke-30/spacex-ses-8-pre-launch
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 11/28/2013 04:38 am
Thanks for the file!  the exact quote from Elon is: 
Quote from: Elon Musk
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 lbs of sea lvl thrust per engine.

I tried to put in all of Elon's little speaking quirks just to eliminate any of my own paraphrasing errors.

Elon drops the e's from "level"?  How exactly is that pronounced? :P
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: clarkeo on 11/28/2013 04:50 am
This is interesting to hear! Would this increase their payload capacity? Surely this would help with keeping the capable payload high while being able to do RTLS retrieval of the 1st Stage.
I wonder if they are hiding a similar margin on their 2nd Stage engine as well!?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: PreferToLurk on 11/28/2013 04:55 am
Thanks for the file!  the exact quote from Elon is: 
Quote from: Elon Musk
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 lbs of sea lvl thrust per engine.

I tried to put in all of Elon's little speaking quirks just to eliminate any of my own paraphrasing errors.

Elon drops the e's from "level"?  How exactly is that pronounced? :P

Ha!  I missed that. ::)  I will edit.   I'm leaving the percent sign though.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: aero on 11/28/2013 04:58 am
Well of course. They are the same engines after all. Problem is that the S2 can't proceed with an engine out so driving it to hard risks LOM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 11/28/2013 05:10 am
Thanks for the file!  the exact quote from Elon is: 
Quote from: Elon Musk
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 lbs of sea lvl thrust per engine.

I tried to put in all of Elon's little speaking quirks just to eliminate any of my own paraphrasing errors.

Elon drops the e's from "level"?  How exactly is that pronounced? :P

That is not the first time Elon mentioned something like that. I remember during one his talks/briefings back in the Spring, that he thought his team could push the M1D another 15 percent of performance, over 147kllbf SL.  160-165klbf SL does appear to me as a logical performance target. If or when they meet that, is an open question.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: solartear on 11/28/2013 05:32 am
Quote from: Elon Musk
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 pounds of sea level thrust per engine.

If I understand correctly, the M1D's 70%-100% official throttling is with 100% being at 85% of its true potential. So with the expanded range as the new 100%, the M1D could actually throttle ~60%-100%.

Being able to throttle down to 60% would put it much closer to the RD-180 throttle range and provide much greater control for landings.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/28/2013 05:40 am
Great news! Cost reduction found. And one great step on the way to rapid reusability.

Cancel the wet dress rehearsal.

If the WDR wasn't able to detect the three issues that finally ruined the launch attempt last Monday, what's the point of it?

Nobody believes any sort of testing will find 100% of problems.  If it finds 60% of problems, it can still be worth doing.  It all depends on the probability any given bug will be found by the test, the cost of the test, and the cost of the bug not being found.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: MP99 on 11/28/2013 08:27 am
Quote from: Elon Musk
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 pounds of sea level thrust per engine.

If I understand correctly, the M1D's 70%-100% official throttling is with 100% being at 85% of its true potential. So with the expanded range as the new 100%, the M1D could actually throttle ~60%-100%.

Being able to throttle down to 60% would put it much closer to the RD-180 throttle range and provide much greater control for landings.

Alternatively, they may need to fit a bigger pre-burner or turbopump, which might still have a 70-100% range.

NB 70% of higher thrust will increase burnout g's for lighter payloads.

(Perhaps the solution to this is to carry some prop "ballast", which is used for u/s recovery. But, I'm still having some trouble seeing recovery of u/s used for GTO insertion.)


Also - a question. To optimise for higher thrust, would the engine benefit from a change in expansion ratio?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: guckyfan on 11/28/2013 08:54 am
If they increase thrust by 15% wouldn't they need also ~15% more fuel to take advantage of it? Hard to believe they can stretch the Falcon 9 another 15%. It's very stretched already.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Rabidpanda on 11/28/2013 09:50 am
If they increase thrust by 15% wouldn't they need also ~15% more fuel to take advantage of it? Hard to believe they can stretch the Falcon 9 another 15%. It's very stretched already.

Not necessarily, adding more thrust increases performance by reducing gravity losses.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: malu5531 on 11/28/2013 10:14 am
If they increase thrust by 15% wouldn't they need also ~15% more fuel to take advantage of it? Hard to believe they can stretch the Falcon 9 another 15%. It's very stretched already.

Using same thrust/weight ratio, I calculate (https://docs.google.com/a/infidyne.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av6Zu8Wm_3cqdEdrRVZHenVYMWxNX0gzRVNGN2tVWlE&usp=drive_web#gid=27) the following performance for a stretched F9R+ with 165 klbf M1Ds:

Payload to 26° 200x200 km, first stage reused: 15 mT
Payload to 26° 200x200 km, expendable: 20 mT
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Okie_Steve on 11/28/2013 01:39 pm
Another possibility is "over-thrust" to compensate for engine out. Consider if they designed the rocket for the expected M1-D thrust and then found out that the engine could produce up to 15% more but the air frame could not handle it without major changes. Hey, life's rough  :) OK, go with the original thrust figures and be happy - unless you lose an engine - and then you can throttle up the remaining 8 by 12.5% or so and keep going with essentially no change of flight profile. Maybe the octoweb needs a bit of tweaking for the increased asymmetric loads but probably not much else. Something to look at after they have the basic design flying well. At some point you have to freeze the design and build/fly it but incremental improvements are part of rockets too. In any event if throttle up is possible it provides a definite boost  ;) to re-usability because the boost back fuel is still available since engine out does not have to automatically increase gravity losses. Assuming of course that you did not lose the *center* engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: hrissan on 11/28/2013 08:05 pm
Assuming of course that you did not lose the *center* engine.
It was discussed that may be it is possible to try landing using 2 outer engines...

The main reason to try it is getting remains of center engine for analysis. Dumping the first stage in this situation into ocean is easy, so that's always an option. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 11/28/2013 09:46 pm
Technically, it never got to T-0 since the vehicle didn't committ
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ugordan on 11/28/2013 09:48 pm
When will people understand that SpaceX' LCC audio, pad video & audio and the countdown clock are not terribly well-synched...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jakusb on 11/28/2013 09:48 pm

Technically, it never got to T-0 since the vehicle didn't committ
Sure?
I think they ignited and after aborted. They have hold down clamps for that. Only open with all engine properly working
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jakusb on 11/28/2013 09:50 pm

When will people understand that SpaceX' LCC audio, pad video & audio and the countdown clock are not terribly well-synched...
Countdown was off by 1 sec. Video clock was 1 sec ahead
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 08:53 am

Technically, it never got to T-0 since the vehicle didn't committ
Sure?
I think they ignited and after aborted. They have hold down clamps for that. Only open with all engine properly working

Yes, ignition is at T-3 seconds.  They ignited, then aborted before T-0, which is when the hold-down clamps would release.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: aero on 11/30/2013 05:23 pm
I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill but the common thing between the Cassiopeia Stage 2 restart and the SES-8 failure to start properly is that both involved use of TEA/TEB. Those failures could be connected through the supplier or through ground handling procedures. What are the odds of their being a mountain here? That is, does anyone think there might be a connection?

I suppose they could also be connected through the type of hosing used to ground load the Stage 2 TEA/TEB and the ground system plumbing on SES-8 first stage ignition system.

I would still like to know how much TEA/TEB is needed for a successful start. liters or 10's of liters? Knowing that we could guess at the volume of contaminants needed to degrade the starter fluid.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: meekGee on 11/30/2013 05:27 pm
I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill but the common thing between the Cassiopeia Stage 2 restart and the SES-8 failure to start properly is that both involved use of TEA/TEB. Those failures could be connected through the supplier or through ground handling procedures. What are the odds of their being a mountain here? That is, does anyone think there might be a connection?

I suppose they could also be connected through the type of hosing used to ground load the Stage 2 TEA/TEB and the ground system plumbing on SES-8 first stage ignition system.

I would still like to know how much TEA/TEB is needed for a successful start. liters or 10's of liters? Knowing that we could guess at the volume of contaminants needed to degrade the starter fluid.

That's a good point.  There isn't a root cause until they determine how the Oxygen got there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jason1701 on 11/30/2013 05:41 pm
I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill but the common thing between the Cassiopeia Stage 2 restart and the SES-8 failure to start properly is that both involved use of TEA/TEB. Those failures could be connected through the supplier or through ground handling procedures. What are the odds of their being a mountain here? That is, does anyone think there might be a connection?

I suppose they could also be connected through the type of hosing used to ground load the Stage 2 TEA/TEB and the ground system plumbing on SES-8 first stage ignition system.

I would still like to know how much TEA/TEB is needed for a successful start. liters or 10's of liters? Knowing that we could guess at the volume of contaminants needed to degrade the starter fluid.

It's on the order of several liters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 11/30/2013 06:02 pm
I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill but the common thing between the Cassiopeia Stage 2 restart and the SES-8 failure to start properly is that both involved use of TEA/TEB. Those failures could be connected through the supplier or through ground handling procedures. What are the odds of their being a mountain here? That is, does anyone think there might be a connection?

I suppose they could also be connected through the type of hosing used to ground load the Stage 2 TEA/TEB and the ground system plumbing on SES-8 first stage ignition system.

I would still like to know how much TEA/TEB is needed for a successful start. liters or 10's of liters? Knowing that we could guess at the volume of contaminants needed to degrade the starter fluid.

It's on the order of several liters.

depending on engine size 4 to 35 cu in 1500 000 lb LOX/RP-1 engine  -- F1 used 85 percent triethylborane and 15 percent triethylaluminum
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 06:25 pm
I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill but the common thing between the Cassiopeia Stage 2 restart and the SES-8 failure to start properly is that both involved use of TEA/TEB. Those failures could be connected through the supplier or through ground handling procedures. What are the odds of their being a mountain here? That is, does anyone think there might be a connection?

I suppose they could also be connected through the type of hosing used to ground load the Stage 2 TEA/TEB and the ground system plumbing on SES-8 first stage ignition system.

I would still like to know how much TEA/TEB is needed for a successful start. liters or 10's of liters? Knowing that we could guess at the volume of contaminants needed to degrade the starter fluid.

SpaceX has given reasons for both issues, and if they are correct, there is no connection.  The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while, which wasn't tested on the ground because they didn't have access to a vacuum test chamber that could let them fire a Merlin 1D engine.  The new issue was with contamination in the ground-based TEA-TEB system for the first stage.

If SpaceX thinks they are unrelated, I don't see any reason for us to second-guess that.  Their explanations are perfectly plausible, and they have access to far more data than we do.  The TEA-TEB systems for the initial ignition of the first stage (as opposed to the relights of three of the engines when doing first stage recovery) are on the ground, unlike the system on the upper stage, so the systems are very likely completely different, in addition to operating in very different environments.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: meekGee on 11/30/2013 06:36 pm
I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill but the common thing between the Cassiopeia Stage 2 restart and the SES-8 failure to start properly is that both involved use of TEA/TEB. Those failures could be connected through the supplier or through ground handling procedures. What are the odds of their being a mountain here? That is, does anyone think there might be a connection?

I suppose they could also be connected through the type of hosing used to ground load the Stage 2 TEA/TEB and the ground system plumbing on SES-8 first stage ignition system.

I would still like to know how much TEA/TEB is needed for a successful start. liters or 10's of liters? Knowing that we could guess at the volume of contaminants needed to degrade the starter fluid.

SpaceX has given reasons for both issues, and if they are correct, there is no connection.  The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while, which wasn't tested on the ground because they didn't have access to a vacuum test chamber that could let them fire a Merlin 1D engine.  The new issue was with contamination in the ground-based TEA-TEB system for the first stage.

If SpaceX thinks they are unrelated, I don't see any reason for us to second-guess that.  Their explanations are perfectly plausible, and they have access to far more data than we do.  The TEA-TEB systems for the initial ignition of the first stage (as opposed to the relights of three of the engines when doing first stage recovery) are on the ground, unlike the system on the upper stage, so the systems are very likely completely different, in addition to operating in very different environments.

Plausible is just that - plausible.
Once you find issue #2, depending on its cause, you might want to re-visit your conclusions regarding issue #1, to see whether you're still thinking the same thing.
... which I'm sure they did, but it's a valid point to bring up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: aero on 11/30/2013 07:00 pm
I looked at the MSDS, there's nothing obvious there. (I'm sure SpaceXers looked at it too.) TEA/TEB does decompose at high temperature, 4% in 60 hours at 200 deg. F but that is very hot for ambient anywhere unless they store it in the flame trench ;D

I guess I'll not worry about it as I have nothing further to contribute.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: MP99 on 11/30/2013 07:05 pm
I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill but the common thing between the Cassiopeia Stage 2 restart and the SES-8 failure to start properly is that both involved use of TEA/TEB. Those failures could be connected through the supplier or through ground handling procedures. What are the odds of their being a mountain here? That is, does anyone think there might be a connection?

I suppose they could also be connected through the type of hosing used to ground load the Stage 2 TEA/TEB and the ground system plumbing on SES-8 first stage ignition system.

SpaceX has given reasons for both issues, and if they are correct, there is no connection.  The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while, which wasn't tested on the ground because they didn't have access to a vacuum test chamber that could let them fire a Merlin 1D engine.  The new issue was with contamination in the ground-based TEA-TEB system for the first stage.

If SpaceX thinks they are unrelated, I don't see any reason for us to second-guess that.  Their explanations are perfectly plausible, and they have access to far more data than we do.  The TEA-TEB systems for the initial ignition of the first stage (as opposed to the relights of three of the engines when doing first stage recovery) are on the ground, unlike the system on the upper stage, so the systems are very likely completely different, in addition to operating in very different environments.

OK, but what if the issue is Lox leaking into the system?

That could freeze the u/s system from the inside even with the ameliorations in place.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 07:19 pm
I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill but the common thing between the Cassiopeia Stage 2 restart and the SES-8 failure to start properly is that both involved use of TEA/TEB. Those failures could be connected through the supplier or through ground handling procedures. What are the odds of their being a mountain here? That is, does anyone think there might be a connection?

I suppose they could also be connected through the type of hosing used to ground load the Stage 2 TEA/TEB and the ground system plumbing on SES-8 first stage ignition system.

SpaceX has given reasons for both issues, and if they are correct, there is no connection.  The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while, which wasn't tested on the ground because they didn't have access to a vacuum test chamber that could let them fire a Merlin 1D engine.  The new issue was with contamination in the ground-based TEA-TEB system for the first stage.

If SpaceX thinks they are unrelated, I don't see any reason for us to second-guess that.  Their explanations are perfectly plausible, and they have access to far more data than we do.  The TEA-TEB systems for the initial ignition of the first stage (as opposed to the relights of three of the engines when doing first stage recovery) are on the ground, unlike the system on the upper stage, so the systems are very likely completely different, in addition to operating in very different environments.

OK, but what if the issue is Lox leaking into the system?

That could freeze the u/s system from the inside even with the ameliorations in place.

Cheers, Martin

Again, the first stage ignition system is on the pad, not on the rocket.  The upper stage ignition system is on the engine itself.  Even if the LOX could somehow leak into the upper stage TEA-TEB system (very, very implausible, in my opinion), there's no way that same flaw could somehow affect the first stage initial ignition system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: hrissan on 11/30/2013 07:24 pm
I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill but the common thing between the Cassiopeia Stage 2 restart and the SES-8 failure to start properly is that both involved use of TEA/TEB. Those failures could be connected through the supplier or through ground handling procedures. What are the odds of their being a mountain here? That is, does anyone think there might be a connection?

I suppose they could also be connected through the type of hosing used to ground load the Stage 2 TEA/TEB and the ground system plumbing on SES-8 first stage ignition system.

SpaceX has given reasons for both issues, and if they are correct, there is no connection.  The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while, which wasn't tested on the ground because they didn't have access to a vacuum test chamber that could let them fire a Merlin 1D engine.  The new issue was with contamination in the ground-based TEA-TEB system for the first stage.

If SpaceX thinks they are unrelated, I don't see any reason for us to second-guess that.  Their explanations are perfectly plausible, and they have access to far more data than we do.  The TEA-TEB systems for the initial ignition of the first stage (as opposed to the relights of three of the engines when doing first stage recovery) are on the ground, unlike the system on the upper stage, so the systems are very likely completely different, in addition to operating in very different environments.

OK, but what if the issue is Lox leaking into the system?

That could freeze the u/s system from the inside even with the ameliorations in place.

Cheers, Martin
On the first flight, first stage ignited without problems, and second stage also ignited without problems, it is reignition which was unsuccessfull (SpaceX: ignition fluid froze in space from lox venting on the outside of line)

The copy of that rocket is on different pad, and they get the ignition problem on the 2 engines of the first stage, where ignition fluid comes from the pad (SpaceX: contaminated ignition fluid supplied by ground).

Why you suspect connection between those cases??? How can you explain both of them with what you presume is a problem inside Merlin engine, which makes lox go into ignition fluid???
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: MP99 on 11/30/2013 07:30 pm
OK, but what if the issue is Lox leaking into the system?

That could freeze the u/s system from the inside even with the ameliorations in place.

Cheers, Martin

Again, the first stage ignition system is on the pad, not on the rocket.  The upper stage ignition system is on the engine itself.  Even if the LOX could somehow leak into the upper stage TEA-TEB system (very, very implausible, in my opinion), there's no way that same flaw could somehow affect the first stage initial ignition system.

We know M1d can restart.

I'm surprised to hear there are two different start systems for ground and air start.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: meekGee on 11/30/2013 07:40 pm

Why you suspect connection between those cases??? How can you explain both of them with what you presume is a problem inside Merlin engine, which makes lox go into ignition fluid???

He's not suspecting, he's entertaining a thought...

When you debug failures, it's not a good idea to feel confident that you know what went wrong.

It's hard enough to keep track of how things are related when everything is nominal. But once things are not nominal - they can interact in very complicated ways.  So you think you have issue #1 figured out, but actually you're seeing a secondary effect, and attributing it to a wrong cause.  Issue #2 might shed light on it, so don't be overconfident, and re-look at issue #1 in light of the new info.  That's a good thought process.

What's the worse that can happen?  You'll find out that you were right and the two issues are indeed unrelated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 07:41 pm
Tweet from Elon:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/406806983023820800

Quote
Abort was caused by oxygen in ground side TEA-TEB. Upper stage on separate internal circuit, so doesn't face same risk.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 07:51 pm
We know M1d can restart.

I'm surprised to hear there are two different start systems for ground and air start.

Only the upper-stage engine and three of the first-stage engines ever need to air start.  The other six first-stage engines don't need the air-start hardware at all.  Even the three first-stage engines that will air start can be made lighter and simpler if they only have the capacity for enough TEA-TEB for the one or two air starts they will do.  If they had to carry the TEA-TEB for the initial ground start also, they'd need bigger tanks.  Also, it would make it harder to do a quick turn-around on an abort because you'd have to top off the TEA-TEB in the tanks.  It's easier and better for the mass and simplicity of the rocket to have the pad contain the TEA-TEB system for the ground start.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 11/30/2013 07:54 pm
- The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while -
Are you sure? the buildup of stuff seems really too much to be caused only by engine pre-chill.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 08:02 pm
- The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while -
Are you sure? the buildup of stuff seems really too much to be caused only by engine pre-chill.

I'm just repeating the conclusion SpaceX made (and SES concurred with).  I'm not evaluating the evidence myself.  I assume SpaceX and SES has far more data than we do upon which to base a conclusion.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: aero on 11/30/2013 08:30 pm
- The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while -
Are you sure? the buildup of stuff seems really too much to be caused only by engine pre-chill.

I'm just repeating the conclusion SpaceX made (and SES concurred with).  I'm not evaluating the evidence myself.  I assume SpaceX and SES has far more data than we do upon which to base a conclusion.

To me, it looks like chunks of ice, which could only be LOX ice. By watching the video just before LOS you can see what appears to be LOX spraying from this point. Of course it would be very cold, much colder than TEA/TEB freezing temperature.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 11/30/2013 08:34 pm
- The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while -
Are you sure? the buildup of stuff seems really too much to be caused only by engine pre-chill.

I'm just repeating the conclusion SpaceX made (and SES concurred with).  I'm not evaluating the evidence myself.  I assume SpaceX and SES has far more data than we do upon which to base a conclusion.

Sorry, not willing to hurt you, obviously I've lost some detailed reference about the issue.
Nevertheless the buildup in second frame is really strange.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: MP99 on 11/30/2013 08:39 pm

Why you suspect connection between those cases??? How can you explain both of them with what you presume is a problem inside Merlin engine, which makes lox go into ignition fluid???

He's not suspecting, he's entertaining a thought...

When you debug failures, it's not a good idea to feel confident that you know what went wrong.

It's hard enough to keep track of how things are related when everything is nominal. But once things are not nominal - they can interact in very complicated ways.  So you think you have issue #1 figured out, but actually you're seeing a secondary effect, and attributing it to a wrong cause.  Issue #2 might shed light on it, so don't be overconfident, and re-look at issue #1 in light of the new info.  That's a good thought process.

What's the worse that can happen?  You'll find out that you were right and the two issues are indeed unrelated.

Thanks. Yes - that's exactly how I was thinking. Just worried that the signature of this fail could be fairly similar to the previous u/s fail. Something I'm sure has not passed SpaceX by if it's something that's actually feasible in their system. (Very possible that it isn't, per Chris' comments, and Elon's tweet.)

Cheers, Martin

PS it took Orbital 2 goes to correctly identity the issue with their PLF. If F9's systems support this failure mode, this would be their second data point.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 08:46 pm
- The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while -
Are you sure? the buildup of stuff seems really too much to be caused only by engine pre-chill.

I'm just repeating the conclusion SpaceX made (and SES concurred with).  I'm not evaluating the evidence myself.  I assume SpaceX and SES has far more data than we do upon which to base a conclusion.

To me, it looks like chunks of ice, which could only be LOX ice. By watching the video just before LOS you can see what appears to be LOX spraying from this point. Of course it would be very cold, much colder than TEA/TEB freezing temperature.

I remember a few days ago there was all kinds of speculation here about video that showed unusually large white clouds of something coming from the rocket during a countdown that was aborted.  The speculation ranged from a valve failure to an outright rupture of the tank.  Much was made of the fact that a video feed was turned off shortly afterwards.  And then it turned out it was just normal venting from the LOX tank, with the unusually large visible plume due mainly to the atmospheric conditions at the time.

Getting back to the upper stage of the previous mission -- SpaceX has seen this video, plus an enormous amount of additional evidence.  Why would the conclusions they announced, and SES agreed with, be wrong?  Either SpaceX believes it and they are wrong or they are lying.

For SpaceX to be wrong about something that we could easily pick out on a video would be incompetence on a scale beyond all plausibility.  If SpaceX were that incompetent, they could never have reached orbit at all.

Which leaves lying.  But why would they lie about that?  Maybe if they were trying to cover up a failure, that would be a reason to lie.  But they've admitted there was a failure.  One reason or another for the failure is no better or worse for them.  So why lie?  And especially why lie if the video has evidence that disproves their lie?  And why would SES be in on the lie?  Or why would SpaceX lie to SES, which would be fraud that SES could sue them for millions over, as well as poisoning the chances for many future SES launches?

None of that is remotely plausible.  The only plausible scenario to me is that SpaceX reached their conclusion taking this video evidence into consideration and that SpaceX has good reason to believe the video is consistent with their announced version of the reason for the upper stage restart failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 11/30/2013 08:53 pm
Well, neither liar nor wrong, only a simplified explanation for public consumption.
Such a buildup is consistent with frozen TEB/TEA lines, only the root cause stay hidden to the general public.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 08:59 pm
- The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while -
Are you sure? the buildup of stuff seems really too much to be caused only by engine pre-chill.

To me, it's not at all clear what is causing those white areas that are circled in the second photo.  Based just on the photos, it might be a build up of some kind of ice.  But it might also be just glare off of parts that aren't very easily visible in the first photo.

The sun is clearly at a different angle in the two photos.  The color of the panel in the lower right looks like it changed from green to yellow.  On the first photo, two parallel strips of metal are clearly visible just to the left of the green/yellow panel.  In the bottom photo, the left-hand one of these strips looks like it is mostly missing.  I'm quite sure that the metal didn't disappear, it's just that the sun was shining off it in the upper image and it is dark in the lower image -- so dark, it isn't even visible through most of its length.

The two circled parts in the lower image clearly have the sun glaring off them.  Could they be there in the first image, but in shadows so they are not visible?  I can't tell.

So, I don't think the video demonstrates unambiguous evidence of some kind of build up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 11/30/2013 09:19 pm
- The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while -
Are you sure? the buildup of stuff seems really too much to be caused only by engine pre-chill.

To me, it's not at all clear what is causing those white areas that are circled in the second photo.  Based just on the photos, it might be a build up of some kind of ice.  But it might also be just glare off of parts that aren't very easily visible in the first photo.

The sun is clearly at a different angle in the two photos.  The color of the panel in the lower right looks like it changed from green to yellow.  On the first photo, two parallel strips of metal are clearly visible just to the left of the green/yellow panel.  In the bottom photo, the left-hand one of these strips looks like it is mostly missing.  I'm quite sure that the metal didn't disappear, it's just that the sun was shining off it in the upper image and it is dark in the lower image -- so dark, it isn't even visible through most of its length.

The two circled parts in the lower image clearly have the sun glaring off them.  Could they be there in the first image, but in shadows so they are not visible?  I can't tell.

So, I don't think the video demonstrates unambiguous evidence of some kind of build up.

Well, here you are a little scrambling to deny the evidence.....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 09:32 pm
- The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while -
Are you sure? the buildup of stuff seems really too much to be caused only by engine pre-chill.

To me, it's not at all clear what is causing those white areas that are circled in the second photo.  Based just on the photos, it might be a build up of some kind of ice.  But it might also be just glare off of parts that aren't very easily visible in the first photo.

The sun is clearly at a different angle in the two photos.  The color of the panel in the lower right looks like it changed from green to yellow.  On the first photo, two parallel strips of metal are clearly visible just to the left of the green/yellow panel.  In the bottom photo, the left-hand one of these strips looks like it is mostly missing.  I'm quite sure that the metal didn't disappear, it's just that the sun was shining off it in the upper image and it is dark in the lower image -- so dark, it isn't even visible through most of its length.

The two circled parts in the lower image clearly have the sun glaring off them.  Could they be there in the first image, but in shadows so they are not visible?  I can't tell.

So, I don't think the video demonstrates unambiguous evidence of some kind of build up.

Well, here you are a little scrambling to deny the evidence.....

I'm not scrambling.  And I'm not denying anything.

I'm just saying that, to me, the evidence is ambiguous.  Simple as that.  My honest opinion, based on nothing but the video.

Why would you jump from that to "scrambling" and "deny the evidence"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 11/30/2013 09:45 pm
Because at least one of the "items" should be in full light in both frames.
Suggesting both would be in shadows in the first frame seems at least disingenuous.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: aero on 11/30/2013 09:59 pm
During anomaly investigations, very rarely in the evidence not ambiguous. It almost always is, hence the investigation. I wish we had more pictures from different angles but I'm sure none exist.

I thought, and mentioned way up thread, that was LOX ice. I still think so. I am sure that I saw LOX start to spray from that location several 10's of seconds into the S2 burn, and saw the spray increase in volume with time. I then saw the white area in that same place after reacquisition of signal and concluded that it was LOX ice. Maybe it is not but for me to assume that it is not with no other data would be an error. If it is LOX ice, and if the TEA/TEB lines pass through that area of the engine plumbing then I am not surprised that the TEA/TEB lines froze. Added insulation may solve the problem, but if that is LOX ice, then the root cause of the restart failure is the spray of LOX in that area, not the lack of insulation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 10:02 pm
Because at least one of the "items" should be in full light in both frames.
Suggesting both would be in shadows in the first frame seems at least disingenuous.

It's definitely not the least disingenuous.  Why is it so hard for you to believe I honestly have a difference of opinion from you?

You accuse me of scrambling, but it's you who is resorting to ad hominem attacks on me instead of just addressing what I'm saying.

The positions of whatever is causing those white areas isn't at all clear.  It also isn't clear what is out of frame that may or may not be causing shadows.  And the portions of the objects that are shining in the one picture might be in the shadow of other parts of the same objects in the first picture, if the sun is shining on a different side of them.

Again, I'm not claiming these are objects that were definitely in shadow in the first picture.  I'm just saying it's not clear to me that they're not.

There's a famous picture of a feature on Mars that makes it look a lot like a face.  Other pictures from other angles make it clear that it's not actually remotely face-like, that the face-like features came from illusions caused by shadows and light in the original picture.  My point is that shadows and light can cause us to misinterpret features in photos.  In this case, we're comparing pictures that clearly have very different lighting, and in which the features in question are hard to make out clearly because of very strong glare.  I already pointed out a strip of metal that mostly seems to disappear from one picture to the other based on lighting.

So, again, I'm not convinced this shows conclusive evidence of ice build up.  It might.  It might not.  I'm not convinced.

I'm sorry if that's such a threat to your world-view that you can't accept that I'm giving my honest opinion and instead you have to accuse me of lying, which is what disingenuous means.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: aero on 11/30/2013 10:12 pm
Quote
So, again, I'm not convinced this shows conclusive evidence of ice build up.

I guess this is where our approaches differ. I would treat the image as evidence of LOX ice build up, determine if such a thing could cause frozen TEA/TEB lines then, if it could, compare the answer with other causes of frozen TEA/TEB lines. The highest probability wins, and all high probability causes get fixed before the next launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lar on 11/30/2013 10:20 pm
Quote
So, again, I'm not convinced this shows conclusive evidence of ice build up.

I guess this is where our approaches differ. I would treat the image as evidence of LOX ice build up, determine if such a thing could cause frozen TEA/TEB lines then, if it could, compare the answer with other causes of frozen TEA/TEB lines. The highest probability wins, and all high probability causes get fixed before the next launch.

If you have the mass budget and there aren't weird interactions[1] easter egging is a great approach. So I agree they should do just that. But many fixes will add mass.

1 - the insulation fix messes with the sensor fix or whatever.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 10:26 pm
Quote
So, again, I'm not convinced this shows conclusive evidence of ice build up.

I guess this is where our approaches differ. I would treat the image as evidence of LOX ice build up, determine if such a thing could cause frozen TEA/TEB lines then, if it could, compare the answer with other causes of frozen TEA/TEB lines. The highest probability wins, and all high probability causes get fixed before the next launch.

I don't disagree with that approach.  If you and I were SpaceX and that was all the evidence we had, I'd say lets try to find a LOX leak.  As I've said, based on the video, I think it might be that or it might not.

But we're not SpaceX.  SpaceX has far more evidence than we do.  They might have good reason to believe there was no LOX leak.  In fact, they very likely could conclude one way or another whether there was a LOX leak.

If there was a LOX leak, why not say that?  Why make the misleading statement that it was a lack of insulation on the TEA-TEB lines?

What's compelling about the idea that the TEA-TEB lines froze not from a LOX leak but from LOX flowing near the TEA-TEB lines is that it explains nicely why it wasn't found in ground testing.  SpaceX has done a lot of testing on a lot of Merlin 1D engines.  If there were a LOX leak, it's quite a coincidence that it showed up for the very first time on the first upper stage engine in flight and not on any ground tests of any of the other engines.  But the freezing issue from a nearby LOX line wouldn't have been found by ground testing because they're not testing in the cold and vacuum conditions of space.  It's a design flaw, so it's not a coincidence at all that it failed for the first time on the first upper-stage M1D engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 11/30/2013 10:28 pm
@ChrisWilson68,
If you think that there is no evidence, fine, it's your opinion.
If you think that I'm resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of addressing things, fine, it's your opinion.

For the other people trying to look into the issue, i'm posting another screenshot from the video where earth in background makes clear there was nothing in the buildup area.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 11/30/2013 10:37 pm
But the freezing issue from a nearby LOX line wouldn't have been found by ground testing because they're not testing in the cold and vacuum conditions of space.

Vacuum makes for a very good insulation, and you can't exactly define space as "cold".
Cold from a nearby LOX line would have been trasmitted more easily in ground testing.

That's my turn for opinions: SpaceX gave only a simplified explanation for public consumption.

Edit: That view depicts SpaceX really naive for not taking in account the real working thermal conditions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: meekGee on 11/30/2013 10:50 pm
Hard to tell if they "didn't take into account", or did, but not accurately.

Since they said they couldn't test it, I infer that they were aware of the issue.  Someone made an estimate, and got it wrong.

This is why mature systems don't like changes.  It's not that they calculated everything perfectly ahead of time.  It's that they worked out the kinks empirically, through experience, and so don't have the confidence that they can predict the effect of changes with 100% certainty.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 11/30/2013 10:56 pm
But the freezing issue from a nearby LOX line wouldn't have been found by ground testing because they're not testing in the cold and vacuum conditions of space.

Vacuum makes for a very good insulation, and you can't exactly define space as "cold".
Cold from a nearby LOX line would have been trasmitted more easily in ground testing.

I mean cold in comparison to testing on the ground in an atmosphere.  In ground testing, if the TEA-TEB line is cooled by LOX, the warm atmosphere will transfer heat to it to counteract that.

That's my turn for opinions: SpaceX gave only a simplified explanation for public consumption.

Edit: That view depicts SpaceX really naive for not taking in account the real working thermal conditions.

Yes, clearly SpaceX messed up one way or another.  By their explanation, they had a design flaw because they didn't take all the thermal conditions into account.

Your explanation of the LOX leak doesn't make SpaceX look any worse.  In fact, to me, it makes them look better because the LOX leak that happens in this one engine but not others is just a one-time production flaw.  A production flaw is less embarrassing than a design flaw.  So why would SpaceX mislead us in a way that makes them look worse?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

And, again, if they're misleading SES this way, it constitutes fraud and SES could sue them for that, not to mention that SES wouldn't be their customer again.  SES says SpaceX let them embed their own people with the SpaceX engineers working to figure out and resolve the problem.  So it would have to be a huge conspiracy by SpaceX to deliberarly fool SES like that with an SES person embedded with the SpaceX engineers working the issue.  Or else SES would have to know about it and be in on misleading everyone else.  Why would SES do that?

None of that makes any sense to me, which is why I find the LOX leak theory very implausible.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jcc on 11/30/2013 10:58 pm
- The upper stage issue was caused by freezing related to doing the engine pre-chill after sitting in space for a while -
Are you sure? the buildup of stuff seems really too much to be caused only by engine pre-chill.

I'm just repeating the conclusion SpaceX made (and SES concurred with).  I'm not evaluating the evidence myself.  I assume SpaceX and SES has far more data than we do upon which to base a conclusion.

To me, it looks like chunks of ice, which could only be LOX ice. By watching the video just before LOS you can see what appears to be LOX spraying from this point. Of course it would be very cold, much colder than TEA/TEB freezing temperature.

LOX ice, you say? Or water ice?

I assume it would be water ice, but the only source of water would be combustion products from the engine, which are somehow concentrated above the engine despite near vacuum conditions. Granted, the LOX venting would make the metallic surfaces cold enough to keep water frozen in vacuum conditions. Or perhaps it is not venting in this case, it is the LOX feed line to the turbo pump?

I would think that while the engine is burning, there would be a lot of radiant heat to counteract the LOX chill and sublimate any ice. The apparent ice buildup in the video is occurring while the engine is burning, correct?  I don't know the actual heat balance but it's just a little hard to believe that ice would actually build up under those conditions. Therefore, I would look carefully at the possibility that it might be an illusion cause by glare off of highly reflective parts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 11/30/2013 11:07 pm
NASA explains things in detail, with blueprints; SpaceX do not, if someone take a simplified explanation at face value, that's ok.

Enough for me today...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: eriblo on 11/30/2013 11:45 pm
It is quite obvious that at least the right feature actually is a buildup of ice in both the shorter and longer YouTube videos of the flight - it even falls of and does a nice ISON-impersonation in the plume ( v1.1 Demo Flight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU7Li5rX_OQ#t=307) ).

I'm however not sure how to get from there to "It must be LOX", "It's too much (a leak)" and "It's what they aren't telling us"...  ???
As previously asked, is oxygen able to form ice in that (thermal) environment? How about when it is sunlit later? Can RP-1? Are there any TEA-TEB lines anywhere close to there? Where would they be, connected to the gas generator much higher up?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jcc on 12/01/2013 12:04 am
It is quite obvious that at least the right feature actually is a buildup of ice in both the shorter and longer YouTube videos of the flight - it even falls of and does a nice ISON-impersonation in the plume ( v1.1 Demo Flight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU7Li5rX_OQ#t=307) ).

I'm however not sure how to get from there to "It must be LOX", "It's too much (a leak)" and "It's what they aren't telling us"...  ???
As previously asked, is oxygen able to form ice in that (thermal) environment? How about when it is sunlit later? Can RP-1? Are there any TEA-TEB lines anywhere close to there? Where would they be, connected to the gas generator much higher up?

Looking at the video, I agree ice is forming and falling off. My guess is it is water ice formed by condensing and freezing vapor from the engine exhaust. Oxygen freezes at -213.4 C. It doesn't seem likely that the latent heat of oxygen boiling off could cause a significant amount to freeze at that temperature.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: aero on 12/01/2013 02:07 am
Well, I thought it was LOX, my bad, but there are only 3 liquids on board that I know of - LOX, RP-1 and TEA/TEB.

Note that others have commented that it looked like a normal venting or a purge valve. To me that means it is some fluid from on board, not water from the exhaust which I think is a stretch. I know that exhaust from highly expanded engine nozzles has been known to condense to water then freeze to ice forming ice sickles off the nozzle rim. I even saw a picture of that but have no idea from whence it came. But for vapor or liquid water to recirculate outside and up above the combustion chamber while the vehicle is under acceleration is hard for me to accept.

I have a thought though. The video clearly shows the ice coming loose and later striking the exhaust and I know some of the people on this forum are very, very good at counting pixels and frames and extracting all sorts of interesting data. I wonder if it's possible to measure the data needed to estimate the acceleration of the vehicle at the time the ice broke loose? d = a t^2 should work if one could estimate d and t. Kudos to anyone who tries.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/01/2013 02:26 am
Perhaps the people using the term "LOX ice" should think about what that means.  LOX is just short for "liquid oxygen".  So "LOX ice" is like saying "liquid oxygen ice", which is obviously a contradiction.  A better term would be "frozen oxygen".  I think if people started calling it "frozen oxygen" it might occur to them how problematic it would be to come up with a theory for why oxygen would be at its freezing point on the outside of any part of the engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/01/2013 02:34 am
Note that others have commented that it looked like a normal venting or a purge valve. To me that means it is some fluid from on board, not water from the exhaust which I think is a stretch. I know that exhaust from highly expanded engine nozzles has been known to condense to water then freeze to ice forming ice sickles off the nozzle rim. I even saw a picture of that but have no idea from whence it came. But for vapor or liquid water to recirculate outside and up above the combustion chamber while the vehicle is under acceleration is hard for me to accept.

Why is that hard to accept?  Only a small fraction of the pressure at the mouth of the nozzle would have to be present there to provide the water vapor to freeze onto the outside of an uninsulated part chilled with liquid oxygen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: mheney on 12/01/2013 03:45 am
Note that others have commented that it looked like a normal venting or a purge valve. To me that means it is some fluid from on board, not water from the exhaust which I think is a stretch. I know that exhaust from highly expanded engine nozzles has been known to condense to water then freeze to ice forming ice sickles off the nozzle rim. I even saw a picture of that but have no idea from whence it came. But for vapor or liquid water to recirculate outside and up above the combustion chamber while the vehicle is under acceleration is hard for me to accept.

Why is that hard to accept?  Only a small fraction of the pressure at the mouth of the nozzle would have to be present there to provide the water vapor to freeze onto the outside of an uninsulated part chilled with liquid oxygen.


The "hard to accept" part is coming up with a mechanism by which the water vapor exits the nozzle, then does a U-turn and heads forward to condense and freeze on some part of the second stage.    Now, if there's gas generator  exhaust upstream from the nozzle mouth that impinges on the engine / plumbing, that might be a source of condensate to form ice with.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/01/2013 03:57 am
Note that others have commented that it looked like a normal venting or a purge valve. To me that means it is some fluid from on board, not water from the exhaust which I think is a stretch. I know that exhaust from highly expanded engine nozzles has been known to condense to water then freeze to ice forming ice sickles off the nozzle rim. I even saw a picture of that but have no idea from whence it came. But for vapor or liquid water to recirculate outside and up above the combustion chamber while the vehicle is under acceleration is hard for me to accept.

Why is that hard to accept?  Only a small fraction of the pressure at the mouth of the nozzle would have to be present there to provide the water vapor to freeze onto the outside of an uninsulated part chilled with liquid oxygen.


The "hard to accept" part is coming up with a mechanism by which the water vapor exits the nozzle, then does a U-turn and heads forward to condense and freeze on some part of the second stage.    Now, if there's gas generator  exhaust upstream from the nozzle mouth that impinges on the engine / plumbing, that might be a source of condensate to form ice with.

How about just that gas expands into a vacuum?

Suppose you turned on a Merlin 1Dvac in a vacuum and microgravity but somehow kept he engine from accelerating.  As soon as the gas exited the back of the nozzle, much of it would keep going straight out the back.  But, being a gas, the pressure difference would ensure it would very quickly expand in all directions, including up the outside of the nozzle to the outside of the engine where we are seeing possible ice accumulation.  Now suppose the engine is actually accelerating, as it does on the upper stage.  The pressure is still causing the gas to expand up the outside of the nozzle toward the combustion chamber and plumbing of the engine.  It's just that that pressure is fighting the acceleration moving the engine away.  Which wins?  Is the engine accelerating so quickly the gas can just never catch up?  Doesn't it seem reasonable that the pressure of the gas, expanding in every direction into vacuum, could outpace the acceleration of the stage at least enough to get a small amount of gas up there?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ugordan on 12/01/2013 11:51 am
I think if people started calling it "frozen oxygen" it might occur to them how problematic it would be to come up with a theory for why oxygen would be at its freezing point on the outside of any part of the engine.

I don't see why it would be particularly problematic. That line at the lower right vents GOX, possibly with a slight amount of LOX droplets being spewed. The pipe is very thin and the exit sees a sharp decrease of pressure into a vacuum. Gas that expands rapidly cools rapidly. I consider it plausible that a small fraction of that stuff would cool enough to form ice crystals that would then get deposited onto the nearest surfaces and grow into these puffy conglomerations.

Liquid water exposed to vacuum will boil, vapor removing heat making the remainder ice up, why can't the same thing happen with LOX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jcc on 12/01/2013 12:16 pm
It could if it can cool to 77K or lower.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Pete on 12/01/2013 12:27 pm
I think if people started calling it "frozen oxygen" it might occur to them how problematic it would be to come up with a theory for why oxygen would be at its freezing point on the outside of any part of the engine.

The boiling point of LOX is only about 40K warmer than the freezing point, it has a ridiculously small specific heat capacity and a moderate latent heat of evaporation.

Translation: It is *easy*, actually inevitable, that when venting liquid oxygen into a vacuum, in the absence of any further heating source, that a respectable percentage of that LOX will form oxygen ice. All it needs is a surface to adhere to, and you will get rapidly forming oxygen frost.
Frozen oxygen is a very pale blue, but the disorganized structure would render it a quite pristine white.
Which is exactly what was observed.

Even if the venting liquid contained some RP1 (un-ignited, of course) at that temp the kerosene would be a nonsticky dry powder, unlikely to stick to anything.

And remember that frozen oxygen is a very good definition of *cold*. Especially when it is a frozen mass with liquid on the surface, rapidly boiling off into vacuum, providing one enormous heat pump.

And no, it is difficult to the point of impossibility to accurately test this on earth. Atmospheric pressure would *totally* skew the test, and even done in a vacuum chamber one cannot remove the gravity, which handily causes any liquid to run down, rather than gathering on any surface it hits.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: MP99 on 12/01/2013 12:38 pm
What's compelling about the idea that the TEA-TEB lines froze not from a LOX leak but from LOX flowing near the TEA-TEB lines is that it explains nicely why it wasn't found in ground testing.  SpaceX has done a lot of testing on a lot of Merlin 1D engines.  If there were a LOX leak, it's quite a coincidence that it showed up for the very first time on the first upper stage engine in flight and not on any ground tests of any of the other engines.  But the freezing issue from a nearby LOX line wouldn't have been found by ground testing because they're not testing in the cold and vacuum conditions of space.  It's a design flaw, so it's not a coincidence at all that it failed for the first time on the first upper-stage M1D engine.

They're also not testing in the zero g of space. Purely from a theoretical POV, ISTM quite possible that Lox might pool in a certain place in the engine on the ground, yet be able to float into different parts of the engine when coasting in space.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/01/2013 06:33 pm
I think if people started calling it "frozen oxygen" it might occur to them how problematic it would be to come up with a theory for why oxygen would be at its freezing point on the outside of any part of the engine.

I don't see why it would be particularly problematic. That line at the lower right vents GOX, possibly with a slight amount of LOX droplets being spewed. The pipe is very thin and the exit sees a sharp decrease of pressure into a vacuum. Gas that expands rapidly cools rapidly. I consider it plausible that a small fraction of that stuff would cool enough to form ice crystals that would then get deposited onto the nearest surfaces and grow into these puffy conglomerations.

Liquid water exposed to vacuum will boil, vapor removing heat making the remainder ice up, why can't the same thing happen with LOX.

How do the ice crystals adhere to a surface that is much warmer than their own melting point?  Why wouldn't they just bounce off?  The ice crystals would have to be able to suck a huge amount of heat out of the engine parts to get them down to the freezing point of oxygen before they'd stick.  And these parts are attached to the whole engine, so if they started cooling off, heat from other parts of the engine would move to warm them up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Okie_Steve on 12/01/2013 07:03 pm
I've been wondering about "identical" booster engines. The question was thrashed around a bit but I don't recall any resolution. Do all M1D booster engines have the helium spin-up and TEA-TEB restart hardware installed or is it something modular that can be installed or removed as required to save weight? If always installed are the restart consumables loaded per engine or from some common on-board reservoir? For example could the three engine boost back burn be done by the center and any opposing pair of engines if need be?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ugordan on 12/01/2013 07:12 pm
How do the ice crystals adhere to a surface that is much warmer than their own melting point?

The ice is deposited on a piece of metal that supports the pipe and the other end connects to the manifold that ducts GG gas into the nozzle. How do *you* know the exact temperature of such a surface, especially under a prolonged exposure to GOX impingement? Do you have any idea if that manifold is thermally insulated or not?

Come on, simply saying stuff like "much warmer" reduces this argument to just handwaving.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: AJW on 12/01/2013 08:22 pm
In the Grasshopper flights you can see a significant release that leads to a flame outside the bell (see about 1 minute into video).  I read that this may be fed into the bell on the F9, but if some of this is simply piped into a vacuum, might this lead to the source of the ice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jason1701 on 12/01/2013 08:25 pm
In the Grasshopper flights you can see a significant release that leads to a flame outside the bell (see about 1 minute into video).  I read that this may be fed into the bell on the F9, but if some of this is simply piped into a vacuum, might this lead to the source of the ice?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

The gas generator exhaust is completely ducted into the nozzle downstream of the throat on MVacD.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JAC on 12/01/2013 08:26 pm
SpaceX has the entire video without break, so they can see exactly where ice is forming, if it is forming. So this would not be a mystery for them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jcc on 12/01/2013 09:39 pm
In the Grasshopper flights you can see a significant release that leads to a flame outside the bell (see about 1 minute into video).  I read that this may be fed into the bell on the F9, but if some of this is simply piped into a vacuum, might this lead to the source of the ice?

The gas generator exhaust is completely ducted into the nozzle downstream of the throat on MVacD.

That appears to be correct from this view:
http://www.spacex.com/sites/all/themes/spacex2012/images/reveal-merlin-heavy-inner.png

Which is different from the M1D.

Therefore, the idea that the ice buildup is water or other combustion products is less plausible (maybe not impossible). It could be pure O2, if LOX is venting, not just GOX. It might not be a large quantity compared with the volume of the tank, and it could be normal. But ripe for speculation as we see.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 12/01/2013 09:56 pm
@aero,
the pic is what you remember, the CECE engine (RL-10 derivative-evolution).
Please consider that ice (H2O) builds on the nozzle rim because it's regeneratively cooled by liquid hydrogen.
Merlin regen cooling is done with RP1 at (approx) room temperature, and the nozzle estension isn't actively cooled (hence the red-yellow glow).

@others,
the buildup happened during the coast phase, then engine off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: mlindner on 12/04/2013 05:11 am
Good grief people. Small spacecraft generally are on the order of -10 to 10 degrees C in space (personal experience). I would expect larger spacecraft to be much warmer. I highly doubt you could FREEZE oxygen on that, things aren't that cold without radiators and shielding, that's just crazy. Especially when you're being baked by direct sunlight as was shown in the video.

Also, when a gas expands to complete vacuum, its already ridiculously "cold". It would condense on itself if it has any kind of velocity. Condensation in a vacuum would be extremely slow because of the extreme rarefaction of the gas. I highly doubt we would see the quantity of "ice" formation that is visible in that time frame. I would expect to need to read a scientific paper on it to understand it.

Honestly, I would call it optical illusion and sunlight glare, there isn't any external ice.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: llanitedave on 12/04/2013 05:30 am
Looked like ice to me -- but I didn't see anything like it on today's launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: meekGee on 12/04/2013 05:47 am
Good grief people. Small spacecraft generally are on the order of -10 to 10 degrees C in space (personal experience). I would expect larger spacecraft to be much warmer. I highly doubt you could FREEZE oxygen on that, things aren't that cold without radiators and shielding, that's just crazy. Especially when you're being baked by direct sunlight as was shown in the video.

Also, when a gas expands to complete vacuum, its already ridiculously "cold". It would condense on itself if it has any kind of velocity. Condensation in a vacuum would be extremely slow because of the extreme rarefaction of the gas. I highly doubt we would see the quantity of "ice" formation that is visible in that time frame. I would expect to need to read a scientific paper on it to understand it.

Honestly, I would call it optical illusion and sunlight glare, there isn't any external ice.

All true, except that I'd also expect different surfaces to have very different temperatures.  something like a strut, long and thin, would have a hard time conducting heat to reach equilibrium with the "main" spacecraft.

Can't really call it one way or the other here.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/04/2013 07:05 am
Good grief people. Small spacecraft generally are on the order of -10 to 10 degrees C in space (personal experience). I would expect larger spacecraft to be much warmer. I highly doubt you could FREEZE oxygen on that, things aren't that cold without radiators and shielding, that's just crazy. Especially when you're being baked by direct sunlight as was shown in the video.

Also, when a gas expands to complete vacuum, its already ridiculously "cold". It would condense on itself if it has any kind of velocity. Condensation in a vacuum would be extremely slow because of the extreme rarefaction of the gas. I highly doubt we would see the quantity of "ice" formation that is visible in that time frame. I would expect to need to read a scientific paper on it to understand it.

Honestly, I would call it optical illusion and sunlight glare, there isn't any external ice.

All true, except that I'd also expect different surfaces to have very different temperatures.  something like a strut, long and thin, would have a hard time conducting heat to reach equilibrium with the "main" spacecraft.

Can't really call it one way or the other here.

After just looking at the stills, I thought it was unclear whether it was glare or a build-up of some sort.  But after watching the video all the way through, I've been convinced that it's a build-up of some sort.  As others here have mentioned, pieces of it even break away and fall off.  It seems to be a white build-up on several widely-separated components.  That doesn't make it frozen oxygen, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/04/2013 11:30 am
Good grief people. Small spacecraft generally are on the order of -10 to 10 degrees C in space (personal experience). I would expect larger spacecraft to be much warmer. I highly doubt you could FREEZE oxygen on that, things aren't that cold without radiators and shielding, that's just crazy. Especially when you're being baked by direct sunlight as was shown in the video.

Also, when a gas expands to complete vacuum, its already ridiculously "cold". It would condense on itself if it has any kind of velocity. Condensation in a vacuum would be extremely slow because of the extreme rarefaction of the gas. I highly doubt we would see the quantity of "ice" formation that is visible in that time frame. I would expect to need to read a scientific paper on it to understand it.

Honestly, I would call it optical illusion and sunlight glare, there isn't any external ice.

This isn't a spacecraft but a launch vehicle with cryogens onboard

It is ice
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: aero on 12/04/2013 02:51 pm
Did anyone see anything similar on the SES-8 launch video? I didn't.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lars_J on 12/04/2013 03:46 pm
To change the topic back to ... something more topical...

With two launches under the belt of v1.1, and two pads now operational (one new, one converted) - it would seem like the SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off. Anyone disagree?

(And yes, I know they maintained the tooling/capability to build more v1.0 before CASSIOPE flew, but they had stopped building them)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: AncientU on 12/04/2013 03:55 pm
SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off
...brilliantly ("go fever" is corporate culture)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/04/2013 04:00 pm
To change the topic back to ... something more topical...

With two launches under the belt of v1.1, and two pads now operational (one new, one converted) - it would seem like the SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off. Anyone disagree?

(And yes, I know they maintained the tooling/capability to build more v1.0 before CASSIOPE flew, but they had stopped building them)
Completely agree. Always believed it was the right thing to do. Also, I now question the rush to purchase 36 cores from ULA when F9v1.1 is a few weeks away from flying it's 3rd qualifying launch. I just don't know the breakdown of what the payloads are that could be moved over to the F9v1.1. Also not sure if there is negotiation room with regards to vertical VS horizontal payload integration. But all things considered, and no disrespect to ULA, they are hardcore professionals, I would think F9v1.1 now offers a more cost effective choice so as not to necessitate the need for such a large core order or at the very least, if all 36 are ordered, F9v1.1's competitive pricing should be used for some downward pricing pressure. I suspect if they do go forward with such an order before 3rd flight, there will be a protest. But that gets us way OT.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/04/2013 04:36 pm
Also, I now question the rush to purchase 36 cores from ULA when F9v1.1 is a few weeks away from flying it's 3rd qualifying launch. I just don't know the breakdown of what the payloads are that could be moved over to the F9v1.1. Also not sure if there is negotiation room with regards to vertical VS horizontal payload integration. But all things considered, and no disrespect to ULA, they are hardcore professionals, I would think F9v1.1 now offers a more cost effective choice so as not to necessitate the need for such a large core order or at the very least, if all 36 are ordered, F9v1.1's competitive pricing should be used for some downward pricing pressure. I suspect if they do go forward with such an order before 3rd flight, there will be a protest. But that gets us way OT.

There is no question.  The F9 is still not qualified and the cost effectiveness is not a given for a govt spacecraft.  Vertical integration can not be handwaved away
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: AncientU on 12/04/2013 04:36 pm
the rush to purchase 36 cores from ULA...
It was an obvious business decision (ULA's) before the innovations kicked in and resulting competition made the single supplier business case untenable.  Still OT, but not too far OT, since innovations include potentially major cost reductions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/04/2013 04:38 pm
To change the topic back to ... something more topical...

With two launches under the belt of v1.1, and two pads now operational (one new, one converted) - it would seem like the SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off. Anyone disagree?

(And yes, I know they maintained the tooling/capability to build more v1.0 before CASSIOPE flew, but they had stopped building them)
Completely agree. Always believed it was the right thing to do. Also, I now question the rush to purchase 36 cores from ULA when F9v1.1 is a few weeks away from flying it's 3rd qualifying launch. I just don't know the breakdown of what the payloads are that could be moved over to the F9v1.1. Also not sure if there is negotiation room with regards to vertical VS horizontal payload integration. But all things considered, and no disrespect to ULA, they are hardcore professionals, I would think F9v1.1 now offers a more cost effective choice so as not to necessitate the need for such a large core order or at the very least, if all 36 are ordered, F9v1.1's competitive pricing should be used for some downward pricing pressure. I suspect if they do go forward with such an order before 3rd flight, there will be a protest. But that gets us way OT.

Three flights are needed before they can bid at all.  Many government payloads are classified as more risk-averse and require a lot more flights by the launch vehicle before they are eligible for certain high-value payloads.  And F9's lifting capacity to GEO is less than half that of Delta IV Heavy.  SpaceX will need many flights of Falcon Heavy before they are qualified to compete for all government payloads.

The Air Force has said that they looked at the scheduled ramp-up of all new competitors (i.e. mainly SpaceX) and separated their planned upcoming launches into two groups, first those that a competitor could be qualified to compete for in time and second those that only ULA could possibly be qualified for in time.  The former group is around 13 launches, IIRC, and they left those open for competition.  The second group is 36 launches, and it's that group they decided to negotiate a block buy for.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lars_J on 12/04/2013 04:39 pm
the rush to purchase 36 cores from ULA...
It was an obvious business decision (ULA's) before the innovations kicked in and resulting competition made the single supplier business case untenable.  Still OT, but not too far OT, since innovations include potentially major cost reductions.
I'm not sure I understand your point here... How is ULA to blame? If someone wants to buy 36 cores from them, of course they should accept that. And Jim has a good point, the v1.1 still needs a few more flights to be a serious threat to ULAs current model.

But this is drifting off-topic.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: AncientU on 12/04/2013 04:43 pm
the rush to purchase 36 cores from ULA...
It was an obvious business decision (ULA's) before the innovations kicked in and resulting competition made the single supplier business case untenable.  Still OT, but not too far OT, since innovations include potentially major cost reductions.
I'm not sure I understand your point here... How is ULA to blame? If someone wants to buy 36 cores from them, of course they should accept that. And Jim has a good point, the v1.1 still needs a few more flights to be a serious threat to ULAs current model.

But this is drifting off-topic.
Blame?  I think it was a great ULA business decision -- to push a huge core buy that would lock-up the rest of the decade's launches -- just in case...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: AncientU on 12/04/2013 04:53 pm
Quote
... when ULA began its current campaign to secure a block buy based on protecting the industrial base, and then sought to justify much higher prices based on escalating vendor pricing, the Air Force lacked the necessary information to make an informed decision as to the accuracy of the claims. So, too, apparently did ULA, which could not offer GAO a specific reason for the selection of 40 cores as the preferred block buy.
(bold mine)
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2042/2
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 12/04/2013 05:11 pm
I asked this in the party thread just before launch and of course it was immediately lost in the thrill of the launch so I'll ask again.
 Why is there such a noticeable difference in the M1D GG exhaust between the test stand and GH1?
There are lots of examples in GH videos and test videos but you can see them both reasonably well in this montage at 40 secs and 3 minutes. The test stand has what seems to be a very rich exhaust, mostly smoke and the GH1 GG exhaust is all flame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IS0SHUK7es
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/04/2013 05:12 pm
I asked this in the party thread just before launch and of course it was immediately lost in the thrill of the launch so I'll ask again.
 Why is there such a noticeable difference in the M1D GG exhaust between the test stand and GH1?
There are lots of examples in GH videos and test videos but you can see them both reasonably well in this montage at 40 secs and 3 minutes. The test stand has what seems to be a very rich exhaust, mostly smoke and the GH1 GG exhaust is all flame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IS0SHUK7es
Jim and I both answered you.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Occupymars on 12/04/2013 05:41 pm
the rush to purchase 36 cores from ULA...
It was an obvious business decision (ULA's) before the innovations kicked in and resulting competition made the single supplier business case untenable.  Still OT, but not too far OT, since innovations include potentially major cost reductions.
I'm not sure I understand your point here... How is ULA to blame? If someone wants to buy 36 cores from them, of course they should accept that. And Jim has a good point, the v1.1 still needs a few more flights to be a serious threat to ULAs current model.

But this is drifting off-topic.
Honest question if anyone can answer thanks. What's the stated main reason for a block buy? is it A) "provide stability to the industrial base" or B) cost savings
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/04/2013 05:49 pm
Honest question if anyone can answer thanks. What's the stated main reason for a block buy? is it A) "provide stability to the industrial base" or B) cost savings
The cynic in me wants to say "C) lobbying", but that will get me all sorts of flack from people here, so I wont say it ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/04/2013 05:59 pm
the rush to purchase 36 cores from ULA...
It was an obvious business decision (ULA's) before the innovations kicked in and resulting competition made the single supplier business case untenable.  Still OT, but not too far OT, since innovations include potentially major cost reductions.
I'm not sure I understand your point here... How is ULA to blame? If someone wants to buy 36 cores from them, of course they should accept that. And Jim has a good point, the v1.1 still needs a few more flights to be a serious threat to ULAs current model.

But this is drifting off-topic.
Honest question if anyone can answer thanks. What's the stated main reason for a block buy? is it A) "provide stability to the industrial base" or B) cost savings

"My intent with this decision is to maintain required mission assurance, obtain the positive effects of competition as quickly as possible, and also reduce the cost of the launch services we must procure from ULA" -- Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/32657pentagon-approves-eelv-block-buy-with-competitive-twist
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: WHAP on 12/04/2013 06:14 pm
Honest question if anyone can answer thanks. What's the stated main reason for a block buy? is it A) "provide stability to the industrial base" or B) cost savings
The cynic in me wants to say "C) lobbying", but that will get me all sorts of flack from people here, so I wont say it ;)

How is lobbying a reason for a block buy?  You think the lobbyists told ULA to propose it so they would have business?  Do you think SpaceX doesn't have lobbyists?

Maybe next time follow your advice and just don't say it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/04/2013 06:16 pm
Honest question if anyone can answer thanks. What's the stated main reason for a block buy? is it A) "provide stability to the industrial base" or B) cost savings
The cynic in me wants to say "C) lobbying", but that will get me all sorts of flack from people here, so I wont say it ;)

There's no evidence it was lobbying.  Lobbying tends to be most effective with elected officials, particularly in Congress because they represent districts that can be heavily affected by acquisition decisions.  This decision was made by Frank Kendall, who graduated from West Point and then got a Masters in Aerospace Engineering from Cal Tech -- a career military and aerospace guy, not a politician.

Kendall says he looked at the 50 launches planned for the next 5 years and found there were 14 that anyone but ULA might possibly be qualified to bid for in time to meet their schedules.  The other 36 he did a block buy for.  The block buy allows ULA to plan their production so they can potentially be more efficient and potentially give better pricing.

The three flights for certification to bid to fly national security payloads only applies to those payloads classified as allowing greater risk during launch.  Many payloads require many more flights to be certified, because they have less risk tolerance.  And many are too big for Falcon 9 and must wait for Falcon Heavy.

The 14 launches reserved for competition means SpaceX is very likely to get many, if not all, of those.  That will help them build confidence and position them well to compete for a larger portion of the launches after the 5 year period the block buy covers.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 12/04/2013 06:17 pm
This thread sure needs a trim.

Does anyone ever look at the topic ???
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 12/04/2013 06:35 pm

Jim and I both answered you.
[/quote]

Sorry, I did not see the reply robotbeat, can you point me to it please.

Edit: disregard I found them and thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Occupymars on 12/04/2013 06:56 pm
the rush to purchase 36 cores from ULA...
It was an obvious business decision (ULA's) before the innovations kicked in and resulting competition made the single supplier business case untenable.  Still OT, but not too far OT, since innovations include potentially major cost reductions.
I'm not sure I understand your point here... How is ULA to blame? If someone wants to buy 36 cores from them, of course they should accept that. And Jim has a good point, the v1.1 still needs a few more flights to be a serious threat to ULAs current model.

But this is drifting off-topic.
Honest question if anyone can answer thanks. What's the stated main reason for a block buy? is it A) "provide stability to the industrial base" or B) cost savings

"My intent with this decision is to maintain required mission assurance, obtain the positive effects of competition as quickly as possible, and also reduce the cost of the launch services we must procure from ULA" -- Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/32657pentagon-approves-eelv-block-buy-with-competitive-twist
So basically it's save to say it's all about cost, but cost savings is not it's stated main goal.

"obtain the positive effects of competition as quickly as possible" so is this confirmation that ULA are pushing for a block buy because of possible future competition from Orbital and or Spacex since they are the only possible competitors for these launches and the air force are simply trying to capitalize on how scared ULA is of Spacex or orbital taking it's lunch.

note: Thread is getting off topic I would push my post to another thread if I knew how but I don't so will not follow up after this off topic comment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: dlapine on 12/04/2013 07:08 pm
Let's move onto to more about F9v1.1.

The first flight had some issues after launch but managed to put its primary payload in the desired LEO. The second flight didn't seem to have any issues after launch and succeeded in putting its payload into GTO.

Are we seeing any common issues between the two flights which could be a problem for the next flight?

I'm ignoring an re-usability testing for this, just looking at how the v1.1 performs (or doesn't) for scheduled flight manifest, based on the actual flights so far.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Kabloona on 12/04/2013 07:27 pm

Are we seeing any common issues between the two flights which could be a problem for the next flight?


So far, it seems the most common anomaly has been an engine not ramping up chamber pressure fast enough, thus causing an abort. I haven't counted, but it seems this has happened several times. Fortunately it's a launch commit issue, not an in-flight issue, but a nuisance nevertheless.

I don't know the details, but I think it was reported somewhere here that SpaceX had ramped up the helium pressure for the spin start after the last such abort. Hopefully they are converging on the optimal set of parameters (helium pressure as well as telemetry limits which trigger abort) that will make this abort condition less likely in future.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: dlapine on 12/04/2013 07:42 pm

Are we seeing any common issues between the two flights which could be a problem for the next flight?


So far, it seems the most common anomaly has been an engine not ramping up chamber pressure fast enough, thus causing an abort. I haven't counted, but it seems this has happened several times. Fortunately it's a launch commit issue, not an in-flight issue, but a nuisance nevertheless.

I don't know the details, but I think it was reported somewhere here that SpaceX had ramped up the helium pressure for the spin start after the last such abort. Hopefully they are converging on the optimal set of parameters (helium pressure as well as telemetry limits which trigger abort) that will make this abort condition less likely in future.

Well, you'd figure that it would take a few flights to get the optimal settings dialed down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/04/2013 07:48 pm

The 14 launches reserved for competition means SpaceX is very likely to get many, if not all, of those. 

Neither assumption is true.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Dudely on 12/04/2013 07:56 pm

Are we seeing any common issues between the two flights which could be a problem for the next flight?


So far, it seems the most common anomaly has been an engine not ramping up chamber pressure fast enough, thus causing an abort. I haven't counted, but it seems this has happened several times. Fortunately it's a launch commit issue, not an in-flight issue, but a nuisance nevertheless.

I don't know the details, but I think it was reported somewhere here that SpaceX had ramped up the helium pressure for the spin start after the last such abort. Hopefully they are converging on the optimal set of parameters (helium pressure as well as telemetry limits which trigger abort) that will make this abort condition less likely in future.

The issue with the abort was that oxygen had gotten into the TEA-TEB, which is kept in a tank on the ground and sprayed up into the engines to ignite them.

So the oxygen caused some of the TEA-TEB to combust in the tank, meaning part of what it was spraying into at least one engine during ignition was combustion products, resulting, at the very least, in the fuel not igniting reliably across all engines at once.

I think as they get used to launching stuff the checks that reduce these kinds of errors and issues will become more effective as the launch team gains more experience. I don't think a different set of parameters would have helped in this case.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: macpacheco on 12/04/2013 08:31 pm

The 14 launches reserved for competition means SpaceX is very likely to get many, if not all, of those. 

Neither assumption is true.

There's no doubt the decision to end Falcon 9v1.0 production was the right one. In a sense, even F9R is already planned to be obsolete with Raptor/Methane based rockets in early design.

Unless SpaceX screws up or ULA drops the price precipitously, I believe that yes, all 14 launches going for SpaceX is likely. The only other competitor (with sane prices and based in the US) is Orbital Sciences, that just did its second launch. Of course, time will tell.

If there's one thing SpaceX has shown is they're playing a fair game, no lies, no lobby/pork based business. That surely gives them a lot of positive press and a big cheering audience (present company included, not quite a cheerleader, but close).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: MP99 on 12/04/2013 10:12 pm

Are we seeing any common issues between the two flights which could be a problem for the next flight?


So far, it seems the most common anomaly has been an engine not ramping up chamber pressure fast enough, thus causing an abort. I haven't counted, but it seems this has happened several times. Fortunately it's a launch commit issue, not an in-flight issue, but a nuisance nevertheless.

I don't know the details, but I think it was reported somewhere here that SpaceX had ramped up the helium pressure for the spin start after the last such abort. Hopefully they are converging on the optimal set of parameters (helium pressure as well as telemetry limits which trigger abort) that will make this abort condition less likely in future.

The issue with the abort was that oxygen had gotten into the TEA-TEB, which is kept in a tank on the ground and sprayed up into the engines to ignite them.

So the oxygen caused some of the TEA-TEB to combust in the tank, meaning part of what it was spraying into at least one engine during ignition was combustion products, resulting, at the very least, in the fuel not igniting reliably across all engines at once.

I think as they get used to launching stuff the checks that reduce these kinds of errors and issues will become more effective as the launch team gains more experience. I don't think a different set of parameters would have helped in this case.

But, in the broadcast for the launch it was stated the issue was actually caused by the GGs needing to be cleaned, and TEA/TEB was not mentioned at all. (May still have been an issue, but not mentioned).

One point to note - it didn't take them long to clean those GGs. If SpaceX are aiming for short turnaround of recovered stages it will be a long time before such cleaning time has any meaningful impact on the time for such recycling.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Prober on 12/04/2013 10:14 pm
To change the topic back to ... something more topical...

With two launches under the belt of v1.1, and two pads now operational (one new, one converted) - it would seem like the SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off. Anyone disagree?


your comments are premature
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lars_J on 12/04/2013 10:22 pm
To change the topic back to ... something more topical...

With two launches under the belt of v1.1, and two pads now operational (one new, one converted) - it would seem like the SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off. Anyone disagree?


your comments are premature

Why? :) How many flights of the v1.1 would make you change your mind?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/04/2013 11:39 pm

Unless SpaceX screws up or ULA drops the price precipitously, I believe that yes, all 14 launches going for SpaceX is likely. The only other competitor (with sane prices and based in the US) is Orbital Sciences, that just did its second launch. Of course, time will tell.

If there's one thing SpaceX has shown is they're playing a fair game, no lies, no lobby/pork based business. That surely gives them a lot of positive press and a big cheering audience (present company included, not quite a cheerleader, but close).

Another nonsensical post.  Not one bit of truth especially the last sentence.  Not quite a cheerleader because it is beyond a cheerleader.  And you have no basis to make the claim of the second to last sentence.   Much like the first sentence.   Just like the nonsense  post on the other thread that was locked.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 12/04/2013 11:39 pm
To change the topic back to ... something more topical...

With two launches under the belt of v1.1, and two pads now operational (one new, one converted) - it would seem like the SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off. Anyone disagree?


your comments are premature

Why? :) How many flights of the v1.1 would make you change your mind?
The Air Force only requires one more :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/04/2013 11:44 pm

Unless SpaceX screws up or ULA drops the price precipitously, I believe that yes, all 14 launches going for SpaceX is likely. The only other competitor (with sane prices and based in the US) is Orbital Sciences, that just did its second launch. Of course, time will tell.

Despite the government contracting jokes about lowest bidders, price is NOT the only relevant criterion under the federal acquisition rules. Your comments indicates a lack of this understanding.

Quote
If there's one thing SpaceX has shown is they're playing a fair game, no lies, no lobby/pork based business. That surely gives them a lot of positive press and a big cheering audience (present company included, not quite a cheerleader, but close).

You think SpaceX doesn't lobby? You're conflating a lot of concepts here, again, that indicate a lack of how decisions are made with regard to awarding government contracts. Further, you're making comments about what is, remember, a private, money-making enterprise (SpaceX). It is not a charity and it is involved in a fairly competitive business. Acting like it is som unnatural, pure and holy operation is naive at best.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/04/2013 11:49 pm

Unless SpaceX screws up or ULA drops the price precipitously, I believe that yes, all 14 launches going for SpaceX is likely. The only other competitor (with sane prices and based in the US) is Orbital Sciences, that just did its second launch. Of course, time will tell.

Despite the government contracting jokes about lowest bidders, price is NOT the only relevant criterion under the federal acquisition rules. Your comments indicates a lack of this understanding.

Quote
If there's one thing SpaceX has shown is they're playing a fair game, no lies, no lobby/pork based business. That surely gives them a lot of positive press and a big cheering audience (present company included, not quite a cheerleader, but close).

You think SpaceX doesn't lobby? You're conflating a lot of concepts here, again, that indicate a lack of how decisions are made with regard to awarding government contracts. Further, you're making comments about what is, remember, a private, money-making enterprise (SpaceX). It is not a charity and it is involved in a fairly competitive business. Acting like it is some kind of unnaturally pure and holy operation is naive at best.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Prober on 12/04/2013 11:55 pm
To change the topic back to ... something more topical...

With two launches under the belt of v1.1, and two pads now operational (one new, one converted) - it would seem like the SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off. Anyone disagree?


your comments are premature

Why? :) How many flights of the v1.1 would make you change your mind?

You should know this by now.....but lets see if SpaceX can get caught up to their contract with NASA and get to CRS-5 next year.  Remember they are currently what 6-8months behind in their ISS contract.  :o
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/05/2013 12:06 am
Unless SpaceX screws up or ULA drops the price precipitously, I believe that yes, all 14 launches going for SpaceX is likely. The only other competitor (with sane prices and based in the US) is Orbital Sciences, that just did its second launch. Of course, time will tell.

Despite the government contracting jokes about lowest bidders, price is NOT the only relevant criterion under the federal acquisition rules. Your comments indicates a lack of this understanding.

True, price is not the only relevant criterion.  But that's where we get back to the 36-unit block buy from ULA.  The claim is that the Air Force took a hard look at each launch and what SpaceX would look like at the time the contract would need to be let if there were a separate contract for each launch, if SpaceX does everything on their current schedule successfully.  The ones where SpaceX doesn't meet those other criteria (such as not having enough launches, so they're considered too risky) were put into the block buy.  The remaining 14 are those where SpaceX will meet all the criteria for launch, so if they beat ULA on price, they should win those launches -- all if (and that's a very big if) SpaceX executes successfully to their schedule.

Look at it from the Air Force's perspective: if they don't include a launch in the block buy but end up buying from ULA anyway, they'll have to pay more to ULA than they would if it had been included in the block buy (that's part of the point of the block buy).  So suppose SpaceX executes to their plan perfectly, but they still lose one of those 14 launches.  Why did they lose?  It's either on price or something else.  If it's something else, that something else should have been foreseen by the Air Force when they were deciding which launches to put in the block buy, and it should have been included in the block buy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lars_J on 12/05/2013 12:19 am
To change the topic back to ... something more topical...

With two launches under the belt of v1.1, and two pads now operational (one new, one converted) - it would seem like the SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off. Anyone disagree?


your comments are premature

Why? :) How many flights of the v1.1 would make you change your mind?

You should know this by now.....but lets see if SpaceX can get caught up to their contract with NASA and get to CRS-5 next year.  Remember they are currently what 6-8months behind in their ISS contract.  :o

:D And you truly think that they would have been able to get "caught up" with the v1.0, a launch vehicle which over its active period averaged less than two flights/year? Or do many GTO missions? (the v1.0 would likely not have been capable of the SES-8 mission)

6-8 months behind - :o indeed, in aerospace average, that's pretty good! Most aerospace project managers would be happy to be only that far behind.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2013 12:20 am

True, price is not the only relevant criterion.  But that's where we get back to the 36-unit block buy from ULA.  The claim is that the Air Force took a hard look at each launch and what SpaceX would look like at the time the contract would need to be let if there were a separate contract for each launch, if SpaceX does everything on their current schedule successfully.  The ones where SpaceX doesn't meet those other criteria (such as not having enough launches, so they're considered too risky) were put into the block buy.  The remaining 14 are those where SpaceX will meet all the criteria for launch, so if they beat ULA on price, they should win those launches -- all if (and that's a very big if) SpaceX executes successfully to their schedule.

Look at it from the Air Force's perspective: if they don't include a launch in the block buy but end up buying from ULA anyway, they'll have to pay more to ULA than they would if it had been included in the block buy (that's part of the point of the block buy).  So suppose SpaceX executes to their plan perfectly, but they still lose one of those 14 launches.  Why did they lose?  It's either on price or something else.  If it's something else, that something else should have been foreseen by the Air Force when they were deciding which launches to put in the block buy, and it should have been included in the block buy.


Not true.  Among the main discriminators for the 36 would be performance, reliability and vertical integration. And it was a "course" division of the 36 vs 14.  The "something else", a "finer" discriminator can come up in the development of the mission. 

Spacex has only won one NASA contract so far.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: newpylong on 12/05/2013 12:31 am


If there's one thing SpaceX has shown is they're playing a fair game, no lies, no lobby/pork based business. That surely gives them a lot of positive press and a big cheering audience (present company included, not quite a cheerleader, but close).

Like they didn't lobby for Brownsville?

If you want business, you have to.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Prober on 12/05/2013 12:35 am
To change the topic back to ... something more topical...

With two launches under the belt of v1.1, and two pads now operational (one new, one converted) - it would seem like the SpaceX bet of ceasing production of the v1.0 before flying the v1.1 has paid off. Anyone disagree?


your comments are premature

Why? :) How many flights of the v1.1 would make you change your mind?

You should know this by now.....but lets see if SpaceX can get caught up to their contract with NASA and get to CRS-5 next year.  Remember they are currently what 6-8months behind in their ISS contract.  :o

:D And you truly think that they would have been able to get "caught up" with the v1.0, a launch vehicle which over its active period averaged less than two flights/year? Or do many GTO missions? (the v1.0 would likely not have been capable of the SES-8 mission)

6-8 months behind - :o indeed, in aerospace average, that's pretty good! Most aerospace project managers would be happy to be only that far behind.

the problem is you just don't get the point.   SpaceX has a contract with NASA for two flights per year to the ISS.  A very key point I would add.    None of your points matter as SpaceX is only a "contractor" for services to the ISS that they could have, and should have delivered via F 1.0 to the ISS this year.   

They are contracted for down mass i.e. the science time on the ISS that can't be made up.

2014
February 22 -    Dragon SpX-3 (CRS3), CUNYSAT 1, Hermes 2, LMRSat, TechCube 1, All-Star-THEIA,
                            FIREBIRD A, FIREBIRD B, Ho‘oponopono 2 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
NET March -       Orbcomm G2 (x8) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
April -                AsiaSat 8 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Proton)
May -                AsiaSat 6 (Thaicom 7) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
June 6 -            Dragon SpX-4 (CRS4) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
NET 2nd quarter - Demo Flight - Falcon Heavy - Vandenberg SLC-4E
September 12 - Dragon SpX-5 (CRS5) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
December 5 -    Dragon SpX-6 (CRS6) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
December -       Turkmensat - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Ariane 5 ECA)
NET December - Orbcomm G2 (x9) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
TBD - Space Systems/Loral payload - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/05/2013 12:38 am
Hey Jim, why is vertical integration a mandatory with all of these launches? Honest question, no hidden thinking here. Are there no benefits to horizontal integration over vertical? Does it have to do with the type of bus structure used?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2013 12:40 am
Hey Jim, why is vertical integration a mandatory with all of these launches? Honest question, no hidden thinking here. Are there no benefits to horizontal integration over vertical? Does it have to do with the type of bus structure used?

I didn't say all of them.  It was just one of many discriminators.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/05/2013 12:49 am
SpaceX has a contract with NASA for two flights per year to the ISS.  A very key point I would add.    None of your points matter as SpaceX is only a "contractor" for services to the ISS that they could have, and should have delivered via F 1.0 to the ISS this year.   

They are contracted for down mass i.e. the science time on the ISS that can't be made up.

That's not at all true.

Here's the actual contract.  I'm not sure why you're making up stuff that isn't in the contract when the contract is publicly available and many people here have explained this on various threads.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/418857main_sec_nnj09ga04b.pdf

The contract says that during the 7 year period of the contract, NASA will make a minimum number of Task Orders.  A Task Order is an order NASA may place for a launch.  The contract gives minimums for the number of Task Orders, total contract value, etc.

SpaceX doesn't have to launch twice in a year unless NASA issues task orders to them to launch twice in a year.  NASA eventually is supposed to issue a certain number of task orders under the contract period is 2008 through the end of 2015, but the period can be extended with the consent of SpaceX and NASA.

The contract gives NASA the flexibility to issue task orders on whatever schedule is convenient for them, though they have to give SpaceX 21 months notice or pay extra for faster turnaround.

So far, the ISS has had a lot of supply runs from the Japanese and Europeans, so they haven't had a pressing need to issue task orders early in the contract period.

If NASA issues a task order and 21 months later SpaceX hasn't delivered, that's when they've violated the contract.  Not before that.  And that has not happened.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lars_J on 12/05/2013 12:51 am
You should know this by now.....but lets see if SpaceX can get caught up to their contract with NASA and get to CRS-5 next year.  Remember they are currently what 6-8months behind in their ISS contract.  :o

:D And you truly think that they would have been able to get "caught up" with the v1.0, a launch vehicle which over its active period averaged less than two flights/year? Or do many GTO missions? (the v1.0 would likely not have been capable of the SES-8 mission)

6-8 months behind - :o indeed, in aerospace average, that's pretty good! Most aerospace project managers would be happy to be only that far behind.

the problem is you just don't get the point.   SpaceX has a contract with NASA for two flights per year to the ISS.  A very key point I would add.    None of your points matter as SpaceX is only a "contractor" for services to the ISS that they could have, and should have delivered via F 1.0 to the ISS this year.   

They are contracted for down mass i.e. the science time on the ISS that can't be made up.

No, it looks like you simply don't want to admit you were wrong about the v1.0/v1.1 transition, and concoct a "2 missions per year to ISS" requirement to defend it. [EDIT - ChrisWilson68 already debunked it]

Which way do you think they can now make up time and up/down mass on the CRS contract quicker?
A. - Using a v1.1 which will allow a Dragon loaded to the max, and has already launched twice in 9 weeks, or
B. - Using the v1.0 longer (delaying v1.1 introduction), a launch vehicle that fell short of original performance projections, and launched only 5 times in 3 years?

What do you think? Do I get the point?

2014
February 22 -    Dragon SpX-3 (CRS3), CUNYSAT 1, Hermes 2, LMRSat, TechCube 1, All-Star-THEIA,
                            FIREBIRD A, FIREBIRD B, Ho‘oponopono 2 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
NET March -       Orbcomm G2 (x8) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
April -                AsiaSat 8 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Proton)
May -                AsiaSat 6 (Thaicom 7) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
June 6 -            Dragon SpX-4 (CRS4) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
NET 2nd quarter - Demo Flight - Falcon Heavy - Vandenberg SLC-4E
September 12 - Dragon SpX-5 (CRS5) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
December 5 -    Dragon SpX-6 (CRS6) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
December -       Turkmensat - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Ariane 5 ECA)
NET December - Orbcomm G2 (x9) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
TBD - Space Systems/Loral payload - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40

I'm not sure why you added their 2014 manifest, as it helps make my point. Do you still think the v1.0 would have been better to make up that backlog?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/05/2013 12:58 am
Hey Jim, why is vertical integration a mandatory with all of these launches? Honest question, no hidden thinking here. Are there no benefits to horizontal integration over vertical? Does it have to do with the type of bus structure used?

I didn't say all of them.  It was just one of many discriminators.
Completely understood.  I am simply curious as to under what circumstances vertical integration is mandatory?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Prober on 12/05/2013 01:49 am
You should know this by now.....but lets see if SpaceX can get caught up to their contract with NASA and get to CRS-5 next year.  Remember they are currently what 6-8months behind in their ISS contract.  :o

 :D And you truly think that they would have been able to get "caught up" with the v1.0, a launch vehicle which over its active period averaged less than two flights/year? Or do many GTO missions? (the v1.0 would likely not have been capable of the SES-8 mission)

6-8 months behind - :o indeed, in aerospace average, that's pretty good! Most aerospace project managers would be happy to be only that far behind.

the problem is you just don't get the point.   SpaceX has a contract with NASA for two flights per year to the ISS.  A very key point I would add.    None of your points matter as SpaceX is only a "contractor" for services to the ISS that they could have, and should have delivered via F 1.0 to the ISS this year.   

They are contracted for down mass i.e. the science time on the ISS that can't be made up.

No, it looks like you simply don't want to admit you were wrong about the v1.0/v1.1 transition, and concoct a "2 missions per year to ISS" requirement to defend it. [EDIT - ChrisWilson68 already debunked it]

Which way do you think they can now make up time and up/down mass on the CRS contract quicker?
A. - Using a v1.1 which will allow a Dragon loaded to the max, and has already launched twice in 9 weeks, or
B. - Using the v1.0 longer (delaying v1.1 introduction), a launch vehicle that fell short of original performance projections, and launched only 5 times in 3 years?

What do you think? Do I get the point?

2014
February 22 -    Dragon SpX-3 (CRS3), CUNYSAT 1, Hermes 2, LMRSat, TechCube 1, All-Star-THEIA,
                            FIREBIRD A, FIREBIRD B, Ho‘oponopono 2 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
NET March -       Orbcomm G2 (x8) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
April -                AsiaSat 8 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Proton)
May -                AsiaSat 6 (Thaicom 7) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
June 6 -            Dragon SpX-4 (CRS4) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
NET 2nd quarter - Demo Flight - Falcon Heavy - Vandenberg SLC-4E
September 12 - Dragon SpX-5 (CRS5) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
December 5 -    Dragon SpX-6 (CRS6) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
December -       Turkmensat - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Ariane 5 ECA)
NET December - Orbcomm G2 (x9) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
TBD - Space Systems/Loral payload - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40

I'm not sure why you added their 2014 manifest, as it helps make my point. Do you still think the v1.0 would have been better to make up that backlog?
Nope you don't get the point, and my review of the contract long ago I'll stick with.    You can try to spin things around all you want as they are your opinions, and your welcome to them.
But to answer your last question; you don't seem to understand that the world doesn't revolve around SpaceX.   NASA and the US taxpayer are in the mix.   Do I care what v1.0 can do for a companies backlog NO !   My concern is the EVA suit that should have been brought back, along with other science it displaced per the "schedule"
 :(
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: joek on 12/05/2013 02:11 am
The Air Force only requires one more :)
It's more complicated than that and depends on payload risk classification.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2013 02:13 am

Completely understood.  I am simply curious as to under what circumstances vertical integration is mandatory?

Can't share what I know.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: joek on 12/05/2013 02:41 am
True, price is not the only relevant criterion.  But that's where we get back to the 36-unit block buy from ULA.  The claim is that the Air Force took a hard look at each launch and what SpaceX would look like at the time the contract would need to be let if there were a separate contract for each launch, if SpaceX does everything on their current schedule successfully.  The ones where SpaceX doesn't meet those other criteria (such as not having enough launches, so they're considered too risky) were put into the block buy.  The remaining 14 are those where SpaceX will meet all the criteria for launch, so if they beat ULA on price, they should win those launches -- all if (and that's a very big if) SpaceX executes successfully to their schedule.

Not quite.  The DoD's starting position was to award a 50 core block buy to ULA based on the claim that only ULA could meet the requirements, and that a block buy was needed to contain EELV cost escalation.

After being pushed by Congress, GAO, et. al., the compromise was to reserve 14 to possible future entrants, and to codify and harmonize NASA and DoD new entrant criteria for various payload classes.*

That does not in any way imply or guarantee that SpaceX (or any other entrant) will meet those criteria or will be competitive in the future (regardless of whether SpaceX manages to fulfill their manifest in a timely manner).  Which is one reason why the two USAF contracts to SpaceX have been awarded under the OSP and STP programs.


* Of note: While there are projections, there has been no credible launch-by-launch analysis.  For example, one of the criticisms (specifically by the GAO) is that based on past performance, those projections are flawed and a block buy would create an overhang or surplus which would shut out competitors years beyond the block buy period.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/05/2013 03:05 am
True, price is not the only relevant criterion.  But that's where we get back to the 36-unit block buy from ULA.  The claim is that the Air Force took a hard look at each launch and what SpaceX would look like at the time the contract would need to be let if there were a separate contract for each launch, if SpaceX does everything on their current schedule successfully.  The ones where SpaceX doesn't meet those other criteria (such as not having enough launches, so they're considered too risky) were put into the block buy.  The remaining 14 are those where SpaceX will meet all the criteria for launch, so if they beat ULA on price, they should win those launches -- all if (and that's a very big if) SpaceX executes successfully to their schedule.

Not quite.  The DoD's starting position was to award a 50 core block buy to ULA based on the claim that only ULA could meet the requirements, and that a block buy was needed to contain EELV cost escalation.

After being pushed by Congress, GAO, et. al., the compromise was to reserve 14 to possible future entrants, and to codify and harmonize NASA and DoD new entrant criteria for various payload classes.*

That does not in any way imply or guarantee that SpaceX (or any other entrant) will meet those criteria or will be competitive in the future (regardless of whether SpaceX manages to fulfill their manifest in a timely manner).  Which is one reason why the two USAF contracts to SpaceX have been awarded under the OSP and STP programs.


* Of note: While there are projections, there has been no credible launch-by-launch analysis.  For example, one of the criticisms (specifically by the GAO) is that based on past performance, those projections are flawed and a block buy would create an overhang or surplus which would shut out competitors years beyond the block buy period.

OK, I guess I was too willing to believe the Air Force when they said the 36 launches in the block buy could only be provided by ULA.  My mistake.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Garrett on 12/05/2013 11:55 am
posting re a discussion on the Thaicom-6 thread about possible viewing opportunities of the first-stage landing after the CRS-3 launch. (talk about off-topic  :o)

And again, it is unmanned.  After all, the shuttle returned from space many times and its boosters too.  Most people wouldn't understand the significance, and you are overplaying the significance
Regardless of its objective significance, there is, however, one major difference and that difference is why the Grasshopper makes it to the mainstream news.
 - it's frickin' cool to see a rocket land vertically on legs. It's a comic book/cartoon/sci-fi thing.

So I wouldn't so easily discount the notion that there will be big interest in a fly-back first stage.

But if it's obscured as you say, then the only viewing will be from a webcast.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lars_J on 12/05/2013 04:48 pm
SpaceX already published them (and more) at: http://www.spacex.com/media and http://www.spacex.com/gallery/falcon-9-first-geostationary-transfer-mission
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Occupymars on 12/05/2013 04:51 pm
SpaceX already published them (and more) at: http://www.spacex.com/media and http://www.spacex.com/gallery/falcon-9-first-geostationary-transfer-mission
Ok thanks post deleted.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/05/2013 05:08 pm

Completely understood.  I am simply curious as to under what circumstances vertical integration is mandatory?

Can't share what I know.
More then happy to fly down and sign some Non Disclosure forms...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: spacetraveler on 12/05/2013 05:15 pm

Completely understood.  I am simply curious as to under what circumstances vertical integration is mandatory?

Can't share what I know.

Here is some public information on the subject. Basically national security payloads require vertical integration.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652036.txt

Quote
* New entrants will be required to integrate payloads with the launch
vehicle upright, or vertical, and the payload attached to the vehicle
from above, as NSS payloads are currently designed to be vertically
integrated.

- Though not mentioned in the NECG, Air Force officials confirmed that
new entrants will be required to vertically integrate payloads, even
if the new entrant’s launch vehicle was designed to horizontally
integrate payloads.

- Senior Air Force officials indicated that even if a payload could be
retrofitted to be horizontally mated to the launch vehicle and
significant cost savings could be realized by allowing horizontal
integration, the requirement for vertical payload integration would
stand, as NSS payloads are designed to be vertically mated to the
launch vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/05/2013 05:48 pm

Completely understood.  I am simply curious as to under what circumstances vertical integration is mandatory?

Can't share what I know.

Here is some public information on the subject. Basically national security payloads require vertical integration.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652036.txt

Quote
* New entrants will be required to integrate payloads with the launch
vehicle upright, or vertical, and the payload attached to the vehicle
from above, as NSS payloads are currently designed to be vertically
integrated.

- Though not mentioned in the NECG, Air Force officials confirmed that
new entrants will be required to vertically integrate payloads, even
if the new entrant’s launch vehicle was designed to horizontally
integrate payloads.

- Senior Air Force officials indicated that even if a payload could be
retrofitted to be horizontally mated to the launch vehicle and
significant cost savings could be realized by allowing horizontal
integration, the requirement for vertical payload integration would
stand, as NSS payloads are designed to be vertically mated to the
launch vehicle.
Thanks for that. Appreciated.
I'd still like to know exactly what it is about NSS payloads that force them to be vertically integrated. Size, Weight, Shape, Power-Supply, Optics, Comms...? Ok, I'll drop it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lurker Steve on 12/05/2013 05:59 pm

Completely understood.  I am simply curious as to under what circumstances vertical integration is mandatory?

Can't share what I know.

Here is some public information on the subject. Basically national security payloads require vertical integration.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652036.txt

Quote
* New entrants will be required to integrate payloads with the launch
vehicle upright, or vertical, and the payload attached to the vehicle
from above, as NSS payloads are currently designed to be vertically
integrated.

- Though not mentioned in the NECG, Air Force officials confirmed that
new entrants will be required to vertically integrate payloads, even
if the new entrant’s launch vehicle was designed to horizontally
integrate payloads.

- Senior Air Force officials indicated that even if a payload could be
retrofitted to be horizontally mated to the launch vehicle and
significant cost savings could be realized by allowing horizontal
integration, the requirement for vertical payload integration would
stand, as NSS payloads are designed to be vertically mated to the
launch vehicle.
Thanks for that. Appreciated.
I'd still like to know exactly what it is about NSS payloads that force them to be vertically integrated. Size, Weight, Shape, Power-Supply, Optics, Comms...? Ok, I'll drop it.

They were designed to be vertically integrated.

Who is willing to pay the costs to redesign these payloads for vertical integration when the primary launcher can handle vertical integration without an issue ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: mheney on 12/05/2013 05:59 pm

Thanks for that. Appreciated.
I'd still like to know exactly what it is about NSS payloads that force them to be vertically integrated. Size, Weight, Shape, Power-Supply, Optics, Comms...? Ok, I'll drop it.

Generally, it's loads.  One possibility is that they're designed to have their propellant tanks loaded in a vertical position, and it's not designed to do well on its side with full tanks once they're loaded.

And yeah, loads on the optics as well.  Big mirrors hanging sideways can be hard to keep in alignment ...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2013 06:06 pm

Generally, it's loads.

It is not loads, since the spacecraft are shipped horizontally.

there are many other reasons.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: spacetraveler on 12/05/2013 06:11 pm
The specific reasons are probably classified and/or ITAR restricted, which is why Jim can't say.  :-X
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: meekGee on 12/05/2013 06:19 pm

Thanks for that. Appreciated.
I'd still like to know exactly what it is about NSS payloads that force them to be vertically integrated. Size, Weight, Shape, Power-Supply, Optics, Comms...? Ok, I'll drop it.

Generally, it's loads.  One possibility is that they're designed to have their propellant tanks loaded in a vertical position, and it's not designed to do well on its side with full tanks once they're loaded.

And yeah, loads on the optics as well.  Big mirrors hanging sideways can be hard to keep in alignment ...

Possibly, but the sat is built to take a fair amount of random loads on ascent, right?
(there's transport too, but you can argue that maybe there's transport jigs)

Anyway - the main point is that holistically, a system is designed to go through integration a certain way. It can be plumbing.  It can be anything that relies on gravity like heat dissipation. It doesn't matter - it was designed and tested to work a certain way.

If you introduce a change (horizontal integration) that at a minimum you need to own up for the costs of any re-design, testing, and added risk that you broke something anyway.

I can see why it's a requirement, it's pretty common sense.

Now, if the customer WANTED to try horizontal in order to get lower rates, then it's their prerogative - but this hasn't happened, and so case closed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/05/2013 06:21 pm

Now, if the customer WANTED to try horizontal in order to get lower rates, then it's their prerogative - but this hasn't happened, and so case closed.

And that can happen for some spacecraft already or during a block change.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/05/2013 06:45 pm

Thanks for that. Appreciated.
I'd still like to know exactly what it is about NSS payloads that force them to be vertically integrated. Size, Weight, Shape, Power-Supply, Optics, Comms...? Ok, I'll drop it.

Generally, it's loads.  One possibility is that they're designed to have their propellant tanks loaded in a vertical position, and it's not designed to do well on its side with full tanks once they're loaded.

And yeah, loads on the optics as well.  Big mirrors hanging sideways can be hard to keep in alignment ...

Possibly, but the sat is built to take a fair amount of random loads on ascent, right?
(there's transport too, but you can argue that maybe there's transport jigs)

Anyway - the main point is that holistically, a system is designed to go through integration a certain way. It can be plumbing.  It can be anything that relies on gravity like heat dissipation. It doesn't matter - it was designed and tested to work a certain way.

If you introduce a change (horizontal integration) that at a minimum you need to own up for the costs of any re-design, testing, and added risk that you broke something anyway.

I can see why it's a requirement, it's pretty common sense.

Now, if the customer WANTED to try horizontal in order to get lower rates, then it's their prerogative - but this hasn't happened, and so case closed.
If I may, here's your last statement a bit tweaked: "Now, if the launch provider WANTED to try First Stage Boost Back in order to offer lower rates, then it's their prerogative - but this hasn't happened yet, and so case closed."

The case is very far from closed, GH is proof of that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: meekGee on 12/05/2013 07:05 pm

Thanks for that. Appreciated.
I'd still like to know exactly what it is about NSS payloads that force them to be vertically integrated. Size, Weight, Shape, Power-Supply, Optics, Comms...? Ok, I'll drop it.

Generally, it's loads.  One possibility is that they're designed to have their propellant tanks loaded in a vertical position, and it's not designed to do well on its side with full tanks once they're loaded.

And yeah, loads on the optics as well.  Big mirrors hanging sideways can be hard to keep in alignment ...

Possibly, but the sat is built to take a fair amount of random loads on ascent, right?
(there's transport too, but you can argue that maybe there's transport jigs)

Anyway - the main point is that holistically, a system is designed to go through integration a certain way. It can be plumbing.  It can be anything that relies on gravity like heat dissipation. It doesn't matter - it was designed and tested to work a certain way.

If you introduce a change (horizontal integration) that at a minimum you need to own up for the costs of any re-design, testing, and added risk that you broke something anyway.

I can see why it's a requirement, it's pretty common sense.

Now, if the customer WANTED to try horizontal in order to get lower rates, then it's their prerogative - but this hasn't happened, and so case closed.
If I may, here's your last statement a bit tweaked: "Now, if the launch provider WANTED to try First Stage Boost Back in order to offer lower rates, then it's their prerogative - but this hasn't happened yet, and so case closed."

The case is very far from closed, GH is proof of that.

I should have used a different phrase than "Case closed".
What I was trying to say is that the current set of flights that "have to have vertical integration" is understandable, and since the customers _in those flights_ didn't choose to modify the way their payloads are integrated, then that's that as far as those flights are concerned.

Moving forward?
I think customers will do a lot of things in order to fly with SpaceX.
This includes looking into different integration process, and yes, by all mean, flying re-used boosters.
SpaceX found its early adapters, and will now get wider acceptance.

(That said, as before, I think horizontal integration, specifically, will go away eventually - but that's a different argument)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/05/2013 07:55 pm
MeekGee. I see what you mean about current payloads. Agreed.

I will say I am intrigued by your thoughts on horizontal integration going away. But yes, that's perhaps a conversation for another day.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Nomadd on 12/05/2013 08:50 pm
 All the chatter about boostback got me wondering about something. I might have missed this in another thread, but if the first stage heads toward land, are they going to have to have the FTS active?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/05/2013 09:03 pm
I will say I am intrigued by your thoughts on horizontal integration going away.
Why would that be intriguing? It seems like vertical integration would be much more complicated and expensive than the horizontal integration. The only good reason for it that I see is customer requirement. So that they can serve some more customers.
Now I would think differently if we were talking about VTOL SSTO.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: neoforce on 12/05/2013 09:23 pm
All the chatter about boostback got me wondering about something. I might have missed this in another thread, but if the first stage heads toward land, are they going to have to have the FTS active?

Like so many things here I've seen at least two or three discussions about this somewhere in the various threads.  Not sure there was any consensus.  Two main reasons why it might not need FTS are:
1) there won't be a lot of propellant on board. (in comparison to launch)
2) the flight plan is expected to have a ballistic entry to the ocean with a last minute divert over land.  So that should the engines fail to light before landing, the crash is over water.

On the other hand, even without propellant its a big machine falling very fast and if it hits something will cause lots of damage.  So, as I said, there was no consensus, and some folks here argued FTS will be needed while others disagreed.  (surprised that there are different views here?  ;) )

AFAIK, nothing official from SpaceX on the FTS on return issue, but Elon did talk about landing a bunch at the post press conference for the Cassiope launch at http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-press-conference-september-29-2013-2013-09-29

Including the following:

Quote from: shitelonsays


As far as the safety aspect of the return to launch site of the first stage that's part of why we want to do it first in the ocean just to make sure that things will be fine. For any landing area that we would have, the landing ellipse, the sort of error that the stage could encounter would be an unpopulated region. So we would aim to have a landing site that's unpopulated with a radius of a couple of miles (which can be achieved in Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg).

[Question about landing on land and FAA licensing for landing] We have actually been working with Air Force range safety and the FAA to identify landing locations at Cape Canaveral and we have identified a few. I don't think that we are quite ready to say what those locations are but they are kind of out on the tip of Cape Canaveral, on the eastern most tip of Cape Canaveral. It's great working with both Air Force range safety and the FAA. They have actually been quite supportive of the whole thing. You need a (FAA) license and we expect to get it.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: deltaV on 12/05/2013 09:31 pm
All the chatter about boostback got me wondering about something. I might have missed this in another thread, but if the first stage heads toward land, are they going to have to have the FTS active?

In a talk about a month ago Gwyne Shotwell said (at 30:55) "surprisingly range safety is really gong-ho [about Falcon returning to launch site]. But they always have that button, that button that gives them lots of comfort." It's not clear if this button blows the stage up or just terminates thrust but I'm guessing it's the former. They have the explosives already so why not use them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GT9Crl1ZOg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/05/2013 10:44 pm
From safety point of view recoverable 1st stages should be safer than expendable ones that break up on reentry and rain debris over large parts of ocean. Even if they don't recover the 1st stage, being able to land in a controlled fashion in middle of ocean is going to be safer for any boats or ships.

Has there ever being any recorded cases of boats or ships being struck by parts of a 1st stage?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lar on 12/05/2013 11:21 pm
MeekGee. I see what you mean about current payloads. Agreed.

I will say I am intrigued by your thoughts on horizontal integration going away. But yes, that's perhaps a conversation for another day.

This was discussed on some other threads but the thinking is that if you want rapid and cheap turnaround, you want to look at ***every*** process step[1][2] to see if you can get rid of it, streamline it, replace it with a better step, do it faster, etc... After a vertical landing, lowering the stage to horizontal and then raising it back up to vertical are process steps. If you're doing vertical integration anyway, maybe moving the stage, still vertical, from the landing pad to the launch pad, and mating the payload vertically will be fewer/faster steps.

Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell. Certainly not for a while. Probably. :)

1 - from that other thread I think it was on GSE, replacing umbilicals that caught fire as the vehicle ascended is a process step that maybe you can get rid of.... do you need umbilicals? Can they be retracted so far they are safe? can they be made of flame proof materials? Who knows. Does it matter today? No, umbilicals are a small part of the overall cost and time for cycling. Someday, it will matter. Not today. Certainly not for a while. Probably. :)
2 - another example... does it make sense to truck engines to McGregor to hot fire them? Why there?  Does it make sense to have both a WDR and a static hot fire at the pad? Today, at this point in the process it does. Well, actually they're already combining WDR and pad hot fire.  Incremental improvements. Maybe someday engines will be known to work right out of the factory, just like car engines. Not today. Certainly not for a while. Probably. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jcc on 12/05/2013 11:31 pm
If the ballistic path is to hit the water, with a last minute divert, when would the FTS activate, and if it did, wouldn't it just produce more shrapnel that goes in different directions, some heading towards land?

Maybe if the ballistic path is somehow heading for an overshoot prior to terminal burn, they could activate FTS to make sure all the pieces land in the water.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/05/2013 11:33 pm
I dont know, just having workers at such height to do vertical integration will probably increase compensation (extra for dangerous work) and insurance rates. Also you need very tall buildings with lots of heavy lifting equipment and all that. It seems to me like horizontal integration is easier and cheaper, even with the added steps of lowering and raising the rocket stages. SpaceX seems to think so too, or they would not have chosen it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/05/2013 11:51 pm
I dont know, just having workers at such height to do vertical integration will probably increase compensation (extra for dangerous work) and insurance rates. Also you need very tall buildings with lots of heavy lifting equipment and all that. It seems to me like horizontal integration is easier and cheaper. SpaceX seems to think so too, or they would not have chosen it.
Thinking about the various payloads Falcon 9 V1.1 and FH will launch, I don't think it will be the case of either or. Cargo Dragon is fine the way it is, as well as seemingly the next 50 payloads or so. And Crew Dragon will be mated horizontally but the crew will access when vertical. Such as when they roll it out to Pad 39A.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: meekGee on 12/05/2013 11:59 pm
MeekGee. I see what you mean about current payloads. Agreed.

I will say I am intrigued by your thoughts on horizontal integration going away. But yes, that's perhaps a conversation for another day.

Since people picked it up, I'll take it to the general discussion thread, since F9 1.1 is not vertically integrated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: gospacex on 12/06/2013 01:37 am
And yeah, loads on the optics as well.  Big mirrors hanging sideways can be hard to keep in alignment...

I believe launch vibrations are on the order of one gee in lateral directions too. Satellites would often not survive launches if they couldn't take that sort of sideways load.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/06/2013 02:29 am
If the ballistic path is to hit the water, with a last minute divert, when would the FTS activate, and if it did, wouldn't it just produce more shrapnel that goes in different directions, some heading towards land?

Maybe if the ballistic path is somehow heading for an overshoot prior to terminal burn, they could activate FTS to make sure all the pieces land in the water.

Yeah, the two main reasons for an FTS are to keep the rocket from heading to an area it shouldn't be headed and to blow up all that propellant up far above the ground.  Neither one applies when the stage is on a ballistic course to the ocean with a last-minute divert to a pad right on the coast.  It seems to me that the FTS would just make things worse, if anything, by blowing up the rocket.

Also, on launch the FTS only needs a little explosive to turn the vehicle into little pieces because it just has to rupture the tanks and let the energy of the nearly-full propellant load do the rest.  The FTS couldn't get the same kind of results with a nearly-empty stage coming in for a landing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/06/2013 03:04 am

Yeah, the two main reasons for an FTS are to keep the rocket from heading to an area it shouldn't be headed and to blow up all that propellant up far above the ground.  Neither one applies when the stage is on a ballistic course to the ocean with a last-minute divert to a pad right on the coast.  It seems to me that the FTS would just make things worse, if anything, by blowing up the rocket.

Also, on launch the FTS only needs a little explosive to turn the vehicle into little pieces because it just has to rupture the tanks and let the energy of the nearly-full propellant load do the rest.  The FTS couldn't get the same kind of results with a nearly-empty stage coming in for a landing.

1.  Wrong, it applies.  what if the burn before the ballistic course to the ocean goes  bad?  Or even the divert burn. Or the divert burn happens too early

2.   Among the reasons for FTS is to disperse propellants, render the vehicle non propulsive and reduce the size of the vehicle.  It is not for the propellant to turn the vehicle into little pieces.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Garrett on 12/06/2013 09:53 am
was following the discussion about vertical integration, and just had a quick question:
F9 currently rolls out to the pad horizontally and is then raised by the T/E. Does vertical integration (VI) require the payload to always remain vertical once mated, or is there the option of mating vertically, then rolling out horizontally?

Hope my question makes sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/06/2013 12:01 pm
As I understand it, no. The payload has to remain properly aligned at all times. Over on SLC-37 (Delta-IV), they do this by having a crane over the launch pad that lifts the payload up to be attached after the LV has been erected on the pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/06/2013 01:38 pm
And yeah, loads on the optics as well.  Big mirrors hanging sideways can be hard to keep in alignment...

I believe launch vibrations are on the order of one gee in lateral directions too. Satellites would often not survive launches if they couldn't take that sort of sideways load.

Steady-state load and their design requirements are different from the design requirements for instantaneous vibrational loads. (<---- Says a guy who has designed and spec'd systems for both on a NASA spaceflight program before).

That's not to say that you cannot design for both and do so allowing for horizontal integration, just that it's not a given until you've ACTUALLY DONE THE DESIGN THAT WAY and then verified that design by test or analysis.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: simonbp on 12/06/2013 03:46 pm
As I understand it, no. The payload has to remain properly aligned at all times. Over on SLC-37 (Delta-IV), they do this by having a crane over the launch pad that lifts the payload up to be attached after the LV has been erected on the pad.

Which is probably how SpaceX will do it, just with a commercial tower crane or similar instead of Delta's massive launch complex. This is not the nonstarter that people are making it out to be (and if it were, USAF and SpaceX would not be as far along the certification process as they are).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/06/2013 04:33 pm

Which is probably how SpaceX will do it, just with a commercial tower crane or similar instead of Delta's massive launch complex. This is not the nonstarter that people are making it out to be (and if it were, USAF and SpaceX would not be as far along the certification process as they are).

Along with the vertical integration is also access to the payload (and maybe even prop loading) at the pad and so a crane won't cut it.  Some type of MST will be required.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: jg on 12/06/2013 05:39 pm
People here are forgetting the cost of the NRO payloads being launched, which can easily dwarf the cost of the launch vehicle (even the ULA vehicles at their prices).

According to Wikipedia, estimates for a single optical NROL payload (example: KH-11 cost is in the $2-4 billion range http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11#Cost and dwarfs the entire cost of designing and developing the Falcon launcher, and is many times the cost of building the SES-8 payload (one article I saw said it's cost was $109 million).  They are fundamentally different beasts and different markets.

What a customer (like NRO) with this much money on the line cares about is not the launch cost, but reliability (and possibly the ability to do on-pad checkout, test and repair before launch, as described in Pressel's book on the KH-9, where entertaining repairs were done on-pad).  They may also care there is more than one launch provider/rocket that can launch their payloads, so if there is an extended stand-down of the launch vehicle due to a failure, they have an alternative to their primary launcher.

NRO is certainly not going to redesign payloads anytime soon for horizontal integration, particularly ones with the stringent optical requirements that telescopes that look up or down have...  And given NRO's problems with their new generation of satellites (their last attempt was canned in 2006 due to cost overruns), I'd be amazed if they wanted any more/different problems to face, as they try again...

To me, retrofit of payloads designed for vertical integration seems unlikely; if SpaceX wins such business from ULA, the cost of building a mobile service structure to continue to launch existing designs will be in the noise of the contract, and certainty of access to a launch pad will be part of the requirements; this is the antithesis of rapid re-use so vital for most commercial business.  And I would guess will be a sideline to SpaceX. But sidelines can be lucrative, if handled well...

So any "sale" by SpaceX to launch such payloads will be made on reliability or redundancy grounds, and have little if anything to do with horizontal vs. vertical integration. On the other hand, the government has many other cheaper payloads without such requirements, so I'm sure SpaceX are interested in business that fits what they are trying to be good at, and wants to qualify to launch those as soon as they can.

Whether success with F9R again changes the equation towards vertical integration, I leave to others to debate...  I have no clue...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/06/2013 05:46 pm
There are hard engineering requirements for vertical integration of payloads.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Borklund on 12/06/2013 05:55 pm
There are hard engineering requirements for vertical integration of payloads.
Could you please elaborate on what those are?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/06/2013 06:00 pm
There are hard engineering requirements for vertical integration of payloads.
Could you please elaborate on what those are?

As stated before, I can't
Title: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jakusb on 12/06/2013 06:01 pm
There are hard engineering requirements for vertical integration of payloads.
I would not expect an astronaut to hop in the Dragon in horizontal state. ;)
Still vertical is a pain, especially with the height  of Falcon 9 v1.1.
Anyhow, nice to see the discussion again on totally new stuff. Funny to see how the discussion moves on every time SpaceX launches the next vehicle.  Clearly they manage to silence all critics time and again. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/06/2013 06:14 pm

Which is probably how SpaceX will do it, just with a commercial tower crane or similar instead of Delta's massive launch complex. This is not the nonstarter that people are making it out to be (and if it were, USAF and SpaceX would not be as far along the certification process as they are).

Along with the vertical integration is also access to the payload (and maybe even prop loading) at the pad and so a crane won't cut it.  Some type of MST will be required.

I think a commercial crane can do the vertical integration. You just have to acquire a new transporter erector with mobile access platforms/arms to access the payload fairing from the strongback plus a small personnel lift on the back of the strongback.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/06/2013 06:20 pm

Which is probably how SpaceX will do it, just with a commercial tower crane or similar instead of Delta's massive launch complex. This is not the nonstarter that people are making it out to be (and if it were, USAF and SpaceX would not be as far along the certification process as they are).

Along with the vertical integration is also access to the payload (and maybe even prop loading) at the pad and so a crane won't cut it.  Some type of MST will be required.

I think a commercial crane can do the vertical integration. You just have to acquire a new transporter erector with mobile access platforms/arms to access the payload fairing from the strongback plus a small personnel lift on the back of the strongback.


The payload access requires cleanroom tents at the fairing door openings (and this can be at many different heights).  There are needs to be room for spacecraft EGSE racks to be placed and away for the racks to get there.  Prop loading requires even more space for hardware and personnel in SCAPE suits.  And this has to be all protected from the weather.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: jg on 12/06/2013 06:29 pm
There are hard engineering requirements for vertical integration of payloads.
Could you please elaborate on what those are?

As stated before, I can't

Having just read Pressel's book on Hexagon, it's pretty obvious why there can be hard requirements, even if we ignore fueling concerns (and there is a big rocket attached to such payloads, as their orbits need to be periodically raised as they fly with a low perigee).

There is a scene described in Pressel's book where, when the first KH9 was launched, the data being returned was significantly different than had been seen on the ground, to the consternation of one of the engineers.  This was due to the 1G forces being removed from the KH9.

And later payloads may have yet tighter requirements (they are much bigger telescopes, after all).  Life is much easier structurally if your main forces are along the optical axis of the telescope.

So just take it as a given that some payloads (maybe just a small minority with time) will have vertical integration requirements.  And those payloads may get to pay a premium to be launched...
Which is OK...  So long as most payloads don't have to pay the additional cost they don't need....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: dcporter on 12/06/2013 06:33 pm
There are hard engineering requirements for vertical integration of payloads.
Could you please elaborate on what those are?

As stated before, I can't

gotta join L3
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: neilh on 12/06/2013 07:15 pm
Roughly what percentage of payloads require vertical integration?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: baldusi on 12/06/2013 08:38 pm
There are hard engineering requirements for vertical integration of payloads.
Could you please elaborate on what those are?
I think someone mentioned issues about liquid He for infrared sensors, for example. I think the sensors have to be kept at liquid He temperatures, and in 1G that means that you have to keep them in a sort of liquid bath.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: jg on 12/06/2013 09:45 pm
There are hard engineering requirements for vertical integration of payloads.
Could you please elaborate on what those are?
I think someone mentioned issues about liquid He for infrared sensors, for example. I think the sensors have to be kept at liquid He temperatures, and in 1G that means that you have to keep them in a sort of liquid bath.

Actually, I think for IR sensors you don't use the liquid directly.

The way you regulate temperature is using a "Porous plug".  The LHe goes through a porous material, and by applying a slight temperature gradient across the plug (by warming the plug) you can regulate the flow and the exact temperature (using a quantum mechanical effect that takes place at macroscopic levels; see http://istd.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/introduction/helium_space2.html).  Oh, the trivia I learned while working on the Small Helium Cooled IR telescope that flew on SpaceLab 2, oh, so long ago.

That being said, you have to be able to load the helium (and other fluids) on the ground.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 12/06/2013 10:24 pm
Which video do You think is best regarding stage recovery in latest launch? Could You please share a link?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 12/06/2013 11:25 pm


The payload access requires cleanroom tents at the fairing door openings (and this can be at many different heights).  There are needs to be room for spacecraft EGSE racks to be placed and away for the racks to get there.  Prop loading requires even more space for hardware and personnel in SCAPE suits.  And this has to be all protected from the weather.

I don't see any show stoppers to providing that for vertical interrogation, its not like a crane and for lifting, some steel structure, clean room and SCAPE equipment is some breakthrough in technology, simple engineering ( structural frame ) man certified that a few million cannot provide. its ground equipment.. i.e not rocket science.. then its vertical integrated. next show stopper. Oh, GAO... that should be fun.. and a reference case back when a Judge said they did not have the tech.  now that is different, or close .. need another flight
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Confusador on 12/07/2013 06:23 am
Which video do You think is best regarding stage recovery in latest launch? Could You please share a link?

There was no stage recovery attempt on the SES-8 launch, and there won't be for Thaicom 6 either. They did do some RCS firings for stage orientation, but there's not much to see there.  The next launch with anything of real interest regarding recovery will be CRS-3, NET February.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Mike_1179 on 12/07/2013 12:23 pm

I don't see any show stoppers to providing that for vertical interrogation, its not like a crane and for lifting, some steel structure, clean room and SCAPE equipment is some breakthrough in technology, simple engineering ( structural frame ) man certified that a few million cannot provide. its ground equipment.. i.e not rocket science.. then its vertical integrated. next show stopper.


While it's not rocket science, it ain't cheap.  Look at how large and complex the top portion of the MST is.  Setting up a clean room on a mobile structure that high in the air with room to allow people in SCAPE suits to tool around gets expensive; while it's not breakthrough technology, it's not trivial.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: aero on 12/07/2013 03:31 pm
Aren't you leading up to something like the VAB atop the Crawler Transporter? Not at all cheap.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Prober on 12/07/2013 03:45 pm

Which is probably how SpaceX will do it, just with a commercial tower crane or similar instead of Delta's massive launch complex. This is not the nonstarter that people are making it out to be (and if it were, USAF and SpaceX would not be as far along the certification process as they are).

Along with the vertical integration is also access to the payload (and maybe even prop loading) at the pad and so a crane won't cut it.  Some type of MST will be required.

I think a commercial crane can do the vertical integration. You just have to acquire a new transporter erector with mobile access platforms/arms to access the payload fairing from the strongback plus a small personnel lift on the back of the strongback.


The payload access requires cleanroom tents at the fairing door openings (and this can be at many different heights).  There are needs to be room for spacecraft EGSE racks to be placed and away for the racks to get there.  Prop loading requires even more space for hardware and personnel in SCAPE suits.  And this has to be all protected from the weather.

don't think this has been built into the current design.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 12/07/2013 03:52 pm
Question .. Would you land a stage back here? http://www.wired4space.com/wp-content/uploads/LC-36-launch-complex-1.jpg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Kabloona on 12/07/2013 03:58 pm
Which video do You think is best regarding stage recovery in latest launch? Could You please share a link?

There was no stage recovery attempt on the SES-8 launch, and there won't be for Thaicom 6 either. They did do some RCS firings for stage orientation, but there's not much to see there.  The next launch with anything of real interest regarding recovery will be CRS-3, NET February.

It remains to be seen whether there will be a recovery attempt for Thaicom 6:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/12/04/spacex-launch-successful/3866655/

quote:
"Musk said SpaceX might try to recover that rocket's first stage from the ocean, depending in part on data collected during the SES-8 mission."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 12/07/2013 05:04 pm

I don't see any show stoppers to providing that for vertical interrogation, its not like a crane and for lifting, some steel structure, clean room and SCAPE equipment is some breakthrough in technology, simple engineering ( structural frame ) man certified that a few million cannot provide. its ground equipment.. i.e not rocket science.. then its vertical integrated. next show stopper.

While it's not rocket science, it ain't cheap.  Look at how large and complex the top portion of the MST is.  Setting up a clean room on a mobile structure that high in the air with room to allow people in SCAPE suits to tool around gets expensive; while it's not breakthrough technology, it's not trivial.

Nope not trivial, but available for  a few millions. So as far as I can tell, one needs a lifting system that can easy and safely lift a payload in it shroud, and can lift and retain a large ocean going container sized load at approx 80 meters..  option 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vallarpadam_Container_Terminal.JPG

option 2 - http://www.konecranes.com/sites/default/files/main_image/goliath_stadium.jpg

fit out said container or containers with whatever gear u need - a few more millions ..

ok you may need some rails not a showstopper.

If the above don't work.. option 3. http://www.konecranes.com/sites/default/files/main_image/konecranes-double-boom-d95.jpeg

One can mount a container (clean room) on hydraulics at the end of that beast and make it under the existing lightning towers..

All of the above can handle a full container .. 53 ft container with a load capacity of 26,500 kilograms (58,400 lb).  That should be enough for the SCAPE equipment and a few workers.. oh that load capacity already takes into consideration the  container mass.

Need for a MST?


cost in excess of US $210000-600000 / Set
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2013 05:22 pm

All of the above can handle a full container .. 53 ft container with a load capacity of 26,500 kilograms (58,400 lb).  That should be enough for the SCAPE equipment and a few workers.. oh that load capacity already takes into consideration the  container mass.



And how do they get to the ground without using a crane.  There have to be stairs for evacuation.  And it is not just access from one point.  There will be multiple doors. 

Fit this in a container

http://propellants.ksc.nasa.gov/gptu.htm

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 12/07/2013 05:31 pm

All of the above can handle a full container .. 53 ft container with a load capacity of 26,500 kilograms (58,400 lb).  That should be enough for the SCAPE equipment and a few workers.. oh that load capacity already takes into consideration the  container mass.



And how do they get to the ground without using a crane.  There have to be stairs for evacuation.  And it is not just access from one point.  There will be multiple doors. 

Fit this in a container

http://propellants.ksc.nasa.gov/gptu.htm



Jim as an engineer, I will leave that to you.. :)

My guess, door.. cut and weld in additional doors as needed. I have seen that done on a number of containers (have worked in a container 20 m up in the air for two months we had two doors.
Escape - no power.. wire cage or easier repel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belaying8.jpg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2013 06:05 pm

1.  My guess, door.. cut and weld in additional doors as needed.

2.Escape - no power.. wire cage or easier repel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belaying8.jpg

1.  I meant in the fairing.  Clean access to multiple points on the fairing.

2.  In SCAPE suits? 

Also, no time to repel for propellant leak.  Just time to put a plastic bag over your head and run down stairs.

https://www.scottsafety.com/en/us/pages/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductDetail=ELSA%20Escape%20Respirator
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Mike_1179 on 12/07/2013 07:33 pm

https://www.scottsafety.com/en/us/pages/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductDetail=ELSA%20Escape%20Respirator

Can I just say that I love that they specifically had to say this is designed to work with someone who has a beard.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Nomadd on 12/07/2013 08:55 pm

1.  My guess, door.. cut and weld in additional doors as needed.

2.Escape - no power.. wire cage or easier repel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belaying8.jpg

1.  I meant in the fairing.  Clean access to multiple points on the fairing.

2.  In SCAPE suits? 

Also, no time to repel for propellant leak.  Just time to put a plastic bag over your head and run down stairs.

https://www.scottsafety.com/en/us/pages/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductDetail=ELSA%20Escape%20Respirator
I wore one of those 5 minute jobs for 13 years.
 Rappelling (sort of) would be the fastest method you could have if you already had an attach point because you were wearing a harness. There are mechanisms for oil rigs where you simply hook and jump that, hopefully, pull you up right as you approach the ground. Even manual rappelling can get you down almost as fast as freefall if you're trained.
 And you could probably charge people $5 for using a slide for life on off days.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 12/07/2013 09:08 pm

1.  My guess, door.. cut and weld in additional doors as needed.

2.Escape - no power.. wire cage or easier repel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belaying8.jpg

1.  I meant in the fairing.  Clean access to multiple points on the fairing.

2.  In SCAPE suits? 

Also, no time to repel for propellant leak.  Just time to put a plastic bag over your head and run down stairs.

https://www.scottsafety.com/en/us/pages/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductDetail=ELSA%20Escape%20Respirator
I wore one of those 5 minute jobs for 13 years.
 Rappelling (sort of) would be the fastest method you could have if you already had an attach point because you were wearing a harness. There are mechanisms for oil rigs where you simply hook and jump that, hopefully, pull you up right as you approach the ground. Even manual rappelling can get you down almost as fast as freefall if you're trained.
 And you could probably charge people $5 for using a slide for life on off days.

In no time one could pay back the price of the rig.. :)

to Jims question.. move the container to the side you want to access.. or better use two containers that lock together, just the the floor levels in the VAB etc..  we are talking of a 200ton lift capacity here.. 

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2013 09:31 pm

to Jims question.. move the container to the side you want to access.. or better use two containers that lock together, just the the floor levels in the VAB etc..  we are talking of a 200ton lift capacity here.. 

What keeps them from banging into the vehicle from winds?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2013 09:42 pm
It just has to be something like this with a better crane
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 12/07/2013 09:43 pm

to Jims question.. move the container to the side you want to access.. or better use two containers that lock together, just the the floor levels in the VAB etc..  we are talking of a 200ton lift capacity here.. 

What keeps them from banging into the vehicle from winds?

cables.

(Jim you have more Engineering practice that I do. How would you do it ?)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/07/2013 09:44 pm

to Jims question.. move the container to the side you want to access.. or better use two containers that lock together, just the the floor levels in the VAB etc..  we are talking of a 200ton lift capacity here.. 

What keeps them from banging into the vehicle from winds?

cables.

(Jim you have more Engineering practice that I do. How would you do it ?)

see above
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/07/2013 09:58 pm
It "just"has to be something like this with a better crane
 ;)
I think you forgot to put two "" around the just and a smiley. I fixed it for you.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: rcoppola on 12/07/2013 10:23 pm
It just has to be something like this with a better crane

I don't know, that's a very expensive proposition. Would SpaceX get funding along the lines ULA gets for infrastructure expenses?

And wouldn't they need this at both East and West coast pads?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/07/2013 11:29 pm
I don't know, that's a very expensive proposition.
I think that was Jim's point.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Arb on 12/07/2013 11:52 pm
I would not expect an astronaut to hop in the Dragon in horizontal state. ;)
Still vertical is a pain, especially with the height  of Falcon 9 v1.1.
Astronauts as late-load cargo. Why couldn't that work?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Silmfeanor on 12/07/2013 11:56 pm
I would not expect an astronaut to hop in the Dragon in horizontal state. ;)
Still vertical is a pain, especially with the height  of Falcon 9 v1.1.
Astronauts as late-load cargo. Why couldn't that work?

Emergency egress, seats that are correct for both horizontal as well as vertical loads (and everything in between) and the amount of time needed on board the small capsule before you're even ready to launch.
Basically a non-proposition.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 12/08/2013 04:30 pm
It just has to be something like this with a better crane

Was looking at this a more applicable to spacex. http://www.flickr.com/photos/eumetsat/7984899318/
however, its also not flexible and take a good two years to get build and install.

Need a flexible answer that can get installed and operational in less than 6 months and can take any F9H if it arrives.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/08/2013 05:47 pm
No crane on it
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JAC on 12/08/2013 08:06 pm
No crane needed!

Step 1. Buy old missile silo.
Step 2. Evict rats.
Step 3. Insert Falcon.
Step 4. Easy access for any load at ground level. 8)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/08/2013 08:40 pm
And how do you get the falcon into the silo, if you dont use a crane?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lars_J on 12/08/2013 09:19 pm
It's funny to see you argue for horizontal integration, Jim... I distinctly remember you some time ago comparing Delta IV and Atlas V integration processes, and arguing that Atlas made the better and more economical choice. (Even if Centaur forced their choice) Am I misremembering?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 12/08/2013 09:56 pm
It's funny to see you argue for horizontal integration, Jim... I distinctly remember you some time ago comparing Delta IV and Atlas V integration processes, and arguing that Atlas made the better and more economical choice. (Even if Centaur forced their choice) Am I misremembering?

To be fair, I did discuss the topic some time back.. (5years ish) with Jim and he did defend horizonatl , vs stacking at the pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: llanitedave on 12/08/2013 10:12 pm
No crane needed!

Step 1. Buy old missile silo.
Step 2. Evict rats.
Step 3. Insert Falcon.
Step 4. Easy access for any load at ground level. 8)

That's cool, I was planning on building a missile silo in my back yard as soon as my current projects are done.  Maybe I could hire it out!   ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JBF on 12/08/2013 10:50 pm
Heh, I'm willing to bet the F9 could not take the stress of a silo launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2013 12:20 am
It's funny to see you argue for horizontal integration, Jim... I distinctly remember you some time ago comparing Delta IV and Atlas V integration processes, and arguing that Atlas made the better and more economical choice. (Even if Centaur forced their choice) Am I misremembering?

Delta didn't implement it properly.   And with SRMs, Atlas couldn't do it.   The avionics pod on Atlas was designed to accessible while horizontal
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: joek on 12/09/2013 01:31 am
Quote from: Jim link=topic=33335.msg1130210#msg1130210

Delta didn't implement it properly ...

Would you expand on that?  I would think Delta IV's combination of horizontal for stage preparation and integration plus vertical for payload integration would be more in line with SpaceX's approach (where vertical payload integration is required)?  Also, those two streams could be independent and potentially far enough from the pad (until final LV-payload integration), that disruption from other range activity could be minimized?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2013 02:22 am
Delta can't perform any electrical tests in the HIF. 
Some rail system should have been implemented instead of laser alignment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Joffan on 12/09/2013 05:55 pm
Perhaps a separate emergency egress is not needed for astronauts in the capsule. As a discussion* concept, that's could be what the pad abort capability is for.

On the balance of risks and benefits, the pad abort is likely to be used less than 1% of launches, requires no additional facilities to complicate pad operations, and absolutely has to be available and functional on every manned launch already.

In the spirit of reusing abort capability to give landing capability on nominal missions, I suggest that it is also used as the emergency egress method.

--------------------------------------------------

*Discussion does not include one-line dismissal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Jim on 12/09/2013 06:08 pm
Perhaps a separate emergency egress is not needed for astronauts in the capsule.

If it is mandated, then the need is moot.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JAC on 12/09/2013 06:32 pm
And how do you get the falcon into the silo, if you dont use a crane?
Four electrical winches used for lowering it down. Fixed infrastructure.
Significantly easier than hoisting a clean room up in a container...

(If someone ask me about how to integrate a FH in a silo, I might have more problems.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 12/09/2013 06:34 pm
I was actually wondering, does the F9 use a common bulkhead for both stages? If so is this two flat sheets of metal with insulation between them? Isn't there a high thermal flux between the lox and the kerosene?

Or do they use spherical domes to cap of the separate tanks?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JAC on 12/09/2013 06:35 pm
Heh, I'm willing to bet the F9 could not take the stress of a silo launch.
If F9 isn't designed for launching from a silo, it cannot take the stress. If it is designed for it, it would be able to take the stress.

(Of course it isnīt.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: JAC on 12/09/2013 06:46 pm
I was actually wondering, does the F9 use a common bulkhead for both stages? If so is this two flat sheets of metal with insulation between them? Isn't there a high thermal flux between the lox and the kerosene?

Or do they use spherical domes to cap of the separate tanks?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Falcon_9_second_stage_fuel_tank.jpg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lars_J on 12/09/2013 06:54 pm
I was actually wondering, does the F9 use a common bulkhead for both stages? If so is this two flat sheets of metal with insulation between them? Isn't there a high thermal flux between the lox and the kerosene?

Or do they use spherical domes to cap of the separate tanks?

F9 uses a common bulkhead for both stages.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Joffan on 12/09/2013 06:55 pm
Perhaps a separate emergency egress is not needed for astronauts in the capsule.

If it is mandated, then the need is moot.


Discussion of why the mandate is restrictive to exclude pad abort is welcome.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 12/09/2013 06:59 pm
Perhaps a separate emergency egress is not needed for astronauts in the capsule. As a discussion* concept, that's could be what the pad abort capability is for.

Pad abort is useful for problems with the booster, but what about problems with the spacecraft?  It wouldn't be helpful in an Apollo 1 situation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: mgfitter on 12/09/2013 07:01 pm
Reposting this to the correct thread, as advised...

How far downrange does the first stage land (or splashdown or crash) on these flights without the boost-back profile?

And (maybe this question should go in the Q&A thread, but I'll put it here for now), is there an easy way to calculate an approximate landing point for the first stage, assuming you know the vertical and horizontal velocities at separation?

Thanks!

-MG
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: cambrianera on 12/09/2013 07:28 pm
I was actually wondering, does the F9 use a common bulkhead for both stages? If so is this two flat sheets of metal with insulation between them? Isn't there a high thermal flux between the lox and the kerosene?

Or do they use spherical domes to cap of the separate tanks?

You've already got your answer from other members; here two pics related to F9 v1.0.
In the second pic you can see the common bulkhead from the LOX side during first stage construction.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Joffan on 12/10/2013 09:46 pm
Perhaps a separate emergency egress is not needed for astronauts in the capsule. As a discussion* concept, that's could be what the pad abort capability is for.

Pad abort is useful for problems with the booster, but what about problems with the spacecraft?  It wouldn't be helpful in an Apollo 1 situation.

It's always possible to imagine a scenario so severe that a particular option would be no good. The question is whether the balance of risks mean that that option is ruled out as a result.

So, thinking about an in-spacecraft emergency - sufficiently severe that there is no time to wait (or too much risk to ground crew) for normal crew access, occurring in a period when a slidewire (for example) might conceivably do better. An external escape requiring seven astronauts to exit the capsule would not be quick either, of course. Perhaps there is a design refinement here of an optional "low altitude" pad escape profile, something that only takes say 10 seconds of SuperDraco thrust, 10 seconds of ballistic motion, allows ground/crew door opening at that point if necessary, deploys parachutes and is in recovery within a minute.

Now there are consequences to a pad abort, of course, but the lowered complexity of reusing an existing system might still mean that slightly increased risks in one phase are worth the reduction in risks across the entire scope of operations.

------------------------------

The issue I could have with using pad abort as the escape mechanism is the loss of diverse options. But emergencies of the sort we're thinking about - where escape of any sort is a practical life-saving option - are so few that the benefit of diverse options looks to be lower than the benefit of simplicity.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: sdsds on 12/10/2013 10:09 pm
The issue I could have with using pad abort as the escape mechanism is the loss of diverse options. But emergencies of the sort we're thinking about - where escape of any sort is a practical life-saving option - are so few that the benefit of diverse options looks to be lower than the benefit of simplicity.

I think the general view of American society regarding human spaceflight is that at every point where a crew might face a life-threatening situation, they must have some means which provides them with a plausible chance of survival. This includes situations at and around the pad before launch. Just as an example, what about a potential life-threatening situation that could occur while the ground support personnel were assisting the crew through the open hatchway of the spacecraft? How could any pad abort functionality provide in that type of situation, and for all the ground and flight crew members, a plausible chance of survival?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 12/10/2013 10:19 pm
It's always possible to imagine a scenario so severe that a particular option would be no good. The question is whether the balance of risks mean that that option is ruled out as a result.

This is a category error.  We imagine scenarios when we need to explore the unknown unknowns that we haven't experienced or accounted for in the history of spaceflight.

An Apollo 1 scenario is a known known, first because it has happened in the past, and second because we have an existing method that will satisfactorily accommodate it: open the door and slide down the chute.


Quote
Now there are consequences to a pad abort, of course, but the lowered complexity of reusing an existing system might still mean that slightly increased risks in one phase are worth the reduction in risks across the entire scope of operations.

There is no "lowered complexity" by using the pad abort.  It is increased complexity.  You are talking about additional time to exit the capsule, additional systems that must work together, and additional opportunities for something to go wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: llanitedave on 12/10/2013 11:08 pm
Eventually, you're putting in so many escape and abort scenarios that the added complexity and points of failure increase risk, rather than relieving it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Joffan on 12/10/2013 11:47 pm
The issue I could have with using pad abort as the escape mechanism is the loss of diverse options. But emergencies of the sort we're thinking about - where escape of any sort is a practical life-saving option - are so few that the benefit of diverse options looks to be lower than the benefit of simplicity.

I think the general view of American society regarding human spaceflight is that at every point where a crew might face a life-threatening situation, they must have some means which provides them with a plausible chance of survival. This includes situations at and around the pad before launch. Just as an example, what about a potential life-threatening situation that could occur while the ground support personnel were assisting the crew through the open hatchway of the spacecraft? How could any pad abort functionality provide in that type of situation, and for all the ground and flight crew members, a plausible chance of survival?

Well, the answer depends on the life-threatening situation being faced. Pad abort is obviously not going to be available until the astronauts are strapped into the capsule, but the sequence of launch preparation could also mean that possible life-threatening scenarios are seriously unlikely at that stage. So you have to examine the issues case-by-case and determine the likelihood of the scenario and the chances that any proposed escape scheme will (a) be operative in that scenario and (b) will make a significant difference to the outcome.

You can also decide whether there are restrictions to activity that will avoid that scenario altogether - for example, stop launch processing and make safe in conditions that have a chance of lightning.


Specific to your scenario, and without knowing what actual threat you are proposing, access to the vertical spacecraft might be by a swing arm - if the arm can rotate away by 180 degrees, this might be sufficient escape from most possible problems that offer a realistic chance of escape in the first place.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Joffan on 12/10/2013 11:59 pm
It's always possible to imagine a scenario so severe that a particular option would be no good. The question is whether the balance of risks mean that that option is ruled out as a result.

An Apollo 1 scenario is a known known, first because it has happened in the past, and second because we have an existing method that will satisfactorily accommodate it: open the door and slide down the chute.

Except that the likelihood of a recurrence of the Apollo 1 tragedy is zero. It has been avoided by the shift away from pure oxygen environments.

Quote
Now there are consequences to a pad abort, of course, but the lowered complexity of reusing an existing system might still mean that slightly increased risks in one phase are worth the reduction in risks across the entire scope of operations.

There is no "lowered complexity" by using the pad abort.  It is increased complexity.  You are talking about additional time to exit the capsule, additional systems that must work together, and additional opportunities for something to go wrong.

Of course there is lower complexity by not loading additional infrastructure on the pad. The pad abort is already there as a necessarily-working option. I don't understand what you are talking about here.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Lars_J on 12/11/2013 12:01 am
Except that the likelihood of a recurrence of the Apollo 1 tragedy is zero. It has been avoided by the shift away from pure oxygen environments.

We cured fire? ;D Good to know.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 12/11/2013 12:08 am
This thread is getting WAAAAY off-topic, mainly due to one user's exceedingly argumentative (and mostly incorrect) assertions regarding human spaceflight safety standards. Please read the thread topic and stick to it before someone gets a Mod all frakked off.

Thank you.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/11/2013 12:10 am

I think the general view of American society regarding human spaceflight is that at every point where a crew might face a life-threatening situation, they must have some means which provides them with a plausible chance of survival. This includes situations at and around the pad before launch. Just as an example, what about a potential life-threatening situation that could occur while the ground support personnel were assisting the crew through the open hatchway of the spacecraft? How could any pad abort functionality provide in that type of situation, and for all the ground and flight crew members, a plausible chance of survival?

While a pad abort won't help here having methods of escape built into the tower could get crew and support staff to the ground and away from the rocket. An on pad abort would help when the crew is buttoned up and the count down is going and something happens.  It is sort of like a ship not everything will work all the time but having the capability is useful(i.e. fire extinguishers, water tight doors, life jackets, life boats). Situations like chemical leak and fire and the kind that would need a tower escape system. Situations like rocket about to explode bellow you would need pad abort.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Avron on 12/11/2013 12:56 am
to quote Elon -"If one set a standard that you couldn't have loss of life, then there would be no transport. You wouldn't even be allowed to walk. " .. so there comes a time where all the aborts in the world, just will not help,
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
Post by: Chris Bergin on 12/13/2013 11:34 am
Decided it would be best to lock this one that's wandering and move to thread 6:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33497.0