Thinking of second stages... We have seen many pictures on this forum of Falcon first stages being trucked around the country. Likewise fairings and legs. What I don't recall ever seeing any pictures of the second stages being trucked around. Presumably, over time, we will begin seeing more second stages on the road than first stages. Comments?
Not sure if this is the best place to put this; the New York Times is reporting an explosion has taken place at a SpaceX site on the Cape.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/science/explosion-reported-at-spacex-launch-site-in-cape-canaveral.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0Hope everyone is safe.Matthew
SpaceX has offered two performance levels for the Falcon 9 Full Thrust on NLS-II. The first level includes booster performance holdbacks to allow for a Return-to-Launch-Site (RTLS) first stage recovery. The second level provides higher performance by allowing the first stage to be recovered via the SpaceX Automated Spaceport Drone Ship (ASDS), positioned downrange from the launch site.
SpaceX has offered two performance levels for the Falcon Heavy on NLS-II. The first level includes booster performance holdbacks to allow for first stage recovery. The second level provides higher performance by utilizing the full vehicle capability, foregoing recovery of the first stage.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/31/2012 03:20 pmQuote from: psloss on 05/31/2012 03:13 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 05/31/2012 03:11 pmWhy do they jettisonned the Trunk so late?You de-orbit with it to control when it re-enters. (Like Soyuz does.)So that the trunk doesn't because space debris? It seems like an additionnal failure point (especially if you had crew in the capsule). If it didn't separate on a manned flight, they might be able to do an abort burn to raise the perigee back up to give them time to troubleshoot and fix. That would likely imply having to do a water landing though, because they would have burned more propellant on the abort back to orbit, and the second deorbit burn.~Jon
Quote from: psloss on 05/31/2012 03:13 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 05/31/2012 03:11 pmWhy do they jettisonned the Trunk so late?You de-orbit with it to control when it re-enters. (Like Soyuz does.)So that the trunk doesn't because space debris? It seems like an additionnal failure point (especially if you had crew in the capsule).
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/31/2012 03:11 pmWhy do they jettisonned the Trunk so late?You de-orbit with it to control when it re-enters. (Like Soyuz does.)
Why do they jettisonned the Trunk so late?
Over at SpaceNews they have a short article about Spacecom, the owner of Amos-6, being offered $50 million or a free launch from SpaceX.Spacecom says SpaceX will give it $50 million or free launch for losing Amos-6 - SpaceNews.comWhat jumped out at me right away is that what we could be seeing is the internal cost of a Falcon 9, since SpaceX is in essence valuing a free launch at $50M.If that were true (and it may not be) that would mean the profit for each Falcon 9 at a list price of $62M would be $12M.An interesting data point nonetheless.
From: Brandi SippelTo: Doug YoungDate: September 23, 2016Subject: Request for Info - File # 0096-EX-CN-2016----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Message:SpaceX has a requirement per 47CFR 417 to perform surveillance to verify boats and ships are not atexcessive risk from a launch. For previous launches we've relied on the Air Force to perform thistask, but we now prefer to deploy our own ocean surveillance system. This system would includeinstalling Garmin 2526 marine radars on towers at Launch Complexes 39A and 40 to scan for smallvessels that may have missed the warning notifications and have strayed in to the hazard area. A licenseextending five years is requested because this requirement must be met for all future launches andSpaceX anticipates use of this system to support launches throughout the requested time period.
Recent FCC filing by SpaceX:QuoteFrom: Brandi SippelTo: Doug YoungDate: September 23, 2016Subject: Request for Info - File # 0096-EX-CN-2016----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Message:SpaceX has a requirement per 47CFR 417 to perform surveillance to verify boats and ships are not atexcessive risk from a launch. For previous launches we've relied on the Air Force to perform thistask, but we now prefer to deploy our own ocean surveillance system. This system would includeinstalling Garmin 2526 marine radars on towers at Launch Complexes 39A and 40 to scan for smallvessels that may have missed the warning notifications and have strayed in to the hazard area. A licenseextending five years is requested because this requirement must be met for all future launches andSpaceX anticipates use of this system to support launches throughout the requested time period.The application form says they'd cover 0 to 154 degrees azimuth from SLC-40 camera tower and 328 to 135 degrees azimuth from LC-39A water tower.Edit: There are also a few FCC applications/modifications for moving the CRS-10 flight to LC-39A NET November (which doesn't mean it will necessarily launch in November, they're just updating the paperwork to allow it).
Quote from: gongora on 09/25/2016 08:12 pmRecent FCC filing by SpaceX:QuoteFrom: Brandi SippelTo: Doug YoungDate: September 23, 2016Subject: Request for Info - File # 0096-EX-CN-2016----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Message:SpaceX has a requirement per 47CFR 417 to perform surveillance to verify boats and ships are not atexcessive risk from a launch. For previous launches we've relied on the Air Force to perform thistask, but we now prefer to deploy our own ocean surveillance system. This system would includeinstalling Garmin 2526 marine radars on towers at Launch Complexes 39A and 40 to scan for smallvessels that may have missed the warning notifications and have strayed in to the hazard area. A licenseextending five years is requested because this requirement must be met for all future launches andSpaceX anticipates use of this system to support launches throughout the requested time period.The application form says they'd cover 0 to 154 degrees azimuth from SLC-40 camera tower and 328 to 135 degrees azimuth from LC-39A water tower.Edit: There are also a few FCC applications/modifications for moving the CRS-10 flight to LC-39A NET November (which doesn't mean it will necessarily launch in November, they're just updating the paperwork to allow it).Don't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says
Don't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system says
They are saying a) they want this to mitigate excessive risk to boats. Maybe the AF is unable or unwilling to take responsibility for the well being of SX fans in zodiacs breaching the range, and SX has to manage liabilities.b) they say it is a requirement. Would you happen to know if this is an external one?
Quote from: Jim on 09/25/2016 08:20 pmDon't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system saysMaybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead? I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.
Quote from: gongora on 09/26/2016 12:36 amQuote from: Jim on 09/25/2016 08:20 pmDon't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system saysMaybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead? I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.It isn't a service. The Air Force isn't going to allow a launch unless it says the range is clear
Quote from: Jim on 09/26/2016 01:55 amQuote from: gongora on 09/26/2016 12:36 amQuote from: Jim on 09/25/2016 08:20 pmDon't understand that. The Air Force, the owner of the range, still has to give them clearance and it doesn't matter what Spacex's system saysMaybe it's an a la carte service they buy from the Air Force and they could provide data from their own radar to the AF safety officers instead? I know nothing about the pricing and options for AF launch range services.It isn't a service. The Air Force isn't going to allow a launch unless it says the range is clearWill that also be true for Texas? I've wondered how range safety will be managed when they get that site online.
Yeah, Air Force personnel need to verify the range is clear before they launch, but does that information actually need to come from Air Force owned radars? Is SpaceX charged a particular fee for the Air Force using their radar and personnel to monitor the area, or is there a single fee that just covers everything involved with using the range? Is the AF going to maintain the same level of control over everything as the number of commercial launches from the Cape increases (which could require them to provide more staffing), or could they find ways to move some of those responsibilities to the private sector? They are moving towards GPS tracking and autonomous flight termination systems for the launch vehicles, this could be another way to lighten their workload for launches that don't have anything to do with National Security missions?