From a cost perspective changing flight hardware out for 1 flight makes no sense.
We will just have to wait this one out and see.
Quote from: ugordan on 10/29/2012 03:50 pmQuote from: mr. mark on 10/29/2012 03:49 pmThis will be the last Falcon 9 version 1 launch and the last using the Merlin1C exclusively. Jason-3 launch for NASA.I still don't think that will happen - on the 1.0, that is. SLC-40 is going to have a significant down-time to convert to a 1.1 pad after this flight, and they are not going to switch back and forth.And the west coast pad is going to be 1.1 from the start.
Quote from: mr. mark on 10/29/2012 03:49 pmThis will be the last Falcon 9 version 1 launch and the last using the Merlin1C exclusively. Jason-3 launch for NASA.
This will be the last Falcon 9 version 1 launch and the last using the Merlin1C exclusively.
Quote from: Garrett on 10/29/2012 12:42 pmQuote from: Antares on 10/29/2012 02:29 amFailures with quickly known root causes shouldn't have launched in the first place.Failures often bring to light issues that were very well hidden during testing and modelling. Sometimes your statement is true, especially in hindsight, but every failure has its own unique story.How quickly a root cause is identified doesn't characterise the failure. For example, it might just be dumb luck that a thermocouple or camera was in the right place, or contra-wise. Maybe Antares could clarify what he was thinking.
Quote from: Antares on 10/29/2012 02:29 amFailures with quickly known root causes shouldn't have launched in the first place.Failures often bring to light issues that were very well hidden during testing and modelling. Sometimes your statement is true, especially in hindsight, but every failure has its own unique story.
Failures with quickly known root causes shouldn't have launched in the first place.
Quote from: mr. mark on 10/29/2012 04:03 pmFrom a cost perspective changing flight hardware out for 1 flight makes no sense.Doesn't make sense to me either, but that's irrelevant. It rests on the assumption v1.1 will have an easy, at least 3-flight streak. NASA got burned before and they're playing it safe, demonstrated performance trumps paper vehicles.Quote from: mr. mark on 10/29/2012 04:03 pmWe will just have to wait this one out and see. In the meantime we might refrain from making factually inaccurate statements. NASA bought an additional ride on a v1.0 and until that changes, SpX-2 is not the last v1.0 to fly.
No thats just a random press release statement. Just because they stated it doesn't actually mean anything for what it will actually fly on. A press statement isn't a binding agreement of any kind so until things actually get manifested it doesn't really mean anything either way.
Quote from: mlindner on 10/29/2012 05:21 pmNo thats just a random press release statement. Just because they stated it doesn't actually mean anything for what it will actually fly on. A press statement isn't a binding agreement of any kind so until things actually get manifested it doesn't really mean anything either way.You may think what you wish of it, but that statement is based on the actually procured launch service and it doesn't talk of F9 in generic terms but clearly spells out v1.0 twice. Until such a time when/if someone at NASA changes their mind, that random press release trumps the expertise of armchair experts, IMHO.
anik just posted January 18 for the launch of SpaceX CRS-2, or SpX-2 for short.2013January 18 - Dragon (SpX-2) launchJanuary 20 - Dragon (SpX-2) capture and berthing (to Harmony nadir) by SSRMSFebruary 11 - Progress M-16M undocking (from Pirs)February 12 - Progress M-18M launchFebruary 12 - Progress M-18M docking (to Pirs)February 19 - Dragon (SpX-2) unberthing (from Harmony nadir) and releasing by SSRMSChanges on October 29th
Quote from: Comga on 10/29/2012 02:48 pmanik just posted January 18 for the launch of SpaceX CRS-2, or SpX-2 for short.2013January 18 - Dragon (SpX-2) launchJanuary 20 - Dragon (SpX-2) capture and berthing (to Harmony nadir) by SSRMSFebruary 11 - Progress M-16M undocking (from Pirs)February 12 - Progress M-18M launchFebruary 12 - Progress M-18M docking (to Pirs)February 19 - Dragon (SpX-2) unberthing (from Harmony nadir) and releasing by SSRMSChanges on October 29th What are his sources? The NASA consolidated launch schedule still has December 15 as the scheduled launch date!
Quote from: IanO on 11/02/2012 03:54 pmQuote from: Comga on 10/29/2012 02:48 pmanik just posted January 18 for the launch of SpaceX CRS-2, or SpX-2 for short.2013January 18 - Dragon (SpX-2) launchJanuary 20 - Dragon (SpX-2) capture and berthing (to Harmony nadir) by SSRMSFebruary 11 - Progress M-16M undocking (from Pirs)February 12 - Progress M-18M launchFebruary 12 - Progress M-18M docking (to Pirs)February 19 - Dragon (SpX-2) unberthing (from Harmony nadir) and releasing by SSRMSChanges on October 29th What are his sources? The NASA consolidated launch schedule still has December 15 as the scheduled launch date!That one is out of date. The SpX2 (CRS2) flight had been slipping to January even before the SpX1 flight launched. Trust Anik on this one.
Quote from: Lars_J on 11/02/2012 03:55 pmQuote from: IanO on 11/02/2012 03:54 pmQuote from: Comga on 10/29/2012 02:48 pmanik just posted January 18 for the launch of SpaceX CRS-2, or SpX-2 for short.2013January 18 - Dragon (SpX-2) launchJanuary 20 - Dragon (SpX-2) capture and berthing (to Harmony nadir) by SSRMSFebruary 11 - Progress M-16M undocking (from Pirs)February 12 - Progress M-18M launchFebruary 12 - Progress M-18M docking (to Pirs)February 19 - Dragon (SpX-2) unberthing (from Harmony nadir) and releasing by SSRMSChanges on October 29th What are his sources? The NASA consolidated launch schedule still has December 15 as the scheduled launch date!That one is out of date. The SpX2 (CRS2) flight had been slipping to January even before the SpX1 flight launched. Trust Anik on this one.Sorry, can't. Wikipedia requires a verifiable third-party source. Apparently the January 18 slip was first announced in September, but I'm having trouble finding the originating published source. (For example, the ISS flight event schedule never even listed the CRS-1 launch date!)
Sorry, can't.
Quote from: IanO on 11/02/2012 04:13 pmSorry, can't. You should. He knows.
[snip]Sorry, can't. Wikipedia requires a verifiable third-party source. Apparently the January 18 slip was first announced in September, but I'm having trouble finding the originating published source. (For example, the ISS flight event schedule never even listed the CRS-1 launch date!)
What are his sources?
Kabloona pretty much captured my thinking. Before I posted I thought of every flight failure I could. As I said, when root cause was quickly known, it should have been caught preflight. There are definitely some with likely but not certain root causes where ascription was quick also but extremely not definitive.