Author Topic: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)  (Read 469606 times)

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11169
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8787
  • Likes Given: 7815
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #680 on: 01/18/2018 03:00 am »
they put additional instruments on board - not clear if these were permanent design additions or one-offs to obtain particular data sets
Wasn't there video posted from a gopro recovered from a fairing?

Here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37761.msg1385414#msg1385414
« Last Edit: 01/18/2018 03:02 am by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline R.Simko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #681 on: 01/18/2018 04:57 pm »
Any idea of when the first F9 block 5 will fly?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #682 on: 01/18/2018 05:00 pm »
Any idea of when the first F9 block 5 will fly?

The last public statements from Elon and Gwynne would suggest late first quarter.  Looking at the schedule, sometime around the end of first quarter seems about right.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #683 on: 01/18/2018 05:50 pm »
Quote
Tweet from Eric Berger:
"Coming months." I've heard April time frame. The Falcon Heavy has swag, but a Block 5 that works as intended is by far SpaceX's most important launch this year.

Quote
Tweet from Jeff Foust:
Brost: Falcon 9 Block 5, which will start flying in the coming months, is final iteration of that rocket for the foreseeable future. Upgrades driven by commercial crew and EELV programs.

Offline R.Simko

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #684 on: 01/18/2018 06:18 pm »
Any idea of when the first F9 block 5 will fly?

The last public statements from Elon and Gwynne would suggest late first quarter.  Looking at the schedule, sometime around the end of first quarter seems about right.


Thank you

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #685 on: 01/18/2018 06:33 pm »
I know this has been discussed at length, and I do not want to re-hash anything before, so I hope this point is new. I am just disappointed at SpaceX giving up on Dragon propulsive landing. It just occurred to me that as SpaceX and Boeing are both struggling to meet the LOM figure of 270 that they must get every point where they can find it. I suppose having landing feet through the heat shield would loose points for heat shield reliability. Maybe a movable sled to shift center of gravity would be considered another failure point and count against the LOM figure. Just looking for rational reasons other than NASA said "No".
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline mheney

  • The Next Man on the Moon
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Silver Spring, MD
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #686 on: 01/18/2018 06:42 pm »
I know this has been discussed at length, and I do not want to re-hash anything before, so I hope this point is new. I am just disappointed at SpaceX giving up on Dragon propulsive landing. It just occurred to me that as SpaceX and Boeing are both struggling to meet the LOM figure of 270 that they must get every point where they can find it. I suppose having landing feet through the heat shield would loose points for heat shield reliability. Maybe a movable sled to shift center of gravity would be considered another failure point and count against the LOM figure. Just looking for rational reasons other than NASA said "No".

Landing feet in the heat shield is not that much different than the shuttle's wheel well and ET plumbing and attach point doors. It's not a big deal per se.  (You DO want them done right.  Just like any other bit of hardware ...)

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #687 on: 01/18/2018 07:34 pm »
I know this has been discussed at length, and I do not want to re-hash anything before, so I hope this point is new. I am just disappointed at SpaceX giving up on Dragon propulsive landing. It just occurred to me that as SpaceX and Boeing are both struggling to meet the LOM figure of 270 that they must get every point where they can find it. I suppose having landing feet through the heat shield would loose points for heat shield reliability. Maybe a movable sled to shift center of gravity would be considered another failure point and count against the LOM figure. Just looking for rational reasons other than NASA said "No".

Landing feet in the heat shield is not that much different than the shuttle's wheel well and ET plumbing and attach point doors. It's not a big deal per se.  (You DO want them done right.  Just like any other bit of hardware ...)

You and I might think it is not a big deal, but what is ASAP's opinion. I get the impression that if these guys found a hair on the Dragon they would scrub the mission.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #688 on: 01/20/2018 07:31 am »
New launch license attached.

Note this isn’t specific for GovSat-1, it’s for F9 GTO comms sat launches from LC-40. So GovSat-1 is the first launch it applies to. License is for 5 years, so should reduce future paperwork a bit!

Finally, SpaceX's first LLO-type license.  There are two interesting points.  First, the switch to just "Falcon 9 vehicle" as opposed to a specific version like F9v1.2.  Signals a bit more that they are truly converging on a final form for the F9.  Second, the lack of RTLS as a supported recovery option (ASDS landing or splashdown only) in this license.  I wouldn't be surprised to see an eventual revision to allow RTLS, but there are so few GTO satellites that are small enough to allow RTLS, so maybe they've just decided to accept the higher cost of ASDS landings on those rare occasions?
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #689 on: 01/20/2018 02:30 pm »
Finally, SpaceX's first LLO-type license.  There are two interesting points.  First, the switch to just "Falcon 9 vehicle" as opposed to a specific version like F9v1.2.  Signals a bit more that they are truly converging on a final form for the F9.
Or that the FAA have accepted that the risks for all F9s SpaceX are likely to fly is equal, whether it's an older core or not.

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 470
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #690 on: 01/20/2018 04:34 pm »
Finally, SpaceX's first LLO-type license.  There are two interesting points.  First, the switch to just "Falcon 9 vehicle" as opposed to a specific version like F9v1.2.  Signals a bit more that they are truly converging on a final form for the F9.
Or that the FAA have accepted that the risks for all F9s SpaceX are likely to fly is equal, whether it's an older core or not.

But there aren’t going to be future versions of Falcon 9 beyond v1.2.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #691 on: 01/21/2018 05:15 pm »
I know this has been discussed at length, and I do not want to re-hash anything before, so I hope this point is new. I am just disappointed at SpaceX giving up on Dragon propulsive landing. It just occurred to me that as SpaceX and Boeing are both struggling to meet the LOM figure of 270 that they must get every point where they can find it. I suppose having landing feet through the heat shield would loose points for heat shield reliability. Maybe a movable sled to shift center of gravity would be considered another failure point and count against the LOM figure. Just looking for rational reasons other than NASA said "No".

Just stop with spreading the misinformation.  NASA never said no.  Spacex is the one that stopped it.  It was a qualification issue.  Spacex didn't want to spend the necessary money (test flights)

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #692 on: 01/21/2018 07:29 pm »
I know this has been discussed at length, and I do not want to re-hash anything before, so I hope this point is new. I am just disappointed at SpaceX giving up on Dragon propulsive landing. It just occurred to me that as SpaceX and Boeing are both struggling to meet the LOM figure of 270 that they must get every point where they can find it. I suppose having landing feet through the heat shield would loose points for heat shield reliability. Maybe a movable sled to shift center of gravity would be considered another failure point and count against the LOM figure. Just looking for rational reasons other than NASA said "No".

Just stop with spreading the misinformation.  NASA never said no.  Spacex is the one that stopped it.  It was a qualification issue.  Spacex didn't want to spend the necessary money (test flights)
Jim do you, or anyone else, know exactly what NASA was asking for in order to qualify a propulsive landing?
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #693 on: 01/21/2018 07:42 pm »
....Just looking for rational reasons other than NASA said "No".

Just stop with spreading the misinformation.  NASA never said no.  Spacex is the one that stopped it.  It was a qualification issue.  Spacex didn't want to spend the necessary money (test flights)
Jim do you, or anyone else, know exactly what NASA was asking for in order to qualify a propulsive landing?

Jim, I didn't realize I had my facts wrong, certainly not intentionally spreading misinformation. Thanks for the clarification.

JBF, see my first post here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39832.0
scroll down to read details for item 6. Propulsive Landing or see original documentation (link at bottom of post).
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 07:48 pm by Roy_H »
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #694 on: 01/22/2018 07:54 am »
Just stop with spreading the misinformation.  NASA never said no.  Spacex is the one that stopped it.  It was a qualification issue.  Spacex didn't want to spend the necessary money (test flights)

It is a little more subtle than that.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1755761#msg1755761
« Last Edit: 01/22/2018 07:54 am by woods170 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #695 on: 01/22/2018 02:25 pm »
Just stop with spreading the misinformation.  NASA never said no.  Spacex is the one that stopped it.  It was a qualification issue.  Spacex didn't want to spend the necessary money (test flights)

It is a little more subtle than that.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1755761#msg1755761

Is there any evidence that SpaceX wanted to use D2 cargo flights to qualify crewed propulsive landing and NASA refused? That's been suggested but I haven't seen evidence either way.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #696 on: 01/22/2018 05:23 pm »
Just stop with spreading the misinformation.  NASA never said no.  Spacex is the one that stopped it.  It was a qualification issue.  Spacex didn't want to spend the necessary money (test flights)

It is a little more subtle than that.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1755761#msg1755761

Is there any evidence that SpaceX wanted to use D2 cargo flights to qualify crewed propulsive landing and NASA refused? That's been suggested but I haven't seen evidence either way.

It had been opted by SpaceX to NASA but NASA basically wanted propulsive landings for cargo flights certified first as well. Which meant SpaceX had to fully develop AND certify propulsive landing for use on cargo Dragon.
It then becomes basically pointless to use cargo Dragon missions to qualify propulsive landing for Crew Dragon.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #697 on: 01/22/2018 05:27 pm »
Just stop with spreading the misinformation.  NASA never said no.  Spacex is the one that stopped it.  It was a qualification issue.  Spacex didn't want to spend the necessary money (test flights)

It is a little more subtle than that.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1755761#msg1755761

Is there any evidence that SpaceX wanted to use D2 cargo flights to qualify crewed propulsive landing and NASA refused? That's been suggested but I haven't seen evidence either way.

It had been opted by SpaceX to NASA but NASA basically wanted propulsive landings for cargo flights certified first as well. Which meant SpaceX had to fully develop AND certify propulsive landing for use on cargo Dragon.
It then becomes basically pointless to use cargo Dragon missions to qualify propulsive landing for Crew Dragon.

As I understand it, SpaceX wanted the propulsive landing test milestone to qualify D2 for cargo landings, and the cargo landings to qualify it to the requirements for Crew landings. So D2 would still be qualified before cargo landings, just not to the same level needed for crew. Is that accurate?

Online LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6110
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #698 on: 01/23/2018 03:15 pm »
Just stop with spreading the misinformation.  NASA never said no.  Spacex is the one that stopped it.  It was a qualification issue.  Spacex didn't want to spend the necessary money (test flights)

It is a little more subtle than that.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1755761#msg1755761

This situation is sufficiently common in industry that it has its own 3 letter acronym - QTK, for "Quote to Kill".   Say you have two organizations - call then 'N' and 'S'.  'N' does not want to do something, but also does not want to be seen as an outright obstacle.  So it quotes a price so high that 'S' will surely decide not to do it.  Then 'N' can claim, technically correctly, that it was 'S's decision not to pursue the project.

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 2034
  • Likes Given: 5381
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #699 on: 01/23/2018 04:46 pm »
Just stop with spreading the misinformation.  NASA never said no.  Spacex is the one that stopped it.  It was a qualification issue.  Spacex didn't want to spend the necessary money (test flights)

It is a little more subtle than that.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1755761#msg1755761

This situation is sufficiently common in industry that it has its own 3 letter acronym - QTK, for "Quote to Kill".   Say you have two organizations - call then 'N' and 'S'.  'N' does not want to do something, but also does not want to be seen as an outright obstacle.  So it quotes a price so high that 'S' will surely decide not to do it.  Then 'N' can claim, technically correctly, that it was 'S's decision not to pursue the project.
Just to play devil's advocate. With propulsive landing for the F9, SX leveraged payed missions to develop and prove propulsive landing. People are treating propulsive landing of cargo as if it's analogous to propulsive landing of F9 missions.  But it's not the same at all.  Returning cargo is part of the mission and I think it's valid for NASA to push back. Why should NASA risk returned cargo?

I want SX to develop propulsive landing but I think it's totally legitimate for NASA to ask SX to prove it before putting cargo at risk.  I also think it's reasonable for SX to decide that it's not worth it to finish developing at this time.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1