Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION  (Read 234808 times)

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
  • Liked: 389
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #160 on: 04/13/2017 02:11 AM »
NRO will have a specific core

I'd like to clarify this. A specific core doesn't necessarily mean a separate design, special modifications. Is there anything unique about this core?

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1086
  • Liked: 550
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #161 on: 04/13/2017 04:48 AM »
NRO will have a specific core

I'd like to clarify this. A specific core doesn't necessarily mean a separate design, special modifications. Is there anything unique about this core?

It has been carefully observed & inspected by the NRO people?

Offline psionedge

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #162 on: 04/13/2017 06:02 AM »
NRO will have a specific core

I'd like to clarify this. A specific core doesn't necessarily mean a separate design, special modifications. Is there anything unique about this core?

It has been carefully observed & inspected by the NRO people?
More likely their SETAs.

Online stcks

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #163 on: 04/13/2017 08:52 PM »
Looks like we have rollback into the HIF for the Strongback and Launch Table, per Instagram.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BS1lppZAYXU/?tagged=spacex

Good progress given 1 1/2 weeks to Static Fire.

Wow, thats quite early! Can we take this as confirmation that the delay was indeed payload related?

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 403
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #164 on: 04/13/2017 08:55 PM »
Do we know if they are going to do some sort of primitive vertical integration on this launch?  Like with a crane?  The need for the rocket to be vertical could explain both the delay in launch and the early ingress of the TEL.

Though I think that idea a bit far out...
« Last Edit: 04/13/2017 11:07 PM by rpapo »
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Online Humuku

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #165 on: 04/13/2017 09:13 PM »
I suppose there is no thread for those people who booked a flight to Cape Canaveral to see the launch and landing on the 16th to meet up and have a barbecue instead? Just wondering, because I will be one of them...  ???

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7359
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3083
  • Likes Given: 904
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #166 on: 04/14/2017 06:53 AM »
Do we know if they are going to do some sort of primitive vertical integration on this launch?  Like with a crane?  The need for the rocket to be vertical could explain both the delay in launch and the early ingress of the TEL.

Though I think that idea a bit far out...
This particular NRO payload does not require vertical integration. It will use the standard horizontal integration flow.
Unlike what some people think the requirement for vertical integration applies to only a limited number of US national security missions.

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3624
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #167 on: 04/17/2017 10:10 PM »
First of several discussions by Ted on the website.  Interesting that posts here are discussed :)

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2017/0117.html  "NROL-76 payload speculation"
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2017/0121.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2017/0125.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2017/0126.html

"2. Possible GEO mission

A post by William Graham on 2017 March 30 to the NROL-76 discussion on NSF, alerted me to the fact that the first stage of a Falcon 9 GTO launch could RTLS, given a payload sufficiently low in mass. And he had a specific payload in mind:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40328.80

"I haven't done the maths, but I'm wondering if Falcon would, hypothetically, be able to return to the launch site
following a GTO launch with a sufficiently light payload - such as a 2,000 kg 702SP."

Poster envy887 responded:

"Most likely, yes, RTLS is possible. The F9 upper stage can accelerate a 2,000 kg payload through about 1,300 m/s more dv than it can with a 5,300 kg payload like SES-10 which is just on the edge of ASDS recovery. Even a payload as large as 3500 kg could potentially RTLS.""
« Last Edit: 04/17/2017 10:15 PM by Targeteer »
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8272
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #168 on: 04/18/2017 07:29 AM »
I am surprised that in this day and age the NRO still need to use SDS satellites in Molniya orbits to support the KH-11 fleet. Especially as I had got the impression that these had been phased out.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2017 07:31 AM by Star One »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2774
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #169 on: 04/18/2017 02:54 PM »
Mike Wagner‏, from @USLaunchReport has tweeted this:

#SpaceX  Falcon 9 minus payload upright  on 39A venting 10:30 AM  04/18/2017

This is probably not true thought.

Looks like just the TEL. Would be mighty odd for Falcon to be tanking with an Atlas launch in 20 minutes.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #170 on: 04/18/2017 02:55 PM »
There is no vehicle on the pad

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 599
  • Liked: 490
  • Likes Given: 438
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #171 on: 04/18/2017 02:58 PM »
There is no vehicle on the pad

Do you know if the TE is venting? Or were they wrong about that part as well?

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #172 on: 04/18/2017 04:24 PM »
There is no vehicle on the pad

Do you know if the TE is venting? Or were they wrong about that part as well?

TEL wasn't venting... and it wasn't completely upright, either, when I saw it.  It was more 45-degree-ish angle.

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #173 on: 04/18/2017 06:19 PM »
TEL is undergoing testing today.  They were just raising it back up to vertical again.

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #174 on: 04/18/2017 09:00 PM »
They *might* have been doing TEL throwback tests.  The TEL kept going from 45-ish degrees to vertical.  Then it was back at 45... and so on and so forth.  Never actually saw it "throwback", so someone with better knowledge can correct.  Just reporting what I saw.

Offline Flying Beaver

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #175 on: 04/18/2017 09:06 PM »
They *might* have been doing TEL throwback tests.  The TEL kept going from 45-ish degrees to vertical.  Then it was back at 45... and so on and so forth.  Never actually saw it "throwback", so someone with better knowledge can correct.  Just reporting what I saw.

Is it back to horizontal with the launch table yet? That would be great for rollback and SF next week.
Saw OG-2 Booster Land in person 21/12/2015.

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #176 on: 04/18/2017 09:07 PM »
They *might* have been doing TEL throwback tests.  The TEL kept going from 45-ish degrees to vertical.  Then it was back at 45... and so on and so forth.  Never actually saw it "throwback", so someone with better knowledge can correct.  Just reporting what I saw.

Is it back to horizontal with the launch table yet? That would be great for rollback and SF next week.

It was at 45-degrees on the pad when I left at 3pm EDT.

Offline speedevil

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
  • Fife
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #177 on: 04/19/2017 03:20 PM »
There is no vehicle on the pad

Given that this is an NRO mission, could it be a stealth vehicle?

Online CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Germany
  • Liked: 363
  • Likes Given: 187
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #178 on: 04/19/2017 09:02 PM »
There is no vehicle on the pad

Given that this is an NRO mission, could it be a stealth vehicle?

At this point the NRO will not confirm or deny this information.

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 276
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 - NROL-76 - May 1, 2017 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #179 on: 04/19/2017 10:50 PM »
There is no vehicle on the pad

Given that this is an NRO mission, could it be a stealth vehicle?


We will see - or not see...  Stealth for satellites is a really complicated issue, as it has to work in front of the cold space background for a broad range of wave lengths. Therefore there were pretty few attempts in this area (e.g. LES-9, the MISTY satellites or the still unacknowledged PROWLER.

Here is some interesting material on stealth for satellites: https://fas.org/spp/military/program/track/stealth.pdf

Tags: