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
Quote from: jabe on 11/25/2013 02:14 pmOk..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?jbThat 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.
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?
Quote from: JAC on 11/27/2013 05:48 amGreat 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.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/27/2013 05:51 amQuote from: JAC on 11/27/2013 05:48 amGreat 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.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/27/2013 05:51 amQuote from: JAC on 11/27/2013 05:48 amGreat 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.
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?
Quote from: JAC on 11/27/2013 06:54 pmQuote from: meekGee on 11/27/2013 05:51 amQuote from: JAC on 11/27/2013 05:48 amGreat 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.
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.
US\Canada: (855) 859-2056International: (404) 537-3406Conference ID: 16853657
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.
Quote from: WHAP on 11/27/2013 08:34 pmThere 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...