Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)  (Read 42813 times)

Offline johnmoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • Liked: 6
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: 23432
  • Liked: 1789
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
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: 18786
  • Liked: 1486
  • Minnesota
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: 598
  • Liked: 13
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.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7214
  • Liked: 211
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
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......
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5951
  • Liked: 969
  • Australia
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #20 on: 11/27/2013 10:19 PM »
If successful, the actual launch isn't going to prove anything significant.

I believe it's the cost of the launch which is the most relevant point. That's what was said at the SES press conference, anyway.
When someone is wishing for a pony, there's little to be gained by suggesting a unicorn would be ever better.. ya know, unless it's sarcasm.

Online cartman

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 26
  • Greece
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #21 on: 11/27/2013 11:30 PM »
So SpaceX has Thursday and Friday available


https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/405592929323843584
Quote
Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes

FAA: We've OK'd SpaceX's launch-window requests for Nov. 28 & 29 after refusing requests for 26/27th because of heavy holiday air traffic.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Liked: 85
  • Perth, Western Australia
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #22 on: 11/28/2013 12:36 AM »
If successful, the actual launch isn't going to prove anything significant.

I believe it's the cost of the launch which is the most relevant point. That's what was said at the SES press conference, anyway.
Well yes, that and reliability.  SES and no one else will stand losing their payloads although they did say this one's fully insured.  Was there some problem with insurance in the past?  New vehicle perhaps?
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Liked: 377
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #23 on: 11/28/2013 02:35 AM »
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

Thanks for the information! Here is a zipped mp3 recording of the pre-launch teleconference from last Sunday:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/23879140/SpaceX+-SES-8+Pre-Launch+Conference+Nov+24+2013.zip

Offline PreferToLurk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Liked: 24
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #24 on: 11/28/2013 03:03 AM »
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

Thanks for the information! Here is a zipped mp3 recording of the pre-launch teleconference from last Sunday:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/23879140/SpaceX+-SES-8+Pre-Launch+Conference+Nov+24+2013.zip

Thanks for the file!  the exact quote from Elon is: 
Quote from: Elon Musk
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 pounds of sea level thrust per engine.

I tried to put in all of Elon's little speaking quirks just to eliminate any of my own paraphrasing errors. 
« Last Edit: 11/28/2013 04:57 AM by PreferToLurk »

Offline clarkeo

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 4
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #25 on: 11/28/2013 04:28 AM »
Just uploaded the recording to sound cloud might make it a bit easier to listen to

https://soundcloud.com/matthew-clarke-30/spacex-ses-8-pre-launch

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 40
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #26 on: 11/28/2013 04:38 AM »
Thanks for the file!  the exact quote from Elon is: 
Quote from: Elon Musk
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 lbs of sea lvl thrust per engine.

I tried to put in all of Elon's little speaking quirks just to eliminate any of my own paraphrasing errors.

Elon drops the e's from "level"?  How exactly is that pronounced? :P

Offline clarkeo

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 4
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #27 on: 11/28/2013 04:50 AM »
This is interesting to hear! Would this increase their payload capacity? Surely this would help with keeping the capable payload high while being able to do RTLS retrieval of the 1st Stage.
I wonder if they are hiding a similar margin on their 2nd Stage engine as well!?

Offline PreferToLurk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Liked: 24
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #28 on: 11/28/2013 04:55 AM »
Thanks for the file!  the exact quote from Elon is: 
Quote from: Elon Musk
we're only actually operating the engines at about 85% of their potential, so ah, down the road, future missions, we anticipate being able to crank them up to their full thrust capability of, uh, which would give about 165000 lbs of sea lvl thrust per engine.

I tried to put in all of Elon's little speaking quirks just to eliminate any of my own paraphrasing errors.

Elon drops the e's from "level"?  How exactly is that pronounced? :P

Ha!  I missed that. ::)  I will edit.   I'm leaving the percent sign though.  ;)
« Last Edit: 11/28/2013 04:58 AM by PreferToLurk »

Offline aero

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Liked: 178
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 5)
« Reply #29 on: 11/28/2013 04:58 AM »
Well of course. They are the same engines after all. Problem is that the S2 can't proceed with an engine out so driving it to hard risks LOM.

Tags: