Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION  (Read 873009 times)

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 222
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2553
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1521 on: 03/01/2016 02:11 AM »
From the Florida Today article:

Quote
"A lot of people are asking if they could be fined," he said. "They could be fined for not using AIS system."

So that's why it didn't show up on MarineTraffic. No AIS transponder.

Offline mattshup

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1522 on: 03/01/2016 03:35 AM »
How are the ocean conditions looking for tomorrow's evenings landing?

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4000
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1523 on: 03/01/2016 03:43 AM »
From the Florida Today article:

Quote
"A lot of people are asking if they could be fined," he said. "They could be fined for not using AIS system."

So that's why it didn't show up on MarineTraffic. No AIS transponder.

Master of the vessel will probably be fined by USCG. Company side he will probably lose his job.

Very serious and stupid thing to do, AIS is not the primary issue though, primary issue is they were not aware of the exclusion zone, and there are daily notices communicated to tug owners and company dispatches by USCG in the event of something as sensitive as a rocket exclusion zone. All commercial vessels are required to be aware of areas of closure and/or special areas that are periodically closed (downrange of the cape is a special area on most charts).

So somebody was not paying attention at all.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6769
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1797
  • Likes Given: 1787
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1524 on: 03/01/2016 04:15 AM »
Probably the launch would have been good without the stop caused by that tug. Not a bad thing overall. It gave them another important data point on the learning curve. Something they will not learn later.

Not that I expect anybody within SpaceX to be happy about it. I do hope they get this bird off the pad and into orbit today.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4000
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1525 on: 03/01/2016 04:57 AM »
Probably the launch would have been good without the stop caused by that tug. Not a bad thing overall. It gave them another important data point on the learning curve. Something they will not learn later.

Not that I expect anybody within SpaceX to be happy about it. I do hope they get this bird off the pad and into orbit today.
Definitely. The helium bubble forming was something very interesting. Better that happened on the ground.....
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Online deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2309
  • California
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 4001
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1526 on: 03/01/2016 05:51 AM »

If this in fact the problem, perhaps they could reduce the dissolved helium by pressurizing with pad-supplied GOX while on the pad, and switch to helium just before flight.  Disadvantages would be an additional umbilical connection and GSE, and a shorter test of helium system before launch.

Unfortunately that won't work.

You can't "pressurize" LOX that cold with GOX the same way you can't pressurize water at nearly freezing temperatures with steam.

Any gaseous oxygen would rapidly and immediately condense on the super cold surface, until a pressure equalibrium is reached.  I think someone calculated this pressure equalibrium at 66K to be only a few millibars - slightly above vacuum pressure, but I can't find this post right now.


Edit: For that exact reason, you cannot even use Nitrogen, as even Nitrogen would condense above 66K. You can only use gases with a boiling point below 66K - and on top of that they have to be inert. (Hydrogen would be a bad choice >;) )That kinda narrows it down to Helium. Even Argon has a condensation point around 80K !

Something to keep in mind when thinking about this: The LOX at the boundary layer is likely to be just below normal boiling point LOX.  At least that was what they found in the NASA densification testing.  The LOX was stratified by temperature (and therefore density) within the tank.  They calculated their cooling based on the average bulk measurment of temperature, it wasn't that they were able to get the entire load chilled to the same temperature. 

Quote
Test results also confirmed the presence of thermally stratified oxygen layers inside the tank.   These layers varied in the vertical direction from 122R for the colder, denser fluid at the bottom to 166R for the warmer, less dense LO2 near the top outlet of the STA tank.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline input~2

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5685
  • Liked: 564
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1527 on: 03/01/2016 05:54 AM »
!SUAE 02/957 ZMA AIRSPACE R2934 ACT SFC-UNL 1603012300-1603020137

Offline fvandrog

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Zurich
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1528 on: 03/01/2016 06:37 AM »
From the Florida Today article:

Quote
"A lot of people are asking if they could be fined," he said. "They could be fined for not using AIS system."

So that's why it didn't show up on MarineTraffic. No AIS transponder.

Master of the vessel will probably be fined by USCG. Company side he will probably lose his job.

Can the coast guard fine outside of the contiguous zone?


Offline leaflion

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • United States
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1529 on: 03/01/2016 07:01 AM »
Weel, according to the article...

"Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Stephen West, the marine safety officer for Station Port Canaveral, said violators of the safety zone can be fined if they are within 12 miles U.S. territorial waters. The Coast Guard does not have the authority to fine boats outside territorial waters. A boat could, however, still face fines for equipment violations."

So no, for violating the safety zone, but yes for not having a transponder (a more or less side issue)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7140
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1530 on: 03/01/2016 09:40 AM »
Wow; this bird (F9-023?) is turning out to be a bit of a primadonna, isn't she? It's got to be just so or, by heaven, the auto-abort flag flies! ;)
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline input~2

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5685
  • Liked: 564
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1531 on: 03/01/2016 10:45 AM »
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
ROCKETS.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS 012330Z TO 020137Z MAR,
ALTERNATE 032330Z TO 040137Z MAR
IN AREAS BOUND BY:
A. 28-37N 080-36W, 28-38N 080-35W,
28-37N 079-38W, 28-36N 079-24W,
28-32N 078-24W, 28-28N 078-24W,
28-30N 080-17W, 28-29N 080-32W,
28-33N 080-36W.
B. 28-44N 075-56W, 28-51N 074-00W,
28-35N 072-25W, 28-21N 071-35W,
27-46N 071-36W, 27-51N 073-09W,
27-50N 074-27W, 28-15N 076-00W.
C. 28-31N 074-42W, 28-29N 073-40W,
28-26N 073-16W, 28-06N 073-11W,
28-02N 073-42W, 28-07N 074-42W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 149/16.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 040237Z MAR 16.//

Authority: EASTERN RANGE OP X6939 292132Z FEB 16.

Date: 292150Z FEB 16
Cancel: 04023700 Mar 16

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Germany
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 444
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1532 on: 03/01/2016 11:06 AM »
One thing that could be looked into is if - aside from the fine - the tug's owning company could be sued for compensation - by either SES or SpaceX or the AF or any combination of the above.

After all another launch day implies additional expenses at the range (aside from the direct expenses, like scrambling a helicopter. Even the direct cost of that helicopter sortie would likely be more than $1000.) then SpaceX needs to "book" the range for another launch day(+ backup).

Then you have 2 days of lost revenue for SES (2 days later launch likely means 2 days later in service at this point)

All in all that could amount to a sum that could completely ruin a small local tugging company with only 1 or a hand full of boats.

Of course just because you could potentially sue someone into oblivion doesn't mean you have to. But with some company forms the management might actually have an obligation to their investors to pursue any such potential form of income if it exists. (Wouldn't be the case with SpaceX I think, but possibly with SES, since its public?)

sorry if that's too much off topic. feel free to mod away this post if necessary.

Offline fvandrog

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Zurich
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1533 on: 03/01/2016 12:00 PM »
One thing that could be looked into is if - aside from the fine - the tug's owning company could be sued for compensation - by either SES or SpaceX or the AF or any combination of the above.

That's a legally interesting question, that is suprizingly to be hard to answer. Considering that the tug was both outside of the territorial waters (12 nautical miles) and the contiguous zone (24 miles), it seems to be down to international law.

It actually seems to be the responsibility of the launch provider to keep the launch range free (or rather, to do everything possible to reduce the risk of dropping parts of their launch vehicle on someones head). Here's a link to a document from Patrick Air Force Base (PDF) from 1999. The main concern seems to be public safety, not timely launches.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32428
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11171
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1534 on: 03/01/2016 12:35 PM »
One thing that could be looked into is if - aside from the fine - the tug's owning company could be sued for compensation - by either SES or SpaceX or the AF or any combination of the above.


No, because they were in international waters.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1884
  • Liked: 2466
  • Likes Given: 273
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1535 on: 03/01/2016 12:49 PM »

Something to keep in mind when thinking about this: The LOX at the boundary layer is likely to be just below normal boiling point LOX.  At least that was what they found in the NASA densification testing.  The LOX was stratified by temperature (and therefore density) within the tank.  They calculated their cooling based on the average bulk measurement of temperature, it wasn't that they were able to get the entire load chilled to the same temperature. 
The top layer must be above the temperature of room pressure LOX, since the vehicle is venting on the pad even after the tank is pressurized.  If the tank is pressurized to 3 atm then the top must be at about 100K to keep boiling.

Quote
Test results also confirmed the presence of thermally stratified oxygen layers inside the tank.   These layers varied in the vertical direction from 122R for the colder, denser fluid at the bottom to 166R for the warmer, less dense LO2 near the top outlet of the STA tank.

In the NASA experiment, the stratification must have been almost all at the top of the tank.  They got 8.9% more mass, out of the 9.X% or so that is theoretically possible.  So the bulk of the LOX must be quite cold.

I'd be curious what happens in the SpaceX LOX tank.  The heat is coming from the sides of the tall skinny tank.  So presumably hot LOX goes up the sides and cold LOX down the center.  But is this strong enough to mix the tank, or does the hot LOX stay at the top?  For example, if you add enough heat during a hold to raise the average temperature 2 degrees, does this mean a 1 meter layer at the top that is 20 K warmer, or a mixed tank that is 2K warmer overall?

Offline starhawk92

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Burlington, NC, USA, North America, Earth (for now)
  • Liked: 240
  • Likes Given: 222
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1536 on: 03/01/2016 12:53 PM »
Finally, can someone give a public service message about what fines/troubles are handed out when you violate range restrictions posted by the USAF?

Using the Power Of The Internet, I set out to find answers, and was able to talk to the 45th themselves!

-------- I asked --------
Hi, I thank you all for all you do to keep the USA's Space Program on track and safe!

After the boat incursion during the SpaceX launch window last night, some of us over on NasaSpaceFlight.com are wondering if there are penalties or fines incurred by those who create such issues?

Curious Minds Want to Know!

Thank you all for your service!!

Sincerely,
starhawk92

-------- They said --------
Thank you for your query.

During the Falcon 9 SES-9 launch countdown Feb. 28, the 45th Space Wing detected a vessel approximately 35 miles off the East Coast of Cape Canaveral. The Coast Guard attempted to contact the vessel without success.

Analysts evaluated the public safety risk to the vessel based on its location, estimated size and radar returns, the range determined it violated FAA safety criteria. An HH-60 helicopter was dispatched to the site from Patrick AFB. Once within visual range, the helicopter crew was able to make radio contact with the ship's captain and obtain the exact size of the vessel. After confirming the actual ship size, analysts recalculated the safety risk and determined that the vessel was below the established FAA safety criteria. At that point SpaceX was cleared to launch.

The 45 SW is not responsible for enforcing fines or sanctions.

Thanks.

Bryan Purtell
45th SW/PA Media Operations
------------------

Which is very interesting in that "Range Clear" does not mean "Range Empty"; size of the boat matters (as implied by math provided by Jim); and the boat was not chased away.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8872
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2799
  • Likes Given: 7357
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1537 on: 03/01/2016 01:07 PM »
Finally, can someone give a public service message about what fines/troubles are handed out when you violate range restrictions posted by the USAF?

Using the Power Of The Internet, I set out to find answers, and was able to talk to the 45th themselves!

-------- I asked --------
Hi, I thank you all for all you do to keep the USA's Space Program on track and safe!

After the boat incursion during the SpaceX launch window last night, some of us over on NasaSpaceFlight.com are wondering if there are penalties or fines incurred by those who create such issues?

Curious Minds Want to Know!

Thank you all for your service!!

Sincerely,
starhawk92

-------- They said --------
Thank you for your query.

During the Falcon 9 SES-9 launch countdown Feb. 28, the 45th Space Wing detected a vessel approximately 35 miles off the East Coast of Cape Canaveral. The Coast Guard attempted to contact the vessel without success.

Analysts evaluated the public safety risk to the vessel based on its location, estimated size and radar returns, the range determined it violated FAA safety criteria. An HH-60 helicopter was dispatched to the site from Patrick AFB. Once within visual range, the helicopter crew was able to make radio contact with the ship's captain and obtain the exact size of the vessel. After confirming the actual ship size, analysts recalculated the safety risk and determined that the vessel was below the established FAA safety criteria. At that point SpaceX was cleared to launch.

The 45 SW is not responsible for enforcing fines or sanctions.

Thanks.

Bryan Purtell
45th SW/PA Media Operations
------------------

Which is very interesting in that "Range Clear" does not mean "Range Empty"; size of the boat matters (as implied by math provided by Jim); and the boat was not chased away.
Epic sleuthing! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2726
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1784
  • Likes Given: 3387
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1538 on: 03/01/2016 01:56 PM »
Interesting -- the rules for holding a launch are not that there can be no vessels in the KO zone, it's that any vessels in that zone have to be small enough that they present a smaller statistical likelihood of being hit with debris from a failed launch than a larger vessel that would cause a violation.

This illustrates that the rules are a lot more complex than just "Hey, everybody, get off my lawn!"
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32428
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11171
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1539 on: 03/01/2016 02:09 PM »
Also just because they can't stop you doesn't mean they can't sue you for messing with their business once you again set foot on US soil later. Especially if you did it on purpose.


Spacex would have no ground for a suit.

Tags: