Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)  (Read 119294 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Fifth thread for the Falcon 9 v1.1 discussion and updates (not enough "news" for an update standalone thread).

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28882.0

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31514.0

Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31734.0

Thread 4:

There's 750,000 views above!

Remember, this is a big forum. There are lots of threads. You can start a thread if you have a splinter discussion. Off topic posts should be reported and will be deleted for housekeeping purposes.

Thread 4 was pretty much ruined near the end by off topic posts. Offenders will be PMed a notice not to derail threads. Repeat offenders will be removed from the forum.
« Last Edit: 11/25/2013 03:50 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #1 on: 11/25/2013 02:14 pm »
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

Offline solartear

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #2 on: 11/25/2013 04:19 pm »
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

That 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.

Offline Joffan

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

That 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.

... only if SpaceX keeps the upper stage "live" long enough to collect some data on that, but its real job is done long before it reaches that altitude.  I doubt there is much in the way of suitable sensing external equipment on board, so any evaluation would be by indirect means (effects on control systems for example).
« Last Edit: 11/25/2013 05:45 pm by Joffan »
Getting through max-Q for humanity becoming fully spacefaring

Offline JAC

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • North to South. Europe.
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #4 on: 11/27/2013 05:48 am »
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?
The machine works well.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #5 on: 11/27/2013 05:51 am »
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?

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.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #6 on: 11/27/2013 05:37 pm »
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?

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.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2013 05:38 pm by Kabloona »

Offline JAC

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • North to South. Europe.
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #7 on: 11/27/2013 06:54 pm »
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?

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.
The machine works well.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #8 on: 11/27/2013 06:55 pm »
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?

« Last Edit: 11/27/2013 06:58 pm by Oli »

Offline JAC

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • North to South. Europe.
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #9 on: 11/27/2013 06:59 pm »
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?

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.
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.
The machine works well.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #10 on: 11/27/2013 07:20 pm »
Of course all personnel on the launch team have been "trained" before they ever go live. Nevertheless, WDR does indeed give "practice" to the launch team just prior to launch, and there is some value to repeated practice of launch procedures, and being well-rehearsed just before launch.

I didn't suggest WDR was solely for the purpose of training/practice, merely pointed out that it does in fact exercise personnel as well as hardware. So even if all hardware problems are not caught, it's still a useful exercise for the launch team.

Obviously SpaceX wants and needs to reduce pad time before launch, and that topic has been discussed here before. We'll have to wait and see if/when SpaceX eliminates WDR/static fire. But it bears remembering that this is only the 7th F9 launch, and only the 2nd F9v1.1 launch, and as we saw from the several anomalies, SpaceX is still ironing out some bugs, so they may want to continue the WDR "practice" a bit longer.  ;)
« Last Edit: 11/27/2013 07:27 pm by Kabloona »

Offline kenny008

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 2079
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #11 on: 11/27/2013 08:19 pm »
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?

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.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #12 on: 11/27/2013 08:31 pm »
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?
According to NLS II, Falcon v1.1 can do 4,030kg to 185km x 80,000km x 20.8deg orbit (1,500m/s deficit). But it is a super-synchronous GTO. From the same source, it would be able to do 3,655kg to a 185km x 35,768km x 15deg (also 1,500m/s deficit). The Super GTO require more care (even the Moon is an important factor) and complicated orbital maneuver. I know that Proton-M didn't do it because of Briz-M limitations, at first. But apparently now they can do super GTO.
In general, comm sat operators decide a spacecraft and then try to get one launcher plus a backup. Thus, they might chose to design for a 1,800m/s GTO, to enable Falcon to compete, but then they'll sort of have to pay a lot more than necessary if they chose an Ariane 5, even if they only book the option. Thus, the usual choice is if they built it bigger than what Falcon v1.1 can do at 1,500m/s. But let's not forget that if you have a 6tonne craft, a Proton-M or a Zenit-3SLB can give you a lot more bang-for-the-buck at the business level. Think that a 6tonne craft might give you 50% or 60% extra revenue, and Proton and Zenit are not that much more expensive.
Depending on whether they want to accept the extra risk of super GTO, any craft upto 4tonnes will be able to use a Falcon v1.1 (if NLS II data is correct). Else, they'll consider the F9v1.1 only upto 3.6tonne craft.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2013 08:47 pm by baldusi »

Offline WHAP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #13 on: 11/27/2013 08:34 pm »
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?

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.

It is not obvious that the valve worked during WDR.  Something occurred during the WDR that appeared to be related to the LOX loading system.  Was it related to this valve?  Did it cause a subsequent problem with this valve? 

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. 
ULA employee.  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Offline JAC

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • North to South. Europe.
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #14 on: 11/27/2013 08:41 pm »
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.
Perhaps not so much bluster, as frustration at the cancelled launch... ::)
The machine works well.

Offline johnmoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #15 on: 11/27/2013 08:48 pm »
Did anybody listen to the SpaceX/SES phone call*?  What was the part about being able to increase the engines to 160,000 lbs sea level thrust?  Have we ever heard that before?


* http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2013/16399975
Quote
US\Canada:  (855) 859-2056
International: (404) 537-3406
Conference ID:   16853657

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #16 on: 11/27/2013 08:58 pm »

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.

Yes, you can. Period
And you can't run multiple WDR's in a day. 
And a WDR once every two months is sufficient for training.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #17 on: 11/27/2013 09:26 pm »
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?
That's a good point, and the answer to your second question is: actually, sort of. Boeing has a SEP-only spacecraft which uses electric propulsion to do insertion and thus has more delta-v to spare (although this is a trade versus time spent, obviously). They're light enough that two can be launched on a single Falcon 9 to GTO. (Of course, you can dual-launch them on other vehicles, too.)
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.page

Two Falcon 9 launches (at least?) are set to dual-launch these electric-only birds (a total of four). (If I'm incorrect at all here, please correct me.)
« Last Edit: 11/27/2013 09:28 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline WHAP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #18 on: 11/27/2013 10:05 pm »
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.
Perhaps not so much bluster, as frustration at the cancelled launch... ::)

I should have added, "IMO".

As far as the frustration bit, it really is just a comsat.  And it's launch #2 of this configuration.  And the launch wasn't cancelled, just postponed. 

If successful, the actual launch isn't going to prove anything significant.  SpaceX has gotten to the point of being ready to launch.  They've shown what their integration time is for a typical comsat.  They'll improve from here.  Sure, it's the first US launched commercial sat in 4 years.  It might affect someone's ego or another person's balance sheet, but if it happens Thursday, or Friday, or two weeks from next Tuesday, it's not going to make much difference in the long run and it won't prevent them from reaching their ultimate goal.  Been there, done that.
ULA employee.  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #19 on: 11/27/2013 10:16 pm »
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?

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.

Sorry, but your assuming here......
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0