Quote from: CuddlyRocket on 01/17/2018 06:28 pm they put additional instruments on board - not clear if these were permanent design additions or one-offs to obtain particular data setsWasn't there video posted from a gopro recovered from a fairing?
they put additional instruments on board - not clear if these were permanent design additions or one-offs to obtain particular data sets
Any idea of when the first F9 block 5 will fly?
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.QuoteTweet 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.
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.
Quote from: R.Simko on 01/18/2018 04:57 pmAny 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.
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".
Quote from: Roy_H on 01/18/2018 06:33 pmI 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 ...)
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.
Quote from: deruch on 01/20/2018 07:31 amFinally, 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.
Quote from: Roy_H on 01/18/2018 06:33 pmI 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)
Quote from: Jim on 01/21/2018 05:15 pmQuote from: Roy_H on 01/18/2018 06:33 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?
Quote from: Roy_H on 01/18/2018 06:33 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)
....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)
Quote from: Jim on 01/21/2018 05:15 pmJust 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
Quote from: woods170 on 01/22/2018 07:54 amQuote from: Jim on 01/21/2018 05:15 pmJust 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#msg1755761Is 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.
Quote from: envy887 on 01/22/2018 02:25 pmQuote from: woods170 on 01/22/2018 07:54 amQuote from: Jim on 01/21/2018 05:15 pmJust 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#msg1755761Is 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.
Quote from: woods170 on 01/22/2018 07:54 amQuote from: Jim on 01/21/2018 05:15 pmJust 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#msg1755761This 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.