NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Falcon Missions Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 06/10/2012 05:25 pm

Title: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/10/2012 05:25 pm
PENDING OFFICIAL GO FOR SPX-1 (Will realign in the highly unlikely event of NASA calling for another COTS Demo).

FOR SPECIFIC PRE-LAUNCH/PROCESSING UPDATES, SEE THIS THREAD:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29131.0

Please note the difference between this thread and the update thread.

Resources:

Other Threads for SpX-1:
SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 PROCESSING/Pre-LAUNCH UPDATES (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29131.0)
SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS-1 (SpX-1) LAUNCH UPDATES (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.0)
SpaceX Dragon CRS-1 (SpX-1) RNDZ, Capture, Berthing to ISS & Hatch Opening (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30059.0)
SpaceX Dragon CRS-1 (SpX-1) (EOM) Unberthing, Entry, Splashdown (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30190.0)
SpaceX CRS-1 Software/Computer Design Discussion Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30423.0)
Dragons for everyone! It's another SpaceX Party Thread (CRS-1) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30041.0)
Year In Review (Part IV - Covering SpaceX Missions COTS 2+ and CRS-1) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30741.0)

SpaceX GENERAL Forum Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=45.0 - please use this for general questions NOT specific to SpX-1.

SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0

SpaceX News Articles (Recent):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/


L2 SpaceX Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=tags&tags=SpaceX

L2 SpaceX Dragon C2+ Mission Special (Exclusively acquired pre-launch and Mission Coverage, Presentations, Graphics, Videos, Updates) - in the new L2 Commercial Crew and Cargo Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=54.0
(The above is now moving to SpX-1 Coverage).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Bubbinski on 06/10/2012 11:30 pm
Is there a launch time/window set for this?  I see the Spaceflightnow.com schedule says 9/24 for launch date.

And will the window be instantaneous like the last flight or will there be a few minutes in it like there was with shuttle?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 06/11/2012 12:41 am
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 06/11/2012 04:10 am
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?
It would represent a significant quickening in SpaceX's operations for them to get both of those flights this year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 06/11/2012 04:15 am
From tests to operations?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 06/11/2012 06:45 am
From NET to actual launch.  :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 06/11/2012 03:14 pm
Is there a launch time/window set for this?  I see the Spaceflightnow.com schedule says 9/24 for launch date.

And will the window be instantaneous like the last flight or will there be a few minutes in it like there was with shuttle?
I think they stated the windows are instantaneous, but the launch opportunities are daily, for the CRS flights. BTW, that's a NET flight. The LV is already at the cape, but the Dragon should arrive by August. I guess when the Dragon is shipped we'll know how close to launch we'll be. There's also the WDR rehearsal. As SPX approaches continuous operations, we'll start to see more fixed patterns (things like LV shipement T-90 days, Dragon shipment T-45days, WDR T-6 days, etc.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: stockman on 06/11/2012 03:23 pm
Is there a launch time/window set for this?  I see the Spaceflightnow.com schedule says 9/24 for launch date.

And will the window be instantaneous like the last flight or will there be a few minutes in it like there was with shuttle?
I think they stated the windows are instantaneous, but the launch opportunities are daily, for the CRS flights. BTW, that's a NET flight. The LV is already at the cape, but the Dragon should arrive by August. I guess when the Dragon is shipped we'll know how close to launch we'll be. There's also the WDR rehearsal. As SPX approaches continuous operations, we'll start to see more fixed patterns (things like LV shipement T-90 days, Dragon shipment T-45days, WDR T-6 days, etc.)


Was there a slip in Dragon delivery?? I know this is not official but the SFN artical on June 2 said it would be delivered as early as next month (implying early July.)...

Quote
SpaceX's next launch to the space station is tentatively scheduled for Sept. 24. The Falcon 9 rocket for the flight is being checked out in a hangar at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., and the Dragon payload will be shipped to the Florida launch site as soon as next month, according to SpaceX officials
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/11/2012 06:04 pm
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?

If they are able to do it, and its a big if, would be positive because it would mean flight rates finally ramping up as they have been trying to do for years now.

Big difference between now and then is previously, despite their wildly optimistic schedules in past years they were still in the development phase of their systems, now, for F9 standard anyway, they are moving past that with  F9V1.1 representing the final step.

So in theory now they should be able to ramp up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 06/11/2012 11:11 pm
They also have the motivation that SpX-1 and SpX-2 are the only remaining v1.0 flights, so they've got to get them off the pad before they can modify it for all future flights. Hopefully SpX-1/2 don't become a bottleneck for everything else...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 06/11/2012 11:19 pm
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?

If they are able to do it, and its a big if, would be positive because it would mean flight rates finally ramping up as they have been trying to do for years now.

Big difference between now and then is previously, despite their wildly optimistic schedules in past years they were still in the development phase of their systems, now, for F9 standard anyway, they are moving past that with  F9V1.1 representing the final step.

So in theory now they should be able to ramp up.

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 06/11/2012 11:31 pm
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?

If they are able to do it, and its a big if, would be positive because it would mean flight rates finally ramping up as they have been trying to do for years now.

Big difference between now and then is previously, despite their wildly optimistic schedules in past years they were still in the development phase of their systems, now, for F9 standard anyway, they are moving past that with  F9V1.1 representing the final step.

So in theory now they should be able to ramp up.

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?


No, CASSIOPE will be first.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/12/2012 03:24 am

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?


Doesn't matter, NASA doesn't care about LV operations as long as the range is ok with it and SpaceX delivers its cargo commitment. Crew will be a different story.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 06/12/2012 03:12 pm

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?


Doesn't matter, NASA doesn't care about LV operations as long as the range is ok with it and SpaceX delivers its cargo commitment. Crew will be a different story.

seem to recall one of the Q&A before Congress was this "insurance", Responsibility issues.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Dave G on 06/13/2012 04:10 am
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?
It would represent a significant quickening in SpaceX's operations for them to get both of those flights this year.

We've not seen SpaceX's operations pace yet.  We've only seen their development pace.  With the exception of Falcon 1 Flight 5, all launches have been test flights with a lot of development in the critical path.

Now that the development and testing is done, we'll see SpaceX's operations potential, both in terms of pace and success rate.

To be clear, I'm not saying SpaceX will have phenomenal operations, I'm just pointing out that we haven't seen this side of SpaceX yet, so nobody knows.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/13/2012 01:03 pm
Now that the development and testing is done, we'll see SpaceX's operations potential, both in terms of pace and success rate.

Cough, Cough,... v1.1, Heavy, Vadenberg Pad, Fairing...

Though to be fair, CRS-1 and CRS-2 are are v1.0 Falcon's.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/13/2012 01:26 pm
Now that the development and testing is done, we'll see SpaceX's operations potential, both in terms of pace and success rate

This actually raises a valid question.  Does anyone know how similar the CRS-1 launch vehicle will be to the COTS-2+ one? If the Falcon-9 Block-1 is considered an essentially finalised design now, it should be easier to meet the schedule for the first two CRS launches; if not there is more potential for delays.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 06/13/2012 01:30 pm
I'd say Falcon 9 block 1 is a done deal, they only have 2 more launches proposed with this variant. There is an upgrade for flight 6.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Halidon on 06/13/2012 08:07 pm
A full month berthed at the station as opposed to a week, won't have that new car smell by the time it gets back.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 06/21/2012 02:31 pm
Any more news as to assembly of the launch vehicle? I'm wondering how work flow is progressing. For me, this and Orbitals upcoming Cygnus /Antares launches are the real story. Mars and reuse can wait for me. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/21/2012 02:57 pm
How much more cargo mass are they taking up this time than on the demo flight?  I assume they will have confidence to fly with less  margin this time?

Does anyone know how much extra prop was left at the end of the Demo mission?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 06/25/2012 01:02 am
How much more cargo mass are they taking up this time than on the demo flight?  I assume they will have confidence to fly with less  margin this time?

Does anyone know how much extra prop was left at the end of the Demo mission?

They seemed limited by hypergols on dragon due to the extended mission which may have been the limiting factor for mass rather than F9 capabilities. Initially they spoke about having carry ons during this mission which suggests they had extra upmass capability. Just a thought.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/26/2012 02:19 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 06/26/2012 02:36 pm
COTS and CRS are separate contracts. All that would happen is flight hardware for C3 would become SpX-1. Othwerwise there would be no incentive for SpaceX to combine the flights in the first place if NASA instead just got an extra CRS flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 06/26/2012 02:36 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?

No.

1.  NASA did not pay for a flight under COTS.  It paid for certain milestones and data whose cost were much less than a whole flight

2.  Since COTS 3 milestones were met with the COTS 2 flight, Spacex would get paid for those milestones without having to expend a vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: wolfpack on 06/26/2012 02:52 pm

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?


Doubtful that the CRS contract gives NASA any say with regards to the LV. SpX has to deliver the cargo in order to get paid, so if F9 v1.1 unzips then it's a matter for the underwriters. SpX would then have to decide to refly v1.1 or go back to v1.0, but regardless they have to meet their upmass obligations under CRS in order to get paid. Miss enough and the customer walks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/26/2012 04:37 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?

No.

1.  NASA did not pay for a flight under COTS.  It paid for certain milestones and data whose cost were much less than a whole flight

2.  Since COTS 3 milestones were met with the COTS 2 flight, Spacex would get paid for those milestones without having to expend a vehicle.

Ah...this clears it up nicely.  Thank you!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 07/02/2012 05:15 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?

No.

1.  NASA did not pay for a flight under COTS.  It paid for certain milestones and data whose cost were much less than a whole flight

2.  Since COTS 3 milestones were met with the COTS 2 flight, Spacex would get paid for those milestones without having to expend a vehicle.
Was the Cots2+ cargo in the contract, added for free or is SpaceX getting extra for the delivery?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nate_Trost on 07/02/2012 05:28 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?

No.

1.  NASA did not pay for a flight under COTS.  It paid for certain milestones and data whose cost were much less than a whole flight

2.  Since COTS 3 milestones were met with the COTS 2 flight, Spacex would get paid for those milestones without having to expend a vehicle.
Was the Cots2+ cargo in the contract, added for free or is SpaceX getting extra for the delivery?

They got around ~$10 million for the C2+ cargo delivery. That agreement was bundled with the supplemental COTS milestones.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: max_schmurz on 07/27/2012 09:08 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 07/27/2012 09:20 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?
The Kurs-NA troublesome equipment is already on the Progress. Unless they can actually dock again, and assuming that Kurs-NA is not needed for un docking, and assuming that the cosmonauts have the necessary tooling, and the problem is with equipment inside the pressure cabin, then yes, it could be done. I seriously doubt it will be done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 07/30/2012 05:33 am
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?
The Kurs-NA troublesome equipment is already on the Progress. Unless they can actually dock again, and assuming that Kurs-NA is not needed for un docking, and assuming that the cosmonauts have the necessary tooling, and the problem is with equipment inside the pressure cabin, then yes, it could be done. I seriously doubt it will be done.
In the Live: Progress M-15M undocking & redocking thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29505.msg934639#msg934639) it was stated that the now successful hardware has been removed "for future return".  Since most of the download will be by Dragon, and useable stuff clears as much space as trash which will be shipped down, the KURS hardware may come down on Dragon.

edit: but not necessarily on CRS-1
(The above discussion is not really about CRS-1 the topic of this thread.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 07/30/2012 05:40 am
It is noted that we are half-way from the May 22 launch of COTS-2+ to the currently listed and relatively stable Oct 5 scheduled launch date of CRS-1. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg927944#msg927944)  Yet no photos of new hardware at the Cape, the CRS-1 Dragon, launch preps, cargo, anything (unless I missed it.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 07/30/2012 06:50 am
It is noted that we are half-way from the May 22 launch of COTS-2+ to the currently listed and relatively stable Oct 5 scheduled launch date of CRS-1. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg927944#msg927944)  Yet no photos of new hardware at the Cape, the CRS-1 Dragon, launch preps, cargo, anything (unless I missed it.)
Nothing that I know of, maybe L2 has some info?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 07/30/2012 07:18 am
It is noted that we are half-way from the May 22 launch of COTS-2+ to the currently listed and relatively stable Oct 5 scheduled launch date of CRS-1. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg927944#msg927944)  Yet no photos of new hardware at the Cape, the CRS-1 Dragon, launch preps, cargo, anything (unless I missed it.)
Nothing that I know of, maybe L2 has some info?

Unfortunately not. But it's still worth every penny!

I did hear unofficially that the Dragon is just about ready for shipping. Second stage is likely at the Cape already.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 07/30/2012 10:53 am
Second stage is likely at the Cape already.

They showed both stages already at Hangar AO at the time of the C2+ launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 07/30/2012 11:39 am
Second stage is likely at the Cape already.

They showed both stages already at Hangar AO at the time of the C2+ launch?
That they did.

"While Saturday's Falcon 9 is on the pad, the rocket for our next mission is already in FL." - May 18, 2012
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/30/2012 02:58 pm
That they did.

"While Saturday's Falcon 9 is on the pad, the rocket for our next mission is already in FL." - May 18, 2012

From that picture, it looked like some stuff still remained to do at the HIF - Applying insulation and decails to the skin as well as the fairing around the thrust structure on the core.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 07/30/2012 03:08 pm
That they did.

"While Saturday's Falcon 9 is on the pad, the rocket for our next mission is already in FL." - May 18, 2012

From that picture, it looked like some stuff still remained to do at the HIF - Applying insulation and decails to the skin as well as the fairing around the thrust structure on the core.

Don't forget the Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/30/2012 03:26 pm
Don't forget the Dragon.

Of course Dragon would be the pacing item for CRS-1, considering many of it's systems had their 1st live run ending June 1st.  I honestly would be shocked it any component was signed off on for CRS-1 till COTS2/3 was sitting on the floor at Hawthorne in 1000 pieces & every piece of data was gone over 3-4 times.

If they are almost ready to ship CRS-1 to the cape I count that as a pretty fast turn around.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/01/2012 05:41 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 08/01/2012 05:57 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.

I thought the Russians regularly returned Progress KURS equipment in Soyuz - is that not the case?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/01/2012 08:12 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.

The Shuttle is irrelevant.  His question was about bringing down the KURS-NA internal equipment in the CRS-1 Dragon.

"Downmass costs" aren't "at a premium". That doesn't make gramatical sense.  With Dragon performing CRS there is a much larger dowmass limit, whose price is already negotiated.  edit: It's close to $1K/lb, not $1M.  3000 kg/Dragon

It's more valuable than garbage, and bringing it down clears out the volume on the station.  The issue is one of resource allocation, whether NASA has reason to give some their limited downmass capacity to the Russian partner, and what NASA has already planned to put into the departing CRS-1 Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/01/2012 08:15 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.

I thought the Russians regularly returned Progress KURS equipment in Soyuz - is that not the case?

Danderman said they were brought back in the Shuttle.
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/01/2012 08:32 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.

The Shuttle is irrelevant.  His question was about bringing down the KURS-NA internal equipment in the CRS-1 Dragon.

"Downmass costs" aren't "at a premium". That doesn't make gramatical sense.  With Dragon performing CRS there is a much larger dowmass limit, whose price is already negotiated.  edit: It's close to $1K/lb, not $1M.  3000 kg/Dragon

It's more valuable than garbage, and bringing it down clears out the volume on the station.  The issue is one of resource allocation, whether NASA has reason to give some their limited downmass capacity to the Russian partner, and what NASA has already planned to put into the departing CRS-1 Dragon.

Sorry if the truth hurts but we do not have the same Downmass system with the shuttle gone.  Keep in mind the last shuttle visit was a year ago plus so my statement is correct.   As to the costs those are contractor & NASA agreements.

Russian "Downmass" using a NASA contractor service is open to Negotiation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/01/2012 11:00 pm
Sorry if the truth hurts
Dont be patronizing.

Quote
but we do not have the same Downmass system with the shuttle gone.  Keep in mind the last shuttle visit was a year ago plus so my statement is correct.
True but not the issue.  Being "correct is not the issue either.

Quote
As to the costs those are contractor & NASA agreements.
True but so what?  Your numbers are wrong.

Quote
Russian "Downmass" using a NASA contractor service is open to Negotiation.
True, obvious, and not in doubt.  Why say it?

Now you can get the last word in.  I'm done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 08/07/2012 12:44 pm
I'm getting concerned on the lack of info on the flight, I wonder if October 5th is still the planned launch date.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/08/2012 11:49 pm
Still two months to go, no news might be good news.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/09/2012 02:52 am
Some speculation here. We saw in the HIF construction pictures that the door between the old and new sections of the building is up sometimes for construction purposes. They may be waiting to ship Dragon to Florida until construction has progressed enough to leave that door closed most of the time so they can set up the clean environment to process Dragon. That might be soon, as almost all of the walls are up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 08/09/2012 04:17 am
Public documents still show F9 launching back to back before the end of the year.

Spx-1 is supposed to be visiting as soon as HTV leaves.

The chart that I'm looking at has this below the title though.

Quote
(Pre-decisional, For Internal Use, For Reference Only)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 08/09/2012 03:17 pm
Spx-1 is supposed to be visiting as soon as HTV leaves.

Not quite - HTV-3 will leave ISS on September 6, but Dragon CRS-1 won't arrive until a month later on October 7.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/09/2012 06:28 pm
Spx-1 is supposed to be visiting as soon as HTV leaves.

Not quite - HTV-3 will leave ISS on September 6, but Dragon CRS-1 won't arrive until a month later on October 7.

Ample time to do the mission without any slips.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 08/11/2012 12:49 pm
I'm getting concerned on the lack of info on the flight, I wonder if October 5th is still the planned launch date.
Still two months to go, no news might be good news.

Don't forget about Orbcomm, sounds like their payload is ready now:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sierra-nevada-corporation-announces-the-completion-of-environmental-testing-for-orbcomms-second-generation-prototype-spacecraft-2012-08-09

http://spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120810-orbcomm-competition-ais.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: zerm on 08/13/2012 09:38 pm
Spx-1 is supposed to be visiting as soon as HTV leaves.

Not quite - HTV-3 will leave ISS on September 6, but Dragon CRS-1 won't arrive until a month later on October 7.

Ample time to do the mission without any slips.

This is SpaceX we're talking about here... they have slips, but we're not supposed to notice. (posted while wearing my SpaceX golf shirt)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: zt on 08/14/2012 07:04 am
Realistically, for a launch on the stated date in October, when do we have to see a capsule at the Cape?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/14/2012 03:58 pm
Realistically, for a launch on the stated date in October, when do we have to see a capsule at the Cape?

Probable processing steps: (min days: max days)

1) Dragon checkout. (7 days: 14days)
2) Pack with storable items. (2 days: 5 days)
3) Mate to Trunk. (1 day: 2 days)
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)
5) Mate to F9. (1 day: 2 days)
6) Checkout complete stack. (2 days: 5 days)
7) Move to pad for hot-fire test. ( 2 days: 7 days)
7) Complete packing of Dragon with moderately time sensitive items. (1 day: 2 days)
8 ) Fuel Dragon. (1 day: 3 days)
9) Move F9 stack to pad for launch. (1 hour: 3 hours)
10) Late load of final cargo. (2 hours: 5 hours)
11) Erect F9 stack. (1 hour: 2 hours)
12) Launch. (12 hours: 10 days)

Min – 20 days
Max – 46 days + 10 days for launch due to scrubs
Note: times are estimates only to show what needs to be done and approximate durations to accomplish.

On Dragon arrival, I would say no later than the 1st week in Sept but I would expect last week in Aug, and the Trunk not more than a week later.

For schedule padding for processing problems I would expect arrival this week.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/14/2012 05:45 pm
Realistically, for a launch on the stated date in October, when do we have to see a capsule at the Cape?

Probable processing steps: (min days: max days)

1) Dragon checkout. (7 days: 14days)
2) Pack with storable items. (2 days: 5 days)
3) Mate to Trunk. (1 day: 2 days)
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)
5) Mate to F9. (1 day: 2 days)
6) Checkout complete stack. (2 days: 5 days)
7) Move to pad for hot-fire test. ( 2 days: 7 days)
7) Complete packing of Dragon with moderately time sensitive items. (1 day: 2 days)
8 ) Fuel Dragon. (1 day: 3 days)
9) Move F9 stack to pad for launch. (1 hour: 3 hours)
10) Late load of final cargo. (2 hours: 5 hours)
11) Erect F9 stack. (1 hour: 2 hours)
12) Launch. (12 hours: 10 days)

Min – 20 days
Max – 46 days + 10 days for launch due to scrubs
Note: times are estimates only to show what needs to be done and approximate durations to accomplish.

On Dragon arrival, I would say no later than the 1st week in Sept but I would expect last week in Aug, and the Trunk not more than a week later.

For schedule padding for processing problems I would expect arrival this week.


we need to turn on some cams
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/14/2012 08:26 pm
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/14/2012 09:51 pm
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?

Goes 'Smoothly' - then thank God.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/14/2012 09:59 pm
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?

From personal experience 2 days is a very short time. And for a first test after electrical connectors have been plugged together nothing ever goes without problems which also includes plugging in the test equipment itself. The Trunk has active electronics and checkout also includes letting the Dragon computers run a complete system diagnostics test. This is the first time this has been run because you need the Trunk mated to do a full test. This test is not short. Other tests are performed before even that test can be done. Validating power connectors (the old fashioned way with volt meters to look for continuity and connector resitance and O-scopes to look for connector noise) before any electronics is turned on. Also critical command lines are also checked so that when powered on control is maintained.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/15/2012 04:09 am
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?

From personal experience 2 days is a very short time. And for a first test after electrical connectors have been plugged together nothing ever goes without problems which also includes plugging in the test equipment itself. The Trunk has active electronics and checkout also includes letting the Dragon computers run a complete system diagnostics test. This is the first time this has been run because you need the Trunk mated to do a full test. This test is not short. Other tests are performed before even that test can be done. Validating power connectors (the old fashioned way with volt meters to look for continuity and connector resitance and O-scopes to look for connector noise) before any electronics is turned on. Also critical command lines are also checked so that when powered on control is maintained.

Thanks. I think the full diagnostic could mostly be run over night? I wonder if you could build a jig to speed up the power testing. Or how much of this can be done overlapping (not a lot i'm guessing). I guess 1 day might be possible with a really good day .... that's just unlikely. Maybe with practice they'll get it down :P With one launch a year though, a day doesn't mean a whole lot.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 08/15/2012 12:17 pm
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?

From personal experience 2 days is a very short time. And for a first test after electrical connectors have been plugged together nothing ever goes without problems which also includes plugging in the test equipment itself. The Trunk has active electronics and checkout also includes letting the Dragon computers run a complete system diagnostics test. This is the first time this has been run because you need the Trunk mated to do a full test. This test is not short. Other tests are performed before even that test can be done. Validating power connectors (the old fashioned way with volt meters to look for continuity and connector resitance and O-scopes to look for connector noise) before any electronics is turned on. Also critical command lines are also checked so that when powered on control is maintained.

Thanks. I think the full diagnostic could mostly be run over night? I wonder if you could build a jig to speed up the power testing. Or how much of this can be done overlapping (not a lot i'm guessing). I guess 1 day might be possible with a really good day .... that's just unlikely. Maybe with practice they'll get it down :P With one launch a year though, a day doesn't mean a whole lot.

Manpower is the only way to shorten it.  I believe is going by single shifts per day.

The standard is about two days after the LV to spacecraft disconnects are mated.  (the spacecraft EGSE has already been mated to the launch vehicle umbilicals and tested, which is also a one day test or so)  One shift for the spacecraft to do an aliveness test which by default checks out the disconnects and then another shift for combined LV/spacecraft test.

The longer testing is the EGSE validation but that can be in parallel with other ops.  Spacex does need to move their EGSE from when used in testing Dragon to interfacing with the Falcon so this may be transparent.  Or they might use the GC3 system for both Dragon and Falcon



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/15/2012 10:32 pm
Manpower is the only way to shorten it.

Lol. Cause technology and spaceflight is perfect and unchanging. They solved it during Apollo and like MSDOS will never be changed or replaced. Sorry for the sarcasm. But it drives me nuts when you say things like fact that patently aren't.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 08/16/2012 12:34 am
Manpower is the only way to shorten it.

Lol. Cause technology and spaceflight is perfect and unchanging. They solved it during Apollo and like MSDOS will never be changed or replaced. Sorry for the sarcasm. But it drives me nuts when you say things like fact that patently aren't.

It drives me nuts when you make consistently wrong statement like the above. What I said it a fact.  You don't know enough to know that.  Testing is what ever it takes and depends on spacecraft complexity and what can and needs be tested in the pad configuration. Technology isn't going to change that a spacecraft has to connected to the launch vehicle.  There will be a mechanical attachment with a sep system and there will be some type of electrical interface that will be disconnected at launch/in flight. Those will take a finite amount of time to do. 

Anyways, my comment was about shifts and a "jig".  Testing over night would take multiple shifts.  With a small crew that Spacex has, that might not be possible.  A "jig" is not going to reduce testing.  Spacecraft usually have standard tests from simple aliveness to comprehensive performance.   For projects that have common sense (this is directed at the whole spacecraft community, DOD, NASA, NRO, commercial, JPL, APL, GSFC,etc), aliveness tests after major milestones (spacecraft delivery, movement between facilities, prop loading, sc mate, launch day, etc) should be sufficient.  Also, they can look at their risk posture and reduce or eliminate testing after certain ops.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/16/2012 04:48 pm
Jim, yes adding more manpower given a specific set of test equipment may decrease the process time but that is definitely not a given. Multiple items that have to be performed consecutively in the flow will still take the same amount of execution time. So going to a 24/7 footing may reduce your overall process dates start to finish. It won’t be an exact multiplier due to inefficiencies of not having all the skills needed to perform the right task at the right time for minimal number of days.

My time working Shuttle Canadarm showed me that test equipment on Shuttle was an afterthought and received scant funding so it was poorly designed making it cumbersome and time consuming to calibrate/validate. Well-designed test equipment, especially BIT (Built in Test) capable equipment that run a validation at every power-on and uses a laptop connected through a USB to do all the Human Interface and only having a few switches for safeing the test equipment, would do wonders for task time and manpower reduction for tasks that have to be done just once every couple of months even. The calibration/validation test procedure on the Canadarn test equipment took a crew 8 hours to accomplish. The crew consisted of: 2 techs, test manager (a test director that was not much more than a tech), the contractor engineer, a QA, and the NASA engineer. In manpower alone running the calibration/validation test cost ~$400. If it was reduced to a 5 minute POT at the beginning of running a test with the flight hardware you would save $400.

If SpaceX has not gone the route of doing good engineering for their specialized test equipment to minimize manpower requirements for its use then they have areas other than increasing manpower, going to 24/7 operations, that will reduce the number of days for processing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: watermod on 08/16/2012 07:34 pm
Interesting ... space launches don't, in general, use automated test tools?
I sense a market opportunity... to bad I am more a comm. background...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 08/16/2012 08:01 pm
Interesting ... space launches don't, in general, use automated test tools?
I sense a market opportunity... to bad I am more a comm. background...


They do.  Most of the time is spend in getting the hardware into the test configuration. For example, when some launch vehicles do a simulated flight test.  All the ordnance circuits are not connected to ordnance but to a ground telemetry system to verify that all ordnance signals were sent during the simulated flight.  After this, the ordnance is hooked up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/16/2012 09:05 pm
The calibration/validation test procedure on the Canadarn test equipment took a crew 8 hours to accomplish. The crew consisted of: 2 techs, test manager (a test director that was not much more than a tech), the contractor engineer, a QA, and the NASA engineer. In manpower alone running the calibration/validation test cost ~$400. If it was reduced to a 5 minute POT at the beginning of running a test with the flight hardware you would save $400.

Thanks for the interesting post but your math here tripped me up... 6 people over 8 hours at space engineer wages is at least $3,000 cost to the company. How did you get $400? Or did you mean 8 man hours?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/16/2012 10:14 pm
Well,today anik (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg940586#msg940586) has moved CRS-1 launch from ' Oct 5" to "NET Oct 6".
Small slip, which could be due to a lot of things, and an expression of more uncertainty, which could be for a lot of reasons.  But if anik keeps it on the schedule, there is a good probability that nothing major is impacting the schedule.

51 days out.  That is approaching AtlasEguy's upper limit of 46 days, and the upper limit is what one would want to use for a schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/17/2012 05:28 pm
The calibration/validation test procedure on the Canadarn test equipment took a crew 8 hours to accomplish. The crew consisted of: 2 techs, test manager (a test director that was not much more than a tech), the contractor engineer, a QA, and the NASA engineer. In manpower alone running the calibration/validation test cost ~$400. If it was reduced to a 5 minute POT at the beginning of running a test with the flight hardware you would save $400.

Thanks for the interesting post but your math here tripped me up... 6 people over 8 hours at space engineer wages is at least $3,000 cost to the company. How did you get $400? Or did you mean 8 man hours?



I used just the wage pay at 1985 average rates or ~$8.33 an man-hour. If the modern costs is $3,000 for 8 manhours then the test costs would be a lot more today. But also most recently developed test equipment has a great deal of automation in it. In some ways its even easier to develop the test equipment with automation than without. If SpaceX wqas smart they went this route where ever it made cost effective sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 08/17/2012 07:37 pm
Quote
...for 8 manhours...

Six people for eight hours is 48 man-hours, not 8, which I think you know because 48 * $8.33 is $399.50.  I'm shocked that anyone in aerospace made eight bucks an hour at any point during my lifetime though, and I'd hazard a WAG that the modern prices are higher than that by a factor of 5 - 10?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/17/2012 08:21 pm
The calibration/validation test procedure on the Canadarn test equipment took a crew 8 hours to accomplish. The crew consisted of: 2 techs, test manager (a test director that was not much more than a tech), the contractor engineer, a QA, and the NASA engineer. In manpower alone running the calibration/validation test cost ~$400. If it was reduced to a 5 minute POT at the beginning of running a test with the flight hardware you would save $400.

Thanks for the interesting post but your math here tripped me up... 6 people over 8 hours at space engineer wages is at least $3,000 cost to the company. How did you get $400? Or did you mean 8 man hours?



I used just the wage pay at 1985 average rates or ~$8.33 an man-hour. If the modern costs is $3,000 for 8 manhours then the test costs would be a lot more today. But also most recently developed test equipment has a great deal of automation in it. In some ways its even easier to develop the test equipment with automation than without. If SpaceX wqas smart they went this route where ever it made cost effective sense.

ok this will go slightly off topic maybe for a couple of posts only.  Watched the prep of a Mission (just a sat) and 15 people were in the room to install the fairing etc.  Seemed like alot.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: aero on 08/17/2012 08:30 pm
I would guess that several of them were on site for another function or aspect of the launch but with nothing to do at the time, they watched or participated in the activity. Salaried people don't go off the clock just because their function is not active at the moment so it looks like a lot of people but the skill sets are quite different.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/23/2012 05:43 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?


thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/23/2012 06:59 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?


thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.
Who said they'd tell us?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/23/2012 07:09 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?

Who said they'd tell us?

thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.

taxpayer funds have paid for the pre-mission planning and will pay for the mission this should be open book information.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 08/23/2012 07:13 pm
taxpayer funds have paid for the pre-mission planning and will pay for the mission this should be open book information.

Riiiight...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/23/2012 07:16 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?


thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.
Who said they'd tell us?

taxpayer funds have paid for the pre-mission planning and will pay for the mission this should be open book information.
Uh huh. You do know that SpaceX employees aren't civil service, right?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/23/2012 07:18 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?

Who said they'd tell us?

thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.

taxpayer funds have paid for the pre-mission planning and will pay for the mission this should be open book information.

Taxpayers are paying for the service of transportation.  Just because you hire semi truck to transport something from place to place doesn't mean the truck owner or transport company has to open their books for you.  They just have to provide the service that was contracted for.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/23/2012 07:57 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?


thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.

If Bolden says SpaceX has the go ahead for their CRS contract, and the launch date is very early October, then things should be coming together very soon. I have my own project that needs to be complete by October 1st, and I know that there aren't many weeks left in the calendar between now and then.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/25/2012 04:05 pm
Aug 14 for Dragon arrival means that my max estimate of processing time (46 days) was the correct estimate. They are making sure they have plenty of time to handle problems in order to maintain the launch date.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/25/2012 06:01 pm
Aug 14 for Dragon arrival means that my max estimate of processing time (46 days) was the correct estimate. They are making sure they have plenty of time to handle problems in order to maintain the launch date.

sounds like you know your stuff oldAtlas Guy, well done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/28/2012 11:25 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

For all those saying SpX-1 will have no new software.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 08/28/2012 11:37 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

For all those saying SpX-1 will have no new software.


Well, that sounds like a modification/upgrade to their current software, not whole new untested software.  I don't think that would be a huge setback.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/28/2012 11:38 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

For all those saying SpX-1 will have no new software.

This is at least an order of magnitude less significant than from COTS 1->2+
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/28/2012 11:43 pm
I don't care about your goalpost moving. The claim was that no new software had been added to Dragon. It has, those making the claim were wrong. The end.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten. We do know that some has been changed. Knowing a little about the SpaceX philosophy, it's probably a lot more than they're saying publicly and NASA probably hasn't reviewed any of it yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/28/2012 11:57 pm
I don't care about your goalpost moving. The claim was that no new software had been added to Dragon. It has, those making the claim were wrong. The end.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten. We do know that some has been changed. Knowing a little about the SpaceX philosophy, it's probably a lot more than they're saying publicly and NASA probably hasn't reviewed any of it yet.

You seem to be spoiling for a fight.  "New" software vs "Modified" software vs "Patched" software.  We agree "some has changed".  Please Relax.

If NASA approved of the COTS-2+ Dragon approaching with patched software, how difficult will it be to approve tested code that does the same thing?  (My educated guess is that the patch did more than electronically limit the FOV, and the rest is easily testable on the ground.)

Does NASA get approval rights to the lidar software, or do they mearly require that the lidar return a range value in agreement with other determinations while approaching the ISS?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 08/29/2012 12:00 am
I don't care about your goalpost moving. The claim was that no new software had been added to Dragon. It has, those making the claim were wrong. The end.

Well then whomever made that claim doesn't understand much about software development. Those of use who do work in the software field (I do) certainly know that software is always a moving target - it continually gets improved and tweaked.

So I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal out of it. The Shuttle software continued to improve over the life of the program. MSL has already gotten at least two major software upgrades, and will get several more - and that is just one mission.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten. We do know that some has been changed. Knowing a little about the SpaceX philosophy, it's probably a lot more than they're saying publicly and NASA probably hasn't reviewed any of it yet.

 ::) Really? Look who's making unfounded claims now. Got a source?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/29/2012 12:03 am
You seem to be spoiling for a fight.

Exactly the opposite. I'm shutting down the "but.. but.. but.." arguing the inevitably follows from telling someone they were wrong.

In this case, I don't even remember who it was that said SpX-1 had no software changes, but at least three people came to the argument's defense with watered down versions.

Edit: it was...

In all of their previous flights they've done something new, and have needed new software.

Now they are not doing anything they did not do during COTS2+. So no need for new software.

Can we all just agree that this was simply wrong?


Quote
Does NASA get approval rights to the lidar software, or do they mearly require that the lidar return a range value in agreement with other determinations while approaching the ISS?

NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 08/29/2012 01:00 am
You seem to be spoiling for a fight.

Exactly the opposite. I'm shutting down the "but.. but.. but.." arguing the inevitably follows from telling someone they were wrong.

In this case, I don't even remember who it was that said SpX-1 had no software changes, but at least three people came to the argument's defense with watered down versions.

Edit: it was...

In all of their previous flights they've done something new, and have needed new software.

Now they are not doing anything they did not do during COTS2+. So no need for new software.

Can we all just agree that this was simply wrong?


Quote
Does NASA get approval rights to the lidar software, or do they mearly require that the lidar return a range value in agreement with other determinations while approaching the ISS?

NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.


Really?!!  NASA has qualified SpaceX to commence their CRS contract.  Why would they now require oversight on a commercial company's software? 
Can't see it happening.  They would have had to have this written into the CRS and since it's a cargo supply contract, it's reasonable to expect that it would only deal with that.
Software would be part of a development contract i.e. COTS, which is now complete.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 08/29/2012 01:04 am
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/29/2012 01:05 am
NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.

Really?!!  NASA has qualified SpaceX to commence their CRS contract.  Why would they now require oversight on a commercial company's software? 
Can't see it happening.  They would have had to have this written into the CRS and since it's a cargo supply contract, it's reasonable to expect that it would only deal with that.
Software would be part of a development contract i.e. COTS, which is now complete.

I didn't say anything controversial.. NASA reviews the software of all visiting vehicles.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 08/29/2012 07:34 am
They're flying a completely different profile to the ISS and they completely rewrote the LIDAR software after the hiccup on the COTS2+ flight which required them to hack the FOV so the approach could continue.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten.

So... which is it and who's moving the goalposts?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 08/29/2012 11:33 am
Omg he said nothing was new but actually only way way way less than before is new! Goalposts!!

QG, the general idea that this should be the beginning of routine operations holds, as does the general impression that you're spoiling for a fight. This is silly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/29/2012 12:00 pm
How's this for spoiling for a fight: wait and see.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/29/2012 12:12 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 08/29/2012 12:18 pm
How's this for spoiling for a fight: wait and see.

It's a deal. =)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 08/29/2012 06:18 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.


New software is worthy of a bump in the major version number. Show me a software shop where every patch requires a new version number. Not gonna happen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: majormajor42 on 08/29/2012 07:10 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

I not sure if this quote also implies that the same sort of (update/revision... that which is being debated here) will be required every time a new CRS mission is on the way up after some physical exterior change has occurred on ISS. Does it?

Does/will NASA provide them (and ORB) with an accurate up to date model as changes take place? I would hope so.

How has this "updating" occurred on other VV's or are their Proximity Ops so different that a very accurate up-to-date model of the ISS is not necessary?





Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/29/2012 07:27 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752
Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

I not sure if this quote also implies that the same sort of (update/revision... that which is being debated here) will be required every time a new CRS mission is on the way up after some physical exterior change has occurred on ISS. Does it?

Does/will NASA provide them (and ORB) with an accurate up to date model as changes take place? I would hope so.

How has this "updating" occurred on other VV's or are their Proximity Ops so different that a very accurate up-to-date model of the ISS is not necessary?

This is misleading, at best.  The retros on the JEM were part of the ISS model for a long time before the COTS-2+ flight.  The models are up to date.  If you watch the most recent SNC CGI video of DreamChaser flying to the station, you can see four tiny objects on the edge of the black and white docking target as DreamChaser departs.  These are of no consequence to DC, but are part of the model, even though they were iinstalled long after the JEM was launched.  There is no need to update the model, just use the current version.

The STS-127 DragonEye images showed that retro returns were going to be problematic.  I assumed that the STS-133 reflight was to test fixes, but they never released images from that approach.  How they overlooked this is a mystery.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: majormajor42 on 08/29/2012 07:41 pm
So, this sentence in the article
Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station.

...was it said by Elon? It is not in quotes. Are they Elon's words or Joe Pappalardo's, the author?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/29/2012 08:44 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.


You aren't a programmer. No coder I know would call a patch over a hotfix 'new software'. Elon Musk is a programmer from the start. He likely would be of the same mindset as other programmers on this issue too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/29/2012 08:54 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.


You aren't a programmer. No coder I know would call a patch over a hotfix 'new software'. Elon Musk is a programmer from the start. He likely would be of the same mindset as other programmers on this issue too.

Regression testing performed at 3 a.m. on a Sunday morning when the modified program will be doing a production run at 3:15 a.m. is very limited.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 08/30/2012 01:00 am
NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.

Really?!!  NASA has qualified SpaceX to commence their CRS contract.  Why would they now require oversight on a commercial company's software? 
Can't see it happening.  They would have had to have this written into the CRS and since it's a cargo supply contract, it's reasonable to expect that it would only deal with that.
Software would be part of a development contract i.e. COTS, which is now complete.

I didn't say anything controversial.. NASA reviews the software of all visiting vehicles.


Do they?  Well in development, test, etc, but in under normal operations?  Source please?  I presume this also applies to HTV ATV Soyuz?  Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere before. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/30/2012 01:02 am
Do they?  Well in development, test, etc, but in under normal operations?  Source please?  I presume this also applies to HTV ATV Soyuz?  Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere before. 

Yes. I heard it at the press conference during COTS2+, but I'm sure someone can provide you with a link to the visiting vehicle requirements.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 08/30/2012 02:47 am
Do they?  Well in development, test, etc, but in under normal operations?  Source please?  I presume this also applies to HTV ATV Soyuz?  Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere before. 

Yes. I heard it at the press conference during COTS2+, but I'm sure someone can provide you with a link to the visiting vehicle requirements.


Yep appreciate that.  Be very surprised if it includes NASA oversight on any existing vehicle with agreements (contracts) in place.  Mind you, guess the term 'oversight' could be construed in both general or very specific terms.  I'd interpret it in very general terms, ie. tests must have been done, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/30/2012 03:12 am
Yep appreciate that.  Be very surprised if it includes NASA oversight on any existing vehicle with agreements (contracts) in place.  Mind you, guess the term 'oversight' could be construed in both general or very specific terms.  I'd interpret it in very general terms, ie. tests must have been done, etc.

It seems you're very surprised over everything.

Yes, NASA reviews the code in the Soyuz, and the Progress, and the ATV and the HTV. It's a requirement of bringing your vehicle into the exclusion zone of the ISS. Yes, that includes every software change, otherwise what would be the point?

This is not news.


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 08/30/2012 12:54 pm
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/30/2012 02:04 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.


You aren't a programmer. No coder I know would call a patch over a hotfix 'new software'. Elon Musk is a programmer from the start. He likely would be of the same mindset as other programmers on this issue too.

I'm not ?? Does that mean I can go home now ?? I'm so confused about what I've been doing the last 35 years of my life. (Yes, I've been doing software development MUCH LONGER than Lord Elon Musk).

There may be different review and testing processes for source code changes less than 5 or 6 lines, versus a replacement of an entire module. Either way, reviews and testing are going to be required if your organization has any type of structured development process in place.


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/30/2012 06:48 pm
I never said they wouldn't review and test the patch. I only was speaking of pedantics. A complete module rewrite could probably be called new software, an actual new module would almost certainly be called new software, a patch, even hundreds or thousands of lines ... probably not. Anyways, I'm done, I wasn't debating you so much as Quantum's fight picking.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: friendly3 on 08/30/2012 07:26 pm
I'm so confused about what I've been doing the last 35 years of my life. (Yes, I've been doing software development MUCH LONGER than Lord Elon Musk).

Lord Elon Musk Vader has been doing rocket development MUCH LONGER than you !
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 09/04/2012 02:39 am
Yep appreciate that.  Be very surprised if it includes NASA oversight on any existing vehicle with agreements (contracts) in place.  Mind you, guess the term 'oversight' could be construed in both general or very specific terms.  I'd interpret it in very general terms, ie. tests must have been done, etc.

It seems you're very surprised over everything.

Yes, NASA reviews the code in the Soyuz, and the Progress, and the ATV and the HTV. It's a requirement of bringing your vehicle into the exclusion zone of the ISS. Yes, that includes every software change, otherwise what would be the point?

This is not news.


Ok so every vehicle?  A full review of all onboard software code?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2012 03:01 am
Ok so every vehicle?  A full review of all onboard software code?

Anything that changed.. that's why they have strict change control.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 09/04/2012 03:19 am
Ok so every vehicle?  A full review of all onboard software code?

Anything that changed.. that's why they have strict change control.


I understand change control.  So what we've got to is that NASA has not only oversight but the right to fully review any software changes that are made.  No changes, no review.  Btw, I'd consider right to fully review somewhat further along than simply oversight but it's a small point.
And no need for the narky, some may interpret as rude response.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2012 03:51 am
I understand change control.  So what we've got to is that NASA has not only oversight but the right to fully review any software changes that are made.  No changes, no review.  Btw, I'd consider right to fully review somewhat further along than simply oversight but it's a small point.

And no need for the narky, some may interpret as rude response.

Sorry, I'm baffled as to why we're still having this discussion.

This has nothing to do with "oversight". It's a requirement of the ISS visiting vehicles standards. No-one is allowed into the exclusion zone without meeting those standards.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 09/04/2012 05:55 am
I understand change control.  So what we've got to is that NASA has not only oversight but the right to fully review any software changes that are made.  No changes, no review.  Btw, I'd consider right to fully review somewhat further along than simply oversight but it's a small point.

And no need for the narky, some may interpret as rude response.

Sorry, I'm baffled as to why we're still having this discussion.

This has nothing to do with "oversight". It's a requirement of the ISS visiting vehicles standards. No-one is allowed into the exclusion zone without meeting those standards.


Well think it started out as NASA 'oversight' but has now turned into 'standards'.  Oh well.  As you say, why bother. 
Looking forward to the first CRS flight but lost my bet on 3 flights this year.  Still 2's better than none.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2012 06:24 am
Well think it started out as NASA 'oversight' but has now turned into 'standards'. 

Huh? The visiting vehicle standards were written before the commercial cargo program was even imagined. Who do you imagine they were overseeing?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/04/2012 07:10 pm
Well think it started out as NASA 'oversight' but has now turned into 'standards'. 

Huh? The visiting vehicle standards were written before the commercial cargo program was even imagined. Who do you imagine they were overseeing?



Since the F9 software for ascent is run on the computers of the F9 US and the Dragon is not a active participant, any changes of the F9 software would not be reviewed by NASA due to the VV "standards".

Only the spacecraft software must be shown as not having a safety issue. Not all tests would be done for a given software change on the Dragon either. Most software changes would only involve a small subset of the complete test set.

BTW this is from my experience being the Chairman of the AF Software Review Board for the Atlas E/F guidance software.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2012 09:30 pm
Since the F9 software for ascent is run on the computers of the F9 US and the Dragon is not a active participant, any changes of the F9 software would not be reviewed by NASA due to the VV "standards".

We were talking about the software on the Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 09/06/2012 03:54 am
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)

Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)

Out of curiosity QuantumG, have you ever actually developed software yourself?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/06/2012 04:00 am
Out of curiosity QuantumG, have you ever actually developed software yourself?

Yes, do it for a living.

I've also gone through "code review" for a government agency.

I know their pain first hand.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 09/06/2012 12:46 pm
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)

Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)
Is that pin [head] round in the shape of a disc or round in the shape of a ball? :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 09/06/2012 04:21 pm
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)

Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)
Is that pin [head] round in the shape of a disc or round in the shape of a ball? :D

Ooh - too subtle there!! Had to read it a couple of times (while composing my own response) before I got it.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sojourner on 09/06/2012 05:59 pm

New software is worthy of a bump in the major version number. Show me a software shop where every patch requires a new version number. Not gonna happen.

Sorry about dredging this up a week later, but the irony of reading this on FireFox 15 was just too good to pass up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/06/2012 08:00 pm
The software versioning system used is arbitrary, which is that the meaning behind what the difference in a version identification value means is also arbitrary and is defined by the software developer team. Normally for a normal systems development on a cost plus NASA contract software is a deliverable with a very large set of requirements associated with it as to how it is written including the versioning system to be used. But SpaceX software is not a deliverable and does not have NASA specific requirements other than indirect requirements based on the VV requirements for ISS. There are also some detailed interface specifications that control SpaceX software design between the ISS and SpaceX flight hardware as well as interface specifications for between SpaceX ground control and NASA systems it must interface with. Adopting the NASA versioning control system may make it easier to deal with NASA but it is not a requirement.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 09/06/2012 08:46 pm
The software versioning system used is arbitrary, which is that the meaning behind what the difference in a version identification value means is also arbitrary and is defined by the software developer team. Normally for a normal systems development on a cost plus NASA contract software is a deliverable with a very large set of requirements associated with it as to how it is written including the versioning system to be used. But SpaceX software is not a deliverable and does not have NASA specific requirements other than indirect requirements based on the VV requirements for ISS. There are also some detailed interface specifications that control SpaceX software design between the ISS and SpaceX flight hardware as well as interface specifications for between SpaceX ground control and NASA systems it must interface with. Adopting the NASA versioning control system may make it easier to deal with NASA but it is not a requirement.
You can also have a version for your interface, and you can coordinate that with the NASA CVS. At the same time, I think, that the next software uptdate for the ISS was going to make a common packet to communicate with VV given the amount that they have to support (Soyuz/Progress/ATV/HTV/Dragon/Cygnus/Commercial Crew).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/08/2012 06:17 am
Approximately one month until launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mikes on 09/08/2012 07:00 am
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)
Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)

You're an order of magnitude out - there are 100 mm2 in a cm2.
If it's a circular pinhead with diameter 1mm, pi*r2 = 0.78mm2
At 32GB/cm2 that's 257MB (minus overhead).

Are we off topic yet? :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/08/2012 02:54 pm
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)
Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)

You're an order of magnitude out - there are 100 mm2 in a cm2.
If it's a circular pinhead with diameter 1mm, pi*r2 = 0.78mm2
At 32GB/cm2 that's 257MB (minus overhead).

Are we off topic yet? :)

This is what you get if you ask a bunch of engineers a rhetorical question.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Salo on 09/20/2012 08:19 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html
Quote
Date: October 7
Time: 8:34 p.m.
Mission: SpaceX-1 Commercial Resupply Services flight
0034UTC October 8
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/20/2012 11:37 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/21/2012 01:15 am
Why is the payload only 1000 pounds?

Does the station not need any more supplies?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/21/2012 01:53 am
Why is the payload only 1000 pounds?

Does the station not need any more supplies?

I am curious about that myself.. Is this Dragon up-mass limit on F9 v1.0 or is this cargo volume limited?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 09/21/2012 02:48 am
Jim talked about Falcon 9 version 1.0 underperforming before. Perhaps this is what he meant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 09/21/2012 03:01 am
Jim talked about Falcon 9 version 1.0 under performing before. Perhaps this is what he meant.

It is true that 1.0 is underperfoming and that is why they are upgrading to 1.1.

However, I doubt that is the reason for 1,000 pounds of cargo this time.  Last time they had about 1300-1400 pounds of cargo with less fuel to work with.  This time SpaceX does not need need to perform the COTS2 objectives, they've already done that.  This time they are pretty much going to just approach and berth normally.  For that reason, I don't think underperformance is the issue here.  It's probably just that NASA doesn't need as much cargo as Dragon can actually take.

But then again, who is to care.  SpaceX is driving the UPS truck.  They aren't concerned with what's in it, just about getting the delivery safely there.  Though, I am also curious what cargo will be on this flight.  Hopefully we'll have the full cargo manifest soon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 09/21/2012 05:07 am
... It's probably just that NASA doesn't need as much cargo as Dragon can actually take.

But then again, who is to care.  SpaceX is driving the UPS truck.  They aren't concerned with what's in it, just about getting the delivery safely there.  Though, I am also curious what cargo will be on this flight.  Hopefully we'll have the full cargo manifest soon.
I'm not saying you're wrong about the requirements of the ISS being low at present, but it's kind of surprising that NASA are low-balling this one and then going ahead with another SpaceX supply run in December or January. As well as whatever they pack onto the Orbital demonstration run, if that happens in the same period.

Of course, it's entirely possible that 1000 pounds of the right sort of material has high value and NASA are perfectly happy to get that much into the station, with lower-value stuff waiting until (say) there's more space/personnel up there.

By comparison, the downmass capability of Dragon would seem to me to be immensely valuable. Perhaps that's the focus.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 09/21/2012 05:28 am
By comparison, the downmass capability of Dragon would seem to me to be immensely valuable.

It is.  No other existing vehicle has significant downmass capability.  Remember that Progress, ATV, HTV, and Cygnus all burn up on re-entry. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/21/2012 09:47 am
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?

IIRC, the first trunk payload is going to be on SpX-3 next year.

CORRECTION:
I've just seen the article on the front page.  The first trunk cargo will be SpX-2 which could be as early as the end of this year, although I understand that there are some NASA documents that are saying mid-January 2013.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 09/21/2012 10:06 am
Why is the payload only 1000 pounds?

Does the station not need any more supplies?
Volume limited?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dasmoth on 09/21/2012 10:10 am
Is there still supposed to be some late-load cargo on SpX-1?

Could the 1000lbs be a baseline figure chosen to make sure there is plenty of space/mass margin for late-loaded stuff?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2012 10:12 am
Is there still supposed to be some late-load cargo on SpX-1?

Could the 1000lbs be a baseline figure chosen to make sure there is plenty of space/mass margin for late-loaded stuff?

it is to be all inclusive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/21/2012 11:24 am
FWIW, I think that this is about performance margins.  Simply put, NASA don't want to push Falcon-9 v1.0 too hard. This isn't test flight mode anymore, it's an operational mission so they want to have a payload level that puts Dragon-CRS1 straight down the middle of its performance envelope as demonstrated by the C2+ flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 09/21/2012 12:27 pm
I wonder if they'll put those strawberries in this time. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: billh on 09/21/2012 01:28 pm
By comparison, the downmass capability of Dragon would seem to me to be immensely valuable.

It is.  No other existing vehicle has significant downmass capability.  Remember that Progress, ATV, HTV, and Cygnus all burn up on re-entry. 

As indicated by the fact that the downmass is larger than the upmass for this mission: 1238 lbs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/21/2012 07:29 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/21/2012 07:35 pm
Why is the payload only 1000 pounds?

Does the station not need any more supplies?
Volume limited?
It doesn't look like all the volume has been utilized yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/21/2012 08:03 pm
It doesn't look like all the volume has been utilized yet.

That space is there so Elon can pop out of the center of a Cheese Wheel, eer ... Cake,  or something!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 09/21/2012 09:26 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

wasn't an orbitcom Sat going in the trunk on this mission?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29476.msg956623#msg956623

SpX-1 Updates:
- Dragon fuelling is scheduled for next week.
- Secondarily payloads, Orbcomm satellite fuelling is scheduled tomorrow.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/21/2012 09:34 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

wasn't an orbitcom Sat going in the trunk on this mission?


Yes, I was going to post: "Oh yeah, I forgot about Orbcomm"...but you beat me to it.  Not much chance of a (other than cubesats) secondary payload going up with any significant unpressurized cargo.

Was it decided if it was one or two Orbcomm sats?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/21/2012 09:48 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

wasn't an orbitcom Sat going in the trunk on this mission?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29476.msg956623#msg956623

SpX-1 Updates:
- Dragon fuelling is scheduled for next week.
- Secondarily payloads, Orbcomm satellite fuelling is scheduled tomorrow.
Nope, the Orbcomm sat is on the second stage, not in the trunk.

Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

wasn't an orbitcom Sat going in the trunk on this mission?


Yes, I was going to post: "Oh yeah, I forgot about Orbcomm"...but you beat me to it.  Not much chance of a (other than cubesats) secondary payload going up with any significant unpressurized cargo.

Was it decided if it was one or two Orbcomm sats?
It's a single satellite. See slide 44 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 09/21/2012 10:33 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

This is not SpX-1 related but I believe SAGE-III from NASA Langley and Ball Aerospace, (http://sage.nasa.gov/) with its Hexapod mount and other supporting hardware, is supposed to ride to the ISS in August 2014 on SpX-6 or SpX-7, give or take a few flights.

edit: fixed a typo, added hyperlink
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/22/2012 02:09 am
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html
Quote
Date: October 7
Time: 8:34 p.m.
Mission: SpaceX-1 Commercial Resupply Services flight
0034UTC October 8

Can anyone please look at the sun angles for that time, want to see if the upperstage burn will be visible for Virginia this time like last.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 09/22/2012 09:35 am
Can anyone please look at the sun angles for that time, want to see if the upperstage burn will be visible for Virginia this time like last.

No joy on that. I worked out that Earth's shadow will extend to more than 500 km altitude at CCAFS at the T-0 of 0034 UTC October 8. Similar situation will be for northern latitudes as well.

Drat. A regular night launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/22/2012 01:06 pm
Hope the folks in FL like their new sound & light show every few months from now on.  ;D

Anyone got a estimate of the decibel level of 9 Merlin 1-D and how far away can the rumble be heard? I am guessing it's more intense than the current Falcon 9 V1.0 LV.

Of course, there will be a more spectacular show when the FH begin East Coast ops.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/22/2012 03:57 pm
Hope the folks in FL like their new sound & light show every few months from now on.  ;D

I presume that the launch windows for ISS rendezvous move steadily throughout the year.  How long will it be before they are launching CRS missions in the day-time again?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/22/2012 10:16 pm
FWIW, I think that this is about performance margins.  Simply put, NASA don't want to push Falcon-9 v1.0 too hard. This isn't test flight mode anymore, it's an operational mission so they want to have a payload level that puts Dragon-CRS1 straight down the middle of its performance envelope as demonstrated by the C2+ flight.

Possibly, but it still seems odd that the payload will be less than 1/3 of the contracted rate per flight (20k kg / 12). They surely don't need that much margin.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DaveH62 on 09/23/2012 12:19 am
FWIW, I think that this is about performance margins.  Simply put, NASA don't want to push Falcon-9 v1.0 too hard. This isn't test flight mode anymore, it's an operational mission so they want to have a payload level that puts Dragon-CRS1 straight down the middle of its performance envelope as demonstrated by the C2+ flight.

Possibly, but it still seems odd that the payload will be less than 1/3 of the contracted rate per flight (20k kg / 12). They surely don't need that much margin.
It reads like a lot of the load is science racks. Does that further mass limit the payload?
Also, won't trunk loads, on future flights be heavier systems/hardware type payloads?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: grythumn on 09/23/2012 12:30 am
Possibly, but it still seems odd that the payload will be less than 1/3 of the contracted rate per flight (20k kg / 12). They surely don't need that much margin.

I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module. It's hard to find recent numbers, but figure about 4.2k kg dry mass for the dragon, 454 kg for the payload, up to 1200 kg of fuel for the dragon (who knows how full it needs to be), 124 kg + payload adapter + any booster per orbcomm bird. That's about 5.5-6k kg there; still a lot of margin, but not 2/3rds.

-R C
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 09/23/2012 03:45 am
It reads like a lot of the load is science racks. Does that further mass limit the payload?


Not racks but contents of racks, which is not mass limiting
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 09/23/2012 03:46 am

I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module.

not with dragon
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: subzero788 on 09/23/2012 06:47 am


I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module. It's hard to find recent numbers, but figure about 4.2k kg dry mass for the dragon, 454 kg for the payload, up to 1200 kg of fuel for the dragon (who knows how full it needs to be), 124 kg + payload adapter + any booster per orbcomm bird. That's about 5.5-6k kg there; still a lot of margin, but not 2/3rds.

-R C

Falcon 9 1.0 was supposed to be about 10mt to LEO, but that was for around ~200km, 28.5 inclination, vs 400 km, 56.1 inclination of the ISS.
Besides, I don't believe Falcon 9 achieved that predicted performance.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: grythumn on 09/23/2012 01:53 pm

I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module. It's hard to find recent numbers, but figure about 4.2k kg dry mass for the dragon, 454 kg for the payload, up to 1200 kg of fuel for the dragon (who knows how full it needs to be), 124 kg + payload adapter + any booster per orbcomm bird. That's about 5.5-6k kg there; still a lot of margin, but not 2/3rds.

-R C

Falcon 9 1.0 was supposed to be about 10mt to LEO, but that was for around ~200km, 28.5 inclination, vs 400 km, 56.1 inclination of the ISS.
Besides, I don't believe Falcon 9 achieved that predicted performance.

Yeah, I was looking for that NASA pdf with better performance numbers and graphs and I couldn't find it, so I ended up trying to dig up what I could online. Should've known better.

-Bob
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: grythumn on 09/23/2012 02:08 pm

I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module.

not with dragon

The 10mt (or whatever the actual performance of the falcon 9 1.0 to ISS orbit; I don't have better numbers but I know that is too high) payload has to include the dragon... it doesn't ride up for free. 4mt or so for the dragon itself, another mt or so for fuel, leaving at most 5mt for cargo, likely significantly less. nyet?

-R C
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 09/23/2012 02:26 pm
Falcon 9 1.0 was supposed to be about 10mt to LEO

The F9 User Guide published January 2009 states that 10 tonnes was the Block 2 target so it's clear that 1.0 was known to have lower performance than that long before it actually flew. Whether 1.0 subsequently fell short of its own performance goals and by how much, I have no idea, but it's more complicated than saying that 1.0 was supposed to be 10 mt to LEO. Perhaps originally when the vehicle was first unveiled that was the case.

FWIW, the NASA ELV page shows about 9 tonnes to LEO for v1.0. Whether that itself is up to date, I don't know since that would have been based on two flights only, one with roll issues and another with a truncated MVac nozzle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Guy on 09/23/2012 06:29 pm

I presume that the launch windows for ISS rendezvous move steadily throughout the year.  How long will it be before they are launching CRS missions in the day-time again?

Launch time, same as shuttle, gets 23-25 minutes earlier each day. About 8:34pm Oct 7, 8:12pm Oct 8, 7:45pm Oct 9, etc. Every 60 days approximately it returns back to the same time again.

Sunset is right around 7:00pm at that time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Salo on 09/24/2012 05:39 am
http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/elvMap/staticPages/launch_vehicle_info1.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: grythumn on 09/24/2012 02:35 pm
http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/elvMap/staticPages/launch_vehicle_info1.html

That was what I was remembering and couldn't find. Thank you! So about 8.1mt gross payload to ISS orbit for F9 1.0, and about 15mt gross for F9 1.1 for the same.

-R C
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Salo on 09/24/2012 06:02 pm
about 15mt gross for F9 1.1 for the same.

Mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO):    13,150 kg (29,000 lb)
Inclination:    28.5 degree

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/24/2012 07:48 pm
about 15mt gross for F9 1.1 for the same.

Mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO):    13,150 kg (29,000 lb)
Inclination:    28.5 degree

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
Isn't the same as other figures that are used, such as what NASA uses for mission-planning (NLS II). Ironically, the SpaceX.com figures are /lower/ than the ones NASA uses for Falcon 9 v1.1. Why that is exactly is up for debate, but I tend to give more credence to NASA's numbers (which are up for more scrutiny).

It's possible, for instance, that SpaceX is planning on having small secondaries on /every single non-NASA flight/ unless a premium (i.e. above the posted cost) is charged. This may help them hit their rather tight per-launch cost figures.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: vigleik on 09/24/2012 11:43 pm
Isn't the same as other figures that are used, such as what NASA uses for mission-planning (NLS II). Ironically, the SpaceX.com figures are /lower/ than the ones NASA uses for Falcon 9 v1.1. Why that is exactly is up for debate, but I tend to give more credence to NASA's numbers (which are up for more scrutiny).

Engine out capability? That would also explain the low SpX-1 payload; starting from Nasa's 8.6t number and subtracting an appropriate amount for engine out only leaves about that much after accounting for the dragon dry mass and fuel.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: stone on 09/28/2012 07:51 am
The very low cargo mass (500kg) which is roughly 15% of what is possible makes me wonder. They have to transport avg. 1700kg to get 20000kg to the station in 12 flights. Is it possible that the fueled capsule + 500kg is the max mass they get to LEO? This would mean that only V.1.1 will get them to the point were Dragon makes sense. I do not belief the numbers for LEO of the Falcon9 V1.0 published, sorry.   
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 09/28/2012 08:02 am
Is it possible that the fueled capsule + 500kg is the max mass they get to LEO?

I wonder about actual margins as well, but consider that they're flying an Orbcomm satellite on this flight as well. AFAIK that requires a 2nd stage restart to about a 700 km apogee. That's bound to account for a couple of hundred kg (WAG) of mass reallocated from Dragon payload to F9 propellant load.

I do not belief the numbers for LEO of the Falcon9 V1.0 published, sorry.

And you would believe anything anyone says over here if it's not what you're expecting to hear? Why ask these questions in the first place, then?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: stone on 09/28/2012 08:22 am
I do not believe the numbers for LEO of the Falcon9 V1.0 published, sorry.

And you would believe anything anyone says over here if it's not what you're expecting to hear? Why ask these questions in the first place, then?
[/quote]

I would believe when somebody points out that there is a second payload,  a design change, the necessity to transport helium balloons  for a birthday party, the NASA requirement that they reach orbit with only 7 Merlins running .....

But with the published numbers for LEO and the payload one number is wrong and this is not the payload number.

So I miss a good explanation.

The 700km for the secondary payload is partly what I searched for.




Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/28/2012 09:23 am
Stone does make a good point.  Has anyone calculated what the ORBCOMM payload and its orbital insertion requirements will be cutting off of Dragon's theoretical maximum payload to ISS? That might explain the relatively low NASA payload
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: subzero788 on 09/28/2012 10:29 am
Another reason could simply be that the cargo going up on this flight has a large volume to weight ratio
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 09/28/2012 10:45 am
... That might explain the relatively low NASA payload


It reads like a lot of the load is science racks. Does that further mass limit the payload?

Not racks but contents of racks, which is not mass limiting

I take Jim's comment to mean that Dragon is volume-limited for this cargo. AIUI, Dragon needs a very dense cargo to carry it's max pressurised payload.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: stone on 09/28/2012 11:07 am
If they need dense cargo how do they meet the 20000kg in 12 flights requirement?

The point is where is the extra lift capability of V1.1 going? If it is not needed for CRS missions why should they use it?

So I do not believe that the V1.0 has the capability to lift a fully loaded Dragon. This is why the V1.1 has to be developed.

Everything will clear up when the payload of the first CRS  with V1.1 is announced.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 09/28/2012 01:26 pm
If they need dense cargo how do they meet the 20000kg in 12 flights requirement?

Unpressurised cargo in the trunk?



The point is where is the extra lift capability of V1.1 going? If it is not needed for CRS missions why should they use it?

So I do not believe that the V1.0 has the capability to lift a fully loaded Dragon. This is why the V1.1 has to be developed.

NASA are paying for this flight. The Orbcomm sat wouldn't be on there as a secondary if they were limited by the F9, or NASA could get in more payload.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 09/28/2012 01:38 pm
AFAIK, the ISS is not short of supplies. I do not regard this Dragon flight as a critical supply run, just a top-up, but I can see two important things NASA might be trying to achieve with this flight:
1. Establish their own supply chain independent of other countries, whether there is an urgent need or not
2. Get downmass capacity. SpX-1 will be carrying MORE downmass than it did upmass.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 09/28/2012 01:48 pm
AFAIK, the ISS is not short of supplies. I do not regard this Dragon flight as a critical supply run,

It is for experiments
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 09/28/2012 11:42 pm
AFAIK, the ISS is not short of supplies. I do not regard this Dragon flight as a critical supply run,

It is for experiments

Did you mean:-

1) Agree ISS is not short of supplies - this flight is just for experiments;
or
2) It is critical for experiments?

Thanks, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jabe on 09/29/2012 07:26 pm
ok..a possibly off topic question...When the Dragon arrived at ISS, a Spacex or Dragon logo was nonexistent...any thoughts if it will have logo's this time around?
 
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 09/29/2012 10:42 pm
Why they did static fire test without Dragon on top?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/29/2012 10:50 pm
Why they did static fire test without Dragon on top?

My thoughts exactly.. it's the final week and the Dragon still isn't integrated? That's odd.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jabe on 09/29/2012 11:03 pm
My thoughts exactly.. it's the final week and the Dragon still isn't integrated? That's odd.

my WAG..still packing dragon, so it needs to stay in vertical position?  :-\
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 09/29/2012 11:16 pm
My thoughts exactly.. it's the final week and the Dragon still isn't integrated? That's odd.

my WAG..still packing dragon, so it needs to stay in vertical position?  :-\
jb

Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.  If Murphy decides to rapidly deconstruct F9 during the static fire, this at least saves SpaceX the expense of scraping bits of Dragon off of the pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/29/2012 11:18 pm
Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.

It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Silmfeanor on 09/29/2012 11:24 pm
Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.

It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.


it's weird and unexpected, I'll give you that. But something is wrong? If it was serious, wouldn't we have heard something about a launch slip by now instead of range-approved dates in conjunction with ISS readiness and all?

Too little information to start talking about something being wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 09/29/2012 11:25 pm
It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.

Bold mine. Why is that a fact? The previous flight had at least one WDR without Dragon. In fact, having WDR so early in the Dragon processing flow almost guarantees the spacecraft won't be ready to be mated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 09/29/2012 11:26 pm
Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.

It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.

Where do you get that from? It's not like Soyuz where it's been the same over and over for decades. It's still early enough in the game for things to change occasionally. Maybe something is just different.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 09/29/2012 11:28 pm
Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.

It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.



I am not going to even pretend to dispute that except to point out that its speculation to infer that something is "wrong" when someone changes their plan.  All things being equal I'd agree that something is fishy.

However, in the context of exploring "not wrong, just different" would SpaceX be able to speed up processing time by conducting WDR's and static fire's on just the launcher while processing the payload in parallel and only performing final integration as a last step?

Going forward they need to up their flight rate, which might mean we will see changes to streamline procedures.

Edit: And by "fishy" I mean "worthy of notice"
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/29/2012 11:45 pm
ok..a possibly off topic question...When the Dragon arrived at ISS, a Spacex or Dragon logo was nonexistent...any thoughts if it will have logo's this time around?
 
jb
I have no idea but I'm hoping to see an American flag.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/29/2012 11:46 pm
However, in the context of exploring "not wrong, just different" would SpaceX be able to speed up processing time by conducting WDR's and static fire's on just the launcher while processing the payload in parallel and only performing final integration as a last step?

Going forward they need to up their flight rate, which might mean we will see changes to streamline procedures.

Yes, that seems reasonable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/30/2012 01:26 am
Have been really busy (understatement) with work lately but I am really looking forward to the mission. Hoping everything goes as well as it did for COTS 2/3.


Glad that things have been relatively successful with the idea of commercial spaceflight (thus far) and I hope they continue to be. The more I look at these companies, and their vehicles the more I think this really is the best way forward, especially in lieu of the obvious political issues with something like SLS.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mike_1179 on 09/30/2012 02:01 am


It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.



The spacecraft is not on top for WDR of Delta or Atlas vehicles.  They don't do static fires, so how do you know it's SOP for the payload to be on top for this test? 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 09/30/2012 06:30 am
Interesting point. For COTS-2+, the markings were on the solar farings and the nose cap, so gone by docking. I could see SpaceX putting some markings on the trunk proper given how good the images were last time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/COTS_2_Falcon9Dragon_-_May_18.jpg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: paycom on 09/30/2012 09:57 am
According to the F9 users's guide, payload mate to launch vehicle is supposed to take place 8 to 9 days prior to launch. So SpaceX is not much behind schedule if the Dragon integration takes place today or tomorrow.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 09/30/2012 11:50 pm
Specifically regarding this flight, has there been any mention of an abort mode in which the Dragon would separate and save the cargo should the Falcon flight be terminated early?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 10/01/2012 12:08 am
Specifically regarding this flight, has there been any mention of an abort mode in which the Dragon would separate and save the cargo should the Falcon flight be terminated early?
AFAIK there is nothing like LAS in unmanned missions. Main reason is that most of cargo/satellites would not survive abort g loads. Humans are surprisingly resilent creatures.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/01/2012 12:28 am
AFAIK there is nothing like LAS in unmanned missions. Main reason is that most of cargo/satellites would not survive abort g loads. Humans are surprisingly resilent creatures.

I take your main point: "old space" doesn't do it that way. ;) But is SpaceX different, especially when it's launching Dragon on F9?

Many cargo/satellite launch vehicles rely on solids, the presence of which massively complicate an abort. For an abort of the all-liquid F9 isn't it possible the range might simply terminate thrust, rather than destroy the vehicle? Wouldn't that create an environment where the Dragon separation motors could detach the capsule from the trunk without exposing the interior cargo to off-nominal g forces?

Of course we all hope nothing like that is required! I'm just wondering if SpaceX is prepared to "snatch victory from the jaws of defeat" on this flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spacetraveler on 10/01/2012 12:44 am
Many cargo/satellite launch vehicles rely on solids, the presence of which massively complicate an abort. For an abort of the all-liquid F9 isn't it possible the range might simply terminate thrust, rather than destroy the vehicle? Wouldn't that create an environment where the Dragon separation motors could detach the capsule from the trunk without exposing the interior cargo to off-nominal g forces?

I don't think the engines have remote control. I believe the only remote system on the vehicle is the FTS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/01/2012 01:07 am

Many cargo/satellite launch vehicles rely on solids, the presence of which massively complicate an abort. For an abort of the all-liquid F9 isn't it possible the range might simply terminate thrust, rather than destroy the vehicle?

No and Mmst do not.  Solids are not the reason for destruct charges.  Liquid vehicles like Delta IV and Atlas V have them to disperse propellants.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/01/2012 01:09 am

1. I take your main point: "old space" doesn't do it that way. ;) But is SpaceX different, especially when it's launching Dragon on F9?

2. Wouldn't that create an environment where the Dragon separation motors could detach the capsule from the trunk without exposing the interior cargo to off-nominal g forces?


1.  No, it has nothing to do with "old space", it has to do with protecting the public.

2.  No, the sep system does not provide enough distance
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 10/01/2012 05:54 pm
Thanks Chris good time for a launch.

Monday morning for me  :D

Dragon been seen yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/01/2012 07:16 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/01/2012 07:54 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(
There's aerospace hardware all over the place, they'd have to hide it all and provide extra security if they allowed foreigners, impacting their operations. ITAR is eyeTAR, I agree, but it makes some sense in this case.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/01/2012 08:14 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 05:20 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(
There's aerospace hardware all over the place, they'd have to hide it all and provide extra security if they allowed foreigners, impacting their operations. ITAR is eyeTAR, I agree, but it makes some sense in this case.

???  What would be the difference between US media and foreign media ???
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 05:23 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 10/02/2012 07:07 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!

International partners aren't funding it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 07:25 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!

International partners aren't funding it.

They take international cargo up....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/02/2012 07:33 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!

International partners aren't funding it.

They take international cargo up....

But that does not make the cargo-mission international. It's a cargo mission being carried out under the US obligations to ISS. So, it's a US mission, regardless of what cargo is on-board. Same applies to cargo missions of ATV and HTV. Those are European and Japanese cargo-flights, despite the fact that they carry cargo from just-about all participating nations.

(Un)fortunately, ESA is a little more consistent in it's policies regarding near-pad photography. They allow exactly nobody to set up near-pad set-ups, except the people of CSG and their in-house photographer  :P
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2012 03:02 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(
There's aerospace hardware all over the place, they'd have to hide it all and provide extra security if they allowed foreigners, impacting their operations. ITAR is eyeTAR, I agree, but it makes some sense in this case.

???  What would be the difference between US media and foreign media ???

The State Department believes there's a difference between US citizens and non-US citizens. That's the difference.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/02/2012 03:22 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!


now your in the downside of "commercial"......SpaceX can make their own rules.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2012 03:25 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!

I think the SpaceX press event (if it's like any of their other ones) includes stuff inside their hangar, which has eye-tar-sensitive stuff all over.

It sucks, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 03:32 pm

I think the SpaceX press event (if it's like any of their other ones) includes stuff inside their hangar, which has eye-tar-sensitive stuff all over.

It sucks, though.

Yea sure, and why was it possible to see everything inside the hangar in July 2011, even for foreign media, and get close to the Falcon rocket, and photograph everything you would like ..... And now they say we are not welcome anymore...that is the strange part of it....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2012 03:34 pm

I think the SpaceX press event (if it's like any of their other ones) includes stuff inside their hangar, which has eye-tar-sensitive stuff all over.

It sucks, though.

Yea sure, and why was it possible to see everything inside the hangar in July 2011, even for foreign media, and get close to the Falcon rocket, and photograph everything you would like ..... And now they say we are not welcome anymore...that is the strange part of it....

They made a mistake?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/02/2012 03:48 pm
I suppose it could be something specifically about this flight, although what could be visible from the base of the pad that would be a security risk is beyond my knowledge.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/02/2012 04:02 pm
Yea sure, and why was it possible to see everything inside the hangar in July 2011, even for foreign media, and get close to the Falcon rocket, and photograph everything you would like ..... And now they say we are not welcome anymore...that is the strange part of it....

Have you contacted anyone about this? To the effect of why "Social media users selected to attend the SpaceX launch will be given the same access as journalists in an effort to align the access and experience of social media representatives with those of traditional media." when clearly social media are allowed to be non-U.S. AND be allowed on site:
"International social media users without U.S. citizenship must apply for credentials to cover the prelaunch and launch activities by Wednesday, Sept 26. "


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/sep/HQ_12-336_Social_Media_Accred.html

Complaining about it here won't change anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 10/02/2012 04:12 pm
I suppose it could be something specifically about this flight, although what could be visible from the base of the pad that would be a security risk is beyond my knowledge.

Take your engineer hat off and put your American lawyer hat on. It only has to be vaguely worded somewhere. Doesn't have to make sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 04:28 pm
Yea sure, and why was it possible to see everything inside the hangar in July 2011, even for foreign media, and get close to the Falcon rocket, and photograph everything you would like ..... And now they say we are not welcome anymore...that is the strange part of it....

Have you contacted anyone about this? To the effect of why "Social media users selected to attend the SpaceX launch will be given the same access as journalists in an effort to align the access and experience of social media representatives with those of traditional media." when clearly social media are allowed to be non-U.S. AND be allowed on site:
"International social media users without U.S. citizenship must apply for credentials to cover the prelaunch and launch activities by Wednesday, Sept 26. "


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/sep/HQ_12-336_Social_Media_Accred.html

Complaining about it here won't change anything.

I do not think social media people will go to the pad for remote camera set up.... or even get close to the rocket at all.... but if they do I'm going to complaine about it  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/02/2012 04:38 pm
You haven't really answered my question and it's no longer clear to me what you're complaining about, either. Are you dissatisfied with the (in)ability to see or photograph hardware?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/02/2012 05:06 pm
With any security matter it is frequently worth while checking to see if permission has to come from the Pentagon.  If so, does SpaceX know who to contact and the correct procedure?

ULA launches classified payloads so the DOD security and vetting people will have contacted them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/02/2012 05:35 pm
So if your a US citizen who works for a foreign media outlet, you can attend?

See, problem solved, hire american reporters/photographers and tell them Ms. Lohan will be on the pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 06:50 pm
You haven't really answered my question and it's no longer clear to me what you're complaining about, either. Are you dissatisfied with the (in)ability to see or photograph hardware?

My complaint is that, I, (as media from Europe) can not see (or photograph) the Falcon rocket on the launch pad, and can not set up a remote camera for launch.... US media can...

What is the difference between US media and World media (other then that I'm born outside the USA..  (In other words if I give my camera's to a US reporter he can take them and shoot the images, and then return the camera to me... And then I use the images...)

What would be the difference if I took those images myself ???  that is the point I'm trying to make here... it makes no sense to rule out foreign media...if you can swap camera's...

And to be clear, for any Air Force launch, Delta or Atlas, (a DOD mission or a commercial mission) I'm welcome at CCAFS, I get accreditation, can walk around the Rocket, set up a remote camera etc... (I can even drive my own car on site, something I can not do at KSC anymore, but that is a whole other story).....

So the question is WHY is SpaceX doing this ?  (As said before in July 2011 foreing media was welcome to photograph their rocket and take a look around their hangar at LC-41).

So why rule out Foreing media now ?? What did we do  :o  or did not do  :-X
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/02/2012 06:58 pm
Can we please change this train of thought?

Keep in mind that 9/11 changed everything.

Also as I have said before this is "commercial" they can do most of what they wish.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 07:09 pm
Can we please change this train of thought?

NO, it is a discussion thread, I'm intrested to read what others think...but ok I know 99% of you think with American glasses on...

Quote
Keep in mind that 9/11 changed everything.


That was 11 year ago... I think it is time to change again..(and what has 9/11 to do with me taking photos of a Falcon Rocket ???)

Quote
Also as I have said before this is "commercial" they can do most of what they wish.

You are right about that, but that does not mean they do the right thing....

Jacques


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: wolfpack on 10/02/2012 07:24 pm
My complaint is that, I, (as media from Europe) can not see (or photograph) the Falcon rocket on the launch pad, and can not set up a remote camera for launch.... US media can...

What is the difference between US media and World media (other then that I'm born outside the USA..  (In other words if I give my camera's to a US reporter he can take them and shoot the images, and then return the camera to me... And then I use the images...)

What would be the difference if I took those images myself ???  that is the point I'm trying to make here... it makes no sense to rule out foreign media...if you can swap camera's...

And to be clear, for any Air Force launch, Delta or Atlas, (a DOD mission or a commercial mission) I'm welcome at CCAFS, I get accreditation, can walk around the Rocket, set up a remote camera etc... (I can even drive my own car on site, something I can not do at KSC anymore, but that is a whole other story).....

So the question is WHY is SpaceX doing this ?  (As said before in July 2011 foreing media was welcome to photograph their rocket and take a look around their hangar at LC-41).

So why rule out Foreing media now ?? What did we do  :o  or did not do  :-X

Maybe the customer requested it? CRS works under different rules than COTS? Just a guess.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 07:26 pm


Maybe the customer requested it? CRS works under different rules than COTS? Just a guess.

No the last launch (early this year) it was the same, but what has the customer has to do with the rocket being photographed ???
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/02/2012 07:49 pm
Keep in mind that 9/11 changed everything.

No way, this is simple, ordinary protectionism that has nothing to do with security.
The US - other than what they claim - have always been good at that, just look at the rules for carmakers and stuff like that.
If you can get an advantage for US media guys, do it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/02/2012 07:53 pm
What is the difference between US media and World media ?
...
So why rule out Foreing media now ?? What did we do  :o  or did not do  :-X

Are you really trying to troll, or are you not getting it?

Presumably they don't want to deal with background checks for non-US citizens. It may not be for just ITAR or national security reasons, it could also be for corporate espionage reasons. (Harder to verify your identity)

But it doesn't matter - It is their rocket, their facility, their rules.

The outrage you feel is just bizarre to me, at it has nothing to do with "American blinders". I would not *expect* an American to have full access at a Russian pad, nor at a European pad. Does it happen anyway on occasion? Sure, and that's great. But your sense of entitlement is surprising.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/02/2012 07:55 pm
That's nonsense. If you give access to media, what's the difference where the media come from? Do you have any way to limit what a US media rep writes after the visit?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2012 07:58 pm
Can we please change this train of thought?

NO, it is a discussion thread, I'm intrested to read what others think...but ok I know 99% of you think with American glasses on......
I think it's worthwhile for you to ask the question!

You should seriously see if you can ask SpaceX for details, see if you can go as a "social media" person.

Wishing you all the luck.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 08:07 pm

Are you really trying to troll, or are you not getting it?
   I think I do not get it then...But I think you do NOT get it.....

Quote
Presumably they don't want to deal with background checks for non-US citizens. It may not be for just ITAR or national security reasons, it could also be for corporate espionage reasons. (Harder to verify your identity)

NASA does the media accreditation not SpaceX, and trust me the background checks are hard for foreign media.... and what is there to espionage for me what a US media guy can do (espionage) also.... :P


Quote
But it doesn't matter - It is their rocket, their facility, their rules.

Yes you are right about that  :-X

Quote
The outrage you feel is just bizarre to me, at it has nothing to do with "American blinders". I would not *expect* an American to have full access at a Russian pad, nor at a European pad. Does it happen anyway on occasion? Sure, and that's great. But your sense of entitlement is surprising.

It has everything to do with "Amarican blinders" and that funny ITAR rule you have.... If you look at photos of Soyuz launches you can see that (world, USA) media have the same access as Russian media, and even better then they have in the USA....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/02/2012 08:16 pm
Jacques, your best bet is to send an email to [email protected] and ask if they can make any accommodation for you.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/02/2012 08:19 pm
The outrage you feel is just bizarre to me, at it has nothing to do with "American blinders". I would not *expect* an American to have full access at a Russian pad, nor at a European pad. Does it happen anyway on occasion? Sure, and that's great. But your sense of entitlement is surprising.

It has everything to do with "Amarican blinders" and that funny ITAR rule you have.... If you look at photos of Soyuz launches you can see that (world, USA) media have the same access as Russian media, and even better then they have in the USA....

You miss my point. It is great when Americans have access there, and Europeans have access here, wonderful. My point is that where and when such access is offered it is should be graciously received, and not EXPECTED or DEMANDED. It is a bonus, a perk. But here you are throwing a fit about it. (Or so it seems)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/02/2012 09:28 pm
Quote
Keep in mind that 9/11 changed everything.

That was 11 year ago... I think it is time to change again..

Whether it is time to change is not the question.  Things have changed, but for the worse, getting tighter, not looser.

Quote
Quote
Also as I have said before this is "commercial" they can do most of what they wish.

You are right about that, but that does not mean they do the right thing....
Jacques

I think that is not right.  Being commercial means they have liability, particularly for ITAR compliance.  If the Air Force allows access to set up remote cameras, that's the decision.  The State Department is not going to threaten to prosecute anyone for an ITAR violation.  A company is always under implied threat.  Therefore the most cautious approach is the least debatable and the highest benefit/cost ratio.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/02/2012 09:48 pm

Are you really trying to troll, or are you not getting it?
   I think I do not get it then...But I think you do NOT get it.....

Quote
Presumably they don't want to deal with background checks for non-US citizens. It may not be for just ITAR or national security reasons, it could also be for corporate espionage reasons. (Harder to verify your identity)

NASA does the media accreditation not SpaceX, and trust me the background checks are hard for foreign media.... and what is there to espionage for me what a US media guy can do (espionage) also.... :P


Quote
But it doesn't matter - It is their rocket, their facility, their rules.

Yes you are right about that  :-X

Quote
The outrage you feel is just bizarre to me, at it has nothing to do with "American blinders". I would not *expect* an American to have full access at a Russian pad, nor at a European pad. Does it happen anyway on occasion? Sure, and that's great. But your sense of entitlement is surprising.

It has everything to do with "Amarican blinders" and that funny ITAR rule you have.... If you look at photos of Soyuz launches you can see that (world, USA) media have the same access as Russian media, and even better then they have in the USA....

Now your going off the wall.    You know very well Russia doesn’t broadcast “live” their launches from  Pleseck.   

Even our NRO launches can be watched.  What more do you want?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/02/2012 10:45 pm
Um... he did already say what more he wants, that's what we are talking about here. Not live broadcasts from NRO launches but being able to take his own photos of commercial ISS resupply missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/02/2012 11:42 pm
The State Department believes there's a difference between US citizens and non-US citizens. That's the difference.

To be clear it's between US persons (including US permanent residents and certain foreign representatives of US organizations) and non-US persons. Explaining this to ditsy HR departments back when I had a Green Card was quite annoying...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: go4mars on 10/02/2012 11:47 pm
In my very limited experience, it also may depend on which country you come from (whether you can come in and look around or not).  I'm not sure if that's actually true or not.  I'll leave it at that without elaborating.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/03/2012 01:37 am
The State Department believes there's a difference between US citizens and non-US citizens. That's the difference.

To be clear it's between US persons (including US permanent residents and certain foreign representatives of US organizations) and non-US persons. Explaining this to ditsy HR departments back when I had a Green Card was quite annoying...
Quite true. Glad to have you here, by the way! :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Possum on 10/03/2012 02:04 am
Allow me to wade in here. Part of the reason is probably that the Spacex pad is on the Canaveral Air Force Station property. I took the tour of that place about a week ago, and we were restricted as to what we could photograph. We weren't allowed to photograph Pad 37 where the Delta 4 Medium was being processed, even though it's not a classified payload. The instant we crossed back out the AFB gate, our tour guide said "Take all the pictures of the Pad you want. It's OK now!" The tour guides mumbled that the restrictions were ridiculous, and they are right. My only explanation is...well...that's the Government for you!  ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Guy on 10/03/2012 02:28 am
The things they tell the tourists on the bus tour, like not shooting the Deltra IV pad, are equally ridiculous and are not representative of the rules for employees and media.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/03/2012 02:41 am
great nick there Space Possum
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: G-pit on 10/03/2012 03:17 am
Has there been any information on whether the cargo Dragon being flown this launch is evolved much from the Dragon flown on the demo flights?

I wonder if they discovered any room for improvement with the cargo config of Dragon. or if they are using these CRS flights to test out systems that are only *required* on a manned Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/03/2012 03:46 am
Orbcomm logo visible at the base of the solar wing fairing

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=62553&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=2012-5643&sn=KSC-2012-5643 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=62553&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=2012-5643&sn=KSC-2012-5643)

What is that other logo below the red lettered "Orbcomm"?
Is that also Orbcomm?  I don't see it on their website.

The website does have a countdown to the launch. (http://www.orbcomm.com/)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/03/2012 04:01 am
Orbcomm logo visible at the base of the solar wing fairing

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=62553&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=2012-5643&sn=KSC-2012-5643 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=62553&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=2012-5643&sn=KSC-2012-5643)

What is that other logo below the red lettered "Orbcomm"?
Is that also Orbcomm?  I don't see it on their website.

The website does have a countdown to the launch. (http://www.orbcomm.com/)
I'm assuming that it's Orbcomm's mission badge. I'm pretty sure it's theirs and not SpaceX's. You can see it in another shot of the vehicle, http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2012-5631.jpg but not much better I'm afraid.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/03/2012 10:27 am
Someone up-thread asked if the SpX-1 spacecraft will have any SpaceX graphics on the hull.  I've just seen a picture over on the processing updates thread that shows the spacecraft has the Dragon logo on the GNC sensor bay door, so it will be hidden in flight.  Your guess is as good as mine why that is.

Does NASA have a prohibition of the logos of commercial entities appearing on spacecraft performing NASA missions?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/03/2012 12:33 pm
A simpler explanation might be, no logo's anywhere that might complicate thermal management Hence a logo on the GNC sensor bay door and the outriggers.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: nlec on 10/03/2012 01:02 pm
From some of the post-flight images I've seen, the outer (thermal?) covering of Dragon seems a bit fragile. Maybe there is some concern about applied logos damaging the covering during ascent or descent.  I realized this doesn't explain the lack of logos on the trunk, which does not seem to have this same covering.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/03/2012 01:13 pm
Logos, Why? It's not like there is any other US private cargo spacecraft visiting ISS at this time. Put a logo on it to tell it apart from who?  ??? Maybe next year after Cygnus is flying.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 10/03/2012 03:17 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/03/2012 03:40 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)

A bit of a straw man, don't you think? I think most of us just expected something minimalist like the Shuttle's decorations. A flag and company logo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/03/2012 06:01 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)

still waiting for one day to see Coke or Pepsi on the side of a launcher.  It just might happen.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/03/2012 06:23 pm
Pizza Hut already won that war on a Proton in 2000.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pizzahut-00b.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/03/2012 08:25 pm
In the Updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29131.msg960513#msg960513) there is a dispute over whether the (single Gen 2) Orbcomm is mounted in the Trunk or on the second stage.  Does anyone have a reliable reference on this? 
(Or just an answer from L2.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 10/03/2012 08:36 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)

A bit of a straw man, don't you think? I think most of us just expected something minimalist like the Shuttle's decorations. A flag and company logo.
Strawman? I think not. Nobody looks at rocket thats just launched & says to themselves; "I wish that rocket had a company logo on it so I could tell who it belongs to."
The only people that give a hoot is us space junkies, & we don't need anything to tell us who's rocket is, who's payload is on it & every other minute detail of it.
Sheesh!!!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/03/2012 08:54 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)

A bit of a straw man, don't you think? I think most of us just expected something minimalist like the Shuttle's decorations. A flag and company logo.
Strawman? I think not. Nobody looks at rocket thats just launched & says to themselves; "I wish that rocket had a company logo on it so I could tell who it belongs to."
The only people that give a hoot is us space junkies, & we don't need anything to tell us who's rocket is, who's payload is on it & every other minute detail of it.
Sheesh!!!

Do I need to explain to you what a strawman is? Nobody is suggesting it to be covered like a Nascar car.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/03/2012 09:09 pm
As to the lack of logos, it is hard to imagine any thermal impact from a logo.  (I deal with solar absorption and emissivity all the time.)   The outer surface is not fragile, as the marks from reentry can be removed, even accidentlally as seen in recovery photos.  It is could an issue with  flaking paint, particularly for intermittant Sun exposure on the thermal protection, but look at the Shuttle logos, and how long and well they lasted.

It is more likely NASA wanting to keep logos out of the view of the cameras on the ISS.   Certain NASA centers have been known to be very strict about this in the past.  Logos on the solar panel pontoons and second stage conform to that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: thydusk666 on 10/03/2012 09:14 pm
Continuing my question from the Updates thread. Anyone has any relevant information on this?
Quote
Orbcomm statement on upcoming launch.(Original 2011)

"The planned Falcon 9 launch will place ORBCOMM’s first two OG2 satellites
into a 52° inclined 350 by 750 km insertion orbit. The satellites’ onboard propulsion systems will then be used to circulize the orbit at 750 km".

http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/spacexlaunch.pdf

How do they plan to get to a 350x750km orbit?
Probably that 350km perigee is outdated, since ISS' current altitude is ~410km, and it wouldn't make sense to do a retro-burn just to follow the pdf., unless I'm missing something.
After unberthing from ISS, Dragon will probably make a burn to increase its orbit to 410x750km then will dispense the satellite. It would save some delta-v for Orbcomm. Following that, a retrograde burn at perigee to circularise at 410km or lower, then proceed with nominal re-entry steps.

Would that make sense?

The satellites are on the second stage, not on Dragon. After dropping Dragon off, the second stage will re-light and increase its apogee. (Further discussion should go to a discussion thread.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/03/2012 09:27 pm
Continuing my question from the Updates thread. Anyone has any relevant information on this?
Quote
Orbcomm statement on upcoming launch.(Original 2011)

"The planned Falcon 9 launch will place ORBCOMM’s first two OG2 satellites
into a 52° inclined 350 by 750 km insertion orbit. The satellites’ onboard propulsion systems will then be used to circulize the orbit at 750 km".

http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/spacexlaunch.pdf

How do they plan to get to a 350x750km orbit?
Probably that 350km perigee is outdated, since ISS' current altitude is ~410km, and it wouldn't make sense to do a retro-burn just to follow the pdf., unless I'm missing something.
After unberthing from ISS, Dragon will probably make a burn to increase its orbit to 410x750km then will dispense the satellite. It would save some delta-v for Orbcomm. Following that, a retrograde burn at perigee to circularise at 410km or lower, then proceed with nominal re-entry steps.

Would that make sense?

The satellites are on the second stage, not on Dragon. After dropping Dragon off, the second stage will re-light and increase its apogee. (Further discussion should go to a discussion thread.)

I am not aware of any sources that say Dragon will deploy secondary payloads from the trunk. They will always be on the upper stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/03/2012 11:33 pm
With regards to the lack of logos on the CRS-1 Dragon, here is an image of COTS-1 Dragon with a big SpaceX logo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: bocephus419 on 10/04/2012 01:12 am
Looks like the nose cone gets the Spacex logo.  Image from http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 04:36 am
Looks like the nose cone gets the Spacex logo.  Image from http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225)

Another logo that's jettisoned before approaching the ISS.

Any ideas about the pink poly (pink poly!) taped over the hatch with four days to go?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/04/2012 05:35 am
Looks like the nose cone gets the Spacex logo.  Image from http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225)

Another logo that's jettisoned before approaching the ISS.

Any ideas about the pink poly (pink poly!) taped over the hatch with four days to go?

Probably because the hatch hasn't been 100% sealed yet. I seem to recall reading that they are demonstrating late load capability on this flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/04/2012 06:00 am
Notice the launch and return cargo manifests posted on the spaceflightnow web site.

Stuff going up link:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html)

Stuff coming down link:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/returnmanifest.html (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/returnmanifest.html)

So is the cargo going to the ISS relatively low density?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/04/2012 08:29 am

Another logo that's jettisoned before approaching the ISS.

Looks like the suggestion that NASA doesn't want any visible commercial logos on the spacecraft while approaching the ISS might be correct.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/04/2012 08:38 am

I seem to recall reading that they are demonstrating late load capability on this flight.

That seems likely. You can see the cabin used for late loading parked to the left of the hangar door.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=62620 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=62620)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 03:37 pm
Notice the launch and return cargo manifests posted on the spaceflightnow web site.

Stuff going up link:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html)

Stuff coming down link:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/returnmanifest.html (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/returnmanifest.html)

So is the cargo going to the ISS relatively low density?

This I find curious:
Up cargo: Cabin fan for ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle
Down cargo: Cabin filter and ATV cabin fan for ESA.

Notice how many of the items have masses like 8.8 lbs, coincidently 4.0 kg.  NASA and the units issue....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/04/2012 03:41 pm
This I find curious:
Up cargo: Cabin fan for ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle
Down cargo: Cabin filter and ATV cabin fan for ESA.

IIRC, it was on ATV-2 that there was an issue with a faulty circulation fan that made it initially difficult and somewhat hazardous to access the cargo module of the spacecraft.  They may now carry a spare as standard and had to remove a defective one from ATV-3.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Thunderbird5 on 10/04/2012 07:18 pm
This I find curious:
Up cargo: Cabin fan for ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle
Down cargo: Cabin filter and ATV cabin fan for ESA.

IIRC, it was on ATV-2 that there was an issue with a faulty circulation fan that made it initially difficult and somewhat hazardous to access the cargo module of the spacecraft.  They may now carry a spare as standard and had to remove a defective one from ATV-3.

Which now (or once again), they have the option to return for proper diagnosis rather than just have it burn-up as junk and then have to surmise why it failed.

Obvious, I know, but still very cool!  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 07:36 pm
...here's the Press Kit for this mission:
http://www.spacex.com/downloads/spacex-crs-1presskit.pdf

Thermal Protection System
• Primary heat shield: Tiled phenolic impregnated carbon ablator (PICA-X), fabricated in-house.
• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).

SPAM *on* a can!  :-O
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 07:51 pm
Courtesy of Space Pete in the Live: JAXA deploys cubesats from the ISS (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24308.msg960929#msg960929) thread

Video from today's ISS update discusses CRS-1 starting around 3:56.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoNSlxWgnuU

edit:grammar
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 10/04/2012 07:55 pm
Thanks for the link! The video says ISS Commander Williams tested CUCU; then there's a lot of summary-and-overview talk.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/04/2012 08:43 pm

• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).


I can hear Elon giggling like a teenager having conducted a successful prank when he signed that into the patent application.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/04/2012 09:24 pm

• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).


I can hear Elon giggling like a teenager having conducted a successful prank when he signed that into the patent application.
Except Elon said they prefer not to do patents at SpaceX.
They do have a talent for cool names though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/04/2012 09:35 pm
This I find curious:
Up cargo: Cabin fan for ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle
Down cargo: Cabin filter and ATV cabin fan for ESA.

IIRC, it was on ATV-2 that there was an issue with a faulty circulation fan that made it initially difficult and somewhat hazardous to access the cargo module of the spacecraft.  They may now carry a spare as standard and had to remove a defective one from ATV-3.

Yes, that's correct.

The cabin fans failed on both the ATV-2 and ATV-3 missions, and so they will now keep one good spare aboard the ISS to guard against a failure on ATV-4, and return an already failed unit to Earth to try to determine why they're failing so much.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 11:12 pm

• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).

I can hear Elon giggling like a teenager having conducted a successful prank when he signed that into the patent application.

Except Elon said they prefer not to do patents at SpaceX.
They do have a talent for cool names though.

But I did!  Once I got a patent partly because of the cool acronym, a variant of Gadfly.  :-)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/04/2012 11:26 pm

• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).

I can hear Elon giggling like a teenager having conducted a successful prank when he signed that into the patent application.

Except Elon said they prefer not to do patents at SpaceX.
They do have a talent for cool names though.

But I did!  Once I got a patent partly because of the cool acronym, a variant of Gadfly.  :-)

a patent? you mean a trademark.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 10/05/2012 12:45 am
 Maybe it really is SPAM. That stuff would probably last for four or five missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/05/2012 04:32 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/connect/hangout.html

Google Hangout with Elon Musk and Charlie Bolden today at 1PM EDT.  I'll listen in and see if there is anything interesting.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/05/2012 05:36 pm
Question on Mars exploration:
Bolden: Humans make the real discoveries, not the robots. 
Elon:  Mars colonization the goal.

Changes to CRS-1 Dragon?
Elon: Minor changes on software side from COTS2 Dragon.  addressed LIDAR issue.  improved thermal imagery software

Mining the Moon and Mars?
Elon: Not a huge proponent for mining Moon or Mars, hugely expensive even if costs are brought down.  Would make more since if there was already a base on Mars
Bolden:  Focus should be on enhancing survivability on Mars... producing food, concrete, etc.  so we don't have to lift tons from earth.  finding resources are more important

Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission

Dragon for Space tourism?
Elon: Yeah.  People buy seats on Soyuz.  Would be great to have American option, revenue for here.  Love to do it.  Possibly offer at lower cost.  Possibility of sending people to private space station for Bigelow.
Bolden:  NASA role is not to develop capability, but to facilitate success.  Encouraging to see SpX work with Bigelow, expand commercial sector.  Most SpaceX manifest flights are non-NASA.  NASA not primary source of income for SpaceX.

New propulsion such as solar?
Bolden:  Essential for interplanetary travel, need to revolutionize.  Can't be done on chemical.  Got to make some progress.
Elon:  Right.  Chemical good for getting to orbit, but for interplanetary travel, ion drives can be quite helpful.  can't use to get off planet, but can be used when in space.

SpaceX participating EML2 Lunar Farside Gateway?
Bolden:  Daily conversation among our people with SpaceX.  Do talk about collaboration all the time, focused on LEO right now before BEO, but BEO is an option in the future.
Elon:  Completely agree.  Gotta make sure can do routine LEO flights.  Efficiently, good foundation before BEO.  Are conversations about Dragon going to other parts of solar system.  Working to leverage investment.  Right now focused on ISS.

When are you going into space Elon?
Bolden:  Great for Elon and me to take a trip to ISS.  (smiles and laughs)
Elon: Got to resist temptation to be CEO and Test Pilot, but I really want to go.  (smiling)

Anything fun or special on Dragon?
Elon:  No cheese, haha.
Bolden:  23 student experiments.  Making an obligation to students, that's really special.

How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.


Weather favorable for sunday launch?
Elon:  60% likely.  40% not.  Might have to scrub for weather.

How long does docking take?
Elon:  Several hours.  Working to tighten timeline in the future.
Bolden:  Progress had same day rendezvous.  Want that for commercial flights.  Biological samples, quicker the better.  Same day is ideal.

SpaceX surpise NASA?
Bolden:  We expected SpaceX to be revolutionary.  Streamlining processes, costs, secret is big numbers.  More rapidly we can get to point where can reliably to space.

Dragon and Orion are small.  How can they live in it for months?
Elon:  Wouldn't ask people to live in just Dragon to go to Mars.  Much bigger spacecraft needed.

How cheap can space become?
Elon:  Hope so.  Energy requirements greater, 1000 times more expensive to go to space than air.  Hope to bring it down to 10 times.  Would require big improvements, but it needs to happen.  Fully reusable is key.

Most interesting new technologies?
Elon: Have to have re-usability.  Pivotal breakthrough that's needed.   Needs to make rockets light.  Really efficient engines needed.  Without reusable, space will always be constrained.
Bolden:  Game changing communication technologies, LBAND communications, etc.  Becoming more reliant on composites.  Improving processes for strength of vehicle.

Elon, how do you balance both businesses for a normal life?
Elon:  I don't have a normal life.  Low amount of time at Solar City, most time at SpaceX and Tesla, spending time with kids.

Elon:  Very exciting night on Sunday.  kinda nervous, what if we miss?  I think we've done the best we can.  I hope people enjoy watching.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/05/2012 06:09 pm
Dragon for Space tourism?
Elon: Yeah.  People buy seats on Soyuz.  Would be great to have American option, revenue for here.  Love to do it.  Possibly offer at lower cost.  Possibility of sending people to private space station for Bigelow.
Bolden:  NASA role is not to develop capability, but to facilitate success.  Encouraging to see SpX work with Bigelow, expand commercial sector.  Most SpaceX manifest flights are non-NASA.  NASA not primary source of income for SpaceX.

What is interesting about that response is that it shows that NASA likely does not want spaceflight participants to go the ISS. They would prefer that space tourists go to a Bigelow station. There is some logic in NASA refusing to compete with Bigelow. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 10/05/2012 06:19 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2012 06:33 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
Elon is learning. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/05/2012 06:40 pm
"Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission"

same fluff answer (sorry amazing peoples) Elon has been giving for the last 1-2 years.....like time stopped.

The real question should have been asked

Elon is 2015 still on schedule?



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 10/05/2012 06:49 pm
Why is there such concern about schedules? Do you have any experience in project management? I do and I know executives always quote unrealistic target dates. I asked one of them and he told me that he knows the dates he had given the ultimate users of the project were not possible, but his rationale was that if you were to give honest dates, the project might be defunded. Basically, this plays to the sentiment of the listener to keep support.

It's better to sin and be forgiven than never to have sinned at all.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 10/05/2012 06:52 pm
Quote
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.

Current manifest for F9 is 6 for 2013, 7 if no more 2012 flights. And 10 for 2014.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2012 06:56 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
4 in 2013 sounds pretty realistic. Even if they can't improve upon their current max of 2 launches per year per pad, they'll have two pads in 2013. And they really SHOULD be able to improve on just 2 launches per year per pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/05/2012 07:09 pm
Why is there such concern about schedules? Do you have any experience in project management? I do and I know executives always quote unrealistic target dates. I asked one of them and he told me that he knows the dates he had given the ultimate users of the project were not possible, but his rationale was that if you were to give honest dates, the project might be defunded. Basically, this plays to the sentiment of the listener to keep support.

It's better to sin and be forgiven than never to have sinned at all.  ;)

Note that some 80% of this program is being paid for by the US taxpayer.

Don’t you feel the truth should be explained to those paying for the R&D?   
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2012 07:14 pm
Why is there such concern about schedules? Do you have any experience in project management? I do and I know executives always quote unrealistic target dates. I asked one of them and he told me that he knows the dates he had given the ultimate users of the project were not possible, but his rationale was that if you were to give honest dates, the project might be defunded. Basically, this plays to the sentiment of the listener to keep support.

It's better to sin and be forgiven than never to have sinned at all.  ;)

Note that some 80% of this program is being paid for by the US taxpayer.

Don’t you feel the truth should be explained to those paying for the R&D?   
Since when does NASA do any better? Just saying...

(That said, I sure hope both SpaceX and NASA start being more realistic in their estimates.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/05/2012 07:25 pm
The 2015 commercial crew date was assuming optimal funding which isn't there. Nobody has been lied to. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 10/05/2012 07:33 pm
In this case I think that they are not exaggerating the timeline. It's just that in the real world, delays happen. Look at Tesla for example. They said they would produce 500 vehicles in Q3. They had a supplier of a part whose factory was flooded be unable to deliver enough parts to meet the goal and that caused them to miss the target by 111 vehicles.

Stuff happens.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: PahTo on 10/05/2012 07:48 pm
Thanks to Fuji for posting about the power issues with the robotics workstation in the the Exp 33 thread.  Has this been satisfactorily resolved to move forward with the planned launch Sunday evening?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.30
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/05/2012 08:10 pm
Thanks to Fuji for posting about the power issues with the robotics workstation in the the Exp 33 thread.  Has this been satisfactorily resolved to move forward with the planned launch Sunday evening?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.30

Yes - the newly installed jumper will maintain power to the Lab RWS (Robotic Work Station) even if an RPCM (Remote Power Control Module) trips.

So ISS looks go for launch right now.

One thing to keep an eye on is the two SIGIs (Space Integrated GPS/INS), since both of those being operational is a LCC (Launch Commit Criteria) for a Dragon launch, and one of the SIGIs failed close to the previous Dragon launch. Dragon uses the SIGIs for RGPS (Relative GPS) navigation with the ISS.

You can keep track of the two SIGI's status on ISSLive! here, where they are noted as GPS-1 and GPS-2. Their nominal state is "DOING POSIT".
http://spacestationlive.jsc.nasa.gov/displays/adcoDisplay4.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/05/2012 08:46 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
4 in 2013 sounds pretty realistic. Even if they can't improve upon their current max of 2 launches per year per pad, they'll have two pads in 2013. And they really SHOULD be able to improve on just 2 launches per year per pad.

We are going to have poll on 2013 later this year much like this one for 2012 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29919.0).  This is not the place to start expressing our opinions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2012 09:47 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
4 in 2013 sounds pretty realistic. Even if they can't improve upon their current max of 2 launches per year per pad, they'll have two pads in 2013. And they really SHOULD be able to improve on just 2 launches per year per pad.

We are going to have poll on 2013 later this year much like this one for 2012 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29919.0).  This is not the place to start expressing our opinions.
It's a discussion thread, so it's valid enough (considering we're hearing new expectations from SpaceX's CTO), as long as it doesn't drag on too much (pun not intended...).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/06/2012 01:51 am
The SpaceX press kit for the mission makes zero mention of orbcomm and no mention of a second stage re-ignition. Was this an oversight, are they intentionally down-playing this aspect of the flight, or just keeping things simple for the press?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/06/2012 01:58 am
The SpaceX press kit for the mission makes zero mention of orbcomm and no mention of a second stage re-ignition. Was this an oversight, are they intentionally down-playing this aspect of the flight, or just keeping things simple for the press?

This is explained in L2, but is not public.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/06/2012 05:36 am
The SpaceX press kit for the mission makes zero mention of orbcomm and no mention of a second stage re-ignition.

It's unrelated to the CRS-1 mission. They also don't mention anything about the other payloads the Dragon is carrying to the ISS.. for example, I don't see anything about the Nanoracks payloads.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/06/2012 05:45 am
It's unrelated to the CRS-1 mission.

Yeah. And the other SpaceX press kit, the one for the Orbcomm mission which shares the same launch vehicle, is likely really good too.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/06/2012 08:06 am
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
Elon is learning. :)

I was amazed when Gwynne said 8 (and listed them all, too). Such a huge ramp-up, while I thought she was less infected with the over-optimism.

Disappointing that has dropped to six already, though she did say FH was tentative, IIRC.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 10/06/2012 12:28 pm
Question on Mars exploration:
Bolden: Humans make the real discoveries, not the robots. 
Elon:  Mars colonization the goal.
...

Thanks for the transcription.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: nisse on 10/06/2012 01:03 pm
Why is there only 450 kg on board when a Dragon can carry 6000 kg according to Wikipedia?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/06/2012 01:13 pm
Why is there only 450 kg on board when a Dragon can carry 6000 kg according to Wikipedia?
This has been discussed previously in this thread. Synopsis: no-one has a definitive answer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/06/2012 01:42 pm
Big news: An EVA has been scheduled on the ISS within the next few weeks, possibly to R&R DCSU-3A.

Unknown at this time if it will affect the CRS-1 mission timeline, but if the EVA does occur during the CRS-1 mission, then we should get some very nice photos of Dragon berthed to the ISS from the EVA wide-angle lens. :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.msg961540#msg961540
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: psloss on 10/06/2012 01:51 pm
Big news: An EVA has been scheduled on the ISS within the next few weeks, possibly to R&R DCSU-3A.

Unknown at this time if it will affect the CRS-1 mission timeline, but if the EVA does occur during the CRS-1 mission, then we should get some very nice photos of Dragon berthed to the ISS from the EVA wide-angle lens. :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.msg961540#msg961540
Hopefully the subject will come up in the pre-launch this evening.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/06/2012 03:05 pm
Big news: An EVA has been scheduled on the ISS within the next few weeks, possibly to R&R DCSU-3A.

Unknown at this time if it will affect the CRS-1 mission timeline, but if the EVA does occur during the CRS-1 mission, then we should get some very nice photos of Dragon berthed to the ISS from the EVA wide-angle lens. :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.msg961540#msg961540

An update: This EVA will be to re-fill/repair an ammonia leak on power channel 2B on the P6 Truss, and will likely occur after Dragon has left the ISS, so it should be no impact to the CRS-1 mission.

Full info on the Expedition 33 thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LegendCJS on 10/06/2012 03:05 pm
Why is there only 450 kg on board when a Dragon can carry 6000 kg according to Wikipedia?
This has been discussed previously in this thread. Synopsis: no-one has a definitive answer.
Feel I should point out that the press kit says that with packaging there is 905 kg cargo mass.  And this should give a hint: if packaging nearly doubles your cargo mass it must all be pretty bulky stuff, so I'm in the volume limited camp.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/06/2012 04:25 pm
Feel I should point out that the press kit says that with packaging there is 905 kg cargo mass.  And this should give a hint: if packaging nearly doubles your cargo mass it must all be pretty bulky stuff, so I'm in the volume limited camp.

Assuming Dragon is fully packed and the cargo is volume limited. Would this mean that SpaceX have fulfilled their contractual obligations in full despite the lack in cargo mass?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/06/2012 05:07 pm
Feel I should point out that the press kit says that with packaging there is 905 kg cargo mass.  And this should give a hint: if packaging nearly doubles your cargo mass it must all be pretty bulky stuff, so I'm in the volume limited camp.

Assuming Dragon is fully packed and the cargo is volume limited. Would this mean that SpaceX have fulfilled their contractual obligations in full despite the lack in cargo mass?



SpaceX's contract is for 12 flights, the cargo on the flights is up to NASA.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: 2552 on 10/06/2012 05:59 pm
Not to jinx it but.. so far it seems the launch date for SpaceX CRS-1 has only been pushed back by about a week and a half from the Sep 28 date posted to anik's ISS schedule (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg911999#msg911999) on June 12. *fingers crossed*

Also, a tiny bit off topic, but is the Falcon 9 for flight 5 at the Cape yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/06/2012 06:01 pm
Also, a tiny bit off topic, is the Falcon 9 for flight 5 at the Cape yet?

I think the first stage is still waiting for its acceptance test(s) in Texas.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 10/06/2012 08:36 pm
Also, a tiny bit off topic, is the Falcon 9 for flight 5 at the Cape yet?

I think the first stage is still waiting for its acceptance test(s) in Texas.

A first stage was undergoing acceptance tests around the 13th September. It is not clear on what day the video was taken and whether the test(s) had already occurred or not.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29476.msg953006#msg953006
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/06/2012 08:39 pm
When I say "waiting for its acceptance test(s)", I mean "sitting on top of the test stand"
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/06/2012 09:37 pm
During the science press conference, a reporter asks why there was only 1000 pounds going up on Dragon, the response was that the 1000 pounds was only for research, the rest of Dragon is carrying spare parts and supplies. She said that it was a full load.

http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7882:iss-science-briefing&catid=1:latest
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/06/2012 09:42 pm
That seems at odds with everything that's been reported so far. We'll probably see that same question brought up at the prelaunch briefing in 20 minutes, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/06/2012 10:55 pm
Indeed the question was asked and responded to. From the update thread:
Marcia Dunn asks about the low mass of cargo up. Shotwell dodged the question.
Disagree - there was an interesting assertion of 60 metric tons over the contract! (adding up and down - but still!)

I certainly meant no disrespect for Shotwell. To the contrary she does her job excellently well!

In this case the question was essentially, "Couldn't you have carried more up mass on this flight?" And the answer she avoided giving was, "No, for this flight we really couldn't do that while maintaining the margins we want."

Instead of giving that answer she essentially gave us, "No problem getting to 20 tons up mass over the twelve flights," and as a distraction threw in, "Expecting 60 tons combined up and down mass total."

(Of course they will achieve all that, but not using Falcon and Dragon vehicles exactly like those used for this flight.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/07/2012 04:26 am
And a reminder that the downmass this time is 2000 pounds, twice the upmass of 1000 pounds. The fact that both are so close to Nice Round Numbers that I'm suspicious that they are numbers that NASA gave to SpaceX as a minimum for the first flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/07/2012 07:17 pm
One thing to keep an eye on is the two SIGIs (Space Integrated GPS/INS), since both of those being operational is a LCC (Launch Commit Criteria) for a Dragon launch, and one of the SIGIs failed close to the previous Dragon launch. Dragon uses the SIGIs for RGPS (Relative GPS) navigation with the ISS.

You can keep track of the two SIGI's status on ISSLive! here, where they are noted as GPS-1 and GPS-2. Their nominal state is "DOING POSIT".
http://spacestationlive.jsc.nasa.gov/displays/adcoDisplay4.html

Just an update, but the SIGIs look like they're holding up!

So that's in violation of the old engineering rule "If anything can go wrong, it will do so at the most inopportune time". ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/07/2012 07:41 pm
L-6 hours, so the most inopportune times are still ahead.

After the scrub, we can look back at this post as the moment Pete jinxed it. :)

*Disclaimer: Pete reserves the right not to be held liable for any Dragon launch scrubs due to SIGI failure(s). :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/07/2012 11:23 pm
L-6 hours, so the most inopportune times are still ahead.

L-1h 15m, and they're still going strong.

Come on, little SIGIs! :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/07/2012 11:37 pm
Down to 20% unfavorable!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Man Spiff on 10/07/2012 11:40 pm
Is this an instantaneous launch window, or could they recycle?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/07/2012 11:41 pm
Is this an instantaneous launch window, or could they recycle?

Instant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/07/2012 11:43 pm
Is this an instantaneous launch window, or could they recycle?

It's short enough that they can't recycle in time after a hold, so effectively instantaneous.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 12:16 am
Any idea whose the dragon catcher this time?
*edit* Never mind, they just answered it. It's Sunita Williams and Akihiko Hoshide.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/08/2012 01:01 am
L-6 hours, so the most inopportune times are still ahead.

After the scrub, we can look back at this post as the moment Pete jinxed it. :)

Well, those SIGIs held up! They must have got the good vibes I sent them. ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: AS-503 on 10/08/2012 01:10 am
Why did the second stage roll control thruster only fire (repeatedly) in one direction?

Normally you see it burn aprox. equally amount of times (about 45 degrees left/right).

Any thoughts?
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/08/2012 01:11 am
Why did the roll control thruster only fire (repeatedly) in one direction?

Normally you see it burn aprox. equally amount of times (about 45 degrees left/right).

Any thoughts?

Gwynne said in the preflight press conference that they're going to a different orbit this time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 01:13 am
Anyone knows why Falcon's engines shine in the form of a six pointed star?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 01:17 am
Anyone knows why Falcon's engines shine in the form of a six pointed star?
That is an artifact from the camera (diffraction about a hexagonal aperture).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/08/2012 01:17 am
do we have a timeline for the orbcomm deployment?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/08/2012 01:19 am
do we have a timeline for the orbcomm deployment?

I've not seen anything reliable about it at all.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 01:21 am
do we have a timeline for the orbcomm deployment?

I've not seen anything reliable about it at all.


It is supposed to happen at 937pm et, so in about 15 minutes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 01:28 am
Anyone knows why Falcon's engines shine in the form of a six pointed star?
That is an artifact from the camera (diffraction about a hexagonal aperture).
i.e lens flare. Thank you. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 01:35 am
Anyone knows why Falcon's engines shine in the form of a six pointed star?
That is an artifact from the camera (diffraction about a hexagonal aperture).
i.e lens flare. Thank you. 
Not caused by lenses, really. ;) caused by the shape of the aperture iris.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 01:42 am
"Corner"? Something seems to disintegrate right at +1:20. MaxQ, "vehicle is supersonic" then poof. Looks too rough to be a shock ring type effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRTYh71D9P0&feature=plcp
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: StephenB on 10/08/2012 01:43 am
Wow. Fortunately the first stage seems to have been robust enough.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 01:46 am
Might be the cloud layer
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 01:48 am
Might be the cloud layer

Watching the replay, that's what I'm thinking too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: friendly3 on 10/08/2012 01:53 am
Might be the cloud layer

No, something is torn away then you have a dark smoke near a corner (the top one on the video) during one second.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 10/08/2012 01:56 am
This article says the Orbcomm waits half an hour before the 2nd stage relights and takes it above ISS.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20121007/SPACE/310070040/Company-s-prototype-tags-along-into-orbit?nclick_check=1

That's what I thought was going to happen all along. Why wasn't this reported clearly?  ???
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 01:56 am
I thought it might be a large chunk of ice breaking off and impacting the corner.  Seeing the replay, it does look like a pretty violent event.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 10/08/2012 01:57 am
Some stills, in chronological order.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 01:59 am
Wow, that looked extremely violent, like a turbopump exploding. We may have just seen the first real test of engine out capability...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sitharus on 10/08/2012 02:00 am
I thought it might be a large chunk of ice breaking off and impacting the corner.  Seeing the replay, it does look like a pretty violent event.

I'd bet on ice after watching closely, it has the look I remember from the shuttle - spray of particles then chunks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 02:02 am
I also thought that the first stage burned ~20 seconds longer than planned, but it might have been that the audio and video were out of sync.

An exploding turbopump could also explain that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 02:04 am
I also thought that the first stage burned ~20 seconds longer than planned, but it might have been that the audio and video were out of sync.

An exploding turbopump could also explain that.
Doubtful. Probably the least likely explanation. If it had been, then MECO 2 would've been delayed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 02:04 am
Guesstimation at best. Better to wait for post flight briefing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 02:09 am
Engine one anomaly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 02:10 am
I also thought that the first stage burned ~20 seconds longer than planned, but it might have been that the audio and video were out of sync.

An exploding turbopump could also explain that.

I think Gwynne just confirmed that, or something like it.   ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 02:10 am
"Corner"? Something seems to disintegrate right at +1:20. MaxQ, "vehicle is supersonic" then poof. Looks too rough to be a shock ring type effect.

See attached (modestly enhanced and slowed down 30x, at full resolution).  Gwen just said there was an anomaly on engine one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:10 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 10/08/2012 02:11 am
Engine one anomaly.

Anomaly and a longer burn was basically confirmed.  Implied engine out?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 02:11 am
Engine one anomaly.

I guess we all heard that.  :o
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kirghizstan on 10/08/2012 02:11 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

who makes M1C turbopumps?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Silmfeanor on 10/08/2012 02:13 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

please note : this is not official, just a guess by the poster.
No mention whatsoever of a turbopump exploding on the presser.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 02:13 am
Too much speculation until updates are announced.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 02:17 am
Obviously not a clean shut down of engine 1, yet no fratricidal damage to the other engines. Wondering if the cowling is designed to fail in that circumstance, allowing the energetic debris to flow out and away?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rdale on 10/08/2012 02:17 am
I also thought that the first stage burned ~20 seconds longer than planned, but it might have been that the audio and video were out of sync.

An exploding turbopump could also explain that.

I think Gwynne just confirmed that, or something like it.   ;)

What could be like an exploding turbopump that isn't?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 02:18 am
Engine one anomaly.

Anomaly and a longer burn was basically confirmed.  Implied engine out?

FWIW, engine 1 should be the upper left one in the onboard video and I noticed no venting at its supposed shutdown at announced MECO-1. All other launches had it very noticeable. Either it was left burning to compensate for something or it shut down earlier than that (my guess).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:19 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 02:19 am
Believe Barber-Nichols makes M1C pumps. I've heard that the M1D ones that SpaceX makes have tighter tolerances.

Could the big chunk that falls away be a nozzle?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 02:22 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

She said "anomaly on Engine 1", not "lost engine 1", not "turbopump explosion", and not "violent event".  All of that is pure speculation.  At this point we only know there was some sort of anomaly on engine 1.  It could be as simple as an early shutdown due to high temperatures.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kirghizstan on 10/08/2012 02:22 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

please note that she said anomaly NOT loss of engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 02:23 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

She said "anomaly on Engine 1", not "lost engine 1", not "turbopump explosion", and not "violent event".  All of that is pure speculation.  At this point we only know there was some sort of anomaly on engine 1.  It could be as simple as an early shutdown due to high temperatures.

Well, the video shows a lot of parts coming off too, so more than just an early shutdown.  I'm not entirely convinced that it shut down from the video alone, but it might have.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 02:25 am
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 02:26 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

She said "anomaly on Engine 1", not "lost engine 1", not "turbopump explosion", and not "violent event".  All of that is pure speculation.  At this point we only know there was some sort of anomaly on engine 1.  It could be as simple as an early shutdown due to high temperatures.

Well, the video shows a lot of parts coming off too, so more than just an early shutdown.  I'm not entirely convinced that it shut down from the video alone, but it might have.


Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 02:27 am
Speculation: the event came suspiciously close to max-Q. If it was indeed the corner engine fairing that broke off (and that was a fairly large piece visible), it might have damaged the corner engine enough to cause the engine controller to shut it down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:27 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

please note that she said anomaly NOT loss of engine.

I do stand corrected there, she did say "anomaly" and not "loss."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sitharus on 10/08/2012 02:27 am

Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

Looks like parts to me, shapes are too regular
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 02:29 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

who makes M1C turbopumps?
Barber-Nichols
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 02:30 am
Speculation: the event came suspiciously close to max-Q. If it was indeed the corner engine fairing that broke off (and that was a fairly large piece visible), it might have damaged the corner engine enough to cause the engine controller to shut it down.

I like this one better.  Since the turbopumps are supposed to be compartmentalized to prevent collateral damage, why would a failed turbopump cause such a large piece to fall off?

otoh, ugordan's explanation is a single cause proposal.  my vote's here.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 02:32 am
Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

See if you can play the video I posted above.  It's conclusive that parts came off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kirghizstan on 10/08/2012 02:33 am
i cannot do screen captures on this but the video from below seems to show something happening at that moment to like the plume of one engine changes and after a few seconds shuts down.  maybe someone here can take a look and let me know if i'm seeing things.  it looks like there is a darker streak on one of the corners relative to the others.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 02:35 am
Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

See if you can play the video I posted above.  It's conclusive that parts came off.

I still disagree.  It happens right as the vehicle passes through the cloud deck.  It could be a part falling off, or a turbopump exploding.  I'd rather wait for something official before jumping to conclusions.  And, yes, the video DOES simply look like a pass through the cloud layer to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:38 am
Speculation: the event came suspiciously close to max-Q. If it was indeed the corner engine fairing that broke off (and that was a fairly large piece visible), it might have damaged the corner engine enough to cause the engine controller to shut it down.

I like this one better.  Since the turbopumps are supposed to be compartmentalized to prevent collateral damage, why would a failed turbopump cause such a large piece to fall off?

otoh, ugordan's explanation is a single cause proposal.  my vote's here.

I agree, on further review, with ugordan. There were big, big pieces coming off right after going supersonic, and it's more likely aero forces than an exploding turbopump making those big pieces come off. I retract my rash exploding turbopump theory...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 02:38 am
Looks like Spacex just pulled the video off their YouTube channel...

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 10/08/2012 02:40 am
Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

See if you can play the video I posted above.  It's conclusive that parts came off.

I saw parts.   I like the fairing hypothesis but thats just speculation.  However, my reading of the presser is that an engine out scenario was all but confirmed by Gywnne Showell.  Of course this is still speculation until we get info from SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 02:40 am
Looks like Spacex just pulled the video off their YouTube channel...

S

It's unlisted now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:42 am
Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

See if you can play the video I posted above.  It's conclusive that parts came off.

I still disagree.  It happens right as the vehicle passes through the cloud deck.  It could be a part falling off, or a turbopump exploding.  I'd rather wait for something official before jumping to conclusions.  And, yes, the video DOES simply look like a pass through the cloud layer to me.

There were DEFINITELY large pieces coming off, and immediately that engine plume becomes suddenly less fire and more smoke...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DaveJ576 on 10/08/2012 02:42 am
I watched the video several times with rapid start/stops and it really looks like something exploded followed by an engine shut down. Large chunks of something came off the vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 02:45 am
Yes, and there was speculation an hour ago that the Orbcomm satellite was lost too.  This wild speculation is just that: wild speculation.  Until we hear something conclusive I'm reserving judgement happened.


EDIT: for those wanting the reference to the Orbcomm: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg962364#msg962364
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 02:45 am
I can pull three distinct images from the youTube video.

One clearly shows large pieces in the exhaust flow.

The second shows the smaller ones, but you can make the large piece just exiting the flow's background, on the top edge.  It is illuminated - it looks like a "bump" in the flow.

The third is just starting to get blurry, it's hard to tell what's what, but if you count the bulges the define the nozzle of the engines, you usually see 5 (with the corner engine in the middle) and now only 4 are visible, with the center one missing.  Once you know what it was, it's clear that the dark streak is from the engine - as if it is either very damaged or in the process of shutting down.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 02:46 am
As for whether this CRS-1 event will impact the CRS-2 launch: it's almost certain that somebody now has a lot more work to do between now and then! I hope they are open about it. Can anyone confirm the investigation will need to fully include the range operator (USAF) at a minimum? Does NASA pay for insight into this at all?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 02:47 am
From what I saw in the video that's not on YouTube any more I'm surprised none of the other engines were taken out by an explosion of that size.

S

(Edited to correct terminology.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: trothamel on 10/08/2012 02:48 am
I posted this in the other thread - sorry if that was the wrong place for it - but it looks like two pieces fell off a fraction of a second before the three images meekGee posted.

Although it's hard to catch in stills, those pieces appear to be tumbling.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 02:50 am
Can anyone work out what would be the extra gravity losses incurred by an engine shutdown at 1:20 and the correspondingly delayed MECO-1 and MECO-2 (the former presumably with only one additional engine shut down)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: david1971 on 10/08/2012 02:51 am
Didn't see the SpaceX feed, was there "cheerleading" like the last time, or was it "transition to business as usual"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jimvela on 10/08/2012 02:51 am
Looks too violent to me to be anything but a RUD on engine #1.  The dark flow looks like it was spewing kerosene for a couple of seconds.

Impressive that they made it to orbit none the less.

During the call, It seemed to me that they also had other issues- I recall they announced nav1 and computer 2, and seemed to have a safing event of some kind.

Robustness in a system is a very good thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: catdlr on 10/08/2012 02:51 am
The SpaceX launch video can be  seen at this alternate YouTube posting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kGaKsSFS6E

The event is at 5:20.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:53 am
From what I saw in the video that's not on YouTube any more I'm surprised none of the other engines were taken out by a detonation of that size.

S

It wasn't a "detonation." It was most likely either aero loads breaking off a corner fairing which then knocked out an engine, as ugordan has suggested, or a turbopump disintegrating. As someone else pointed out earlier, turbopump failure was something SpaceX considered in their design, and compartmentalized to prevent a turbopump failure from knocking out other engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: notsorandom on 10/08/2012 02:54 am
After watching the video in high resolution several times now I'm also pretty convince something violent happened. It didn't look that bad when I watched it live as it seemed like it was just going through some clouds as other have pointed out. Something clearly happened though. It has to be the anomaly which was mentioned. It also seemed like MECO happened a few seconds later then when it was called out. That could just be a delay in the video feeds but the first stage burning longer would make sense if they lost an engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: GBpatsfan on 10/08/2012 02:58 am
The SpaceX launch video can be  seen at this alternate YouTube posting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kGaKsSFS6E

The event is at 5:20.
At 5:32 in the right frame you can see the metal bending inwards.  Is that normal?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 02:58 am
Looks too violent to me to be anything but a RUD on engine #1.  The dark flow looks like it was spewing kerosene for a couple of seconds.

What if the faring came off and smacked the engine nozzle?  It's cooled, right?  That could take off part of the nozzle, cause a huge leak, and thus lead the computer to shut it down fuel-rich.

Does that SPECULATION make sense to the experts here?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 02:59 am
From what I saw in the video that's not on YouTube any more I'm surprised none of the other engines were taken out by a detonation of that size.

S

It wasn't a "detonation." It was most likely either aero loads breaking off a corner fairing which then knocked out an engine, as ugordan has suggested, or a turbopump disintegrating. As someone else pointed out earlier, turbopump failure was something SpaceX considered in their design, and compartmentalized to prevent a turbopump failure from knocking out other engines.


It certainly appears that large pieces of debris managed to be propelled forward into the supersonic airflow...

How do you think a hot gas turbine spinning at 30,000+ RPM fails? "Disintegrate" seems to be putting it a bit mildly.

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: zephyrus on 10/08/2012 03:06 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:10 am
From what I saw in the video that's not on YouTube any more I'm surprised none of the other engines were taken out by a detonation of that size.

S

It wasn't a "detonation." It was most likely either aero loads breaking off a corner fairing which then knocked out an engine, as ugordan has suggested, or a turbopump disintegrating. As someone else pointed out earlier, turbopump failure was something SpaceX considered in their design, and compartmentalized to prevent a turbopump failure from knocking out other engines.


It certainly appears that large pieces of debris managed to be propelled forward into the supersonic airflow...

How do you think a hot gas turbine spinning at 30,000+ RPM fails?

S

"Detonation" has a very specific physico-chemical definition. Look it up. A turbopump coming apart at 30,000 rpm, while a very violent event, is not "detonating."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jimvela on 10/08/2012 03:11 am
Looks too violent to me to be anything but a RUD on engine #1.  The dark flow looks like it was spewing kerosene for a couple of seconds.

What if the faring came off and smacked the engine nozzle?  It's cooled, right?  That could take off part of the nozzle, cause a huge leak, and thus lead the computer to shut it down fuel-rich.

Does that SPECULATION make sense to the experts here?

Any large chunks of FOD into the airstream could do serious damage.  Faring hitting a part of an engine would be plausible.

I've replayed that video section a number of times.  I "Think" I see things being blown outward in all directions before the chunks start to fall, and I'm not sure a separated fairing would account for that.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 03:14 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.

Thanks for posting the video! That slow-motion is very detailed... It certainly *appears* that the corner engine in question was shut down - note the dark trail which *appears* to be kerosene and/or oxygen that is eventually shut off. (after 2 seconds)

Speculation: It would certainly seem that either the engine was damaged by debris and shut down, or failed in some manner.

Fortunately the F9 appears to be robust! A great launch otherwise! :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:15 am
Zephyrus just posted a link to a slo-mo YouTube video of the event, and it clearly shows an engine plume brightening and changing shape BEFORE the chunks start to fly. In that slo-mo, it looks very much like an engine exploding and blowing out chunks of corner fairing, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jimvela on 10/08/2012 03:21 am
If you study the video, there is a bright spot along the edge of the nozzle in the upper right corner of the #1 engine that moves about for a few seconds, becomes very bright, widens, forms two bright spots and then the destructive event happens.

There are similar bright spots on other engines about the same time, however what is happening on #1 is out of character with the others.

At the time of the destructive event, there are at least two items thrown outward at different angles from the rough position of the #1 engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 03:21 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).
definitely is something! Wow. Engine-out seems to work pretty well! Engine-out capability converts Russian Roulette into five-finger fillet. A much better trade, IMHO.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 10/08/2012 03:25 am
The Merlin 1C nozzle is quite robust.

How many have flown? 40?

One nozzle popped isn't too bad. Happened right at Max-Q so my speculation is it cracked and just couldn't handle the load no longer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 03:31 am
What's important is the fact that both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite were delivered successfully. Let's hope both have success. SpaceX will learn from the engine anomaly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:31 am
If you study the video, there is a bright spot along the edge of the nozzle in the upper right corner of the #1 engine that moves about for a few seconds, becomes very bright, widens, forms two bright spots and then the destructive event happens.

There are similar bright spots on other engines about the same time, however what is happening on #1 is out of character with the others.

At the time of the destructive event, there are at least two items thrown outward at different angles from the rough position of the #1 engine.

I'm thinking the bright "spot" is the flame near the nozzle throat, and because of the camera angle it appears that the throat "spot" is aligned with the very edge of the nozzle. A sudden change in chamber pressure or mixture ratio due to imminent turbopump failure would likely cause that flame "spot" to change characteristic just before the violent explosion.

So I still think that the failure was upstream of the throat, in the chamber or turbopump, not in the nozzle per se.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 03:35 am
"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down," Musk wrote in an email...

Judging by the video, the engine had already RUD'd and shut itself down de facto by the time it was told to quit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 03:35 am
What's important is the fact that both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite were delivered successfully. Let's hope both have success. SpaceX will learn from the engine anomaly.

The problem is, they have another CRS flight on this vehicle and this engine, and that vehicle and engine set are already built.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 03:37 am
What's important is the fact that both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite were delivered successfully. Let's hope both have success. SpaceX will learn from the engine anomaly.

The problem is, they have another CRS flight on this vehicle and this engine, and that vehicle and engine set are already built.

But we've seen that the corner fairings are not installed until after the vehicle is delivered to the HIF. So if their fragility was the cause of the problem, it might be easier to fix.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 03:41 am
"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down," Musk wrote in an email...

Judging by the video, the engine had already RUD'd and shut itself down de facto by the time it was told to quit.
It looked like there was more unburnt propellant before it actually was shut down. Or, put another way, its exhaust velocity was less than nominal. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 03:42 am
The slow-motion makes it look like the engine RUD'd and took out the corner fairing and probably some of the aft skirt.  Nothing to do with a fragile corner fairing.  As scary as it looked and unknown how close it was to fratricide, it's the more amazing that Dragon was dropped off where it was supposed to be.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:43 am
What's important is the fact that both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite were delivered successfully. Let's hope both have success. SpaceX will learn from the engine anomaly.

The problem is, they have another CRS flight on this vehicle and this engine, and that vehicle and engine set are already built.

Definitely hard to see how this doesn't seriously impact schedule in the short-medium term.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 03:43 am
It looked like there was more unburnt propellant before it actually was shut down.

When Elon asserts F9 shut down the engine, I interpret him to mean it shut down flow of propellant to the engine. Is it fair to assume they do that fuel-rich, i.e. cut the oxidizer flow first?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:44 am
The slow-motion makes it look like the engine RUD'd and took out the corner fairing and probably some of the aft skirt.  Nothing to do with a fragile corner fairing.  As scary as it looked and unknown how close it was to fratricide, it's the more amazing that Dragon was dropped off where it was supposed to be.

Pretty bad and pretty impressive, all at the same time...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 03:46 am
The first frame that looks anomalous has expanding "stuff" in at least two directions.  The next frame shows that "stuff" igniting bright orange.  Does that mean it's fuel?  The vehicle was pretty high at the time, so I'm not sure a fuel leak would do that.  Do these engines run fuel-rich?  If so, a LOX plume could ignite in the excess fuel.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 03:47 am
Official confirmation from Elon is that an anomaly occurred in an engine and it was shut down prematurely by the onboard computer.  Nothing about an explosion in that official statement.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:48 am
The first frame that looks anomalous has expanding "stuff" in at least two directions.  The next frame shows that "stuff" igniting bright orange.  Does that mean it's fuel?  The vehicle was pretty high at the time, so I'm not sure a fuel leak would do that.  Do these engines run fuel-rich?  If so, a LOX plume could ignite in the excess fuel.

Sure looks consistent with a fuel turbopump letting go...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 03:49 am
Zephyrus just posted a link to a slo-mo YouTube video of the event, and it clearly shows an engine plume brightening and changing shape BEFORE the chunks start to fly. In that slo-mo, it looks very much like an engine exploding and blowing out chunks of corner fairing, etc.

Still consistent with a fairing failure.  If the fairing hits the nozzle, the effect on the plume propagates backwards at several km/sec, whereas the fairing itself is only accelerating from "rest" due to the force of the flow and the acceleration of the rocket, so is not anywhere near as fast.

So you'll see the plume deform before you see the fairing cross in front of the engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 03:50 am
It looked like there was more unburnt propellant before it actually was shut down.

When Elon asserts F9 shut down the engine, I interpret him to mean it shut down flow of propellant to the engine. Is it fair to assume they do that fuel-rich, i.e. cut the oxidizer flow first?
I'd call it hardware-rich combustion. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:51 am
Official confirmation from Elon is that an anomaly occurred in an engine and it was shut down prematurely by the onboard computer.  Nothing about an explosion in that official statement.

And the word "explosion" is never going to come from Elon or SpaceX in describing what happened, no matter what happened, so don't hold your breath. It'll be called a turbopump failure, or words to that effect.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:57 am
Zephyrus just posted a link to a slo-mo YouTube video of the event, and it clearly shows an engine plume brightening and changing shape BEFORE the chunks start to fly. In that slo-mo, it looks very much like an engine exploding and blowing out chunks of corner fairing, etc.

Still consistent with a fairing failure.  If the fairing hits the nozzle, the effect on the plume propagates backwards at several km/sec, whereas the fairing itself is only accelerating from "rest" due to the force of the flow and the acceleration of the rocket, so is not anywhere near as fast.

So you'll see the plume deform before you see the fairing cross in front of the engine.

But if you look at the trajectory of the pieces being ejected, they're being blown OUTWard, not just backward by the slipstream, and in multiple pieces that sure suggest an RUD.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: zeaman on 10/08/2012 04:00 am
Did anyone notice the ice falling from the walls of Lox tanks, approximately at T-5:00 (on NasaTV live).   It happened on all previous missions, but today it was heavier (air humidity?). The falling pieces might hit the engine fairings...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:05 am
Zephyrus just posted a link to a slo-mo YouTube video of the event, and it clearly shows an engine plume brightening and changing shape BEFORE the chunks start to fly. In that slo-mo, it looks very much like an engine exploding and blowing out chunks of corner fairing, etc.

Still consistent with a fairing failure.  If the fairing hits the nozzle, the effect on the plume propagates backwards at several km/sec, whereas the fairing itself is only accelerating from "rest" due to the force of the flow and the acceleration of the rocket, so is not anywhere near as fast.

So you'll see the plume deform before you see the fairing cross in front of the engine.

But if you look at the trajectory of the pieces being ejected, they're being blown OUTWard, not just backward by the slipstream, and in multiple pieces that sure suggest an RUD.

Yup - this one I'm still scratching my head over... 

See, while the turbo pump is spinning very fast, the rotor is not that heavy.  The pieces will have lost a lot of energy busting through the case and whatever ballistic protection they have there, so I can't see the shrapnel transferring enough momentum to the fairing (which is thin) and causing pieces to go THAT far out. 

And the pieces that appear to be flying outwards are very large too.

Could it be that they only appear to fly out due to camera angle?

But, you maybe be right.  If the pump shreds both propellant lines, you could get a mixture inside the cavity enclosed by the fairing, and if that ignites, it would indeed transfer well onto the fairing and knock it out.

In that case, btw, there would be some serious sideways impulse to the side of the rocket - above and beyond the aerodynamic imbalance that's just getting created, and obviously the thrust imbalance.

Wow. 

Can we see the nozzles compensating?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 04:05 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 04:06 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Elon said it was an engine problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 10/08/2012 04:07 am
I'm going with a nozzle failure.

Lots of exposed tubes on a Merlin 1C. How humid has it been at the pad?

I worry about rocket engines rusting away. I don't like to see launch vehicles rolled around outdoors too often. Just put them on the pad and fire them off, don't expose them to the elements.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: M_Puckett on 10/08/2012 04:08 am
Quote
looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Did you bother to watch the slo-mo video?

That was certainly NOT just ice falling off!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:12 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly.

... which clearly indicates the anomaly was caused by a ghoul - you can hear it clearly at 1:16, and if you play it backwards it says: "Engine one is toast".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:16 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly.

... which clearly indicates the anomaly was caused by a ghoul - you can hear it clearly at 1:16, and if you play it backwards it says: "Engine one is toast".

LOL...as I was watching NASA TV, at one point one of the console guys jumped out of his chair like something on his screen just went very bad...but there was no other indication of an anomaly, so I shrugged it off...now I'm wondering if that was the propulsion guy seeing Engine 1 shutdown on his screen...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:17 am
Kabloona - I'm going to partially back away from my first "single cause" argument.

It only holds if the engine ballistic protection is placed all around the engine (as might be the case if it's part of the engine itself).

If it's only between engines (as would be the case if it's part of the 3x3 thrust structure) then the turbine failure could knock out the fairing without requiring a second failure, and so this is equally likely.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:19 am
Kabloona - I'm going to partially back away from my first "single cause" argument.

It only holds if the engine ballistic protection is placed all around the engine (as might be the case if it's part of the engine itself).

If it's only between engines (as would be the case if it's part of the 3x3 thrust structure) then the turbine failure could knock out the fairing without requiring a second failure, and so this is equally likely.

Eh, either way, I think we're agreeing that the engine most likely RUD'd.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 04:20 am
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:21 am
at one point one of the console guys jumped out of his chair like something on his screen just went very bad...but there was no other indication of an anomaly, so I shrugged it off...now I'm wondering if that was the propulsion guy seeing Engine 1 shutdown on his screen...

I was wondering if there was any footage like that. 

Also, they had the com loops configured so that none of the important contingency chatter made it to the public airwaves. (But of course the ijit with the "small fires on the deck" made it through anyway.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:26 am
at one point one of the console guys jumped out of his chair like something on his screen just went very bad...but there was no other indication of an anomaly, so I shrugged it off...now I'm wondering if that was the propulsion guy seeing Engine 1 shutdown on his screen...

I was wondering if there was any footage like that. 

Also, they had the com loops configured so that none of the important contingency chatter made it to the public airwaves. (But of course the ijit with the "small fires on the deck" made it through anyway.)

Yeah, he jumped like he'd been poked with an electric cattle prod, but fortunately for him, the words that came out of his mouth were shielded from public scrutiny  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rdale on 10/08/2012 04:29 am
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!

No evidence of explosion yet, and no reason to think that this was one hair from LOM.

This thread is a great example of why companies don't bother releasing info in the first place. Too many Internet experts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 04:31 am
Since the rocket cam feed was delayed, the failure can be seen with the dual camera view
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 04:32 am
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!

No evidence of explosion yet, and no reason to think that this was one hair from LOM.


What do you call all that debris flying sideways away from the rocket?

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: brtbrt on 10/08/2012 04:33 am
Thanks for posting the slo-mo video, Zephyrus.

I looked at the few frames just before the event, and I think I'm seeing significant combustion instability 3-4 frames ahead. That is consistent with both propellant flow changes (think a problem in the turbopump) but also with exterior flow disruptions (ice shearing off the fairing, or just plain MaxQ). And it's also possible that the combustion instability was caused by small variations in the manufacturing of the combustion chamber.

In either case, I think the combustion instability caused structural failure of the nozzle, followed by the fairing separation. I think the large triangular object in the exhaust stream is the fairing, not the engine nozzle.

I believe that the turbopumps continued to spin for some time thereafter, because I don't think the volume of propellants dumped into the exhaust could have come out without them - tank pressurization shouldn't have delivered that volume all by itself. So I don't think the TP let go.

If I'm right, the impact on schedule might be significant, as inherent combustion instability problems take time to solve.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 10/08/2012 04:34 am
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!

S

Skin of their teeth or not, I am very impressed.  Whether you want to call it an explosion or not the event looked very energetic and big chunks of the rocket got blown out into the slipstream and other big chunks fell off.  Falcon 9 just kept on trucking.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:34 am
This thread is a great example of why companies don't bother releasing info in the first place. Too many Internet experts.

hey!  I am NOT an expert!

But I'm having fun, and this thread is not a reliable source - it's a discussion thread....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 04:39 am
Quote
looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Did you bother to watch the slo-mo video?

That was certainly NOT just ice falling off!

ya, i watched both. the rocket just went supersonic at that point. things look funny is normal.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:42 am
Thanks for posting the slo-mo video, Zephyrus.

I looked at the few frames just before the event, and I think I'm seeing significant combustion instability 3-4 frames ahead. That is consistent with both propellant flow changes (think a problem in the turbopump) but also with exterior flow disruptions (ice shearing off the fairing, or just plain MaxQ). And it's also possible that the combustion instability was caused by small variations in the manufacturing of the combustion chamber.

In either case, I think the combustion instability caused structural failure of the nozzle, followed by the fairing separation. I think the large triangular object in the exhaust stream is the fairing, not the engine nozzle.

I believe that the turbopumps continued to spin for some time thereafter, because I don't think the volume of propellants dumped into the exhaust could have come out without them - tank pressurization shouldn't have delivered that volume all by itself. So I don't think the TP let go.

If I'm right, the impact on schedule might be significant, as inherent combustion instability problems take time to solve.

I'm skeptical. They've tested the heck out of this engine design, and I've got to believe they've characterized its stability with known and robust stability margins. But hopefully they've got high-frequency Pc telemetry and will know right away whether or not combustion stability was an issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 04:43 am
Statement out:

Quote
The Falcon 9 rocket, powered by nine Merlin engines, performed nominally today during every phase of its approach to orbit

Aw :(

They should have said
Quote
The Falcon 9 rocket, powered by nine then eight Merlin engines
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:45 am
yeah, just like the announcer on NASA TV, at about 2:30:
"All nine Merlin engines are performing nominally"

9 +/- 11%, that is.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 10/08/2012 04:47 am
I'm thinking there's no way to actually test a fully-rocking and rolling 9-engine rocket at Max-Q other than by flying it and seeing what kind of failures occur. They may have to institute a throttle back like Shuttle to avoid a repeat of this problem. Or, it may have been a one-off. But, I'm thinking those turbopumps may be prone to failure under this condition (if it was the turbopump, that is).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 04:47 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Elon said it was an engine problem.

where? link please.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:50 am
yeah, just like the announcer on NASA TV, at about 2:30:
"All nine Merlin engines are performing nominally"

9 +/- 11%, that is.

I'm pretty sure they kept George Diller out of the vehicle systems comm loop  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 04:50 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Elon said it was an engine problem.

where? link please.

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/status.html
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/10/spacex-crs-1-st.html
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/10/07/falcon-9-suffers-engine-anomoly/
As well as Gwynne's statement in the presser.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 04:51 am
I'm thinking there's no way to actually test a fully-rocking and rolling 9-engine rocket at Max-Q other than by flying it and seeing what kind of failures occur. They may have to institute a throttle back like Shuttle to avoid a repeat of this problem. Or, it may have been a one-off. But, I'm thinking those turbopumps may be prone to failure under this condition (if it was the turbopump, that is).

F9 1.1 will throttle its M1Ds back at max-q.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 04:55 am
Looking at the slow-motion Youtube video, the double view, righthand rocket cam... at T+1:30 as indicated in the video.

Is it a trick of the lighting or does the entire skin of the vehicle deflect "inwards" just above the center of the frame?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 05:01 am
I don't think it is coincidence that this event occurred at Max-Q... Therefore I don't think the "combustion instability" theory floated a few posts above mine is very likely. It seems more likely that some external event impacted the engine.

All 100% armchair Internet speculation of course.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 05:04 am
When I watched it live, the 'anomaly' startled me at first, but since the rocket had just passed Mach 1 (and kept on flying), I assumed it was either the shock wave or a big chunk of ice falling off.

But after watching the replays, both at normal speed and in slow motion, it sure looks like an explosion of some kind occurred.

And I did notice that the first stage burned longer than expected.  I wasn't just imagining things.  (At the time I thought the audio and video were out of sync.)

It looks like they have a very robust design there.  They may have proven that they really do have engine-out capability, just as they claimed.

It's probably lucky that Dragon was not carrying its maximum payload weight, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/08/2012 05:05 am
Oh, I'm pretty sure I saw a gremlin at T+1:18.256... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare_at_20,000_Feet)

Seriously guys, enough "interpreting" a blurry, badly-lit video.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 05:07 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Elon said it was an engine problem.

where? link please.

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/status.html
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/10/spacex-crs-1-st.html
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/10/07/falcon-9-suffers-engine-anomoly/
As well as Gwynne's statement in the presser.

thanks, i watched nasatv earlier,  Gwynne didn't say anything about that. Don't think it's on spacex frontpage, twitter neither.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 10/08/2012 05:07 am
I'm thinking there's no way to actually test a fully-rocking and rolling 9-engine rocket at Max-Q other than by flying it and seeing what kind of failures occur. They may have to institute a throttle back like Shuttle to avoid a repeat of this problem. Or, it may have been a one-off. But, I'm thinking those turbopumps may be prone to failure under this condition (if it was the turbopump, that is).

The only thing that (probably) isn't speculation at this point is that an energetic event occurred which caused large pieces of the rocket to separate and led to the shutdown of engine 1.

Speculation about the cause at this point is just speculation.  Folks at SpaceX have a ton of actual data to look at while the rest of us have a few frames of blurry video.

Bottom line, there was no LOM and SpaceX gets paid for cargo delivery.  There aren't bonus points awarded for perfection.  Personally, I am skeptical of theories that rely on a fundamental design flaw for a system that has made orbit 4 times now.

The Merlin is designed to be inexpensive and reliable enough.  The rest of the SpaceX validation process and ultimately the engine out capability of Falcon 9 are designed to weed out bad engines and mitigate the effects of a failure like this one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: starsilk on 10/08/2012 05:18 am
Oh, I'm pretty sure I saw a gremlin at T+1:18.256... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare_at_20,000_Feet)

Seriously guys, enough "interpreting" a blurry, badly-lit video.

isn't that what the people on the airliner said?  ;)

(http://content6.flixster.com/question/36/66/54/3666548_std.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 05:40 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/08/2012 05:41 am
The Orbcomm satellite was deployed. But was it deployed in the intended orbit? Meaning, did the second stage fire for a second time as planned? There was the option to deploy it on lower orbit if the second burn of the second stage does not occur.

I did not hear about that.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 05:50 am
Some quotes from a SpaceX statement re: the engine anomaly found at SFN's mission status page: http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/status.html

Quote
"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down," Musk wrote in an email to Spaceflight Now. "As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in realtime to reach the target orbit, which is why the burn times were a bit longer."

The first stage burned nearly 30 seconds longer than planned.

Quote
"Like the Saturn 5, which experienced engine loss on two flights, the Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine flameout and still complete its mission," Musk said. "I believe Falcon 9 is the only rocket flying today that, like a modern airliner, is capable of completing a flight successfully even after losing an engine. There was no effect on Dragon or the space station resupply mission."

Quote
A company spokesperson said more details on the problem would be released Monday.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marshal on 10/08/2012 05:52 am
The Orbcomm satellite was deployed. But was it deployed in the intended orbit? Meaning, did the second stage fire for a second time as planned? There was the option to deploy it on lower orbit if the second burn of the second stage does not occur.

I did not hear about that.



They call ORBCOMM successfully deployed, so it must into intended orbit .
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/08/2012 05:54 am
The Orbcomm satellite was deployed. But was it deployed in the intended orbit? Meaning, did the second stage fire for a second time as planned? There was the option to deploy it on lower orbit if the second burn of the second stage does not occur.

I did not hear about that.



Could be a problem. Standby. (NORAD now tracks 6 objects from the launch (probably Dragon + second stage + Orbcomm + 2x Dragon solarr array blankets + Dragon nose cover), all seems to be in a ~ 200 x 330 km orbit)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marshal on 10/08/2012 05:59 am
The Orbcomm satellite was deployed. But was it deployed in the intended orbit? Meaning, did the second stage fire for a second time as planned? There was the option to deploy it on lower orbit if the second burn of the second stage does not occur.

I did not hear about that.



Could be a problem. Standby. (NORAD now tracks 6 objects from the launch (probably Dragon + second stage + Orbcomm + 2x Dragon solarr array blankets + Dragon nose cover), all seems to be in a ~ 200 x 330 km orbit)

So where are Orbcomm intended orbit ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 06:04 am
The nose cover is jettisoned before it reaches orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/08/2012 06:05 am
Could be a problem. Standby. (NORAD now tracks 6 objects from the launch (probably Dragon + second stage + Orbcomm + 2x Dragon solarr array blankets + Dragon nose cover), all seems to be in a ~ 200 x 330 km orbit)
So where are Orbcomm intended orbit ?

The second stage was supposed restart and raise the apogee to 700 km.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 06:31 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 06:35 am
Did the initial 2nd stage burn last longer then expected as well?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 10/08/2012 06:37 am
Holy cow - this is crazy.

Engineering friend said this was certainly a major event.  Also said calling it a RUD or fairing right now is too early to tell.  This video is sobering.  Look at the chunks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Whatever happened, the engineering into the Falcon 9 is some good stuff.  We did suffer a very serious anomaly and kept on trucking.  Wins for SpaceX and NASA here.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: aquanaut99 on 10/08/2012 06:54 am
Quote
Whatever happened, the engineering into the Falcon 9 is some good stuff.  We did suffer a very serious anomaly and kept on trucking.  Wins for SpaceX and NASA here.

Judging by the admittedly poor, badly lit video, this event to me looks very serious.

I think it's too early to call this a win for SpaceX. It might just have been sheer luck that we did not see a LOM tonight. And this may well impact greatly on their future CRS schedule.

At the very least, they will have to do some serious investigating on what actually happened.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 07:00 am
Elon Musk has said, from the start, that an eventual engine failure was inevitable with so many engines on each first stage, and that SpaceX were confident that even a catastrophic engine failure would not result in LOM.

There was an engine failure. It did not result in LOM.

Seems to me like good engineering, not a "serious problem".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/08/2012 07:01 am
This thread is a great example of why companies don't bother releasing info in the first place. Too many Internet experts.
Best post of this whole thread. Geezz... I've never seen so much armchair engineering posts in a single thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 10/08/2012 07:45 am
This thread is a great example of why companies don't bother releasing info in the first place. Too many Internet experts.
Best post of this whole thread. Geezz... I've never seen so much armchair engineering posts in a single thread.

Until you know the facts, educated (and uneducated!) guesses are all you have.  Besides which, it's fun:)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: savuporo on 10/08/2012 08:06 am
I think it's too early to call this a win for SpaceX.
Anything but a perfect record is not a win for a launch company with so few launches under their belt.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 08:22 am
I think it's too early to call this a win for SpaceX.
Anything but a perfect record is not a win for a launch company with so few launches under their belt.

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kojak on 10/08/2012 08:24 am
Elon Musk has said, from the start, that an eventual engine failure was inevitable with so many engines on each first stage, and that SpaceX were confident that even a catastrophic engine failure would not result in LOM.

There was an engine failure. It did not result in LOM.

Seems to me like good engineering, not a "serious problem".

Something that sould not normally happen probably just did. They need to investigate it before anyone can say how "serious" the problem is.

When an airliner has an engine flame out, most of the times it can still fly. Though, depending on the reason for the failure, the fleet might be grounded for weeks/months and may require system redesign/modification before being allowed to fly again.
This, even if "good engineering" designed the aircraft with more than one engine!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/08/2012 08:42 am

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.

Hopefully SpaceX went through that phase with Falcon 1.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 09:00 am
Elon Musk has said, from the start, that an eventual engine failure was inevitable with so many engines on each first stage, and that SpaceX were confident that even a catastrophic engine failure would not result in LOM.

There was an engine failure. It did not result in LOM.

Seems to me like good engineering, not a "serious problem".

It was good engineering. Brilliant engineering on the part of whoever designed the lightweight shields between the engines.

But not calling this a serious problem would be deluded. An engine shutting itself down gracefully because some reading like the chamber pressure or the turbine speed is too high would not be a serious problem for a design with built-in redundancy. But an engine undergoing what can only be described as a rapid unscheduled disassembly aka explosion is a serious problem.

The good thing is that their design is so robust that in this case it was able to survive a serious problem without loss of mission. Reminds me of the flight of the DC-X where a hydrogen explosion blew half the fairing away. But having engines blowing up is nevertheless not acceptable. Hopefully they will find something in the telemetry which will allow them to detect such failures quicker and shut down the engine gracefully.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 09:12 am

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.

Hopefully SpaceX went through that phase with Falcon 1.

I was going to ask this: Was the core engine on F-1 flight 1 a Merlin-1C? If so, then we're looking at two failures in about 40 or so units flown.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/08/2012 09:19 am
That was F1 #003, I believe (first flight with regen nozzle, and shutdown transients caught them out, making first stage recontact second stage).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/08/2012 09:25 am

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.

Hopefully SpaceX went through that phase with Falcon 1.

I was going to ask this: Was the core engine on F-1 flight 1 a Merlin-1C? If so, then we're looking at two failures in about 40 or so units flown.

Nope, F1 flights 1 and 2 used the Merlin-1A. Flight 3 was the first flight with the regen nozzle (Merlin-1C).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Fivey on 10/08/2012 09:28 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/spacex-acknowledges-falcon-engine-anomaly-during-latest-launch.html

Note dates
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/08/2012 09:41 am
I have looked at the frames before that "explosion" one by one.

There were dark streaks in the exhaust well before that event. As dark indicates unburnt kerosene, does that indicate the shutdown was already initiated? In that case might the debris be really only the shirt that was torn loose by pressure change of shutdown?

Could this be a possible explanation of what we see?

Edit: Can somebody please explain the meaning of RUD event?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 10/08/2012 09:49 am
Edit: Can somebody please explain the meaning of RUD event?

Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly (explosion)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/08/2012 09:51 am

Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly (explosion)


 :)

Thanks

Edit corrected quote
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 10:17 am
I think it's too early to call this a win for SpaceX.
Anything but a perfect record is not a win for a launch company with so few launches under their belt.

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.
I suppose with any other launcher this would have led to LOM.

There have now been two launches (excluding the Falcon 1 launches) and the engine failure is 1 in 18 (give or take and ignoring changes to the engine design). Would F9 survive two engines failing? The chances of that are about 1 in 360 (without doing the full statistics), which is borderline acceptable for a manned launcher (assuming the launch escape system works 90% of the time).

That said, if good telemetary has been received, SpaceX can make the engine more reliable. They might also have better data to extrapolate the effect of 2 engines exploding (or RUD - must remember that one).

Is Orbcomm confirmed orbited yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 10:36 am
It obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.

I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.

If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.

Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).
Primary mission goes to completion.
Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.

As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?

No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).

I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.

No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 10:36 am
I'm wondering if moving forward with Merlin 1d production is the the answer. We've heard that the design is more straight forward.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 10:39 am
I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

I'm not sure that debris would get far enough into the supersonic airflow to impinge on the Dragon, but okay.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Bogeyman on 10/08/2012 10:44 am
Could the fragment seen on the launch screenshot be part of the engine shroud?:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/38/falcon9triebwerksfehler.jpg/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lol on 10/08/2012 10:46 am

There have now been two launches (excluding the Falcon 1 launches) and the engine failure is 1 in 18 (give or take and ignoring changes to the engine design). Would F9 survive two engines failing? The chances of that are about 1 in 360 (without doing the full statistics), which is borderline acceptable for a manned launcher (assuming the launch escape system works 90% of the time).

There have been 4 successful launches of Falcon 9.
So 40 Merlin 1C flown there.

There was 3 launches of Falcon 1 with Merlin 1C. In each launch engine performed nominally.

So out of 43 Merlin 1C flown to this date, 42 performed good.

How you came up with one out of 18 failure rate is above me.

EDIT: Besides, do not forget that Falcon 9 could tolerate 2 engines failures. Probably not in early stages of the flight(first few dozens seconds), but if second engine fail after one minute or so that should be no biggie too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 10:48 am
I'm not sure that debris would get far enough into the supersonic airflow to impinge on the Dragon, but okay.
What people are worried about and what they *should* be worried about are not always the same  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 10:49 am
Could the fragment seen on the launch screenshot be part of the engine shroud?:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/38/falcon9triebwerksfehler.jpg/

That's why I think too. Onboard video shows outlines of 2 engine fairings and engine #1 fairing definitely looks missing/modified. Each fairing is made of two pieces and you can see the split line in your image, the debris piece is consistent with the upper panel of the fairing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: boinc on 10/08/2012 10:51 am
Could the fragment seen on the launch screenshot be part of the engine shroud?:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/38/falcon9triebwerksfehler.jpg/

There is definetly some debris coming out there. Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 10:54 am
Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?

Of course it will. It's only logical to assume the vehicle is grounded until anomaly investigation is performed and corrective actions identified/implemented.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: boinc on 10/08/2012 11:01 am
Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?

Of course it will. It's only logical to assume the vehicle is grounded until anomaly investigation is performed and corrective actions identified/implemented.

On the second look it seems like the engine cover rather crashed into the engine. The boardcomputer detected that and shut the engine down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lol on 10/08/2012 11:03 am
Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?

Of course it will. It's only logical to assume the vehicle is grounded until anomaly investigation is performed and corrective actions identified/implemented.

With next launch scheduled for January next year, there is no reason to believe that investigation and corrective measures wont be done by that time. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 11:08 am
On the second look it seems like the engine cover rather crashed into the engine. The boardcomputer detected that and shut the engine down.

Or something blew off the lower fairing panel and then the upper part just collapsed with no support and under aerodynamic load.

With next launch scheduled for January next year, there is no reason to believe that investigation and corrective measures wont be done by that time. 

There is no particularly good reason to think that it will be done by then, either. Why do you assume root cause analysis and corrective action will be as trivial as that?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 11:11 am

There have been 4 successful launches of Falcon 9.
So 40 Merlin 1C flown there.

There was 3 launches of Falcon 1 with Merlin 1C. In each launch engine performed nominally.

So out of 43 Merlin 1C flown to this date, 42 performed good.

How you came up with one out of 18 failure rate is above me.

EDIT: Besides, do not forget that Falcon 9 could tolerate 2 engines failures. Probably not in early stages of the flight(first few dozens seconds), but if second engine fail after one minute or so that should be no biggie too.
Sorry about that (must stop posting before thinking).

On the basis of this the statistical chances of multiple engine failure leading to LOM are tiny.

Next step is to identify a failure which could knock out all engines, including an analysis of how well the correction software (and hardware) performed (it appears to have done its job). Could one engine failure plus a computing failure lead to LOM.

SpaceX would I'm sure love to get their hands on the engine shielding for the neighbouring engines. Did it contain all the damage - or were neighbouring engines lucky to survice (saved by the bell)? Did they get some high resolution pictures? Or will they be able to recover this stage?

What happened when the engine failed to the vehicle flight path. Was there a shock to the system which might damage other equipment? I assume they have accelerometer telemetary to measure just that.

Lots of analysis to do but this failure does demonstrate the safety of the rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 11:15 am
Basically the B-17 of the US space fleet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 11:16 am
Really, a lot depends on the actual cause of the 'anomaly'.

If it was an engine failure (and subsequently RUD), then F9 Block 1 is grounded until a fix for Merlin-1C is identified and implemented.  The fact that this happened after acceptance tests and a static fire with no pre-warnings of a fault would raise issues about the engine's overall reliability.

However, if (as boinc suggests up-thread), the engine shut down after the bell contacted with debris, perhaps the side aerodynamic cover coming off, then it is just a case of double-checking the securing of the covers.  Are more rivets or welds needed? Is there an issue with metal fatigue?

An engine problem could impact on the schedule for SpX-2, but a structural issue might not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 11:17 am
Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?

Of course it will. It's only logical to assume the vehicle is grounded until anomaly investigation is performed and corrective actions identified/implemented.
It probably will be grounded but I disagree that that is the logical step.

An anomaly ocurred and therefore without corrective actions may occur again. However, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.

I assume there is a period of analysis after which a decision is made on wheter to launch the next mission before corrective action is taken or after. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: hrissan on 10/08/2012 11:19 am
Next step is to identify a failure which could knock out all engines, including an analysis of how well the correction software (and hardware) performed (it appears to have done its job). Could one engine failure plus a computing failure lead to LOM.

SpaceX would I'm sure love to get their hands on the engine shielding for the neighbouring engines. Did it contain all the damage - or were neighbouring engines lucky to survice (saved by the bell)? Did they get some high resolution pictures? Or will they be able to recover this stage?

What happened when the engine failed to the vehicle flight path. Was there a shock to the system which might damage other equipment? I assume they have accelerometer telemetary to measure just that.

Lots of analysis to do but this failure does demonstrate the safety of the rocket.
Another reason for reusability. :) If the rocket did not explode completely, you could investigate hardware after you get it back to Earth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 11:23 am
However, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.

I shudder to think that we've come to a point where a potential engine RUD is not labeled as a mission-endangering event. Just like Delta IV a couple of days ago, they might have been lucky this time. If you don't treat this as a major anomaly that it is, you're back to "normalization of deviance".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lol on 10/08/2012 11:23 am
There is no particularly good reason to think that it will be done by then, either.
Quite contrary.

Few reasons for that.

In most cases(>50%) root cause of rocket failure was determined in well under 3 months.
SpaceX is vertically integrated, most work done by them and they are quite independent of supply chain. 

For example, Falcon 1 Flight 3 failure was investigated and corrective measures were taken, so Flight 4 occurred less then 2 months after Flight 3.

Why do you assume root cause analysis and corrective action will be as trivial as that?
Trivial? I never said that. Please stop imagining things.

But what is your reasons for assuming that it wont be done by next year?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 11:33 am
But what is your reasons for assuming that it wont be done by next year?

Because this wasn't a trivial software timing issue that could have been fixed in a couple of minutes like your other example. An engine that went through an engine acceptance test and at least two stage acceptance tests and which, during development, accumulated several thousand seconds of firing time apparently let go spectacularly. If you believe this to be a quick fix, that's your right. I am not nearly as optimistic as you that even if RCA is done swiftly that corrective actions will be possible on such a short order.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 11:35 am
That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Harold KSC on 10/08/2012 11:39 am
Catching up. These guys are scary. Need to stop dodging bullets before they put a crew anywhere near this LV.

That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.

"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening. What next, the vehicle blows up and you'll praise their excellent FTS? :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 11:41 am
However, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.

I shudder to think that we've come to a point where a potential engine RUD is not labeled as a mission-endangering event. Just like Delta IV a couple of days ago, they might have been lucky this time. If you don't treat this as a major anomaly that it is, you're back to "normalization of deviance".
But isn't it progress where a potential engine RUD is not a mission endangering event? Where we can treat this specific failure mode (if it can be found out) in the same way as an airline treats an enegine failure.

The cautionary principle means no more flights until either:
1. The cause of the engine failure is identified and fixed
2. It is proven this is not a Mission Endangering Event.

Of course, the key to (2) would be to analyse the engines and see whether it was luck or good design that saved the vehicle. That may not be possible. (Where is the engine now?)


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 11:46 am
The cautionary principle means no more flights until either:
1. The cause of the engine failure is identified and fixed
2. It is proven this is not a Mission Endangering Event.

Given that there are only two (?) more flights of this engine design scheduled, the engine-out capability has been demonstrated, the engines and stages have already been constructed, and the flights are unmanned, I wonder if it'll be cheaper for SpaceX to fly them anyway (even with slightly higher insurance premiums) than to modify/rebuild the engines/stages...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/08/2012 11:54 am
Given that there are only two (?) more flights of this engine design scheduled, the engine-out capability has been demonstrated, the engines and stages have already been constructed, and the flights are unmanned, I wonder if it'll be cheaper for SpaceX to fly them anyway (even with slightly higher insurance premiums) than to modify/rebuild the engines/stages...
That would be normalization Of Deviance, which as we have seen is a deadly combination.  Better to just stop and fix it now, as whatever might be wrong with Falcon 9 1.0 might be able to occur on 1.1 as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 10/08/2012 11:56 am
The cautionary principle means no more flights until either:
1. The cause of the engine failure is identified and fixed
2. It is proven this is not a Mission Endangering Event.

Given that there are only two (?) more flights of this engine design scheduled, the engine-out capability has been demonstrated, the engines and stages have already been constructed, and the flights are unmanned, I wonder if it'll be cheaper for SpaceX to fly them anyway (even with slightly higher insurance premiums) than to modify/rebuild the engines/stages...

I believe CRS-2 is the sole remaining F9 v-1.0/M1C flight, the next being an essentially new bird: the Q1 2013 flight of F9 v-1.1 from Vandenberg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 11:57 am

Just saw this on NewSpace Watch. No idea if it has been posted already.

http://spaceref.biz/news/viewsr.html?pid=42263

Quote
According to a statement provided to NASAWatch by Elon Musk at SpaceX:

"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down. As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in realtime to reach the target orbit, which is why the burn times were a bit longer. Like Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, the Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine flameout and still complete its mission. I believe F9 is the only rocket flying today that, like a modern airliner, is capable of completing a flight successfully even after losing an engine. There was no effect on Dragon or the Space Station resupply mission."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: VatTas on 10/08/2012 12:00 pm
Looking at the slow-motion Youtube video, the double view, righthand rocket cam... at T+1:30 as indicated in the video.

Is it a trick of the lighting or does the entire skin of the vehicle deflect "inwards" just above the center of the frame?
Somehow everybody on the thread is ignoring this. That's clearly deformation, not some trick of light. It appears to happen several seconds after engine 1 problem (note that external and on-board camera views are out of sync). It's interesting what might have caused this? This must have been some considerable force acting to cause such effect.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 12:03 pm
I believe CRS-2 is the sole remaining F9 v-1.0/M1C flight

+ Jason-3 for NASA.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 12:04 pm
Catching up. These guys are scary. Need to stop dodging bullets before they put a crew anywhere near this LV.

That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.

"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening. What next, the vehicle blows up and you'll praise their excellent FTS? :)
They're bound to get an engine failure, so designing your rocket to work with an engine failure is a good idea.

I do computer storage engineering as a part time job. We often have hard drive failures, but because we use RAID, we haven't ever totally lost any data. Part failure is inevitable. System failure is not. How your system deals with part failure shows your true engineering capability.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: VatTas on 10/08/2012 12:12 pm
Screen captures showing dent appearing in the interstage.
(very noticeable when you switch between these two pictures in some picture viewer)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 12:16 pm
We often have hard drive failures, but because we use RAID, we haven't ever totally lost any data.

Come on. Hard drive failures don't have the tendency of destroying other hard drives when they fail. I cannot believe how you can say that one occurence of a engine anomaly not resulting in LOV proves the vehicle is robust. By the same token STS-27 "proved" that Shuttle will survive tile damage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 12:27 pm
We often have hard drive failures, but because we use RAID, we haven't ever totally lost any data.

Come on. Hard drive failures don't have the tendency of destroying other hard drives when they fail....
actually, yes it does. The rebuilding process really stresses the drives and can cause another hard drive to fail much earlier, which is why you have RAID 6 and synchronous mirroring.


Before this flight, SpaceX had flown more Merlins than Atlas V has flown rd180s. There is no evidence SpaceX has a higher than industry standard level of engine failure. But they are the only folks who can survive engine failure and still complete the mission. To hold another view is to have a bias in systems engineering towards systems without redundancy, which are simpler and will thus have a lower incidence of per mission parts failures, but will have higher system failure rates than a properly engineered redundant system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 12:27 pm
Screen captures showing dent appearing in the interstage.
(very noticeable when you switch between these two pictures in some picture viewer)

That is a umbilical connection point for the upper stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 12:30 pm
We often have hard drive failures, but because we use RAID, we haven't ever totally lost any data.

Come on. Hard drive failures don't have the tendency of destroying other hard drives when they fail. I cannot believe how you can say that one occurence of a engine anomaly not resulting in LOV proves the vehicle is robust. By the same token STS-27 "proved" that Shuttle will survive tile damage.

They do in RAID 0.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Diagoras on 10/08/2012 12:32 pm
Quote
To hold another view is to have a bias in systems engineering towards systems without redundancy, which are simpler and will thus have a lower incidence of per mission parts failures, but will have higher system failure rates than a properly engineered redundant system.

I think Robotbeat's point here is the key one. Is there a reason to bias against redundant systems like F9 in favor of simpler ones?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 12:41 pm
"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening.
You're not an engineer, are you? At least I hope you're not with an attitude like that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 12:45 pm
Catching up. These guys are scary. Need to stop dodging bullets before they put a crew anywhere near this LV.

There will be a lot of flights before commercial crew. And things like this are exactly why it is a good idea to do many unmanned flights before the first manned one.

Quote
That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.

"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening. What next, the vehicle blows up and you'll praise their excellent FTS? :)

Completely avoiding any anomalies is not excellent engineering, but magical engineering. As in: impossible. See every launch vehicle ever flown.

Designing a lightweight system to contain a RUD is excellent engineering. The engineering or quality control on the engine was less than excellent, but because the vehicle survived, now they have a lot of video data and telemetry to sift through to find the cause of the failure.

I don't have the slightest doubt that they will take the time necessary to find the root cause of this and take corrective actions, even if it means delaying the second operational flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 12:49 pm
Anyone knows when the GNC bay door is supposed to open?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 12:55 pm
Anyone knows when the GNC bay door is supposed to open?

About 10 hours ago. Hopefully has, but no official word yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 12:55 pm
Should already be open. Seems there is a lot to update in next report.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: VatTas on 10/08/2012 01:06 pm
That is a umbilical connection point for the upper stage.
Chris, you mean circular opening on the left side of the picture? Of course it is. But look at what's happening right next to it (as I suggested, save-as these images and switch back and forth in some image viewer). Is it physical deformation or some strange video artifact?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 01:30 pm
That is a umbilical connection point for the upper stage.
Chris, you mean circular opening on the left side of the picture? Of course it is. But look at what's happening right next to it (as I suggested, save-as these images and switch back and forth in some image viewer). Is it physical deformation or some strange video artifact?

I see it, too. Right as announcer calls out MaxQ. I think it's easier to see on the video than the stills.

Keep in mind that the wide angle lens of the on-board camera exaggerates the differences between foregound and background, making objects in the foreground seem big. The area in question may only be a few inches.

Afterwards, some trim around the umbilical orifice becomes partially detatched and flaps around for a while.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 01:33 pm
Catching up. These guys are scary. Need to stop dodging bullets before they put a crew anywhere near this LV.

That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.

"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening. What next, the vehicle blows up and you'll praise their excellent FTS? :)

If you actually are a staff member at KSC perhaps you would like to look up how many crewed launch vehicles (operated by NASA or anyone else) have reached orbit when one of their main engines *explodes* (not shuts down a bit early).

I'll stick with Mary Shaeffer's view that "Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 01:35 pm
Moved from the launch updates thread:

Dragon will have to do a larger out of plane burn but within limits.

You mean on account of some 30 second delay to SECO-1?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 01:38 pm
I'm predicting when the details of this event are released later today, a lot of this speculation will turn out to be wrong and those same people will start yelling "CONSPIRACY!  THEY'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE EXPLOSION!"  Let's let the rocket experts be rocket experts.

Remember when the shuttle returned to flight after the Columbia disaster?  There was one member of the press who took every tiny piece of foam liberation she saw and started screaming "they're all gonna die" at every press conference (not in those exact words, but in her questions).  This whole thread is starting to sound just like that...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 01:38 pm
I'll stick with Mary Shaeffer's view that "Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."

Seems like a good time to read these:
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/after-ten-years-why-write-now/
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/after-ten-years-dramatis-personae-part-1/
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/ten-years-after-columbia-balancing-life-and-work/
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/ten-years-after-columbia-balancing-work-and-life/
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/after-ten-years-the-tyranny-of-requirements/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rubicondsrv on 10/08/2012 01:59 pm
I'm predicting when the details of this event are released later today, a lot of this speculation will turn out to be wrong

That is quite possible especially considering the low quality of the video publicly available.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SpacexULA on 10/08/2012 02:05 pm
I just don't understand the level of the hand wringing here.  I am sure people from SpaceX where reviewing the video/sensors trying to figure out what happened starting seconds after the warning came up on the telemetry board.

At this point it could be anything from a fairing shacking loose hitting Engine 1 all the way up to fundamental flaw in the design of the thrust structure or Merlin engine.  We have no way ATM to tell how extreme this issue is, but am 100% sure plenty of smart folks are banging their head against the problem, and more will be in shared in the near future.

SpaceX has to keep the confidence of their current customers, future customers, investors, and future investors, I very seriously doubt that the reason for the engine out will be a mystery for very long.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 02:22 pm
This video steps through the anomaly frame by frame:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEl7udPQoGk

The frame immediately prior to failure shows what I infer is combustion chamber glow seen through the chamber throat (the corner engines are angled outward the most so the viewing geometry would be most favorable for this engine). Next frame shows a point of light quite a bit upstream and slightly "above" and would be consistent with the turbopump location. Overall engine plume location in the two frames suggests this isn't the same glow of the combustions chamber shifted due to camera FOV shifting, but that it's a different light source and that the failure did originate upstream of the chamber, i.e. it doesn't suggest combustion chamber failure. Normally, this location in the engine would I think be obscured by the fairing and TPS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 02:23 pm
I just don't understand the level of the hand wringing here.  I am sure people from SpaceX where reviewing the video/sensors trying to figure out what happened starting seconds after the warning came up on the telemetry board.

At this point it could be anything from a fairing shacking loose hitting Engine 1 all the way up to fundamental flaw in the design of the thrust structure or Merlin engine.  We have no way ATM to tell how extreme this issue is, but am 100% sure plenty of smart folks are banging their head against the problem, and more will be in shared in the near future.

SpaceX has to keep the confidence of their current customers, future customers, investors, and future investors, I very seriously doubt that the reason for the engine out will be a mystery for very long.

Exactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 02:27 pm
@ ugordon,

Nice video. 

Purely uneducated layman's view: Those bits of debris look too big to be bits of the engine bell to me; whatever happened may have knocked their aerodynamic fairing off or, alternately, the aerodynamic fairing coming off caused whatever that happened.


@SpacexULA

It isn't really hand-wringing.  We're space geeks and we're really interested to know what happened here.  :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 02:29 pm
Exactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.
I never claimed they wouldn't analyse it -- in fact I'm sure they're doing just that, in great detail. I merely suggested that it might not be cost-effective to correct it for exactly one final flight of the model of engine that failed. I.e. the cost of LOM on SpX-2 multiplied by the probability of the same issue both recurring and resulting in LOM, might be less than the cost of effectively rebuilding an entire Falcon 9 LV. I'm 100% certain that any necessary changes will be introduced to new build Falcon 9s and the Merlin 1D engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 02:30 pm
Can't rule out the gas generator or turbine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Dave Huntsman on 10/08/2012 02:34 pm
Quote
Exactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.

That brings up another question, though: I'll hazard a guess that launch video will prove significant in diagnosing what happened. Yet, if I am not mistaken, launch video was not a Go/No Go requirement for launch.  After they institute a fix(es) before next flight, will they also have to insist that launch video systems- and sufficiently clear weather - also be launch constraints for flight? If so, that could end up being one of the bigger impacts from this.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 02:51 pm
At this point as far as we know, Orbcomm ended up in the 200kmx330km orbit?

I hope their business as a satellite communications provider doesn't like...depend on having operating satellites in the correct orbits or anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/08/2012 03:00 pm
What a shame...  This thread was perfectly good up to page 24. And then we got 13 pages mostly filled with assumptions, uneducated guessing and armchair engineering.  :(

Thank goodness the big boss on this forum writes his articles based on hard facts only.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 03:01 pm
Exactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.
I never claimed they wouldn't analyse it -- in fact I'm sure they're doing just that, in great detail. I merely suggested that it might not be cost-effective to correct it for exactly one final flight of the model of engine that failed. I.e. the cost of LOM on SpX-2 multiplied by the probability of the same issue both recurring and resulting in LOM, might be less than the cost of effectively rebuilding an entire Falcon 9 LV. I'm 100% certain that any necessary changes will be introduced to new build Falcon 9s and the Merlin 1D engine.
I bet they will do what they need to do, actually. If this had been an actual full failure, they would really be paying for it, so they will reduce that risk as much as they can, even if just for a single flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:03 pm
As for whether this CRS-1 event will impact the CRS-2 launch: it's almost certain that somebody now has a lot more work to do between now and then! I hope they are open about it. Can anyone confirm the investigation will need to fully include the range operator (USAF) at a minimum? Does NASA pay for insight into this at all?

No need for USAF as range operator but maybe USAF as potential user.  Via the NLS contract, NASA has insight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:04 pm
Why did the second stage roll control thruster only fire (repeatedly) in one direction?

Normally you see it burn aprox. equally amount of times (about 45 degrees left/right).

Any thoughts?
 

because it was correcting the attitude.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 03:10 pm
Looking at the slow-motion Youtube video, the double view, righthand rocket cam... at T+1:30 as indicated in the video.

Is it a trick of the lighting or does the entire skin of the vehicle deflect "inwards" just above the center of the frame?
Somehow everybody on the thread is ignoring this. That's clearly deformation, not some trick of light. It appears to happen several seconds after engine 1 problem (note that external and on-board camera views are out of sync). It's interesting what might have caused this? This must have been some considerable force acting to cause such effect.

This is just Max-Q pressure effects, in my opinion.  We've seen parts of the Shuttle External Tank (or fairings on the ET), and other rockets I believe, deflect in similar ways.  These rockets are flexible!

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 03:13 pm
At this point as far as we know, Orbcomm ended up in the 200kmx330km orbit?

I'm going to wait a day to see how Space Trak sorts things out. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:15 pm
I'm going with a nozzle failure.

Lots of exposed tubes on a Merlin 1C. How humid has it been at the pad?

I worry about rocket engines rusting away. I don't like to see launch vehicles rolled around outdoors too often. Just put them on the pad and fire them off, don't expose them to the elements.

Nozzle failure would not have those affecs.  Rusting?  That is never an issue, even if sat on the pad for a year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:16 pm
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!


No, they got the same benefit as Delta IV did recently.  They had excess performance.

Skin of their teeth or not, I am very impressed.  Whether you want to call it an explosion or not the event looked very energetic and big chunks of the rocket got blown out into the slipstream and other big chunks fell off.  Falcon 9 just kept on trucking.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Tcommon on 10/08/2012 03:16 pm
At this point as far as we know, Orbcomm ended up in the 200kmx330km orbit?

I'm going to wait a day to see how Space Trak sorts things out. 

 - Ed Kyle

"Falcon 9 did not make its second upper stage burn, and the Orbcomm satellite is being tracked in low orbit instead of its elliptical target orbit."
http://www.facebook.com/jsrpage/posts/10151048911726680
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:19 pm

Bottom line, there was no LOM and SpaceX gets paid for cargo delivery.  There aren't bonus points awarded for perfection.  Personally, I am skeptical of theories that rely on a fundamental design flaw for a system that has made orbit 4 times now.

The Merlin is designed to be inexpensive and reliable enough.  The rest of the SpaceX validation process and ultimately the engine out capability of Falcon 9 are designed to weed out bad engines and mitigate the effects of a failure like this one.

Wrong on many counts.
There are penalty points for successful missions with problems
4 flights does not prove a design.
And the last sentence is unsubstantiated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:20 pm
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

No, there is nothing historic about it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:21 pm
It obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.

I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.

If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.

Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).
Primary mission goes to completion.
Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.

As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?

No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).

I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.

No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme.

Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:22 pm
However, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.

I shudder to think that we've come to a point where a potential engine RUD is not labeled as a mission-endangering event. Just like Delta IV a couple of days ago, they might have been lucky this time. If you don't treat this as a major anomaly that it is, you're back to "normalization of deviance".

bingo
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:23 pm
There is no particularly good reason to think that it will be done by then, either.
Quite contrary.

Few reasons for that.

In most cases(>50%) root cause of rocket failure was determined in well under 3 months.
SpaceX is vertically integrated, most work done by them and they are quite independent of supply chain. 

For example, Falcon 1 Flight 3 failure was investigated and corrective measures were taken, so Flight 4 occurred less then 2 months after Flight 3.

Why do you assume root cause analysis and corrective action will be as trivial as that?
Trivial? I never said that. Please stop imagining things.

But what is your reasons for assuming that it wont be done by next year?

Wrong.  You have no basis for your points
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 10/08/2012 03:30 pm
It obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.

I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.

If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.

Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).
Primary mission goes to completion.
Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.

As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?

No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).

I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.

No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme.

Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.

I assume you shouldn't consider secondary satellites placed in the wrong orbit a success either.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 03:30 pm
So the second stage failed to restart?  That sounds bad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/08/2012 03:33 pm

I assume you shouldn't consider secondary satellites placed in the wrong orbit a success either.


Has that been confirmed?

Also, any status on the GNC door? 

The silence is deafening.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 10/08/2012 03:35 pm
So the second stage failed to restart?  That sounds bad.

I doubt it "failed" but simply couldn't restart due to fuel depletion from the longer burn to get Dragon into orbit.

I know everyone here want's to figure out what happened but would it not be made easier by waiting for just a bit of detailed information?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 03:36 pm
If you don't like armchair engineering, you should get off the internet.

The problem with a vehicle being reliable enough is that customers see videos like this and freak out, even if it's an emotional response.  Most satellite customers are not that embracing of risk.

I'll hazard a guess that launch video will prove significant in diagnosing what happened. Yet, if I am not mistaken, launch video was not a Go/No Go requirement for launch.  After they institute a fix(es) before next flight, will they also have to insist that launch video systems- and sufficiently clear weather - also be launch constraints for flight?

No.  That's what telemetry is for.  Engine parameters are more than sufficient for diagnosing problems.  Shuttle, with its heat shield in the wrong place for ascent, needed video and radar because there was not telemetry that could tell if foam was separating.

The fact that this happened after acceptance tests and a static fire with no pre-warnings of a fault would raise issues about the engine's overall reliability.

I don't think anyone outside of SpaceX and customers watching data last night know if there were leading indicators of the event.

I really think the agora needs to recalibrate what normalization of deviance means with SpaceX.  SpaceX will not take months or years to stand down like NASA would.  SpaceX will evaluate the risks, Pareto the causes, control the most likely ones and move on.  SpaceX will not correct the things that it finds to be low likelihood, unlike NASA.  It's a difference in culture that customers need to be aware of.

If SpaceX does not intend this to be the perception, then its actions need to better match its rhetoric.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: brettreds2k on 10/08/2012 03:37 pm
You have to wonder the condition of this flight due to no information has been given since launch on the status it seems, No confirmation of the health of the craft this morning or if the doors opened as planned, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 03:43 pm
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

No, there is nothing historic about it.

Can you give us examples of this happening before, then? Not engine shutdowns, but engine 'RUD's that did not cause LOV/LOM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 03:43 pm
I'm sure SpaceX will take the problem extremely seriously and get a fix that will be acceptable to customers.  How long it will take depends on how long it will take.

But as a distinterested bystander, I was really impressed that their rocket survived and thrived.  Luck?  No, good engineering.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: brettreds2k on 10/08/2012 03:45 pm
Id agree, they designed the vehicle to survive a break down of 1 engine it seems, they promised this when it was in testing. Great job to them, just wish they would give some updates on the mission
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 03:48 pm
Every Falcon 9 launch to date has had anomalies. Remember the liftoff roll? The 2nd stage roll? The fireball? The fuel-rich shutdown? All of these problems got "fixed".  This one will get fixed too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 03:50 pm
Vehicle #3 was fairly clean, at least judging by public info.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/08/2012 03:52 pm

But as a distinterested bystander, I was really impressed that their rocket survived and thrived.  Luck?  No, good engineering.

We won't know how lucky or otherwise they were until we know the cause of the failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 03:55 pm
Vehicle #3 was fairly clean, at least judging by public info.

Oh, was that early shutdown flight 2?  I thought is was flight 3.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 03:55 pm
What early shutdown?

#2 had an oxygen-rich condition at 1st stage shutdown and a truncated MVac nozzle, I'm not aware of any early shutdowns.

#3 other than burning MVac longer than published info stated (stale info or underperfomance?), was pretty uneventful.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 03:59 pm
What early shutdown?

Ok, my bad...it was something about fuel-rich or out-of-parameters on one engine... got over blown...the infamous e-mail and lawsuit.  Maybe it wasn't early shutdown, and I forget what flight now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 04:01 pm
Ah, that. I think that might have been a case of someone hearing about the anomaly on #2 (oxygen-rich shutdown) and not understanding the preplanned MECO-1 cutoff, added 2 and 2 and got 5.

Back on topic, Ben Cooper's launch photos: http://launchphotography.com/SpX-1.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Genuine on 10/08/2012 04:01 pm
Quote
4 flights does not prove a design.

Ok, Jim, I'm an engineer and a scientist. One successful launch demonstrates that a design is capable of working. Engineering is a science. Science doesn't prove anything, it demonstrates the veracity of a design, whether that design is mere langauge or a complex system. That demonstration is temporary, as all designs should be. Designing is a continuous process, and the reason this domain is in so much trouble is that people take a design and run with it ad infinitum, expecting it to work over and over again with little or no improvement. That may work for NASA and the Air Force, but it's not going to work with the new paradigm of commercial space flight if you expect progress in the timeframes of your lifetime. Still starting your car with a lead acid battery charged by an alternator are you? Got jumper cables in your trunk?

[Impolite but well deserved snark removed by Genuine]
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:07 pm
This video steps through the anomaly frame by frame:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEl7udPQoGk


This movie adds a lot of context.
In the second frame, there's what looks to me like the first piece of large debris exiting the top of the exhaust stream.  (it looks like a flame extension, but look carefully, you can see the object)

It is the largest piece, and I think it is the lower fairing.  It is shown again at about frame #6, already far outside the flow.

At this point the engine reacts, there's a lot of disturbance to the flow (~10 frames)

Only then do other large (but smaller) pieces show up a, including what is very likely the upper part of the fairing

Then, the engine shuts off.

I'm still with the torn fairing proposal then.

----

Near LOM?  maybe.  It's definitely not a ho-hum nothing-serious-happened event.   If you design reliability for a single engine-out, then this must be a rare event.  If it isn't, then you need to design reliability for a dual engine-out.

That said, they indeed flew 40 engines already, and this might not even be an engine-related problem, but loss-of-engine due to an external issue.  Time to wait and see.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: aero on 10/08/2012 04:25 pm
I guess that means Falcon 9 v1.0 is not quite reusable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/08/2012 04:26 pm
This is an interesting time lapse from Ben Cooper's amazing set.  Does the brightening along the early part of the ascent document the Engine 1 anomaly?

http://www.launchphotography.com/SpX-1.jpg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/08/2012 04:27 pm
This is an interesting time lapse from Ben Cooper's amazing set.  Does the brightening along the early part of the ascent document the Engine 1 anomaly?

http://www.launchphotography.com/SpX-1.jpg

I think there's an easier explaination: a cloud deck.  ;)

That said, "that thing" happened just as the F9 went throught a cloud deck....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 10/08/2012 04:36 pm
 The F9 shuts down two engines part way through the boost to keep Gs down, right? Does anybody know how an unplanned shutdown would affect the planned shutdowns?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 04:41 pm
Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
Let me qualify that. *If* it turns out to be an engine explosion then in term of *vehicle* design this may well be Spacex's finest hour to date.

Engine explodes.

Debris shields between engines contain damage (BTW do other LV's have this? Xcorp have talked about it for Lynx but that's sub orbital at present)

Primary payload continues to orbit. Secondary payload in backup orbit (IIRC the 2nd stage was supposed to have a 2nd burn but if it was not possible the Orbcomm satellite was to be deployed in the parking orbit which was presumably *agreed* with Orbital before it was fitted)

The fact it happened is *not* their finest hour, but how they *respond* to it (like NASA's response to Apollo 13) is likely to be a defining moment for the company.

As for "they got lucky." Well no they didn't. Having an engine (probably) blow up on you is not most peoples idea of good luck. Having it happen and still completing the mission and discovering (later) that is because the fragments hit nothing vital *would* be good luck.

But it's impossible to say if they had that either. They *prepared* for possible failure by deciding to have multiple engines (for a *benign* shutdown) and blast shields between them (for a non benign shutdown).
That's not "luck," that's engineering.

As for "performance critical" missions I'd guess they'd start by not carrying any *secondary* payloads (which, if the payload was that heavy or the orbit that difficult the primary customer would not agree to anyway). So the question becomes are there parts of the F9 payload/orbit operating envelope that are marginal with *all* engines operating normally and standard margins on propellants?

IDK. I'm not that familiar with the F9 payload manual and I'm not sure it would be *explicitly* mentioned anyway.
That's a question of how close to F9's *absolute* performance the nominal range runs. 

Do you have any *specific* examples where their indicated payload/orbit parameters are pushing the limits of the vehicles capabilities? If you don't then is there *any* reason to expect the results of such a mission to be any worse than the ones today?

I'll note it's still *possible* the contents of Dragon may be severely damaged (and were it carrying passengers they might be badly hurt or even dead) and the Orbcomm sat situation still seems unclear. But (in so far as anything *is* known) they both seem OK. Which I think is a lot better than they would be on *any* other current generation launch vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:00 pm
I will continue to respond to your inanities until I am banned here.

Not a very nice way to introduce yourself with your first post.
Can we please be polite?

Sure, I can be polite. The question is, can Jim?
You're confusing "impoliteness" with "bluntness". If the latter offends you, then you need to consider avoiding internet forums in general, and scientific/engineering orientated forums in particular.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/08/2012 05:01 pm
I guess that means Falcon 9 v1.0 is not quite reusable.

Finally, a sensible bit of armchair engineering! :D

Though, I really wish they had gotten the first stage recovery thing working, as it would have been cool to see the aftereffects.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rubicondsrv on 10/08/2012 05:06 pm
[quote author=simonbp link=topic=29130.msg962967#msg962967
Though, I really wish they had gotten the first stage recovery thing working, as it would have been cool to see the aftereffects.
[/quote]

If they want to see the damage badly enough they can always go fishing.

The range tracking should give them a very good idea of where the first stage crashed, so it could be recovered for examination if there was a need.

That being said, i doubt there is much value in doing that.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: butters on 10/08/2012 05:06 pm
I hope this is something simple, like the engine faring came loose and hit the nozzle. As we saw with Columbia, things coming off near max-q and hitting other things can cause surprising amounts of damage. They'd have to figure out if it was a failure of a fastener or the faring itself. The woman on the SpaceX webcast who manages the dynamic testing group seemed to be very uncomfortable at the end of the webcast, FWIW.

Either way, there's not actually that much commonality between the M1C and the M1D. Different turbopumps, different nozzles, different engine installations. No engine farings on the F9 v1.1 of course. It's hard to imagine this failure having any impact on M1D development.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jabe on 10/08/2012 05:07 pm
while we are waiting for news..what are people's thoughts on this..
lets say the GNC door failed to open and can't be opened...  What will Spacex Do  with Dragon? fly it in orbit for as long as they can or get it down ASAP?
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:08 pm
Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
Of course this isn't the finest hour. A fine hour is one which goes unheard of, like a good referee/umpire at a football game.

But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P

If indeed luck has played a part, then today was their unlucky day, and the previous 3 flights were their lucky days.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 10/08/2012 05:13 pm
The F9 shuts down two engines part way through the boost to keep Gs down, right? Does anybody know how an unplanned shutdown would affect the planned shutdowns?
That is simple. You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown and a couple more out after it. The number of engines out before normal shutdown delays the shutdown time (or even cancel it) and a new pattern of engines to be cut off is generated. No sense on cutting 2 engines of the same side.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 05:13 pm
Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
Of course this isn't the finest hour. A fine hour is one which goes unheard of, like a good referee/umpire at a football game.

But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P

If indeed luck has played a part, then today was their unlucky day, and the previous 3 flights were their lucky days.

The fact that the vehicle continued to orbit is indeed a good thing.  The appearance of a possible engine explosion is not a good thing and I concur with Jim they got "lucky".  There are likely a host of scenarios where it could have ended differently and performance relative to other potential payloads could be a factor in the future. 

Regardless of the outcome of this specific launch, it is imperative a root cause is determined.  There could be other engines with similar issues (if and when the problem is discovered) that need correcting.  It could be a process issue, which goes beyond that specific serial number or even engine design.

Spinning it as no big deal really devalues what must be done from an investigation data collection and evaluation standpoint. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 05:14 pm
But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P

Luck as in the vehicle had enough performance left to complete the primary mission (Dragon). The fact the required performance "reserve" might have come from propellant actually allocated for the secondary (Orbcomm) I'm sure makes Orbcomm folks feel warm and fuzzy.

For example, it could have survived the engine failure and still put the payload in the drink .
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:16 pm
Designing is a continuous process, and the reason this domain is in so much trouble is that people take a design and run with it ad infinitum, expecting it to work over and over again with little or no improvement. That may work for NASA and the Air Force, but it's not going to work with the new paradigm of commercial space flight if you expect progress in the timeframes of your lifetime.


That just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

a. Launch vehicle designs are not static.  That is not a "new" paradigm of "commercial" space flight.  That is very old school spaceflight.  Look at the first Delta and the last Delta II.  Look at the first Atlas Centaur and look at the last Atlas III.  The current Delta IV's and Atlas V's are not even the same as the ones that first flew in 2003. 

b.  And NASA and the Air Force have been onboard with this and are big drivers
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:18 pm
From the Update thread (trying to keep it free from general discussion)
The silence surrounding the GNC door is starting to worry me. It should have opened by now, and it's not like SpaceX to ignore facts surrounding successful milestones.
Wouldn't SpaceX public relations be hard at work now trying to word a new document (or Elon Musk tweet) about the engine failure? Maybe "boring" stuff like GNC door opening is way down on their list for the mo?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Genuine on 10/08/2012 05:18 pm
I will continue to respond to your inanities until I am banned here.

Not a very nice way to introduce yourself with your first post.
Can we please be polite?

Sure, I can be polite. The question is, can Jim?
You're confusing "impoliteness" with "bluntness". If the latter offends you, then you need to consider avoiding internet forums in general, and scientific/engineering orientated forums in particular.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

I assure you my skin is thick and I can outblunt Jim with finesse.

Bluntness does not change the content of my rebuttal. He makes these kinds of blunt 'not even wrong' absolute statements with impunity here because very few people here have the experience and knowledge to disqualify these kinds of obvious falsehoods and 'old wives tales'.

If you care to comment on the topics of proof and demonstration and the demonstrable decades' long standing problems of the lack of design innovation and progress within the NASA and Air Force launch vehicle procurement process, then I would love to hear about it.

Reusable launch and propulsion is going to be a huge industry in the very near future, with hoppers moving from pad to pad delivering upper and core stages to low Earth orbit and beyond with airline like efficiency, and I'll use any technique I have to knock down the barriers to progress. Statements like the one I commented here have thus far escaped even the most mildest of rebuttals, and that's something I just wanted to bring to the immediate attention of those interested in this industry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:20 pm

If you care to comment on the topics of proof and demonstration and the demonstrable decades' long standing problems of the lack of design innovation and progress within the NASA and Air Force launch vehicle procurement process, then I would love to hear about it.

More proof of lack of basic understand of the industry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/08/2012 05:20 pm
The F9 shuts down two engines part way through the boost to keep Gs down, right? Does anybody know how an unplanned shutdown would affect the planned shutdowns?

Under normal conditions, two engines shut down to avoid going over a G-limit.

Speculation:-

With only eight engines the thrust is lower, so the stage could in theory continue on all eight engines until 8/9ths of nominal thrust hits the same G-load (ie less thrust so later in the burn, as measured by prop load). Would help a bit to compensate for gravity losses earlier in the flight. Basically, what IRobot said.

OTOH, maybe the off-axis burn puts stress on the core that need to be relieved by an earlier MECO-1.

Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.



ISTR the voiceover on the SpaceX feed saying they'd hit the time of nominal MECO-1, but don't remember them saying a MECO-1 actually occured. Was there anything that said there was a MECO-1 that cutoff the eighth engine, or did anyone observe a MECO-1 shutdown?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/08/2012 05:22 pm
Reusable launch and propulsion is going to be a huge industry in the very near future, with hoppers moving from pad to pad delivering upper and core stages to low Earth orbit and beyond with airline like efficiency, and

Whatever you're drinking, send some this way.

In the meantime, please define "very near future" and "airline like efficiency," and correlate with the known rate of airline mergers and bankruptcies.

Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:23 pm

But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P


Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Genuine on 10/08/2012 05:23 pm
Quote
[Impoliteness snipped]
Launch vehicle designs are not static.

The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:25 pm
1. There are likely a host of scenarios where it could have ended differently and performance relative to other potential payloads could be a factor in the future. 

2. There could be other engines with similar issues (if and when the problem is discovered) that need correcting.  It could be a process issue, which goes beyond that specific serial number or even engine design.
1. says who? we still have no factual info on what happened.
2. a lot of ifs.

Today was a bad day for SpaceX. We'll know soon hopefully whether luck or good engineering saved their bacon today.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:26 pm

The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.

you still don't know what you are talking about.

The HSF industry is separate and different from the rest of the launch industry.  Their paradigms are not applicable.

Wrong about the EELV program
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:26 pm
Quote
[Impoliteness snipped]
Launch vehicle designs are not static.

The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.
Tell that to passengers of a Boeing 747!
Sheesh!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 05:27 pm
Quote
[Impoliteness snipped]
Launch vehicle designs are not static.

The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.

That is indeed a very wrong statement.  The configuration changed all the time, as has been suggested in previous statements. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 05:28 pm
Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight

And even that "luck" may be cold comfort if it is true that the Orbcomm satellites were delivered to the wrong orbit and if the Dragon's GNC door is jammed shut. That would mean the mission was a total failure. I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing.

It goes to show how wrong people are to call the ELC a subsidy. There's a reason the DoD pays good money for assured access to space.

It also shows how important it is to have a steady stream of cheap cargo, especially if nothing important depends on it as it does in this case. We could have had many propellant flights this year if the right choices had been made. It would have been the perfect payload to get the last bugs out of a launch system and to build up a reliability record. It's no big deal if a propellant flight is lost.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 05:30 pm
1. There are likely a host of scenarios where it could have ended differently and performance relative to other potential payloads could be a factor in the future. 

2. There could be other engines with similar issues (if and when the problem is discovered) that need correcting.  It could be a process issue, which goes beyond that specific serial number or even engine design.
1. says who? we still have no factual info on what happened.
2. a lot of ifs.

Today was a bad day for SpaceX. We'll know soon hopefully whether luck or good engineering saved their bacon today.

1.  True with respect to knowing precisely what happened.  But an engine appears to have exploded based on known evidence now.  If you think that scenario always will end well you are fooling yourself. 

2.  "Ifs" are based on the fact that this is speculation because as you said we do not know the precise cause.  These "ifs" however are based on engineering knowledge of space hardware and common sense best practices.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/08/2012 05:31 pm
Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight

And even that "luck" may be cold comfort if it is true that the Orbcomm satellites were delivered to the wrong orbit and if the Dragon's GNC door is jammed shut. That would mean the mission was a total failure. I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing.

It goes to show how wrong people are to call the ELC a subsidy. There's a reason the DoD pays good money for assured access to space.

It also shows how important it is to have a steady stream of cheap cargo, especially if nothing important depends on it as it does in this case. We could have had many propellant flights this year if the right choices had been made. It would have been the perfect payload to get the last bugs out of a launch system and to build up a reliability record. It's no big deal if a propellant flight is lost.

Heh nice doom and gloom scenario you have here. The most likely reason for no information is that they want to be able to present all the facts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: PreferToLurk on 10/08/2012 05:32 pm
Mainstream media have ended their silence on the RUD, SpaceX better hurry up and put out a statement or risk losing control of the narrative. 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/that-smooth-spacex-launch-turns-out-one-of-the-engines-exploded/

That is now the top headline in the google news coverage of the launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 05:33 pm
The fact that the vehicle continued to orbit is indeed a good thing.  The appearance of a possible engine explosion is not a good thing and I concur with Jim they got "lucky".

I'm not sure just yet what I think I'm seeing in the video.  It might just be an engine shutdown, which if you go back and look at the older Merlin 1C static test videos has a certain violence of its own.  This happened at altitude, which can enhance plume effects, etc.  On the other hand, fragments of something are visible after the shutdown.  These might be structural, but are just as likely to be ice or insulation.

Hopefully SpaceX will be able to fill in the blanks.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: thydusk666 on 10/08/2012 05:33 pm
Is there a backup plan in case the GNC door cannot be opened?
Would it be technically possible to perform an autonomous docking?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/08/2012 05:33 pm
if it is true that the Orbcomm satellites were delivered to the wrong orbit and if the Dragon's GNC door is jammed shut.

I dont think anyone of repute is suggesting this at this time.  Remember that SpaceX is busy with a bunch of things from the first stage issue, orbcomm ect.  The PAO plays to the "science is cool" crowd and probably is not doing a step-by step update.  Lts not jump to conclusions based on a lack of updates.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:34 pm

But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P


Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight
Ah, that's beyond what I know. I had the understanding that F9 had engine out capability, i.e. it always has "performance margin" for such events. Is that not the case?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:34 pm
Is there a backup plan in case the GNC door cannot be opened?
Would it be technically possible to perform an autonomous docking?

Can a blind man navigate without his stick?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 05:39 pm
Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight

And even that "luck" may be cold comfort if it is true that the Orbcomm satellites were delivered to the wrong orbit and if the Dragon's GNC door is jammed shut. That would mean the mission was a total failure. I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing.

::) Going a bit overboard, eh? If nothing else, engine-out capability of the F9 has gone from theory to FACT. (even if it comes out of the performance margin, which existed in this flight)

It also shows how important it is to have a steady stream of cheap cargo, especially if nothing important depends on it as it does in this case. We could have had many propellant flights this year if the right choices had been made. It would have been the perfect payload to get the last bugs out of a launch system and to build up a reliability record. It's no big deal if a propellant flight is lost.

No worries, I'm sure you would still be there saying "I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing" if this had occurred in a hypothetical 4th propellant delivery flight. You don't see the contradiction in your two paragraphs?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DMeader on 10/08/2012 05:39 pm
Is there a backup plan in case the GNC door cannot be opened?
Would it be technically possible to perform an autonomous docking?

CBM-equipped vehicles don't "dock", they are "berthed". The vehicle alone can't do that, it needs done by the arm, which needs the grapple fixture exposed, hence the need for the door to open.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Bugfix on 10/08/2012 05:41 pm
Wasn't there a NOTAM for the Pacific for yesterday, in case they had to deorbit the Dragon shortly after launch? And if the GNC door didn't open, wouldn't this be such a case? Or can Dragon not initiate the deorbit burn without the GNC door open?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/08/2012 05:44 pm
It obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.

I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.

If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.

Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).
Primary mission goes to completion.
Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.

As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?

No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).

I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.

No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme.

Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.

agree, they got luckey twice IMHO, last mission something funky with their tank pressurization.   This mission they seem to have fixed that issue.

I did notice another item kinda strange.  Was wondering if this was the tank that long ago had "welding issues" ?   

Something wierd I also noticed in some of the Pics.   Some of the vertical lighting makes the LV look all pure white.   While in some other pics the engine section looks like its been out in the sun for a few years (kinda yellow).  Makes the whole LV look like it was parts of several reassembled for this mission.   Another key give away is the SpaceX letters on the bottom and nothing on the tank above....its kinda strange.


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: craigcocca on 10/08/2012 05:45 pm
We can stop the speculation now. The GNC door opened as planned last night, per SpaceX (posted on SFN at 1:35pm ET)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 05:49 pm
::) Going a bit overboard, eh? If nothing else, engine-out capability of the F9 has gone from theory to FACT. (even if it comes out of the performance margin, which existed in this flight)

That's only a silver lining, it's still very bad news overall.

Quote
No worries, I'm sure you would still be there saying "I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing" if this had occurred in a hypothetical 4th propellant delivery flight. You don't see the contradiction in your two paragraphs?

No, I wouldn't because there would be very little riding on it. No prospective customers to scare off, no funding in danger of drying up, no ISS resupply in jeopardy. I'd be saying "this is why these flights are so useful".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 05:50 pm
We can stop the speculation now. The GNC door opened as planned last night, per SpaceX (posted on SFN at 1:35pm ET)

Thank goodness. Any official word on the Orbcomm satellites?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JohnFornaro on 10/08/2012 05:50 pm
"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down," Musk wrote in an email to Spaceflight Now. "As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in realtime to reach the target orbit, which is why the burn times were a bit longer."

Totally excellent recovery.  Scary that it happened.

"rapid unscheduled disassembly"

Most American families with small children experience this every Christmas.  Not sure what all the fuss is about.

Basically the B-17 of the US space fleet.

A tough, airplane, among my favorites.

"normalization of deviance"

You talkin' to me???

Awaiting on further input from Snappy Comeback Department.

If you don't like armchair engineering, you should get off the internet.

+1

Quote
I really think the agora needs to recalibrate what normalization of deviance means with SpaceX.  SpaceX will not take months or years to stand down like NASA would.  SpaceX will evaluate the risks, Pareto the causes, control the most likely ones and move on.  SpaceX will not correct the things that it finds to be low likelihood, unlike NASA.  It's a difference in culture that customers need to be aware of.

+1 more.

Plus, sincere thanks for the new (for me) term Pareto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency#Use_in_engineering), which is exactly how one must work in the real world.

Learn something new every day.

Still starting your car with a lead acid battery charged by an alternator are you? Got jumper cables in your trunk?

Great [edited] snappy comeback, except for this question, which left me scratching my head.  At least I'm not cranking the engine by hand...

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

What he said.  This is probably the best forum, but hey, there I go expressing an opinion not based on hard, factual data.

Great flight so far.  Hope the landing goes well.  Enjoy your ice cream up there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: titanmiller on 10/08/2012 05:52 pm
From the Ars article :

Quote
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/that-smooth-spacex-launch-turns-out-one-of-the-engines-exploded/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mongo62 on 10/08/2012 05:53 pm
From SpaceX:

Quote
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.

So I am guessing that unplanned sideways jetting exhaust impacted the adjacent fairing, which broke apart.  This would presumably be the large objects seen falling from the base of the first stage.  It would seem that the engine did NOT explode, but instead developed a "leak".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 05:54 pm
Heh nice doom and gloom scenario you have here. The most likely reason for no information is that they want to be able to present all the facts.

I wasn't saying the mission was a total failure, just that it could turn out to be a total failure. I'm really relieved the GNC door rumour was wrong, and I hope the Orbcomm one is too. The mission could still turn out to be a total success, though one with a very worrying anomaly. However, even now for all we know it could still end in total failure. Let's not count our Dragons before they hatch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 05:54 pm
As people like Jim know only too well, this business is not easy. A bit of humility as to that fact, is never a bad thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 05:57 pm


Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.

The 1.14 G overload would only cause stress (or rather compression) above plan at the cabin end. This might be an issue with tourists but hopefully not for cargos.

At the engine end, the force on the frame is what the engines produce. It will be designed for 9 engines. 8 engines firing compared to 7 is still 8/9th of launch compression, even if the acceleration is higher.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/08/2012 05:58 pm
Not there finest hour by any stretch of the imagination. Yes it survived the RUD (love that we have an acronym for something like this), but how much was that down to luck and how much down to engineering?

Overall maybe this will calm down some of this Space X good ULA & everyone else bad I have noted about.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 06:00 pm
Perhaps not the finest hour, but if the mission is sucsessful (I take it we don't know yet), then they'll have learnt a lot more from this than with a routine mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rdale on 10/08/2012 06:01 pm
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:01 pm
From the Ars article :

Quote
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/that-smooth-spacex-launch-turns-out-one-of-the-engines-exploded/

"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, perhaps...

But however you interpret "engine pressure release," it looks like they believe the engine was, in fact, the point of failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 10/08/2012 06:02 pm
I wasn't saying the mission was a total failure, just that it could turn out to be a total failure. I'm really relieved the GNC door rumour was wrong, and I hope the Orbcomm one is too. The mission could still turn out to be a total success, though one with a very worrying anomaly. However, even now for all we know it could still end in total failure. Let's not count our Dragons before they hatch.

Dragon aside, this mission may well be a future reference for their marketing and even a reference for new rocket designs by other companies. Engine redundancy can save the day!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 06:03 pm
I did notice another item kinda strange.  Was wondering if this was the tank that long ago had "welding issues" ?

Can you be more specific about this? The tank itself seems to have performed well - if it had a leak, I suspect it would not gone as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 06:04 pm
The F9 shuts down two engines part way through the boost to keep Gs down, right? Does anybody know how an unplanned shutdown would affect the planned shutdowns?

Well, based purely on the MET clock, both MECO events were later than expected by about 30 seconds if my memory serves me well.


Re.: 'pressure release'.  I'm betting a fuel or oxidiser line downstream of the turbopump disconnected and the stream of high-flow-rate fluid coming out of the pump blew the fairing off.

If I'm right (remember: amateur here), I would have the guys at SLC-40 go over every nut and joint on the SpX-2 LV's fuel system and give them a few extra turns for luck.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: gwiz on 10/08/2012 06:05 pm
Any official word on the Orbcomm satellites?
And if the Orbcomm is in the wrong orbit, does it have enough manoeuvre capability in its own right to get to the correct orbit?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 06:06 pm
From SpaceX:

Quote
... Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. ... Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.

Can someone clarify these two bolds? Does lost pressure imply a leak somewhere and what is the mechanism by which "engine pressure release" would affect something upstream? Is a sudden propellant line leak implied here?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: titanmiller on 10/08/2012 06:06 pm



"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 06:08 pm
And if the Orbcomm is in the wrong orbit, does it have enough manoeuvre capability in its own right to get to the correct orbit?

AFAIK, the 700x300 km orbit already was a compromise where the satellite would circularize itself and spend a good deal of propellant doing that. Reaching 700 km circular is probably out of the question if the satellite is stranded in a 200x300 km orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 06:10 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

We're going to have six pages of discussion about the definition of "explosion" now...

In my opinion, mission-wise, a second stage restart failure, if that turns out to be the case, is more significant to potential SpaceX customers than the first stage engine shutdown, because a restart issue would be a flat out launch failure.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:10 pm



"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Well, what's interesting is that they're saying the engine did NOT "explode" because they continued to receive telemetry from it...so clearly it was a violent failure, but it left some of the engine intact...which would be the case for a turbopump coming apart, for example...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: titanmiller on 10/08/2012 06:11 pm
I don't understand the talk about the Orbicom satellite being in the wrong orbit. Wasn't it in Dragon's trunk? If Dragon reached the correct orbit, then so must have Orbicom.

I remember seen an animation that showed the satellite in the trunk and not on the second stage. Does anybody know?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: neilh on 10/08/2012 06:11 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

I'm fairly certain those terms are not in any way synonyms.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 10/08/2012 06:11 pm


Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.

The 1.14 G overload would only cause stress (or rather compression) above plan at the cabin end. This might be an issue with tourists but hopefully not for cargos.

At the engine end, the force on the frame is what the engines produce. It will be designed for 9 engines. 8 engines firing compared to 7 is still 8/9th of launch compression, even if the acceleration is higher.

Simulating the flight, I get the following times:
Engine out (9 drop to 8 engines): 80 seconds
5G limit engine out (8 drop to 7 engines): 191.6 seconds
S1 MECO: 195.3 seconds

Skipping the 5G limit shutdown gives a Meco of 194.7 seconds and 47.4m/s acceleration.

Run with an estimated payload of 6.6 tonnes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 06:12 pm
Any official word on the Orbcomm satellites?
And if the Orbcomm is in the wrong orbit, does it have enough manoeuvre capability in its own right to get to the correct orbit?

Increasing apogee and perigee to ~700km from ~230km? I would say "no" and "forget about it".  It was mounted on the second stage (although the Dragon's trunk was doubling as its PLF) and needed the M-Vac's power to reach its insertion orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 10/08/2012 06:13 pm
"engine pressure release" sounds like they know something happened but not specifically what, yet. Give it a few days and things will become better defined.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 06:13 pm
Heh nice doom and gloom scenario you have here. The most likely reason for no information is that they want to be able to present all the facts.

I wasn't saying the mission was a total failure, just that it could turn out to be a total failure. I'm really relieved the GNC door rumour was wrong, and I hope the Orbcomm one is too. The mission could still turn out to be a total success, though one with a very worrying anomaly. However, even now for all we know it could still end in total failure. Let's not count our Dragons before they hatch.
Do we know now that the GNC door rumour is wrong?

Agree the mission could be a total success, with both a worrying anaomoly and a "good learning experience".

If it is just a case of single engine failure, then the 1 in 40 engine failure rate compares well with most launchers. The arguments over the  benefits of multiple engines have been discussed a lot here and are about to be settled.

Within about 2 years SpaceX should have launched more engines than the shuttle program launched SRBs. That should allow a proven track record.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 06:14 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Don't jump to conclusions. Besides, the term "explosion" is not precise and can mean a lot of things to us not in the business. For example, see the lengthy arguments that have been made re: Challenger exploding or conflagrating.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:14 pm
I don't understand the talk about the Orbicom satellite being in the wrong orbit. Wasn't it in Dragon's trunk? If Dragon reached the correct orbit, then so must have Orbicom.

I remember seen an animation that showed the satellite in the trunk and not on the second stage. Does anybody know?

Orbcomm stayed on stage 2, which was supposed to have a second burn to reach a higher orbit after dropping off Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SF Doug on 10/08/2012 06:15 pm
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?

How about a "luck" thread?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 06:16 pm
Do we know now that the GNC door rumour is wrong?

SpaceX have confirmed the door has opened.

Quote
If it is just a case of single engine failure, then the 1 in 40 engine failure rate compares well with most launchers. The arguments over the  benefits of multiple engines have been discussed a lot here and are about to be settled.

Well, they do have 10 of those engines on each vehicle, so they need higher reliability.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Arceus12345 on 10/08/2012 06:17 pm
So was the satellite deployment a failure? I heard it was miles off of the orbit its supposed to be on!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: asmi on 10/08/2012 06:19 pm
Whatever happened to the engine, ultimately it's a good thing for SpaceX. Most LVs in a history had much worse luck, and their failures had occured later in their lifecycle, and that overconfidence was paid by the blood of humans.
As an engineer I know that if your system goes live without a hitch, it's a sign that troubles are ahead. And that's always been like that. So SpaceX has got a chance to refine system well before anyone is onboard, and that is indeed a very good thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Pelorat on 10/08/2012 06:20 pm



"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

It's just a way to spin the words I guess. Technically the engine didn't explode. Instead something ruptured, possibly between the turbo pump and the engine thrust chamber, causing a pressure release that had the strength of a small explosion. This pressure release caused a pressure increase in the engine housing which ultimately resulted in the faring being blown to bits. Where you draw the line between a pressure release capable of causing structural damage and an explosion is a matter of semantics I guess ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SpacexULA on 10/08/2012 06:25 pm
So was the satellite deployment a failure? I heard it was miles off of the orbit its supposed to be on!

This has not been confirmed.  It's also not been confirmed whether they hit Santa Clause on the way up, or if the North Koreans shot engine 1 out .

Just wait, everything will be updated, NASA nor Aerospace companies run at the Space Forum Tempo.  I am sure we will have official confirmation by SpaceX or Orbcomm by Tuesday.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 06:25 pm



"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

It's just a way to spin the words I guess. Technically the engine didn't explode. Instead something ruptured, possibly between the turbo pump and the engine thrust chamber, causing a pressure release that had the strength of a small explosion. This pressure release caused a pressure increase in the engine housing which ultimately resulted in the faring being blown to bits. Where you draw the line between a pressure release capable of causing structural damage and an explosion is a matter of semantics I guess ;D

I'm not so sure about semantics.

A Gas Line "Rupture" is when gas flows out of it's containment vessel. A Gas Line "Explosion" is when the gas is ignited...and well...much more kinetic energy is released and much more damage is done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/08/2012 06:26 pm
The fact that the vehicle continued to orbit is indeed a good thing.  The appearance of a possible engine explosion is not a good thing and I concur with Jim they got "lucky".

I'm not sure just yet what I think I'm seeing in the video.  It might just be an engine shutdown, which if you go back and look at the older Merlin 1C static test videos has a certain violence of its own.  This happened at altitude, which can enhance plume effects, etc.  On the other hand, fragments of something are visible after the shutdown.  These might be structural, but are just as likely to be ice or insulation.

Hopefully SpaceX will be able to fill in the blanks.

 - Ed Kyle

What we need is a time line of events compared to the video.

At what time was the anomaly detected?
At what time did shut down occur?
Was this before, after, or during the observed debris?

Since the vehicle was at near max-Q I am still not convinced what we are seeing is not the aero forces ripping the engine (or nozzle) off as it shut down.

A Nozzle is to a degree pressurized stabilized, just as the Atlas Balloon tank was. You shutdown the engine and you loose that stabilization and the aero forces could collapse then rip it off.

Also, the structure is designed to have the engine pushing on it. The mount might not be strong enough at max-Q to support the drag from an engine that has shutdown.

Have not seen anyone note that they extended the first stage burn, this means they managed to shutoff the propellant flow to the engine. If the valves had left with the engine best case they would have run out of propellants at the nominal time. So what ever happened, happened down stream of the valves. That is good.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SF Doug on 10/08/2012 06:27 pm

Quote
Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release


Could it mean that the loss of the thrust plume from engine 1 changed the flow/pressure gradient over the fairing?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/08/2012 06:29 pm
The fact that the vehicle continued to orbit is indeed a good thing.  The appearance of a possible engine explosion is not a good thing and I concur with Jim they got "lucky".

I'm not sure just yet what I think I'm seeing in the video.  It might just be an engine shutdown, which if you go back and look at the older Merlin 1C static test videos has a certain violence of its own.  This happened at altitude, which can enhance plume effects, etc.  On the other hand, fragments of something are visible after the shutdown.  These might be structural, but are just as likely to be ice or insulation.

Hopefully SpaceX will be able to fill in the blanks.

 - Ed Kyle

What we need is a time line of events compared to the video.

At what time was the anomaly detected?
At what time did shut down occur?
Was this before, after, or during the observed debris?

Since the vehicle was at near max-Q I am still not convinced what we are seeing is not the aero forces ripping the engine (or nozzle) off as it shut down.

A Nozzle is to a degree pressurized stabilized, just as the Atlas Balloon tank was. You shutdown the engine and you loose that stabilization and the aero forces could collapse then rip it off.

Also, the structure is designed to have the engine pushing on it. The mount might not be strong enough at max-Q to support the drag from an engine that has shutdown.

Have not seen anyone note that they extended the first stage burn, this means they managed to shutoff the propellant flow to the engine. If the valves had left with the engine best case they would have run out of propellants at the nominal time. So what ever happened, happened down stream of the valves. That is good.

They mentioned last night that they had an extra 30sec of thrust due to the loss of #1.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:30 pm

Quote
Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release


Could it mean that the loss of the thrust plume from engine 1 changed the flow/pressure gradient over the fairing?

No. Their wording is PR-speak for a catastrophic engine failure that blew the fairing off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Pelorat on 10/08/2012 06:35 pm

I'm not so sure about semantics.

A Gas Line "Rupture" is when gas flows out of it's containment vessel. A Gas Line "Explosion" is when the gas is ignited...and well...much more kinetic energy is released and much more damage is done.


I stand corrected :)

On topic. Glad to hear that the engine didn't disassemble itself completely. The fact that they continued to receive telemetry should make it easier to locate the point of failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/08/2012 06:45 pm
So was the satellite deployment a failure? I heard it was miles off of the orbit its supposed to be on!

This has not been confirmed.  It's also not been confirmed whether they hit Santa Clause on the way up, or if the North Koreans shot engine 1 out .

Just wait, everything will be updated, NASA nor Aerospace companies run at the Space Forum Tempo.  I am sure we will have official confirmation by SpaceX or Orbcomm by Tuesday.


Nevertheless, USSTRATCOM tracking on SpaceTrack shows the objects that are probably Orbcomm and Stage 2 in a low orbit. I agree it's not confirmed that one of these objects is Orbcomm, but the lack of any tracked objects in the correct orbit and the number of objects tracked in the low orbit is strongly suggestive. In contrast, I see no evidence in the orbital data for a polar sleigh intercept propelled by antisatellite ballistic reindeer
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/08/2012 06:45 pm

Quote
Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release


Could it mean that the loss of the thrust plume from engine 1 changed the flow/pressure gradient over the fairing?

Yes, a very high probability of what happened. The vehicle was still in atmosphere and there would have been a positive back pressure in the engine 1 compartment area. When engine 1 shuts down the back pressure from the plume would drop suddenly causing a rapid pressure drop, an almost explosive pressure event (here I mean a very rapid and large pressure change not an explosion) occurring on the outside of the faring as related to the pressure on the inside of the faring. All it would take is enough flexing in a a near max Q environment and the engine faring would shred.

As far as engine pressure loss it only means that a pressure sensor backed by a simultaneous reading from the backup pressure sensor detected a lower pressure than the limits allowed for the engine operation. Merlin engines are highly instrumented like the Shuttle's RS-25s because they were meant to be a man rated system. The engine controllers and system responses are also designed with that end goal in mind.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 06:47 pm
For those who don't approve the use of the term "explosion" we may have a new acronym: EPR - Engine Pressure Release.

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 06:49 pm
For those who don't approve the use of the term "explosion" we may have a new acronym: EPR - Engine Pressure Release.

Not to be confused with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 06:52 pm
To what degree would this event be mitigated, or not, with the new engine configuration of F9 V1.1?  (at least with what we know thus far)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 06:53 pm
For those who don't approve the use of the term "explosion" we may have a new acronym: EPR - Engine Pressure Release.

Not to be confused with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox).


Obviously! Thanks!!


S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 06:54 pm
For those who don't approve the use of the term "explosion" we may have a new acronym: EPR - Engine Pressure Release.

S

Official statement from SpaceX: "We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it."  Did you even read it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: leetdan on 10/08/2012 06:55 pm
I've been reading this thread since launch, and it was mentioned that the Orbcomm timeline was completely absent from the F9 press kit and not public (though, of course, on L2).  Is there any chance that the Space Track data, facebook / forum speculation, and everything else about the supposed doom of the Orbcomm payload is once again due to lack of released information, as with the GNC door?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:57 pm

Quote
Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release


Could it mean that the loss of the thrust plume from engine 1 changed the flow/pressure gradient over the fairing?

Yes, a very high probability of what happened. The vehicle was still in atmosphere and there would have been a positive back pressure in the engine 1 compartment area. When engine 1 shuts down the back pressure from the plume would drop suddenly causing a rapid pressure drop, an almost explosive pressure event (here I mean a very rapid and large pressure change not an explosion) occurring on the outside of the faring as related to the pressure on the inside of the faring. All it would take is enough flexing in a a near max Q environment and the engine faring would shred.

As far as engine pressure loss it only means that a pressure sensor backed by a simultaneous reading from the backup pressure sensor detected a lower pressure than the limits allowed for the engine operation. Merlin engines are highly instrumented like the Shuttle's RS-25s because they were meant to be a man rated system. The engine controllers and system responses are also designed with that end goal in mind.


Maybe only a nit, but they didn't say engine pressure "loss," which I would expect them to say in case of low chamber pressure. They say pressure "release," which seems to me a euphemism for something breaking apart inside the engine and unleashing enough force to blow the fairing off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 06:59 pm
To what degree would this event be mitigated, or not, with the new engine configuration of F9 V1.1?  (at least with what we know thus far)

We know nothing much at this point other than:
1) engine #1 experienced a rapid pressure drop and was commanded to shut down
2) engine pressure release or EPR (TM), caused the fairing to blow off

Now, Occam's razor would suggest that the pressure loss is in the engine is directly responsible for the fairing. i.e. that by the time the engine was commanded to shut down, the fairing was already coming off.

Video shows everything happening virtually instantaneously, there is no visible engine plume decay before EPR that would suggest it was the lack of backpressure that caused the fairing to collapse. It looks to me the engine shutdown follows first visual indications of failure, not precedes it.

In either case, the root cause appears to be pressure loss in the engine and I don't see why a new engine arrangement alone would alleviate that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 10/08/2012 06:59 pm
I've been reading this thread since launch, and it was mentioned that the Orbcomm timeline was completely absent from the F9 press kit and not public (though, of course, on L2).  Is there any chance that the Space Track data, facebook / forum speculation, and everything else about the supposed doom of the Orbcomm payload is once again due to lack of released information, as with the GNC door?

been looking for Orbcomm FM44  .. don't see any data yet..
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 07:01 pm
Official statement from SpaceX: "no explosion".  They continued to receive telemetry from the engine after the event.  Did you even read it?

Well, a very quick increase in pressure that leads to structural damage of rugged components that are meant to survive supersonic airflow (the fairing) could be called an explosion according to the definition of the word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JustPassingThrough on 10/08/2012 07:10 pm
  This may have been mentioned already but most likely the debris is just external fairing.  When you shut down an engine with a turbo pump you don't just slam the fuel valves shut.  You have to bypass the injector and do something with the fuel as the turbo pump spools down.

That fuel is dumped.  If it gets contained in the fairing you're going to have an overpressure event as seen at launch.   The fact that it happened around Max-Q just makes it more difficult for those trapped gasses to escape. If the engine shut down happened 60 seconds later it probably wouldn't have done anything.

Watch this test video of the Merlin 1C engine and go to about 2:53 second when they shut down the engine.. You can see just such an event occur as the dumped fuels cause a pressure pulse when the gases ignite outside of the chamber.  (external fuel dump igniting)

You can also see the fuel dump as the turbo pump spools down.  Which is clearly visible in the flight footage.. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRaeqmYzumc

I think the events are probably just as they said.  An engine lost chamber pressure when something caused the combustor to fail.  This initial gas pulse from the leaking chamber is seen in the video.  The computer shut down the engine and the propellant was diverted to a dump line this dumped fuel built up in the fairing and ignited causing a pressure pulse that tore off a section of the fairing. 

A few seconds later the turbo pump spooled down and the fuel dumping stopped. The INU made the adjustments it needed to get the Delta-V required.

Eric
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 07:12 pm
This thread has truly jumped the shark, now that people appear to be arguing over which misreading of SpaceX's press releases lets them complain most bitterly about how SpaceX is run by terribly irresponsible naifs who clearly don't know the first thing about anything and should be shut down for the safety of the public.

 :P

Seriously, though, insisting on an interpretation that "pressure release" really means "explosion" implies that you are also claiming that SpaceX are wilfully lying in press releases.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JohnFornaro on 10/08/2012 07:13 pm
We're going to have six pages of discussion about the definition of "explosion" now...

...or "detonated"...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: savuporo on 10/08/2012 07:14 pm
It didn't explode, just blew itself to bits.
Briz-M market value recovered a little last night and CZ-4C is as strong as ever.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 07:17 pm
It didn't explode, just blew itself to bits.

This was clearly not the case.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: titanmiller on 10/08/2012 07:18 pm
I've been reading this thread since launch, and it was mentioned that the Orbcomm timeline was completely absent from the F9 press kit and not public (though, of course, on L2).  Is there any chance that the Space Track data, facebook / forum speculation, and everything else about the supposed doom of the Orbcomm payload is once again due to lack of released information, as with the GNC door?

Is there any reason to assume that the second burn had to happen right away? What prevents the second stage from doing its second burn 24 hours later...battery power?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 07:19 pm
battery power?

... LOX boiloff, inertial platform drift...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:24 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 07:25 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72


(before shutdown-> n(n-1)

9 possibilities for the first engine out,  8 remaining for the second:

1-2, 1-3, 1-4, ..., 1-9   (8 possibilities)

2-1, 2-3, ...

3-1, 3-2, ...

...

9-1, 9-2, ... , 9-8

total of 9*(9-1). Even less, if the sw-developers take symmetries into acount.)


Quote
and a couple more out after it. [shutdown]
Right, it increases the number of scenarios to be handled.

For sure they would shut down (in a planned way) two opposing engines. Things gets a little bit more difficult, if the center engine was shut down early. As the thrust vector needs to go through the center of gravity, they would need to change the angle of the rocket to the flight path. As it is happening after 160 seconds, it shouldn't matter any more (I guess)?



Edit: n*(n-1)+9

if you take single engine shutdowns into account.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/08/2012 07:25 pm

Well, a very quick increase in pressure that leads to structural damage of rugged components that are meant to survive supersonic airflow (the fairing) could be called an explosion according to the definition of the word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion).

Nit (maybe not so minor, actually): Having not seen supersonic wind tunnel imagery of the F9 configuration at all, let alone throughout the entire flight regime, the fairing itself may not even have been experiencing supersonic flow at the time of the incident, depending on where the closest shock has attached itself to the vehicle. Flow behind the shock is, of course, subsonic.  And even if the shock was attached at the leading edge of the fairing at the time, the flow behind it would be subsonic and certainly fairly turbulent as well; any significant pressure surges next to or immediately aft of the fairing will (and quite probably did) cause a change in structural loading of the fairing and resultant failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 07:25 pm
To what degree would this event be mitigated, or not, with the new engine configuration of F9 V1.1?  (at least with what we know thus far)

We know nothing much at this point other than:
1) engine #1 experienced a rapid pressure drop and was commanded to shut down
2) engine pressure release or EPR (TM), caused the fairing to blow off

Now, Occam's razor would suggest that the pressure loss is in the engine is directly responsible for the fairing. i.e. that by the time the engine was commanded to shut down, the fairing was already coming off.

Video shows everything happening virtually instantaneously, there is no visible engine plume decay before EPR that would suggest it was the lack of backpressure that caused the fairing to collapse. It looks to me the engine shutdown follows first visual indications of failure, not precedes it.

In either case, the root cause appears to be pressure loss in the engine and I don't see why a new engine arrangement alone would alleviate that.
Pardon, let me be more specific.
We do know that the fairing was blown out due to some pressure release scenario. The F9 V1.1 has a new faring design to accommodate the new engine configuration. I am curious as to what would happen if this event occurred within the context of the new faring design and engine configuration. Either way, I'm sure some additional dynamic load tests among others will be cycled into V1.1 simulations.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 07:26 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: happyflower on 10/08/2012 07:27 pm
How can an engine "explode" and yet still send telemetry to SpaceX? To me "explode" is very specific. After an engine explodes, its non functional in every aspect of that word.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 07:27 pm
The order of events as stated in the press release:

1. The engine lost pressure suddenly.
2. The engine was commanded to shut down.
3. They continued to receive data from the engine.


They then go on to say the EPR is the cause of the fairing rupture.

That's all we know and this thread does appear to be going in circles. Perhaps we should start a Merlin failure and damage mitigation techniques thread.

S




Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:30 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 07:31 pm
After an engine explodes, its non functional in every aspect of that word.

Well, generaly the part that does the exploding and the part that sends telemetry are physically separated so if the explosion/rupture is not big, it's not unreasonable to have it be left alive from a telemetry standpoint. Engine controllers have to withstand pretty rough conditions in normal operation, anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 07:33 pm
Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight
You've used the word "luck" on several occasions and commented that Spacex would not be so lucky on "performance critical" missions.

But as for "performance critical" missions I'd guess they'd start by not carrying any *secondary* payloads (which, if the payload was that heavy or the orbit that difficult the primary customer would not agree to anyway). So the question becomes are there parts of the F9 payload/orbit operating envelope that are marginal with *all* engines operating normally and standard margins on propellants?

Do you have any *specific* examples where their indicated payload/orbit parameters are pushing the limits of the vehicles capabilities? If you don't then is there *any* reason to expect the results of such a mission to be any worse than the ones today?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 07:33 pm
One other thing: losing an "edge" engine very near max-q is probably almost a worst case scenario from a control point of view. The vehicle seemed to handle that sudden loss of thrust very gracefully.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 10/08/2012 07:37 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 07:37 pm
How can an engine "explode" and yet still send telemetry to SpaceX?
Electronics is placed (due to the high sensitivity of components [mechanical, dirt, water, ...]) into very rigid housings. I guess, that the nozzles of the neighbouring have a higher risk to be damaged by an explosion (if it was one). Also due to vibrations the pcb is typically mechanically seperated by vibration dampers (can be even some special type of foam).

If I could ask a question, it would be, what "telemetry was received" means exactly. Where all sensors/actors responding? It might be, that just the engine control computer responded to the guidance computer, but most of the s/a where damaged, not responding or responding of scale.

Quote
To me "explode" is very specific.
Depending on where it happens, what energies were released, ... to me it is not specific at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 07:38 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

We're going to have six pages of discussion about the definition of "explosion" now...

In my opinion, mission-wise, a second stage restart failure, if that turns out to be the case, is more significant to potential SpaceX customers than the first stage engine shutdown, because a restart issue would be a flat out launch failure.

 - Ed Kyle
BTW, I think that there's a good chance that the reason the second stage didn't restart wasn't that there was some sort of problem with the second stage but that the second stage had eaten up the delta-v losses caused by losing an engine, ensuring primary mission full success (i.e. putting Dragon at the exact right orbit) at the expense of putting the secondary payload in a lower than planned orbit.


Also, BTW, the Orbcomm secondary payload was never to be put in a regular operational orbit anyway*. It is a prototype and a test payload for the operational next-gen Orbcomm constellation. So, a lower than planned orbit should still be almost as useful to Orbcomm as the full orbit, from what I can see so far. Disappointing, of course, but should be still useful for testing out the next-gen Orbcomm constellation (a constellation of one, until the next one goes up sometime).

They probably got a really good deal on this flight.


*(This is based on the assumption that the operational constellation will be put at something other than 52 degrees... The current operational Orbcomm constellation is at mostly 45 degrees.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 10/08/2012 07:40 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?
My simulator calculated almost zero increase in gravity losses if the 1st stage compensated at 90 seconds into the flight (10 seconds after event).  I determined this would not be the best time to increase the angle of attack since your still in the atmosphere and dynamic pressure is still high.  If it waited until 160 seconds to transition from a gravity turn to a guided compensation profile then the dynamic pressure would be nearly zero and the total increase was only 100 m/s.

This is simulated data and not based on an actual Falcon 9 trajectory.  This is using a guidance system I wrote.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 07:41 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?

What matters is how much extra time was spent flying up the vertical portion of the ascent vector.  The majority of the extra seconds of flight in this case were likely spent flying horizontally in space, during the second stage portion of the ascent.  Gravity losses in horizontal flight at orbital altitude are near-zero.  Some pitch up gravity losses likely did occur, but I wouldn't expect as much as 200 m/s.  Note that the pitch angle is probably within 5-15 degrees of horizontal during the latter portions of first stage flight.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 07:42 pm
Do you have any *specific* examples where their indicated payload/orbit parameters are pushing the limits of the vehicles capabilities? If you don't then is there *any* reason to expect the results of such a mission to be any worse than the ones today?

Most GTO/GSO and all planetary missions
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:42 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45

9 (9-choose-1) combinations of one engine-out. 36 (9-choose-2) combinations of two engines-out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 07:43 pm
Overall maybe this will calm down some of this Space X good ULA & everyone else bad I have noted about.

Certainly not, because it takes two sides to quarrel, and the anti-SpaceX side (they protest they aren't, but they protest too much) will  make hay.  Eliciting a response.

The funny thing is that everybody more or less agrees on the facts and that the engine failure is bad while the rocket continuing on is good.  All that's left is arguing about entirely subjective over-all emotional responses.  Which isn't non-partisan.  If you subtract out the partisanship, there's nothing left.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 07:46 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event."

Well, now we know why there appeared to be debris.

I still think that some people in this thread are massively over-reacting to this incident.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 07:47 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45

9 (9-take-1) combinations of one engine-out. 36 (9-take-2) combinations of two engines-out.

72

9 possibilities for the first engine times 8 possibilities (8 remaining) for the second. = 72


S

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 07:51 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45

9 (9-take-1) combinations of one engine-out. 36 (9-take-2) combinations of two engines-out.

72

9 possibilities for the first engine times 8 possibilities (8 remaining) for the second. = 72

Hi! You're both right. There are 45 possible pairs of engines. There are 72 possible ways in which to choose one engine, and then choose another engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:51 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45
72
45

Math is fun! And OT. You forget that A and B is the same as B and A.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 07:52 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. "

Oh, that's interesting.  Are they saying that the deliberate ejection of panels is somehow part of their engine protection scheme?  I'm having a hard time visualizing how that would work.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 07:53 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?

What matters is how much extra time was spent flying up the vertical portion of the ascent vector.  The majority of the extra seconds of flight in this case were likely spent flying horizontally in space, during the second stage portion of the ascent.  Gravity losses in horizontal flight at orbital altitude are near-zero.  Some pitch up gravity losses likely did occur, but I wouldn't as much as expect 200 m/s.

 - Ed Kyle
But remember, that's 200m/s (or 50m/s, whathaveyou) pushing a full Dragon, etc... If the second stage was just pushing the Orbcomm bird, that 50m/s could be much more, perhaps even that whole 100-150m/s needed to push Orbcomm to the desired orbit plus margin.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 07:53 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45

9 (9-choose-1) combinations of one engine-out. 36 (9-choose-2) combinations of two engines-out.

I respectfully disagree.

(I guess, 9-choose-2 are the binomial coefficients). That was my first guess too, but then I thought that engine 1 shutdown, followed by an engine two shutdown is not the same as the reverse, so you have to take into account the different orders, too. These are negelected by the binomial coefficients.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:57 pm
Hi! You're both right. There are 45 possible pairs of engines. There are 72 possible ways in which to choose one engine, and then choose another engine.
No, there are 36 possible pairs (engine A and engine B is the same as engine B and engine A). And 9 ways to choose a single engine. 45 in total.

EDIT: I will stop here before being banned from the forum... It's getting a bit silly....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 07:57 pm
How can an engine "explode" and yet still send telemetry to SpaceX?
Electronics is placed (due to the high sensitivity of components [mechanical, dirt, water, ...]) into very rigid housings. I guess, that the nozzles of the neighbouring have a higher risk to be damaged by an explosion (if it was one). Also due to vibrations the pcb is typically mechanically seperated by vibration dampers (can be even some special type of foam).

If I could ask a question, it would be, what "telemetry was received" means exactly. Where all sensors/actors responding? It might be, that just the engine control computer responded to the guidance computer, but most of the s/a where damaged, not responding or responding of scale.

Although the exact data isn't included in the press release, SpaceX likely knows very precisely the extent of the damage based on which sensors did/did not continue returning valid data.  You are correct that the "big brain" of the telemetry system is sequestered away someplace safe far from the engine, but the actual sensors are placed in the engine bay itself at various locations.  If you'll recall, investigators were able to reconstruct Colombia's breakup in the atmosphere by following the millisecond-by-millisecond progress of sensors going silent or returning anomalous data, starting from "tire overpressure" readings as the landing gear wheel wells heated up.  When SpaceX reviews its telemetry data, it is also reconstructing the exact nature and progress of the "pressure release" by determining what other sensors were affected, and when.  So although it's true that just "continuing to return data" doesn't tell you much by itself, SpaceX stated unequivocally "no explosion"---which means they were able to determine that the pattern of sensor failure (or non-failure) indicated that there was not a large-scale destructive event.

Although it would be lovely to see an actual millisecond-level animation of the sensor data like the Columbia investigation eventually produced, it is likely that even describing the locations of the sensors involved would be way too much information for a press release less than 24 hours after the event.  The sensor locations may also be considered proprietary information.  So to some extent we have to take their word for it: there were lots of sensors, and the pattern of those that continued reporting data (perhaps all of them) indicated that there was "no explosion".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mikegi on 10/08/2012 07:58 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event."
Facts aren't nearly as fun as biased speculation. SpaceX's reputation is doing a whole lot better than that of many posters on this thread, that's for sure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 10/08/2012 07:58 pm
It takes too long for SpaceX. I bet they will give us complete report with solutions ready to apply. I belive that also Orbcomm mission is successful!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 07:59 pm
Rocket pressure vessels don't develop nice, smooth, symmetrical holes in them, unless some sort of port or fitting that's part of the existing design comes loose.  They crack, which creates stress concentrations, which open the cracks quite quickly.  EPR and explosion, especially when heat + oxidizer without fuel yields burning metal, are essentially the same.

Oh, and the post about dumping fuel inside the stage during shutdown??  If that were the design, how would that work during static fire or an on-pad abort?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 08:06 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?

What matters is how much extra time was spent flying up the vertical portion of the ascent vector.  The majority of the extra seconds of flight in this case were likely spent flying horizontally in space, during the second stage portion of the ascent.  Gravity losses in horizontal flight at orbital altitude are near-zero.  Some pitch up gravity losses likely did occur, but I wouldn't as much as expect 200 m/s.

 - Ed Kyle
But remember, that's 200m/s (or 50m/s, whathaveyou) pushing a full Dragon, etc... If the second stage was just pushing the Orbcomm bird, that 50m/s could be much more, perhaps even that whole 100-150m/s needed to push Orbcomm to the desired orbit plus margin.

Right. I forgot the changing mass. It all starts to make sense now. The engine out could have eaten up the whole second burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 08:13 pm
Perhaps of interest: the SpaceX press release originally read:
"Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event."

Arstechnica (and my own memory) document this wording.

This was fairly quickly rewritten to:
"Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event."

The rewrite makes sense, but knowing that two versions were floating around at different times might help mitigate some confusion among readers here.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/08/2012 08:13 pm
I'm trying to let this thread flow as freely as possible, as there are going to be a lot of differing opinions on this. I have removed a few rude posts.

Don't quote or respond to uncivil posts, report them and a moderator will remove the offending post (if it is a breach of rules).

I'll write a new article on this when we have enough info to hand. I'm working on that in L2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JustPassingThrough on 10/08/2012 08:14 pm
Rocket pressure vessels don't develop nice, smooth, symmetrical holes in them, unless some sort of port or fitting that's part of the existing design comes loose.  They crack, which creates stress concentrations, which open the cracks quite quickly.  EPR and explosion, especially when heat + oxidizer without fuel yields burning metal, are essentially the same.

Oh, and the post about dumping fuel inside the stage during shutdown??  If that were the design, how would that work during static fire or an on-pad abort?

Rocket combustors can and do develop nice round holes in them; If you have a burn through.  They normally start as a hot spot then as the wall fails the combustion gas pushes through the hole.  You end up with a hole that looks like someone took a cutting torch and cut a hole out.

Static tests for the merlin engines don't include a fairing.  On pad aborts and tests have water suppression systems running prior to shutdown. 

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/08/2012 08:22 pm
How many permutations of combinations can produce an explosion that is not an explosion but which dumps fuel maybe, and enough to cause a second stage to not restart, unless it did, but where would it go?

;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 08:24 pm
I still say something with unstable stress concentrations is more likely, be it pointy or with degraded material properties from heat.  Water inside the heat shield for this posited dumping?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 08:26 pm
Rocket pressure vessels don't develop nice, smooth, symmetrical holes in them, unless some sort of port or fitting that's part of the existing design comes loose.  They crack, which creates stress concentrations, which open the cracks quite quickly.  EPR and explosion, especially when heat + oxidizer without fuel yields burning metal, are essentially the same.

Sure, and the internal combustion engine in your car undergoes thousands of explosions per minute.

Containment is the significant difference.  When an "explosion" occurs in a space designed to contain it, and the containment works, it is a "pressure release".  We usually refer to the event as an "explosion" only when it is not contained and causes unexpected damage.  A boiler that pops a safety valve and vents did not "explode".  Similarly, the SpaceX event occurred within a fairing that was designed for a pressure release and behaved as expected (ie, the fairing redirected the pressure away from neighboring engines by popping off).

Quote
Oh, and the post about dumping fuel inside the stage during shutdown??  If that were the design, how would that work during static fire or an on-pad abort?

Did you watch the video on that post?  It shows exactly that.  There is a fireball and rise of pressure but usually (for the static fire or pad abort case) the pressure is redirected by the fairing but does not require a safety release.  At Max-Q the loads are different and the response is different.  It's still working as designed.

Obviously, we'd all be happier if that particular design feature didn't need to be demonstrated in flight.  But lets try to keep our heads on: the pressure drop was unexpected and an anomaly.  The various visible responses to the pressure drop (fuel venting, engine shutdown, fairing separation) were, as far as we can tell, designed features of the spacecraft performing nominally.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 08:28 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?

What matters is how much extra time was spent flying up the vertical portion of the ascent vector.  The majority of the extra seconds of flight in this case were likely spent flying horizontally in space, during the second stage portion of the ascent.  Gravity losses in horizontal flight at orbital altitude are near-zero.  Some pitch up gravity losses likely did occur, but I wouldn't as much as expect 200 m/s.

 - Ed Kyle
But remember, that's 200m/s (or 50m/s, whathaveyou) pushing a full Dragon, etc... If the second stage was just pushing the Orbcomm bird, that 50m/s could be much more, perhaps even that whole 100-150m/s needed to push Orbcomm to the desired orbit plus margin.

Right. I forgot the changing mass. It all starts to make sense now. The engine out could have eaten up the whole second burn.
That's what I think happened, based on the very limited information we have now. Still, I think the Orbcomm bird is in a usable orbit, if far from ideal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 08:30 pm
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

On net I give this release 7 out of 10 possible stars. Because it is essentially complete it gets a base score of 5 stars. It gets 1 bonus point for timeliness. It gets 3 bonus points for the sentence, "We will continue to review all flight data in order to understand the cause of the anomaly, and will devote the resources necessary to identify the problem and apply those lessons to future flights." It loses 1 point for each of the sentences, "It is worth noting that Falcon 9 shuts down two of its engines to limit acceleration to 5 g's even on a fully nominal flight. The rocket could therefore have lost another engine and still completed its mission." 5+1+3-1-1=7.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 08:31 pm
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

On net I give this release 7 out of 10 possible stars. Because it is essentially complete it gets a base score of 5 stars. It gets 1 bonus point for timeliness. It gets 3 bonus points for the sentence, "We will continue to review all flight data in order to understand the cause of the anomaly, and will devote the resources necessary to identify the problem and apply those lessons to future flights." It loses 1 point for each of the sentences, "It is worth noting that Falcon 9 shuts down two of its engines to limit acceleration to 5 g's even on a fully nominal flight. The rocket could therefore have lost another engine and still completed its mission." 5+1+3-1-1=7.
Why does it lose a point for those? It's technically correct, isn't it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 08:32 pm
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

On net I give this release 7 out of 10 possible stars. Because it is essentially complete it gets a base score of 5 stars. It gets 1 bonus point for timeliness. It gets 3 bonus points for the sentence, "We will continue to review all flight data in order to understand the cause of the anomaly, and will devote the resources necessary to identify the problem and apply those lessons to future flights." It loses 1 point for each of the sentences, "It is worth noting that Falcon 9 shuts down two of its engines to limit acceleration to 5 g's even on a fully nominal flight. The rocket could therefore have lost another engine and still completed its mission." 5+1+3-1-1=7.

I'm sure SpaceX will be excited to hear how their press release scored on sdsds's arbitrary and incomprehensible press release scoring system. I on the other hand don't have a clue what you're talking about...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 08:34 pm
Why does it lose a point for those? It's technically correct, isn't it?

Perhaps. But the first sentence is purely marketing spin; the second involves a hypothetical scenario which did not take place on this mission. "It's worth noting the glacier freezer could have delivered Ben and Jerry's. In which case we would have sent them "Coffee Coffee Buzz Buzz Buzz" flavor.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kniklas on 10/08/2012 08:41 pm
It is the first F9 launch with engine failure. How problematic it is for the mission we will see....

If I were astronaut to fly with F9 with consciousness that every fourth flight there might be engine failure it would me feel very uneasy (I fully appreciate engine-out capability). Therefore SpaceX must do better then this.

If I remember correctly previous F9 launch attempt had problem with pressure drop caused by faulty check valve (?). Launch was aborted. I'm not sure if recent and previous pressure drop events in engine chamber share the same root cause.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 08:42 pm
Why does it lose a point for those? It's technically correct, isn't it?

Perhaps. But the first sentence is purely marketing spin; the second involves a hypothetical scenario which did not take place on this mission. "It's worth noting the glacier freezer could have delivered Ben and Jerry's. In which case we would have sent them "Coffee Coffee Buzz Buzz Buzz" flavor.
It is worth noting because the first thing someone might wonder if they see that SpaceX has engine-out capability is what they would do if they lost another, and that engine-out is kind of done anyway as part of a normal launch, so it is a relatively well-exercised "feature," i.e. that it wasn't just a stroke of luck that they succeeded in spite of losing an engine but that it was due to careful engineering. And that's true, because it DOES take a lot of work to make sure engine-out is a useful capability... It doesn't come for free with all multi-engine rockets.

(That said, there is a period of time that Falcon 9 v1 can't lose an engine and still make orbit... though, presumably, that's well before Max-Q and presumably there is enough warning that they can shut down before release if the problem shows hints at ignition.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/08/2012 08:47 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. "

Oh, that's interesting.  Are they saying that the deliberate ejection of panels is somehow part of their engine protection scheme?  I'm having a hard time visualizing how that would work.

Keep in mind, this almost certainly refers to the overall engine bay, not blowouts on the failed engine itself.

The engine bay is the space above the nozzles, which mostly-encloses the combustion chambers with the aerodynamic fairings and the debris shields between the engines, etc. See a photo with covers in place here:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/spacex-launch-aborted-as-engine-ignition-begins/

If you have a combustion chamber or turbopump failure, that means combustion gasses or possibly even fuel and oxidizer in an enclosed space. Hot gas + nowhere to go equals increasing pressure and heat.

(the engine bay isn't even close to sealed as far as I know, but the pressure may rise faster than whatever is leaking into the bay can leak out)

That could potentially damage the other engines, or their fuel lines, actuators, and instrumentation, or even the rocket structure.

So you can design some of those panels to deliberately be the weak point in all the structure that encloses the engine bay. When the pressure reaches a certain point, the panels burst or tear off instead of the pressure reaching the point where something more important fails.

Anybody started the betting yet? My money is on turbopump RUD.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 08:48 pm
For modemeagle: in your simulations if F9v1 loses thrust from two engines at T+1:20 does the payload reach any orbit at all?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 08:48 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 08:52 pm
Did you watch the video on that post?  It shows exactly that.  There is a fireball and rise of pressure but usually (for the static fire or pad abort case) the pressure is redirected by the fairing but does not require a safety release.  At Max-Q the loads are different and the response is different.  It's still working as designed.

The OP said that fuel is dumped inside the mold line of the vehicle by design.  I see nothing in the video to support that claim.  It would be a really unsafe design.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Oersted on 10/08/2012 08:53 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 08:55 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 08:57 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets

That's because cars are designed to be reusable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 09:00 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.
Even in a low orbit, Orbcomm can probably spin this as a success to their investors, since the whole point is to demonstrate the viability of the satellite and its function, etc, before they send them all up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 09:01 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets


The difference between a machine that rarely breaks down and a machine that cannot break down is that when the machine that cannot break down breaks down, the consequences are much more severe.

  -- paraphrasing the late and great Douglas Adams
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 09:07 pm
Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features?
I think for the same reason, as 90% of all questions, starting with "why don't we build in..." are rejected: weight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 09:08 pm
I'm trying to let this thread flow as freely as possible, as there are going to be a lot of differing opinions on this. I have removed a few rude posts.

Don't quote or respond to uncivil posts, report them and a moderator will remove the offending post (if it is a breach of rules).

I'll write a new article on this when we have enough info to hand. I'm working on that in L2.

Thanks, and looking  forward to the article.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: johnbellora on 10/08/2012 09:09 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 09:10 pm
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?
Can I +1 this and suggest that we not sweep it under the rug?
I'm not a big fan of letting people forget how absurd they come across when they assert speculation masked as fact.
That also goes for those who started and stoked the GNC door rumour.

*grumbles in his armchair*

Edit: am mildly tempted to snark about "luck" comments. Hmmm, maybe I just did.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: leetdan on 10/08/2012 09:13 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Thanks, are you able to reveal your sources?  And I'm curious, just who are the "both sides" you mention?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/08/2012 09:18 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Welcome
Best, most informative first post I have seen.

So you are confirming that the Falcon 9 second stage did ignite for the second burn after the Dragon was deployed, contradicting previous reports?

If the second stage is in some intermdiate orbit with an average height around the current ISS altitude (~410 km) do we have an tracking data on it?

edit to add first question
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 09:18 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.
Thanks for letting us know in changing this from complete speculation to informed speculation!!!

Also it seems like my educated guess ended up not being so far off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 09:19 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.
This sounds plausible. IIRC some coverage on the Orbcomm launch (Parabolic arc?) said a 2nd stage 2 burn would take place if *possible* but otherwise the satellite would be deployed at the parking orbit. Which presumably means Orbital can make it work. The satellite is described as a *prototype* 2nd generation Orbcomm, so not hitting it's *exact* orbit should still give them the data to prove out systems functions.

I've been presuming that since no one *seemed* to be worrying about Dragon being off its nominal trajectory to ISS the 2nd stage had to have delivered *enough* delta v to get it on the right vector and therefor the 2nd stage at least on its nominal orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/08/2012 09:19 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets

That's because cars are designed to be reusable.

No, it's not. If a car's crumple zone is necessary, that car will never be used again (except for spare parts, perhaps). 

They have crumple zones because there are many orders of magnitude more of them rolling around the streets than there are rockets flying, and thus statistically more likely to crash into one another than rockets are to suffer just the right kind of structural overload that their presence would make any difference.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kch on 10/08/2012 09:19 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Interesting indeed!  'Preciate the information -- hope it goes well.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 09:41 pm
I'm not a big fan of letting people forget how absurd they come across when they assert speculation masked as fact.
TBF the video *looked* very serious and an explosion sounded plausible.

I would have gone with "explosion" too except for my natural caution about trusting *anything* where the only evidence is blurry video with poor lighting conditions that lasts a few seconds.


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cambrianera on 10/08/2012 09:41 pm
About the damage done by the accident, did someone noticed that the view we have of the octopus manifold shows no signs of damage ?
It's few inches away from the engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/08/2012 09:49 pm
Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.

The 1.14 G overload would only cause stress (or rather compression) above plan at the cabin end. This might be an issue with tourists but hopefully not for cargos.

At the engine end, the force on the frame is what the engines produce. It will be designed for 9 engines. 8 engines firing compared to 7 is still 8/9th of launch compression, even if the acceleration is higher.

Simulating the flight, I get the following times:
Engine out (9 drop to 8 engines): 80 seconds
5G limit engine out (8 drop to 7 engines): 191.6 seconds
S1 MECO: 195.3 seconds

Skipping the 5G limit shutdown gives a Meco of 194.7 seconds and 47.4m/s acceleration.

Run with an estimated payload of 6.6 tonnes.

If it reaches 5G at 191.6s, then 47.4 m/s @ 194.7s can't be right because I make that only 4.8G.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 10/08/2012 09:50 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 09:51 pm
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?
Can I +1 this and suggest that we not sweep it under the rug?
I'm not a big fan of letting people forget how absurd they come across when they assert speculation masked as fact.
That also goes for those who started and stoked the GNC door rumour.

*grumbles in his armchair*

Edit: am mildly tempted to snark about "luck" comments. Hmmm, maybe I just did.

No comment on the GNC door but if people want to talk SpaceX, they have to speak about all of it.

An "engine pressure release" that blows a fairing off your rocket is not a normal thing.  I think people should indeed acknowledge they were lucky that it was not more serious because an "engine pressure release" that causes an engine to shut down, the first stage to burn longer, etc could certainly have had a much stronger impact on the climb up hill.

There is nothing wrong with discussing, if after all that is what people want to do, and suggesting that a root cause be found and determined and making sure whatever that was does not have an impact on other engines, in production or design. 

That is good engineering.  That is smart business.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Peter NASA on 10/08/2012 09:52 pm
That's because it wasn't an explosion. I would expect Chris will be writing an article out of L2 content soon. Already excellent information in there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 09:52 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

I saw that.  Unless Orbcomm is lying or there is some kind of complicated connection, it looks like loss of fuel on the second stage wasn't the reason for the Orbcomm failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 09:55 pm
Unless Orbcomm is lying or there is some kind of complicated connection, it looks like loss of fuel on the second stage wasn't the reason for the Orbcomm failure.

They're not lying and there is a connection.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DEL on 10/08/2012 09:55 pm
Very new here, please forgive me if I am saying something odd, but reading all these posts, am I to understand there are folks actually cheerleading for a mission to fail? Looking for any potential way they possibly can to deem a successful mission ( so far ) a failure?

Personally I wish them all success, even the Chinese missions ( we could use a little competition )

I will as heartily hope Orbital's attempts a success as I have Space X, and the MSL and every ULA mission.

On a positive side some of the posts here are extremely informative, I will likely be a rare poster, but avid reader.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 09:59 pm
Very new here, please forgive me if I am saying something odd, but reading all these posts, am I to understand there are folks actually cheerleading for a mission to fail? Looking for any potential way they possibly can to deem a successful mission ( so far ) a failure?

Of course not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: neilh on 10/08/2012 09:59 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

Could anyone explain a little more about what's meant by the ISS "safety gate"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 09:59 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

I saw that.  Unless Orbcomm is lying or there is some kind of complicated connection, it looks like loss of fuel on the second stage wasn't the reason for the Orbcomm failure.
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.

Just goes to show you that this is a very difficult and highly constrained business.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 10:02 pm
ISS Collision avoidance?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 10:02 pm
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.

Don't you think that is caused by a lack of propellant?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 10:03 pm
An ISS Safety Gateway? I get this conceptually but what is this specifically.
What triggers the gate to close? And is it a relevant trigger with the way the Falcon 9 was designed to handle certain engine out events?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 10/08/2012 10:03 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.

I don't believe OrbComm originally signed up as a secondary payload. They got screwed once already because SpaceX cancelled the F1, where they would have been the primary payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 10:04 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

Could anyone explain a little more about what's meant by the ISS "safety gate"?

Terminology that means position of the stage and release of the sats will not have a chance of intersecting ISS within a specific box/radius around the station.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 10:09 pm
Very new here, please forgive me if I am saying something odd, but reading all these posts, am I to understand there are folks actually cheerleading for a mission to fail? Looking for any potential way they possibly can to deem a successful mission ( so far ) a failure?

Personally I wish them all success, even the Chinese missions ( we could use a little competition )

I will as heartily hope Orbital's attempts a success as I have Space X, and the MSL and every ULA mission.

On a positive side some of the posts here are extremely informative, I will likely be a rare poster, but avid reader.


No one here is cheerleading for failure. We all wish SpaceX success (and I say that as a former Orbital engineer). Just different observers offering different speculations about what may have happened.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/08/2012 10:19 pm
An ISS Safety Gateway? I get this conceptually but what is this specifically.
What triggers the gate to close? And is it a relevant trigger with the way the Falcon 9 was designed to handle certain engine out events?

That's an excellent question. Maybe it was a requirement (by NASA?) for this flight that if any anomaly occurred during ascent that the second burn was automatically canceled. I'll be interested to hear what the professionals have to say on this point.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 10:19 pm
As far as the "ISS safety gate"...

The 2nd stage + Orbcomm ended up in the ~200 x 330 km orbit.  The intent was for the 2nd stage to relight to boost to 350 x 750 km.

If propellant in the 2nd stage was insufficient to complete the burn to 350 x 750 km with margins appropriate for any unknowns, if could instead end up in a ~400-430 x 330 km orbit, which might bring it close to ISS.

The "safety gate" was probably related to having enough propellant for be sure that everything ended up in orbits not a hazard to ISS.  Since it wasn't met - no relight.

Orbcomm keeps getting shafted.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 10:22 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. "

Oh, that's interesting.  Are they saying that the deliberate ejection of panels is somehow part of their engine protection scheme?  I'm having a hard time visualizing how that would work.

Keep in mind, this almost certainly refers to the overall engine bay, not blowouts on the failed engine itself.

The engine bay is the space above the nozzles, which mostly-encloses the combustion chambers with the aerodynamic fairings and the debris shields between the engines, etc. See a photo with covers in place here:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/spacex-launch-aborted-as-engine-ignition-begins/

If you have a combustion chamber or turbopump failure, that means combustion gasses or possibly even fuel and oxidizer in an enclosed space. Hot gas + nowhere to go equals increasing pressure and heat.

(the engine bay isn't even close to sealed as far as I know, but the pressure may rise faster than whatever is leaking into the bay can leak out)

That could potentially damage the other engines, or their fuel lines, actuators, and instrumentation, or even the rocket structure.

So you can design some of those panels to deliberately be the weak point in all the structure that encloses the engine bay. When the pressure reaches a certain point, the panels burst or tear off instead of the pressure reaching the point where something more important fails.

Anybody started the betting yet? My money is on turbopump RUD.

FOr spacex, it's always valve problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: thydusk666 on 10/08/2012 10:24 pm
Very new here, please forgive me if I am saying something odd, but reading all these posts, am I to understand there are folks actually cheerleading for a mission to fail? Looking for any potential way they possibly can to deem a successful mission ( so far ) a failure?

Personally I wish them all success, even the Chinese missions ( we could use a little competition )

I will as heartily hope Orbital's attempts a success as I have Space X, and the MSL and every ULA mission.

On a positive side some of the posts here are extremely informative, I will likely be a rare poster, but avid reader.

+1 for all the above.
I am surprised by some posts in this thread which leave a bitter taste...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 10:26 pm
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.

Don't you think that is caused by a lack of propellant?

Well, at first, they said engine one exploded. Engine one didn't exploded but shut down. And then they said second stage didn't restart, now low on fuel.

It's getting clear, romney is attacking elon again.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 10:30 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

Could anyone explain a little more about what's meant by the ISS "safety gate"?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 10/08/2012 10:34 pm
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.
Don't you think that is caused by a lack of propellant?

Very possibly.  In any case, the situation must have been fairly clear as they didn't spend much time before deciding.  According the ORBCOMM press release, separation was "approximately 9:00PM EST", ~L+25min, or ~15min after Dragon separation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 10/08/2012 10:41 pm
For modemeagle: in your simulations if F9v1 loses thrust from two engines at T+1:20 does the payload reach any orbit at all?
Yes, according to my simulation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 10:49 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.

I don't believe OrbComm originally signed up as a secondary payload. They got screwed once already because SpaceX cancelled the F1, where they would have been the primary payload.


I think OG-2 are very cheap satellites, and Orbcomm have 18 of them. i suspect they rather lose 1/3 of the satellites than launch with falcon 1e or  Pegasus.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 10/08/2012 10:50 pm
Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.

The 1.14 G overload would only cause stress (or rather compression) above plan at the cabin end. This might be an issue with tourists but hopefully not for cargos.

At the engine end, the force on the frame is what the engines produce. It will be designed for 9 engines. 8 engines firing compared to 7 is still 8/9th of launch compression, even if the acceleration is higher.

Simulating the flight, I get the following times:
Engine out (9 drop to 8 engines): 80 seconds
5G limit engine out (8 drop to 7 engines): 191.6 seconds
S1 MECO: 195.3 seconds

Skipping the 5G limit shutdown gives a Meco of 194.7 seconds and 47.4m/s acceleration.

Run with an estimated payload of 6.6 tonnes.

If it reaches 5G at 191.6s, then 47.4 m/s @ 194.7s can't be right because I make that only 4.8G.

cheers, Martin
The difference is due to drag gravity losses of acceleration.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/08/2012 11:00 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 11:00 pm
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.

Don't you think that is caused by a lack of propellant?

Well, at first, they said engine one exploded. Engine one didn't exploded but shut down. And then they said second stage didn't restart, now low on fuel.

It's getting clear, romney is attacking elon again.
dahell? Why do you keep saying that?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 11:01 pm


Very possibly.  In any case, the situation must have been fairly clear as they didn't spend much time before deciding.  According the ORBCOMM press release, separation was "approximately 9:00PM EST", ~L+25min, or ~15min after Dragon separation.

There isn't any "deciding".   Launch vehicles are autonomous.  There is no ground commanding.  The propellant check failed so then the vehicle go on to next task in the flight program
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 11:01 pm
The part falling away here seems to be much heavier then the ice (and the ice doesn't leave a trail of fume). It's before the engine shutdown. Seen in "SpaceX CRS-1 Dragon Launch Replays.mp4" at 05:03:04, roughly 45s into flight (UCS-7 Tracker).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: bubbagret on 10/08/2012 11:03 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.

I don't believe OrbComm originally signed up as a secondary payload. They got screwed once already because SpaceX cancelled the F1, where they would have been the primary payload.


I think OG-2 are very cheap satellites, and Orbcomm have 18 of them. i suspect they rather lose 1/3 of the satellites than launch with falcon 1e or  Pegasus.
$6.5 Million each per: http://www.sncorp.com/press_more_info.php?id=371
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 11:03 pm
As far as the "ISS safety gate"...

The 2nd stage + Orbcomm ended up in the ~200 x 330 km orbit.  The intent was for the 2nd stage to relight to boost to 350 x 750 km.

If propellant in the 2nd stage was insufficient to complete the burn to 350 x 750 km with margins appropriate for any unknowns, if could instead end up in a ~400-430 x 330 km orbit, which might bring it close to ISS.

The "safety gate" was probably related to having enough propellant for be sure that everything ended up in orbits not a hazard to ISS.  Since it wasn't met - no relight.
...
Ah, plausible. And probably the best answer so far.

Could also be unrelated to level of propellant... I.e. because the ascent took longer, the orbital elements were different than expected, and thus the second stage relight wasn't cleared.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/08/2012 11:07 pm
Very possibly.  In any case, the situation must have been fairly clear as they didn't spend much time before deciding.  According the ORBCOMM press release, separation was "approximately 9:00PM EST", ~L+25min, or ~15min after Dragon separation.

There isn't any "deciding".   Launch vehicles are autonomous.  There is no ground commanding.  The propellant check failed so then the vehicle go on to next task in the flight program

Jim: Is this a statement of fact based on flight telemetry or based on the operations of rockets in general and Falcon 9 in particular?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/08/2012 11:07 pm
Asked on the updates thread...
Only one question, why deploy if it was not in the " pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate".. why detach it from the stage.. ?

I'm guessing that your question is "Why not leave the Orbcomm satellite attached to Falcon Upper Stage and try the apogee raise a bit later at the next opportunity that is also safe for the ISS?"

And if that's the question, I'd like to know too. Are there limits on how long Falcon US can loiter up there and be effective? Or a limit on time between engine out and engine restart? And I see the speculation in this thread that the Falcon US didn't have enough fuel to guarantee an orbit clear of ISS altitudes - I'd have to say that that off-nominal possibility must have been worked out in advance, in that case, to make the decision in the timeframe.

My thought from the satellite end of the business would be whether the satellite needed to deploy solar arrays to get powered in some shortish window and couldn't wait for a further orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 11:10 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.

I don't believe OrbComm originally signed up as a secondary payload. They got screwed once already because SpaceX cancelled the F1, where they would have been the primary payload.


I think OG-2 are very cheap satellites, and Orbcomm have 18 of them. i suspect they rather lose 1/3 of the satellites than launch with falcon 1e or  Pegasus.
$6.5 Million each per: http://www.sncorp.com/press_more_info.php?id=371

A little more than half the cost of a Falcon 1e launch, back when they were still selling them. And replacement ones are probably less expensive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 11:11 pm
Very possibly.  In any case, the situation must have been fairly clear as they didn't spend much time before deciding.  According the ORBCOMM press release, separation was "approximately 9:00PM EST", ~L+25min, or ~15min after Dragon separation.

There isn't any "deciding".   Launch vehicles are autonomous.  There is no ground commanding.  The propellant check failed so then the vehicle go on to next task in the flight program

Jim: Is this a statement of fact based on flight telemetry or based on the operations of rockets in general and Falcon 9 in particular?

in general
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/08/2012 11:15 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 11:15 pm

I'm guessing that your question is "Why not leave the Orbcomm satellite attached to Falcon Upper Stage and try the apogee raise a bit later at the next opportunity that is also safe for the ISS?"

 Are there limits on how long Falcon US can loiter up there and be effective?

There is battery life constraints.    Most LEO launch vehicles have only a couple to a few hour lifetime.  Most launch vehicles have limited capability to adapt on the fly.  They just follow a timeline and have no guidance updates. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/08/2012 11:20 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 

Do you have a source for that?
I believe they are required to keep 18  m/s for end of life disposal, so yes, they are out of luck if you are correct.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 10/08/2012 11:24 pm

in general

Jim... in general, how can one determine the amount of fuel left in a stage that is in free flight..?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/08/2012 11:24 pm
I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 

This was no ordinary OG-2. They were planning to circularize their own orbit in the nominal flight plan.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 10/08/2012 11:25 pm
Hitchhikers might not always get to their ideal destination.

Secondary means sacrificed if something arises that threatens the primary, in this case Dragon/ISS.

Legal Rules of the road. Good for NASA, bad for SpX and Orbcomm. If this indeed is the case, lawyers scrapped a satellite, I would be PO'd.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/08/2012 11:27 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 


Thanks.  What ORBCOMM's corrective actions are and how much they can accomplish based on their original plans, would be reflective of how much not reaching the desired orbit was a problem.

It may be that the best way to view the present SpaceX launch is as mostly successful, with some significant issues. 

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 11:36 pm

in general

Jim... in general, how can one determine the amount of fuel left in a stage that is in free flight..?


Burn time or delta V are some of the ways.  Vehicles like Centaur have PU systems and know what is in the tanks.  BTW, some vehicles, like Centaur, are never in "free flight", they have settling thrusters firing almost all the time.  Watch the animated coast footage of an Atlas V or Delta IV next time and you will see what I mean.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/08/2012 11:37 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 

Do you have a source for that?
I believe they are required to keep 18  m/s for end of life disposal, so yes, they are out of luck if you are correct.

Nothing 100% definitive by any means.

I found it mentioned here on NSF in another thread and a pdf that looks like it is from Sierra Nevada from a presentation in 2009. 
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS7/SESSIONS/Session%20III/3001_Mosher/3001C.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 10/08/2012 11:49 pm
Playing spot the parts.. not sure if this has been completely played out yet...

My guess.. [ Images sourced from NSF :)]
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 10/09/2012 12:01 am
I've read through this entire thread, and as far as I'm concerned, SpaceX is fully justified to launch the next F9 without any changes while they work on the issue.  Why?  TWA Flight 800.

Now if Flight 800, instead of exploding, had merely blown out a section of fusilage and vented the center tank, and if the crippled 747 had completed its mission and landed safely with no loss of life...
AND if all 747s were then grounded and inspected and upgraded before ever being allowed to fly again, THEN SpaceX could resonably be expected to behave in a similar fashion.

But that never happend.  A 747 exploded for no good reason, 400 people died, and the 747 fleet was never grounded.  They were not inspected in a timely fashion, and it was 12 years later (2008) before final concensus was reached on a corrective action, with passengers flying unprotected the entire time.  Unmodified 747s with potential fatal defects continue to fly thousands of passengers every day.

When Flight 800 exploded there were probably a dozen loaded 747s around the world waiting for takeoff.  None of the passengers were informed they may be sitting on a bomb, none were given a choice to change aircraft.  Someone rolled the dice and gambled thousands of lives, because at that time in 1996 there was no indication that all 747s didn't have the same defect.  There was no indication that every other 747 wouldn't do the exact same thing.

There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.

Unless someone can explain why bags of M&Ms and clean underwear are more deserving of protection than living breathing human beings.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 10/09/2012 12:01 am
Nice pic of an array.. http://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/255454339936686081/photo/1/large
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/09/2012 12:05 am
Hitchhikers might not always get to their ideal destination.

Secondary means sacrificed if something arises that threatens the primary, in this case Dragon/ISS.

Legal Rules of the road. Good for NASA, bad for SpX and Orbcomm. If this indeed is the case, lawyers scrapped a satellite, I would be PO'd.

I think orbcomm knew what they paid for. 1e was 8.5M per launch(?), i guess now is 10M. on the other hand, i bet spacex is offering basement price for secondary payload right now, could be as low as 2~3M.

There are ways to lower satellite launch cost. Go reusable is one way, but it's not going to happen in the next few years. 2, FH does lower price per pound a lot and ready to launch next year. but first, spacex really need to master  how to do one launch multiple payload.  Secondary payloads on F9 give them chances to practice.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 12:09 am
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 

Do you have a source for that?
I believe they are required to keep 18  m/s for end of life disposal, so yes, they are out of luck if you are correct.

Nothing 100% definitive by any means.

I found it mentioned here on NSF in another thread and a pdf that looks like it is from Sierra Nevada from a presentation in 2009. 
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS7/SESSIONS/Session%20III/3001_Mosher/3001C.pdf

Thanks
Hmm, the flyer on SNC's site seems to be 2011 and says 70 m/s - it may really be older.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/09/2012 12:12 am
I've read through this entire thread, and as far as I'm concerned, SpaceX is fully justified to launch the next F9 without any changes while they work on the issue.  Why?  TWA Flight 800.

Now if Flight 800, instead of exploding, had merely blown out a section of fusilage and vented the center tank, and if the crippled 747 had completed its mission and landed safely with no loss of life...
AND if all 747s were then grounded and inspected and upgraded before ever being allowed to fly again, THEN SpaceX could resonably be expected to behave in a similar fashion.

But that never happend.  A 747 exploded for no good reason, 400 people died, and the 747 fleet was never grounded.  They were not inspected in a timely fashion, and it was 12 years later (2008) before final concensus was reached on a corrective action, with passengers flying unprotected the entire time.  Unmodified 747s with potential fatal defects continue to fly thousands of passengers every day.

When Flight 800 exploded there were probably a dozen loaded 747s around the world waiting for takeoff.  None of the passengers were informed they may be sitting on a bomb, none were given a choice to change aircraft.  Someone rolled the dice and gambled thousands of lives, because at that time in 1996 there was no indication that all 747s didn't have the same defect.  There was no indication that every other 747 wouldn't do the exact same thing.

There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.

Unless someone can explain why bags of M&Ms and clean underwear are more deserving of protection than living breathing human beings.



That's not really a valid comparison.  At the time of flight 800 countless thousands of safe 747 flights had occurred.  The Falcon 9 1.0 has a total of four flights. 

While I do in a way agree, I am also sure that SpaceX is working really hard to understand exactly what happened yesterday.  If they find something to fix, they will fix it before the next flight. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/09/2012 12:12 am
There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?

If the fourth flight of a 747 had suffered a significant anomaly, the fifth flight would not have gone up until the cause had been identified and rectified.
If one in every 40 aircraft engines failed in flights, I for one would not get on the plane until they had found out why, and done something about it.

Aircraft are produced and flown on a scale that completely dwarfs LVs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 12:17 am

It may be that the best way to view the present SpaceX launch is as mostly successful, with some significant issues. 




Agreed. I'm trying to quantify that to have a metric that I can apply fairly
to other companies' launches. I'm come up with the following strawman scheme, and welcome comments:

 Primary payloads reach some orbit and separate from LV -  30 percent
 Primary payload orbit is usable, not necessarily perfect      -  25
 Primary payload orbit is as planned (within quoted sigmas)  -  20
 Secondary payload separated in orbit -                              10
  Secondary payload orbit usable -                                     10
  Secondary payload orbit as planned -                                 5

by this metric, the Falcon 9 launch scores 85 percent

For a launch with no secondary payloads, add the corresponding secondary scores to the primary, so 40/35/25

For a launch with multiple primary payloads, divide scores evenly


one might tweak this to cover cases where the LV damages the
satellite in some way - limited damage, subtract 20 percent,
satellite inoperable scores same as failure to orbit (i.e. total 0)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: johnbellora on 10/09/2012 12:21 am
the only thing at this point is they are going to try to do is change the orbit to more of a circular orbit which will buy a few months of operation. Right now it is in an elliptical orbit. They are going to try to use the small amount of remaining fuel to do this. If it is not sucessfull then it will plummet in a few weeks. if sucessfull then maybe three months. evidently its average height is about what the space station is. Not good enough. The Orbcomm is working so well they had to attenuate it. it is overloading the system
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/09/2012 12:35 am
About the damage done by the accident, did someone noticed that the view we have of the octopus manifold shows no signs of damage ?
It's few inches away from the engines.

I did notice, was going to make the same post. Looks remarkably clean in there, doesn't it?

When I saw it live (and knowing nothing of the anomaly yet) I thought to myself: "there's a lot less exhaust circulating in here than last time".

Now I'm thinking it's that way because either the kevlar shields and thermal protection work really well...or the engine compartment has extra "ventilation".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/09/2012 12:36 am
Hi John -

 Welcome to the site's forum. We've got some raw notes - matching what you're saying - and I'm about to start drafting up what we have on all of this.

 What we didn't have is potential outcomes for this, so appreciate your insight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 12:38 am

Unless someone can explain why bags of M&Ms and clean underwear are more deserving of protection than living breathing human beings.


Because the TWA 800 analogy is not applicable
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/09/2012 12:38 am
Playing spot the parts.. not sure if this has been completely played out yet...

My guess.. [ Images sourced from NSF :)]

The F9 Merlin configuration does not have those panels.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cygnusx112 on 10/09/2012 12:42 am
Last night they had a fire on the pad and the announcer mentioned it as being “normal”? Does anyone know what the fire was and if this is normal?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 12:46 am
the only thing at this point is they are going to try to do is change the orbit to more of a circular orbit which will buy a few months of operation. Right now it is in an elliptical orbit. They are going to try to use the small amount of remaining fuel to do this. If it is not sucessfull then it will plummet in a few weeks. if sucessfull then maybe three months. evidently its average height is about what the space station is. Not good enough. The Orbcomm is working so well they had to attenuate it. it is overloading the system

That's great information, thanks for sharing it.
BTW, as far as I can see, average height is only about 260 km while station is at 400 km.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/09/2012 12:48 am
There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.


I seriously doubt anyone is suggesting "grounding" the Falcon 9, at least anyone credible.  You should probably be careful about what you read on the internet and how you interpret it.

There is a huge difference in waiving something away and pretending it did not happen and doing the proper investigation to determine root cause, correcting the problem and making any changes (if necessary) one may need to make to production end items or design. 

With respect to the former, I can only presume that some want to have so much faith in anything that comes from SpaceX that anything *perceieved* as negative (even though it happened) causes an adverse defensive reaction. 

The latter is good engineering and good business and can likely be done within the normal time between launches.  If not, it slips a little.  It won't be the first time they have nor will it be the last.  It happens but customer satisfaction and demonstrating one is committed to product reliability goes a long way. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/09/2012 01:10 am
Some questions for anyone that wants to take a shot:

1. With the ORBCOMM satellite in the wrong orbit, will SpaceX have to payback money to ORBCOMM?
2. Would this have been the same problem even if this was V1.1 where both the first and second stages had more performance? 
3.  How much propellant is usually stored on a satellite like this OG2?  Do we realistically think it has enough to make big correction like this one?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/09/2012 01:15 am
Some questions for anyone that wants to take a shot:

1. With the ORBCOMM satellite in the wrong orbit, will SpaceX have to payback money to ORBCOMM?
2. Would this have been the same problem even if this was V1.1 where both the first and second stages had more performance? 
3.  How much propellant is usually stored on a satellite like this OG2?  Do we realistically think it has enough to make big correction like this one?

1.  It really depends on the terms of the contract.  Most likely Orbcomm had insurance, which certainly took the launch vehicle into consideration.
2.  No one can really say, at least with good authority, without seeing or having knowledge of the downlinked data from this flight on what precisely happened and without knowing the exact differences on 1.1
3.  No
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/09/2012 01:16 am
A few images from the Vozoff Presentation on February 11, 2010
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 10/09/2012 01:21 am
If one in every 40 aircraft engines failed in flights, I for one would not get on the plane until they had found out why, and done something about it.

That's poor statistics.  The failure rate isn't 1 in 40.  If a widget has a 1 in a million failure rate, it doesn't matter if the failure is in unit 1, 40, 7012, or 1 million, the rate is the same.  For all we know the next 800 Merlin 1Cs could fly without another incident.

Except there won't be another 800 1Cs, or even another 40.  So there is little reason to expect the next F9 flight of 10 engines will experience the same failure.  I agree it may make more fiscal sense to launch it anyway, pending review of course.

I do admit this failure does now highlight the second stage's single point of failure.  If engine #1 had been #10 instead, the second stage never makes orbit.  LOM.

But Jim you are correct that Flight 800 is a bad analogy.  And that's because dozens of 747s with thousands of lives on board had already taken off before a Boeing engineer could even consider if the failure could be systemic or not.  Given that level of cavalier, I really do not understand the politically driven slowdown I know is coming.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/09/2012 01:30 am
If one in every 40 aircraft engines failed in flights, I for one would not get on the plane until they had found out why, and done something about it.

That's poor statistics.  The failure rate isn't 1 in 40.  If a widget has a 1 in a million failure rate, it doesn't matter if the failure is in unit 1, 40, 7012, or 1 million, the rate is the same.  For all we know the next 800 Merlin 1Cs could fly without another incident.

Except there won't be another 800 1Cs, or even another 40.  So there is little reason to expect the next F9 flight of 10 engines will experience the same failure.  I agree it may make more fiscal sense to launch it anyway, pending review of course.

I do admit this failure does now highlight the second stage's single point of failure.  If engine #1 had been #10 instead, the second stage never makes orbit.  LOM.

But Jim you are correct that Flight 800 is a bad analogy.  And that's because dozens of 747s with thousands of lives on board had already taken off before a Boeing engineer could even consider if the failure could be systemic or not.  Given that level of cavalier, I really do not understand the politically driven slowdown I know is coming.

What?  This is arm-waving pure and simple, at least when you are not contradicting yourself. 

What *you* were suggesting in one statement is cavalier by suggesting everyone should just move out and pretend this never happened.  In the next beat you suggest "pending review" and at least theorize what would have happened if this was the second stage engine.

Increadibly strange.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/09/2012 01:32 am
There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.


  You should probably be careful about what you read on the internet and how you interpret it.


thats good advice everyone should do......but sadly blogs are taken as facts now etc.

Was eating dinner and just about choked when I changed channels and heard the local news.

The SpaceX engine exploded says the news.  They showed the video frames on TV.

SpaceX time to turn ur PR people on overdrive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 10/09/2012 01:38 am
There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.


  You should probably be careful about what you read on the internet and how you interpret it.


thats good advice everyone should do......but sadly blogs are taken as facts now etc.

Was eating dinner and just about choked when I changed channels and heard the local news.

The SpaceX engine exploded says the news.  They showed the video frames on TV.

SpaceX time to turn ur PR people on overdrive.

Given enough rope...

If PR jumped at every turn, it would become expected.
It's likely that once the Dragon berths, they'll answer all questiona at a presser (imo).

It may be bad for Orbcomms position, but as previosuly mentioned, Dragon still made it to orbit - which says a LOT for their system design. I'm actually impressed it kept on chugging along considering the damage.

(though imagine if it was an inboard engine!)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: system9 on 10/09/2012 01:39 am
I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 10/09/2012 01:41 am
I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

I think you will find a resounding YES to that question  :)
I've not heard anything new on the fire, but good to bring that up (though I'm sure it's a minor issue, perhaps a hose failure)

Welcome to the site!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: notsorandom on 10/09/2012 01:47 am
About the damage done by the accident, did someone noticed that the view we have of the octopus manifold shows no signs of damage ?
It's few inches away from the engines.

I did notice, was going to make the same post. Looks remarkably clean in there, doesn't it?

When I saw it live (and knowing nothing of the anomaly yet) I thought to myself: "there's a lot less exhaust circulating in here than last time".

Now I'm thinking it's that way because either the kevlar shields and thermal protection work really well...or the engine compartment has extra "ventilation".
I am pretty sure, but correct me if I am wrong, that that view is from the top of the first stage looking up at the Mvac.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 01:49 am
Could be just a grass fire, too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: system9 on 10/09/2012 01:49 am
I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

I think you will find a resounding YES to that question  :)
I've not heard anything new on the fire, but good to bring that up (though I'm sure it's a minor issue, perhaps a hose failure)

Welcome to the site!

Here is one of my videos. (My Father shot this one.) Youtube is still processing it so the quality may improve later but for now...

I think the event occurs at 5:16

http://youtu.be/6QFUGEarTNQ

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 10/09/2012 02:08 am
What *you* were suggesting in one statement is cavalier by suggesting everyone should just move out and pretend this never happened.

Except I didn't say that.  I fully expect SpaceX to conduct a full review.  If they scrap the 1C and never fly it again based on their engineering judgement, great.  But if they review the data and say they're flying again unchanged, it's justified.

Because all it takes is the notion that the IC is failure prone or dangerous, and suddenly the failure of the next flight is all but assured and the next flight is in 2014 with 500 extra pounds of diagnostics.

I can't balance that level of risk adversity against how airliner crashes are reacted to.  I trust SpaceX to be inteligent about this, I don't trust the politicians.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/09/2012 02:22 am
I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

I think you will find a resounding YES to that question  :)
I've not heard anything new on the fire, but good to bring that up (though I'm sure it's a minor issue, perhaps a hose failure)

Welcome to the site!

Here is one of my videos. (My Father shot this one.) Youtube is still processing it so the quality may improve later but for now...

I think the event occurs at 5:16

http://youtu.be/6QFUGEarTNQ



nice video.....like the sun comes out during a night launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/09/2012 02:25 am
I said last night that I think this proves the overall robust design of the Falcon 9.  Whatever the cause, it suffered a pretty violent loss of an engine and still made it to orbit. 

As others have pointed out, the 747 analogy isn't good, since that plane had made thousands of safe flights before TWA 800.  But I don't see much reason for SpaceX to unduly delay the next flight, since the Falcon 9 v1.0 and Merlin 1C are about to be discontinued.  I guess SpaceX has to weigh the cost/benefit between risking LOM on CRS-2 vs. spending time and money to fix this problem.

As I understand it, Merlin 1D is a completely different engine, and Falcon 9 v1.1 has a different arrangement of engines (a circle instead of a square).  So the v1.1 will have different engines as well as different fairings.

Obviously, they will want to learn as much as possible about this failure, particularly as regards to any parts that may be common between the Merlin 1C and 1D.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be much of a delay in the next cargo flight.

I think it's great that they are flying a dozen cargo flights, in addition to satellite launches, before they attempt to launch a human crew.  That should give them ample time to work out all the major bugs in the F9.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 02:28 am
  Given that level of cavalier, I really do not understand the politically driven slowdown I know is coming.

It is not politically driven.  It is smart engineering and common sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 02:33 am
What *you* were suggesting in one statement is cavalier by suggesting everyone should just move out and pretend this never happened.

Except I didn't say that.  I fully expect SpaceX to conduct a full review.  If they scrap the 1C and never fly it again based on their engineering judgement, great.  But if they review the data and say they're flying again unchanged, it's justified.

Because all it takes is the notion that the IC is failure prone or dangerous, and suddenly the failure of the next flight is all but assured and the next flight is in 2014 with 500 extra pounds of diagnostics.

I can't balance that level of risk adversity against how airliner crashes are reacted to.  I trust SpaceX to be inteligent about this, I don't trust the politicians.

huh?  politicians have nothing to do with this.  No, it has nothing to do with notions.  I am glad you are not the one to balance that level of risk adversity.  You don't understand what is going one. There could be many legitimate reasons for the next flight to be 2014 with 500 extra pounds of diagnostics.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 02:34 am
since the Falcon 9 v1.0 and Merlin 1C are about to be discontinued....

As I understand it, Merlin 1D is a completely different engine, and Falcon 9 v1.1 has a different arrangement of engines (a circle instead of a square).  So the v1.1 will have different engines as well as different fairings.

Obviously, they will want to learn as much as possible about this failure, particularly as regards to any parts that may be common between the Merlin 1C and 1D.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be much of a delay in the next cargo flight.


Wrong, there are more similarities than differences.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/09/2012 02:35 am
I trust SpaceX to be inteligent about this, I don't trust the politicians.

I would think they would be so what the hell do politicians have to do with this?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/09/2012 02:43 am
couple of ?

Who was doing the audio for the NASA transmission?   Someone from SpaceX or NASA?

Did anyone capture the NASA tail end video of the replays?    Would enjoy watching that again.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/09/2012 02:50 am
Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 10/09/2012 03:06 am
Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/



Thanks Chris.  As usual, great article.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/09/2012 03:15 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 03:17 am
Does anyone know if the Falcon 9 took off fully fueled? 

My concern is that an engine loss at 1:20 already caused enough extra propellant to be consumed so that there was not enough to loft the tiny orbcomm into the higher orbit - and this was a lightly loaded Dragon.

Maybe with the lighter load, they also did not top off the tanks. (Or also maybe the decision not to fire the second stage was due to a combination of factors (e.g. orbital position), and actually there was enough propellant.

Anyway, even if they did take off fully fueled, with the 1.1 coming up, I hope this gets resolved.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: darkenfast on 10/09/2012 03:17 am
THIS is why this site is worth it! Good job, Chris!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: HMXHMX on 10/09/2012 03:24 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/09/2012 03:30 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.

He said the powerhead remained "intact." Which sounded to me like a contradiction of Chris' article saying that the fuel dome fractured. I guess it depends on one's definition of "intact." Maybe he was just trying to say that the powerhead stayed mostly in one piece.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 03:37 am
It would be great if someone posted a picture of a Merlin showing where the fuel done is located and explaining where it fits in the plumbing
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/09/2012 03:42 am
It would be great if someone posted a picture of a Merlin showing where the fuel done is located and explaining where it fits in the plumbing

L2 :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: HMXHMX on 10/09/2012 03:42 am
It would be great if someone posted a picture of a Merlin showing where the fuel done is located and explaining where it fits in the plumbing

Here you go.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: HMXHMX on 10/09/2012 03:44 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.

He said the powerhead remained "intact." Which sounded to me like a contradiction of Chris' article saying that the fuel dome fractured. I guess it depends on one's definition of "intact." Maybe he was just trying to say that the powerhead stayed mostly in one piece.

The powerhead is the pump and turbine plus GG.  If the dome failed, the TPA could have remained intact, easily.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SpaceX_MS on 10/09/2012 03:48 am
Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/



Thank you for being balanced Chris! Now for berthing!!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/09/2012 03:56 am
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

In this case, I suspect that the Orbcomm people might agree with a failure listing.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 03:58 am

Here you go.

Thanks!

So do I understand correctly that it is the back-end of the combustion chamber, and so a rupture there would cause the outflow to be mixed and basically already ignited.

I'm trying to understand whether we have the outflow rapturing the fairing outwards, or the lack of proper engine output causing the airflow to rapture the fairing inwards.

Also - since it is at the top of the engine, it can fail due to something like metallurgy issue or internal engine event, or it can fail due to mechanical impact from the outside.  No indication on that yet, right?   Out of curiosity, how thick is it (roughly) and what metal is it made from?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: savuporo on 10/09/2012 04:05 am
In this case, I suspect that the Orbcomm people might agree with a failure listing.
Here is Orbcomm press release (http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/ORBCOMM%20Launches%20Prototype%20OG2%20Satellite%20FINAL.pdf)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Halidon on 10/09/2012 04:08 am
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

In this case, I suspect that the Orbcomm people might agree with a failure listing.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/

 - Ed Kyle
That's interesting, thanks for the input. Is this the first time a failure to reach the secondary payload orbit has caused a failure by those criteria?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: HMXHMX on 10/09/2012 04:20 am

Here you go.

Thanks!

So do I understand correctly that it is the back-end of the combustion chamber, and so a rupture there would cause the outflow to be mixed and basically already ignited.

I'm trying to understand whether we have the outflow rapturing the fairing outwards, or the lack of proper engine output causing the airflow to rapture the fairing inwards.

Also - since it is at the top of the engine, it can fail due to something like metallurgy issue or internal engine event, or it can fail due to mechanical impact from the outside.  No indication on that yet, right?   Out of curiosity, how thick is it (roughly) and what metal is it made from?

I'd call it "head end" or "top end" not back end.  It's part of the combustion chamber/throat/nozzle assembly which is called a TCA ("thrust chamber assembly") in most publications.

The pressure inside the TCA, exhausted via the throat and through the nozzle, is what creates thrust.  Any opening or venting outside of the nozzle will lower combustion pressure, and that will be sensed as fault by the engine controller.  Presumably if that happened, the engine would command itself to shut down.

I don't have any details about the engine but the walls are likely fairly thin, perhaps only a few millimeters thick.  There are many failure modes, from burn-though, stress cracking, etc., that generally require analysis of the post-failure hardware to determine.  That may not be possible in this case.

But since there is only one (?) flight of Merlin 1C left, and then SpaceX transitions to the very different Merlin 1D, the failure has come at about the worst time in that version's manufacturing cycle.  SpaceX has a few hard decisions to make going forward (in my view).  While unlikely, they might wish to transition earlier to the F9v1.1 than they had planned...but that creates it own set of problems.  Tough call and I wish them the best.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dunderwood on 10/09/2012 04:22 am
Quote
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/09/2012 04:46 am
Quote
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion as well. It was not the second stages fault that the command was not given to raise Orbcomm's satellite to it's proper orbit. NASA's parameters did not allow for it. I would classify the mission as a partial success and that is only if and when Dragon fulfills it's intended flight plan.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 04:51 am
Quote
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?

This is of course the problem with black and white pass/fail.
Does it mean "fully successful / something failed" or "partly successful/total fail"?  A similar case is the first Delta 4 Heavy where the nanosats did not achieve orbit and the primary payload achieved a suboptimal orbit - I counted that one as a failure but this Falcon as a success. I hesitated though, and can understand Ed's choice.

I'm considering changing all my databases from pass/fail to a numeric score. Pass/fail does have the advantage that you can use Poisson statistics to get a confidence interval on the failure rate; but for most purposes it is rather a blunt instrument.

I'm tired and not coming up with another good example of 'primary payload perfect, secondary payload failed/wrong orbit' off the top of my head - I guess the Tsiklon-3 with Sich-1 and Fasat-Alfa where the secondary payload failed to separate is one example, any others?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 04:58 am
Quote
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion as well. It was not the second stages fault that the command was not given to raise Orbcomm's satellite to it's proper orbit. NASA's parameters did not allow for it. I would classify the mission as a partial success and that is only if and when Dragon fulfills it's intended flight plan.

You're conflating the Dragon mission and the Falcon launch. We traditionally separate reliability studies of rocket and payload because they are largely independent. Whether the Dragon mission succeeds or not, Falcon delivered it to substantially the correct orbit.
  And you are partly incorrect about the 'command' - there was no external command, it was a second stage program and the reason it didn't pass NASA's parameters was because of the first stage issues. So it was the Falcon's fault (the first stage, not the second stage, though,  you're right to that extent).

The problem here is that there's 'secondary' and 'secondary'. The Falcon 1 restart test was a launch vehicle provider's 'nice to have'. The Falcon 9 Orbcomm deploy was a customer's 'must have'. I would classify both of those missions as partial success, the Falcon 1 at 90/95 percent and this one at 85 percent.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 05:05 am
I'd call it "head end" or "top end" not back end.  It's part of the combustion chamber/throat/nozzle assembly which is called a TCA ("thrust chamber assembly") in most publications.

The pressure inside the TCA, exhausted via the throat and through the nozzle, is what creates thrust.  Any opening or venting outside of the nozzle will lower combustion pressure, and that will be sensed as fault by the engine controller.  Presumably if that happened, the engine would command itself to shut down.

I don't have any details about the engine but the walls are likely fairly thin, perhaps only a few millimeters thick.  There are many failure modes, from burn-though, stress cracking, etc., that generally require analysis of the post-failure hardware to determine.  That may not be possible in this case.

But since there is only one (?) flight of Merlin 1C left, and then SpaceX transitions to the very different Merlin 1D, the failure has come at about the worst time in that version's manufacturing cycle.  SpaceX has a few hard decisions to make going forward (in my view).  While unlikely, they might wish to transition earlier to the F9v1.1 than they had planned...but that creates it own set of problems.  Tough call and I wish them the best.

Directionality is always a bitch...   Yeah, I used "back" since I was looking at the gas flow....

The interesting part is that they've had many many hours on the stand.  So if the failure originated in the engine, there's a good chance it has to do with the operating environment.  Something like less convective or radiative heat transfer, etc.  (Does the test chamber replicated the emissivity of the surrounding space?  Do they insulate the surfaces?)

Lacking a post-mortem, and if they can't replicate the problem (assuming they even have enough 1Cs left to play with) my vote would be to fly again.

Based on the sample set we have, there's a 1:4 chance that they'll have an engine out, but if it happens, the rocket can recover.  It is now only a numbers game, since they will not be putting anything at risk other than the up-going payload.  And if the rocket wasn't fully fueled, then it should be next time.  And no secondaries.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/09/2012 05:14 am
For modemeagle: in your simulations if F9v1 loses thrust from two engines at T+1:20 does the payload reach any orbit at all?
Yes, according to my simulation.

Thanks very much for this! The G-force chart (hope you don't mind I attached a screen shot) really makes this seem plausible; the set-back caused by the engines out shifts the curve "right" in time, but it otherwise follows nicely what would have happened.

Robotbeat: I accept your assertion that the press release phrasing wasn't inaccurate, and is helpful in explaining how well Falcon 9 could perform in its "Falcon 7" configuration!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/09/2012 05:44 am
In terms the general public can understand:

On SpaceX launch CRS-1 engine #1, part of the first stage of Falcon 9 launch vehicle, burst near its top.  This engine anomaly is not actually an explosion but does make a bang.  SpaceX turned off the fuel lines to the engine #1, dumped the broken engine and continued the flight.  The main payload - the Dragon capsule - successfully made it to orbit but there was insufficient time to boost the secondary payload - the OrbComm satellite - to its correct (higher) orbit.

This is a video of a tank bursting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qbi-YtrjFI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qbi-YtrjFI)

edit : spelling
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/09/2012 05:51 am
Obviously there are different mechanical characteristics between a cylindrical chamber and a fuel dome with penetrations but this may shed some light on the forces involved with a possible fuel dome failure as well as some of the design features that saved the day.


From the Merlin 1C thread this quote was given by Spacex in 2005.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10356.135

1.) From http://spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0605-1205
"Then there is the question of dealing with the comparatively rare case of a chamber rupture. To protect against this, Falcon 9 will have a blast shield protecting the entire base of the vehicle just above the gimbal joints of the engines. In addition, there will be fireproofed Kevlar fragment containment around each engine, similar to those present in jet engine nacelles. The explosive power of a liquid rocket chamber is actually not exceptionally high – it can be thought of as simply a small pressure vessel containing (in our case) 800 psi hot gas. During the development of Merlin, we saw several of what we refer to as RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) events and no fragments have ever penetrated more than 2mm of aluminum. Also, the direction of fragments is in a shallow downward cone away from the vehicle.

As additional measures of protection, all propellant and pneumatic lines have either pre-valves or check valves nested up high in the thrust structure. If anything happens to the engine, the flight computer is able to cut off all propellant and pressurant flow immediately."

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/09/2012 06:35 am
It was not the second stages fault that the command was not given to raise Orbcomm's satellite to it's proper orbit. NASA's parameters did not allow for it. I would classify the mission as a partial success and that is only if and when Dragon fulfills it's intended flight plan.

What evidence do you have that those were NASA's parameters?  And even if they were, there's the whole protecting the $100B asset thing, one that Congressmen like to trot out if NASA doesn't do so.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 10/09/2012 06:42 am
In car racing terms, this sounds more like a cracked cylinder head vs. a blown engine where the block fractures and the bolts let go.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/09/2012 07:20 am


The pressure inside the TCA, exhausted via the throat and through the nozzle, is what creates thrust.  Any opening or venting outside of the nozzle will lower combustion pressure, and that will be sensed as fault by the engine controller.  Presumably if that happened, the engine would command itself to shut down.

If this were the upper stage, or the third engine to fail, would the controller still shut down the engine, knowing that would lead to loss of mission, or would it continue in the hope of carrying on, or that the sensors had failed?

I suppose with a manned Dragon capsule it would shut down to provide for a controlled seperation and re-entry. With an unmanned cargo it might carry on.

Also, it seems the sudden pressure loss caused the fuel dome to implode - I assume its not designed for compression. Would it not be possible to regulate the shut-down to provide balanced pressure? Or would that be akin to throttling the engine down to just above 0% thrust, which doesn't seem possible. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/09/2012 07:23 am

So do I understand correctly that it is the back-end of the combustion chamber, and so a rupture there would cause the outflow to be mixed and basically already ignited.

Actually the fuel is not ignited at this point. What would escape due to a rupture is the unignited fuel/oxidizer mix.

I attach a photo I took a few days ago at the ILA in Berlin Germany. It is a completely different engine, the Hydrolox upper stage engine of the Ariane 5 but it is an actual engine cut open for display. The basics are the same. I marked the part that is the fuel dome and it is above the injectors that get the fuel mix into the combustion chamber below.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/09/2012 07:33 am
So, could this be a turbopump running too fast and causing the fuel dome to overpressure and rupture? Or, an overpressure caused by a blockage down the line? It's a pintle engine, so only one injector to block.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 07:45 am
So, could this be a turbopump running too fast and causing the fuel dome to overpressure and rupture? Or, an overpressure caused by a blockage down the line? It's a pintle engine, so only one injector to block.

The 1st scenario is unlikely, IMHO. It would take a certain amount of time for the turbopump to overspeed, during which the shutdown limit would probably have been reached before structural limits of the chamber were reached.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/09/2012 07:50 am
For those interested in the engine one depress and shutdown, there is a slow motion video clip someone made showing the event in relatively good detail. Not sure if this was already posted so here it is (at around 25 seconds in):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998



Pretty violent regardless of whether the engine destroyed itself or merely rapidly depressurized.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/09/2012 07:57 am
IMO, pause the video at exactly 30 seconds and take a look at what you see full screen. It appears to me the failure of the fuel dome resulted in a small explosion as opposed to just depressurization. It looks, however, like the engine shutdown command went through such that by the time the rupture/explosion was occurring, the engine was already terminating its fuel/oxidizer supply and shutting down, which may be why it was as small as it was. So really it was ultra rapid depressurization or essentially a very small brief explosion that was contained.


This is still a significant failure, but it is really surprising to me that the vehicle not only survived this, but continued on a nominal trajectory (barring of course the inability to deploy the orbcomm sat properly). Very lucky.


It also occurs to me, it worth asking: if this had occurred on a manned flight would it have triggered activation of the LAS on dragon or would the flight have continued on the other 8 (considering the apparent violence of the failure, brief though it was)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/09/2012 08:02 am
It also occurs to me, it worth asking: if this had occurred on a manned flight would it have triggered activation of the LAS on dragon or would the flight have continued on the other 8 (considering the apparent violence of the failure, brief though it was)?

Excellent question.

My guess is no, not unless the GNC computed that they could not reach the desired orbit. An abort is almost as dangerous as staying on a deranged-but-intact rocket, so you don't want to trigger it if you don't have to.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/09/2012 08:03 am
It also occurs to me, it worth asking: if this had occurred on a manned flight would it have triggered activation of the LAS on dragon or would the flight have continued on the other 8 (considering the apparent violence of the failure, brief though it was)?

Excellent question.

My guess is no, not unless the GNC computed that they could not reach the desired orbit. An abort is almost as dangerous as staying on a deranged-but-intact rocket, so you don't want to trigger it if you don't have to.

True. Although I still think its somewhat open ended given how violent that was. But I think your probably correct.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/09/2012 08:31 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.

That doesn't change the fact that he's writing a lot of wrong things in that article, especially around the term "pressure". Almost every sentence there having the word "pressure" in it is simply wrong from a physics/engineering standpoint.

I'm talking stuff like "When this happened, the pressure of the gases exiting the rocket nozzle went to zero." a sentence that only can make you shudder. The whole explanation around what happened then and why is also just plain wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/09/2012 08:33 am
Sorry Guckyfan I believe Merlin uses a pintle injector:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintle_injector

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/09/2012 08:51 am
Found the full spacex webcast coverage and reviewed that. On the right pane, the camera on stage 2 looking aft, near meco you can clearly see the damage in and around engine 1 at the back of the stage, its quite interesting. Will be posting exact video times and the video itself tomorrow, but the imagery seems to back up a fuel dome failure as opposed to a total bell/chamber failure. Still quite brutal to subject a vehicle to that and have it keep flying but no where near as bad as a total failure would have been.

So this implies the system works.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/09/2012 08:55 am
I wonder why we don't have 34 pages of rampant speculation on that other launch vehicle failure we had in the past week? (Delta IVM - GPSII-F3)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: input~2 on 10/09/2012 08:57 am
Review of the 6 objects catalogued by USSTRATCOM:

Object A (possibly Dragon)
epoch Oct 8, 0354UTC: 203 x 326 km x 51.65°
epoch Oct 9, 0356UTC: 311 x 329 km x 51.64°

Object B
epoch Oct 8, 0342UTC: 203 x 323 km x 51.65°
epoch Oct 9, 0345UTC: 166 x 306 km x 51.64°

Object C
epoch Oct 8, 0353UTC: 174 x 314 km x 51.66°
epoch Oct 8, 2313UTC: 170 x 296 km x 51.65°

Object D
epoch Oct 8, 0342UTC: 202 x 321 km x 51.65°
epoch Oct 9, 0345UTC: 187 x 274 km x 51.66°

Object E
epoch Oct 8, 0342UTC: 202 x 326 km x 51.67°
epoch Oct 8, 2148UTC: 200 x 319 km x 51.65°

Object F
epoch Oct 8, 0353UTC: 171 x 344 km x 51.63°
epoch Oct 9, 0344UTC: 186 x 264 km x 51.64°
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/09/2012 09:00 am
I wonder why we don't have 34 pages of rampant speculation on that other launch vehicle failure we had in the past week? (Delta IVM - GPSII-F3)


I suppose the obvious answer would be:

A. It didn't evolve an apparent small explosion easily seen on footage.
B. Not as high profile a mission, for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 09:01 am
I wonder why we don't have 34 pages of rampant speculation on that other launch vehicle failure we had in the past week? (Delta IVM - GPSII-F3)

There was no failure in that case as the vehicle had a huge performance margin to burn off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Maverick on 10/09/2012 09:10 am
Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/



Thanks Chris. I kinda lost my way with all these massive threads. It's a good sign this is a really busy site, but I prefer staying with the news site and awesome L2 most of the time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/09/2012 09:51 am
I wonder why we don't have 34 pages of rampant speculation on that other launch vehicle failure we had in the past week? (Delta IVM - GPSII-F3)


I suppose the obvious answer would be:

A. It didn't evolve an apparent small explosion easily seen on footage.
B. Not as high profile a mission, for obvious reasons.

Correct, yet the 'anomoly' in RL-10 is just as worrying to me as the 'anomaly' in Merlin-1C. Merlin-1C is relative new-comer. RL-10 has been around for ages. The Delta-IV flight got lucky with the performance margin they had.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/09/2012 09:55 am
I wonder why we don't have 34 pages of rampant speculation on that other launch vehicle failure we had in the past week? (Delta IVM - GPSII-F3)

There was no failure in that case as the vehicle had a huge performance margin to burn off.
Assuming that it was fully tanked.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/09/2012 10:05 am
I wonder why we don't have 34 pages of rampant speculation on that other launch vehicle failure we had in the past week? (Delta IVM - GPSII-F3)


Shhh... I've been secretly enjoying the high SNR of posts on that thread. I do wonder if we are seeing an RL-10 Nozzle that did not fully deploy or seal properly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Juggernaut on 10/09/2012 10:15 am
is there someone who knows if duration of 2nd stage burn was nominal?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 10/09/2012 10:30 am
is there someone who knows if duration of 2nd stage burn was nominal?

From what i understand it was nominal and could deliver satelites to their orbit but because of ISS safty window this was aborted. Correct me if im wrong guyz
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 10:40 am
I wonder why we don't have 34 pages of rampant speculation on that other launch vehicle failure we had in the past week? (Delta IVM - GPSII-F3)

There was no failure in that case as the vehicle had a huge performance margin to burn off.
Assuming that it was fully tanked.

Why wouldn't it be? To lower the performance margin? Makes no sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 10:41 am
is there someone who knows if duration of 2nd stage burn was nominal?

It was longer. I worked out a roughly 15 second increase in 2nd stage burn duration alone over the published nominal burn time. Think about it, if it didn't burn longer, there would have been propellant left for the Orbcomm delivery.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Juggernaut on 10/09/2012 10:43 am
is there someone who knows if duration of 2nd stage burn was nominal?

From what i understand it was nominal and could deliver satelites to their orbit but because of ISS safty window this was aborted. Correct me if im wrong guyz

this means the compensation to the engine#1 failure was charged only to 1st stage with longer burn and no off-nominal amount of fuel was used during the 1st burn of 2nd stage... this lead to conclude that new ascent profile computed after failure exceeded in forecast the window (time and position) expected for raise the orbit before Orbcomm's separation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/09/2012 10:56 am
In terms the general public can understand:
This is a video of a tank bursting.
<youtube link removed>
edit : spelling
Tank rupture tests are *designed* to look lame.
Water is incompressible (an any pressure <1000s of atm's) so it *transmits* applied force to the structure.

Gases *store* applied force as a pressure rise *until* the structure fails, releasing the force in a pulse. Think aerosol can in a fire.
Actually since we seem to be dealing with an implosion I believe an electric kettle boiling dry might convey the right feeling.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 10/09/2012 11:24 am
is there someone who knows if duration of 2nd stage burn was nominal?

It was longer. I worked out a roughly 15 second increase in 2nd stage burn duration alone over the published nominal burn time. Think about it, if it didn't burn longer, there would have been propellant left for the Orbcomm delivery.

Using the NASA video for times I found the following with burn times:

SI NOMINAL: 3:03
SI ACTUAL: 3:21
EXTENDED BURN TIME: 0:18

SII NOMINAL: 5:59
SII ACTUAL: 6:12
EXTENDED BURN TIME: 0:13
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 10/09/2012 11:26 am
Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/

So enjoyable to read an article as accurate as possible (up to this moment), without clouding it with speculation until all the facts are in. Very good job Chris.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 10/09/2012 11:26 am
Sorry Guckyfan I believe Merlin uses a pintle injector:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintle_injector

S

Indeed it does.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 11:41 am
I wonder why we don't have 34 pages of rampant speculation on that other launch vehicle failure we had in the past week? (Delta IVM - GPSII-F3)

There was no failure in that case as the vehicle had a huge performance margin to burn off.
Assuming that it was fully tanked.

launch vehicles are always fully tanked.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 11:42 am
Does anyone know if the Falcon 9 took off fully fueled? 

Launch vehicles are always fully tanked
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/09/2012 11:48 am
A "Fuel dome fracture" implies a crack in the fuel component rather than an explosion and (at least at first) no flying fragments.

*if* this is a correct description of the root cause that suggests a)test procedure failure (test procedures not an accurate test of the real flight stresses) b) Mfg fault that made this dome *much* closer to its failure limits after test than normal. c) Unique environment that stressed hardware in ways *never* seen before.

a) Would be very worrying. It would imply that that all *previous* Merlin 1c flights have just been lucky. I find that *very* hard to believe.

b) Depends on the exact location of the failure on the part and how it's mfg in the first place. Usual options are machining from solid ("hogging out"), casting and forging. Casting *historically* has had issues with flaws in the casting (gas bubbles, inert occlusions) but is very good for high volume complex parts if the volume is there, which it might be with 10 engines a vehicle and a desire to launch a lot of vehicles.

A classic failure mode for rocket engines has been where a connector is *welded* onto the main component. Connector holds, pipe holds, weld fails.

Does anyone know how Spacex are making this part at present?
They seem to like integrating as much as possible and I could definitely see them doing what Armadillo do and machining the fluid connectors *directly* into any component that needs them. A bit more CNC time saves a *lot* of trouble in Xray and dye penetration later.

c) would be pretty worrying as well, given this is expected to be the start of a *routine* flight profile and as others have said this F9 was quite a long way from its nominal performance limits (far enough that people were happy to manifest a secondary payload). OTOH that would raise another question.

Why didn't the *other* engines (either the 4 corners or all) see this condition also?

BTW Would a fuel dome fracture also imply that the propellant mix was going O2 rich and causing a temperature spike causing *possible* chamber and nozzle burn through *if* it lasted long enough?

I think it would but I'm guessing the computer was well into shutting it down by then.

Let's keep in mind a few things.

*despite* a serious mishap the primary payload is still on course for ISS.

I believe (but cannot confirm) had Dragon had a crew on board they would be unharmed by the experience.

Had NASA flight rules been less restrictive it is *probable* Orbcomms payload could have reacted its planned orbit. NASA is however responsible for a $1Bn+ asset so is justifiably cautious in this area.

The GNC door opened on *schedule* and perhaps Spacex might consider fine tuning their emergency information handling to get that sort of news out more promptly, along with any other key events like solar panel deployment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Juggernaut on 10/09/2012 12:07 pm
is there someone who knows if duration of 2nd stage burn was nominal?

It was longer. I worked out a roughly 15 second increase in 2nd stage burn duration alone over the published nominal burn time. Think about it, if it didn't burn longer, there would have been propellant left for the Orbcomm delivery.

ok then it was consumed more propellant than expected.
However it could have been also not only a problem of propellant available but also suitability of time/position for orbit raising, CAM and de-orbiting of 2nd stage following the Orbcomm delivery.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/09/2012 12:16 pm
Could. But SpaceX said otherwise.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Juggernaut on 10/09/2012 12:24 pm
Could. But SpaceX said otherwise.

as far as i know, at the moment SpaceX did not say anything about Orbcomm delivery. we know about it from Orbcomm's press release
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/09/2012 12:33 pm
But since there is only one (?) flight of Merlin 1C left, and then SpaceX transitions to the very different Merlin 1D, the failure has come at about the worst time in that version's manufacturing cycle.  SpaceX has a few hard decisions to make going forward (in my view).  While unlikely, they might wish to transition earlier to the F9v1.1 than they had planned...but that creates it own set of problems.  Tough call and I wish them the best.

I could see SpX-2 going up on v1.1.

If that happens, who'll give me odds on 9 "special offer" F1's appearing on the sales page to, use up those M1Cs? ;-)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/09/2012 12:37 pm
A "Fuel dome fracture" implies a crack in the fuel component rather than an explosion and (at least at first) no flying fragments.

Not entirely true, the structure (weakened by what ever caused it) caused the Fuel Dome to fail suddenly releasing the pressure in the combustion chamber, dumping gasses (Fuel/Lox) from the fuel dome and combustion chamber into the stream (then igniting), over pressurizing the panels exterior to the engine, and dropping the lower half of the engine (at least the nozzle). That is clear from the video's.

There is a fair amount of very accurate words in the SpaceX releases that describe what happen in such detail that you can walk away thinking the failure was not an energetic event. I would be willing to bet that everything south of the fuel dome was already gone when the "pressure drop" was noted and the engine began closing valves and shutting down the turbo pumps.

btw. Does the fuel being released and then igniting count as a BLEVE?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/09/2012 12:38 pm
... and for all those people yelling "EXPLOSION!", this is why several of us were saying "stop jumping to conclusions and wait for an official statement"...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/09/2012 12:41 pm
Could. But SpaceX said otherwise.

as far as i know, at the moment SpaceX did not say anything about Orbcomm delivery. we know about it from Orbcomm's press release

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/

Please be aware that Chris doesn't write articles based on rumors or speculation. If he writes a low fuel condition was the cause, he has sources for that (in this case also mentioned on L2).

No need for further speculation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MKremer on 10/09/2012 12:44 pm
There is a fair amount of very accurate words in the SpaceX releases that describe what happen in such detail that you can walk away thinking the failure was not an energetic event. I would be willing to bet that everything south of the fuel dome was already gone when the "pressure drop" was noted and the engine began closing valves and shutting down the turbo pumps.
If that were the case, why would SpX say they still had engine sensor data after the 'event'?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 01:01 pm
... and for all those people yelling "EXPLOSION!", this is why several of us were saying "stop jumping to conclusions and wait for an official statement"...

Call it an explosion, propellant leak, chamber rupture, Engine Pressure Release (TM), whatever - it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that this was a major engine anomaly and calling it by some other name does not diminish the seriousness of it. Do you expect us to silently watch and wait for any official updates, in a general discussion thread? If so, you don't seem to have noticed how this forum generally works...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/09/2012 01:03 pm
I don't have any details about the engine but the walls are likely fairly thin, perhaps only a few millimeters thick.  There are many failure modes, from burn-though, stress cracking, etc., that generally require analysis of the post-failure hardware to determine.  That may not be possible in this case.

It occurs to me that M1D is reported with a much higher T/W than M1C, presumably on the basis that they learned from M1C where they needed plenty of margin and where they had been unnecessarily conservative.

I wonder if this failure might lead them to re-consider some of those calculations?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: WHAP on 10/09/2012 01:03 pm
Does anyone know if the Falcon 9 took off fully fueled? 

Launch vehicles are always fully tanked

Not true. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 10/09/2012 01:11 pm
But since there is only one (?) flight of Merlin 1C left, and then SpaceX transitions to the very different Merlin 1D, the failure has come at about the worst time in that version's manufacturing cycle.  SpaceX has a few hard decisions to make going forward (in my view).  While unlikely, they might wish to transition earlier to the F9v1.1 than they had planned...but that creates it own set of problems.  Tough call and I wish them the best.

I could see SpX-2 going up on v1.1.

If that happens, who'll give me odds on 9 "special offer" F1's appearing on the sales page to, use up those M1Cs? ;-)

cheers, Martin

Amusing thought but unlikely.  Considering the costs involved in restarting the line, producing Falcon 1s, marketing to sell the flights.  From a business perspective it would be more cost effective to strip the excess engines of common parts to feed back into the manufacturing line and scrap the non-common parts.

Alternatively the engines could be retasked to their grasshopper/reusable test program.

Of course, all of this assumes that the company doesn't decide to just eat the risk, since even with the problem the launcher still achieved a successful primary mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Juggernaut on 10/09/2012 01:12 pm
Could. But SpaceX said otherwise.

as far as i know, at the moment SpaceX did not say anything about Orbcomm delivery. we know about it from Orbcomm's press release

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/

Please be aware that Chris doesn't write articles based on rumors or speculation. If he writes a low fuel condition was the cause, he has sources for that (in this case also mentioned on L2).

No need for further speculation.

I am not speculating.
I was just answering the previous post saying that even if you have all the fuel available at the start of 2nd stage burning, the flight strategy depends also on the orbital parameters you have at that time, which has changed wrt the nominal one.

Having said that, then i was already satisfied with answer on 2nd stage burn duration which was longer than nominal. this implies an over-consumption of 2nd stage fuel with consequential revision of budget for following maneuvers (orbit raise, pointing, CAM, etc..)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 10/09/2012 01:17 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/09/2012 01:20 pm
Sorry Guckyfan I believe Merlin uses a pintle injector:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintle_injector

S

Indeed it does.

Correct, I said it is a very different engine.

However the separation fuel dome - injector - combustion chamber is still true and it shows the point that fuel in the fuel dome is not ignited.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/09/2012 01:21 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 01:39 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.

The press kit implies packaging is about 10 percent of equipment -
Up cargo 454 kg, including 54 kg packaging
Down cargo 905 kg, including 146 kg packaging
unless I am reading it wrong...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/09/2012 01:39 pm
If that were the case, why would SpX say they still had engine sensor data after the 'event'?
Everything important is north of the Fuel Dome. The Valves, the Turbo pumps, the electronics, many of the sensors, ect. There are sensors south of the Fuel Dome, and SpaceX has not said if they lost them, but I would wager they did.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/09/2012 01:41 pm
Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/



excellent sum up of the real events.   Think I'll send a link to one of my local news stations so they get the story right.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/09/2012 01:42 pm
... and for all those people yelling "EXPLOSION!", this is why several of us were saying "stop jumping to conclusions and wait for an official statement"...

Call it an explosion, propellant leak, chamber rupture, Engine Pressure Release (TM), whatever - it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that this was a major engine anomaly and calling it by some other name does not diminish the seriousness of it. Do you expect us to silently watch and wait for any official updates, in a general discussion thread? If so, you don't seem to have noticed how this forum generally works...

Speculation and discussion is one thing.  Excessive arm-waving is another.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Danderman on 10/09/2012 01:51 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.

Since the F9 1.1 launched Dragon will have the same volume constraints at the current Dragon, the implication from your statement is that payload mass will not increase once F9 1.1 is introduced.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: garidan on 10/09/2012 01:56 pm
Why don't they use pop corn as packaging ? It would turn packaging into valuable payload ...  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/09/2012 02:00 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.

The press kit implies packaging is about 10 percent of equipment -
Up cargo 454 kg, including 54 kg packaging
Down cargo 905 kg, including 146 kg packaging
unless I am reading it wrong...

The Dragon is carrying 905 kg/1995 lbs of packaged cargo to the ISS according to the SpaceX press kit on page 10. Actual up cargo mass is 400 kg/ 882 lbs.

Not included in the up cargo mass is the ice cream loaded on the morning of the launch.  :D

The Dragon will carry 905 kg/1995 lbs of packaged cargo down from the ISS according to the SpaceX press kit on page 12. Actual down cargo mass is 759 kg/1673 lbs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/09/2012 02:01 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.

Since the F9 1.1 launched Dragon will have the same volume constraints at the current Dragon, the implication from your statement is that payload mass will not increase once F9 1.1 is introduced.

Ok I was wrong, 882lb of cargo, 119lbs of packaging.  I think expectations of a full load every trip would be a mistake.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/09/2012 02:04 pm

Not entirely true, the structure (weakened by what ever caused it) caused the Fuel Dome to fail suddenly releasing the pressure in the combustion chamber, dumping gasses (Fuel/Lox) from the fuel dome and combustion chamber into the stream (then igniting), over pressurizing the panels exterior to the engine, and dropping the lower half of the engine (at least the nozzle). That is clear from the video's.

btw. Does the fuel being released and then igniting count as a BLEVE?
I think you need to check the details. Engine design separates the fuel and the oxidizer as long as possible. So *unless* that rupture carries on into the LOX distribution level below it you're looking at high pressure liquid fuel.

So more like the video of the water pressure test of the tank earlier on.

OTOH if the RP1 was at *boiling* temperature (at the injection pressure) you've got the basis of a BLEVE. RP1 is used as a coolant in the 1st stage engines but does it get to its 800psi boiling point?

As the fuel dumps out of the fuel dome the fuel going to the injector falls and you could definitely have a (brief) O2 rich burn. I speculated it might last long enough to start burning through the CC or nozzle wall but I doubt it.

The question now becomes what is the root cause of the fracture?

Any idea how the fuel dome is mfg?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: subzero788 on 10/09/2012 02:08 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.

Since the F9 1.1 launched Dragon will have the same volume constraints at the current Dragon, the implication from your statement is that payload mass will not increase once F9 1.1 is introduced.


You're forgetting about unpressurised cargo in the trunk, of which there was none on this flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 10/09/2012 02:09 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.

Since the F9 1.1 launched Dragon will have the same volume constraints at the current Dragon, the implication from your statement is that payload mass will not increase once F9 1.1 is introduced.

Ok I was wrong, 882lb of cargo, 119lbs of packaging.  I think expectations of a full load every trip would be a mistake.

I agree, however they appear to be carrying 1/4 of capacity.  In fact it sounds like they're carrying less than they did on the COTS 2/3 flight.  That is what made me curious as to what factors were involved.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 02:09 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.

Since the F9 1.1 launched Dragon will have the same volume constraints at the current Dragon, the implication from your statement is that payload mass will not increase once F9 1.1 is introduced.

They haven't put any unpressurized payload on, yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/09/2012 02:10 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

We're going to have six pages of discussion about the definition of "explosion" now...

In my opinion, mission-wise, a second stage restart failure, if that turns out to be the case, is more significant to potential SpaceX customers than the first stage engine shutdown, because a restart issue would be a flat out launch failure.

 - Ed Kyle

your saying SpaceX needs to add an RCS system to the 2nd stage to do the Orbital type mission?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 10/09/2012 02:15 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.

Since the F9 1.1 launched Dragon will have the same volume constraints at the current Dragon, the implication from your statement is that payload mass will not increase once F9 1.1 is introduced.

Ok I was wrong, 882lb of cargo, 119lbs of packaging.  I think expectations of a full load every trip would be a mistake.

I agree, however they appear to be carrying 1/4 of capacity.  In fact it sounds like they're carrying less than they did on the COTS 2/3 flight.  That is what made me curious as to what factors were involved.

Yet for this flight they are using the full central stack of racks which weren't even installed for COTS 2/3...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 10/09/2012 02:17 pm
I haven't had time to dredge the discussions but I do have a question that perhaps has been lost amidst the engine failure discussion.

Considering that F9/Dragon is supposed to be capable of carrying approx 4000 lbs uphill, is there a reason it only carried approx 1000 lbs on this flight?  Bulky but light supplies?  Conservative build up to max?

If I remember correctly packaging weight was the same as the equipment weight, so I'd bet on space limited.  The opening video should be interesting.

Since the F9 1.1 launched Dragon will have the same volume constraints at the current Dragon, the implication from your statement is that payload mass will not increase once F9 1.1 is introduced.

Ok I was wrong, 882lb of cargo, 119lbs of packaging.  I think expectations of a full load every trip would be a mistake.

I agree, however they appear to be carrying 1/4 of capacity.  In fact it sounds like they're carrying less than they did on the COTS 2/3 flight.  That is what made me curious as to what factors were involved.

Yet for this flight they are using the full central stack of racks which weren't even installed for COTS 2/3...

Which would lend credence to 'bulky but light'.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 02:25 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

We're going to have six pages of discussion about the definition of "explosion" now...

In my opinion, mission-wise, a second stage restart failure, if that turns out to be the case, is more significant to potential SpaceX customers than the first stage engine shutdown, because a restart issue would be a flat out launch failure.

 - Ed Kyle

your saying SpaceX needs to add an RCS system to the 2nd stage to do the Orbital type mission?

No, it wouldn't be needed. Also, Ed didn't know (and is actually wrong in this case).

Ed, your definition of launch failure is pretty silly. If people used your definition as an industry standard, then no one would ever want to launch secondaries because it'd cause too much of a risk of the whole flight being labeled a failure. A bunch of performance would be just left on the table for the sole reason of avoiding the label of full "failure." Not only that, but even the Orbcomm spacecraft is still usable for its most important primary purpose, which is checking out that the spacecraft works as planned in orbit. I don't think the "partial failure" of the Shuttle's two engine-out events should be counted as launch failures, nor do I think the recent Delta IV anomaly should be counted as a launch failure, nor do I think the one Atlas V underperformance should be counted as a launch failure. They were underperforming missions that left the primary mission successful according to the customer, and that's what matters.

I would say a reasonable definition of a full launch failure is one which would cause the crew of a manned vehicle to do an abort and leave the launch vehicle early and not enter a useful orbit, since that is partially what people use these statistics for (i.e. calculating launch vehicle safety). Clearly that wasn't the case in this flight.

When people think of a launch failure, they think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8

They don't think of slight underperformance as a full launch failure.


Also, Ed, your figures for Merlin Vac (based on Merlin 1D) thrust are out of date and much too low. The M1D-based Merlin Vac can do at least 80 tons of thrust, versus 45 you estimated here: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: system9 on 10/09/2012 02:32 pm
The part that frustrates me is in my video:
http://youtu.be/6QFUGEarTNQ

The official announcement clearly states that all 9 Merlin engines are performing normally.

This is obviously totally inaccurate. I think in 2012 it is reasonable to expect information to be accurate ~45 seconds after the engine event they announce something that could have jeopardized people's safety. I'm all for NASA and SpaceX. Hell, I flew down from Chicago to support and watch the launch but I expect that communications out to the launch site to be accurate.  We literally had debris flying overhead and knew nothing about it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 02:34 pm
Why don't they use pop corn as packaging ? It would turn packaging into valuable payload ...  ;)


Hard to get the butter off of everything later, zero-g and all.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 02:34 pm
   
I would say a reasonable definition of a full launch failure is one which would cause the crew of a manned vehicle to do an abort and leave the launch vehicle early and not enter a useful orbit, since that is partially what people use these statistics for (i.e. calculating launch vehicle safety). Clearly that wasn't the case in this flight.

When people think of a launch failure, they think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8

They don't think of slight underperformance as a full launch failure.

 

Well, it depends on who 'they' are. Not everyone is focussed on the manned case. This particular case is a grey area - how much underperformance is 'slight'? When a Proton upper stage strands its payload in LEO rather than GTO, that's counted as a full failure.

Is it fair to say that Falcon 9 has a 100 percent success rate after 4 flights? I think that is rather generous. 75 percent, per Ed's rule? That does seem harsh.  96 percent, by my rule? I feel that's reasonable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 10/09/2012 02:37 pm
Why don't they use pop corn as packaging ? It would turn packaging into valuable payload ...  ;)


Hard to get the butter off of everything later, zero-g and all.

Dunno... I think that problem can be licked :p
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 02:41 pm
   
I would say a reasonable definition of a full launch failure is one which would cause the crew of a manned vehicle to do an abort and leave the launch vehicle early and not enter a useful orbit, since that is partially what people use these statistics for (i.e. calculating launch vehicle safety). Clearly that wasn't the case in this flight.

When people think of a launch failure, they think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8

They don't think of slight underperformance as a full launch failure.

 

Well, it depends on who 'they' are. Not everyone is focussed on the manned case. This particular case is a grey area - how much underperformance is 'slight'? When a Proton upper stage strands its payload in LEO rather than GTO, that's counted as a full failure.

Is it fair to say that Falcon 9 has a 100 percent success rate after 4 flights? I think that is rather generous. 75 percent, per Ed's rule? That does seem harsh.  96 percent, by my rule? I feel that's reasonable.

If you're a customer thinking about launching on some launch vehicle, I think you should look at primary payload success separate from secondary payload success. In that case, currently it is 100% (within, say, half a launch either way) for primary missions and much less than that for secondary (you might even want to count the failure of relight on Falcon 9 flight 1 in that case... though, of course, that was clearly a development flight).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/09/2012 02:42 pm
The part that frustrates me is in my video:
http://youtu.be/6QFUGEarTNQ

The official announcement clearly states that all 9 Merlin engines are performing normally.

This is obviously totally inaccurate. I think in 2012 it is reasonable to expect information to be accurate ~45 seconds after the engine event they announce something that could have jeopardized people's safety. I'm all for NASA and SpaceX. Hell, I flew down from Chicago to support and watch the launch but I expect that communications out to the launch site to be accurate.  We literally had debris flying overhead and knew nothing about it.

I think that this was a description from the PAO. Anybody that knew what was happenning wouldn't have said that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 02:43 pm
The official announcement clearly states that all 9 Merlin engines are performing normally.

The "official" announcement is the NASA PAO who read out scripted event sequences throughout the count. It was not the SpaceX propulsion console guy who was notable for not announcing nominal performance.

Quote
This is obviously totally inaccurate. I think in 2012 it is reasonable to expect information to be accurate ~45 seconds after the engine event they announce something that could have jeopardized people's safety. I'm all for NASA and SpaceX. Hell, I flew down from Chicago to support and watch the launch but I expect that communications out to the launch site to be accurate.  We literally had debris flying overhead and knew nothing about it.

You gotta be kidding me. You were nowhere near the flight path of the vehicle. Don't worry about flying debris, the USAF range safety guy in charge of the Big Red Button doesn't listen to NASA PAO (or SpaceX flight console guys for that matter).

If you're that paranoid about "debris flying overhead", I suggest you don't go near a Delta II launch...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edfishel on 10/09/2012 02:44 pm
JCM ..
I agree with your formulation. I'm approaching this question as a journalist who has followed space news for decades and as the general public would understand the question.  The purpose of this flight was to deliver supplies to the ISS and, as of now, SpaceX is well on its way to doing that.  The ORBCOMM prototype satellite was, at best, a side show in the eyes of the public. Your 96% seems fair.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: system9 on 10/09/2012 03:50 pm
The official announcement clearly states that all 9 Merlin engines are performing normally.

The "official" announcement is the NASA PAO who read out scripted event sequences throughout the count. It was not the SpaceX propulsion console guy who was notable for not announcing nominal performance.

Quote
This is obviously totally inaccurate. I think in 2012 it is reasonable to expect information to be accurate ~45 seconds after the engine event they announce something that could have jeopardized people's safety. I'm all for NASA and SpaceX. Hell, I flew down from Chicago to support and watch the launch but I expect that communications out to the launch site to be accurate.  We literally had debris flying overhead and knew nothing about it.

You gotta be kidding me. You were nowhere near the flight path of the vehicle. Don't worry about flying debris, the USAF range safety guy in charge of the Big Red Button doesn't listen to NASA PAO (or SpaceX flight console guys for that matter).

If you're that paranoid about "debris flying overhead", I suggest you don't go near a Delta II launch...

Thank you for your insight and trajectory calculations of unplanned exploded\ejected debris.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/09/2012 03:50 pm
The ORBCOMM prototype satellite was, at best, a side show in the eyes of the public.

Personally, outside of ORBCOMM shareholders, staff and space geeks (like ourselves), I suspect that the ORBCOMM end of the mission was entirely unknown.  Certainly, I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the press coverage of the launch so far.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/09/2012 03:50 pm
If you're that paranoid about "debris flying overhead", I suggest you don't go near a Delta II launch...

Indeed. Imagine the bellyaching if this happened to Falcon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_aHEit-SqA
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/09/2012 03:54 pm
But since there is only one (?) flight of Merlin 1C left, and then SpaceX transitions to the very different Merlin 1D, the failure has come at about the worst time in that version's manufacturing cycle.  SpaceX has a few hard decisions to make going forward (in my view).  While unlikely, they might wish to transition earlier to the F9v1.1 than they had planned...but that creates it own set of problems.  Tough call and I wish them the best.

I could see SpX-2 going up on v1.1.

If that happens, who'll give me odds on 9 "special offer" F1's appearing on the sales page to, use up those M1Cs? ;-)

cheers, Martin

Amusing thought but unlikely.  Considering the costs involved in restarting the line, producing Falcon 1s, marketing to sell the flights.  From a business perspective it would be more cost effective to strip the excess engines of common parts to feed back into the manufacturing line and scrap the non-common parts.

Agreed with all that (and I did put a smiley in there, too).

However, SpaceX moved payloads from F1e to secondary payloads on F9. That makes a lot of sense with the performance of v1.1, because I believe it works out much cheaper. But, it puts the secondary at risk if there's a performance issue or shortfall, and I suspect the keep-away requirement for ISS may be larger (quite rightly) than it would be for other objects, so Orbcomm couldn't be lofted to an intermediate orbit. That suggests the risk to secondaries on CRS flights may be a bit higher than it would be when sharing with other primaries.

OTOH, once v1.1 is flying, I believe there'll be a lot more spare performance on CRS flights because pressurised cargo will still be volume limited, so maybe this becomes less of an issue after SpX-2.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 03:55 pm
Thank you for your insight and trajectory calculations of unplanned exploded\ejected debris.

45th Space Wing's safety record speaks for itself. Quite simply put, if your viewing location was deemed unsafe in a worst case scenario of total vehicle destruction, you would not have been allowed to watch the launch from that particular location.

You can be sarcastic all you want, my point still stands. Neither NASA PAO was an official flight source nor was your location in danger.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/09/2012 04:05 pm
If you're a customer thinking about launching on some launch vehicle, I think you should look at primary payload success separate from secondary payload success. In that case, currently it is 100% (within, say, half a launch either way) for primary missions and much less than that for secondary (you might even want to count the failure of relight on Falcon 9 flight 1 in that case... though, of course, that was clearly a development flight).

How about:-

"If you're a primary payload customer thinking about launching on some launch vehicle, I think you should look at primary payload success separate from secondary payload success" ?

0/1 on secondaries (seems reasonable not to count F9 #001, to me).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 04:07 pm
Indeed. Imagine the bellyaching if this happened to Falcon...

I was thinking about up to 6 pieces of "debris" that are released from the vehicle at about T+60 s which for all practical purposes present the same amount of "risk" to an observer several miles upstream of the pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/09/2012 04:09 pm
In my opinion, mission-wise, a second stage restart failure, if that turns out to be the case, is more significant to potential SpaceX customers than the first stage engine shutdown, because a restart issue would be a flat out launch failure.

I would agree, but note that Chris' article says something different (and you have access to check out the source on L2, too, I think):-

Quote
Source information (L2 LINK) noted the health checks were specific to the stage’s pneumatic pressure, tank pressures, propellant mass, attitude and orbital radius, with some of the checks being carried out at SECO-1 during the mission, with another check scheduled at SES-2 (Second Engine Start 2).

Unfortunately, the propellant mass check at SECO-1 failed to pass the requirements to ensure safe insertion of Orbcomm and the second stage in an orbit away from Station, resulting in no second burn commanded.

cheers, Martin

Edit: oops, Ed's post was before Chris's article was published (I noticed it when quoted on a more recent post), so I changed "remember that" to "note that".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/09/2012 04:37 pm
It also occurs to me, it worth asking: if this had occurred on a manned flight would it have triggered activation of the LAS on dragon or would the flight have continued on the other 8 (considering the apparent violence of the failure, brief though it was)?

It depends where they are in the flight. The basic answer is at EVERY stage in the flight, there will be a set of conditions of things that can go wrong, and the response.

For example, a single engine out that leaves you with insufficient velocity to reach the intended orbit does not mean you can't simply abort to whatever orbit you do reach, then handle your re-entry at appropriate leisure (and target) instead of firing the abort motors and coming down where ever you may.

It would be worthwhile to review the shuttle abort modes. The options are a little different for a capsule atop two liquid stages than for a glider with a solid stage 0, but it's a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/09/2012 04:46 pm
   
I would say a reasonable definition of a full launch failure is one which would cause the crew of a manned vehicle to do an abort and leave the launch vehicle early and not enter a useful orbit, since that is partially what people use these statistics for (i.e. calculating launch vehicle safety). Clearly that wasn't the case in this flight.

When people think of a launch failure, they think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8

They don't think of slight underperformance as a full launch failure.

 

Well, it depends on who 'they' are. Not everyone is focussed on the manned case. This particular case is a grey area - how much underperformance is 'slight'? When a Proton upper stage strands its payload in LEO rather than GTO, that's counted as a full failure.

Is it fair to say that Falcon 9 has a 100 percent success rate after 4 flights? I think that is rather generous. 75 percent, per Ed's rule? That does seem harsh.  96 percent, by my rule? I feel that's reasonable.


I look at the total mission so you have Dragon to usable orbit "success". 
2nd payload, 2nd stage engine no restart "failure". 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 04:53 pm
If you're a customer thinking about launching on some launch vehicle, I think you should look at primary payload success separate from secondary payload success. In that case, currently it is 100% (within, say, half a launch either way) for primary missions and much less than that for secondary (you might even want to count the failure of relight on Falcon 9 flight 1 in that case... though, of course, that was clearly a development flight).

How about:-

"If you're a primary payload customer thinking about launching on some launch vehicle, I think you should look at primary payload success separate from secondary payload success" ?

0/1 on secondaries (seems reasonable not to count F9 #001, to me).

cheers, Martin
There were secondaries on some of the other flights, too. But yeah, the track record for secondaries isn't nearly as good as for primaries. And probably will never be as good.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 04:59 pm
Why don't they use pop corn as packaging ? It would turn packaging into valuable payload ...  ;)


Hard to get the butter off of everything later, zero-g and all.

Dunno... I think that problem can be licked :p

If there's one thing worse than a dictionary war, it's a pun war.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/09/2012 05:06 pm
If you're a customer thinking about launching on some launch vehicle, I think you should look at primary payload success separate from secondary payload success. In that case, currently it is 100% (within, say, half a launch either way) for primary missions and much less than that for secondary (you might even want to count the failure of relight on Falcon 9 flight 1 in that case... though, of course, that was clearly a development flight).

How about:-

"If you're a primary payload customer thinking about launching on some launch vehicle, I think you should look at primary payload success separate from secondary payload success" ?

0/1 on secondaries (seems reasonable not to count F9 #001, to me).

cheers, Martin

What some people have posted about failure is illogical, because failure can imply a catastrophe and never getting to orbit or they are categorizing launches in a way that you can't separate a catastrophe from fulfilling the primary objective.

It is logical to separate the success of the launch, the primary mission, and the secondary mission.

If they resupply the ISS and the primary mission goes as planned, then that should be categorized as a success.

The secondary mission shouldn't be categorized as a complete failure, because again, it creates a situation where you can't distinguish a catastrophe on the launch pad from deploying the satellite into orbit. 

We don't know what the complete mission objectives of ORBCOMM's prototype satellite is.  It could be that even at the lower orbit, the prototype satellite may be able to complete it's mission.  Not reaching the proper orbit is a failure, but you can't say the mission was a failure.  This is where it appears more clarification is needed, after being placed in a lower orbit, how much of it's objectives can the ORBCOMM prototype satellite fulfill?

In this context, one could argue for scores in the range of 80% to 95%.  It is probably better to describe the mission as mostly successful with some issues or failures.

It is fair to say that companies need to keep their eyes on both the primary and secondary payload success rate, and see them as separate. 

And it's equally fair to say that SpaceX has accidentally proved it's engine-out capability.  In the greater scheme of things, this may work out to SpaceX's advantage.  It is better that this happens now, before any manned missions, because they will have seen it and have data on it.  It will help them with future designs, procedures, and contingency plans.



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/09/2012 05:09 pm
In car racing terms, this sounds more like a cracked cylinder head vs. a blown engine where the block fractures and the bolts let go.

In terms of impact to the vehicle, yes. General audiences aren't familiar with multi-engine vehicles, but they are familiar with multi-cylinder vehicles.

In terms what actually happened, perhaps. However, as someone else pointed out previously, the energy contained in a rocket combustion chamber at any given instant is nowhere near as large as you tend to expect. If the chamber blows completely apart, the contents under pressure expand into an area several times the size of the chamber, even in the tightly packed engine bay of the Falcon. Thus, the pressure immediately drops to a fraction of what it was, and even that is almost certainly more than enough to blow off the fairing, dropping the pressure further. Then you just have fuel streaming out and burning, but no faster really than it was before and at lower pressure, and for less than a second before it's cut off...in theory too quickly to overheat anything in the engine bay.

So I'm not making guesses about exactly how severe the dome failure was, because I'm not sure what we saw is not consistent with a fairly complete rupture of the dome.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

I think he was confused by SpaceX's first release on the anomaly (the "did not explode" quote), added in some of the speculation from the NSF forum as a source, mixed it with a bit of PM lingo (tends to be automotive based), and didn't have the same sources as Chris had for his article.

He refers to the powerhead as "the part that would have the potential to 'explode,'" suggesting he means the combustion chamber, and claims this remained intact. Chris, however, referenced a source in his article that the fuel dome failed...maybe this is not technically the chamber itself, but it is very close to it.

He states, "The company says that the visuals from the long-range camera show not an explosion, but rather an implosion" and then links to a source where they never use any word synonymous with implosion, but instead indicate a pressure release, which while it may not be an explosion, is still opposite of implosion and contraindicated by the video.

He also implies the fairing is not aerodynamically self-supporting, which I doubt for several reasons, and collapsed inward despite no other sources reporting the same. Chris's article states the opposite. However, a couple posters speculated almost exactly the same thing earlier in our discussion here.

So with due respect to Mr. Simberg, I think he jumped to some conclusions prematurely. I'll overlook the unclear terminology like "powerhead" because PM has a different audience than NSF.

And as a side note, this is why Chris has asked us many times to be careful to be clear when we are speculating. This would not be the first time journalists browsing NSF mistook speculation for authority, which can be pretty tempting considering how many posters with authoritative knowledge we have among us.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 10/09/2012 05:10 pm
I will attempt to sum up the F9 post launch debacle.

SpX: We may leave a trail of parts, and our boards are flashing yellow, but we still get our crap to orbit. That is what matters most. Get off our backs. That is why we have 9 freaking engines!!!! Run Flat Tires Baby.

Space Industry Elite: You are young and irresponsible. Everything must be perfect or there will be dire consequences. Even if the odds are literally astronomical and nothing bad happens, any risk is too much. Stand down all operations for several months until you address it. Might even need a Congressional Committee.

Is SpaceX closer to Soviet era space philosophy rather than West/NASA/USAF space philosophy? I mean the way SpX handles their design and operations.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 05:19 pm
I will attempt to sum up the post F9 launch debacle.

SpX: We may leave a trail of parts, and our boards are flashing yellow, but we still get our crap to orbit. That is what matters most. Get off our backs. That is why we have 9 freaking engines!!!! Run Flat Tires Baby.

Space Industry Elite. You are young and irresponsible. Everything must be perfect or there will be dire consequences. Even if the odds are literally astronomical and nothing bad happens, any risk is too much. Stand down all operations for several months until you address it. Might even need a Congressional Committee.

Is SpaceX closer to Soviet era space philosophy rather than West/NASA/USAF space philosophy? I mean the way SpX handles their design and operations.

This is a good summary of some of the more extreme positions that were implied by some of the posters here...   It is not a summary of the incident or the responses or attitudes of NASA or SpaceX to it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edfishel on 10/09/2012 05:19 pm
You nailed it, Galactic Intruder. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/09/2012 05:22 pm
I will attempt to sum up the post F9 launch debacle.

SpX: We may leave a trail of parts, and our boards are flashing yellow, but we still get our crap to orbit. That is what matters most. Get off our backs. That is why we have 9 freaking engines!!!! Run Flat Tires Baby.

Space Industry Elite. You are young and irresponsible. Everything must be perfect or there will be dire consequences. Even if the odds are literally astronomical and nothing bad happens, any risk is too much. Stand down all operations for several months until you address it. Might even need a Congressional Committee.

Is SpaceX closer to Soviet era space philosophy rather than West/NASA/USAF space philosophy? I mean the way SpX handles their design and operations.

Space Industry Elite as you call it knows the "risks" and what needs to be validated. They are professionals including the engineers at SpaceX. You can count on a review before anything goes up. This is not Ice Road Truckers where you fix things on the side. SpaceX knows that. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: system9 on 10/09/2012 05:27 pm
Thank you for your insight and trajectory calculations of unplanned exploded\ejected debris.

45th Space Wing's safety record speaks for itself. Quite simply put, if your viewing location was deemed unsafe in a worst case scenario of total vehicle destruction, you would not have been allowed to watch the launch from that particular location.

You can be sarcastic all you want, my point still stands. Neither NASA PAO was an official flight source nor was your location in danger.


That's interesting since they came on 7 minutes before launch and warned us we were on our own if something went wrong. There was an OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT made over the PA stating we were potentially in harms way.

Also, if your script says "all 9 Merlin engines are operating normally" and you are supposed to mindlessly read that 2 minutes after launch... You are either psychic or you need a better script.  /out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: plank on 10/09/2012 05:46 pm
I was following this thread for quite sometime now and I still don't know whats going on.   I mean did the engine explode or did it not explode?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/09/2012 05:51 pm
I was following this thread for quite sometime now and I still don't know whats going on.   I mean did the engine explode or did it not explode?

Per the official statement from SpaceX: the engine did not explode, as they continued to receive date from it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 10/09/2012 05:58 pm
I really like how Galactic Intruder paraphrased the argument - which is fine.  I am not sure I would have used the same metaphors but it was accurate.

But to a point I think we do need to look at what Jim, Antares, and Ed are saying.  They have been in the business and raised in a culture that has had success.  The culture is changing and I think, that while these individuals do want change, they see obvious errors that the general public simply does not have access to.  Moreover, these individuals understand where risk should and should not be taken.

We call it Operational Risk Management or ORM in the Air Force.  It applies to everything from walking at night with a reflective belt to combat.  Yes, you manage risk, you do not remove risk in combat. 

Do I really need to fly through that SA-6 or can I just fly around it? 

I am sure Jim or Antares will correct me but what I think I am seeing from them is that there were some possible risk reduction activities that could have taken place that were really required and perhaps not as expensive or labor intensive as SpaceX thought.

Ed is holding to his standard - who can fault him?  As long as he annotates its in his log that Dragon did achieve the correct orbit and the second payload did not, I do not see a problem with how he keeps score.

Some of the arm waving here is flat out silly and the speculation is unwarranted.  NASA, SpaceX, and those who need to know - know where the problems are.  They will be analyzed and if correction is required, I am positive it will be done.  Just because most of the posters here don't know what is happening behind the scenes doesn't mean actions are not being taken.

Some need to chill and let SpaceX and NASA do their thing.  The wild guessing of explosions, RUD, GNC Door, ect needs to stop.  We are just fueling the fire. 

We will get the answers, I know we will.  The data is coming folks.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space

edit - wording
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pericynthion on 10/09/2012 05:58 pm
Of course, the engine computers are in hardened boxes at the top of the engine, so the fact that they continued to send telemetry to the flight computer doesn't mean that the rest of the engine wasn't pretty thoroughly beat-up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 06:01 pm
Thank you for your insight and trajectory calculations of unplanned exploded\ejected debris.

45th Space Wing's safety record speaks for itself. Quite simply put, if your viewing location was deemed unsafe in a worst case scenario of total vehicle destruction, you would not have been allowed to watch the launch from that particular location.

You can be sarcastic all you want, my point still stands. Neither NASA PAO was an official flight source nor was your location in danger.


That's interesting since they came on 7 minutes before launch and warned us we were on our own if something went wrong. There was an OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT made over the PA stating we were potentially in harms way.

Also, if your script says "all 9 Merlin engines are operating normally" and you are supposed to mindlessly read that 2 minutes after launch... You are either psychic or you need a better script.  /out.
If the pao was watching the feed, it is understandable. F9 went through a thin cloud layer and max q at the time of the anomaly. I didn't notice it while I was watching it the first time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 06:10 pm

That's interesting since they came on 7 minutes before launch and warned us we were on our own if something went wrong. There was an OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT made over the PA stating we were potentially in harms way.


No different than the warnings on sporting event tickets
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/09/2012 06:15 pm
I don't know if I correctly caught the point being made, but it's worth noting that on the NASA PAO side of the ascent....

1) JSC (and I assume KSC) PAO have a console with live data. I think this is more a JSC PAO deal, however. They have a really nice data console there. However, that would be for something like Shuttle, an MOD run ascent from a FCR - which is why PAO at KSC are in the FCR.

2) It's highly unlikely they would have had live data to hand, as this was a SpaceX controlled launch.

3) He was probably doing it from sight and even I don't watch every second of an ascent when providing just text updates during ascent. Remember Challenger? It's likely during 51L the PAO looked down to his series of events and stopped talking about the range and velocity when he looked up and saw the failure on his screen.

4) Imagine if he had said something "Oh, and that doesn't look good" and more so if he had gotten it wrong. He'd be fired!

5) I actually missed the engine event and I can tell you that as far as I was concerned, everything looked good from the periods I was looking at the webcast.

So no, I don't want anyone jumping on the PAO - if that's what the issue was - for that comment during commentary.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 06:20 pm
I disagree a little bit here.

"all 9 falcon engines performing nominally" is a statement that infers that he's privy to engine performance data, or is somehow able to judge performance by himself.

Very different from "everything looks good so far", for example, which is what he could have said if he was only watching the video feed.

This was almost a minute after the engine was shut down.  He basically undermined his own credibility for the next time that I hear him say something like that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mapperuo on 10/09/2012 06:23 pm
Watching back the NASA broadcast of launch, The failure isn't visible from their views so no wonder he assumed all was well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/09/2012 06:52 pm
All this discussion of the Falcon 9, especially when we don't have the full facts yet, and everyone seems to have forgotten about the Dragon which was less we forget the whole point of this flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Moe Grills on 10/09/2012 06:57 pm
 My take? That's a GREAT rocket booster, the Falcon 9, losing
one engine, and still being able to carry the primary payload to a suitable orbit.

In my books, that makes FOUR consecutive successful Falcon 9 launches;
asterix or no asterix.
Insurance companies like that. They're paying attention.

By I do wonder if SpaceX will lose money on the secondary payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 07:09 pm

In my books, that makes FOUR consecutive successful Falcon 9 launches;
asterix or no asterix.
Insurance companies like that. They're paying attention.

Wrong.  In their books, it is not.  Insurance companies probably had to pay out for Orbcomm

Updated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/09/2012 07:17 pm
This is not Ice Road Truckers where you fix things on the side. SpaceX knows that. 

Well, unless you need to fix a crack in a niobium nozzle. Then you send a guy into the interstage with a pair of metal snips.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: StephenB on 10/09/2012 07:19 pm

In my books, that makes FOUR consecutive successful Falcon 9 launches;
asterix or no asterix.
Insurance companies like that. They're paying attention.

Wrong.  In their books, it is not.
Why not? My assumption would be that getting Dragon berthed is good, and much better than not making it to the ISS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 07:29 pm

In my books, that makes FOUR consecutive successful Falcon 9 launches;
asterix or no asterix.
Insurance companies like that. They're paying attention.

Wrong.  In their books, it is not.
Why not? My assumption would be that getting Dragon berthed is good, and much better than not making it to the ISS.

The secondary mission mattered.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 07:33 pm

In my books, that makes FOUR consecutive successful Falcon 9 launches;
asterix or no asterix.
Insurance companies like that. They're paying attention.

Wrong.  In their books, it is not.
Why not? My assumption would be that getting Dragon berthed is good, and much better than not making it to the ISS.

The secondary mission mattered.
Yes it does, if you're a secondary payload customer. Not if you're a primary.

Even with the performance decrease of the engine-out, the ISS safety gate prevented ANY upper stage restart. Perhaps if SpaceX did a little better job programming their upper stage avionics, it could have been able to restart. Or possibly they may have needed to be able to command the upper stage with a new trajectory that had been approved by the ISS folks (of course, commanding the upper stage doesn't happen nowadays, and I'm not sure it'd even be allowed).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 07:35 pm
Perhaps if SpaceX did a little better job programming their upper stage avionics, it could have been able to restart.

What do you mean by this?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 07:38 pm
Perhaps if SpaceX did a little better job programming their upper stage avionics, it could have been able to restart.

What do you mean by this?
I mean, perhaps the upper stage might have been able to recalculate a new trajectory for restart that would've satisfied the ISS safety gate. I don't know if that was even physically possible at that point, and getting the ISS safety folks to believe that the upper stage could calculate it safely and autonomously would've been a tall order.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 10/09/2012 07:41 pm
Primary customer matters. Congratulations to SpaceX on a successful primary mission for F9!

Secondary customer matters. If the insurance guys are cutting checks to Orbital, then they're going to remember the next time SpaceX comes across their desk.

Hardware success matters. Congratulations to SpaceX for reaching orbit, and doubly so for demonstrating impressive engine-out capabilities!

Partial hardware failure matters. An engine went out, badly, and it will need to be addressed.

... did I miss anything?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DMeader on 10/09/2012 07:41 pm
Isn't it rather late in the history of this engine for there to be a failure of this type, if indeed it was a rupture of the fuel dome? I would have expected something like this much earlier in development.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mjcrsmith on 10/09/2012 07:43 pm
It is threads like this that really make me appreciate L2. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 07:46 pm
Isn't it rather late in the history of this engine for there to be a failure of this type, if indeed it was a rupture of the fuel dome? I would have expected something like this much earlier in development.
One failure out of about 43? It could've been a manufacturing defect (or something unrelated to the engine, like something flew loose at Max-Q and hit the fuel dome), not an engine design flaw.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason Davies on 10/09/2012 07:47 pm
All this discussion of the Falcon 9, especially when we don't have the full facts yet, and everyone seems to have forgotten about the Dragon which was less we forget the whole point of this flight.

You will always get that on a massive site like this. It's still superior to any other site even half this site's size.

Plus I mainly use L2, which is very pure high level NASA etc people, so I'm happy :) But even Chris wrote an article to try and tame a few people.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/

Quote
"Successful" is the accurate way to portray the launch, given Falcon 9's primary objective was to loft Dragon uphill to his orbital destination.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 07:49 pm
Perhaps if SpaceX did a little better job programming their upper stage avionics, it could have been able to restart.

What do you mean by this?
I mean, perhaps the upper stage might have been able to recalculate a new trajectory for restart that would've satisfied the ISS safety gate. I don't know if that was even physically possible at that point, and getting the ISS safety folks to believe that the upper stage could calculate it safely and autonomously would've been a tall order.

I don't know all the sorts of things the safety gate entailed, but my impression is that the primary consideration was propellant quantity and only the perigee and apogee of the target orbit, not other parameters like argument of perigee etc.

In other words, if let's say an underburn orbit of 400x330 km would be undesirable based on default SES-2 TIG, *any* orbit with those parameters would be bad, regardless of Orbcomm phasing w/respect to ISS. If they ran Monte Carlo simulations, they watched the evolutions of orbits with different perigee/apogee with respect to ISS and probably excluded the whole range or perigee/apogee combinations, regardless of phasing angle as orbital evolution would rapidly change that anyway.

If that is the case, then there really was nothing the upper stage could have "recalculated" that would have changed the safety criteria outcome - high enough apogee.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 08:04 pm
Perhaps if SpaceX did a little better job programming their upper stage avionics, it could have been able to restart.

What do you mean by this?
I mean, perhaps the upper stage might have been able to recalculate a new trajectory for restart that would've satisfied the ISS safety gate. I don't know if that was even physically possible at that point, and getting the ISS safety folks to believe that the upper stage could calculate it safely and autonomously would've been a tall order.

I don't know all the sorts of things the safety gate entailed, but my impression is that the primary consideration was propellant quantity and only the perigee and apogee of the target orbit, not other parameters like argument of perigee etc.

In other words, if let's say an underburn orbit of 400x330 km would be undesirable based on default SES-2 TIG, *any* orbit with those parameters would be bad, regardless of Orbcomm phasing w/respect to ISS. If they ran Monte Carlo simulations, they watched the evolutions of orbits with different perigee/apogee with respect to ISS and probably excluded the whole range or perigee/apogee combinations, regardless of phasing angle as orbital evolution would rapidly change that anyway.

If that is the case, then there really was nothing the upper stage could have "recalculated" that would have changed the safety criteria outcome - high enough apogee.
Yes, that's what I meant by "don't know if that was even physically possible at that point." Thanks for explaining it a little better. But it's also possible they didn't run the trajectory they actually ended up at, or weren't able to get prior permission for such a trajectory but may have been able to get permission after the engine failure.

Just speculation, I guess.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/09/2012 08:06 pm
It isn't clear an insurance company will pay out to Orbcomm. SpaceX could have partially "insured" them in the contract with a zero-cost reflight of a single OG2 if something went amiss on this launch.

What secondary payloads have been planned for SpX-2?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 08:08 pm
It isn't clear an insurance company will pay out to Orbcomm. SpaceX could have partially "insured" them in the contract with a zero-cost reflight of a single OG2 if something went amiss on this launch.

What secondary payloads have been planned for SpX-2?

Perhaps a partial insurance payment?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/09/2012 08:19 pm
Perhaps if SpaceX did a little better job programming their upper stage avionics, it could have been able to restart.

What do you mean by this?
I mean, perhaps the upper stage might have been able to recalculate a new trajectory for restart that would've satisfied the ISS safety gate. I don't know if that was even physically possible at that point, and getting the ISS safety folks to believe that the upper stage could calculate it safely and autonomously would've been a tall order.

I wonder if perhaps they left it with a much simpler logic for this flight. IE - if the fuel quantity is within the nominally specified range, ok to proceed. Otherwise, cancel.

In such case, they may have actually had plenty of fuel to proceed, but not have satisfied the primary customer's requirements for risk analysis. They know the fuel quantity is off, but they can't necessarily predict all the reasons ahead of time why that would be so. As a result, they may default to presuming a fuel value that does not match the predicted value means the value is unreliable.

Just speculating...a $7 million satellite or whatever the value was justifies a somewhat limited investment in the software and risk analysis work to cover every contingency.

Of course, the engine computers are in hardened boxes at the top of the engine, so the fact that they continued to send telemetry to the flight computer doesn't mean that the rest of the engine wasn't pretty thoroughly beat-up.

There is no data for the computer to send unless the sensors are intact. Data showing a dropoff in engine performance is different than all the data channels reading flat. SpaceX engineers would have a very good idea which sensors are functioning properly in real time.

Unless and until SpaceX clarifies, we have limited info to use to guess the degree of damage the engine really took, but we do have some.

SpaceX's statement indicates at least some of the sensors were functioning, not just the computers, and they have apparent reason to believe the failure occurred in and was limited to the fuel dome, although obviously there was secondary damage such as to the fairing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/09/2012 08:38 pm
... did I miss anything?

One thing that I've not seen in this thread is that the launch happened according to schedule.  I do believe this is a first for SpaceX.  I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that pretty much every previous SpaceX mission had delays. 

Now the original date for this mission did change, but I believe it was due to NASA and not SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 10/09/2012 08:38 pm
Isn't it rather late in the history of this engine for there to be a failure of this type, if indeed it was a rupture of the fuel dome? I would have expected something like this much earlier in development.
One failure out of about 43? It could've been a manufacturing defect (or something unrelated to the engine, like something flew loose at Max-Q and hit the fuel dome), not an engine design flaw.

2 out of 44 actually... F1 flt 1 the corroded nut
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/09/2012 08:47 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

As ever, there may be details that prevent this. But most of the pieces would be in place for this alternative scheme I believe.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 08:49 pm
Isn't it rather late in the history of this engine for there to be a failure of this type, if indeed it was a rupture of the fuel dome? I would have expected something like this much earlier in development.
One failure out of about 43? It could've been a manufacturing defect (or something unrelated to the engine, like something flew loose at Max-Q and hit the fuel dome), not an engine design flaw.

2 out of 44 actually... F1 flt 1 the corroded nut
No, that was a Merlin 1A, different engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/09/2012 09:15 pm

In my books, that makes FOUR consecutive successful Falcon 9 launches;
asterix or no asterix.
Insurance companies like that. They're paying attention.

Wrong.  In their books, it is not.
Why not? My assumption would be that getting Dragon berthed is good, and much better than not making it to the ISS.

The secondary mission mattered.

I agree with Jim, the secondary mission matters.

However, we should be looking at the missions separately.  Failure of the secondary mission, does NOT necessarily mean failure of the entire mission, nor in this particular case.  If SpaceX completes its primary mission, they should get credit for that.

And, to call the secondary mission a complete failure, we need to define what that mission was.  We are still missing facts on the ORBCOMM's prototype mission objectives.  Lower orbit, doesn't necessarily mean mission failure, though it is a missed objective.  It might be better to define the secondary mission as a partial success or partial failure, depending on how you look at that "half a glass of water".



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 09:52 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 10:13 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Why not?  Clearly the first stage is pre-programmed to calculate trajectory and thrust levels based on real-time event.  Clearly the Delta upper stage reacted to its second stage anomaly.  Why not program a contingency trajectory in case the first-choice maneuver is canceled?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 10/09/2012 10:39 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.
launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Is there a bright line that defines what types of decisions a launch vehicle can or should make, and those it may not or should not make?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 10/09/2012 10:43 pm
I see Wikipedia has been going back and forth since the launch. Wonder why?  :) It is now being labeled a 'partial failure'.

I prefer to call it a 'partial success'. Primary success in orbital insertion, secondary failed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 10:46 pm
I see Wikipedia has been going back and forth since the launch. Wonder why?  :) It is now being labeled a 'partial failure'.

I prefer to call it a 'partial success'. Primary success in orbital insertion, secondary failed.
It's no more a failure than those Shuttle flights, which Wikipedia calls successes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LegendCJS on 10/09/2012 10:50 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.
launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Is there a bright line that defines what types of decisions a launch vehicle can or should make, and those it may not or should not make?

NASA would only allow the second stage to restart AT ALL if it was in perfect health and had all the fuel it needed for the pre-planed burn.  This is the deal NASA and SpaceX worked out to even allow SpaceX to carry a secondary payload.  It took significant time with monte-carlo simulations to work out the probabilities of damage to the ISS and decided if the pre-planed burn was safe.

In order to even consider attempting any other type of restart burn NASA and their simulation team would have to sign off on it, necessitating another significant analysis period.  By then the second stage would have re-entered.  So everyone please stop complaining about what SpaceX should have done with the second stage.  Its fate was sealed months ago by the deal between NASA and SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/09/2012 11:06 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.
launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Is there a bright line that defines what types of decisions a launch vehicle can or should make, and those it may not or should not make?

NASA would only allow the second stage to restart AT ALL if it was in perfect health and had all the fuel it needed for the pre-planed burn.  This is the deal NASA and SpaceX worked out to even allow SpaceX to carry a secondary payload.  It took significant time with monte-carlo simulations to work out the probabilities of damage to the ISS and decided if the pre-planed burn was safe.

In order to even consider attempting any other type of restart burn NASA and their simulation team would have to sign off on it, necessitating another significant analysis period.  By then the second stage would have re-entered.

... which is why it would have to have been a pre-programmed contingency, not an on-the-fly decision. When I said "fallback activity" I intended to draw a distinction from a flight-time decision commanded from the ground.

The upper stage was testing how much propellant it had remaining, as I understand it. After the "no-go for main orbit", there's nothing computationally hard about making a second decision, "go/no-go for contingency orbit", based on that same result.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 10/09/2012 11:13 pm
So everyone please stop complaining about what SpaceX should have done with the second stage.  Its fate was sealed months ago by the deal between NASA and SpaceX.

I see a number of questions, but little complaining.

Is this the type of decision-making that is Just Not Done due to LV avionics (or whatever) limitations?  Convention or historical reasons?  A "deal" that required a picture-perfect flight for nominal Orbcomm insertion?  Exhaustion of pre-flight analysis resources?  Or that most every contingency was pre-analyzed and pre-programmed and there simply were no better options due to propellant, power, position, whatever?

Obviously details won't be known for some time (if ever), but it would be interesting to understand the typical constraints, especially with regards to modern avionics and associated decision-making.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/09/2012 11:14 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Since we are discussing a launch vehicle that made precisely that type of decision - whether or not to burn for a particular orbit - I think you must have misunderstood my suggestion. This is a very simple decision tree I'm talking about here. The launch vehicle is doing no more decision-making than comparing the remaining propellant mass to a threshold, which it has already done once to make the no-go decision for the target orbit. Meet the lower threshold = execute the burn for the contingency orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/09/2012 11:28 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Why not?  Clearly the first stage is pre-programmed to calculate trajectory and thrust levels based on real-time event.  Clearly the Delta upper stage reacted to its second stage anomaly.  Why not program a contingency trajectory in case the first-choice maneuver is canceled?

My guess is, after stage2 wait and clear ISS, mostly it will miss the satellite slot registered to og2.  It may have to wait couple days for second chance of orbital insertion, by then there won't be enough LOX and RP-1 will be frozen to rock solid.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 11:33 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Why not?  Clearly the first stage is pre-programmed to calculate trajectory and thrust levels based on real-time event.  Clearly the Delta upper stage reacted to its second stage anomaly.  Why not program a contingency trajectory in case the first-choice maneuver is canceled?

My guess is, after stage2 wait and clear ISS, mostly it will miss the satellite slot registered to og2.  It may have to wait couple days for second chance of orbital insertion, by then there won't be enough LOX and RP-1 freeze to rock solid..

True, but Joffan's suggestion was that precisely because of that, if proper orbital insertion is canceled, they'd circularize instead, which is A) a safe maneuver that will do no harm, so has less (no) gates it has to pass, and B) a pre-calculated maneuver that can be approved in advance, so does not require real-time risk-assessment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/09/2012 11:45 pm
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Why not?  Clearly the first stage is pre-programmed to calculate trajectory and thrust levels based on real-time event.  Clearly the Delta upper stage reacted to its second stage anomaly.  Why not program a contingency trajectory in case the first-choice maneuver is canceled?

My guess is, after stage2 wait and clear ISS, mostly it will miss the satellite slot registered to og2.  It may have to wait couple days for second chance of orbital insertion, by then there won't be enough LOX and RP-1 freeze to rock solid..

True, but Joffan's suggestion was that precisely because of that, if proper orbital insertion is canceled, they'd circularize instead, which is A) a safe maneuver that will do no harm, so has less (no) gates it has to pass, and B) a pre-calculated maneuver that can be approved in advance, so does not require real-time risk-assessment.

And if spacex miss the first launch window on the ground, have to launch few days later, you have another backup too?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Dappa on 10/09/2012 11:55 pm
True, but Joffan's suggestion was that precisely because of that, if proper orbital insertion is canceled, they'd circularize instead, which is A) a safe maneuver that will do no harm, so has less (no) gates it has to pass, and B) a pre-calculated maneuver that can be approved in advance, so does not require real-time risk-assessment.
And hope that this contingency circularized orbit doesn't interfere with Dragon ops.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/10/2012 12:27 am
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Why not?  Clearly the first stage is pre-programmed to calculate trajectory and thrust levels based on real-time event.  Clearly the Delta upper stage reacted to its second stage anomaly.  Why not program a contingency trajectory in case the first-choice maneuver is canceled?

My guess is, after stage2 wait and clear ISS, mostly it will miss the satellite slot registered to og2.  It may have to wait couple days for second chance of orbital insertion, by then there won't be enough LOX and RP-1 freeze to rock solid..

True, but Joffan's suggestion was that precisely because of that, if proper orbital insertion is canceled, they'd circularize instead, which is A) a safe maneuver that will do no harm, so has less (no) gates it has to pass, and B) a pre-calculated maneuver that can be approved in advance, so does not require real-time risk-assessment.

And if spacex miss the first launch window on the ground, have to launch few days later, you have another backup too?

A circle is a circle is a circle.   If we already know we're at a certain post-launch orbit with a safe (below ISS) Apogee, I don't see the harm in circularizing it as a plan B.

Your argument about a delayed launch actually applies to the plan A maneuver (which will have to be re-approved for every delay), but not to the plan B.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/10/2012 01:01 am
Its fate was sealed months ago by the deal between NASA and SpaceX.

Are you suggesting the health checks were overly conservative?  It sounds like you know something about the monte-carlo simulations that were done.  From how I understood Chris's article, I was thinking the fate was sealed by an underperforming launch vehicle that did not have enough propellant remaining to do the second burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/10/2012 01:32 am
NASA TV Coverage of Dragon at ISS begins 4am Eastern time Wednesday October 10th with grapple at 7:32 am.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mike_1179 on 10/10/2012 01:33 am
Its fate was sealed months ago by the deal between NASA and SpaceX.

Are you suggesting the health checks were overly conservative?  It sounds like you know something about the monte-carlo simulations that were done.  From how I understood Chris's article, I was thinking the fate was sealed by an underperforming launch vehicle that did not have enough propellant remaining to do the second burn.

Second burn plus disposal burn.  Would the LV have to calculate if it had sufficient propellant to both circularize the secondary payload then remove itself?  You can see there are many different permutations for various levels of 1st and 2nd stage performance - what if there was a general degradation in performance like the Delta IV earlier this week, would the LV have to take that into account?  Like Jim said, LV don't make this type of decision.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LegendCJS on 10/10/2012 01:42 am
Its fate was sealed months ago by the deal between NASA and SpaceX.

Are you suggesting the health checks were overly conservative?  It sounds like you know something about the monte-carlo simulations that were done.  From how I understood Chris's article, I was thinking the fate was sealed by an underperforming launch vehicle that did not have enough propellant remaining to do the second burn.

I don't know anything other than what I read on this site (I don't even have L2).  I think its just semantics.  The outcome of low second stage fuel the pre-determined from SpaceX's pre launch agreement with NASA. So was the "fate sealed" when the agreement was made or was the "fate sealed" when low fuel occurred?

Since my post was in response to people asking why didn't SpaceX make a second burn attempt to at least circularize the orbit, I focused on the old agreement as the deciding event.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/10/2012 01:44 am
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Why not?  Clearly the first stage is pre-programmed to calculate trajectory and thrust levels based on real-time event.  Clearly the Delta upper stage reacted to its second stage anomaly.  Why not program a contingency trajectory in case the first-choice maneuver is canceled?

My guess is, after stage2 wait and clear ISS, mostly it will miss the satellite slot registered to og2.  It may have to wait couple days for second chance of orbital insertion, by then there won't be enough LOX and RP-1 freeze to rock solid..

True, but Joffan's suggestion was that precisely because of that, if proper orbital insertion is canceled, they'd circularize instead, which is A) a safe maneuver that will do no harm, so has less (no) gates it has to pass, and B) a pre-calculated maneuver that can be approved in advance, so does not require real-time risk-assessment.

And if spacex miss the first launch window on the ground, have to launch few days later, you have another backup too?

A circle is a circle is a circle.   If we already know we're at a certain post-launch orbit with a safe (below ISS) Apogee, I don't see the harm in circularizing it as a plan B.

Your argument about a delayed launch actually applies to the plan A maneuver (which will have to be re-approved for every delay), but not to the plan B.

what circle ???????????? I thought stage2 was locked within iss zone. no burning.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/10/2012 02:39 am
One thing kind of bothers me about the whole "not enough fuel" to preform the burn to boost the Orbcomm payload.  The amount of fuel is really not that much.  I don't know the dry mass of the second stage so I can't really do the calculations, but the burn time has got to be only a few seconds.  I've not run the exact numbers but to get from the initial orbit to the planned Orbcomm release orbit is something like 225m/s at most. 

I don't remember the weights but a low on fuel second stage without the Dragon has got to have at least 4 g acceleration.   It's 5 seconds of that to get the needed 225m/s and another 5 seconds or so to dispose of the stage.

What this tells me is that the Dragon just barely made it to the intended orbit with essentially zero fuel margin.  The other possibility is that any chance for a second burn was tossed out the moment the first stage engine quit due to the programming of the flight computer. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/10/2012 02:49 am

A circle is a circle is a circle.   If we already know we're at a certain post-launch orbit with a safe (below ISS) Apogee, I don't see the harm in circularizing it as a plan B.


what circle ???????????? I thought stage2 was locked within iss zone. no burning.

That's not my understanding.

I think second stage finishes its first burn at something like a 300x200 km orbit. Dragon is released, and then heads towards the ISS, approaching carefully from below.

The second burn of the the second stage is a ISS orbit crossing burn, and it has to be pre-approved by humans.  So unless the starting parameters are exactly as prescribed, the default action is no-go, which is understandable.

Jotten proposed a different default, fail-safe, action:  circularize to 300x300, since then the life of the secondary will be extended.

Jim said "LVs don't do that", and I asked why, that's all.

I can't see why this plan-B course of action can't be approved and pre-programmed in advance, irrespective of why plan-A didn't execute.

I'm saying this after seeing that both the first stage (Falcon) and the second stage (Delta) used a lot of discretion in adapting to situations which were much less certain.  If they were to give up and play dead at the first sign of trouble, those would have been better times to quit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: titanmiller on 10/10/2012 02:55 am
What this tells me is that the Dragon just barely made it to the intended orbit with essentially zero fuel margin. 

Is it possible that the F9 is drastically under performing compared to its specifications?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/10/2012 03:04 am

A circle is a circle is a circle.   If we already know we're at a certain post-launch orbit with a safe (below ISS) Apogee, I don't see the harm in circularizing it as a plan B.


what circle ???????????? I thought stage2 was locked within iss zone. no burning.

That's not my understanding.

I think second stage finishes its first burn at something like a 300x200 km orbit. Dragon is released, and then heads towards the ISS, approaching carefully from below.

The second burn of the the second stage is a ISS orbit crossing burn, and it has to be pre-approved by humans.  So unless the starting parameters are exactly as prescribed, the default action is no-go, which is understandable.

Jotten proposed a different default, fail-safe, action:  circularize to 300x300, since then the life of the secondary will be extended.

Jim said "LVs don't do that", and I asked why, that's all.

I can't see why this plan-B course of action can't be approved and pre-programmed in advance, irrespective of why plan-A didn't execute.

I'm saying this after seeing that both the first stage (Falcon) and the second stage (Delta) used a lot of discretion in adapting to situations which were much less certain.  If they were to give up and play dead at the first sign of trouble, those would have been better times to quit.


iss can go as low as 330km, right now orbcomm apogee is at 320km, you make a circle there, it's kinda pretty close.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 10/10/2012 03:05 am
One thing kind of bothers me about the whole "not enough fuel" to preform the burn to boost the Orbcomm payload.  The amount of fuel is really not that much.  I don't know the dry mass of the second stage so I can't really do the calculations, but the burn time has got to be only a few seconds.  I've not run the exact numbers but to get from the initial orbit to the planned Orbcomm release orbit is something like 225m/s at most. 

I don't remember the weights but a low on fuel second stage without the Dragon has got to have at least 4 g acceleration.   It's 5 seconds of that to get the needed 225m/s and another 5 seconds or so to dispose of the stage.

What this tells me is that the Dragon just barely made it to the intended orbit with essentially zero fuel margin.  The other possibility is that any chance for a second burn was tossed out the moment the first stage engine quit due to the programming of the flight computer. 

May also be due to other factors; posibly power.  You have a couple sats sitting there which must either be drawing power from F9-S2, which has limited capability, or (as suggested upthread), must be let loose to draw their own power.

No idea how long the F9-S2 could provide power to the OG2's (or if that was possible), or how long the OG2's could sit on F9-S2 without power before they needed to be released, but likely a constraint.  No idea if it was significant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/10/2012 03:06 am

A circle is a circle is a circle.   If we already know we're at a certain post-launch orbit with a safe (below ISS) Apogee, I don't see the harm in circularizing it as a plan B.


what circle ???????????? I thought stage2 was locked within iss zone. no burning.

That's not my understanding.

I think second stage finishes its first burn at something like a 300x200 km orbit. Dragon is released, and then heads towards the ISS, approaching carefully from below.

The second burn of the the second stage is a ISS orbit crossing burn, and it has to be pre-approved by humans.  So unless the starting parameters are exactly as prescribed, the default action is no-go, which is understandable.

Jotten proposed a different default, fail-safe, action:  circularize to 300x300, since then the life of the secondary will be extended.

Jim said "LVs don't do that", and I asked why, that's all.

I can't see why this plan-B course of action can't be approved and pre-programmed in advance, irrespective of why plan-A didn't execute.

I'm saying this after seeing that both the first stage (Falcon) and the second stage (Delta) used a lot of discretion in adapting to situations which were much less certain.  If they were to give up and play dead at the first sign of trouble, those would have been better times to quit.


You bring up a valid point from the perspective that if you have engine-out capability, plans should be in place for both the primary and secondary missions.  The value of engine-out capability is in completing the missions or saving lives, not simply in having it.

It will be interesting if the present situation results in any new plans by SpaceX in respect to accomplishing the secondary mission if an engine fails.  I would think, particularly with non-NASA customers, that additional contingency plans would be created to increase the chances of completing the secondary mission whenever possible.  In the case of when NASA is their primary customer, things would likely be handled differently.



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pericynthion on 10/10/2012 03:22 am
What this tells me is that the Dragon just barely made it to the intended orbit with essentially zero fuel margin. 

Is it possible that the F9 is drastically under performing compared to its specifications?

Perhaps not "drastically", but that would fit with the light cargo loading of Dragon on C2+ and CRS-1, the instantaneous launch windows, and the plan to move to Falcon 1.1 for CRS-3 onwards.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 03:41 am
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

Why not?  Clearly the first stage is pre-programmed to calculate trajectory and thrust levels based on real-time event.  Clearly the Delta upper stage reacted to its second stage anomaly.  Why not program a contingency trajectory in case the first-choice maneuver is canceled?

It doesn't have the data or capability to make the decisions or to follow a different trajectory.

No, the Delta did not react to anomaly.  It didn't do anything different.  It shutdown the engine when it reached a certain velocity.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 03:42 am
The upper stage was testing how much propellant it had remaining, as I understand it. After the "no-go for main orbit", there's nothing computationally hard about making a second decision, "go/no-go for contingency orbit", based on that same result.

Yes it is.  It doesn't have enough data to such a decision nor is possible to design a contingency orbit that covers all the possibilities.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 03:50 am

True, but Joffan's suggestion was that precisely because of that, if proper orbital insertion is canceled, they'd circularize instead, which is A) a safe maneuver that will do no harm, so has less (no) gates it has to pass, and B) a pre-calculated maneuver that can be approved in advance, so does not require real-time risk-assessment.

No, because there are too many initial conditions to cover and to determine A and therefore impossible to compute B
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 03:51 am

My guess is, after stage2 wait and clear ISS, mostly it will miss the satellite slot registered to og2.  It may have to wait couple days for second chance of orbital insertion, by then there won't be enough LOX and RP-1 will be frozen to rock solid.

upperstage life is measured in minutes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/10/2012 04:06 am
The upper stage was testing how much propellant it had remaining, as I understand it. After the "no-go for main orbit", there's nothing computationally hard about making a second decision, "go/no-go for contingency orbit", based on that same result.

Yes it is.  It doesn't have enough data to such a decision nor is possible to design a contingency orbit that covers all the possibilities.

This is exactly what we're asking.

The only data the stage needs is  A: "Did I successfully deliver Dragon", and B: "can I execute burn 2 plan-A".

If the answers are YES and NO, then the stage can execute the fallback burn 2 plan-B, which is raise the perigee.   Raising the perigee to a circular orbit is a well defined maneuver and is something the GNC should be able to do - I don't see the problem with unknown initial conditions. 

The one issue I can see is whether you have 30 minutes of battery life left - but this is also something that is known in advance.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/10/2012 04:11 am
Especially since some number/combination of those cases include "LV has bad/degraded nav" and so not possible to safely target a circularization burn. Safer to just have go/no-go logic, as SpaceX did.

That's why I brought up the context of Falcon and Delta making orbit even though there were issues with the ascent profile.

In both cases you could have asked the same question - something has gone wrong, the rocket might have bad/degraded nav, or an unpredictable engine, why try to reach orbit and potentially put other assets at risk?  Using the logic you present, it's better to just let them fail to make orbit and burn up - and clearly nobody chose that.

I think Jotten's proposal makes perfect sense and is within what the second stage can be programmed to do without requiring real-time risk assessment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 04:17 am

This is exactly what we're asking.

The only data the stage needs is  A: "Did I successfully deliver Dragon", and B: "can I execute burn 2 plan-A".

If the answers are YES and NO, then the stage can execute the fallback burn 2 plan-B, which is raise the perigee.   Raising the perigee to a circular orbit is a well defined maneuver and is something the GNC should be able to do - I don't see the problem with unknown initial conditions. 


Again, LV's only have one trajectory.  It follows one path and stops either when it completes all the correct delta V's or fails.  It does not go on if it fails.  There are no branches.

No, raising the perigee to a circular orbit is not a well defined maneuver, if you don't know where you are going to start from.  LV's don't move on to the next maneuver unless the first one is complete and successful.  Otherwise, there are too many variations to analyze.

Edited and edited again.
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 04:21 am
Especially since some number/combination of those cases include "LV has bad/degraded nav" and so not possible to safely target a circularization burn. Safer to just have go/no-go logic, as SpaceX did.

That's why I brought up the context of Falcon and Delta making orbit even though there were issues with the ascent profile.

In both cases you could have asked the same question - something has gone wrong, the rocket might have bad/degraded nav, or an unpredictable engine, why try to reach orbit and potentially put other assets at risk?  Using the logic you present, it's better to just let them fail to make orbit and burn up - and clearly nobody chose that.

I think Jotten's proposal makes perfect sense and is within what the second stage can be programmed to do without requiring real-time risk assessment.

Wrong.  The rocket goes until it can't go anymore.  If it can't, it does burn up or go in a useless orbit.

It is not within the second stage capability to be programmed or do it without a risk assessment.

I am going to have to say it, you don't know what you are talking about
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/10/2012 04:28 am
Interestingly, we should see this from more than the perspective of only SpaceX having the correct contingency plan for a failed rocket and lower than expected orbit.

It may be the future customer of the secondary mission who may have the contingency plan in place.  If their satellite goes to a lower than expected orbit, then what can they do to correct the orbit?  In fact, secondary mission customers can use the exact scenario that has occurred on this mission.

SpaceX's engine-out capability should be something the customers of the secondary mission might want to factor in.  A catastrophe was avoided, but we are in lower than expected orbit, so what is our Plan B?  They can go over this scenario in their internal planning phases and with SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/10/2012 04:32 am
iss can go as low as 330km, right now orbcomm apogee is at 320km, you make a circle there, it's kinda pretty close.

Not that it matters, but the ISS will never be kept that low again, now that the Shuttle is retired.  It probably won't go below 400 km, at least until the next Sun cycle minimum, IIRC.

Edit: Jim has a point (again!) about not knowing where the circularizing burn would start, and the rocket not being able to calculate a burn on the fly.  It seems possible to have a conditional branch IF there is insufficient fuel to do the planned maneuvers, and IF there is enough for cirularizing and deorbiting and IF the orbit parameters are as planned, but that's a low probability corner case anyways, even if SpaceX hit it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/10/2012 04:33 am

No, it has no way of knowing if it did A successfully.
Again, LV's only have one trajectory, no decisions.

No, Raising the perigee to a circular orbit is not a well defined maneuver, if you don't know where you are starting from.  LV's don't move on to the next maneuver unless the first one is complete and successful.  Otherwise, there are too many variations to analyze.


Really?

Now I've not worked on the system, but from what I have read the Falcon 9 uses inertial navigation.  If it's like the inertial navigation systems that I have worked on it integrates accelerations to get velocities and integrates the velocities to come up with positions.  I've also worked on systems that added a GPS receiver to increase accuracy when a GPS signal is available. 

What does this mean?  Well it means that is does know where it is and where it's going.  In fact several decisions were made by the flight control software to recalculate the trajectory when the first stage engine was shutoff.  It did not have "one trajectory" as the trajectory it flew was different than what was originally planned.

Now I really don't know what kind on inertial measurement unit is on the Falcon 9.  I have a feeling that it is good enough to guide the launch into the specifications that SpaceX quotes in some of their documentation.  It has to be a pretty good one to be able to meet those specifications.

In order to do all these things there has to be software to support it.  My feeling, ok speculation, is that it only had code to do the engine out ascent.  After that the flight software made a no-go decision and released Orbcomm.  I'm sure that the number of continences built into the flight software is very limited.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 04:36 am

I edited my post before yours was posted
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/10/2012 04:54 am

Ed, your definition of launch failure is pretty silly. If people used your definition as an industry standard, then no one would ever want to launch secondaries because it'd cause too much of a risk of the whole flight being labeled a failure. A bunch of performance would be just left on the table for the sole reason of avoiding the label of full "failure." Not only that, but even the Orbcomm spacecraft is still usable for its most important primary purpose, which is checking out that the spacecraft works as planned in orbit. I don't think the "partial failure" of the Shuttle's two engine-out events should be counted as launch failures, nor do I think the recent Delta IV anomaly should be counted as a launch failure, nor do I think the one Atlas V underperformance should be counted as a launch failure. They were underperforming missions that left the primary mission successful according to the customer, and that's what matters.
...
I count such failures because they are failures.  If a rocket didn't do its complete job, something had to have actually failed.  In all of the examples you mention above, real hardware failures happened.  Engines shut down or underperformed.  Propellants leaked.  But most importantly, planned insertion orbits were not achieved.  The latter point actually clears the most recent Delta 4 from the "failure" category because it made its orbit, thanks to the relatively benign engine problem and thanks to performance margin.  Money bought that extra margin, and combined with a little luck, that money paid for success in this particular case.

Imagine that your next United or Southwest flight to Chicago was forced to land in Milwaukee or Rockford or Cleveland instead, but the airline refused to refund your ticket, calling the flight a "success" because the airplane didn't crash.   

There has long seemed, to me, an industry bias to "over emphasize" success and, well, to just not talk about failures, allowing some of them to slip from the record books.  If two rockets make it to orbit, but one suffers a problem that strands its payload short, then the record should show and count it.

Quote
Also, Ed, your figures for Merlin Vac (based on Merlin 1D) thrust are out of date and much too low. The M1D-based Merlin Vac can do at least 80 tons of thrust, versus 45 you estimated here: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html

I would like to see SpaceX numbers on that.  The vacuum version of Merlin doesn't need to produce maximum thrust, it needs specific impulse.  I think that SpaceX traded some thrust for ISP on Merlin (1C) Vacuum.  Also keep in mind that I use metric tons (tonnes) rather than tons.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/10/2012 05:13 am
Especially since some number/combination of those cases include "LV has bad/degraded nav" and so not possible to safely target a circularization burn. Safer to just have go/no-go logic, as SpaceX did.

That's why I brought up the context of Falcon and Delta making orbit even though there were issues with the ascent profile.

In both cases you could have asked the same question - something has gone wrong, the rocket might have bad/degraded nav, or an unpredictable engine, why try to reach orbit and potentially put other assets at risk?  Using the logic you present, it's better to just let them fail to make orbit and burn up - and clearly nobody chose that.

I think Jotten's proposal makes perfect sense and is within what the second stage can be programmed to do without requiring real-time risk assessment.

Wrong.  The rocket goes until it can't go anymore.  If it can't, it does burn up or go in a useless orbit.

It is not within the second stage capability to be programmed or do it without a risk assessment.

I am going to have to say it, you don't know what you are talking about

Of course it can - that's the whole point of guidance - you bring your current trajectory to hit the intended one.  If a stage can do that even though it just lost an engine, it is clearly not flying open-loop.  It knows how to navigate.   And if it finished the first burn, and there was enough information not to do the plan-A second burn, then it also knows its orbital parameters, and so knows where the perigee is, and so can kick it up.  And if it runs out of fuel doing so, it's still a safe orbit, and better for the customer than the do-nothing scenario.

Now, I do believe you when you say it's not something that's done. You've seen more LVs than I have, that's for sure.  But that doesn't mean it can't be done if someone put their mind to it.

And yeah, the "you don't know what you're talking about" was sort of expected, but you're still not explaining what capability is lacking or what data is missing, in order to add this behavior - which was also expected.

I can tell you that if you actually do explain, I'll be happy to be learn - I'm not here to prove you wrong.  I just hate to see good ideas go to waste because someone is stuck in a "that's not how it's done" groove.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/10/2012 05:36 am
I think the question Jim is answering is, What Would Centaur Do?

Once on orbit Centaur can do some amazing stuff for a launch vehicle second stage ... it is almost like a spacecraft. Yet Centaur wouldn't be programmed to attempt any sort of contingency burn if it found itself unable to proceed with a planned burn. It is certainly no shame for SpaceX that the programming of their stage is similar to Centaur's!

That said, I'm pretty sure that if the customer flying a secondary payload were to pay for it, SpaceX software engineers would be willing to implement slightly clever logic to handle a small number of pre-planned contingency cases. But the costs along the way to get that logic into the flight controller on an actual mission? The SpaceX internal review; the NASA review; the Orbcomm review; all costly and time consuming. And that's just for a contingency case. Is it really surprising Orbcomm accepted the secondary payload service as offered, i.e. "best" effort where best might not be very good?

Finally, it isn't yet clear Orbcomm can get any more value from the satellite if it is in circular but low orbit than it can get from being in elliptical and low orbit. If what they really need is testing at a constellation-representative altitude, circularization doesn't get them that!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/10/2012 05:48 am
Is there a bright line that defines what types of decisions a launch vehicle can or should make, and those it may not or should not make?

This is a great question. I'd add, "Has the line been the same in the United States and Russia?" I'm thinking of Russian launches from Baikonur to GTO for example, with their multi-burn mission profiles. Or (dare I mention it) Baikonur to Phobos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: savuporo on 10/10/2012 05:54 am
But most importantly, planned insertion orbits were not achieved.  ...

Imagine that your next United or Southwest flight to Chicago was forced to land in Milwaukee or Rockford or Cleveland instead, but the airline refused to refund your ticket, calling the flight a "success" because the airplane didn't crash.   
A lot of people seem to not get that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: david1971 on 10/10/2012 05:59 am
Imagine that your next United or Southwest flight to Chicago was forced to land in Milwaukee or Rockford or Cleveland instead, but the airline refused to refund your ticket, calling the flight a "success" because the airplane didn't crash.   

What if they get me to where I want to go, but they send my luggage somewhere else for a week?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/10/2012 05:59 am
I think the question Jim is answering is, What Would Centaur Do?

Once on orbit Centaur can do some amazing stuff for a launch vehicle second stage ... it is almost like a spacecraft. Yet Centaur wouldn't be programmed to attempt any sort of contingency burn if it found itself unable to proceed with a planned burn. It is certainly no shame for SpaceX that the programming of their stage is similar to Centaur's!

That said, I'm pretty sure that if the customer flying a secondary payload were to pay for it, SpaceX software engineers would be willing to implement slightly clever logic to handle a small number of pre-planned contingency cases. But the costs along the way to get that logic into the flight controller on an actual mission? The SpaceX internal review; the NASA review; the Orbcomm review; all costly and time consuming. And that's just for a contingency case. Is it really surprising Orbcomm accepted the secondary payload service as offered, i.e. "best" effort where best might not be very good?

Finally, it isn't yet clear Orbcomm can get any more value from the satellite if it is in circular but low orbit than it can get from being in elliptical and low orbit. If what they really need is testing at a constellation-representative altitude, circularization doesn't get them that!

Fair enough, and no argument there.  From what I've read in the thread so far, the red line is "does it require human auditing and risk assessment", and an added requirement is "will the stage remain alive till the burn".

In most real cases, a circular-but-low orbit is not a great improvement over the do-nothing orbit.  In the case of OrbComm, the extra longevity could actually increase testing time by a large margin.  More than that - lower orbits get harder to track from a ground station, so it will also buy more trackable passes over existing test assets.

Also, if the satellite has some orbit-raising capability, getting out of the low-perigee orbit ASAP is important, since for every low pass, you need to make up the delta V lost to drag.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/10/2012 06:47 am
Here is the bottom line here, IMO of course:


1. The primary mission was a successful failure. An engine failed explosively, but did not destroy the vehicle or initiate and FTS abort, so the primary goal of getting dragon into orbit was met.

2. The secondary mission failed. As a result of the loss of engine one the second stage was unable to execute a restart and the Orbcomm payload will likely not be usable to Orbcomm.

3. While the spaceflight industry and community are indeed changing, as we (hopefully) move towards private spaceflight and exploration, the bottom line is that failures like this are not a good thing and should not be downplayed. They are not routine and are not acceptable.

4. Spacex was lucky. Given the nature of this failure it "should" have probably resulted in a LOM. But it didn't, and the exact reasons why it didn't will become apparent once the investigation is completed, provided Spacex/NASA choose to release those details. My guess is that the emergency system caught the failure in progress and terminated fuel/oxidizer flow to the engine as it was failing, preventing the explosion from having been larger, or causing additional components such as the turbo-pumps to become involved. This however could not release the existing pressure already in the engine at the given time, so that pressure was released in failure which destroyed a good bit of the engine and most of the starboard bay paneling and upper strake.



Ultimately this is a "big" deal as Jim, Ed, and some others have suggested, and in most cases this isn't a survivable event for the LV. So we should be critical of why this happened, and we should also be interested in what exactly caused the fuel dome to fail and how they plan to remedy it in future, as should (and will) NASA. You don't just write this off.


I would further submit that I would like to know whether the same flaw could exist on the new M1D engine which operates at higher stresses, and what that would mean as far as delays/possible re-design ect.

Hopefully, this was just a manufacturing flaw unique to that engine and it doesn't cause delays or a stand down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Tony Ostinato on 10/10/2012 06:54 am
theres a trend that always annoys me, especially as it becomes ubiquitous.

that trend is quantizing. every grey scale gets defined as either black or white, with nothing existing in between.

in music its used to take what you record and make it sound perfect, if you play imperfect 8th notes it makes them perfect.

the problem is that also erases all human feel.

quantizing creates a low resolution image of the world, and inevitably loses data.

nothing is ever a perfect success or complete failure and the more we preserve the complete picture the more we will find as we look back.

im no rocket engineer, but to me the moment i watched that replay closeup there was a part of me that recalled the shuttle disaster and clenched up in the "oh no" feeling when i saw "debris" and then a new feeling:

"how is it still going??" "damn thats soooo cooool!!

it just seems to me a demonstration of a nasty hurdle being overcome, and proof of a better, even if not perfect, design.

fact is i never even dreamed they could actually recover from anything that looked as nasty as that did.

wow.


edit: final frontier said it all better, and faster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/10/2012 07:03 am

Ed, your definition of launch failure is pretty silly. If people used your definition as an industry standard, then no one would ever want to launch secondaries because it'd cause too much of a risk of the whole flight being labeled a failure. A bunch of performance would be just left on the table for the sole reason of avoiding the label of full "failure." Not only that, but even the Orbcomm spacecraft is still usable for its most important primary purpose, which is checking out that the spacecraft works as planned in orbit. I don't think the "partial failure" of the Shuttle's two engine-out events should be counted as launch failures, nor do I think the recent Delta IV anomaly should be counted as a launch failure, nor do I think the one Atlas V underperformance should be counted as a launch failure. They were underperforming missions that left the primary mission successful according to the customer, and that's what matters.
...
I count such failures because they are failures.  If a rocket didn't do its complete job, something had to have actually failed.  In all of the examples you mention above, real hardware failures happened.  Engines shut down or underperformed.  Propellants leaked.  But most importantly, planned insertion orbits were not achieved.  The latter point actually clears the most recent Delta 4 from the "failure" category because it made its orbit, thanks to the relatively benign engine problem and thanks to performance margin.  Money bought that extra margin, and combined with a little luck, that money paid for success in this particular case.

Imagine that your next United or Southwest flight to Chicago was forced to land in Milwaukee or Rockford or Cleveland instead, but the airline refused to refund your ticket, calling the flight a "success" because the airplane didn't crash.   

There has long seemed, to me, an industry bias to "over emphasize" success and, well, to just not talk about failures, allowing some of them to slip from the record books.  If two rockets make it to orbit, but one suffers a problem that strands its payload short, then the record should show and count it.

Quote
Also, Ed, your figures for Merlin Vac (based on Merlin 1D) thrust are out of date and much too low. The M1D-based Merlin Vac can do at least 80 tons of thrust, versus 45 you estimated here: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9.html

I would like to see SpaceX numbers on that.  The vacuum version of Merlin doesn't need to produce maximum thrust, it needs specific impulse.  I think that SpaceX traded some thrust for ISP on Merlin (1C) Vacuum.  Also keep in mind that I use metric tons (tonnes) rather than tons.

 - Ed Kyle

Ed, how do you differentiate between a catastrophic explosion on the launch pad that destroys the spacecraft and the spacecraft making it to orbit and completing it's primary mission, but not the secondary mission?

It seems like they are different and should be treated as such.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lol on 10/10/2012 09:19 am
Primary payload - complete success.
Secondary payload - partial success (satellite testbed was not lost and still could be used for testing)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: thomson on 10/10/2012 11:59 am
What's going to happen with this dragon once it get back? NASA wants new spacecraft on every CRS flight. When SpX-1 gets back, does it mean that SpaceX will have a small fleet of 3 dragons?

Yay for building a second space fleet (the first one was STSes)!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/10/2012 01:04 pm
1. The primary mission was a successful failure. An engine failed explosively, but did not destroy the vehicle or initiate and FTS abort, so the primary goal of getting dragon into orbit was met.
Grrr! Only SpaceX and/or NASA get to call the engine issue an "explosion". They haven't, ergo it did not fail "explosively". Saying it looked like an explosion, or "pressure release" is code for explosion doesn't cut it.

Quote
2. The secondary mission failed. As a result of the loss of engine one the second stage was unable to execute a restart and the Orbcomm payload will likely not be usable to Orbcomm.
"unable to execute" is a bit strong. "chose not to execute" is the way I understood it. Of course, it made that choice because it figured out that it was not in a position to complete its mission.

Quote
3. While the spaceflight industry and community are indeed changing, as we (hopefully) move towards private spaceflight and exploration, the bottom line is that failures like this are not a good thing and should not be downplayed. They are not routine and are not acceptable.
Who's downplaying? SpaceX? NASA? Nope. Only some folks on the internet. Failures are not acceptable, but it'll be a long while yet before they are not routine at a price tag smaller than a bank bailout.

Quote
4. Spacex was lucky. Given the nature of this failure it "should" have probably resulted in a LOM.
There is no evidence to support your statement. The fact that it didn't result in LOM is in itself proof to the contrary. So is SpaceX's assertion that the F9 has engine out capability. There is also evidence that SpaceX engineered protection mechanisms against such an event: kevlar shielding and ejectable panels.

Quote
My guess is that the emergency system caught the failure in progress and terminated fuel/oxidizer flow to the engine as it was failing,...
Or maybe one could simply read the SpaceX statement to figure that out: "... an engine shutdown command was issued."

Quote
Hopefully, this was just a manufacturing flaw unique to that engine and it doesn't cause delays or a stand down.
Hopefully that isn't the source of the problem! A manufacturing flaw would suggest an issue with quality control which would be a VERY serious problem. I hope it's a fundamental design issue that only pops up in a real launch scenario. There's much less shame in having your engineering skills being slapped by the reality of physics.

Edits: minor grammar
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/10/2012 02:00 pm
SpaceX wasn't lucky. Those redundant systems didn't just appear by luck. It was engineered to work in case of engine failure and it did. It is launch vehicles WITHOUT engine-out capability that reach orbit which are lucky that this time wasn't the time when an engine would fail.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 10/10/2012 02:02 pm
Okay... having read the back and forth for three days now there seems to be this fixation of stage 2 fuel...

From this layman's perspective it has little or nothing to do with fuel.

If you blow a tire on your car on the ramp to the highway, do you merge with traffic or pull to the side and stop???

NASA put strict rules in place for the secondary payload due to the potential for risk to the ISS and her crew.

From my perspective, what I've read so far indicates that if this same incident had occured on a pure-play satellite launch mission it is very likely that all payloads could have been successfully deployed to usable orbits.  It was the potential risk to Space Station that restricted the secondary mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 02:08 pm
SpaceX wasn't lucky. Those redundant systems didn't just appear by luck. It was engineered to work in case of engine failure and it did.

So, let's say the engine gave up not 80 seconds but 10 seconds after liftoff and F9 US had to spend all of its propellant while still not managing to raise the perigee above the atmosphere.

Are you willing to claim that you know there was sufficient margin to complete the primary mission for any engine out condition? If not, then you have no basis for claiming they weren't "lucky" in that they were lucky the engine-out condition happened late enough to be covered by available propellant reserve.

The thing to keep in mind is the actual underperformance cost around 15 seconds of 2nd stage burn time. Orbcomm most likely needed no more than 2 seconds burn time given the huge T/W ratio of an almost empty upper stage. Call it 3 seconds for additional margin. It obviously didn't have those 3 extra seconds, otherwise Orbcomm burn wouldn't have been inhibited. Are you saying an engine out earlier than 80 sec would have been covered by those 3 secs?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 10/10/2012 02:21 pm
Are you willing to claim that you know there was sufficient margin to complete the primary mission for any engine out condition?
SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver. (at least primary cargo, as we see with CRS-1 launch) So, if you believe SpaceX, they would manage with engine-out at 10 second.

[Nice loaded question with numbers pulled out of nether regions]
Some people here claims that Orbcomm failure, while related to engine-out, was unrelated to amount of fuel in reserve left after whole RUD/EPR/blowout/implosion/explosion/whatever business.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: 2552 on 10/10/2012 02:24 pm
That's
Are you willing to claim that you know there was sufficient margin to complete the primary mission for any engine out condition?
SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver. (at least primary cargo, as we see with CRS-1 launch) So, if you believe SpaceX, they would manage with engine-out at 10 second.

That's likely meant for the F9 v1.1. It would probably explain the difference between the 16 ton LEO performance SpaceX submitted to NASA and the 13 ton performance SpaceX list on their website.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/10/2012 02:27 pm
Are you willing to claim that you know there was sufficient margin to complete the primary mission for any engine out condition?
SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver. (at least primary cargo, as we see with CRS-1 launch) So, if you believe SpaceX, they would manage with engine-out at 10 second.
A source for this would be useful, thanks!  :) I couldn't remember what info SpaceX had given out about the exact engine-out tolerances on Falcon 9, so if you have a link I would be interested to find out more.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 02:31 pm
SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver. (at least primary cargo, as we see with CRS-1 launch) So, if you believe SpaceX, they would manage with engine-out at 10 second.

They also claim it can boost 10 tons to LEO. Which it obviously can't. They have a tendency to "forget" mentioning details like "BTW, that's for the Block 2/v1.1 upgrade, not the currently flying vehicle", but hey, if you believe all their PR, feel free to believe F9 has engine out capability that early.

[Nice loaded question with numbers pulled out of nether regions]
Some people here claims that Orbcomm failure, while related to engine-out, was unrelated to amount of fuel in reserve left after whole RUD/EPR/blowout/implosion/explosion/whatever business.

What you call numbers pulled out of nether regions, I call reasonable inferences from available data. If you have better information, other than dismissing this as clearly irrelevant, feel free to share it with us.

Which people claim it had nothing to do with fuel in reserve? L2 says otherwise and I trust L2 more than "some people".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: R.Simko on 10/10/2012 02:31 pm
A few thoughts on this mission.

1.  The engine failure on the F9 first stage has highlighted the risks that companies take when they sign up as a secondary payload.  But it has also shown SpaceX's ability to still deploy a secondary payload in spite of this engine failure, although, not in the preferred orbit.

2.  Companies know that they run a higher risk by being a secondary payload, but they also get a better price.  Secondary payloads are good for companies like SpaceX, because it increases revenue.  So what can be done to make this a win-win for both the company that puts a secondary payload on a F9 and for SpaceX also?

3.  My thought is, would it be financially smart to increase the fuel capacity and fuel load of the secondary satellite, so that if it gets dropped off in too low an orbit, it can then raise itself to a functional orbit, thereby saving itself and the secondary mission?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 10/10/2012 02:41 pm
A few thoughts on this mission.

1.  The engine failure on the F9 first stage has highlighted the risks that companies take when they sign up as a secondary payload.  But it has also shown SpaceX's ability to still deploy a secondary payload in spite of this engine failure, although, not in the preferred orbit.

2.  Companies know that they run a higher risk by being a secondary payload, but they also get a better price.  Secondary payloads are good for companies like SpaceX, because it increases revenue.  So what can be done to make this a win-win for both the company that puts a secondary payload on a F9 and for SpaceX also?

3.  My thought is, would it be financially smart to increase the fuel capacity and fuel load of the secondary satellite, so that if it gets dropped off in too low an orbit, it can then raise itself to a functional orbit, thereby saving itself and the secondary mission?

Number 3 would not work on a CRS mission.  NASA would most likely not allow the satellite to cross the ISS orbit due to potential threat of collision with ISS should the boost fail, which is the primary reasoning on disallowing the stage 2 burn after the stage one engine-out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/10/2012 02:43 pm
Imagine that your next United or Southwest flight to Chicago was forced to land in Milwaukee or Rockford or Cleveland instead, but the airline refused to refund your ticket, calling the flight a "success" because the airplane didn't crash.   

What if they get me to where I want to go, but they send my luggage somewhere else for a week?


I think you just summed up this launch to the T. +1

The luggage was placed in the wrong orbit.

There have been launches where the hitchhikers have failed to separate in the past, wasn't there one recently where two of the little blood suckers managed to get attached to each other?

The last time an Atlas dumped a pair of NOSS's in the wrong orbit Ed counted it as a failure. We had pages of and pages of debate on if it was a failure. Even though the Customer and ULA spin it as a success, Ed will not budge.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/10/2012 02:46 pm
A few thoughts on this mission.

1.  The engine failure on the F9 first stage has highlighted the risks that companies take when they sign up as a secondary payload.  But it has also shown SpaceX's ability to still deploy a secondary payload in spite of this engine failure, although, not in the preferred orbit.

2.  Companies know that they run a higher risk by being a secondary payload, but they also get a better price.  Secondary payloads are good for companies like SpaceX, because it increases revenue.  So what can be done to make this a win-win for both the company that puts a secondary payload on a F9 and for SpaceX also?

3.  My thought is, would it be financially smart to increase the fuel capacity and fuel load of the secondary satellite, so that if it gets dropped off in too low an orbit, it can then raise itself to a functional orbit, thereby saving itself and the secondary mission?

I sort of wonder. Maybe SpaceX shouldn't have secondary payloads until the Falcon 9 version 1.1 is ready.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 02:50 pm
Maybe SpaceX shouldn't have secondary payloads until the Falcon 9 version 1.1 is ready.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Put yourself in their position. They were reasonable to expect no engine failures on the way up as 30 or so engines already flew successfully and the engines themselves were test-fired at least 4 times. With that reasonable assumption their propellant allocation would ensure mission success.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/10/2012 02:50 pm
What if they get me to where I want to go, but they send my luggage somewhere else for a week?
I think you just summed up this launch to the T. +1
The luggage was placed in the wrong orbit.
Bad analogy. The luggage belonged to somebody else.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/10/2012 02:51 pm
Out of curiosity, had Dragon not been able to get to ISS after the engine failure on the Falcon 9, would Dragon have come back safely to Earth?

I am assuming that it would have. But I am not an engineer, so I prefer to ask then to assume that it would.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/10/2012 02:53 pm
Maybe SpaceX shouldn't have secondary payloads until the Falcon 9 version 1.1 is ready.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Put yourself in their position. They were reasonable to expect no engine failures on the way up as 30 or so engines already flew successfully and the engines themselves were test-fired at least 4 times. With that reasonable assumption their propellant allocation and reserve ensured mission success.

Yes, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that it was a bad decision for CRS-1. I am just saying that perhaps the CRS-2 flight should avoid having a secondary payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: R.Simko on 10/10/2012 02:54 pm
A few thoughts on this mission.

1.  The engine failure on the F9 first stage has highlighted the risks that companies take when they sign up as a secondary payload.  But it has also shown SpaceX's ability to still deploy a secondary payload in spite of this engine failure, although, not in the preferred orbit.

2.  Companies know that they run a higher risk by being a secondary payload, but they also get a better price.  Secondary payloads are good for companies like SpaceX, because it increases revenue.  So what can be done to make this a win-win for both the company that puts a secondary payload on a F9 and for SpaceX also?

3.  My thought is, would it be financially smart to increase the fuel capacity and fuel load of the secondary satellite, so that if it gets dropped off in too low an orbit, it can then raise itself to a functional orbit, thereby saving itself and the secondary mission?

Number 3 would not work on a CRS mission.  NASA would most likely not allow the satellite to cross the ISS orbit due to potential threat of collision with ISS should the boost fail, which is the primary reasoning on disallowing the stage 2 burn after the stage one engine-out.

Thanks for the response.  I was afraid the response would be something like that.  Do you or anyone else have any other thoughts how how a mission like this could be saved in the future?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 02:55 pm
Out of curiosity, had Falcon 9 not been able to get to ISS after the engine failure, would Dragon have come back safely to Earth?

Falcon 9 doesn't/didn't go to ISS. If Dragon achieved a minimal orbit, there was a contingency recovery zone near California after nearly one orbit that would allow recovery, probably also in case of failed solar deploy.

If it didn't manage to get into any kind of orbit, I'm not sure what the options were. Probably would drop somewhere near Europe in the Atlantic.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 02:58 pm
I am just saying that perhaps the CRS-2 flight should avoid having a secondary payload.

In light of the facts now, I would agree, but with an additional qualification that it should avoid carrying payloads that require any additional burns. Secondaries can mean things like sats dropped off from Dragon's trunk, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/10/2012 02:59 pm
Out of curiosity, had Falcon 9 [Edit: Dragon] not been able to get to ISS after the engine failure, would Dragon have come back safely to Earth?

Falcon 9 doesn't/didn't go to ISS. If Dragon achieved a minimal orbit, there was a contingency recovery zone near California after nearly one orbit that would allow recovery, probably also in case of failed solar deploy.

If it didn't manage to get into any kind of orbit, I'm not sure what the options were. Probably would drop somewhere near Europe in the Atlantic.

Yes, I obviously meant "if Dragon (not Falcon 9) could not get to the ISS". I had edited my post shortly after I wrote it but obviously not quickly enough. But thanks for your post. It answers my question.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Proponent on 10/10/2012 03:01 pm
Imagine that your next United or Southwest flight to Chicago was forced to land in Milwaukee or Rockford or Cleveland instead, but the airline refused to refund your ticket, calling the flight a "success" because the airplane didn't crash.   

What if they get me to where I want to go, but they send my luggage somewhere else for a week?


I think you just summed up this launch to the T. +1

The luggage was placed in the wrong orbit....

Look at the bright side: this is a sign that SpaceX is beginning to develop airline-like operations. :)  And if you think going to the wrong airport and declaring the flight a success or not delivering your luggage within a week, etc., isn't consistent with airline-like operations, I have but one word for you: RyanAir.  If that doesn't mean anything to you, consider yourself lucky.  (RyanAir, for example, has been known to disclose only in the fine print that it was flying to an airport that wasn't actually in the same country as the advertised destination city.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/10/2012 03:02 pm
So, let's say the engine gave up not 80 seconds but 10 seconds after liftoff and ... [blah, blah] ...

We're discussing CRS Spx-1 here, not some hypothetical mission. We could all invent scenarios where the F9 would have struggled to survive. The actual event that occurred was obviously not one of those scenarios.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/10/2012 03:04 pm
The labeling of the mission is really silly, since everyone knows the facts:  The primary was successful, the secondary was not.

What's important is what happened technically:

An engine failed.  This is the biggest thing here.  If it failed w/o an external cause, this is major issue, especially since they are so extensively tested.

The rocket excelled.  Overcame a failed engine, delivered the primary. IIUC, the secondary's failure was due to mission rules, not something that's inherent to the rocket.

That's all there is to it, really.  Now the focus should be looking for the root cause of the engine failure - and I don't think there's a post related to that in the last 20 pages of comments....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/10/2012 03:07 pm
For everyone debating "success or failure"

It's a subjective question.  Everyone will have a different definition.  The only ones that really matter are the customers.  As far as NASA is concerned it's a success.  I've not really read anything from Orbcomm, but I have a strong suspicion that they would say failure.

Debating personal positions on success or failure is pointless.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 10/10/2012 03:13 pm
SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver. (at least primary cargo, as we see with CRS-1 launch) So, if you believe SpaceX, they would manage with engine-out at 10 second.
A source for this would be useful, thanks!  :)
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

Quote
This vehicle will be capable of sustaining an engine failure at any point in flight and still successfully completing its mission.

Note that some people believe SpaceX is outright lying in their publicly avaliable materials. ::) (lie by omission is still lie)

L2 says otherwise and I trust L2 more than "some people".
Hey, I am in no position to command you whom you should believe.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FuseUpHereAlone on 10/10/2012 03:18 pm
A few thoughts on this mission.

1.  The engine failure on the F9 first stage has highlighted the risks that companies take when they sign up as a secondary payload.  But it has also shown SpaceX's ability to still deploy a secondary payload in spite of this engine failure, although, not in the preferred orbit.

2.  Companies know that they run a higher risk by being a secondary payload, but they also get a better price.  Secondary payloads are good for companies like SpaceX, because it increases revenue.  So what can be done to make this a win-win for both the company that puts a secondary payload on a F9 and for SpaceX also?

3.  My thought is, would it be financially smart to increase the fuel capacity and fuel load of the secondary satellite, so that if it gets dropped off in too low an orbit, it can then raise itself to a functional orbit, thereby saving itself and the secondary mission?

1.  That depends on the extent that the payload can function in an orbit it wasn't designed for.  In many instances, a satellite placed in a useless orbit is about as functional as a satellite that blew up on the launch pad (except now you have to track a rather large piece of space debris).

2.  Well now secondary payloads are going to get a bit more expensive since their insurance premiums are now going to go up…and to answer your question: Make sure the launch vehicle works as planned.

3.  Sure you could, but that would come at the expense of other things that take up payload mass, such as transponders, antennas, solar panels, batteries, momentum wheels, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: bob the martian on 10/10/2012 03:29 pm
An engine failed.  This is the biggest thing here.  If it failed w/o an external cause, this is major issue, especially since they are so extensively tested.

If it's a design flaw, it must be pretty subtle, since they've flown 30-some-odd 1Cs without incident (well, without an engine shredding itself, anyway).  IANARE, but I'd place money on a manufacturing defect that wasn't caught on the test stand.  Or, who knows, it could have been a confluence of a dozen little things that by themselves are no big deal, unless they all happen at the same time.  I can imagine there have been some pretty long and intense meetings in Hawthorne and McGregor over the last few days. 

Not expecting a quick answer out of SpaceX; I imagine this will take several weeks of analysis to pin down. 

There's another impetus for moving forward with flyback stages (assuming flyback would be possible after such an event); imagine being able to examine the hardware after the fact. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/10/2012 03:35 pm
I've been thinking about it, and it sounds like the sort of thing that happens when you have a metallurgical defect (e.g. a streak of impurities in the metal blank that a component was machined from). Any materials engineers want to comment? I understand that these can be very difficult to directly test for...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DigitalMan on 10/10/2012 03:36 pm
I see this differently than most of folks here:

You have a rocket with a total performance of 10X lets say:

- you require 8X to get a primary payload to its orbit
- you claim reliability and mitigation in case of failure, therefore you have the obligation to have lets say 2X in order to handle the worst case mitigation in order to fulfil primary

in this case, the 2X margin is a write-off if mitigations were not needed.  In my opinion, if you aren't selling your write-off margin for a secondary (or tertiary) you need a new sales team.  The question here is was this the scenario Orbcomm understood or did they expect the scenario below?

Variations on that are where you have enough dedicated performance for a secondary and separate secondary margin (write-off margin #2) for ensuring the secondary payload delivery.  Now you potentially have 2 write-off margins to sell.

There are enough gamblers on this planet eager to pay some measured amount for one of those write off margins.

It also is clear the F9v1.0 doesn't have the performance it needs.  But it is also clear it was not intended to be the production version, that's where the v1.1 comes in.  Perhaps that will have enough performance to handle both scenarios here.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/10/2012 03:37 pm
2. The secondary mission failed. As a result of the loss of engine one the second stage was unable to execute a restart and the Orbcomm payload will likely not be usable to Orbcomm.

"unable to execute" is a bit strong. "chose not to execute" is the way I understood it. Of course, it made that choice because it figured out that it was not in a position to complete its mission.

NASA put strict rules in place for the secondary payload due to the potential for risk to the ISS and her crew.

SpaceX were "unable to execute" the orbit-raising burn for Orbcomm under the conditions quite rightly specified by NASA (primary customer), IE guaranteeing the safety of ISS. SpaceX accepted the payload understanding what would happen if there was a launcher under-performance. Orbcomm/Orbital (TBH, not sure which) paid for the launch knowing the conditions (I must presume), and they are also far from amateurs at this.

Neither SpaceX nor Orbcomm/Orbital had to put the secondary onto this flight, though Orbcomm may have been under schedule pressure to do so (speculation).

NASA specified requirements for the second burn, effectively anticipating that there might be an under-performance. ISTM this is all business-as-usual, and I imply no criticism by any of the above.

The secondary was a calculated risk on the fourth launch of this launcher (and hopefully priced as such to the customer).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 03:50 pm
So, let's say the engine gave up not 80 seconds but 10 seconds after liftoff and ... [blah, blah] ...

We're discussing CRS Spx-1 here, not some hypothetical mission.

If you bother to go back in the post history, it's obvious we were discussing whether they were lucky this flight had enough performance to reach orbit. There are those who simply maintain luck had nothing to do with it. I maintain otherwise. I'm not attacking the reasoning that it's sound engineering that an engine failure didn't lead to a LOV event, I'm attacking the notion that the timing of the failure was not a factor in determining the outcome of the primary mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/10/2012 03:51 pm
I've been thinking about it, and it sounds like the sort of thing that happens when you have a metallurgical defect (e.g. a streak of impurities in the metal blank that a component was machined from). Any materials engineers want to comment? I understand that these can be very difficult to directly test for...

While something like this is certainly possible, I think it's more likely to be a manufacturing defect like a poor weld.  I doubt we will ever find out.  To really know the first stage would need to be recovered.  Was recovery of the stage part of the plan? 

I really doubt that there is any kind of disclosure requirement either.  SpaceX may just give a press release stating that they took some corrective measures. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 04:00 pm


3.  My thought is, would it be financially smart to increase the fuel capacity and fuel load of the secondary satellite, so that if it gets dropped off in too low an orbit, it can then raise itself to a functional orbit, thereby saving itself and the secondary mission?

then it would be too heavy to be added to a mission
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 04:01 pm
SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver. (at least primary cargo, as we see with CRS-1 launch) So, if you believe SpaceX, they would manage with engine-out at 10 second.
A source for this would be useful, thanks!  :)
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

Quote
This vehicle will be capable of sustaining an engine failure at any point in flight and still successfully completing its mission.

Note that some people believe SpaceX is outright lying in their publicly avaliable materials. ::) (lie by omission is still lie)

Some people realize the fact that just about the only numerical value that has any relation to the current F9 v1.0 on that page is the vehicle diameter.

BTW, you missed the part about "will be capable" when picking which sections to bold.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 04:01 pm

SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver.

It can't during any part of second stage flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/10/2012 04:03 pm
While something like this is certainly possible, I think it's more likely to be a manufacturing defect like a poor weld.  I doubt we will ever find out.  To really know the first stage would need to be recovered.  Was recovery of the stage part of the plan? 

Well, that depends, if SpaceX is like old space and has close-out X-Rays, Photo's, and Ultra Sounds it might show up in them. It did with the Delta III RL-10 chamber breach.

Otherwise, who is up for a diving trip?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/10/2012 04:08 pm

SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver.

It can't during any part of second stage flight.

Yes, obviously they are talking about the core stage burn.  I love that idea of a 'reasonable man interpretation'.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/10/2012 04:11 pm
3.  My thought is, would it be financially smart to increase the fuel capacity and fuel load of the secondary satellite, so that if it gets dropped off in too low an orbit, it can then raise itself to a functional orbit, thereby saving itself and the secondary mission?

I suspect if the secondary had been much heavier, then it might have reduced the margins on the flight so that primary insertion would have failed to reach it's target, too.

cheers, Martin

Edit: I see Jim said as much above.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 04:21 pm

SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver.

It can't during any part of second stage flight.

Yes, obviously they are talking about the core stage burn.  I love that idea of a 'reasonable man interpretation'.

Not applicable to the general public or many on this site.  Also, not including the time from launch (10, 20 or 30 seconds or so) to the engine out capability is viable, the amount time of the ascent that is engine out capability is usable is less than 33%.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: garidan on 10/10/2012 04:58 pm
I don't stand nor understand this way of arguing.
What does it mean "I suspect ...." with no number to support this ?
What does this add ?  ???

If Spacex adfirm something and someone says "I don't believe" without saying why, discussions stops here.

It's not mandatory to write everything one has in his mind or heart ....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/10/2012 05:00 pm

This is exactly what we're asking.

The only data the stage needs is  A: "Did I successfully deliver Dragon", and B: "can I execute burn 2 plan-A".

If the answers are YES and NO, then the stage can execute the fallback burn 2 plan-B, which is raise the perigee.   Raising the perigee to a circular orbit is a well defined maneuver and is something the GNC should be able to do - I don't see the problem with unknown initial conditions. 


Again, LV's only have one trajectory.  It follows one path and stops either when it completes all the correct delta V's or fails.  It does not go on if it fails.  There are no branches.

No, raising the perigee to a circular orbit is not a well defined maneuver, if you don't know where you are going to start from.  LV's don't move on to the next maneuver unless the first one is complete and successful.  Otherwise, there are too many variations to analyze.

Edited and edited again.
 


Jim,
thanks for being a little more patient than usual and thoroughly explaining this.  I get what you're saying and now understand exactly why the Orbcomm mission had to proceed the way it did, once the first-stage engine failed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/10/2012 05:09 pm
SpaceX wasn't lucky. Those redundant systems didn't just appear by luck. It was engineered to work in case of engine failure and it did.

So, let's say the engine gave up not 80 seconds but 10 seconds after liftoff and F9 US had to spend all of its propellant while still not managing to raise the perigee above the atmosphere.



If you're saying the SpaceX was lucky because if the failure had happened differently, their margins might now have worked, then you are saying that *any* mission, by SpaceX or anyone else, is due to luck.  Because you can always come up with a scenario where if something had gone wrong in a way that it didn't in real life, the mission would have failed.  That's a useless definition of luck.

SpaceX would have been lucky if something they didn't foresee prevented the problem from being as bad as it could have been.  There is no evidence of that.  Its still too early to say for sure, but from here it looks like what happened was that planned safety measures worked in the way they were planned to work.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/10/2012 05:25 pm
It is perfectly ok for SpaceX to say that they a certain performance based on Falcon 1.1 and Merlin 1D.

Any talk about engine-out capability assumes at least a 1D, since that's what they are selling to customers right now.  And when Elon discusses performance numbers for booster flyback, he's probably not even using the 1D, but whatever they have on the drawing boards for it.

I am sure the 1.0 and the 1C are being viewed internally as an interim versions.



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/10/2012 05:38 pm

SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver.

It can't during any part of second stage flight.

Yes, obviously they are talking about the core stage burn.  I love that idea of a 'reasonable man interpretation'.

Not applicable to the general public or many on this site.  Also, not including the time from launch (10, 20 or 30 seconds or so) to the engine out capability is viable, the amount time of the ascent that is engine out capability is usable is less than 33%.

Is this also true for version 1.1?

Also, would Max Q be the time that you need engine out the most (in the sense that the engine is mostly likely to fail at that time because of the stress)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/10/2012 05:45 pm
Is that the freezer in the middle of Dragon?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/10/2012 05:48 pm
Is that the freezer in the middle of Dragon?

AIUI, powered cargo is located near the side hatch, to make late-load easier.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 10/10/2012 05:51 pm
missed the part about "will be capable" when picking which sections to bold.
It can't during any part of second stage flight.
Oooh, good points. They could word it better. A lot.

Some people realize the fact that just about the only numerical value that has any relation to the current F9 v1.0 on that page is the vehicle diameter.
If that is so, then SpaceX should write clearly that their marketing spiel here is for F9 v1.1.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: StephenB on 10/10/2012 05:56 pm
If that is so, then SpaceX should write clearly that their marketing spiel here is for F9 v1.1.
If you were really in the market for a Falcon, you'd know. F9 V1.1 is what's for sale now, not V1.0.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 05:57 pm
If that is so, then SpaceX should write clearly that their marketing spiel here is for F9 v1.1.

It would be better if that was so, however since the only version they ever meant to "sell" is the old Block 2 and now v1.1, laying out specs for the initial, interim vehicle didn't make much sense.

The problem, however, is people reading those specs and assuming they're valid for v1.0 and SpaceX PR saying nothing to correct that notion. Why would they, saying nothing allows the general impression that the current vehicle is better than it is, a PR win for them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/10/2012 06:14 pm

SpaceX claims F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch and still deliver.

It can't during any part of second stage flight.

Yes, obviously they are talking about the core stage burn.  I love that idea of a 'reasonable man interpretation'.

Not applicable to the general public or many on this site.  Also, not including the time from launch (10, 20 or 30 seconds or so) to the engine out capability is viable, the amount time of the ascent that is engine out capability is usable is less than 33%.

The F9 Payload User's guide states:
Importantly, by employing nine first stage engines, SpaceX debuts the world’s first Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)‐class launch vehicle with engine‐out capability through much of first stage flight. 

That seems like a reasonable statement to me. Where did it say that "F9 is capable of single engine-out at any stage of launch"? If they did say that once, it appears to be no longer a current PR statement.

Also, on the F9 webpage (http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php), the only reference to engine-out capability is this:

Quote
NASA CITED SPACEX'S SIGNIFICANT STRENGTHS AS FOLLOWS:
> First stage engine-out capability
> ...

EDIT: I found the offending quote on the F9 webpage:
Falcon 9 has nine Merlin engines clustered together. This vehicle will be capable of sustaining an engine failure at any point in flight and still successfully completing its mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kniklas on 10/10/2012 06:26 pm

That's all there is to it, really.  Now the focus should be looking for the root cause of the engine failure - and I don't think there's a post related to that in the last 20 pages of comments....

Indeed! I posted my question about possible root cause more than 20 pages ago:

(..)
If I remember correctly previous F9 launch attempt had problem with pressure drop caused by faulty check valve (?). Launch was aborted. I'm not sure if recent and previous pressure drop events in engine chamber share the same root cause.

I was wondering shouldn't we start separate thread on possible root cause. As starting point it would be good to collect posts which explained the anomaly (I'm afraid they may be lost in heaps of other posts).

Regards,
Kamil
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/10/2012 06:32 pm

I was wondering shouldn't we start separate thread on possible root cause. As starting point it would be good to collect posts which explained the anomaly (I'm afraid they may be lost in heaps of other posts).

Regards,
Kamil

I was thinking the same thing, so go ahead...   

Should cover the scope of the engine anomaly - root cause and progression of failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/10/2012 06:47 pm
iss can go as low as 330km, right now orbcomm apogee is at 320km, you make a circle there, it's kinda pretty close.

Not that it matters, but the ISS will never be kept that low again, now that the Shuttle is retired.  It probably won't go below 400 km, at least until the next Sun cycle minimum, IIRC.

Edit: Jim has a point (again!) about not knowing where the circularizing burn would start, and the rocket not being able to calculate a burn on the fly.  It seems possible to have a conditional branch IF there is insufficient fuel to do the planned maneuvers, and IF there is enough for cirularizing and deorbiting and IF the orbit parameters are as planned, but that's a low probability corner case anyways, even if SpaceX hit it.

just because ISS don't go that low anymore doesn't mean policy have changed. nor they like satellite drifting around below ISS.  ISS and orbcomm share the same inclination(?), orbit that close when they are in sync, that satellite will block route to ISS for awhile?

orbcomm is 6.5M + launch(maybe 2~3M)? if it couldn't get to orbit, it's better let it die.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kniklas on 10/10/2012 07:01 pm

I was wondering shouldn't we start separate thread on possible root cause. As starting point it would be good to collect posts which explained the anomaly (I'm afraid they may be lost in heaps of other posts).

Regards,
Kamil

I was thinking the same thing, so go ahead...   

Should cover the scope of the engine anomaly - root cause and progression of failure.

New topic posted here on possible root causes:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30069.0
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Moe Grills on 10/10/2012 07:11 pm
Downix, on another section/thread, posted the most informative and poignant editorial to what has occurred with this launch.

SpaceX has not been around as long as say Boeing, Lockheed, OSC,
but as a newer company they have show that they have learned and are learning important lessons that will pay and are paying proverbial dividends
now and in the future.
  Imagine if Falcon 9 had only ONE first-stage engine.
Engine shutdowns are hardly new to the business of rocketry.
Cavitation, sensor-activated shutdowns, etc., have been experienced
in the business for?...decades.
   I'm still thinking of that scene in Apollo 13. You know the one i'm thinking of.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: system9 on 10/10/2012 07:31 pm
I've been thinking about it, and it sounds like the sort of thing that happens when you have a metallurgical defect (e.g. a streak of impurities in the metal blank that a component was machined from). Any materials engineers want to comment? I understand that these can be very difficult to directly test for...

It's my understanding that SpaceX is using an old Pratt & Whitney Heat Treating Furnace Cisco 80-85. It might be time for them to upgrade. Inconsistent heat treating would cause a failure of this nature.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 07:31 pm
  Imagine if Falcon 9 had only ONE first-stage engine.


Atlas V and Delta IV are doing fine with 1 first stage engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: R.Simko on 10/10/2012 07:32 pm


3.  My thought is, would it be financially smart to increase the fuel capacity and fuel load of the secondary satellite, so that if it gets dropped off in too low an orbit, it can then raise itself to a functional orbit, thereby saving itself and the secondary mission?

then it would be too heavy to be added to a mission

Thanks Jim and MP99 for answering my question.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: system9 on 10/10/2012 07:32 pm
I've been thinking about it, and it sounds like the sort of thing that happens when you have a metallurgical defect (e.g. a streak of impurities in the metal blank that a component was machined from). Any materials engineers want to comment? I understand that these can be very difficult to directly test for...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/10/2012 07:49 pm
I've been thinking about it, and it sounds like the sort of thing that happens when you have a metallurgical defect (e.g. a streak of impurities in the metal blank that a component was machined from). Any materials engineers want to comment? I understand that these can be very difficult to directly test for...

It's my understanding that SpaceX is using an old Pratt & Whitney Heat Treating Furnace Cisco 80-85. It might be time for them to upgrade. Inconsistent heat treating would cause a failure of this nature.

Perhaps this should be taken to the new thread on root cause...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/10/2012 08:02 pm
  Imagine if Falcon 9 had only ONE first-stage engine.


Atlas V and Delta IV are doing fine with 1 first stage engine.
SpaceX has flown 39 Merlin 1C engines, one has had a serious problem. Atlas v has flown only 33 rd180s. There's no a statistical basis for saying the rd180 is more reliable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 08:07 pm
SpaceX has flown 39 Merlin 1C engines, one has had a serious problem. Atlas v has flown only 33 rd180s. There's no a statistical basis for saying the rd180 is more reliable.

Actually there is, Atlas III flew 6 additional RD-180s.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/10/2012 08:08 pm
  Imagine if Falcon 9 had only ONE first-stage engine.


Atlas V and Delta IV are doing fine with 1 first stage engine.

Delta IV uses RS-68, it's about 20M a piece now. second stage use completely different engine, so it's not going to be cheaper for 2. No way you can offer 54M launch package using  highly reliable well designed brand name engine.

oh wait, maybe you can use russian's engine like Atlas V, but it isn't cheap neither.

9+1 is a good plan for limited time and budget.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/10/2012 08:13 pm
  Imagine if Falcon 9 had only ONE first-stage engine.


Atlas V and Delta IV are doing fine with 1 first stage engine.

Delta IV uses RS-68, it's about 20M a piece now. second stage use completely different engine, so it's not going to be cheaper for 2. No way you can offer 54M launch package using  highly reliable well designed brand name engine.

oh wait, maybe you can use russian's engine like Atlas V, but it isn't cheap neither.

9+1 is a good plan for limited time and budget.

We aren't talking cost.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/10/2012 08:14 pm
SpaceX has flown 39 Merlin 1C engines, one has had a serious problem. Atlas v has flown only 33 rd180s. There's no a statistical basis for saying the rd180 is more reliable.

Actually there is, Atlas III flew 6 additional RD-180s.
Still not statistically significant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/10/2012 08:18 pm
The fact is RD-180 demonstrated reliability is higher than M1C. Not bad for a ruskie engine that's operating on the verge of disaster, a ticking time bomb, etc. etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/10/2012 08:21 pm
The fact is RD-180 demonstrated reliability is higher than M1C. Not bad for a ruskie engine that's operating on the verge of disaster, a ticking time bomb, etc. etc.
I'm pretty certain it's not statistically significant. And pretty immaterial, given that the M1C is already obsolete.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/10/2012 08:25 pm
The fact is RD-180 demonstrated reliability is higher than M1C. Not bad for a ruskie engine that's operating on the verge of disaster, a ticking time bomb, etc. etc.
Statistical significance matters in this discussion, and you are ignoring it. It is thus not a fact that Merlin 1C is less reliable. If another fails on the next flight (and no rd180s fail), then we have enough statistical significance to make that claim.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/10/2012 08:29 pm
  Imagine if Falcon 9 had only ONE first-stage engine.


Atlas V and Delta IV are doing fine with 1 first stage engine.
SpaceX has flown 39 Merlin 1C engines, one has had a serious problem. Atlas v has flown only 33 rd180s. There's no a statistical basis for saying the rd180 is more reliable.

What you can say is that both engines have not flown very often, so it is not possible to say whether they are reliable or not. The thing is that spacex is gathering data at a very fast pace, so by the time they do their first manned flights they will have a large database of engine data, provided they settle on one design and don't change everything completely every 5 launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/10/2012 08:33 pm
  Imagine if Falcon 9 had only ONE first-stage engine.


Atlas V and Delta IV are doing fine with 1 first stage engine.

Delta IV uses RS-68, it's about 20M a piece now. second stage use completely different engine, so it's not going to be cheaper for 2. No way you can offer 54M launch package using  highly reliable well designed brand name engine.

oh wait, maybe you can use russian's engine like Atlas V, but it isn't cheap neither.

9+1 is a good plan for limited time and budget.

We aren't talking cost.

I guess that's my point. being expensive is not doing fine at all, you just not talk about it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/10/2012 09:14 pm
SpaceX has flown 39 Merlin 1C engines, one has had a serious problem. Atlas v has flown only 33 rd180s. There's no a statistical basis for saying the rd180 is more reliable.

Actually there is, Atlas III flew 6 additional RD-180s.
Still not statistically significant.

look at their families.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 10/10/2012 09:49 pm
The fact is RD-180 demonstrated reliability is higher than M1C. Not bad for a ruskie engine that's operating on the verge of disaster, a ticking time bomb, etc. etc.
Statistical significance matters in this discussion, and you are ignoring it. It is thus not a fact that Merlin 1C is less reliable. If another fails on the next flight (and no rd180s fail), then we have enough statistical significance to make that claim.

"A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/10/2012 10:11 pm
All sensor and telemetry data aside, it would be interesting if they could salvage the engines and have a look at what occurred directly…
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/10/2012 10:39 pm
SpaceX has flown 39 Merlin 1C engines, one has had a serious problem. Atlas v has flown only 33 rd180s. There's no a statistical basis for saying the rd180 is more reliable.

Actually there is, Atlas III flew 6 additional RD-180s.
Still not statistically significant.

look at their families.
That would give an unrealistic low reliability to the rd180, given several zenit failures from the rd171 (I expect western procedures to have improved on the reliability of the rd171). If we followed your suggestion, though, the merlin1c and rd180 are still pretty reasonably equivalent, to the limits of statistical uncertainty.

My point is that until another failure occurs for Merlin 1c, it is very difficult to get a statistically significant contrast between the two engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/10/2012 10:46 pm
The fact that this hapenned on the 4th flight (and the first non-test flight) of Falcon 9 is also relevant. It's still very early in Falcon 9's history.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/10/2012 11:16 pm
This is not the first Merlin 1C anomaly, Though it was not as dramatic there was one other early shutdown of a Merlin 1C due to it going out of bounds. (An article about it was linked several pages back)

That needs to be remembered when doing the statistics.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/10/2012 11:45 pm
What if they get me to where I want to go, but they send my luggage somewhere else for a week?

I think you just summed up this launch to the T. +1
The luggage was placed in the wrong orbit.

Bad analogy. The luggage belonged to somebody else.

+1
If an airline gets me home on time but looses someone else's luggage, I still think of the flight as a total success.

The success or failure IS a matter of opinion.  Ed calls it a 100% failure. Jonathan calls it a 95% success.  If someone were to insure a scondary payload, they wouldn't rely on somone's calcualted percentage of successes and failures.  With the scant evidence at hand, they would see that on the fourth flight, after an engine failed, the second stage had a 95% probablility of having sufficient liquid Oxygen to execute an orbit raising burn and a disposal burn.  Without the stringent ISS safety criteria levied by NASA, this would be pretty close to a success.  IMO

If this were a commercial launch with a customer other than NASA, is there any way for NASA to apply similar criteria?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/10/2012 11:57 pm
SpaceX has flown 39 Merlin 1C engines, one has had a serious problem. Atlas v has flown only 33 rd180s. There's no a statistical basis for saying the rd180 is more reliable.

Actually there is, Atlas III flew 6 additional RD-180s.
Still not statistically significant.

look at their families.
That would give an unrealistic low reliability to the rd180, given several zenit failures from the rd171 (I expect western procedures to have improved on the reliability of the rd171). If we followed your suggestion, though, the merlin1c and rd180 are still pretty reasonably equivalent, to the limits of statistical uncertainty.

My point is that until another failure occurs for Merlin 1c, it is very difficult to get a statistically significant contrast between the two engines.

rd-171/180 staged combustion engine are more complex, each of those generate lot more thrust than  single 1c, also at much higher isp. zenit 2/3 launched 51 times and only 2~3 failures directly caused by rd-171.

 on the other hand spacex's flight electronic seems doing much better job  taking care their engines than zenit or russian rockets. 1c generate lot less thrust, and gas generator cycle is more simple design.

Comparing rd-171/180 and merlin is like comparing apple and orange. Personal opinion, merlin is still very immature. 1c was rushed out in order to grab NASA's contracts.  i say, gas generator cycle 600kN class RP-1/LOX engine supposed to be lot more reliable than that.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 12:00 am

 on the other hand spacex's flight electronic seems doing much better job  taking care their engines than zenit or russian rockets.


It has nothing to do with electronics but an effect of the fuel-oxidizer ratio
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/11/2012 12:15 am
SpaceX has flown 39 Merlin 1C engines, one has had a serious problem. Atlas v has flown only 33 rd180s. There's no a statistical basis for saying the rd180 is more reliable.

Actually there is, Atlas III flew 6 additional RD-180s.
Still not statistically significant.

look at their families.
That would give an unrealistic low reliability to the rd180, given several zenit failures from the rd171 (I expect western procedures to have improved on the reliability of the rd171). If we followed your suggestion, though, the merlin1c and rd180 are still pretty reasonably equivalent, to the limits of statistical uncertainty.

My point is that until another failure occurs for Merlin 1c, it is very difficult to get a statistically significant contrast between the two engines.

rd-171/180 staged combustion engine are more complex, each of those generate lot more thrust than  single 1c, also at much higher isp. zenit 2/3 launched 51 times and only 2~3 failures directly caused by rd-171.

 on the other hand spacex's flight electronic seems doing much better job  taking care their engines than zenit or russian rockets. 1c generate lot less thrust, and gas generator cycle is more simple design.

Comparing rd-171/180 and merlin is like comparing apple and orange. Personal opinion, merlin is still very immature. 1c was rushed out in order to grab NASA's contracts.  i say, gas generator cycle 600kN class RP-1/LOX engine supposed to be lot more reliable than that.



In addition, there are negative arguments about American companies that are using Russian rockets, which can be considered an embarrassment to America and is hurting the domestic industry.  Because many would argue that SpaceX rockets are made in America, which is providing a needed domestic capability.

So in that light, which reflects political and domestic technology issues, the U.S. made SpaceX Merlins would be preferable to Russian rockets.  Irregardless of any slight statistical advantages in reliability.


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 12:25 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

No, SA-6 did it first.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch11.htm#329
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/11/2012 12:31 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

No, SA-6 did it first.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch11.htm#329

Did SA-6 have an RUD? That page implies the engine was shut off without anything breaking.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 12:34 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

No, SA-6 did it first.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch11.htm#329

Did SA-6 have an RUD? That page implies the engine was shut off without anything breaking.

According to Spacex, they didn't have a RUD.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jabe on 10/11/2012 12:48 am
any stuffed dragons sen at mission control this time?
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/11/2012 01:01 am
SpaceX:

Update on SpaceX CRS-1 Mission: October 10

The SpaceX CRS-1 mission reached a critical milestone today, October 10, with the Dragon spacecraft successfully attaching to the space station.

The mission, the first of at least 12 to the International Space Station under the company’s cargo resupply contract with NASA, began with a Sunday, October 7 launch from Cape Canaveral, FL. As a result of shutting down one of its nine engines early shortly after the launch, the Falcon 9 rocket used slightly more fuel and oxygen to reach the target orbit for Dragon. For the protection of the space station mission, NASA had required that a restart of the upper stage only occur if there was a very high probability (over 99%) of fully completing the second burn. While there was sufficient fuel on board to do so, the liquid oxygen on board was only enough to achieve a roughly 95% likelihood of completing the second burn, so Falcon 9 did not attempt a restart. Although the secondary payload, the Orbcomm satellite, was still deployed to orbit by Falcon 9, it was done so at the lower altitude used by Dragon in order to optimize the safety of the space station mission.

SpaceX and NASA are working closely together to review all flight data so that we can understand what happened with the engine, and we will apply those lessons to future flights. We have achieved our goal of repeatedly getting into orbit by creating a careful, methodical and pragmatic approach to the design, testing and launch of our space vehicles. We will approach our analysis in the same manner, with a careful examination of what went wrong and how to best address it.  Additional information will be provided as it is available.

###

This press release from SpaceX debunks a lot of the speculation and "educated" guesses on this thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/11/2012 01:20 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

No, SA-6 did it first.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch11.htm#329

Did SA-6 have an RUD? That page implies the engine was shut off without anything breaking.

According to Spacex, they didn't have a RUD.

That doesn't matter, we know they did. I'm asking you, did SA-6? Or any other launch vehicle that continued up to orbit?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/11/2012 01:26 am
According to Spacex, they didn't have a RUD.

That doesn't matter, we know they did. I'm asking you, did SA-6? Or any other launch vehicle that continued up to orbit?

I agree that a RUD looked likely based on the low-quality footage, but if SpaceX denies it - and they have the more data - what proof can you offer? How do you "know" it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 10/11/2012 01:46 am
Back to the question I wanted to ask anyone that may have any idea why SpaceX has not used this flight to advertise on the dragon.. look at  all the pics.. inside and out.. no Spacex..  look at the last fight.. again.. nice white sides and no sign .. I mean U cannot miss the CANADA on the arm..   Did Spacex marketing goof?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: e of pi on 10/11/2012 02:13 am
Back to the question I wanted to ask anyone that may have any idea why SpaceX has not used this flight to advertise on the dragon.. look at  all the pics.. inside and out.. no Spacex..  look at the last fight.. again.. nice white sides and no sign .. I mean U cannot miss the CANADA on the arm..   Did Spacex marketing goof?
There was a big "SpaceX" logo on the side of the booster, and on the nosecone (ejected during ascent). There were also Dragon logos on the solar panel fairings (ejected as part of panel deployment) and there's one on the outside of the GNC bay door (open during approach and grapple, and the logo is on the side of the door that's against the capsule). That's about three or four company-specific logos, all apparently carefully selected to not be visible during approach and grapple. A bit more than coincidence, I suspect, but I'm not sure if it's NASA-required or something SpaceX decided to do themselves.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/11/2012 02:39 am
"The mission, the first of at least 12 to the International Space Station under the company’s cargo resupply contract with NASA, began with a Sunday, October 7 launch from Cape Canaveral, FL. As a result of shutting down one of its nine engines early shortly after the launch, the Falcon 9 rocket used slightly more fuel and oxygen to reach the target orbit for Dragon. For the protection of the space station mission, NASA had required that a restart of the upper stage only occur if there was a very high probability (over 99%) of fully completing the second burn. While there was sufficient fuel on board to do so, the liquid oxygen on board was only enough to achieve a roughly 95% likelihood of completing the second burn, so Falcon 9 did not attempt a restart."

can someone explain the number for me?

1) If the "claim" F9 is built for an engine out, then the 2nd stage would have enough "margin".

2) Believe the number was 30secs of extra burn time of the 2nd stage.  So if correct enough margin should have been available for the 2nd burn no?

3) Only issue I can see is the pre-chill time before ignite where loss of Lox might take place.

Can someone clarify?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/11/2012 02:46 am
Prober, Propellants lost and increased gravity losses resulted in a first stage underperformance that the upper stage had to also make up for, so it did not have enough margin for the second burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/11/2012 03:00 am
According to Spacex, they didn't have a RUD.

That doesn't matter, we know they did. I'm asking you, did SA-6? Or any other launch vehicle that continued up to orbit?

I agree that a RUD looked likely based on the low-quality footage, but if SpaceX denies it - and they have the more data - what proof can you offer? How do you "know" it?

Can we chill on this?
SpaceX claims that their engine continued intact.  It did not "Disassemble".  We saw things flying off.  SpaceX claims they were designed to blow out in case of engine malfunction.  Parts of the booster fairings did "disassemble".  SpaceX never used the term RUD.  There is no reason to doubt their honesty.   There is also no expectation for them to make dramatic statements.

Someone with better knowledge of the Apollo program can probably say how much if any hardware was shed in the SA-6 engine failure.  Arguing over what fraction of the engine mass or part count must be shed before one chalks up a 1 in the RUD column is sillier than the argument over whether this flight counts as a success or failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/11/2012 03:05 am

 on the other hand spacex's flight electronic seems doing much better job  taking care their engines than zenit or russian rockets.


It has nothing to do with electronics but an effect of the fuel-oxidizer ratio

In space launch history, there were many accidents cause by bad sensors, wirings, computers. So far, that hasn't happen to falcon rocket yet(if i remember correctly). F9 Flight 3 had valve problem, sensors detected that and terminated launch sequence. If not, theye could be another midair explosion just like many other rocket accidents.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 10/11/2012 03:08 am
On the Missions thread, Jim indicated belief that the poster sent up in the Dragon was 'unprofessional'.  Guess it could be viewed in that light however SpaceX has a bit of a rep' for being shall we say, unconventional so I'd say it's probably not terribly unexpected and 'unprofessional' is a bit OTT.  They've demonstrated total professionalism in the technical and management aspects of the program.  A little leeway is not really asking too much, surely. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/11/2012 03:18 am
Wow, lots of posts while the rest of us were working, exercising and having dinner. Here's what I have to say.

If Falcon can make mission with 8 engines immediately after it leaves the pad, then it's leaving performance on the table when all 9 are running. Engine-out success is not black and white: it depends on when and how heavy the payload is. Please get this into your head. Let's start a Q&A-section discussion on it if you don't understand.

FSFN. if you've ever met Justin and understood how he's treated well-respected space journalists, you'll know why Chris, his other writers, and NSF is the place to be.

I don't agree with Jim on flight computers.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/11/2012 03:26 am
Re professionalism...they launched on the first attempt, proved their advertised engine-out capability (albeit in ugly fashion) and berthed with ISS ahead of schedule.

 Guess Jim's got to find *something* to gripe about.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rubicondsrv on 10/11/2012 03:34 am
Re professionalism...they launched on the first attempt, proved their advertised engine-out capability (albeit in ugly fashion) and berthed with ISS ahead of schedule.

 Guess Jim's got to find *something* to gripe about.  ;)

I think the engine failure is a good thing to gripe about,it shouldn't have happened, and needs to be fixed.

The poster is not a big deal unless it violates terms of their contract.



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/11/2012 03:35 am
stacking up these micro engines, we got lots and lots of engine out capability.  :D

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/11/2012 03:38 am
Believe the number was 30secs of extra burn time of the 2nd stage.  So if correct enough margin should have been available for the 2nd burn no?

I came up with 28 seconds extra for the first stage and 16 seconds extra for the second stage.  The second burn for a nominal Orbcomm insertion would have been a short one, since it would only have needed to provide 155-165 m/s or so delta-v.  SpaceX probably had to trade 2nd burn margin for Dragon margin in its mission design, to the benefit of Dragon, which meant that the extra 16 seconds just cut too close to meet NASA's ISS safety requirement.   

By the way, I'm thinking that this engine-out was historic.  SA-6 was, as best I can recall, the last time a first stage engine out occurred on a U.S. launcher and orbit was achieved.  (Apollo 13 and the Shuttle abort to orbit were not "first stage" shutdowns).  The SA-6 shutdown occurred at the T+116 second mark, causing the remaining engines to burn only about two seconds longer to compensate, with the S-IV stage also burning longer to reach a LEO that was lower, and therefore easier, to reach than the Dragon CRS-1 orbit. 

Falcon 9 No. 4, then, with its shutdown at T+79 sec, seems to have set the all time record for earliest engine shutdown while still making orbit.  This was a serious test, and Falcon 9 passed.

 - Ed Kyle 


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/11/2012 03:40 am
I don't agree with Jim on flight computers.

What specifically?. On the issue of whether branches are possible (or only a go or no-go response is possible)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: grythumn on 10/11/2012 03:47 am
On the Missions thread, Jim indicated belief that the poster sent up in the Dragon was 'unprofessional'.  Guess it could be viewed in that light however SpaceX has a bit of a rep' for being shall we say, unconventional so I'd say it's probably not terribly unexpected and 'unprofessional' is a bit OTT.  They've demonstrated total professionalism in the technical and management aspects of the program.  A little leeway is not really asking too much, surely. :)

Weren't there stories about engineers and Astronauts sneaking all sorts of things up into the Apollo capsules? Specifically, a ceramic tile with a reduced Warhol drawing in the mylar insulation, and several playboy pictures in the checklists and in a locker on Apollo 12?

-Bob
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/11/2012 03:50 am
ah.....I'm a little late to the conversation but, what poster?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/11/2012 03:51 am
ah.....I'm a little late to the conversation but, what poster?

A poster retrieved from inside Dragon! :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30059.0;attach=462654 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=30059.0;attach=462654)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/11/2012 03:54 am
What's wrong with that, engineers and staff who are proud of their work? People seem to have to try to complain about even the small stuff. This is nonsense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/11/2012 04:50 am
What's wrong with that, engineers and staff who are proud of their work? People seem to have to try to complain about even the small stuff. This is nonsense.
You'd think the NASA PAO cried for the humanity, or the astronauts released the dragon in protest.

You'd think SpaceX hid a stripper in the ice cream box.

Only one person, not in any official capacity, and in another thread, complained about it.   So it was hashed over there, transferred over here, and has now been discussed in some 20 (21) posts. 

What - we've already figured out the engine incident and aftermath?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/11/2012 05:08 am
That would be quite a short stripper!

Ed made a good point, though. This was the earliest engine-out that resulted in the payload reaching orbit. That's a pretty effective demonstration, and if SpaceX plays their cards right, could really lower their insurance costs for commercial sats.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/11/2012 05:08 am
I don't agree with Jim on flight computers.
What specifically?. On the issue of whether branches are possible (or only a go or no-go response is possible)?

I think an alternate burn could've been implemented that kept Orbcomm beneath ISS, even with the health check that occurred - and failed; though at some point the idealized brevity that GN&C analyzes collides with the reality of impulse (and error bands) that Propulsion provides.

In general, flight computers are limited by their available memory.  They can branch go/no-go logic within that space, until it's filled.  If-then-else logic is not hard to implement.  It's the human management behind it in the months and weeks before liftoff that ensures all possible outcomes will fit into the onboard logic.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/11/2012 05:13 am
This press release from SpaceX debunks a lot of the speculation and "educated" guesses on this thread.

Indeed! On my scale of 1 to 10 this press release gets an 8.* They are doing really well with their press releases, for which we fans -- and other followers -- should be grateful. There's really very little "kremlinology" required here!

----
(* In my apparently incomprehensible system that's 5 for completeness, one more for promptness, one more for 95/99% stats, one more for oxidizer low. No demerits!)

+1
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/11/2012 05:25 am
I've been going through all the posts for a couple of hours now as far as the engine out, there was some negative over reaction as well as some super fan over enthusiasm. The answer, of course, is somewhere in the middle. Clearly, the mission has stumbled but has completed it's primary goal at least so far. SpaceX and NASA will review the engine out and make the necessary changes. NASA seems happy with SpaceX's Dragon CRS-1 flight. SpaceX is winning ugly on this one.   
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: input~2 on 10/11/2012 06:19 am
The 6 in-orbit objects have now been identified as follows:

38846     DRAGON CRS-1     2012-054A     
38847     ORBCOMM OG2     2012-054B
38848     FALCON 9 R/B     2012-054C
38849     DRAGON CRS-1 DEB     2012-054D
38850     DRAGON CRS-1 DEB     2012-054E
38851     DRAGON CRS-1 DEB     2012-054F
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/11/2012 07:50 am
stacking up these micro engines, we got lots and lots of engine out capability.  :D
In *theory* the idea is excellent. T/W of a 1000:1

However you might like to check the conclusion of the report. They only got it to run at 1/10 planned chamber pressure. which is one of the key things needed to give good efficiency at this scale.

The pumps are *not* micro either. At least not yet.  :(

Returning to the core topic of this thread...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/11/2012 07:54 am
All sensor and telemetry data aside, it would be interesting if they could salvage the engines and have a look at what occurred directly…

Good idea.

IIRC they've done this in the past. Does anyone know if Spacex would know where the stage will re-enter well enough to do it? I doubt it was a *planned* task for this mission but sounds like a good use of their resources.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Juggernaut on 10/11/2012 08:05 am
... and meanwhile it seems Orbcomm won't survive... ST reports that everything launched with F9 except Dragon will decay by end of today..

Orbcomm OG2, which they have been identified with ID 38847, has been re-entered in atmosphere already yesterday (2012-10-10 06:19:00 GMT)..   

I guess Orbcomm Inc. can't consider this a succesfull launch, isn't?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/11/2012 08:23 am
All sensor and telemetry data aside, it would be interesting if they could salvage the engines and have a look at what occurred directly…

Good idea.

IIRC they've done this in the past. Does anyone know if Spacex would know where the stage will re-enter well enough to do it? I doubt it was a *planned* task for this mission but sounds like a good use of their resources.

When did they recover Merlin engine(s) in the past? Can you provide a reference?

I think trying to recover the engine in question from this flight would be very difficult, expensive and not a good use of their resources. They should be able to establish the cause from telemetry and possibly from ground testing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/11/2012 09:31 am
Just a quick note.

I've not had time to read hardly any of this thread, but I know a few people are of the "OMG, this is so many posts, I can't keep up and WHAT? Someone just said they aren't too pleased with SpaceX over the engine issue? Where do I write to seek compensation for this travesty of opinion...." opinion. ;)

1) This is the forum of NSF. We can only moderate breach of rule posts, that are insulting, uncivil or just plain stupid.

2) We've gone through 370,000 uniques in the space of three days on the forum. Most are guests, but I've only had one e-mail and eight report to moderator notifications for the SpaceX threads in relation to breach of rules.

3) "But I bet you want more posts, as that equates to more advertising revenue". Nope. Ad revenue on the forum is loose change. Having servers for a database this size (huge) and keeping it up and solid (Bandwidth) is ENTIRELY due to the L2 revenue enabling us to afford the ultra hosting package we're on.

4) The vast majority of people here want a free - only moderated when required - discussion. This is a big site, with a lot of active posters, so that's why this one is 76 pages long and over 150,000 views. Guess what, people have different opinions.

5) You are going to get some people - especially new members - who may not be as informed as others. Treat that as an opportunity to educate them, in a friendly manner. It may take a few posts before it sinks in, but do not act surprised seeing posts from such "less informed" people, because if you are, then you're probably new to the internet! ;) Guess what, most of us were "less informed" when we first started posting, especially me (you should have seen some of my first posts about shuttle on other forums back in the days of dail up! "Do the SRBs get their fuel from the ET too?" Oh lordy! ;D)

6) This is still a very clean forum. Anyone remember the dark days of the now-dead SDC forum post Columbia? That was not good, not good at all. We'll never allow that to happen here.

7) If you do not enjoy these open discussion threads, feel free to stick to the news site, and the update threads.

8 ) Remember, we could very easily run the site as a news site with L2 and read only live update threads. It'd sure be a lot cheaper on my server costs, but I strongly believe in an interactive site. All our regular updaters, space industry members who help with technical questions, even all our writers came from being a new member posting on here - and I strongly believe our community is excellent.

As you were. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 11:34 am
What's wrong with that, engineers and staff who are proud of their work? People seem to have to try to complain about even the small stuff. This is nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/11/2012 12:11 pm
What's wrong with that, engineers and staff who are proud of their work? People seem to have to try to complain about even the small stuff. This is nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

Does anyone know the contents of the Official Flight Kit? It could easily have been part of that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/11/2012 12:38 pm
What's wrong with that, engineers and staff who are proud of their work? People seem to have to try to complain about even the small stuff. This is nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.
Oh Nooo! The protocol has been breached!! Red alert!

At least Sunita knew what to think of the protocol: she called back joyfully to MCC saying they had new friends and stuck the poster on the ISS wall straight away :)
Sometimes professionalism is knowing when not to follow protocol.

The SpaceX folk are just as part of the great human adventure to space as the NASA folk. It's a shame that protocols have inhibited the folks at Astrium and Boeing from expressing their passion for that adventure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/11/2012 01:06 pm
What's wrong with that, engineers and staff who are proud of their work? People seem to have to try to complain about even the small stuff. This is nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

Question: are you 100% certain of the fact that the presence of this poster on-board Dragon was not approved by NASA prior to lift-off?

Another question: You stated that this poster was not on the manifest. Do you have access to the official flight manifest? (and I don't mean the publically available one, because that one is not official, it's the PAO version).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mark Max Q on 10/11/2012 01:12 pm
Just a quick note.

I've not had time to read hardly any of this thread, but I know a few people are of the "OMG, this is so many posts, I can't keep up and WHAT? Someone just said they aren't too pleased with SpaceX over the engine issue? Where do I write to seek compensation for this travesty of opinion...." opinion. ;)

1) This is the forum of NSF. We can only moderate breach of rule posts, that are insulting, uncivil or just plain stupid.

2) We've gone through 370,000 uniques in the space of three days on the forum. Most are guests, but I've only had one e-mail and eight report to moderator notifications for the SpaceX threads in relation to breach of rules.

3) "But I bet you want more posts, as that equates to more advertising revenue". Nope. Ad revenue on the forum is loose change. Having servers for a database this size (huge) and keeping it up and solid (Bandwidth) is ENTIRELY due to the L2 revenue enabling us to afford the ultra hosting package we're on.

4) The vast majority of people here want a free - only moderated when required - discussion. This is a big site, with a lot of active posters, so that's why this one is 76 pages long and over 150,000 views. Guess what, people have different opinions.

5) You are going to get some people - especially new members - who may not be as informed as others. Treat that as an opportunity to educate them, in a friendly manner. It may take a few posts before it sinks in, but do not act surprised seeing posts from such "less informed" people, because if you are, then you're probably new to the internet! ;) Guess what, most of us were "less informed" when we first started posting, especially me (you should have seen some of my first posts about shuttle on other forums back in the days of dail up! "Do the SRBs get their fuel from the ET too?" Oh lordy! ;D)

6) This is still a very clean forum. Anyone remember the dark days of the now-dead SDC forum post Columbia? That was not good, not good at all. We'll never allow that to happen here.

7) If you do not enjoy these open discussion threads, feel free to stick to the news site, and the update threads.

8 ) Remember, we could very easily run the site as a news site with L2 and read only live update threads. It'd sure be a lot cheaper on my server costs, but I strongly believe in an interactive site. All our regular updaters, space industry members who help with technical questions, even all our writers came from being a new member posting on here - and I strongly believe our community is excellent.

As you were. ;)

That's brilliant. Amazing how this site has grown, but how hands on you still are.

Also, if people are just after hard facts, data, space industry people discussing the facts and data, plus a lot of cool stuff, then get L2. I don't know what I'd do with out it, and the side benefit is the post launch area on L2 for CRS-1 is four pages, with quality info.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 10/11/2012 01:47 pm
That would be quite a short stripper!

Ed made a good point, though. This was the earliest engine-out that resulted in the payload reaching orbit. That's a pretty effective demonstration, and if SpaceX plays their cards right, could really lower their insurance costs for commercial sats.

I'm pretty sure that the insurance costs for secondaries is going up after this mission. Even though the primary was successfully delivered to it's destination, future payloads might not be so lucky. You have to look at how close the payload comes to the full capacity of the launcher. The insurance guys are going to set their rates how they wish.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 10/11/2012 01:50 pm
It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

The HTV has a Japanese flag on the back wall.  What's the difference?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 01:55 pm
It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

The HTV has a Japanese flag on the back wall.  What's the difference?

Intuitively obvious to the casual observer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/11/2012 02:24 pm

I'm pretty sure that the insurance costs for secondaries is going up after this mission. Even though the primary was successfully delivered to it's destination, future payloads might not be so lucky. You have to look at how close the payload comes to the full capacity of the launcher. The insurance guys are going to set their rates how they wish.

This was only the fourth flight of a new LV. And it worked. That's one more data point on a short list of data points for the insurer. For all we know, insurance rates might decrease because flight heritage for the F9 increased by 33%.

Also, the failure to get the Orbcomm sat to its intended orbit was also largely due to strict requirements by NASA to avoid any potential accidents with the ISS. Those requirements were based on in-depth analysis coupled with Monte-Carlo simulations that took this specific secondary payload into account. Future secondaries will have different requirements so insurance companies will, I presume, calculate their premiums on a case-by-case basis.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/11/2012 02:55 pm
I understand that the vehicle will remain berthed until 10/28.  Given the great activity in Harmony and Dragon-1, I would imagine most of the up-mass cargo has been transferred already.  Is the unberth/return date based on traffic control around the station or is it a case that some of the items for return won't be ready for removal from their operational locations and transfer to the Dragon until then?

It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

The HTV has a Japanese flag on the back wall.  What's the difference?

Intuitively obvious to the casual observer.

The same casual observer wouldn't care about the 'breach of protocol'.  My advice Jim is to forget about it.  In the long run, it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/11/2012 03:13 pm
Also, the failure to get the Orbcomm sat to its intended orbit was also largely due to strict requirements by NASA to avoid any potential accidents with the ISS.

If you read the weasel words, there was only a 95% chance of it ending up in the planned orbit. So there is a 5% chance it would have ended up in a lower than planned orbit. Not as low as the final orbit, but still slightly short of it's final planned orbit.

Now if the dragon had been a little lighter, maybe sans an undeclared poster, there might have been enough LOX to carry out the secondary mission ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/11/2012 03:13 pm
What's wrong with that, engineers and staff who are proud of their work? People seem to have to try to complain about even the small stuff. This is nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

If it's such a breach of protocol, what about Williams' reaction of posting it in the background during a video interview? 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30059.msg964891#msg964891

It seems the poster was appreciated, although perhaps not as much as the ice cream.  It also looked like a returned favor, after the signed photo that was send down in the COTS-2+ Dragon.  This "casual observer" sees it as very equivalent to the Japanese flag.  Why the strong reaction?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/11/2012 03:17 pm
Also, the failure to get the Orbcomm sat to its intended orbit was also largely due to strict requirements by NASA to avoid any potential accidents with the ISS.

If you read the weasel words, there was only a 95% chance of it ending up in the planned orbit. So there is a 5% chance it would have ended up in a lower than planned orbit. Not as low as the final orbit, but still slightly short of it's final planned orbit.

Now if the dragon had been a little lighter, maybe sans an undeclared poster, there might have been enough LOX to carry out the secondary mission ;)

As I read it, there was a 95% probability that there was sufficient liquid Oxygen to carry out the planned maneuvers.  That must have included a deorbit burn to dispose of the second stage.  NASA would not want the second stage crossing the oribit of the ISS.  That says that there was certainly enough oxidizer to put the Orbcomm satellite in the target orbit.

So I agree with Garrett.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/11/2012 03:35 pm
What's wrong with that, engineers and staff who are proud of their work? People seem to have to try to complain about even the small stuff. This is nonsense.

It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

If it's such a breach of protocol, what about Williams' reaction of posting it in the background during a video interview? 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30059.msg964891#msg964891

It seems the poster was appreciated, although perhaps not as much as the ice cream.  It also looked like a returned favor, after the signed photo that was send down in the COTS-2+ Dragon.  This "casual observer" sees it as very equivalent to the Japanese flag.  Why the strong reaction?

I wager a guess, probably to be nuanced by Jim himself. But I'll give it a try anyway:
Jim is likely projecting his own experiences with protocols and rules in working cargo missions to ISS, on this new-space company. Probably, in his opinion, anything out of line with the set of rules he is used to, is a no no.

Trouble is, Jim doesn't work for SpaceX. So, he may not be fully aware of exactly what rules and protocols were set in the working relationship between SpaceX and NASA. He also may not be aware of any last-minute arrangements between SpaceX and NASA that might allow such 'unlisted' items as posters and ice-cream to be brought on-board.

But, the above is me just guessing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/11/2012 03:52 pm
I think the documentation from a old planing guide lists only one available restart for MVac.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jabe on 10/11/2012 04:47 pm
curious
at end of mission..can they delay at all in case weather is bad or rough waters in landing zone?
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: joertexas on 10/11/2012 05:00 pm
It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

The HTV has a Japanese flag on the back wall.  What's the difference?

Intuitively obvious to the casual observer.

I'll take a swing at this and state that the difference is the flag wasn't hidden.

JR
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 05:09 pm
  This "casual observer" sees it as very equivalent to the Japanese flag. 

The Japanese flag was likely a JAXA approved idea and not smuggled onboard.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 05:10 pm
SpaceX and NASA that might allow such 'unlisted' items as posters and ice-cream to be brought on-board.

But, the above is me just guessing.

Ice cream was flown on Spacehab missions and it was NASA provided.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 05:11 pm

Jim is likely projecting his own experiences with protocols and rules in working cargo missions to ISS, on this new-space company.


Spacehab was a new space company too
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/11/2012 05:13 pm
Just ignore Jim. Whenever a SpaceX mission flies, he goes into über-cranky mode, finding faults everywhere. He can't help it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/11/2012 05:20 pm
Just ignore Jim. Whenever a SpaceX mission flies, he goes into über-cranky mode, finding faults everywhere. He can't help it.
Not always, but even when he is cranky, really who cares. He more than makes up for it in the free education he provides us!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/11/2012 05:24 pm
It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

The first attached image shows a poster that the Japanese teams flew on HTV-2 in 2011, made up of a montage of the faces of all those who worked on the vehicle.

The second attached image shows photos of mission trainers (faces blurred by me) that were flown on the Shuttle mid-deck ergometer.

Do you disagree with these Jim?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Tampabayrays on 10/11/2012 05:25 pm
Just ignore Jim. Whenever a SpaceX mission flies, he goes into über-cranky mode, finding faults everywhere. He can't help it.
Not always, but even when he is cranky, really who cares. He more than makes up for it in the free education he provides us!

I more than agree. I've lurked on the forums for years and always appreciate when I find one of Jim's posts on a topic; thanks so much for your contributions, Jim!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/11/2012 05:25 pm
That would be quite a short stripper!

Ed made a good point, though. This was the earliest engine-out that resulted in the payload reaching orbit. That's a pretty effective demonstration, and if SpaceX plays their cards right, could really lower their insurance costs for commercial sats.

I'm pretty sure that the insurance costs for secondaries is going up after this mission. Even though the primary was successfully delivered to it's destination, future payloads might not be so lucky. You have to look at how close the payload comes to the full capacity of the launcher. The insurance guys are going to set their rates how they wish.
Insurance costs for secondaries were probably already high for this kind of mission to ISS with its extra constraints.

For primaries, though, the insurance cost may have now gone down a notch.


It definitely makes sense to insure secondaries at a different rate than the primary, if the secondary requires a relight, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 10/11/2012 05:29 pm
Rules and protocols...

It's all fun and games until the poster gives someone a papercut and they bleed on the life support controls... ;)

Seriously though... my thoughts are that the morale benefits on BOTH ends far exceed any risk from the breach of 'protocol'...

and how very bureaucratic is it that someone would be upset about a picture of people saying "We're proud WE did this!"
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/11/2012 05:33 pm
An unmanifested photo was sent down on the last Dragon down, for the SpaceX team, from the crew of the ISS. It makes perfect sense and is a lovely gesture for SpaceX to send a photo back in return. I hope to see more of this humanisation of spaceflight, and more people doing kind and harmless things that make each other happy. This miserable griping about SpaceX being "unprofessional" is both pointless and genuinely unpleasant.

More to the point, and as has been pointed out by Space Pete, everybody else does it too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/11/2012 05:45 pm
It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol.  Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM?  Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.

The first attached image shows a poster that the Japanese teams flew on HTV-2 in 2011, made up of a montage of the faces of all those who worked on the vehicle.


but it was honorable to ship pics of the uber HTV-2.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 10/11/2012 05:52 pm
I am sorry I have missed this out. Got bussy day at work. Why did They opened Dragon one day before schedule?
Thanks in advence
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 10/11/2012 06:03 pm
I am sorry I have missed this out. Got bussy day at work. Why did They opened Dragon one day before schedule?
Thanks in advence

The prevailing opinion is that ice cream is a powerful motivator. =)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/11/2012 06:10 pm
Weren't there stories about engineers and Astronauts sneaking all sorts of things up into the Apollo capsules? Specifically, a ceramic tile with a reduced Warhol drawing in the mylar insulation, and several playboy pictures in the checklists and in a locker on Apollo 12?

-Bob

One of my favorite astronauts is known for sneaking a corned beef sandwich onto a Gemini mission. On the other hand, I believe he got in trouble for that one.

I don't agree with Jim on flight computers.
What specifically?. On the issue of whether branches are possible (or only a go or no-go response is possible)?

I think an alternate burn could've been implemented that kept Orbcomm beneath ISS, even with the health check that occurred - and failed; though at some point the idealized brevity that GN&C analyzes collides with the reality of impulse (and error bands) that Propulsion provides.

In general, flight computers are limited by their available memory.  They can branch go/no-go logic within that space, until it's filled.  If-then-else logic is not hard to implement.  It's the human management behind it in the months and weeks before liftoff that ensures all possible outcomes will fit into the onboard logic.

Technologically, I see little reason it shouldn't be possible. I don't know what capabilities SpaceX's computer has, but I presume they gave it more memory than what was available to rockets designed a decade earlier.

However, SpaceX already stated in their email update (doesn't appear to be on their website, however) they had a very narrow go/no-go criteria from the primary customer.

That right there settles it, but the debate seems to be continuing almost as if that update hadn't been shared.

Not to say that your point isn't a meaningful addition even after SpaceX's update clarified whey they didn't continue.

Keep in mind, however, we're talking about a $6.5 million secondary. The risk analysis to expand that criteria was probably deemed not worth the cost compared to the risk of specifically this one of many possible off-nominal situations occurring.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 10/11/2012 06:12 pm
Jim, protocol or no protocol I would view this as a human and appropriate answer to the previous Dragon coming back down with a signed picture of the astronauts in it. Nothing to see here, no disrespect and no chest-thumping, just friendly folks at both ends of the wagon trail. Thoughts?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Junkie on 10/11/2012 06:23 pm
Back to the question I wanted to ask anyone that may have any idea why SpaceX has not used this flight to advertise on the dragon.. look at  all the pics.. inside and out.. no Spacex..  look at the last fight.. again.. nice white sides and no sign .. I mean U cannot miss the CANADA on the arm..   Did Spacex marketing goof?
I have also wondered about this. The big SpaceX logo on the COTS-1 Dragon was partially worn off during the mission. Not sure if it happened during launch or reentry, but maybe they didn't want to risk a messed up logo being visible on all the photos and video from the ISS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/11/2012 06:34 pm
Weren't there stories about engineers and Astronauts sneaking all sorts of things up into the Apollo capsules? Specifically, a ceramic tile with a reduced Warhol drawing in the mylar insulation, and several playboy pictures in the checklists and in a locker on Apollo 12?

-Bob

One of my favorite astronauts is known for sneaking a corned beef sandwich onto a Gemini mission. On the other hand, I believe he got in trouble for that one.

I don't agree with Jim on flight computers.
What specifically?. On the issue of whether branches are possible (or only a go or no-go response is possible)?

I think an alternate burn could've been implemented that kept Orbcomm beneath ISS, even with the health check that occurred - and failed; though at some point the idealized brevity that GN&C analyzes collides with the reality of impulse (and error bands) that Propulsion provides.

In general, flight computers are limited by their available memory.  They can branch go/no-go logic within that space, until it's filled.  If-then-else logic is not hard to implement.  It's the human management behind it in the months and weeks before liftoff that ensures all possible outcomes will fit into the onboard logic.

Technologically, I see little reason it shouldn't be possible. I don't know what capabilities SpaceX's computer has, but I presume they gave it more memory than what was available to rockets designed a decade earlier.

However, SpaceX already stated in their email update (doesn't appear to be on their website, however) they had a very narrow go/no-go criteria from the primary customer.

That right there settles it, but the debate seems to be continuing almost as if that update hadn't been shared.

Not to say that your point isn't a meaningful addition even after SpaceX's update clarified whey they didn't continue.

Keep in mind, however, we're talking about a $6.5 million secondary. The risk analysis to expand that criteria was probably deemed not worth the cost compared to the risk of specifically this one of many possible off-nominal situations occurring.

many satellites are getting smaller and smaller, cheaper and cheaper.  nowaday even 10t rocket can fit many satellites, but more satellites make launch op more complex, and it's really pushing upperstage to new limit.

Maybe someone can change the business model? rocket only deliver to LEO parking orbit, and then use long life electric propulsion spacecraft to tow them to the right orbit?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/11/2012 06:36 pm
Keep in mind, however, we're talking about a $6.5 million secondary. The risk analysis to expand that criteria was probably deemed not worth the cost compared to the risk of specifically this one of many possible off-nominal situations occurring.

I suspect that SpaceX would like to fly a secondary on each of the dozen CRS missions. ISTM that the analysis for this secondary may either be general enough to be applicable to future launches, or that it may make those future analyses much easier.

Edit: so think of it as an investment in those future secondary payloads.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 06:38 pm

The second attached image shows photos of mission trainers (faces blurred by me) that were flown on the Shuttle mid-deck ergometer.

Do you disagree with these Jim?

yes, especially the ones on the ergometer.  That is taking advantage of a unique position for personal gain.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 06:41 pm
An unmanifested photo was sent down on the last Dragon down, for the SpaceX team, from the crew of the ISS. It makes perfect sense and is a lovely gesture for SpaceX to send a photo back in return. I hope to see more of this humanisation of spaceflight, and more people doing kind and harmless things that make each other happy. This miserable griping about SpaceX being "unprofessional" is both pointless and genuinely unpleasant.

More to the point, and as has been pointed out by Space Pete, everybody else does it too.

And then soon somebody starts smuggling trinkets on board.   Where do you draw the line?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 06:42 pm

Not nearly as much as Antares and some of the other NASA folks on this forum. I always look forward to their posts, not some guy with a friggin' log on his shoulder.

what log?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/11/2012 06:43 pm
An unmanifested photo was sent down on the last Dragon down, for the SpaceX team, from the crew of the ISS. It makes perfect sense and is a lovely gesture for SpaceX to send a photo back in return. I hope to see more of this humanisation of spaceflight, and more people doing kind and harmless things that make each other happy. This miserable griping about SpaceX being "unprofessional" is both pointless and genuinely unpleasant.

More to the point, and as has been pointed out by Space Pete, everybody else does it too.

And then soon somebody starts smuggling trinkets on board.   Where do you draw the line?

Anything that endangers the spacecraft, the ISS, the crew, or the mission. Obviously.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/11/2012 06:46 pm
Ice cream seems like a good, low-risk way to demonstrate late load of perishable items to me.  And NASA clearly knew about it - http://www.space.com/17939-astronaut-ice-cream-spacex-dragon-launch.html

As ISS transitions to having crews on 1 year missions, I imagine these kinds of "bonus foods" will be more important.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/11/2012 06:47 pm
first it was posters brought down from the space station. Now: Posters brought up to the space station! What's next? Vodka? Guns? Dogs and cats living together? ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/11/2012 06:50 pm
And then soon somebody starts smuggling trinkets on board.   Where do you draw the line?

Resorting to slippery slope rhetoric? Really?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 06:51 pm
So it is ok to smuggle trinkets onboard and sell them after the fact, even though it doesn't affect the mission?

In the last few decades, they were officially placed onboard and documented.
Heck, I have more than 25 certificates with patches/flags flown on missions that I worked on.  Even so, while I was responsible for the stowage/cargo on all the Spacehab MIR and ISS missions (10 flights), not once did I slip something onboard for my or compatriots.  Everything, I put onboard was approved by NASA or Spacehab.

BTW, I also agree with Terry Bradshaw.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/terry-bradshaw-didn-t-drew-brees-celebrated-record-221332839--nfl.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/11/2012 06:52 pm
And then soon somebody starts smuggling trinkets on board.   Where do you draw the line?

Resorting to slippery slope rhetoric? Really?

Why not?  It happens.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 10/11/2012 06:57 pm

So it is ok to smuggle trinkets onboard and sell them after the fact, even though it doesn't affect the mission?
I am sure that this one will go to SpaceX office or factory and will boost employees to work harder. But hey! It is ok to hate SpaceX ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/11/2012 06:58 pm

So it is ok to smuggle trinkets onboard and sell them after the fact, even though it doesn't affect the mission?

Ask Dave Scott.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/11/2012 06:59 pm
Probably not okay to sell trinkets. But space X is totally free (ITAR blah) to sell Dragon herself and any parts of her.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/11/2012 07:00 pm
And then soon somebody starts smuggling trinkets on board.   Where do you draw the line?

Resorting to slippery slope rhetoric? Really?

Why not?  It happens.
It's a very weak form of argument, usually considerd a logical fallacy. Often used as a last resort.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dunderwood on 10/11/2012 07:00 pm
I think everyone agrees that smuggling trinkets solely for future sale ala Apollo 15 is over the line.

I also think you're in the minority as far as objecting to the posters mentioned above, Jim.  Small lightweight stowaways that are a present from one person to another have a pretty long history as far as manned space flight goes.  If both parties are happy with it, I don't think it's our place to condemn it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/11/2012 07:01 pm
This is getting incredibly boring.

1) No more on this bloody photo. And I mean no more. Don't waste your time and mine posting "But!" They WILL be deleted.

2) If you want to talk about Jim, use the Jim Discussion thread. Remember not to use the Jim Update thread, which I'll start when I know the window for his dinner time. Can someone do screenshots? ;)

3) Yes, I totally agree, so what if they put a photo on there. But guess what, Jim's done spacecraft stowage as a frakking JOB, and half of you embarrassing yourselves with posts akin to "I've never done that, but I have to post cause SpaceX are so amazing and Jim's upset me as he didn't say please or thank you or Go SpaceX in his response. How rude!"

Carry on with CRS-1. Thanking you :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: aameise9 on 10/11/2012 07:03 pm
May I respectfully suggest that the engine malfunction may be another worthy concern (in addition to the illicit poster)?

To me, the SpaceX statement leaves open whether or not engine parts (fuel dome, combustion chamber, nozzle) detached from the vehicle.

In the movie that was posted, several large fragments are visible in the exhaust.  One of these has the silhouette of a nozzle, but may also be a fairing.

But perhaps the unspoken consensus to maintain a pregnant silence on this issue simply means that the nature of this incident (malfunction or disassembly) should be made known only to those who need to know it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/11/2012 07:14 pm
All sensor and telemetry data aside, it would be interesting if they could salvage the engines and have a look at what occurred directly…

Good idea.

IIRC they've done this in the past. Does anyone know if Spacex would know where the stage will re-enter well enough to do it? I doubt it was a *planned* task for this mission but sounds like a good use of their resources.

When did they recover Merlin engine(s) in the past? Can you provide a reference?

I think trying to recover the engine in question from this flight would be very difficult, expensive and not a good use of their resources. They should be able to establish the cause from telemetry and possibly from ground testing.
I'd agree recovering it is a long shot as I presume it's expecting to be destroyed in re-entry and AFAIK the stage cannot be commanded for it to be brought down more intact.

Having dug in further I see I did not recall correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

and Spacex has never successfully recovered a stage.
[edit   *however* an article in the house newsletter for ATI Wah Chang, who make the Nb alloy the nozzles are made out of  ( Outlook_v32n1_2011.pdf) say (page 5 along with a nice phot of the nozzle build team) Draco thrusters have been recovered and test fired. This may have been where I got the impression from.]
Although it would be interesting to know if the parachute storage areas were packed for this mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Juggernaut on 10/11/2012 08:20 pm
Orbcomm confirmed re-entry of satellite...

http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/OG2%20Prototype.pdf

press release however sounds very strange and controversial... basically in two days they managed to test and verify most of on-board systems and instruments.. very quick.. and as result the OG2 satellite technology was fully validated.
however they have filed an insurance claim as they had total loss of satellite.

Concerning the reason for wrong deployment they confirm that a specific safety check was pre-imposed by NASA and state that in case they would have been as primary mission, satellite would have probably deployed in correct orbit.
the message i have got here is: our mission failed because we were secondary payload and NASA was primary one.
well, with this respect i do not think SpaceX can demonstate they are fault-tolerant unless they disclose details on the nature of safety check.

Also i found a bit disappointing that SpaceX until now did not make any mention of Orbcomm OG2 and details of its release.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/11/2012 08:22 pm

But perhaps the unspoken consensus to maintain a pregnant silence on this issue simply means that the nature of this incident (malfunction or disassembly) should be made known only to those who need to know it?


I doubt that, an engine malfunction of that nature is serious. I suspect they are silent because they first need to fully understand the problem. I suspect they will have (and will be surprised if they do not) review boards, meetings, and go through a full review process. That includes involvement of the customers. At the end of it they will release a report (sans proprietary and ITAR) that describes the failure and the corrective actions they will be taking. They will either clear the 1D or beef something up in it.

What should scare all rabid SpaceX fans is this can take months... If you ask me, 2013 is no longer looking so rosy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/11/2012 08:26 pm
well, with this respect i do not think SpaceX can demonstate they are fault-tolerant unless they disclose details on the nature of safety check.
They have. There's some discussion in at least one of the updates threads.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 10/11/2012 08:29 pm
well, with this respect i do not think SpaceX can demonstate they are fault-tolerant unless they disclose details on the nature of safety check.

They demonstrated exactly how fault-tolerant they are. With an engine out at 76 seconds, F9v1.0 can get X kg to Y orbit, with enough margin left to be 95% certain of being able to do Z. And the safety check was very clearly described in their presser.

Also i found a bit disappointing that SpaceX until now did not make any mention of Orbcomm OG2 and details of its release.

Pure speculation here, but Orbcomm may not want SpaceX talking out of class; I wouldn't be surprised to see a clause in the contract to that effect.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/11/2012 08:31 pm
At the end of it they will release a report (sans proprietary and ITAR) that describes the failure and the corrective actions they will be taking. They will either clear the 1D or beef something up in it.
I expect that the "report" will be, at most, a press release or brief blog post, unless you are an customer important enough to get insight (e.g. NASA). Furthermore, the fact is that SpaceX actually have a good track record of quickly carrying out post-incident reviews of this kind. I see no reason to expect that the January launch will be significantly delayed at this stage, especially since the incident did not threaten LOM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/11/2012 08:35 pm

But perhaps the unspoken consensus to maintain a pregnant silence on this issue simply means that the nature of this incident (malfunction or disassembly) should be made known only to those who need to know it?


I doubt that, an engine malfunction of that nature is serious. I suspect they are silent because they first need to fully understand the problem. I suspect they will have (and will be surprised if they do not) review boards, meetings, and go through a full review process. That includes involvement of the customers. At the end of it they will release a report (sans proprietary and ITAR) that describes the failure and the corrective actions they will be taking. They will either clear the 1D or beef something up in it.

What should scare all rabid SpaceX fans is this can take months... If you ask me, 2013 is no longer looking so rosy.
Merlin 1C is a very very different engine from Merlin 1D. they have only one falcon nine rocket which uses Merlin 1C left to launch. I sincerely doubt this will be all very long standdown if only because they made it to orbit successfully and aren't likely to take a super long time to rectify the problem. How long did ULA standdown Atlas five when there was early shutdown of the RL 10? How long does Russia wait when there's a failure? How long after the shuttle ATO did the next mission fly? (next month!)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jaufgang on 10/11/2012 08:38 pm
Some good reading:  http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/10/satellite-ride-sharers-spacex.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/10/satellite-ride-sharers-spacex.html)

key quote:

Quote
"While there was sufficient fuel on board to [lift the satellite], the liquid oxygen on board was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 per cent likelihood of completing the second burn, so Falcon 9 did not attempt a restart," says SpaceX spokesperson Katherine Nelson.

The event highlights the fact that redundancy measures are no guarantee that firms hitching future rides won't find their equipment lost in space - at least when crewed spacecraft are involved.

"The priority here was to protect the space station," says Nelson of this week's event. "Very few secondary missions will be space station missions.

Update (19:20 BST): Since posting, Nelson of SpaceX has elaborated on the conditions presented to Orbcomm to fly as a secondary payload during this week's ISS mission:

While you rightfully point out that the second stage burn did not happen because of pre-planned NASA safety gate designed to protect the space station, it is also important to note that Orbcomm understood and accepted from the beginning that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit. Orbcomm requested that SpaceX carry one of their small satellites (weighing a few hundred pounds vs Dragon at over 12000 pounds) on this flight so that they could gather test data before we launch their full constellation next year. The higher the orbit, the more test data they can gather, so they requested that we attempt to restart and raise altitude. NASA agreed to allow that, but only on condition that there be substantial propellant reserves, since the orbit would be close to the Space Station. SpaceX would not have agreed to fly their satellite otherwise, since this was not part of the core mission and there was a known, material risk of no altitude raise.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Oberon_Command on 10/11/2012 08:44 pm
How long after the shuttle ATO did the next mission fly? (next month!)

But that ATO was found to be caused by a bad sensor, was it not? So there wasn't really anything to fix except the sensor, and therefore no reason for a stand-down longer than it took to find out what the problem was.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/11/2012 09:00 pm
Orbcomm confirmed re-entry of satellite...

http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/OG2%20Prototype.pdf

press release however sounds very strange and controversial... basically in two days they managed to test and verify most of on-board systems and instruments.. very quick.. and as result the OG2 satellite technology was fully validated.
however they have filed an insurance claim as they had total loss of satellite.

Concerning the reason for wrong deployment they confirm that a specific safety check was pre-imposed by NASA and state that in case they would have been as primary mission, satellite would have probably deployed in correct orbit.
the message i have got here is: our mission failed because we were secondary payload and NASA was primary one.
well, with this respect i do not think SpaceX can demonstate they are fault-tolerant unless they disclose details on the nature of safety check.

Also i found a bit disappointing that SpaceX until now did not make any mention of Orbcomm OG2 and details of its release.

It's a good thing that Orbcomm had insurance. The press release says that the $10 million insurance money will offset the cost of the prototype and of the launch. It doesn't seem like SpaceX got a lot of money from Orbcomm for launching this secondary payload.

Quote from: Orbcomm's press release
The Company has filed a notice of claim under its launch insurance policy for a total loss of the OG2 prototype. The maximum amount covered by the policy is $10 million, which would largely offset the expected cost of the OG2 prototype and associated launch services and launch insurance.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/11/2012 09:12 pm
Orbcomm confirmed re-entry of satellite...

http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/OG2%20Prototype.pdf

Somehow it is always sad when a lot of engineering effort doesn't reach its destination. It's only nuts and bolt flying up there, but there were many people involved getting these nuts and bolts exactly into this constellation, endless discussions, endless design work, test, ...

And also it is amazing to me to learn a situation, where you have only a couple of hours to test your masterpiece. I wonder if they have plans exactly for scenarios like this, where time is very limited, or if they just make adhoc decisions what to test. (Reading the word adhoc in this context I actually can't believe, that there no plans).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: awatral on 10/11/2012 09:20 pm
Some good reading:  http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/10/satellite-ride-sharers-spacex.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/10/satellite-ride-sharers-spacex.html)

Quote
"While there was sufficient fuel on board to [lift the satellite], the liquid oxygen on board was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 per cent likelihood of completing the second burn, so Falcon 9 did not attempt a restart," says SpaceX spokesperson Katherine Nelson.
Having useless (excess) fuel on board sounds wasteful.

Does anybody know what is the usual (or allowable) mismatch between quantities of fuel and oxidizer?
If the fuel mix ratio is preset and fixed during the full duration of the flight, that one would expect that perfect match is possible?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: bob the martian on 10/11/2012 09:39 pm
well, with this respect i do not think SpaceX can demonstate they are fault-tolerant unless they disclose details on the nature of safety check.

They demonstrated exactly how fault-tolerant they are. With an engine out at 76 seconds, F9v1.0 can get X kg to Y orbit, with enough margin left to be 95% certain of being able to do Z. And the safety check was very clearly described in their presser.

Also i found a bit disappointing that SpaceX until now did not make any mention of Orbcomm OG2 and details of its release.

Pure speculation here, but Orbcomm may not want SpaceX talking out of class; I wouldn't be surprised to see a clause in the contract to that effect.

Ding ding ding ding ding.

There are legal as well as engineering issues at play here, and until those are ironed out I don't expect to hear that much from either company.   Transparent doesn't necessarily mean timely.

As for fault tolerance, I think SpaceX lived up to their end of the bargain as best they could; they got the primary payload into the right orbit, and from what I can tell the stage itself was still healthy, and under any other circumstances (i.e., not pointing towards the ISS) would have been able to restart.   

As for the failure itself, I fully expect it will take several weeks of analysis before SpaceX is willing to say anything definitive as to the why and the how.  Too bad they couldn't launch in daylight (for clearer/more definitive video), and too bad they don't have 1st stage recovery yet.  Imagine being able to inspect the damaged hardware first hand.  That's as much an impetus for getting the flyback stages working as anything else (not that it will help if it's the center engine that fails, but...). 

I still think that, on balance, this was a positive; the rocket not only survived an engine shredding itself, it was still able to carry out its primary mission.  That's huge in my book (although I'll admit that's a small book).  Sucks for Orbcomm, but it's not like misdeployments don't happen with other boosters. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/11/2012 09:59 pm

Having useless (excess) fuel on board sounds wasteful.

No, it's a good idea and it's called margin. Without margin the Dragon's mission would have been lost too.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/11/2012 10:03 pm

  Sucks for Orbcomm, but it's not like misdeployments don't happen with other boosters. 

At least the satellite seems to have worked properly.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121011orbcomm/ (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121011orbcomm/)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/11/2012 10:13 pm
This is getting incredibly boring.

1) No more on this bloody photo. And I mean no more. Don't waste your time and mine posting "But!" They WILL be deleted.

2) If you want to talk about Jim, use the Jim Discussion thread. Remember not to use the Jim Update thread, which I'll start when I know the window for his dinner time. Can someone do screenshots? ;)


someone sure pushed the button on this one....

2) screenshots; by your command.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/11/2012 10:13 pm
Having useless (excess) fuel on board sounds wasteful.

No, it's a good idea and it's called margin. Without margin the Dragon's mission would have been lost too.

I'm sure he's saying excess fuel over the O2 to burn it.

The prop left for the restart is a small proportion of the total upper stage prop at launch. I suspect it needs only a tiny imbalance of consumption of O2 over kero during ascent to just leave a slight imbalance of kero over O2 for the restart. Thus, enough kero but not enough O2.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/11/2012 10:17 pm
May I respectfully suggest that the engine malfunction may be another worthy concern (in addition to the illicit poster)?

To me, the SpaceX statement leaves open whether or not engine parts (fuel dome, combustion chamber, nozzle) detached from the vehicle.

In the movie that was posted, several large fragments are visible in the exhaust.  One of these has the silhouette of a nozzle, but may also be a fairing.

But perhaps the unspoken consensus to maintain a pregnant silence on this issue simply means that the nature of this incident (malfunction or disassembly) should be made known only to those who need to know it?


No. SpaceX stated unambiguously that they continued to receive telemetry from the engine. Had the engine detached, the sensors providing that telemetry would have gone with it.

Perhaps the nozzle detached, but that would surprise me since the they identified an issue in the fuel dome area, not the nozzle area. The best guess about the debris visible in the video is that it's the corner fairing.

But yes, the engine malfunction is a concern. The debate is mainly about how much of a concern.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 10/11/2012 10:34 pm
The best guess about the debris visible in the video is that it's the corner fairing.

I believe SpaceX has also said that a couple of panels in the engine were designed to blow off in the case of a pressure differential. Call it a Rapid Planned Disassembly?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/11/2012 10:43 pm
The best guess about the debris visible in the video is that it's the corner fairing.

I believe SpaceX has also said that a couple of panels in the engine were designed to blow off in the case of a pressure differential. Call it a Rapid Planned Disassembly?

where is that advertised?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/11/2012 10:56 pm
The best guess about the debris visible in the video is that it's the corner fairing.

I believe SpaceX has also said that a couple of panels in the engine were designed to blow off in the case of a pressure differential. Call it a Rapid Planned Disassembly?

where is that advertised?

I don't remember it being advertised, but their statement after the launch said this:

Quote
Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines.

That's the first I heard about the panels.  I think most of the debris that was visible came from the fairing.  Someone posted photos dozens of pages ago comparing one of the pieces of debris with a photo of the top portion of the fairing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 10/11/2012 10:57 pm
Orbcomm confirmed re-entry of satellite...

http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/OG2%20Prototype.pdf

Somehow it is always sad when a lot of engineering effort doesn't reach its destination. It's only nuts and bolt flying up there, but there were many people involved getting these nuts and bolts exactly into this constellation, endless discussions, endless design work, test, ...

And also it is amazing to me to learn a situation, where you have only a couple of hours to test your masterpiece. I wonder if they have plans exactly for scenarios like this, where time is very limited, or if they just make adhoc decisions what to test. (Reading the word adhoc in this context I actually can't believe, that there no plans).

Too bad for Orbcomm it was a quick loss, at least it was insured.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/11/2012 10:58 pm
Once their investigation is complete, I hope SpaceX produces a short animated video showing the sequence of events.  They have a good video department.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: R.Simko on 10/11/2012 11:12 pm
Since there is only one more launch scheduled with the Merlin 1C engines, I wonder if SpaceX's better move would be to move directly to launching with Merlin 1D engines.  This way they can show a history more quickly of the new engine.  This may allay concerns over limited flight history of the Merlin 1D when NASA is selecting which company(s) win crewed commercial contracts.  Of course this would also depend on how soon they can have a full set of Merlin 1D engines ready.

Someone else had mention yesterday that the extra Merlin 1C engines can be used on Grasshopper trials.  This way the engined would not be wasted.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/11/2012 11:15 pm
Some good reading:  http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/10/satellite-ride-sharers-spacex.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/10/satellite-ride-sharers-spacex.html)

key quote:
Quote
"While there was sufficient fuel on board to [lift the satellite], the liquid oxygen on board was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 per cent likelihood of completing the second burn, so Falcon 9 did not attempt a restart," says SpaceX spokesperson Katherine Nelson.

Does that imply that a successful mission would have had one second stage restart?  that would leave that second stage in the 350 by 7XX km transfer orbit that continuously crosses the altitude of the ISS.  I know the orbit of an empty stage should decay relatively fast, but it would have to lose over 300 km of perigee to fall below the ISS orbit
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/11/2012 11:28 pm
Since there is only one more launch scheduled with the Merlin 1C engines, I wonder if SpaceX's better move would be to move directly to launching with Merlin 1D engines.  This way they can show a history more quickly of the new engine.  This may allay concerns over limited flight history of the Merlin 1D when NASA is selecting which company(s) win crewed commercial contracts.  Of course this would also depend on how soon they can have a full set of Merlin 1D engines ready.

Not easily. The M1D is designed for the F9v1.1, and vice versa. The thrust is different, the attachment points are different. It would be easier to just use the 1.1 instead of switching out engines.

Quote
Someone else had mention yesterday that the extra Merlin 1C engines can be used on Grasshopper trials.  This way the engined would not be wasted.

I don't think so. The M1C is incapable of throttling, making it useless for Grasshopper.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: R.Simko on 10/11/2012 11:38 pm
Since there is only one more launch scheduled with the Merlin 1C engines, I wonder if SpaceX's better move would be to move directly to launching with Merlin 1D engines.  This way they can show a history more quickly of the new engine.  This may allay concerns over limited flight history of the Merlin 1D when NASA is selecting which company(s) win crewed commercial contracts.  Of course this would also depend on how soon they can have a full set of Merlin 1D engines ready.

Not easily. The M1D is designed for the F9v1.1, and vice versa. The thrust is different, the attachment points are different. It would be easier to just use the 1.1 instead of switching out engines.

Quote
Someone else had mention yesterday that the extra Merlin 1C engines can be used on Grasshopper trials.  This way the engined would not be wasted.

I don't think so. The M1C is incapable of throttling, making it useless for Grasshopper.

Thanks Lars.  I was thinking they would move directly to F9v1.1.  I know I didn't make that clear.  If that means that they can't use any of the last F9v1, then maybe it wasn't as good and idea as I hoped it was.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Confusador on 10/12/2012 12:12 am
Quote
These verification successes achieved from the single prototype satellite validate that the innovative OG2 satellite technology operates as designed before launching the full constellation of OG2 satellites.
...
The Company has filed a notice of claim under its launch insurance policy for a total loss of the OG2 prototype.

I love the nature of press releases.  "It was a success!  But it was also a total failure."
I kid, of course; I can hardly blame them for filing a claim after a clear failure, and I'm glad they got some good data back.  It's still funny. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/12/2012 02:43 am
How long after the shuttle ATO did the next mission fly? (next month!)

But that ATO was found to be caused by a bad sensor, was it not? So there wasn't really anything to fix except the sensor, and therefore no reason for a stand-down longer than it took to find out what the problem was.
Wasn't the only time there was a Shuttle engine out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/12/2012 02:51 am
How long after the shuttle ATO did the next mission fly? (next month!)

But that ATO was found to be caused by a bad sensor, was it not? So there wasn't really anything to fix except the sensor, and therefore no reason for a stand-down longer than it took to find out what the problem was.
Wasn't the only time there was a Shuttle engine out.

Only one in-flight, though.
Sts 93 had engine damage (two concurrent issues, actually) due to an oxygen post flying off and making a whole in the coolant lines which led to premature engine shutdown, along with an engine controller failure. Lower than planned orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/12/2012 03:05 am
Quote
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion as well. It was not the second stages fault that the command was not given to raise Orbcomm's satellite to it's proper orbit. NASA's parameters did not allow for it. I would classify the mission as a partial success and that is only if and when Dragon fulfills it's intended flight plan.

You're conflating the Dragon mission and the Falcon launch. We traditionally separate reliability studies of rocket and payload because they are largely independent. Whether the Dragon mission succeeds or not, Falcon delivered it to substantially the correct orbit.
  And you are partly incorrect about the 'command' - there was no external command, it was a second stage program and the reason it didn't pass NASA's parameters was because of the first stage issues. So it was the Falcon's fault (the first stage, not the second stage, though,  you're right to that extent).

The problem here is that there's 'secondary' and 'secondary'. The Falcon 1 restart test was a launch vehicle provider's 'nice to have'. The Falcon 9 Orbcomm deploy was a customer's 'must have'. I would classify both of those missions as partial success, the Falcon 1 at 90/95 percent and this one at 85 percent.

This being America, we can put a price on anything.  It look like the primary customer (NASA) paid $133.3M and got exactly what they paid for.  It looks like OrbComm paid at most $3.5M (They said the satellite cost $6.5M and the insurance of $10M would cover satellite + launch costs).  So if we consider OrbComm a complete failure, then the score for this mission is 133.3/(133.3+3.5) = 97.4%.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/12/2012 03:18 am

This being America, we can put a price on anything.  It look like the primary customer (NASA) paid $133.3M and got exactly what they paid for.  It looks like OrbComm paid at most $3.5M (They said the satellite cost $6.5M and the insurance of $10M would cover satellite + launch costs).  So if we consider OrbComm a complete failure, then the score for this mission is 133.3/(133.3+3.5) = 97.4%.


1.  Costs are not the methodology used to compute mission success
2.  Anyways, your numbers are wrong.  OrbComm launch and spacecraft costs must be included since the NASA number also included all costs.  Or just use about $50 million for NASA launch costs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/12/2012 03:36 am
I believe SpaceX has also said that a couple of panels in the engine were designed to blow off in the case of a pressure differential. Call it a Rapid Planned Disassembly?
where is that advertised?

June 2005 http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0605-1205
Quote
Then there is the question of dealing with the comparatively rare case of a chamber rupture. To protect against this, Falcon 9 will have a blast shield protecting the entire base of the vehicle just above the gimbal joints of the engines. In addition, there will be fireproofed Kevlar fragment containment around each engine, similar to those present in jet engine nacelles. The explosive power of a liquid rocket chamber is actually not exceptionally high – it can be thought of as simply a small pressure vessel containing (in our case) 800 psi hot gas. During the development of Merlin, we saw several of what we refer to as RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) events and no fragments have ever penetrated more than 2mm of aluminum. Also, the direction of fragments is in a shallow downward cone away from the vehicle.

As additional measures of protection, all propellant and pneumatic lines have either pre-valves or check valves nested up high in the thrust structure. If anything happens to the engine, the flight computer is able to cut off all propellant and pressurant flow immediately.

Also August 2007 http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=081707

If you want to look in a specific place for something on Google, you can do an analog to what I did for this, i.e.
kevlar site:spacex.com
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/12/2012 03:43 am

This being America, we can put a price on anything.  It look like the primary customer (NASA) paid $133.3M and got exactly what they paid for.  It looks like OrbComm paid at most $3.5M (They said the satellite cost $6.5M and the insurance of $10M would cover satellite + launch costs).  So if we consider OrbComm a complete failure, then the score for this mission is 133.3/(133.3+3.5) = 97.4%.


1.  Costs are not the methodology used to compute mission success
2.  Anyways, your numbers are wrong.  OrbComm launch and spacecraft costs must be included since the NASA number also included all costs.  Or just use about $50 million for NASA launch costs.

First, why not use costs?  In a perfect world, you could hire someone to launch your satellite.  If it gets into the specified orbit, you pay them.  If not, you pay nothing.  This seems like the fairest cost model, though it's not traditional in rocketry.

So in this case, the score for SpaceX the company (assuming Dragon makes it back) is $133.3M out of $136.8M possible, or 97.4%.

As you point out, the score for the Falcon 9 alone is different.  If they had sold the mission to a primary customer for $54M, then they would get 54/(54+3.5) = 93.9% of the possible money.  Had this been the situation, however, there would not have been the second burn constraint.  In this case, if we take SpaceX at their word they had a 95% chance of completing the second burn, then the score is (54+0.95*3.5)/(54+3.5) = 99.7%.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/12/2012 03:52 am

1.  First, why not use costs?  In a perfect world, you could hire someone to launch your satellite.  If it gets into the specified orbit, you pay them.  If not, you pay nothing.  This seems like the fairest cost model, though it's not traditional in rocketry.

2. As you point out, the score for the Falcon 9 alone is different.  If they had sold the mission to a primary customer for $54M, then they would get 54/(54+3.5) = 93.9% of the possible money.  Had this been the situation, however, there would not have been the second burn constraint.  In this case, if we take SpaceX at their word they had a 95% chance of completing the second burn, then the score is (54+0.95*3.5)/(54+3.5) = 99.7%.

1.  Wrong.  launch vehicle providers get their money whether the launch is successful or  not.  So money is not a relevant measure for determining mission success.  Meeting requirements that is what is used.

2.  The 95% does not enter in the equation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 10/12/2012 04:20 am
1.  Wrong.  launch vehicle providers get their money whether the launch is successful or  not.  So money is not a relevant measure for determining mission success.  Meeting requirements that is what is used.

Are you speaking to commercial contracts in general or NLS et. al.?  I was under the impression that full payment under NLS et. al. typically requires successful delivery of the payload to the intended destination or xfer orbit, otherwise the provider receives a subset of the total amount?  E.g., under CRS there are progress payments but the final payment(s) are contigent on successful completion of the mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/12/2012 07:40 am
1.  Wrong.  launch vehicle providers get their money whether the launch is successful or  not.  So money is not a relevant measure for determining mission success.  Meeting requirements that is what is used.

Are you speaking to commercial contracts in general or NLS et. al.?  I was under the impression that full payment under NLS et. al. typically requires successful delivery of the payload to the intended destination or xfer orbit, otherwise the provider receives a subset of the total amount?  E.g., under CRS there are progress payments but the final payment(s) are contigent on successful completion of the mission.

Because CRS is not a launch contract - it's a contract for Dragon to deliver cargo to ISS?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: hrissan on 10/12/2012 10:20 am
1.  Wrong.  launch vehicle providers get their money whether the launch is successful or  not.  So money is not a relevant measure for determining mission success.  Meeting requirements that is what is used.

Are you speaking to commercial contracts in general or NLS et. al.?  I was under the impression that full payment under NLS et. al. typically requires successful delivery of the payload to the intended destination or xfer orbit, otherwise the provider receives a subset of the total amount?  E.g., under CRS there are progress payments but the final payment(s) are contigent on successful completion of the mission.

Because CRS is not a launch contract - it's a contract for Dragon to deliver cargo to ISS?

cheers, Martin
Good point. In light of this the price of 133 millions does not seem too big, though it is more than flight of F9 itself.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/12/2012 10:59 am
Having useless (excess) fuel on board sounds wasteful.

No, it's a good idea and it's called margin. Without margin the Dragon's mission would have been lost too.

I'm sure he's saying excess fuel over the O2 to burn it.

The prop left for the restart is a small proportion of the total upper stage prop at launch. I suspect it needs only a tiny imbalance of consumption of O2 over kero during ascent to just leave a slight imbalance of kero over O2 for the restart. Thus, enough kero but not enough O2.

cheers, Martin

So a little more LOX in the upper stage and the Falcon 9 could have delivered both payloads.

How much more LOX was needed to increase the probability of orbiting the OrbComm satellite from 95% to 99% ?

The extra mass will effect the first stage.  Can future Falcon 9 missions use the increased margins to increase reliability?
Or will the maximum mass of secondary payloads need reducing?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/12/2012 11:04 am
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/12/2012 11:12 am
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 
Hoping theyll neer have another engine out is not an option. There will be engine-outs in the future, and adding margin is going to be needed. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be capable of enough margin.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/12/2012 11:28 am
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 
Hoping theyll neer have another engine out is not an option. There will be engine-outs in the future, and adding margin is going to be needed. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be capable of enough margin.

They don't intentionally load mismatched lox & kero. There is a call during both first & second stage f9 ascent, something like "propellant usage active", signalling they are adjusting MR to ensure lox & kero are exhausted at the same time. You see the same on ULA telemetry as RL10 MR adjusts.

ISTM it only needs to get this fractionally out to end up with the tiny imbalance they suffered. Maybe related to this still being a young LV.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/12/2012 11:59 am
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 
Hoping theyll neer have another engine out is not an option. There will be engine-outs in the future, and adding margin is going to be needed. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be capable of enough margin.

What? The engines should be at least as reliable as they are on other vehicles. We don't know that data point yet. The answer if you fear another engine out is to reduce the size of the payload so it will not be adversely affected by a "reasonable" vehicle under performance.   
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/12/2012 12:07 pm
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 
Hoping theyll neer have another engine out is not an option. There will be engine-outs in the future, and adding margin is going to be needed. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be capable of enough margin.

What? The engines should be at least as reliable as they are on other vehicles.
There are nine of them, though. So in ten or twenty flights youll have one or two engine outs. Unless you're a lot better than other engines.
Quote
We don't know that data point yet. The answer if you fear another engine out is to reduce the size of the payload so it will not be adversely affected by a "reasonable" vehicle under performance.   
And sell the margin at a reduced price to secondaries which aren't as risk sensitive. Which is exactly what Spacex did.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/12/2012 12:33 pm
Sure thing! Lets write petition to SpaceX so their launch will end up like this one if they got problem with engine. So there will be no need to burn upper stage longer :
<YouTube Video Snipped>
It is always better to not delivery any payload!

That was a solid motor letting go (and it had 9), not a liquid engine failure. Not even the same mode of failure. It was a sudden rapid loss of pressure in a solid motor case, followed by activation of the FTS, not a RUD ;)

Btw. I am sure Jim can quickly answer this, on a Delta II if a solid hangs up and does not separate does the payload make it's desired orbit? So if you have to drag a dead liquid engine all they way through staging do you get to your desired orbit if you lack the margin to do so?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/12/2012 12:43 pm
Quick query -- although the Dragon is scheduled to remain on station for an extended period, is it possible that mission control may decide to bring undocking and reentry forward if all loading/unloading tasks are completed a long way ahead of the planned departure date?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/12/2012 12:52 pm
on a Delta II if a solid hangs up and does not separate does the payload make it's desired orbit?

As with any such type of event that leads to either engine underperformance or greater weight dragged along than expected, the outcome will depend on vehicle performance margins. For Delta II, the scenario you mention happened in August 1995 with launch of Koreasat 1 which was placed in a lower than planned orbit.

So if you have to drag a dead liquid engine all they way through staging do you get to your desired orbit if you lack the margin to do so?

The mass of the engine is already factored in, whether it's burning or not so it's different than a case of strap-on booster failing to jettison. What really hurts you is lowered thrust leading to increased gravity losses. Again, either you have enough margin to cover for this or you don't. Obviously, if you "plan" for an early engine failure, you need bigger margins to cover for it than if the engine fails late in the stage burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/12/2012 01:02 pm

Btw. I am sure Jim can quickly answer this, on a Delta II if a solid hangs up and does not separate does the payload make it's desired orbit? So if you have to drag a dead liquid engine all they way through staging do you get to your desired orbit if you lack the margin to do so?

It happened on Koreasat.  The spacecraft had to burn some of its propellant to get to a useable orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/12/2012 02:06 pm

They don't intentionally load mismatched lox & kero. There is a call during both first & second stage f9 ascent, something like "propellant usage active", signalling they are adjusting MR to ensure lox & kero are exhausted at the same time. You see the same on ULA telemetry as RL10 MR adjusts.

ISTM it only needs to get this fractionally out to end up with the tiny imbalance they suffered. Maybe related to this still being a young LV.

cheers, Martin

Yes, in my original post on this I was thinking only about propellant margin and not about LOX/kero usage ratio. I doubt it is possible to control mixture ratio accurately enough so that one propellant component is not left "wasted." (Anyone who knows otherwise feel free to correct this assumption.)

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge. I don't know of any other plan to carry another large secondary payload on an ISS Dragon. This particular situation will probably not arise again.

So this incident has highlighted why margin is important (not just propellant, but mass--the Dragon was probably not carrying is maximum payload). They were lucky. Dragon got the good luck and Orbcomm just missed out. If the failure had happened even 20 seconds later, they might both have made it.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/12/2012 02:49 pm
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 

think he worded the question wrong Jim.   Should SpaceX add more margin in the 2nd stage?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/12/2012 02:57 pm
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 

think he worded the question wrong Jim.   Should SpaceX add more margin in the 2nd stage?

This was a once off mission, wasn't it? Isn't it possible that future secondaries for different companies will only need the lower orbit, therefore eliminating the need for a restart? Or maybe just a restart for orbit circularization and a small altitude (<50 km say) boost.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/12/2012 02:58 pm
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 

think he worded the question wrong Jim.   Should SpaceX add more margin in the 2nd stage?


No, my point still stands, because it was a secondary payload.  If you want more margin, then the secondary payload needs to be smaller.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/12/2012 03:02 pm
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 

think he worded the question wrong Jim.   Should SpaceX add more margin in the 2nd stage?


No, my point still stands, because it was a secondary payload.  If you want more margin, then the secondary payload needs to be smaller.

Considering the short life of the upper stage and secondary, what are the chances that future secondaries will not be on ISS bound missions?

It does raise an interesting question for me, what are the expected secondary lifetimes of SpaceX GTO missions. The perigee on those missions should be quite low, correct?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/12/2012 03:10 pm

They don't intentionally load mismatched lox & kero. There is a call during both first & second stage f9 ascent, something like "propellant usage active", signalling they are adjusting MR to ensure lox & kero are exhausted at the same time. You see the same on ULA telemetry as RL10 MR adjusts.

ISTM it only needs to get this fractionally out to end up with the tiny imbalance they suffered. Maybe related to this still being a young LV.

cheers, Martin

Yes, in my original post on this I was thinking only about propellant margin and not about LOX/kero usage ratio. I doubt it is possible to control mixture ratio accurately enough so that one propellant component is not left "wasted." (Anyone who knows otherwise feel free to correct this assumption.)

I suspect it is partly a matter of degree - something where the accuracy improves as the experience of multiple launches increases. However, I believe they'd always want to avoid an oxygen-rich shutdown, so there may be a deliberate policy to always have the lox run out slightly before the kero "just in case".



I also wonder regarding the wording of the quote below.

I take it either to mean that there is some uncertainty in the amount of prop that would be consumed by the burn, or about exactly how much prop was left in the stage - probably some combination of the two. Thus why it was not stated as "5% short of the prop we needed", but as a percentage likelihood of completing the burn:-

Some good reading:  http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/10/satellite-ride-sharers-spacex.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/10/satellite-ride-sharers-spacex.html)

key quote:

Quote
"While there was sufficient fuel on board to [lift the satellite], the liquid oxygen on board was only enough to achieve a roughly 95 per cent likelihood of completing the second burn, so Falcon 9 did not attempt a restart," says SpaceX spokesperson Katherine Nelson.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SpacexULA on 10/12/2012 03:21 pm
Hoping theyll neer have another engine out is not an option. There will be engine-outs in the future, and adding margin is going to be needed. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be capable of enough margin.

Carrying enough extra fuel to compensate for engine out as early as MAXQ to complete not only the primary but secondary payloads on every mission would seem like a ridiculous exercise.

My assumption is they will never have enough margin to be able to recover 100% from a engine failure that early without a sacrifice.  IF that had been a Falcon designed for reuse of the 1st and 2nd stage they would have had margin enough to make the choice.

Lose the Secondary Payloads, or lose the 1st or 2nd stage.

Of course, reusable stages are still years out, so until then I don't see any realistic situation where they would have he margin to lose an engine that early and not lose at least the secondary payloads (or force the payloads to reduce their on on orbit operation lifetime by correcting their obit themselves)... But it's still impressive they had enough margin to save the primary payload IMHO.

 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/12/2012 03:26 pm
I also wonder regarding the wording of the quote below.

I take it either to mean that there is some uncertainty in the amount of prop that would be consumed by the burn, or about exactly how much prop was left in the stage - probably some combination of the two. Thus why it was not stated as "5% short of the prop we needed", but as a percentage likelihood of completing the burn:-
That was also my interpretation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/12/2012 03:34 pm
Wrong. There is no need to add more LOX, just not burn the upperstage longer than planned due to the problemd with the first stage. 

think he worded the question wrong Jim.   Should SpaceX add more margin in the 2nd stage?


No, my point still stands, because it was a secondary payload.  If you want more margin, then the secondary payload needs to be smaller.

think we've gone full circle and have come back to this thread with discussion. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12863.270   

Dan the man was right.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/12/2012 03:54 pm

Of course, reusable stages are still years out, so until then I don't see any realistic situation where they would have he margin to lose an engine that early and not lose at least the secondary payloads (or force the payloads to reduce their on on orbit operation lifetime by correcting their obit themselves)... But it's still impressive they had enough margin to save the primary payload IMHO.


Reusable does not mean that you will not still lose the primary and secondaries in the event of a launch anomaly.

A Grasshopper like boost back system does not have the thrust and propellant to boost back with the upper stage and payload still attached. If it does boost back, it will leave a very deep crater.  Only a shuttle like system might be able to pull that off. And that is a very big maybe...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spacedem on 10/12/2012 04:01 pm

Of course, reusable stages are still years out, so until then I don't see any realistic situation where they would have he margin to lose an engine that early and not lose at least the secondary payloads (or force the payloads to reduce their on on orbit operation lifetime by correcting their obit themselves)... But it's still impressive they had enough margin to save the primary payload IMHO.


Reusable does not mean that you will not still lose the primary and secondaries in the event of a launch anomaly.

A Grasshopper like boost back system does not have the thrust and propellant to boost back with the upper stage and payload still attached. If it does boost back, it will leave a very deep crater.  Only a shuttle like system might be able to pull that off. And that is a very big maybe...

He meant that they could make the choice to sacrifice the reusable stage by using the propellant that would normally be used to land the stage as extra propellant for the boost instead.
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: nlec on 10/12/2012 04:02 pm
If SpaceX were to perform a full-duration static test fire  on the pad before CRS SpX-2 (instead of the 3 second test fire) to help remove doubt about engine reliability, do those same engines still have enough rated life left for the actual mission?

Does a test fire of that length actually reduce their reliability for a second full-duration burn?

Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/12/2012 04:03 pm

Yes, in my original post on this I was thinking only about propellant margin and not about LOX/kero usage ratio. I doubt it is possible to control mixture ratio accurately enough so that one propellant component is not left "wasted." (Anyone who knows otherwise feel free to correct this assumption.)

I suspect it is partly a matter of degree - something where the accuracy improves as the experience of multiple launches increases. However, I believe they'd always want to avoid an oxygen-rich shutdown, so there may be a deliberate policy to always have the lox run out slightly before the kero "just in case".

cheers, Martin

Good pont.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 10/12/2012 04:16 pm
If SpaceX were to perform a full-duration static test fire  on the pad before CRS SpX-2 (instead of the 3 second test fire) to help remove doubt about engine reliability, do those same engines still have enough rated life left for the actual mission?

Does a test fire of that length actually reduce their reliability for a second full-duration burn?

Thanks.
Starts are particularly hard on the engines. But normal use also is. If you concentrate on the steady state (since the start is done while clamped and you can abort). Then you could see the engine as a stochastic variable with an (monotonically increasing) chance of failure. The longer you run it before the mission, the longer you chance it that it might fail.
The fact that the anomaly happened at Max-Q has some people wondering if it wasn't related. In which case, a full duration burn wouldn't have meant squat. Until they identify the root cause, there's little to do but very wild speculations.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/12/2012 04:22 pm

Of course, reusable stages are still years out, so until then I don't see any realistic situation where they would have he margin to lose an engine that early and not lose at least the secondary payloads (or force the payloads to reduce their on on orbit operation lifetime by correcting their obit themselves)... But it's still impressive they had enough margin to save the primary payload IMHO.


Reusable does not mean that you will not still lose the primary and secondaries in the event of a launch anomaly.

A Grasshopper like boost back system does not have the thrust and propellant to boost back with the upper stage and payload still attached. If it does boost back, it will leave a very deep crater.  Only a shuttle like system might be able to pull that off. And that is a very big maybe...
If the Payload is something like Dragon, relatively intact abort is still possible if you can't make orbit. Do a controlled staging, then separate the Dragon from the upper. The first and second stages can dump most of their propellant (probably through the engines, i.e. just burn it off), hopefully can find  someplace to land (probably needs to be decided ahead of time), and the Dragon can land or splashdown somewhere. Intact abort. Hard, but not impossible even for a VTVL two-stage vehicle.

If the payload is a satellite and you still wanted intact abort, you'd need even more design compromises. You'd need to use a big, recoverable payload fairing... perhaps a fat Dragon capsule that can open up (READ: very heavy). That's essentially what the orbiter was... a big, recoverable payload fairing with some maneuvering capability for precise orbital insertion and docking/rendezvous (well, and the main engines and a crew capsule attached... Buran didn't have the main engines attached and was only optionally manned, so is even closer to this recoverable payload fairing concept).

But it doesn't HAVE to land horizontally, and perhaps more payloads would rather you didn't land horizontally, since they usually can't take the belly-flop of reentry and landing for a Shuttle-style horizontal system, while a vertical landing would have loads very similar to launch, which the payload has to survive anyway.

If Shuttle aborted to a landing site with a payload still inside before it could be deployed, usually that meant the payload would've been significantly damaged or destroyed... luckily that never happened.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/12/2012 04:22 pm
If SpaceX were to perform a full-duration static test fire  on the pad before CRS SpX-2 (instead of the 3 second test fire) to help remove doubt about engine reliability, do those same engines still have enough rated life left for the actual mission?

Does a test fire of that length actually reduce their reliability for a second full-duration burn?

Thanks.

The stage would have already been full-duration static fired in Texas. Also, F9 pad is likely not built to support a static fire for more than a few seconds.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/12/2012 04:28 pm
The stage would have already been full-duration static fired in Texas.

Not full duration, they do shorter tests. I think the record holder up until now might have been F9-03 stage due to a couple of aborted tests and their redos, amounting up to perhaps 1/2 of nominal stage burn time on the engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JohnFornaro on 10/12/2012 04:28 pm
Sheesh.  How many posts can you get in a few days?

IMO, pause the video at exactly 30 seconds and take a look at what you see full screen. It appears to me the failure of the fuel dome resulted in a small explosion as opposed to just depressurization. It looks, however, like the engine shutdown command went through such that by the time the rupture/explosion was occurring, the engine was already terminating its fuel/oxidizer supply and shutting down, which may be why it was as small as it was. So really it was ultra rapid depressurization or essentially a very small brief explosion that was contained.

I just checked my armchair to verify that it was at the proper level.

I'm going to say that this is the principle of what happened:  They received an anomalous reading from the engine and shut it down as quickly as they could.  The "detonation", or whatever it was, had already started, but had only gotten so far.  The shut down command got there in time to keep fratricidal damage to a minimum.


Not nearly as much as Antares and some of the other NASA folks on this forum. I always look forward to their posts, not some guy with a friggin' log on his shoulder.

what log?

He woulda said "chip", but it's the intertubes, so he gets to exaggerate.   And what's all that chatter about sending up "trinkets"?  I thought they were only allowed to send up "wampum".

./..the Jim Update thread...

Ootay unnyfay.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/12/2012 05:24 pm
What I find interesting is that my assumptions about the launch vehicle were completely wrong. I though that Dragon would end up being the long pole in all of this. Now it seems that Dragon is performing just fine and the Falcon 9 launch vehicle is what is taking time to straighten out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/12/2012 05:40 pm
Hoping theyll neer have another engine out is not an option. There will be engine-outs in the future, and adding margin is going to be needed. Falcon 9 v1.1 should be capable of enough margin.

Carrying enough extra fuel to compensate for engine out as early as MAXQ to complete not only the primary but secondary payloads on every mission would seem like a ridiculous exercise.

My assumption is they will never have enough margin to be able to recover 100% from a engine failure that early without a sacrifice.  IF that had been a Falcon designed for reuse of the 1st and 2nd stage they would have had margin enough to make the choice.

Lose the Secondary Payloads, or lose the 1st or 2nd stage.

Of course, reusable stages are still years out, so until then I don't see any realistic situation where they would have he margin to lose an engine that early and not lose at least the secondary payloads (or force the payloads to reduce their on on orbit operation lifetime by correcting their obit themselves)... But it's still impressive they had enough margin to save the primary payload IMHO.

 


That's true, and is a game of optimization, up until reusability comes in.

Once F9R flies, there's a fuel reserve used for a) return to base, and b) land.

So if for whatever reason an engine failed right on launch, and the vehicle ended up ascending slower and therefore burning more fuel, the payload is safe no matter what, and now we're talking about the safe return of the vehicle - maybe land at a contingency site downrange, maybe lose the rocket.

(If you have a fleet of rockets, losing one is just a matter of capital cost, which can be insured.  This is different than a satellite which can easily be a one-of-a-kind for the customer)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/12/2012 05:52 pm
Update / SpaceX CRS-1 Mission: October 12

 

NASA and SpaceX announce that they have jointly formed a CRS-1 Post-Flight Investigation Board. This board will methodically analyze all data in an effort to understand what occurred to engine 1 during liftoff of the CRS-1 mission on Sunday, October 7. While Falcon 9 was designed for engine out capability and the Dragon spacecraft has successfully arrived at the space station, SpaceX is committed to a comprehensive examination and analysis of all launch data, with the goal of understanding what happened and how to correct it prior to future flights. Additional information will be provided as it is available.

 

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/12/2012 06:10 pm
January looks a lot less rosy now :(

Glad to see they are taking the anomaly seriously!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/12/2012 06:56 pm
If SpaceX were to perform a full-duration static test fire  on the pad before CRS SpX-2 (instead of the 3 second test fire) to help remove doubt about engine reliability, do those same engines still have enough rated life left for the actual mission?

Does a test fire of that length actually reduce their reliability for a second full-duration burn?

Thanks.

that 3 second test fire "could" have caused the problem of this one engine....we just don't know yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/12/2012 06:58 pm

Glad to see they are taking the anomaly seriously!

like they have a choice?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/12/2012 07:15 pm

Glad to see they are taking the anomaly seriously!

like they have a choice?

The Russians, it was said, would just sweep away the debris and launch the next 'un.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 10/12/2012 07:28 pm

Glad to see they are taking the anomaly seriously!

like they have a choice?

The Russians, it was said, would just sweep away the debris and launch the next 'un.
From what I read they did very thorough analysis. At first, of course, they lacked the experience and the support infrastructure to get to the root cause. But reading Rockets and People I got a new found respect for their system.
You might say that when they didn't find a cause they tend to say it's "a manufacturing defect" or  "somebody left a rag". But the second Taurus failure had also supposedly found the fairing's root issue. If you consider the number of stages they launch per year, their average is not bad at all. They just design relatively unreliable hardware because it's cheaper or because they have some serious transport and launch site limitations.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/12/2012 07:34 pm
January looks a lot less rosy now :(

That is speculation on your side.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mikegi on 10/12/2012 07:40 pm
Couple of things I was wondering about:

1. What effect would the engine problem have had if it was much earlier in the flight? Would Dragon have made it to orbit? Would the damage pattern have been different (e.g. would it have been more likely to cause problems with the other engines because of the lower altitude)?

2. If this was a manned Dragon, would the mission have been aborted when the failure occured? I'm not sure of the Dragon abort system so I don't know if it would have been available at that time (i.e. jettisoned or rendered inactive).

Thanks

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/12/2012 07:42 pm
2. If this was a manned Dragon, would the mission have been aborted when the failure occured? I'm not sure of the Dragon abort system so I don't know if it would have been available at that time (i.e. jettisoned or rendered inactive).

I imagine that an abort condition would have been triggered if and only if the flight controller decided that there was insufficient margin to reach the target orbit and that an abort-to-orbit was also impossible to achieve. In the SpX-1 case, I don't think that the escape system would have been activated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/12/2012 07:50 pm
Orbcomm confirmed re-entry of satellite...

http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/OG2%20Prototype.pdf

press release however sounds very strange and controversial... basically
Not really. Realizing their satellite had a short orbital life time they have truncated the commissioning phase.

They are also trying to put the most positive view on the events and put out the message that (basically) it's NASA's fault for having this gate.

Think of it like buying a satellite decoder. Got it home? Check. Unpacked box? Check. Connected it up? Check Switched on and running? Check.

But what this does *not* do is allow them to test for *endurance* of on orbit hardware (EG thermal cycling in a vacuum over a *long* period over what about 90mins ) and signal strength (other posters mentioned the output from this altitude will be *loud* to ground receivers).

Weather they have a claim depends on the exact rules in the policy. It did not make the requested orbit and the orbit it did make has a *very* limited life expectancy. They sound like pretty good grounds for a full claim to me.

Intriguingly the tone of it *suggests* they are *not* going to launch a 2nd test mission but going ahead with launching the constellation as planned on F9's and pocket the cash (paragraph 3)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/12/2012 08:04 pm
Couple of things I was wondering about:

1. What effect would the engine problem have had if it was much earlier in the flight? Would Dragon have made it to orbit? Would the damage pattern have been different (e.g. would it have been more likely to cause problems with the other engines because of the lower altitude)?


Considering the Falcon has shielding for a turbine RUD around each Merlin I doubt the actual damage would have been much different. Remember it was a sudden pressure drop in the fuel dome, the turbines shut down safely and the cutoff valves held. MaxQ was about the worse point for tearing stuff off after that sudden pressure drop.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: bob the martian on 10/12/2012 08:09 pm

Glad to see they are taking the anomaly seriously!

like they have a choice?


I don't understand why people think they wouldn't take it seriously.  Their business success hinges on reliability, and while they've demonstrated that their engine-out capability is more then just hype, life's just plain easier for everyone when everything works as expected.  Of course they're going to take this seriously, analyze the data, attempt to find the root cause and correct it if possible.  I would hope that by now SpaceX has shown that they're in this business for real, that they intend to be a player in commercial space flight. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/12/2012 08:17 pm
Think of it like buying a satellite decoder. Got it home? Check. Unpacked box? Check. Connected it up? Check Switched on and running? Check.

But what this does *not* do is allow them to test for *endurance* of on orbit hardware (EG thermal cycling in a vacuum over a *long* period over what about 90mins ) and signal strength (other posters mentioned the output from this altitude will be *loud* to ground receivers).

Weather they have a claim depends on the exact rules in the policy. It did not make the requested orbit and the orbit it did make has a *very* limited life expectancy. They sound like pretty good grounds for a full claim to me.

Intriguingly the tone of it *suggests* they are *not* going to launch a 2nd test mission but going ahead with launching the constellation as planned on F9's and pocket the cash (paragraph 3)

That was the main test item on my reading of the Orbcomm test program too. Endurance time in orbit. However,  two points:
1.  I'd think the close-in orbit would be somewhat worse for thermal cycling, with a higher proportion of night-time (still not 50% of course).
2. Endurance is never going to be something you finishing testing, in one sense. Of course you want some minimum endurance but you only ever accumulate evidence, never a strong yes/no like some tests.

And like you, I read this as saying they'd seen enough to calm their strongest concerns prior to operational launch, and they just intend to go for full deployment. The insurance companies are likely to take this as meaning that Orbcomm got some significant utility out of this missions - and I'd guess they did, even if not the whole of the actions that they were intending. The negotiation on the value of that unfulfilled expectation will no doubt take a little time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/12/2012 08:28 pm
I'm sure he's saying excess fuel over the O2 to burn it.

The prop left for the restart is a small proportion of the total upper stage prop at launch. I suspect it needs only a tiny imbalance of consumption of O2 over kero during ascent to just leave a slight imbalance of kero over O2 for the restart. Thus, enough kero but not enough O2.

cheers, Martin
Note while it sounds like a great idea to *precisely* load just enough propellant to get *maximum* payload to the planned orbit the joker in the pack is statistical uncertainty. So *all* launchers are overloaded with propellant to ensure they reach orbit.

Naturally the better the tanking system, the lower the needed margin.

But to minimize the excess mass the aim is to ensure that while *both* propellants are loaded in excess the *lighter* one runs out *last*.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/12/2012 08:43 pm
Makes more sense to adjust the mixture ratio so that both reach their minimum levels (residuals) at the same moment.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 10/12/2012 08:50 pm
Makes more sense to adjust the mixture ratio so that both reach their minimum levels (residuals) at the same moment.
No all engines can adjust the mixture ratio. But even if you could, there's some stochastic component to the amount of fuel left. And you want some reserves in case you have some slight under performance. What's more, an oxidizer rich shutdown might have catastrophic consequences. So, just in case, you bias towards an excess of fuel. Not to mention that in the particular case of LOX/RP-1 you have boil off issue only with the oxidizer. If you had to burn longer, particularly after an engine out, the boil off losses would have accumulated. So the bias would have been even bigger.
And in any case, for this particular mission, it was a "problem" of extremely tight requirements on a payload that wasn't worth too much risk reduction measures.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/12/2012 09:11 pm
No all engines can adjust the mixture ratio. But even if you could, there's some stochastic component to the amount of fuel left. And you want some reserves in case you have some slight under performance. What's more, an oxidizer rich shutdown might have catastrophic consequences. So, just in case, you bias towards an excess of fuel. Not to mention that in the particular case of LOX/RP-1 you have boil off issue only with the oxidizer. If you had to burn longer, particularly after an engine out, the boil off losses would have accumulated. So the bias would have been even bigger.
And in any case, for this particular mission, it was a "problem" of extremely tight requirements on a payload that wasn't worth too much risk reduction measures.
Nice summary. Note also the issue was that at the propellant loading on the 2nd stage the simulations estimated "only" a 95% chance of reaching the correct new orbit versus a required confidence level of 99%.

I'll note that due to propellants density changing due to temperature and atmospheric pressure it's normal to measure their loading by their mass. Modern weighing systems can weigh a structure the size of the Shuttle stack (c2million kg) to the nearest Kg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/12/2012 09:42 pm
We don't know that. Insufficient information in the press release.
Well, I assume January is goner until proven otherwise. I do not believe they can do it (investigate, correct and test) in less than three months. I assume there was no external damage to engine (worst case).

They may indeed be able to. I wouldn't count it out, yet. Remember how quickly they trimmed the nozzle?

Then again, if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet anything on it happening in January, either. What is the current NET launch date for CRS-2?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/12/2012 09:47 pm
Our expert Jim has stated that tanks are loaded full.  With that, most of the comments on loading are irrelevant. 

With pressure and temperature fixed by design and environmental conditions, the fuel and oxidizer masses are known at launch.  After that I believe they have to estimate based on how long and hard the engines have burned.  The uncertainties result in the probabalisic limits that were the criteria for the second stage relight.

Maybe the controller can adjust the mixture ratio, but that's about all that can be adjusted that I can see.  However, until someone knowlegeable says that rockets do this, I will remain highly skeptical.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/12/2012 09:51 pm
(snip) What is the current NET launch date for CRS-2?

As said before, CRS-2 isn't even on anik's list. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg949396#msg949396)  Until it is, I don't consider it really scheduled, just planned.   It was planned for December 16th (IIRC) on some less reliable ISS planning schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/12/2012 10:06 pm
Our expert Jim has stated that tanks are loaded full.  With that, most of the comments on loading are irrelevant. 

Maybe the controller can adjust the mixture ratio, but that's about all that can be adjusted that I can see.  However, until someone knowlegeable says that rockets do this, I will remain highly skeptical.

See for example, "Modern Engineering for Design of Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines", page 221, for examples in real engines and a long list of reasons this might be desirable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/12/2012 10:14 pm
Our expert Jim has stated that tanks are loaded full.  With that, most of the comments on loading are irrelevant. 

Maybe the controller can adjust the mixture ratio, but that's about all that can be adjusted that I can see.  However, until someone knowlegeable says that rockets do this, I will remain highly skeptical.

Here's someone fairly knowledgable (Werner von Braun) explaining how and why they do this, in "Popular Science" in 1964:

http://books.google.com/books?id=WCYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA166&lpg=RA1-PA166&dq=rl-10+rocket+engine+mixture+control&source=bl&ots=uOUfQ-ZmLr&sig=BofEm8AfCErEkxe6N8tKlwRBFBg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wZR4UJ6-IO-80AHUk4DgAQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=rl-10%20rocket%20engine%20mixture%20control&f=false

If the link does not work, you can find this by typing ' "How is mixture ratio controlled" Braun ' into google - at least this worked for me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 10/12/2012 10:17 pm
With regard to the announced investigation board and the next mission, there are three main possibilities:

1) A root cause is quickly determined, corrective action is minimal and the next launch is scheduled with minimal delay.

2)  A root cause is quickly determined, corrective action is intensive and the next launch is delayed until changes can be implemented.

3)  Root cause is indeterminate, with conflicting theories and no clear consensus.  Some changes are made, but it is not clear if the root cause has been addressed.


In the event of #3, IMHO, roll the dice and launch the last unmanned cargo flight with Merlin 1Cs and take data.  If that's the only way to learn and move forward.  They've got mass production set up, and engineering time for testing isn't cheap.  They could easily blow through more than the cost of an already built rocket with an obsolete engine if this drags out for a year.

In addition, and I'm sure Jim will correct me if I'm wrong, but if engine out capability is going to factor into man rating and crew survivability, does anyone really think NASA would allow that as a factor without seeing it in action more than once?

Might as well launch again, blow an engine, make orbit again and show everyone it wasn't a fluke.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: newspacer on 10/12/2012 10:39 pm
Makes more sense to adjust the mixture ratio so that both reach their minimum levels (residuals) at the same moment.
No all engines can adjust the mixture ratio. But even if you could, there's some stochastic component to the amount of fuel left. And you want some reserves in case you have some slight under performance. What's more, an oxidizer rich shutdown might have catastrophic consequences. So, just in case, you bias towards an excess of fuel. Not to mention that in the particular case of LOX/RP-1 you have boil off issue only with the oxidizer. If you had to burn longer, particularly after an engine out, the boil off losses would have accumulated. So the bias would have been even bigger.
And in any case, for this particular mission, it was a "problem" of extremely tight requirements on a payload that wasn't worth too much risk reduction measures.

F9 has a propellant utilization system which uses a fuel trim valve between the fuel pump and injector on each engine to do exactly what MP99 is suggesting.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 10/13/2012 12:48 am

In addition, and I'm sure Jim will correct me if I'm wrong, but if engine out capability is going to factor into man rating and crew survivability, does anyone really think NASA would allow that as a factor without seeing it in action more than once?

Might as well launch again, blow an engine, make orbit again and show everyone it wasn't a fluke.

Engine out capability is meant to be an additional safety factor, not an excuse to lower standards. I'm not sure if NASA would approve of the system because it had that ability if they wouldn't approve without it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/13/2012 02:17 am
F9 has a propellant utilization system which uses a fuel trim valve between the fuel pump and injector on each engine to do exactly what MP99 is suggesting.

Thank you.  That is the critical information.

Now the von Braun reference just said that it could be done.  However the link to that Popular Science from December 1964 was very interesting, as it also has  the first photo of the YA-12A, the predecessor to the SR-71 designation, and the XB-70A!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/13/2012 03:30 am
Hey - does anyone here know where approximately the first stage remains ended up?   Or even where it started re-entering?

Does anyone know if there's ANY realistic chance of going to get it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/13/2012 05:19 am
Hey - does anyone here know where approximately the first stage remains ended up?   Or even where it started re-entering?

Does anyone know if there's ANY realistic chance of going to get it?

By comparision, The S1C first stage that lofted Apollo 11, truly a historic treasure, has resisted a substantial effort at recovery by Jeff Bezos.  Falcon 9 #4 went farther north, is a much smaller target, and is much less worthy of a recovery effort.  It seems beyond consideration.   
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/13/2012 05:41 am
Hey - does anyone here know where approximately the first stage remains ended up?   Or even where it started re-entering?

Does anyone know if there's ANY realistic chance of going to get it?

By comparision, The S1C first stage that lofted Apollo 11, truly a historic treasure, has resisted a substantial effort at recovery by Jeff Bezos.  Falcon 9 #4 went farther north, is a much smaller target, and is much less worthy of a recovery effort.  It seems beyond consideration.   

Well, a lot of it has to do with the quality of tracking, and the depth of the ocean floor, right?  Was there a NOTAM (or some other appropriate keep-away notice) issued for the projected impact zone?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/13/2012 06:03 am
I thought I read somewhere that the F9 first stage impacts about 600 miles downrange.  Since I don't remember the source, there's no telling whether that's accurate or not.

A cursory glance at Google Earth puts it somewhere off the coast of North Carolina, in water about 8-10,000 feet deep.  I'm sure it could be done, but it would be expensive.  It would only make sense to try it if they can't figure out what happened from the telemetry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 10/13/2012 11:15 am
They may indeed be able to. I wouldn't count it out, yet. Remember how quickly they trimmed the nozzle?
They would be incredibly lucky if it was something as simple as that. I do not believe that. Will be fun to see guesses thrown at number of SpaceX launches in 2013...

Then again, if I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet anything on it happening in January, either. What is the current NET launch date for CRS-2?
Unfortunately, I know only month. I am not sure if precise date was set at all. And with what happened on CRS-1, it will probably be even more uncertain.

Isn't recovery effort futile? AFAIK each first stage went down in pieces.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/13/2012 11:45 am
Maybe the controller can adjust the mixture ratio, but that's about all that can be adjusted that I can see.  However, until someone knowlegeable says that rockets do this, I will remain highly skeptical.

RL-10s have done this for the last 50 years. The J2 or J2-S had it as well.

I don't think most US LOX/HC engines have had it but I'm not sure about the Russians.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/13/2012 03:27 pm
If SpaceX were to perform a full-duration static test fire  on the pad before CRS SpX-2 (instead of the 3 second test fire) to help remove doubt about engine reliability, do those same engines still have enough rated life left for the actual mission?

Does a test fire of that length actually reduce their reliability for a second full-duration burn?

Production/flight items should not require more than one test to verify workmanship.  A second test is sometimes necessary to tune a component where performance is critical, but this is usually more important for second stage engines than 1st stage or where the tuning predictions may be uncertain.  Production items should see as little use as possible before flight but not zero.  Workmanship must be screened.

Even a single-engine RUD on the pad sounds like a really bad idea to me.

2. If this was a manned Dragon, would the mission have been aborted when the failure occured? I'm not sure of the Dragon abort system so I don't know if it would have been available at that time (i.e. jettisoned or rendered inactive).

Why do people ask questions about things that aren't designed yet?  This is why I don't even look at CCP and other development threads.

I'll note that due to propellants density changing due to temperature and atmospheric pressure it's normal to measure their loading by their mass.

No.  These are either measured by level sensors or dP transducers in the tanks (to get rho*g*h, then h yields volume) or by flowmeters/totalizers on the fill and drain lines which measure volume.  In either case, mass has to be inferred from volume and temperature.

if engine out capability is going to factor into man rating and crew survivability, does anyone really think NASA would allow that as a factor without seeing it in action more than once?

They did with Shuttle.  Many will raise holy he|| if NASA pulls a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/13/2012 05:03 pm
Makes more sense to adjust the mixture ratio so that both reach their minimum levels (residuals) at the same moment.
No all engines can adjust the mixture ratio. But even if you could, there's some stochastic component to the amount of fuel left. And you want some reserves in case you have some slight under performance. What's more, an oxidizer rich shutdown might have catastrophic consequences. So, just in case, you bias towards an excess of fuel.

Agreed:-
However, I believe they'd always want to avoid an oxygen-rich shutdown, so there may be a deliberate policy to always have the lox run out slightly before the kero "just in case".



F9 has a propellant utilization system which uses a fuel trim valve between the fuel pump and injector on each engine to do exactly what MP99 is suggesting.

Thanks. BTW, in this launch video at T+0:57 "first stage propellant utilisation is active" is called out. They do same for second stage, though it's not on this video.

cheers, Martin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tRTYh71D9P0#t=62s
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/13/2012 07:01 pm
Here's a wild unsubstantiated speculation that I didn't see on this thread before:  The fuel dome could have been damaged either in transport or during installation of the fairing corners.

This does not require a failure of either the specific acceptance test or the testing methodology.  (both of these options require both a flaw, and a test failure)

I think a handling error like this is at least as likely as something external failing in the rocket, and it's not difficult to create a fault that survives the 3 second pad test, but fails in 80.

No evidence for it whatsoever, but it should have been added to the list of option discussed earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/13/2012 08:55 pm
Not sure where to discuss this, but with the recent RL10 issue and this Merlin 1C/Falcon 9 failure, all of the large U.S. orbital launch vehicles are now out of action, pending investigation results, etc.  That may be it for 2012 for the U.S. side of the orbital launch ledger.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/13/2012 09:08 pm
F9 has a propellant utilization system which uses a fuel trim valve between the fuel pump and injector on each engine to do exactly what MP99 is suggesting.

So when this engine was acceptance tested, was it run with the fuel trim valve at a nominal setting, or was the setting varied up to its extremes? And to be clear, the trim valve is outside the fuel dome, right?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/13/2012 09:11 pm
and it's not difficult to create a fault that survives the 3 second pad test, but fails in 80.

I don't know how difficult that is, but it does make me wonder if SpaceX will rethink their strategy of performing pad hotfires before launch. This was the 2nd Merlin issue in the last two lauches that wasn't picked up by the hotfire, in fact the hotfire might have contributed to one of them (the failing check valve). ISTM they're not really getting much out of them, compared to just doing stage acceptance tests in McGregor.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/13/2012 09:13 pm
Not sure where to discuss this, but with the recent RL10 issue and this Merlin 1C/Falcon 9 failure, all of the large U.S. orbital launch vehicles are now out of action, pending investigation results, etc.  That may be it for 2012 for the U.S. side of the orbital launch ledger.

 - Ed Kyle

Orbital isn't grounded.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/13/2012 09:14 pm
ISTM they're not really getting much out of [hot fire tests on the pad], compared to just doing stage acceptance tests in McGregor.

They're getting assurance that nothing changed (i.e. was damaged) in transit. Couldn't even the nominal transport environment induce vibrations leading to trouble?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/13/2012 09:42 pm
Not sure where to discuss this, but with the recent RL10 issue and this Merlin 1C/Falcon 9 failure, all of the large U.S. orbital launch vehicles are now out of action, pending investigation results, etc.  That may be it for 2012 for the U.S. side of the orbital launch ledger.

 - Ed Kyle


Orbital isn't grounded.

large U.S. orbital launch vehicle  ::)

Maybe this should be posted in the US launch schedule thread.

In any case, there is only the AV 501 flight with the X-37B and the AV 401  flight with the TDRS-K left on the 2012 schedule. IMO the Antares Demo will slip to 2013.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/13/2012 09:56 pm
Antares isn't small... It's medium (by industry standards, I'd argue), in the Delta II class.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/13/2012 10:06 pm
Antares isn't small... It's medium (by industry standards, I'd argue), in the Delta II class.
It also isn't flying, yet. December for test flight, probably. Meanwhile, back to SpX-1....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/13/2012 10:11 pm
Antares isn't small... It's medium (by industry standards, I'd argue), in the Delta II class.
It also isn't flying, yet. December for test flight, probably. Meanwhile, back to SpX-1....
...but it isn't grounded. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/14/2012 12:30 am
ISTM they're not really getting much out of [hot fire tests on the pad], compared to just doing stage acceptance tests in McGregor.

They're getting assurance that nothing changed (i.e. was damaged) in transit. Couldn't even the nominal transport environment induce vibrations leading to trouble?

Plus, it does give them some schedule cushion if an engine or other component fails or goes out of spec on the pad test and needs to be changed, because it gets found a week or so ahead of launch, instead of on launch day.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/14/2012 12:37 am
Antares isn't small... It's medium (by industry standards, I'd argue), in the Delta II class.

And I'm not convinced that it can correctly be classified as a "U.S." launch vehicle - and that really should be a discussion for another thread!

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/14/2012 04:06 am
Are we considering this a 4th successful launch for SpaceX?  Primary mission successful, secondary payload failed.  What is the definition of a successful launch in rocket engineering?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/14/2012 05:00 am
Are we considering this a 4th successful launch for SpaceX?  Primary mission successful, secondary payload failed.  What is the definition of a successful launch in rocket engineering?

As with many things, it depends on who you ask. SpaceX can call it a success, because they got their primary payload to orbit. NASA can call it a success, because Dragon reached ISS. ORBCOMM can call it a partial success, because although they didn't reach their intended orbit, they were able to deploy and check out some systems on their satellite. Otherwise, there is no textbook formula for "success." It's generally just getting your payload, intact, to the correct orbit.

In the case of secondary payloads, it's understood that the primary payload has priority, and as a secondary payload you have to live with the consequences of getting the short end of the stick in cases like this. Which is why secondary payloads pay only a fraction of what the primary payload pays (and because secondaries are typically much lower mass and require fewer services).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/14/2012 05:02 am
Are we considering this a 4th successful launch for SpaceX?  Primary mission successful, secondary payload failed.  What is the definition of a successful launch in rocket engineering?

Well, SpaceX certainly think so:

Quote
The goal of this mission was to transport cargo to the international space station for NASA,” SpaceX’s Oct. 11 statement said. “Orbcomm requested that SpaceX carry one of their small satellites (weighing a few hundred pounds, vs. Dragon at over 12,000 pounds) on this flight so that they could gather test data before we launch their full constellation next year.

“The higher the orbit, the more test data they can gather, so they requested that we attempt to restart and raise altitude. NASA agreed to allow that, but only on condition that there be substantial propellant reserves, since the orbit would be close to the space station.

“It is important to appreciate that Orbcomm understood from the beginning that the orbit-raising maneuver was tentative. They accepted that there was a high risk of their satellite remaining at the Dragon insertion orbit. SpaceX would not have agreed to fly their satellite otherwise, since this was not part of the core mission and there was a known, material risk of no altitude raise.”

via http://spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/121011-orbcomm-craft-falls-out-orbit.html

Makes me wonder how this will affect Orbcomm's insurance claim.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/14/2012 05:25 am
Are we considering this a 4th successful launch for SpaceX?  Primary mission successful, secondary payload failed.  What is the definition of a successful launch in rocket engineering?

I like jcm's formula:

I'm trying to quantify that to have a metric that I can apply fairly
to other companies' launches. I'm come up with the following strawman scheme, and welcome comments:

 Primary payloads reach some orbit and separate from LV -  30 percent
 Primary payload orbit is usable, not necessarily perfect      -  25
 Primary payload orbit is as planned (within quoted sigmas)  -  20
 Secondary payload separated in orbit -                              10
  Secondary payload orbit usable -                                     10
  Secondary payload orbit as planned -                                 5

by this metric, the Falcon 9 launch scores 85 percent

For a launch with no secondary payloads, add the corresponding secondary scores to the primary, so 40/35/25

For a launch with multiple primary payloads, divide scores evenly


one might tweak this to cover cases where the LV damages the
satellite in some way - limited damage, subtract 20 percent,
satellite inoperable scores same as failure to orbit (i.e. total 0)

That's as good a metric as I've seen.  85% sounds about right for this launch.  If there were no secondary payload, then it would have been 100% successful.  SpaceX has proven that they do indeed have engine-out capability with the Falcon 9, just as they have always claimed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/14/2012 01:32 pm
Otherwise, there is no textbook formula for "success." It's generally just getting your payload, intact, to the correct orbit.

Um, yes there is.  It's called the ICD (Interface Control Document).  It specifies the acceptable limits for environments and orbits seen prior to spacecraft separation and CCAM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/14/2012 03:17 pm
Otherwise, there is no textbook formula for "success." It's generally just getting your payload, intact, to the correct orbit.

Um, yes there is.  It's called the ICD (Interface Control Document).  It specifies the acceptable limits for environments and orbits seen prior to spacecraft separation and CCAM.

The ICD is not a "textbook," it's a mission-specific document describing the interfaces, services, and environments the payload will get from the LV, and it describes succces just as I said: getting the payload to orbit "intact"  ( ie within acceptable vibe, shock, and thermal limits, etc). Every ICD is different based on different payload needs and launcher environments.

So my point was, there's no "Launch Vehicle Design and Operations" textbook that one can open and find a universal definition of "success," AFAIK. If there were, we wouldn't have people like Ed Kyle and jcm here coming up with their own metrics.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/14/2012 06:57 pm
The universal definition of success is meeting a mission ICD.  I don't understand why some are looking for a different one, even if its the typical and oddly frequent motive for wanting to know things that are proprietary or otherwise restricted.  There are bright lines between success and failure for each requirement in an ICD.  When those are exceeded, typical claims or final payments are proportionate to the number of unfunctional payloads or loss of on-orbit life.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/14/2012 07:58 pm
The universal definition of success is meeting a mission ICD.  I don't understand why some are looking for a different one, even if its the typical and oddly frequent motive for wanting to know things that are proprietary or otherwise restricted.  There are bright lines between success and failure for each requirement in an ICD.  When those are exceeded, typical claims or final payments are proportionate to the number of unfunctional payloads or loss of on-orbit life.

Not disagreeing with anything you said. I was simply trying to answer tigerade's question "when is a launch considered a success?" And, as you well know, some launches have been called "successful" even when the payload was placed in the wrong orbit (e.g. Pegasus F1).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 10/14/2012 09:06 pm
The universal definition of success is meeting a mission ICD.  I don't understand why some are looking for a different one, even if its the typical and oddly frequent motive for wanting to know things that are proprietary or otherwise restricted.  There are bright lines between success and failure for each requirement in an ICD.  When those are exceeded, typical claims or final payments are proportionate to the number of unfunctional payloads or loss of on-orbit life.

That is a purist way of defining success, but I'm not sure it is much use for outside observers (i.e. us).

I have seen many payload guides, but I don't think I've ever seen a ICD for a specific payload, are they freely available? I also have never seen the full actual performance of a launcher (vibration, shock, power, temperature, acceleration, etc.). Without those it is impossible to say whether any particular launch meets the ICD.

Added complications come with multiple payloads, particularly if they have different ICD.

A launch could have some parameters outside the ICD and yet have the payload(s) be 100% successful in their mission objectives.

Taking such a purist view is not helpful or useful, in my opinion, except for the launcher's engineering teams - as any exceeding of ICD parameters needs to be investigated and fixed (even if the fix is to change future ICDs).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/14/2012 09:32 pm
Are we considering this a 4th successful launch for SpaceX?  Primary mission successful, secondary payload failed.  What is the definition of a successful launch in rocket engineering?

It is a launch failure, resulting in loss of secondary payload.  Orbcomm reentered and was declared a total loss by its owner. 

The primary payload and mission have to date succeeded.  This is similar to several missions that reached orbit despite launch failures, but still failed to achieve all of the basic mission goals. 

For those who can't abide all-or-nothing categorization, I would propose a judging based on payload mass.  In this case, the 7 tonne primary payload insertion was a success while the 0.165 tonne second payload insertion failed.  That's 7/7.165 = 0.977. 

Another option might be to compare total delta-v delivered versus total delta-v expected.  In this case, the number might be something like 9200/9350 meters/sec = 0.984.  Note that the two results are similar, and that both can be rounded off to 0.98!

Another, more simplified method would be to note that the flight had two payloads, one inserted successfully and one unsuccessfully for a 0.5 result - the "partial failure" so often discussed.  Of course we must remember that for Orbcomm, this was total and it was failure - and future potential customers are going to take note.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/14/2012 09:41 pm
I think it should simply be done based on primary versus secondary success. If you're a customer for the primary payload such as for human spaceflight or ISS cargo missions then this flight is absolutely and unequivocally a success. And let's just be honest most of the people coming to this site care about that figure.

If you're looking to fly a secondary on a flight that is also scheduled to deliver to the international space station then absolutely you should take this flight into consideration as a failure to deliver to your proper orbit. But there's only one more version of this rock that is set to fly. if I were flying a secondary on Dragon cargo flight I would be negotiating with space X right now to see how much margin they've allowed to ensure secondary payload success. But as Ed noted this secondary was incredibly small compared to the primary payload. If Spacex's were just wanting a couple cube sats with this also be considered a launch failure?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/14/2012 09:47 pm
I don't understand how Orbcomm's insurance can pay out.

It was stated this was a "prototype" and Orbcomm had accepted the risk of ending up in the lower orbit before the launch.  Also, the engineering checkouts of the "prototype" were completed before it re-entered.

Yet they file an insurance claim for a total loss, when SpaceX says the requirements were met.  How is that possible?  If it wasn't acceptable to end up in that lower orbit and just get 2-3 days of engineering data, they shouldn't have flown.  Otherwise this is a little like burning down your own house and then claiming insurance on it.

The reality is that these 18 satellites were originally manifested as the *primary* payloads on their own F1Es with launches expected to start in 2010.  I'm sure all 18 are in a pretty advanced stage of construction, if not sitting in clean rooms 100% complete at this point.  Flight testing of prototypes of communications satellites is *not* the industry standard.

Orbcomm has their own investors to answer to, and flying this "prototype" was probably mostly to keep those investors happy and save face for SpaceX's inability to fulfill their contract even 2 years behind schedule.  Other then that, I bet it is a "prototype" in name only.  Certainly it's very late in the game to make any changes to the other 17 that were supposed to start flying 2 years ago.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/14/2012 10:08 pm
Yet they file an insurance claim for a total loss, when SpaceX says the requirements were met.  How is that possible? 

This is a prime example of something I discussed previously.  The launch vehicle manufacturer naturally emphasizes success and minimizes, or even omits, discussion of failure.  For a fair analyses of a launch result, then, any statements by the launch vehicle manufacturer should be taken with that self-promotion bias in mind.  A launch is not a full success just because SpaceX, or ULA, or Orbital, etc., says that it is a success.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/14/2012 10:22 pm
Yet they file an insurance claim for a total loss, when SpaceX says the requirements were met.  How is that possible? 

This is a prime example of something I discussed previously.  The launch vehicle manufacturer naturally emphasizes success and minimizes, or even omits, discussion of failure.  For a fair analyses of a launch result, then, any statements by the launch vehicle manufacturer should be taken with that self-promotion bias in mind.  A launch is not a full success just because SpaceX, or ULA, or Orbital, etc., says that it is a success.

 - Ed Kyle
And neither are they full launch failures.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/14/2012 11:59 pm
I don't understand how Orbcomm's insurance can pay out.

It was stated this was a "prototype" and Orbcomm had accepted the risk of ending up in the lower orbit before the launch.  Also, the engineering checkouts of the "prototype" were completed before it re-entered.

Yet they file an insurance claim for a total loss, when SpaceX says the requirements were met.  How is that possible?  If it wasn't acceptable to end up in that lower orbit and just get 2-3 days of engineering data, they shouldn't have flown.  Otherwise this is a little like burning down your own house and then claiming insurance on it.

The reality is that these 18 satellites were originally manifested as the *primary* payloads on their own F1Es with launches expected to start in 2010.  I'm sure all 18 are in a pretty advanced stage of construction, if not sitting in clean rooms 100% complete at this point.  Flight testing of prototypes of communications satellites is *not* the industry standard.

Orbcomm has their own investors to answer to, and flying this "prototype" was probably mostly to keep those investors happy and save face for SpaceX's inability to fulfill their contract even 2 years behind schedule.  Other then that, I bet it is a "prototype" in name only.  Certainly it's very late in the game to make any changes to the other 17 that were supposed to start flying 2 years ago.

The point about what flying a "prototype" means is a very good one.  A prototype means that you are a lot less concerned about it.  Even if "prototype" in name only, giving it that label means less concern and more acceptance of risk.

For any company, being a "secondary payload", means accepting a certain level of risk and accepting increased levels of potential failure.

Irregardless of how "purists" may categorize issues with the recent secondary payload, it is likely that companies will continue to take the risk.  Believing that it will more likely pay off for them, than to fail.

In the bigger view, it remains to be seen if this will have any affect on SpaceX's business, and so far those affects look minimum.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/15/2012 12:25 am
I don't understand how Orbcomm's insurance can pay out.

It was stated this was a "prototype" and Orbcomm had accepted the risk of ending up in the lower orbit before the launch.  Also, the engineering checkouts of the "prototype" were completed before it re-entered.

Yet they file an insurance claim for a total loss, when SpaceX says the requirements were met.  How is that possible?  If it wasn't acceptable to end up in that lower orbit and just get 2-3 days of engineering data, they shouldn't have flown.

SpaceX told Orbcomm, as part of their launch contract, that there was some probability that they would not be able to do a second burn to get OG2 into the higher orbit.  Orbcomm then had their insurance policy written such that, if OG2 was not boosted to the higher orbit, the insurance company would pay for its loss. So the possibility of this outcome was known in advance to all parties, and insured against. No mystery there.

SpaceX is saying they met their minimum commitment to OG2, which was to get it into the lower orbit intact, which they did.

As for what's "acceptable" to Orbcomm, of course they would have liked to get to the higher orbit. But they knew there was a chance of not making it, and getting only a few days in a lower orbit. That's what happens when you're a secondary payload...you get a much less expensive ride, and you don't get priority. The risks were known by all ahead of time, and insured against.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2012 12:31 am
In an ideal world that's probably true. I expect it's not actually that clear cut.



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/15/2012 12:54 am
I don't know what insurance company would write a policy where both of the other parties involved claim success - SpaceX delivered the payload to an agreed upon orbit and Orbcomm got their engineering data on their "prototype" - but the insurance company still pays out.

Seems very fishy to me. 



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/15/2012 01:12 am
I don't know what insurance company would write a policy where both of the other parties involved claim success - SpaceX delivered the payload to an agreed upon orbit and Orbcomm got their engineering data on their "prototype" - but the insurance company still pays out.

Seems very fishy to me. 





The insurance company, and the law, doesn't give a rat's behind what the insured party says publicly in their press releases. The insurance company wrote a policy to reimburse them for certain cases, calculated the odds of those cases, and charged Orbcomm a premium priced accordingly. Since one of the insured events occurred (OG2 not reaching the higher orbit) they'll have to pay out. That's how the insurance business works.

Orbcomm got their satellite into a low orbit, turned it on, ran some tests on it, and verified it worked. So they wrote a press release worded as positively as they could. That's how public relations works. They want to reassure their investors and customers. They can say anything they want in public, and it has nothing to do with the terms of their insurance contract.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2012 01:17 am
You keep acting like you've read this insurance policy. You haven't have you?

I hope it works out for them, but the check hasn't been written yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 10/15/2012 01:33 am
You keep acting like you've read this insurance policy. You haven't have you?

I hope it works out for them, but the check hasn't been written yet.

Source?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/15/2012 01:40 am
You keep acting like you've read this insurance policy. You haven't have you?

I hope it works out for them, but the check hasn't been written yet.

No, I haven't read it, I'm just reading between the lines. If Orbcomm says publicly that their insurance policy covers the loss, I don't see any reason to doubt them, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have insured against a low orbit that SpaceX told them was a possible outcome.

I'm not claiming any special knowledge, just trying to explain to marsman why it's not necessarily inconsistent for Orbcomm to (a) get paid for a loss under their insurance policy and (b) publicly claim some degree of mission success.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/15/2012 02:50 am
The obvious (in hindsight) fallback activity for the upper stage, once it failed propellent limits to clear the ISS, would have been to circularize Orbcomm at the insertion orbit apogee. Still below the ISS, still suboptimal, but much longer duration test phase. It's Orbcomm's perigee that will drive quick orbit decay here.

launch vehicles don't make those type decisions.

I wanted to go back to this and ask Jim to explain some of the details.

Let's assume that the second burn of the second stage was to happen around the 330 km apogee of the insertion orbit. We have been told that there was a known decision point for igniting the second stage.  Insufficient LOX or RP1 meant no second burn. 

Why was it not possible to make a different decision, such as starting that second burn but terminating it with a new apogee below the altitude of the ISS?  That seems like a simple branch between two predefined values.   
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/15/2012 02:59 am
I'm sure that the insurance contract has some precise language as to when the insurance company would pay.  I don't know, but I am very confident that Orbcomm will be getting a large insurance payment. 

It may be part of the reason that Orbcomm didn't try to boost the sat up some to get more than a few days out of it before reentry.

Orbcomm really needed the  sat at the proper altitude in order to do it's testing.  At lower altitudes the footprint is smaller and the effective power reaching the ground has a higher intensity. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/15/2012 06:26 am
I don't know what insurance company would write a policy where both of the other parties involved claim success - SpaceX delivered the payload to an agreed upon orbit and Orbcomm got their engineering data on their "prototype" - but the insurance company still pays out.

Seems very fishy to me. 

The insurance company, and the law, doesn't give a rat's behind what the insured party says publicly in their press releases. The insurance company wrote a policy to reimburse them for certain cases, calculated the odds of those cases, and charged Orbcomm a premium priced accordingly. Since one of the insured events occurred (OG2 not reaching the higher orbit) they'll have to pay out. That's how the insurance business works.

Orbcomm got their satellite into a low orbit, turned it on, ran some tests on it, and verified it worked. So they wrote a press release worded as positively as they could. That's how public relations works. They want to reassure their investors and customers. They can say anything they want in public, and it has nothing to do with the terms of their insurance contract.

I agree it seems quite possible the policy states the payout for various conditions, no second burn being an obvious one. If it's nailed down in the contract, it wouldn't matter about press releases.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cosmicvoid on 10/15/2012 06:35 am
Let's assume that the second burn of the second stage was to happen around the 330 km apogee of the insertion orbit. We have been told that there was a known decision point for igniting the second stage.  Insufficient LOX or RP1 meant no second burn. 

Why was it not possible to make a different decision, such as starting that second burn but terminating it with a new apogee below the altitude of the ISS?  That seems like a simple branch between two predefined values.   

Does the second stage even have the instrumentation to know its altitude, and when to cut off the partial burn?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/15/2012 07:31 am
You keep acting like you've read this insurance policy. You haven't have you?

I hope it works out for them, but the check hasn't been written yet.

They will write the cheque when you have 17 more satellites ready to launch. on top of that, they will charge higher insurance fee  on every secondary payload on f9.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mlindner on 10/15/2012 08:19 am
Let's assume that the second burn of the second stage was to happen around the 330 km apogee of the insertion orbit. We have been told that there was a known decision point for igniting the second stage.  Insufficient LOX or RP1 meant no second burn. 

Why was it not possible to make a different decision, such as starting that second burn but terminating it with a new apogee below the altitude of the ISS?  That seems like a simple branch between two predefined values.   

Does the second stage even have the instrumentation to know its altitude, and when to cut off the partial burn?


Through first hand contacts the dragon flies with a Linux operating system and is written in C++. They also have similar computers spread around the launch vehicle. So yes they have plenty of computing power to know their altitude. The decision to not reboost was decided by the rocket, from my understanding SpaceX doesn't actually do any commanding anywhere between some seconds before launch and after solar array deployment.
They stated themselves that the rocket recomputed its flight path/burn times itself after the loss of the engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/15/2012 09:22 am
Let's assume that the second burn of the second stage was to happen around the 330 km apogee of the insertion orbit. We have been told that there was a known decision point for igniting the second stage.  Insufficient LOX or RP1 meant no second burn. 

Why was it not possible to make a different decision, such as starting that second burn but terminating it with a new apogee below the altitude of the ISS?  That seems like a simple branch between two predefined values.   

Does the second stage even have the instrumentation to know its altitude, and when to cut off the partial burn?


Through first hand contacts the dragon flies with a Linux operating system and is written in C++. They also have similar computers spread around the launch vehicle. So yes they have plenty of computing power to know their altitude. The decision to not reboost was decided by the rocket, from my understanding SpaceX doesn't actually do any commanding anywhere between some seconds before launch and after solar array deployment.
They stated themselves that the rocket recomputed its flight path/burn times itself after the loss of the engine.

Welcome to the forum. Interesting post. I wonder what Jim thinks of this.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/15/2012 09:32 am
Of course the stage knows its state vector, it's got IMU data to propagate and I believe GPS overlay as well. IMU data accuracy will tend to degrade over longer periods of time, but only minutes into flight it should still be very accurate. Doesn't take all that much computing power to do that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2012 01:11 pm
Let's assume that the second burn of the second stage was to happen around the 330 km apogee of the insertion orbit. We have been told that there was a known decision point for igniting the second stage.  Insufficient LOX or RP1 meant no second burn. 

Why was it not possible to make a different decision, such as starting that second burn but terminating it with a new apogee below the altitude of the ISS?  That seems like a simple branch between two predefined values.   

Does the second stage even have the instrumentation to know its altitude, and when to cut off the partial burn?


Through first hand contacts the dragon flies with a Linux operating system and is written in C++. They also have similar computers spread around the launch vehicle. So yes they have plenty of computing power to know their altitude. The decision to not reboost was decided by the rocket, from my understanding SpaceX doesn't actually do any commanding anywhere between some seconds before launch and after solar array deployment.
They stated themselves that the rocket recomputed its flight path/burn times itself after the loss of the engine.

Welcome to the forum. Interesting post. I wonder what Jim thinks of this.

The Falcon and Dragon are independent.  Solar array deployment is after separation.  Falcon is autonomous
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/15/2012 01:57 pm

The Falcon and Dragon are independent.  Solar array deployment is after separation.  Falcon is autonomous

Why would that matter?

The second stage might be carrying something other than Dragon...  and even with Dragon, it has to do the subsequent burns after letting released Dragon..    Doesn't that imply it can figure out where it is?  Or are you saying it is flying open loop?

Regarding batteries, the time between first burn and a hypothetical circularization burn is about 45 minutes.  Are you saying the stage can't survive that long?

As for autonomy, clearly it was capable of figuring out a series of tests and deciding not to fire, so it appears it already did at least some decision making
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2012 02:18 pm

The Falcon and Dragon are independent.  Solar array deployment is after separation.  Falcon is autonomous

Why would that matter?

The second stage might be carrying something other than Dragon...  and even with Dragon, it has to do the subsequent burns after letting released Dragon..    Doesn't that imply it can figure out where it is?  Or are you saying it is flying open loop?

Regarding batteries, the time between first burn and a hypothetical circularization burn is about 45 minutes.  Are you saying the stage can't survive that long?

As for autonomy, clearly it was capable of figuring out a series of tests and deciding not to fire, so it appears it already did at least some decision making

No, I was just providing some clarification to: "SpaceX doesn't actually do any commanding anywhere between some seconds before launch and after solar array deployment".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dunderwood on 10/15/2012 02:21 pm
I believe woods170 was concurring, Jim.  He's stating that not only is Falcon 9 autonomous through launch and payload release, but that even Dragon is autonomous through (at least) solar array deployment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/15/2012 03:42 pm
So now there is a PFIB. Wonder what they will find.

I still think this was probably a manufacturing issue unique to this engine. But it remains to be seen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/15/2012 03:59 pm
Let's assume that the second burn of the second stage was to happen around the 330 km apogee of the insertion orbit. We have been told that there was a known decision point for igniting the second stage.  Insufficient LOX or RP1 meant no second burn. 

Why was it not possible to make a different decision, such as starting that second burn but terminating it with a new apogee below the altitude of the ISS?  That seems like a simple branch between two predefined values.   
Through first hand contacts the dragon flies with a Linux operating system and is written in C++. They also have similar computers spread around the launch vehicle. So yes they have plenty of computing power to know their altitude. The decision to not reboost was decided by the rocket, from my understanding SpaceX doesn't actually do any commanding anywhere between some seconds before launch and after solar array deployment.
Falcon is autonomous

Yes, I remember you explaining that the rocket too is autonomous, but could you please address my original question?  Given all the processing power and state knowledge, could the Falcon rocket control system have autonomously made the choice, in addition to between firing vs not firing, between one burn duration or delta V and another?  Could it have decided that, not meeting the criteria for a safe full burn to do a pre-programmed, safe, reduced burn?

PS Welcone, mlindner!
edit: fixed quotes and spelling
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 10/15/2012 04:34 pm
You keep acting like you've read this insurance policy. You haven't have you?

I hope it works out for them, but the check hasn't been written yet.

They will write the cheque when you have 17 more satellites ready to launch. on top of that, they will charge higher insurance fee  on every secondary payload on f9.
This was a very particular mission with very particular requirements for the secondary. Not only did the secondary required a second burn (which is not usual for cubesats, for example), but they had some very specific condition for executing the second burn (the 99% success probability requirement). Normal ride of secondaries is to "same" orbit (for SSO or GTO). And even if it does require a second (or third) burn, only when you have the ISS in the same orbital plane you're going to have such an issue. If this hadn't been an ISS primary mission, the secondaries would have been put, at the very least, in a usable orbit.
The actuarial calculations for insurance require to take all the risks for a particular mission. We're talking here about millions of dollars of insurance, which usually allow for some very specific calculations of risks. The fact that NASA and FAA require those risk calculation and probably have forwarded them to the insurance company, would probably lower the cost of the insurance.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2012 04:51 pm

Yes, I remember you explaining that the rocket too is autonomous, but could you please address my original question?  Given all the processing power and state knowledge, could the Falcon rocket control system have autonomously made the choice, in addition to between firing vs not firing, between one burn duration or delta V and another?  Could it have decided that, not meeting the criteria for a safe full burn to do a pre-programmed, safe, reduced burn?


The problem is not whether the launch vehicle has the computational capability.  The issue is can all the potential outcomes be determined and analyzed prelaunch to allow the vehicle to make the choice. 

Launch vehicle burn durations are calculate preflight basic on nominal values for engine performance and stage loading.  The vehicle doesn't compute realtime ISP and thrust and use it to predict future burn durations.
During flight, the burn time isn't used for control but actually delta V as measured. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/15/2012 05:09 pm

Yes, I remember you explaining that the rocket too is autonomous, but could you please address my original question?  Given all the processing power and state knowledge, could the Falcon rocket control system have autonomously made the choice, in addition to between firing vs not firing, between one burn duration or delta V and another?  Could it have decided that, not meeting the criteria for a safe full burn to do a pre-programmed, safe, reduced burn?


The problem is not whether the launch vehicle has the computational capability.  The issue is can all the potential outcomes be determined and analyzed prelaunch to allow the vehicle to make the choice. 

Launch vehicle burn durations are calculate preflight basic on nominal values for engine performance and stage loading.  The vehicle doesn't compute realtime ISP and thrust and use it to predict future burn durations.
During flight, the burn time isn't used for control but actually delta V as measured. 
Which makes perfect sense for a generic second burn, since nobody is going to trust the stage to do ISS-related risk assessments in real time without human oversight.   

But, Joffen's proposal (from so long ago) was to make the contingency burn a circularization of the orbit to the apogee of the post-release orbit, as a can't-lose maneuver.  This orbit can be pre-approved without knowing the exact starting situation, since a circle is a circle is a circle.

Anyway, what's done is done, and the situations in which this is useful are rare - only secondaries that can either lift themselves later, or can derive some value from lingering longer in a too-low orbit.

From what has been said in the forum, I gather that it would have been possible from a capability point of view, but basically nobody bothered, and probably justifiably so.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mlindner on 10/15/2012 05:50 pm
Thanks for the welcomes. I'm currently a university student in computer engineering and I work in University of Michigan's cubesat building lab. (Look up M-Cubed and RAX, I worked on the former.) I have two friends/coworkers that were previously SpaceX interns and I know people who work there, but don't have direct contact with them. One friend interned over this past summer, and one the summer before that. And I'm trying to become one myself. Although I've yet to get much information out of either them that isn't already publicly available. :P

I have heard from them, and elsewhere on the net that there was kevlar between the engines/on the engines protecting other engines against a possible engine explosion. Is there any kind of publicly available design document around that actually specifies this or has this all been propagated through word of mouth?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/15/2012 05:57 pm
I believe woods170 was concurring, Jim.  He's stating that not only is Falcon 9 autonomous through launch and payload release, but that even Dragon is autonomous through (at least) solar array deployment.

No, I was not. I was just saying that (IMO) new member mlindner had an interesting post. And with 'he' I hope you mean mlindner, because I never stated that Dragon is autonomous etc...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2012 06:02 pm
But, Joffen's proposal (from so long ago) was to make the contingency burn a circularization of the orbit to the apogee of the post-release orbit, as a can't-lose maneuver.  This orbit can be pre-approved without knowing the exact starting situation, since a circle is a circle is a circle.


No, not really.  Still too many things to analyze, including overburn
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/15/2012 08:03 pm
No, not really.  Still too many things to analyze, including overburn

Can you explain?   The orbit itself, I understand from your reply, is ok so does not have to be re-approved.

The question that remains is whether the stage can hit that orbit.

If we're circularizing an orbit, my logic says that as long as the nav system is intact (which HAS to be assumed since we just relied on it for all the decisions so far, including mitigating the first stage under-performance), the only thing that can go wrong is another underperformance (e.g. insufficient propellant) and then the resultant orbit is still apogee-limited.

The only way to get an over-burn is if the stage itself is unreliable, but if that's the case, might as well have shut it down on the first sign of an anomaly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/15/2012 09:49 pm
No, not really.  Still too many things to analyze, including overburn

Can you explain?   The orbit itself, I understand from your reply, is ok so does not have to be re-approved.

The question that remains is whether the stage can hit that orbit.

If we're circularizing an orbit, my logic says that as long as the nav system is intact (which HAS to be assumed since we just relied on it for all the decisions so far, including mitigating the first stage under-performance), the only thing that can go wrong is another underperformance (e.g. insufficient propellant) and then the resultant orbit is still apogee-limited.

The only way to get an over-burn is if the stage itself is unreliable, but if that's the case, might as well have shut it down on the first sign of an anomaly.

Agreed:  We're going under the assumption that the insertion orbit has been obtained within tolerances and the controller is comparing the calculated fuel and oxidizer levels to their thresholds.  Meeting the thresholds allows the restart to begin and to raise the insertion orbit perigee to the new 760 km apogee.

The current branch for not meeting the required levels is to not restart the second stage engine.  Given all the above assuptions, in a condition SpaceX knew could occur, could the autonomous decision be to burn to the delta V that circularizes the orbit, instead of raising the apogee above the ISS?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: smoliarm on 10/16/2012 04:38 pm
It's probably a silly question, I'm a novice here, sorry.

Earlier in this thread I saw somebody posted something like "Falcon is grounded..."
In the news, however, I only found statement
>>SpaceX and NASA have jointly formed the “CRS-1 Post-Flight Investigation Board.”

Does the first follows from the second automatically? Or, was there an announcement that they stop Falcon flights?

Another question:
As I understand, SpaceX plans to recover and re-use first stages in future, but for now they are expendable. Does anybody know if they recovered and examined any of 1st stages from previous launches? Was there anything on this in the news?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/16/2012 04:55 pm
It's probably a silly question, I'm a novice here, sorry.

Earlier in this thread I saw somebody posted something like "Falcon is grounded..."
In the news, however, I only found statement
>>SpaceX and NASA have jointly formed the “CRS-1 Post-Flight Investigation Board.”

Does the first follows from the second automatically? Or, was there an announcement that they stop Falcon flights?

Another question:
As I understand, SpaceX plans to recover and re-use first stages in future, but for now they are expendable. Does anybody know if they recovered and examined any of 1st stages from previous launches? Was there anything on this in the news?

It is a given that NASA will not sign off on the next flight until the Investigation Board completes its work and recommended steps are enacted.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the next flight will be delayed for an extended time.  I expect a month or three delay from current plans at most, but of course it does depend on the results of the investigation. 

SpaceX has not recovered any Falcon 1 or 9 stages, because they have essentially burned up or disintegrated upon reentry.  I believe that the company has stopped trying to do parachute-only type recoveries and has moved on to propulsive velocity reduction research with Grasshopper instead.  It is one of those things that looks easy on paper. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/16/2012 06:10 pm

But, Joffen's proposal (from so long ago) was to make the contingency burn a circularization of the orbit to the apogee of the post-release orbit, as a can't-lose maneuver.  This orbit can be pre-approved without knowing the exact starting situation, since a circle is a circle is a circle.


Staying few days longer on orbit will only disrupt other space launches, and looks more like insurance flaw. orbcomm still doesn't get a functional satellite in the end.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/16/2012 07:04 pm

But, Joffen's proposal (from so long ago) was to make the contingency burn a circularization of the orbit to the apogee of the post-release orbit, as a can't-lose maneuver.  This orbit can be pre-approved without knowing the exact starting situation, since a circle is a circle is a circle.


Staying few days longer on orbit will only disrupt other space launches, and looks more like insurance flaw. orbcomm still doesn't get a functional satellite in the end.

Might be true, but we were discussing second stage capabilities, not what the best policy was in Orbcomm's case.

There are situations where a month in orbit will allow much more complete testing than 3 days in orbit, or that a satellite can lift itself to orbit if it were not dragging so bad at perigee.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/16/2012 07:19 pm

But, Joffen's proposal (from so long ago) was to make the contingency burn a circularization of the orbit to the apogee of the post-release orbit, as a can't-lose maneuver.  This orbit can be pre-approved without knowing the exact starting situation, since a circle is a circle is a circle.


Staying few days longer on orbit will only disrupt other space launches, and looks more like insurance flaw. orbcomm still doesn't get a functional satellite in the end.

It wouldn't disrupt other launches at all. I don't understand what you mean by insurance flaw. And weeks of extra testing time in orbit would certainly have been valuable; the satellite's own propulsion could have been better evaluated, for example. This was a test satellite, not intended as part of the functional fleet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/16/2012 11:59 pm

But, Joffen's proposal (from so long ago) was to make the contingency burn a circularization of the orbit to the apogee of the post-release orbit, as a can't-lose maneuver.  This orbit can be pre-approved without knowing the exact starting situation, since a circle is a circle is a circle.


Staying few days longer on orbit will only disrupt other space launches, and looks more like insurance flaw. orbcomm still doesn't get a functional satellite in the end.

Might be true, but we were discussing second stage capabilities, not what the best policy was in Orbcomm's case.

There are situations where a month in orbit will allow much more complete testing than 3 days in orbit, or that a satellite can lift itself to orbit if it were not dragging so bad at perigee.



og2 is kinda low density, it's going to lose momentum very quick, maybe it can last couple more days with 300km circular orbit.  That's about the same for all other secondary payloads, cheap and lightweight. There is really no point to salvage the satellite given that the LV was already partial failure,  secondary burn risks maybe as high as crashing into one of the 100M satellites.  Too much to lose and too little to gain.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/17/2012 12:32 am
og2 is kinda low density, it's going to lose momentum very quick, maybe it can last couple more days with 300km circular orbit.  That's about the same for all other secondary payloads, cheap and lightweight. There is really no point to salvage the satellite given that the LV was already partial failure,  secondary burn risks maybe as high as crashing into one of the 100M satellites.  Too much to lose and too little to gain.

There's a huge difference between a perigee over 300km and one under 200km.

http://www.lizard-tail.com/isana/lab/orbital_decay/
Model the Orbcomm as 100kg and 2m^2 area, and you'll get over 3 weeks at 300km. At 330km you get over 7 weeks. Go down to 220km and you get a couple of days.

There aren't satellites to crash into at that altitude, precisely because of orbital decay.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/18/2012 03:59 am
og2 is kinda low density, it's going to lose momentum very quick, maybe it can last couple more days with 300km circular orbit.  That's about the same for all other secondary payloads, cheap and lightweight. There is really no point to salvage the satellite given that the LV was already partial failure,  secondary burn risks maybe as high as crashing into one of the 100M satellites.  Too much to lose and too little to gain.



There's a huge difference between a perigee over 300km and one under 200km.

http://www.lizard-tail.com/isana/lab/orbital_decay/
Model the Orbcomm as 100kg and 2m^2 area, and you'll get over 3 weeks at 300km. At 330km you get over 7 weeks. Go down to 220km and you get a couple of days.

There aren't satellites to crash into at that altitude, precisely because of orbital decay.

It's going to be 2m^2  X 4.

Of cause there are satellites everywhere, may not be at your "300x300km circular orbit". But who is going to say second burn will place og2 there? There is no way to ensure stage 2 status after stage 1 accident, second burn  may just shoot og2 directly into dragon or ISS.

(http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Images/English-US/OG2RFChamber1.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/18/2012 04:18 am
og2 is kinda low density, it's going to lose momentum very quick, maybe it can last couple more days with 300km circular orbit.  That's about the same for all other secondary payloads, cheap and lightweight. There is really no point to salvage the satellite given that the LV was already partial failure,  secondary burn risks maybe as high as crashing into one of the 100M satellites.  Too much to lose and too little to gain.

There's a huge difference between a perigee over 300km and one under 200km.
http://www.lizard-tail.com/isana/lab/orbital_decay/ (http://www.lizard-tail.com/isana/lab/orbital_decay/)
Model the Orbcomm as 100kg and 2m^2 area, and you'll get over 3 weeks at 300km. At 330km you get over 7 weeks. Go down to 220km and you get a couple of days.

There aren't satellites to crash into at that altitude, precisely because of orbital decay.

It's going to be 2m^2  X 4.

If you use that calculator, a mass of 142 kg, and altitude of 250 km (average of 200 and 300, although it this is NOT linear), the area has to be set to 1.5 square meters to yield a 10 day lifetime, which I think is what happened to Orbcomm-2.

If the altitude is set to 300 km for a circularized orbit this model predicts that the lifetime rises to 43 days.

If the perigee was raised to just below the ISS and the new average altitude was 350 km, this model predicts a lifetime of 173 days.

There was a lot of life to be gained with even a small raising of the perigee.  There may be a good reason this was not incorporated into their plans, and I would like to learn them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/18/2012 05:43 am

It's going to be 2m^2  X 4.

Of cause there are satellites everywhere, may not be at your "300x300km circular orbit". But who is going to say second burn will place og2 there? There is no way to ensure stage 2 status after stage 1 accident, second burn  may just shoot og2 directly into dragon or ISS.


The picture of an OG2 shows that its maximum area is under 4m^2 (when the solar wing is facing directly in the direction of travel), and minimum is less than 1m^2. 2m^2 is a reasonable modelling figure. (One metre is typically just a little more than nose-to-fingertip - scale from the man in the photo. And I love the use of plastic piping and plumbing fittings for the mast support frame.)

The upper stage of the Falcon 9 knew where it was and what orbit it was in - it had already delivered Dragon to its target orbit. Otherwise, it could not possibly have been tasked with inserting the secondary payload into the desired orbit, or with making the go/nogo decision that it did. There is every reason to expect that it could make a burn to put the satellite into the desired circular orbit, since it was in an expected orbit at the time and there was no problem with that stage.

Your ignorance on the location of satellites requires no response. To be honest, I'm not sure why you keep insisting that there was no possibility of getting a few more weeks out of the prototype OG2.

I do not blame anyone for not setting up a circularization burn option. But I do think it is a fallback that should be considered for future secondaries on ISS missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 10/18/2012 07:20 am
You got me curious. Looking at the images and their embedded EXIF data, there were some odd choices in camera settings - small apertures and as a result either high ISO's (causes graininess) or long exposures (chance of motion blur) to compensate.

The astronauts do get some instruction in photography, but not certainly not enough to become pros, so naturally those who enjoy it as a hobby are bound to do better than those for whom it's one of the less interesting tasks they perform.

Thanks for looking into the EXIF data, that does conform my suspicions. Tweaking all those camera settings is fine if you are an experienced photographer - otherwise you should just leave it in 'P' mode. (or whatever the Nikon equivalent is called) And that probably would have made these shots turn out better.

I realize that all the astronauts do not have the time or interest in learning all fields, so I certainly understand... Or they just goofed. (I have certainly blown quite a few pictures myself by accidentally putting my DSLR in the wrong mode) :) I just hope they had an off day, and get better shots of the departure.

Well they will also be at a crew of six which means there will be a lot more crew members not in the middle of doing critical tasks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/19/2012 12:21 am
     Being a keen amateur snapper, I have reluctantly come to realize over the years that you can put the most sophisticated camera in the hands of some people and still run a 50:50 chance of a chimpanzee doing better.  Some folk just don't get how to do it :)

I'd even say in the hands of most people. Photography is an art with a fairly deep technical basis...hence part of why, I suspect, it's naturally appealing to many nerds like you and me.

Most people want to be able to just point and click, but professional cameras like the D3 and D2Xs are designed for people who need to control the exposure settings themselves. It's very easy to change things without understanding what you just did.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/19/2012 07:09 am
https://twitter.com/Astro_Suni/status/258628475722809344 (https://twitter.com/Astro_Suni/status/258628475722809344)
Quote
On unloading #Dragon, we found a very thoughful and timely gift from our friends @SpaceX - fall apples! http://twitpic.com/b5164y

Jim will have a field day over this one.
Love the picture. That other 'unlisted' gift shows in the back.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/19/2012 07:13 am
and they didn't pay for them... so they must be free fall apples.
Ha! Good one! So true in more than one way.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/19/2012 11:02 am
You know, on long-duration sea voyages during the age of sail, fresh fruit was a life-support necessity and stocks were secured almost as well as gunpowder.  Not the case when you're orbiting Earth but still...

and they didn't pay for them... so they must be free fall apples.

What can a man say except "Ba-da-dum-tish?"
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/19/2012 11:09 am
https://twitter.com/Astro_Suni/status/258628475722809344 (https://twitter.com/Astro_Suni/status/258628475722809344)
Quote
On unloading #Dragon, we found a very thoughful and timely gift from our friends @SpaceX - fall apples! http://twitpic.com/b5164y

Jim will have a field day over this one.
Love the picture. That other 'unlisted' gift shows in the back.

Would have been fired for doing something like that.  I wonder if behind the scenes, there are some discussions going on. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/19/2012 11:16 am
Would have been fired for doing something like that.  I wonder if behind the scenes, there are some discussions going on. 

You know, the simplest explanation is that all of these additions were cleared with the Astronaut Office in advance -- but the crew just weren't told that they were on board.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: psloss on 10/19/2012 11:20 am
Would have been fired for doing something like that.  I wonder if behind the scenes, there are some discussions going on. 

You know, the simplest explanation is that all of these additions were cleared with the Astronaut Office in advance -- but the crew just weren't told that they were on board.

It wouldn't be within the Astronaut Office/Flight Crew Operations Directorate branch that one would have to ask for permission or forgiveness.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/19/2012 11:21 am
Would have been fired for doing something like that.  I wonder if behind the scenes, there are some discussions going on. 

You know, the simplest explanation is that all of these additions were cleared with the Astronaut Office in advance -- but the crew just weren't told that they were on board.

It wouldn't be the Astronaut Office that one would have to ask for permission or forgiveness.

You know what I mean.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: psloss on 10/19/2012 11:23 am
Would have been fired for doing something like that.  I wonder if behind the scenes, there are some discussions going on. 

You know, the simplest explanation is that all of these additions were cleared with the Astronaut Office in advance -- but the crew just weren't told that they were on board.

It wouldn't be the Astronaut Office that one would have to ask for permission or forgiveness.

You know what I mean.
How about most of the readers here?

A common misconception is the astronauts' position in the chain of command/authority.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/19/2012 12:48 pm
https://twitter.com/Astro_Suni/status/258628475722809344 (https://twitter.com/Astro_Suni/status/258628475722809344)
Quote
On unloading #Dragon, we found a very thoughful and timely gift from our friends @SpaceX - fall apples! http://twitpic.com/b5164y

Jim will have a field day over this one.
Love the picture. That other 'unlisted' gift shows in the back.

Would have been fired for doing something like that.  I wonder if behind the scenes, there are some discussions going on. 

Guess I’ve come to more of an understanding; putting myself in Jim’s shoes so to speak.

What we are seeing are “signs” the program is going out of control.   Signs that the SpaceX crew thinks they are NASA, and not a contractor.

In SpaceX culture, this could get ugly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Silmfeanor on 10/19/2012 02:19 pm
Oh please. Can we not panic?
For all we know, all these items where on the detailed list of items delivered, and the astronauts knew well in advance or were told that there was some fresh produce. All cleared with NASA and ISS.

No evidence whatsoever that this was a surprise, unexpected, unlisted, a discovery or any of these. Nothing like a sheet of paper with a photo on it. Until you _know_ this was not on the manifest and cleared in advance, can we stop making statements like "SpaceX thinks its NASA" and "someone should get fired" or any of those.

If it _was_ any of those, it is indeed cause for discussions, talks, firing people or whatever. But until you have actual evidence of this not being on the detailed manifest it is not.

And certainly not on the live updates thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rst on 10/19/2012 02:29 pm

You know, the simplest explanation is that all of these additions were cleared with the Astronaut Office in advance -- but the crew just weren't told that they were on board.


This is hardly the first time that an ISS cargo shipment has included unannounced goodies for the astronauts --- see, for instance, this Don Pettit interview pre-COTS-2/3, about 5:00 in:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mxHskEK_Os

He says that it's routine for them to find a goodie bag on Progress resupply ships, quite often including fresh fruit, and notes with apparent disappointment that they hadn't found any on the most recent visit of ATV.  He also repeatedly says he'd like to see one on Dragon, which I wouldn't expect him to say if it would somehow be a huge breach of protocol.

I presume there's NASA concurrence for this, but I'd presume the same for Dragon as well.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/19/2012 02:31 pm
https://twitter.com/Astro_Suni/status/258628475722809344 (https://twitter.com/Astro_Suni/status/258628475722809344)
Quote
On unloading #Dragon, we found a very thoughful and timely gift from our friends @SpaceX - fall apples! http://twitpic.com/b5164y

Jim will have a field day over this one.
Love the picture. That other 'unlisted' gift shows in the back.

Would have been fired for doing something like that.  I wonder if behind the scenes, there are some discussions going on. 

Guess I’ve come to more of an understanding; putting myself in Jim’s shoes so to speak.

What we are seeing are “signs” the program is going out of control.   Signs that the SpaceX crew thinks they are NASA, and not a contractor.

In SpaceX culture, this could get ugly.

Assumption on your part. Earlier in this thread, when the previous 'unlisted' item made its appearance, we had Jim saying that it was not on the cargo manifest. I proceeded to ask him if he had access to the official cargo manifest, not the publically available PAO version. So far he failed to answer that question.
Without any of us having actually confirmed that the poster and apples ARE or ARE NOT on the official cargo manifest, OR were at least cleared with NASA beforehand, any opinion on this is unfounded.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: avollhar on 10/19/2012 02:42 pm
It has only been NASA being picky about small items going to ISS.. I know about russian cosmonauts stuffing their pockets with little gifts before Soyuz launch. A widely known fact.. why bothering with SpaceX doing the same?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: AndyX on 10/19/2012 07:05 pm
Massive dump of hi res images from CRS-1 being uploaded in L2! (The set NASA didn't publish, like with the C2+ dump!)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mlindner on 10/19/2012 07:37 pm
Massive dump of hi res images from CRS-1 being uploaded in L2! (The set NASA didn't publish, like with the C2+ dump!)

My posts seem to keep getting deleted.

I'm still new to these forums, can you be more specific? What is L2?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 10/19/2012 07:44 pm
On the top of the page, next to the logo. Click there and read. Paid subscription for exclusive content.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/19/2012 07:45 pm
Massive dump of hi res images from CRS-1 being uploaded in L2! (The set NASA didn't publish, like with the C2+ dump!)

My posts seem to keep getting deleted.

I'm still new to these forums, can you be more specific? What is L2?

To answer for Chris et al: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)  ;)

(and http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22487.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22487.0))

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/19/2012 08:47 pm
Used some of those photos (I think we're over 300, at 3Mb or so each!) in the article I've just put on:

Dragon enjoying ISS stay, despite minor issues – Falcon 9 investigation begins:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-stay-minor-issues-falcon-9-investigation/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 10/19/2012 10:22 pm
Used some of those photos (I think we're over 300, at 3Mb or so each!) in the article I've just put on:

Dragon enjoying ISS stay, despite minor issues – Falcon 9 investigation begins:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-stay-minor-issues-falcon-9-investigation/
Information on the external payloads, sweet!  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 10/19/2012 11:01 pm
Used some of those photos (I think we're over 300, at 3Mb or so each!) in the article I've just put on:

Dragon enjoying ISS stay, despite minor issues – Falcon 9 investigation begins:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-stay-minor-issues-falcon-9-investigation/

I so like calm and informative articles. Beauty, Chris.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 10/20/2012 04:55 pm
The article mentions the extensive testing done on the Merlin 1C. I'm curious if they've ever had a Fuel Dome problem in any of those tests? If so, will that make nailing down what happened simpler & not delaying the upcoming CRS-2?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/20/2012 05:07 pm
The article mentions the extensive testing done on the Merlin 1C. I'm curious if they've ever had a Fuel Dome problem in any of those tests? If so, will that make nailing down what happened simpler & not delaying the upcoming CRS-2?

A SpaceX update page from 2005 (http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0605-1205) mentions that during Merlin development the company had witnessed a number of RUD events. (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly). The update specifically mentions a chamber rupture, so, it seems likely that SpaceX has witnessed a similar event before during Merlin testing.

Quote
Then there is the question of dealing with the comparatively rare case of a chamber rupture. To protect against this, Falcon 9 will have a blast shield protecting the entire base of the vehicle just above the gimbal joints of the engines. In addition, there will be fireproofed Kevlar fragment containment around each engine, similar to those present in jet engine nacelles. The explosive power of a liquid rocket chamber is actually not exceptionally high – it can be thought of as simply a small pressure vessel containing (in our case) 800 psi hot gas. During the development of Merlin, we saw several of what we refer to as RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) events and no fragments have ever penetrated more than 2mm of aluminum. Also, the direction of fragments is in a shallow downward cone away from the vehicle.

As additional measures of protection, all propellant and pneumatic lines have either pre-valves or check valves nested up high in the thrust structure. If anything happens to the engine, the flight computer is able to cut off all propellant and pressurant flow immediately.

Given all of the above, I really believe we have a stage that has considerably higher propulsion reliability than a single engine vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 10/20/2012 05:58 pm

A SpaceX update page from 2005 (http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0605-1205) mentions that during Merlin development the company had witnessed a number of RUD events. (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly). The update specifically mentions a chamber rupture, so, it seems likely that SpaceX has witnessed a similar event before during Merlin testing.


Interesting, though as it was in 2005 the RUDs must have been of Merlin-1A (or possibly Merlin-1B).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/20/2012 06:18 pm
A SpaceX update page from 2005 (http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0605-1205) mentions that during Merlin development the company had witnessed a number of RUD events. (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly). The update specifically mentions a chamber rupture, so, it seems likely that SpaceX has witnessed a similar event before during Merlin testing.

So if the engine issue on SpX-1 was a chamber rupture event, is this old 2005 update a form of evidence that SpaceX engineers were probably not wholly surprised to see such an issue occur and had engineered F9 accordingly?
Not knowing anything about the history of chamber rupture events on other rocket engines, I have no idea how this fits into the general context of rocket engineering.

What is the main cause of chamber rupturing? Lack of engineering experience/knowledge/heritage? Or is it simply a question of rocket engineering tech having very little margin when it comes to the task of overcoming the physics of confined explosions?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/20/2012 06:47 pm
A SpaceX update page from 2005 (http://www.spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0605-1205) mentions that during Merlin development the company had witnessed a number of RUD events. (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly). The update specifically mentions a chamber rupture, so, it seems likely that SpaceX has witnessed a similar event before during Merlin testing.

So if the engine issue on SpX-1 was a chamber rupture event, is this old 2005 update a form of evidence that SpaceX engineers were probably not wholly surprised to see such an issue occur and had engineered F9 accordingly?
Not knowing anything about the history of chamber rupture events on other rocket engines, I have no idea how this fits into the general context of rocket engineering.

What is the main cause of chamber rupturing? Lack of engineering experience/knowledge/heritage? Or is it simply a question of rocket engineering tech having very little margin when it comes to the task of overcoming the physics of confined explosions?

2005 is not even the same engine && system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/20/2012 11:31 pm
Used some of those photos (I think we're over 300, at 3Mb or so each!) in the article I've just put on:

Dragon enjoying ISS stay, despite minor issues – Falcon 9 investigation begins:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-stay-minor-issues-falcon-9-investigation/

I so like calm and informative articles. Beauty, Chris.

Thanks Robert, appreciate that!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/21/2012 09:19 am
2005 is not even the same engine && system.

Read the update again. It clearly states that the measures to safeguard against a chamber rupture are being taken on Falcon 9.
Quote
Then there is the question of dealing with the comparatively rare case of a chamber rupture. To protect against this, Falcon 9 will have a blast shield protecting the entire base of the vehicle just above the gimbal joints of the engines. In addition, there will be fireproofed Kevlar fragment containment around each engine, similar to those present in jet engine nacelles.
Note: emphasis mine.

Additional note: in 2005, when development of Falcon 5 shifted to development of Falcon 9, it was still assumed that Merlin-1B would power Falcon 9. Merlin 1B was a version of Merlin 1A, with increased thrust. Previous chamber ruptures had been witnessed on Merlin 1A. So, the decision to 'armor'  Falcon 9 against such an event was taken with the Merlin 1A/Merlin 1B legacy in mind. It was not until 2006 that SpaceX took the decision to switch Falcon 9 to the newly being developed Merlin 1C.
I don't know if SpaceX ever witnessed the kind of failure on Merlin 1C, during test-firing, observed on the CRS-1 launch. But it was probably a good thing that Falcon 9 retained the 'armor' that was designed-in based on their experience with Merlin 1A and Merlin 1B.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 10/21/2012 01:16 pm
If I'm not mistaken, those failures where seen on the ablatively cooled chambered Merlin. A complete different chamber with completely different failure modes. Since they where using a pintle injector, they actually concentrated the most extreme temperatures in a ring. That was too much to take for the ablative material. Thus, they switched to regen. In the end ablative chamber is sort of incompatible with pintle injectors.
And this failure was on a fuel dome, which sits atop the injector. And it was a rupture, not an explosion. Look for failed pressure vessels to see the difference. In an explosion nothing is left. A rupture looks more like if someone from the inside had shoot a bullet. If it had been an explosion they wouldn't had have kept receiving telemetry from the engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/21/2012 01:42 pm
Not to repeat myself but the salvaging of engines on the last flight should be looked at as part of the cost of doing business and would do much in putting the cause of failure to rest. Providing of course that they can locate them and not too inaccessible…
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/21/2012 03:19 pm
Not to repeat myself but the salvaging of engines on the last flight should be looked at as part of the cost of doing business and would do much in putting the cause of failure to rest. Providing of course that they can locate them and not too inaccessible…

Generally speaking ocean salvage, let alone DEEP ocean salvage, is a very expensive business. Has anyone ever tried to salvage rocket engines from the ocean floor, just to aid in the failure analysis, other than Challenger?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/21/2012 03:27 pm
Not to repeat myself but the salvaging of engines on the last flight should be looked at as part of the cost of doing business and would do much in putting the cause of failure to rest. Providing of course that they can locate them and not too inaccessible…

Generally speaking ocean salvage, let alone DEEP ocean salvage, is a very expensive business. Has anyone ever tried to salvage rocket engines from the ocean floor, just to aid in the failure analysis, other than Challenger?
Yes, I totally agree with you, it is not cheap. This is one of those cost/benefit questions. They had reason to recover the remains of the recent Air France crash, so I view this as similar investigation. One had to judge the engineering value and also the potential relations with the prospective customer and their future confidence in the product.

I use the airliner as an example because Elon uses it when speaking of reusability of his Falcon rockets and wishing to get it down to airliner like operations. So why not treat it like an air crash recovery…

Edit:to add..
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/21/2012 04:00 pm
Not to repeat myself but the salvaging of engines on the last flight should be looked at as part of the cost of doing business and would do much in putting the cause of failure to rest. Providing of course that they can locate them and not too inaccessible…

Generally speaking ocean salvage, let alone DEEP ocean salvage, is a very expensive business. Has anyone ever tried to salvage rocket engines from the ocean floor, just to aid in the failure analysis, other than Challenger?
Yes, I totally agree with you, it is not cheap. This is one of those cost/benefit questions. They had reason to recover the remains of the recent Air France crash, so I view this as similar investigation. One had to judge the engineering value and also the potential relations with the prospective customer and their future confidence in the product.

I use the airliner as an example because Elon uses it when speaking of reusability of his Falcon rockets and wishing to get it down to airliner like operations. So why not treat it like an air crash recovery…

Edit:to add..

Because it not like an airline crash.  There are big differences in velocity and break effects, not to mention that airliners don't experience reentry heating nor are they subject to severe environments experienced in a nominal staging
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/21/2012 04:15 pm
Not to repeat myself but the salvaging of engines on the last flight should be looked at as part of the cost of doing business and would do much in putting the cause of failure to rest. Providing of course that they can locate them and not too inaccessible…

Generally speaking ocean salvage, let alone DEEP ocean salvage, is a very expensive business. Has anyone ever tried to salvage rocket engines from the ocean floor, just to aid in the failure analysis, other than Challenger?
Yes, I totally agree with you, it is not cheap. This is one of those cost/benefit questions. They had reason to recover the remains of the recent Air France crash, so I view this as similar investigation. One had to judge the engineering value and also the potential relations with the prospective customer and their future confidence in the product.

I use the airliner as an example because Elon uses it when speaking of reusability of his Falcon rockets and wishing to get it down to airliner like operations. So why not treat it like an air crash recovery…

Edit:to add..

Because it not like an airline crash.  There are big differences in velocity and break effects, not to mention that airliners don't experience reentry heating nor are they subject to severe environments experienced in a nominal staging
I agree with you Jim with the forces involved. I also don’t see airliner like ops in the near future at this point, but apparently he does… Do you feel that there would be nothing to learn or see if recoverable?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/21/2012 08:11 pm
Not to repeat myself but the salvaging of engines on the last flight should be looked at as part of the cost of doing business and would do much in putting the cause of failure to rest. Providing of course that they can locate them and not too inaccessible…

Generally speaking ocean salvage, let alone DEEP ocean salvage, is a very expensive business. Has anyone ever tried to salvage rocket engines from the ocean floor, just to aid in the failure analysis, other than Challenger?
Yes, I totally agree with you, it is not cheap. This is one of those cost/benefit questions. They had reason to recover the remains of the recent Air France crash, so I view this as similar investigation. One had to judge the engineering value and also the potential relations with the prospective customer and their future confidence in the product.

I use the airliner as an example because Elon uses it when speaking of reusability of his Falcon rockets and wishing to get it down to airliner like operations. So why not treat it like an air crash recovery…

Edit:to add..

Because it not like an airline crash.  There are big differences in velocity and break effects, not to mention that airliners don't experience reentry heating nor are they subject to severe environments experienced in a nominal staging
I agree with you Jim with the forces involved. I also don’t see airliner like ops in the near future at this point, but apparently he does… Do you feel that there would be nothing to learn or see if recoverable?

too late now......the ship(s) should have put to sea launch day and try and recover any debris.   

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/25/2012 04:05 pm
Do you have any *specific* examples where their indicated payload/orbit parameters are pushing the limits of the vehicles capabilities? If you don't then is there *any* reason to expect the results of such a mission to be any worse than the ones today?

Most GTO/GSO and all planetary missions
Firstly my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

I would have expected *all* launchers to be operating at the limits of their performance envelopes for these missions. As Spacex has not *flown* any of these missions on an F9 are you saying you don't think  [edit] they have enough margin to carry *any* secondary payloads or that the size of secondary they could carry is overly optimistic if anything goes wrong with the primary trajectory?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/25/2012 05:14 pm
you don't think  have enough margin

Missing some words.

But if it is "they", then no.  Comsats use any excess performance to reduce inclination, raise perigee or even increase apogee if it is a sub-synchronous orbit.  Planetaries will add more propellant or use the addition performance to increase prop margins.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/26/2012 08:50 am
you don't think  have enough margin

Missing some words.

But if it is "they", then no.  Comsats use any excess performance to reduce inclination, raise perigee or even increase apogee if it is a sub-synchronous orbit.  Planetaries will add more propellant or use the addition performance to increase prop margins.
Aren't those choices (permitting secondaries, use of additional capacity) the same ones that *all* LV's in this class have? AFAIK Ariane, Delta IV and Atlas V all offer secondary payloads.
I'm not sure on the Russian position (It's a subject I'm peripherally aware of rather than one I've looked into).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/26/2012 11:30 am
Aren't those choices (permitting secondaries, use of additional capacity) the same ones that *all* LV's in this class have? AFAIK Ariane, Delta IV and Atlas V all offer secondary payloads.


No.  See the GPS that just launched.  The spacecraft had no use for the excess performance. Same goes for DSMP and some other launches.

It has nothing to with launch vehicle class because the actual performance of each vehicle is different, it has to with the payload assigned to the vehicle.  The same payload might have excess margin on one vehicle and no margin on another.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: nlec on 10/26/2012 06:29 pm
http://news.discovery.com/space/spacex-cargo-return-dragon-station-121026.html

Quote
Dragon is due to be released from the station's robot arm at 9:26 a.m. EDT on Sunday and splash down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Baja California at 3:20 p.m. that same day. Its cargo includes 866 pounds of science gear and experiment samples -- and 400 bags of crew urine.

Emphasis added.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 10/26/2012 07:32 pm
http://news.discovery.com/space/spacex-cargo-return-dragon-station-121026.html

Quote
Dragon is due to be released from the station's robot arm at 9:26 a.m. EDT on Sunday and splash down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Baja California at 3:20 p.m. that same day. Its cargo includes 866 pounds of science gear and experiment samples -- and 400 bags of crew urine.

Emphasis added.
Those bags of urine are most likely experiment samples. Kidney stones and calcium loss by urination is both a common and serious problem for long duration spaceflights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/27/2012 06:15 pm
No.  See the GPS that just launched.  The spacecraft had no use for the excess performance. Same goes for DSMP and some other launches.

It has nothing to with launch vehicle class because the actual performance of each vehicle is different, it has to with the payload assigned to the vehicle.  The same payload might have excess margin on one vehicle and no margin on another.
I wouldn't doubt it otherwise people would not shift LV's as their payloads exceeded it's absolute capabilities.

You were talking of specific missions. AFAIK GPS are *well* under the those limits (altitude 800km+? in Earth orbit rather than escape). DSMP seems to be a catch all for various military capabilities. I could imagine *some* are pretty near the limits of the currently manifested LV's, while others are not.

You seemed to have a *specific* reason to mistrust Spacex's policy on secondary payloads and I'm suggesting that it's *not* that much different than that of other LV's. If I'm wrong please explain my misunderstanding of your position.

CRS1 would seem to be an *exceptionally* unlucky set of circumstances for Orbcomm of an under performing 1st stage *multiplied* by NASA constraints that prevented a fall back plan that had a 1 in 20 chance of failure. I think if the consequence of a failure had been *anything* other than an ISS collision (or should that be strictly *potential* collision) and any other primary but NASA Spacex there would not have been a gate on their software and Spacex would have tried the burn.

I'll note that by The Aerospace Corps 3/7 rule (up to 3rd launch a failure is likely to be design, 4-7 is likely to be mfg) this is still *probably* a design flaw to be designed out. I think it would be instructive to compare the *consequence* of the event on F9 if the *same* event had happened on any of the other LV's (crewed or cargo) that may fly to the ISS. I think in *all* cases it would be a LOC/LOM case, not because any of them are bad designs but they essentially *rely* on perfection and F9 (on the 1st stage at least) does not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/27/2012 09:06 pm
Late tonight, station astronauts will depressurize the spacecraft.

Okay, I'm curious.  Why is this done?  Isn't the pressurization good for the cargo and for the spacecraft's integrity during and after reentry?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: hrissan on 10/27/2012 09:12 pm
Late tonight, station astronauts will depressurize the spacecraft.

Okay, I'm curious.  Why is this done?  Isn't the pressurization good for the cargo and for the spacecraft's integrity during and after reentry?
The word "vestibule" was likely omitted accidentally? :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/27/2012 10:55 pm
I think anyone blaming NASA constraints for the brief Orbcomm life needs to watch Congressional hearings occasionally.  These are missions to resupply the Space Station, not launch secondaries.  SpaceX and Orbcomm knew what the constraints were and launched anyway.  I don't think the failure or constraints had anything to do with it being a NASA primary, though it had everything to do with insufficient time to react to a Station conjunction possibility.

Also, where do you get 1 in 20?  Once the 1st stage is off-nominal, previous analyses of likelihood go out the window.

Extinguishing one chamber / half the thrust on the other possible CC launcher would definitely cause LOM but doubtful it would cause LOC.  Black zones were eliminated a long time ago.  Depending on the abort logic the remaining chamber could even gimbal to null rates before an emergency MECO and getting the crew carrier off the stack.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/27/2012 11:29 pm
Also, where do you get 1 in 20?

Quote
"While there was sufficient fuel on board to do so, the liquid oxygen on board was only enough to achieve a roughly 95% likelihood of completing the second burn, so Falcon 9 did not attempt a restart," says SpaceX

source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spacex-details-incorrect-orbital-insertion-377615/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/27/2012 11:44 pm
It's clear that if it was anything other than a launch to the ISS, the second stage could have reignited and would likely have boosted the Orbcomm satellite to a useful orbit.

I don't blame NASA for their caution.  It would have been reckless to endanger a $100 billion asset and the lives of the astronauts for the sake of a test satellite.  Orbcomm was just unlucky in this case.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/28/2012 12:10 am
Regarding the discussions about the F9 performance margin for this mission - This NASA press conference video linked to in this thread/post ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30184.msg972720#msg972720 ) suggests that the Spx-1 mission was ballasted as well, to make up for a lighter than usual Dragon load.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cd-slam on 10/28/2012 12:49 am
Dragon's Hatch is Closed
At approximately 3:55AM PT tomorrow morning, astronauts will detach the spacecraft from the space station using the station’s robotic arm. Tune in here beginning at 4:00AM PT for live coverage of deberthing and reentry activities.
Presume there's a typo in there somewhere. Earlier in this thread unberthing time was given as 7:55am Eastern, that would be 4:55am Pacific.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: go4mars on 10/28/2012 01:15 am
Late tonight, station astronauts will depressurize the spacecraft.

Okay, I'm curious.  Why is this done?  Isn't the pressurization good for the cargo and for the spacecraft's integrity during and after reentry?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30059.msg972869#msg972869

Beat me to the question Lee Jay.  I'm curious about that too.  It seems like a strange thing to do.  Maybe if there is no structural reason for internal pressure, it's just handy being just a little bit lighter?  Hopefully those 400 urine bags are strong...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/28/2012 01:41 am
They must be referring to the vestibule.  It makes no sense to depressurize Dragon.  It wouldn't save that much weight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/28/2012 01:46 am
Okay,  I'm curious.  Why is this done?  Isn't the pressurization good for the  cargo and for the spacecraft's integrity during and after reentry?
The word "vestibule" was likely omitted accidentally? :)
They must be referring to the vestibule.  It makes no sense to depressurize Dragon.  It wouldn't save that much weight.

Okay, so this makes a whole bunch more sense to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 10/28/2012 02:03 am
Dragon's Hatch is Closed
At approximately 3:55AM PT tomorrow morning, astronauts will detach the spacecraft from the space station using the station’s robotic arm. Tune in here beginning at 4:00AM PT for live coverage of deberthing and reentry activities.
Presume there's a typo in there somewhere. Earlier in this thread unberthing time was given as 7:55am Eastern, that would be 4:55am Pacific.
Might be a daylight time issue. Europe goes off daylight time tonight while the US stays on. What a snafu to have different times to go off DST between the US and Europe!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mlindner on 10/28/2012 12:06 pm
Okay,  I'm curious.  Why is this done?  Isn't the pressurization good for the  cargo and for the spacecraft's integrity during and after reentry?
The word "vestibule" was likely omitted accidentally? :)
They must be referring to the vestibule.  It makes no sense to depressurize Dragon.  It wouldn't save that much weight.

Okay, so this makes a whole bunch more sense to me.

Depressurizing the Dragon could probably destroy a lot of the equipment/samples inside the spacecraft. I doubt plastic bags of urine wouldn't explode in a depressurized environment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: StephenB on 10/28/2012 01:29 pm
A bag of urine would only burst if there were air in it. Fluids are much less compressible. The urine is frozen in this case anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 10/28/2012 01:45 pm
A bag of urine would only burst if there were air in it. Fluids are much less compressible. The urine is frozen in this case anyway.
Like you said, it's frozen. But fluids being less compressible doesn't help since fluid would fast become gas at zero pressure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mlindner on 10/28/2012 01:53 pm
A bag of urine would only burst if there were air in it. Fluids are much less compressible. The urine is frozen in this case anyway.
Like you said, it's frozen. But fluids being less compressible doesn't help since fluid would fast become gas at zero pressure.

Wouldn't the frozen urine sublimate in zero pressure?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: StephenB on 10/28/2012 02:32 pm
I stand corrected.  :P
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/28/2012 05:02 pm
Did the three new ISS crewmembers get a chance to look around the Dragon? The hatch closed about a day? after their arrival so there could have been time...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/28/2012 05:31 pm
Wouldn't the frozen urine sublimate in zero pressure?
Not if it's in an airtight bag. It needs to be exposed to low* pressure to sublimate.

* I use the term "low" because there's no such thing as "zero" pressure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DaveJ576 on 10/28/2012 06:04 pm
Note to Elon Musk and his PAO: Improve your EOM coverage! More updates! Also, get a plane in the air and get some good live video of the chutes and splashdown. It would go a long way to maintaining interest...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/28/2012 06:26 pm
Note to Elon Musk and his PAO: Improve your EOM coverage! More updates! Also, get a plane in the air and get some good live video of the chutes and splashdown. It would go a long way to maintaining interest...


The plane in the air during the C2 mission was a NASA asset. I think it was up to them [NASA] to provide the same live video as last time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/28/2012 06:32 pm
Note to Elon Musk and his PAO: Improve your EOM coverage! More updates! Also, get a plane in the air and get some good live video of the chutes and splashdown. It would go a long way to maintaining interest...

SpaceX is focused on reducing mission costs. Live EOM coverage hardly makes sense in that context. Remember, live video from a Pacific Ocean location requires expensive satellite bandwidth.
When future versions of Dragon can land on land, then we'll get to see some good video of chutes and touchdown. Need to be patient and wait until about 2015 for that to happen, all going well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DaveJ576 on 10/28/2012 06:36 pm
I know. I just wanted to see some eye candy!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LegendCJS on 10/28/2012 06:42 pm
Note to Elon Musk and his PAO: Improve your EOM coverage! More updates! Also, get a plane in the air and get some good live video of the chutes and splashdown. It would go a long way to maintaining interest...

SpaceX is focused on reducing mission costs. Live EOM coverage hardly makes sense in that context. Remember, live video from a Pacific Ocean location requires expensive satellite bandwidth.
When future versions of Dragon can land on land, then we'll get to see some good video of chutes and touchdown. Need to be patient and wait until about 2015 for that to happen, all going well.

Live coverage bandwidth can't be all that expensive, and is getting less expensive as time goes on.  If SpaceX can deliver on the re-entry targeting accuracy they have been talking about, then the number of assets needed to spot the return capsule should also be minimized to very manageable numbers (one boat that has to be there anyway)  I have to admit that the live broadcast aspect is the least important here, but there should be no reason that good visual coverage isn't possible with minimum tracking assets provided their landing accuracy becomes what they want it to be.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/28/2012 08:19 pm
Regarding the return, I think that SpaceX just isn't interested in the effort of showing the re-entry and splashdown of what is, after all, a routine mission.  We'll see this more and more as CRS gets more and more routine - SpaceX will not be giving more than cursory attention and will probably mostly only do Twitter updates unless there is a serious anomaly.  Full media coverage and attention will move to their under-development projects like Grasshopper and Dragonrider.

Ultimately, I think that Elon Musk is a very canny marketeer; he wants to keep excitement high by focussing attention on the Shiny New Thing rather than showing the old thing doing what it is supposed to do.  I'm pretty sure that he isn't as interested in the Space Fan community as he sometimes makes out, mostly because the more information he gives them, the more rope he weaves for his enemies (in the same community) to try to knot into a noose.

Now, a question: The SpX-1 Dragon is carrying at least one science payload and items returned for engineering checks and possible reconditioning.  What will be the procedure for removing them and sending them wherever they need to go.  Will that be done when the barge arrives in port, will it be done at Hawthorne or what?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/28/2012 08:56 pm
Now, a question: The SpX-1 Dragon is carrying at least one science payload and items returned for engineering checks and possible reconditioning.  What will be the procedure for removing them and sending them wherever they need to go.  Will that be done when the barge arrives in port, will it be done at Hawthorne or what?

Early items are removed in Long Beach and flown to Houston. The rest of the cargo is removed after Dragon arrives at McGregor. It doesn't go to Hawthorne until it's all clean.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/28/2012 09:15 pm

Live coverage bandwidth can't be all that expensive, and is getting less expensive as time goes on.  If SpaceX can deliver on the re-entry targeting accuracy they have been talking about, then the number of assets needed to spot the return capsule should also be minimized to very manageable numbers (one boat that has to be there anyway)  I have to admit that the live broadcast aspect is the least important here, but there should be no reason that good visual coverage isn't possible with minimum tracking assets provided their landing accuracy becomes what they want it to be.

Huh?  It is and it is a PITA.  The ships would need stabilized platforms, not to mention the additional people to man cameras and the relay station.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: happyflower on 10/29/2012 04:50 am
Some good words from mike suffredini regarding Spacex SPX-1 and SPX-2. Sorry I dont know how to make a video go to a specific time.  Go to 40:10 to 46:00 mark for SpaceX part.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBKs6uoyfrA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBKs6uoyfrA)

edit: added the times.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/29/2012 07:40 am

Live coverage bandwidth can't be all that expensive, and is getting less expensive as time goes on.  If SpaceX can deliver on the re-entry targeting accuracy they have been talking about, then the number of assets needed to spot the return capsule should also be minimized to very manageable numbers (one boat that has to be there anyway)  I have to admit that the live broadcast aspect is the least important here, but there should be no reason that good visual coverage isn't possible with minimum tracking assets provided their landing accuracy becomes what they want it to be.

Huh?  It is and it is a PITA.  The ships would need stabilized platforms, not to mention the additional people to man cameras and the relay station.
PITA, had to look that up  ;D

@ LegendCJS : since when did satellite bandwidth for live video feed from the Pacific Ocean become less expensive? Sure, SpaceX could do it if they had good reasons for doing so, but as Jim pointed out it's an engineering PITA, and as Ben pointed out it probably makes little sense from a public relations perspective.

When they can touchdown on land (hopefully by 2015) then it should be trivial (i.e. cheap) for them to provide routine HD video coverage of EOM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: nisse on 10/29/2012 08:57 am
Feel I should point out that the press kit says that with packaging there is 905 kg cargo mass.  And this should give a hint: if packaging nearly doubles your cargo mass it must all be pretty bulky stuff, so I'm in the volume limited camp.

Assuming Dragon is fully packed and the cargo is volume limited. Would this mean that SpaceX have fulfilled their contractual obligations in full despite the lack in cargo mass?


From hatch opening video it seems that the whole STB compartment is empty. Dragon seems not even close to full to me.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14483&media_id=153679981

Seems that the performance of F9/Dragon is exaggerated with a factor 10.

Not being able to put the Orbcomm payload in the correct orbit despite a very light Dragon seems to point in the same direction.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/29/2012 09:05 am

From hatch opening video it seems that the whole STB compartment is empty. Dragon seems not even close to full to me.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14483&media_id=153679981

Seems that the performance of F9/Dragon is exaggerated with a factor 10.

Not being able to put the Orbcomm payload in the correct orbit despite a very light Dragon seems to point in the same direction.
You haven't been following the mission that much, have you? Because if you had been, then you'd know that your post is a bit wayward.
Now, there's no crime in not following a mission closely, but you probably shouldn't make assumptions without recognizing that maybe you don't know the whole story.
Think about rephrasing your comment and you might get some useful answers in return.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/29/2012 09:17 am
This has been discussed to death here and addressed at news briefings. NASA decided not to use all of the available upmass on this flight; the excess margin was used for OrbComm and ballasting. The ballast is the reason that adding the mass of the Dragon, OrbComm satellite, and manifested payload does not add up to the quoted F9 performance. "Factor of 10"? Nonsense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 10/29/2012 12:35 pm
 Bandwidth doesn't need to be expensive if you're not living in the 90s. You can put something like a ku band Seatel 4010 on your boat and use the same bandwidth you already pay for with other VSATs. "Stabilized platform" is a little misleading. The dishes are just extremely well balanced and only require tiny motors to maintain 1/2 degree accuracy. It's not great bandwidth, but 2mbs is enough for a decent video feed and then some. Many high gain tracking wireless antennas are available now for relaying out to 30 miles. You don't need "additional people" to man things.
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: bob the martian on 10/29/2012 03:32 pm
Bandwidth doesn't need to be expensive if you're not living in the 90s. You can put something like a ku band Seatel 4010 on your boat and use the same bandwidth you already pay for with other VSATs. "Stabilized platform" is a little misleading. The dishes are just extremely well balanced and only require tiny motors to maintain 1/2 degree accuracy. It's not great bandwidth, but 2mbs is enough for a decent video feed and then some. Many high gain tracking wireless antennas are available now for relaying out to 30 miles. You don't need "additional people" to man things.
 

There's a point where catering to the fans on the Internet no longer makes business sense.  Yeah, a live video feed (or heck, just a recording) of reentry and splashdown would be undeniably cool and something I'd love to see, but it doesn't add anything to the bottom line. 

SpaceX isn't an entertainment company; they're not out to capture eyeballs on Youtube or other video outlet.  Sure, people like us would eat it up, but it won't translate into any business opportunities; I doubt many of us have a satellite that needs launching. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 10/29/2012 04:55 pm
From hatch opening video it seems that the whole STB compartment is empty. Dragon seems not even close to full to me.
NASA decides what to put on any particular flight. Send complaint to them that they did not put a few hundred kg lead block in capsule among other cargo.

Seems that the performance of F9/Dragon is exaggerated with a factor 10.
Do you think Dragon is supposed to have maximum capacity of 10 tons of cargo? You seem to be severely misinformed. No surprise, frankly speaking.

Not being able to put the Orbcomm payload in the correct orbit despite a very light Dragon seems to point in the same direction.
Nope. Inability was related to ISS being in way. After engine failure and compensation it was "only" 95% chance of having sufficient fuel to have successful burn to place Orbcomms in correct orbit. Rules required 99%. Result: Orbcomm got shafted.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 10/29/2012 05:26 pm
They explained this on the 33 expedition spacewalk briefing:
-NASA has no immediate need for the total amount of payload.
-SpaceX asked if they could send less than the average amount to put the secondary of Orbcomm.
-In exchange, SpaceX will pay themselves for an increase in power supply to payloads both up and down (that will be available from the six fly onward).
-NASA has still enough margin to use the full amount of payload contracted.
-The Falcon 9 was ballasted.
So, NASA didn't needed the payload right now, and in exchange they got the extra power that they do need to take up and down some experiments that need conditioning all the way to the station
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2012 06:09 pm
They explained this on the 33 expedition spacewalk briefing:
-NASA has no immediate need for the total amount of payload.
-SpaceX asked if they could send less than the average amount to put the secondary of Orbcomm.
-In exchange, SpaceX will pay themselves for an increase in power supply to payloads both up and down (that will be available from the six fly onward).
-NASA has still enough margin to use the full amount of payload contracted.
-The Falcon 9 was ballasted.
So, NASA didn't needed the payload right now, and in exchange they got the extra power that they do need to take up and down some experiments that need conditioning all the way to the station
Informative!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 10/29/2012 06:17 pm
 Is ballasting needed to keep Gs down or to avoid a different flight/fuel burn/ whatever profile for every payload?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: hrissan on 10/29/2012 08:02 pm
.
-The Falcon 9 was ballasted.
But why did they do this? Does it make sense at all to lower performance?

The flight computer shuts down some engines to limit g-factor, could it just be prepared to shut them down a bit earlier?

Or the problem is with loads on the restraint system on the pad?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Silmfeanor on 10/29/2012 08:08 pm
.
-The Falcon 9 was ballasted.
But why did they do this? Does it make sense at all to lower performance?

The flight computer shuts down some engines to limit g-factor, could it just be prepared to shut them down a bit earlier?

Or the problem is with loads on the restraint system on the pad?

How about balancing an off-center satellite?  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/29/2012 10:44 pm
I could also have something to do with dynamic behavior.

Think about driving an empty van vs. a fully loaded one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/31/2012 01:44 pm
"Ben the space Brit" complains (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30190.msg974316#msg974316) that Dragon looks "reallly beat-up at EOM".  What I see is that the char rubs off pretty easily.  It would be interesting to see what it would look like if SpaceX tried to clean it up. Now that they have a couple of display models from COTS-1, COTS-2+, and now CRS-1, perhaps they can show how a refurbished Dragon will look for a reflight. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/31/2012 01:47 pm
Some housekeeping.

This thread will obviously continue, but please note we have a CRS-2/SpX-2 General Discussion thread already active here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30184.0

I'll also start a CRS-2/SpX-2 Processing thread this week (maybe today).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: StephenB on 10/31/2012 02:33 pm
I see from the recovery pictures of Dragon being hoisted off the boat that it has cables attached to it. I take it these power among other things the freezer inside?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/31/2012 02:41 pm
I see from the recovery pictures of Dragon being hoisted off the boat that it has cables attached to it. I take it these power among other things the freezer inside?

AIUI, those are hoses for conditioned air. The powered cargo was removed ASAP after Dragon was recovered.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/31/2012 06:12 pm
I see from the recovery pictures of Dragon being hoisted off the boat that it has cables attached to it. I take it these power among other things the freezer inside?

AIUI, those are hoses for conditioned air. The powered cargo was removed ASAP after Dragon was recovered.

When was ASAP?  Was it on the boat at sea?  Was it when it arrived on the dock?  If the latter, they probably would have needed to supply external power to Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/31/2012 07:31 pm
I see from the recovery pictures of Dragon being hoisted off the boat that it has cables attached to it. I take it these power among other things the freezer inside?

AIUI, those are hoses for conditioned air. The powered cargo was removed ASAP after Dragon was recovered.

When was ASAP?  Was it on the boat at sea?  Was it when it arrived on the dock?  If the latter, they probably would have needed to supply external power to Dragon.

At sea. Powered cargo (in this instance, GLACIER) is running on battery power after trunk sep. The sooner it's out the better. Then the hatch is replaced with an acrylic door that has connections for the hoses.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 11/01/2012 07:02 am
"Ben the space Brit" complains (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30190.msg974316#msg974316) that Dragon looks "reallly beat-up at EOM".

I assume this was the heaviest of the Dragons at re-entry, due to the down-mass it carried - a significant percentage of the empty mass.

ISTM this implies a lower rate of deceleration and a longer re-entry phase, which would increase the ablation?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 11/01/2012 02:21 pm
"Ben the space Brit" complains (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30190.msg974316#msg974316) that Dragon looks "reallly beat-up at EOM".

I assume this was the heaviest of the Dragons at re-entry, due to the down-mass it carried - a significant percentage of the empty mass.

ISTM this implies a lower rate of deceleration and a longer re-entry phase, which would increase the ablation?

cheers, Martin
Beat up? A Soyuz at EOM looks beat up. Half of Dragon looks near pristine. The blackening on the other side is not much different from C2+.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/01/2012 02:50 pm
For crying out loud! I was only saying that the Dragon's white colour scheme makes the ablation soot look worse!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 11/01/2012 03:48 pm
Spaceships only stay white in B-SciFi-movies.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/01/2012 05:13 pm
Spaceships only stay white in B-SciFi-movies.
Also, Dragon uses ablative TPS. It's going to be black every single reentry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cambrianera on 11/01/2012 05:28 pm
Spaceships only stay white in B-SciFi-movies.
Also, Dragon uses ablative TPS. It's going to be black every single reentry.
Not necessarily ablative means charring, some ablative protections not using carbon or carbonium based resins could give less charring (SLA-561 or SIRCA for example are silicon based ablators).

Well, perhaps I agree with you that Dragon is going to be black every single reentry: Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator says it all....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 11/01/2012 05:50 pm
But Ben's point was that it looks beat up, not only with the blackening but seeing how easily that layer rubs off in spots during handling.  My point was wondering what it would look like if SpaceX has someone take a Mr Clean Eraser Pad to it. It might return to all white like BobCarver's Grade B SiFi movies.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/02/2012 01:47 pm
I assume the fact the paper is claiming it as "their view" means something (like presidential adorsements), but @NASA tweeted this to their millions of followers, as if it's something fascinating.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-spacex-mission-110212-20121101,0,3042092.story

It's six paras that probably took someone 10 mins to write.

I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, but it's not even the Wash Post. It's a paper that covers the Space Coast.

NASA acting a bit desperate for any type of mainstream coverage it seems. I find that a bit sad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 11/02/2012 02:12 pm
Spaceships only stay white in B-SciFi-movies.
Also, Dragon uses ablative TPS. It's going to be black every single reentry.
Not necessarily ablative means charring, some ablative protections not using carbon or carbonium based resins could give less charring (SLA-561 or SIRCA for example are silicon based ablators).
AFAIK, silicon based ablators have cork, which turns black with heat.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 11/02/2012 02:17 pm
NASA acting a bit desperate for any type of mainstream coverage it seems. I find that a bit sad.

Maybe the twitter feed is being run by the interns today.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 11/02/2012 04:28 pm
I assume the fact the paper is claiming it as "their view" means something (like presidential adorsements), but @NASA tweeted this to their millions of followers, as if it's something fascinating.

It's six paras that probably took someone 10 mins to write.

NASA acting a bit desperate for any type of mainstream coverage it seems. I find that a bit sad.

My interpretations FWIW.

1) Short op-eds, especially on a local rah-rah topic, aren't unusual.

2) The Orlando Sentinel endorsed Romney, a flip from 2008.  Many papers have done that, and there is horse trading going on within the editorial boards.  This piece is supportive of the President.

3) NASA HQ and many inside the Beltway PAOs are supporters of the President.  It doesn't surprise me that it would be retweeted for that reason.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 11/02/2012 05:59 pm
Everybody should understand that it is critical for NASA that a commercial spaceflight industry is healthy. As they have repeated many times, NASA's limited budget requires them to refocus government efforts to BEO and they simply must have a healthy and affordable private industry to back them up in ISS cargo and crew (NASA simply doesn't have the budget anymore to blow on maintaining an expensive alternative while trying to move beyond LEO). It's not surprising that they would re-tweet anything that backs them up in achieving that goal, especially when you consider that the average reader has no idea that's what the goal is. It's an ongoing process of repeating from as many sources as possible that this is the path which has been chosen for NASA by the Executive and Congressional branches of government.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: billh on 11/10/2012 10:31 pm
It's been over a month, and I was really hoping we'd have heard something by now from the investigation into the engine failure. Not necessarily a final report or even a definitive answer, but at least some indication that they were making good progress by narrowing the search. I hope they are just being tight lipped and that they actually have a pretty good idea by now what happened. Have I missed anything in the last couple of weeks? Has some information been trickling out?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 11/10/2012 10:51 pm
It's been over a month, and I was really hoping we'd have heard something by now from the investigation into the engine failure.

I was hoping there wouldn't have been any failure in the first place, but that didn't pan out, did it?

The fact this issue (whatever it was) wasn't picked up by extended engine burns on the ground and subsequent inspections suggested from the start that this isn't going to have a quick resolution. I wouldn't be at all surprised if no smoking gun is found in the end and that it ends up being something everyone's scratching their head over.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 11/11/2012 08:00 am
It's been over a month, and I was really hoping we'd have heard something by now from the investigation into the engine failure.

I was hoping there wouldn't have been any failure in the first place, but that didn't pan out, did it?

The fact this issue (whatever it was) wasn't picked up by extended engine burns on the ground and subsequent inspections suggested from the start that this isn't going to have a quick resolution. I wouldn't be at all surprised if no smoking gun is found in the end and that it ends up being something everyone's scratching their head over.

If that would be the case, how would they proceed? Permanent grounding and cancellation of the Falcon program seems not an adequate response to me.

Maybe some additional sensors to pick up more data if it ever happens again?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 11/11/2012 11:37 am
It's been over a month, and I was really hoping we'd have heard something by now from the investigation into the engine failure. Not necessarily a final report or even a definitive answer, but at least some indication that they were making good progress by narrowing the search. I hope they are just being tight lipped and that they actually have a pretty good idea by now what happened. Have I missed anything in the last couple of weeks? Has some information been trickling out?
You would be well adviced to remember that Falcon 9 is not a NASA rocket. SpaceX is not required to unveil any information about the investigation or any measures taken to correct the problem to the general public. They are a private company. SpaceX does have an obligation to inform NASA. But NASA can not subsequently release the things they learned to the general public. Simply because the information might hold proprietary information.
The fact that no information about the investigation is coming out can not be used by anyone on this forum to conclude that no fault cause has been identified. In fact, the absence of information can not be used to pull any sort of conclusion.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/11/2012 04:22 pm
It's been over a month, and I was really hoping we'd have heard something by now from the investigation into the engine failure.

I was hoping there wouldn't have been any failure in the first place, but that didn't pan out, did it?

The fact this issue (whatever it was) wasn't picked up by extended engine burns on the ground and subsequent inspections suggested from the start that this isn't going to have a quick resolution. I wouldn't be at all surprised if no smoking gun is found in the end and that it ends up being something everyone's scratching their head over.

A thorough investigation should, it seems likely to me, provide some good clues if not an absolute answer.  They'll have substantial telemetry, manufacturing data, and ground test data to review.  They may take apart an engine or two on the production line.  They should be able to do failure mode modeling to pin down potential culprits.  Steps to reduce the odds of future failures will be recommended.  Test procedures are going to be part of this mix, no doubt. 

The fact that this occurred in the vicinity of Max-Q, a condition not duplicated during the extensive static ground test firings, provides a very big fat clue, I think.  https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:7y5GymBuP6EJ:www.math.utah.edu/~gustafso/2250resonance.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShaUzsIqSMLXk0UnJUuKhY5-hHEBacFExeV0pR3fvzuhfHKFFOPVZpG4jET44Gs1BY_e-utcSoJ94wMEEIcc46YXd5WAvznL82deYphQvdzZjeIfRpFJIVbJ_7B33Y8pEeSgnao&sig=AHIEtbTW6gRCU8VX4NqAyv14mxAz2T7xSg

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 11/15/2012 07:34 pm
The fact that this occurred in the vicinity of Max-Q, a condition not duplicated during the extensive static ground test firings, provides a very big fat clue, I think. 
 - Ed Kyle

Did you mean to link to this reference on Resonance (http://www.math.utah.edu/~gustafso/2250resonance.pdf)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/16/2012 03:28 pm
The fact that this occurred in the vicinity of Max-Q, a condition not duplicated during the extensive static ground test firings, provides a very big fat clue, I think. 
 - Ed Kyle

Did you mean to link to this reference on Resonance (http://www.math.utah.edu/~gustafso/2250resonance.pdf)?

That looks like the one.

If only they could throttle down through Max-Q ....

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 11/16/2012 03:46 pm
The fact that this occurred in the vicinity of Max-Q, a condition not duplicated during the extensive static ground test firings, provides a very big fat clue, I think. 
 - Ed Kyle

Did you mean to link to this reference on Resonance (http://www.math.utah.edu/~gustafso/2250resonance.pdf)?

That looks like the one.

If only they could throttle down through Max-Q ....

 - Ed Kyle

all the better reason to reallocate resources and get F1.1 flying out west.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/16/2012 03:51 pm
If only they could throttle down through Max-Q ....

They could adjust their trajectory instead.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/17/2012 03:23 pm
If only they could throttle down through Max-Q ....

They could adjust their trajectory instead.

There might be a trade there:  accepting additional gravity losses to reduce Max-Q.  I wonder if another method could be to "detune" the engine cluster slightly, by modifying the thrust settings.  All of this still assuming a Max-Q related resonance condition as a cause.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 11/17/2012 03:24 pm
Then again, throttling down also increases gravity losses, though perhaps less so.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/26/2012 03:23 pm
Resonance conditions strong enough to shake/break engines apart show up very clearly on the accelerometers on the vehicle, and are typically easy to diagnose.  For example, on the Delta-III, a resonance condition caused the hydraulics to run out of fluid trying to suppress a rolling motion (when in fact they were the cause of this motion).  Within 2 weeks they knew the problem http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980908a.html (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980908a.html) and the final report was a few weeks later http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_981015a.html (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_981015a.html).  Since the review board seems to be struggling to find the cause in this case, it's likely not something as simple as resonance.

The fact that this occurred in the vicinity of Max-Q, a condition not duplicated during the extensive static ground test firings, provides a very big fat clue, I think. 
 - Ed Kyle

Did you mean to link to this reference on Resonance (http://www.math.utah.edu/~gustafso/2250resonance.pdf)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/26/2012 03:58 pm

all the better reason to reallocate resources and get F1.1 flying out west.


No, because V1.1 is not much different
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 11/26/2012 07:22 pm
Resonance conditions strong enough to shake/break engines apart show up very clearly on the accelerometers on the vehicle, and are typically easy to diagnose.  For example, on the Delta-III, a resonance condition caused the hydraulics to run out of fluid trying to suppress a rolling motion (when in fact they were the cause of this motion).  Within 2 weeks they knew the problem http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980908a.html (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980908a.html) and the final report was a few weeks later http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_981015a.html (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_981015a.html).  Since the review board seems to be struggling to find the cause in this case, it's likely not something as simple as resonance.

Vibration wouldn't have to be high enough to literally shake the engine apart. Metal fatigue may have played a factor since these engines are test-fired several times before flight. A more complete inspection process may be needed, even on Merlin-1D, especially if the basic parts haven't changed much from the 1C.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/26/2012 07:48 pm
Resonance conditions strong enough to shake/break engines apart show up very clearly on the accelerometers on the vehicle, and are typically easy to diagnose.  For example, on the Delta-III, a resonance condition caused the hydraulics to run out of fluid trying to suppress a rolling motion (when in fact they were the cause of this motion).

That was a flight control  resonance and not a structural resonance
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cambrianera on 11/26/2012 08:05 pm
Resonance conditions strong enough to shake/break engines apart show up very clearly on the accelerometers on the vehicle, and are typically easy to diagnose. 

Resonance is a strange beast, still dangerous at low power levels.
F14 original hydraulic system was designed without accumulators and the pulses from the pump were in resonance with the system; as a result the lines broke during first test flight.
Obviously in that case recovering the wreckage was easy, and the broken pipes quickly led to the cause.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/27/2012 03:03 am
Resonance conditions strong enough to shake/break engines apart show up very clearly on the accelerometers on the vehicle, and are typically easy to diagnose.  For example, on the Delta-III, a resonance condition caused the hydraulics to run out of fluid trying to suppress a rolling motion (when in fact they were the cause of this motion).

That was a flight control  resonance and not a structural resonance

The resonance was structural, a 4 Hz roll mode that developed as the stage mass decreased.  The flight system should have ignored it, but was not programmed to do so, and so tried to "correct" it, which it could not do  (presumably not fast enough).  Attempting to do so, it ran out of fluid...

From the report "The 4 hertz roll mode was caused by the three airlit solid-rocket motors rocking back and forth in unison. As the ground lit SRMs burned and lost weight, the rocking air-lit solids had a greater influence on the vehicle. The mode became significant 40 to 50 seconds into flight. Once the control system recognized the mode, it attempted to correct the roll oscillation. In doing so, the hydraulic fluid used to move the nozzles on the solid-rocket motors with TVCs was depleted."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/27/2012 03:16 am
The resonance was structural, a 4 Hz roll mode that developed as the stage mass decreased.

Huh?  You say it right there "roll mode", that is flight dynamics, which is a control issue.  Reread the report that you linked.
"roll instability which led to the Delta III failure can be corrected by a change to our control software"
The fixed was not strengthening the SRM attachments but a flight software fix.   That is why the Delta problem is not relevant to the Spacex problem.  If the Spacex program is any related "Resonance conditions strong enough to shake/break engines apart", that has nothing to do with flight dynamics and everything to do with structures.  It will be a hardware fix and not a software fix.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/27/2012 03:28 am
Resonance conditions strong enough to shake/break engines apart show up very clearly on the accelerometers on the vehicle, and are typically easy to diagnose. 

Resonance is a strange beast, still dangerous at low power levels.
F14 original hydraulic system was designed without accumulators and the pulses from the pump were in resonance with the system; as a result the lines broke during first test flight.
Obviously in that case recovering the wreckage was easy, and the broken pipes quickly led to the cause.

AS-502 (an Apollo test flight) had a similar problem.  A resonance in the bellows sections of a fuel line caused them to rupture in flight.  It was not detected in ground testing since when tested in air, air liquified on the bellows, which were full of liquid hydrogen.  The liquid air added enough damping to keep the resonance from destructive levels.  In a vacuum there was no additional damping and the vibration grew to destruction.  (This supports your point - the vibrations were not strong enough to show on the vehicle accelerometers.  However other indications pointed to a bellows failure, a vacuum test reproduced it, and then the cause was found.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/27/2012 03:38 am
(This supports your point - the vibrations were not strong enough to show on the vehicle accelerometers.  However other indications pointed to a bellows failure, a vacuum test reproduced it, and then the cause was found.)

There are many accelerometers, not just those in the guidance system.  Don't know exactly what Spacex does, but there are usually accels on the payload adapter, on the guidance system structure, on the thrust structure, on the engines themselves or gimbal blocks. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/27/2012 03:42 am
The resonance was structural, a 4 Hz roll mode that developed as the stage mass decreased.

Huh?  You say it right there "roll mode", that is flight dynamics, which is a control issue.  Reread the report that you linked.
"roll instability which led to the Delta III failure can be corrected by a change to our control software"
The fixed was not strengthening the SRM attachments but a flight software fix.   That is why the Delta problem is not relevant to the Spacex problem.  If the Spacex program is any related "Resonance conditions strong enough to shake/break engines apart", that has nothing to do with flight dynamics and everything to do with structures.  It will be a hardware fix and not a software fix.
My reading of the report was that there was a 4 Hz structural resonance about the roll axis, and the control system could not handle this.  From Ed Kyle's report http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/thorh13.html (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/thorh13.html) "The roll oscillation was created when the RS27A and three of the ground-lit solid motors vectored in a way that amplified a natural 4 Hertz resonance of the vehicle.  As the system fought the resonance, it rapidly used up its hydraulic fluid.  At T+65 seconds, the fluid ran out..."

So in this case the software made a structural resonance worse, so the answer was to fix the software and not the structure.

Of course, if the resonance has nothing to do with the software (as in the AS-502 bellows resonance failure) then you need to fix the structure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/27/2012 04:17 am
So in this case the software made a structural resonance worse, so the answer was to fix the software and not the structure.


No, it is not make the "structural resonance worse".  The structure remained intact and it did not break apart from destructive resonance.  The mode was the vehicle rolling back and forth, that became worse.  It was not the SRMs rocking back and forth and becoming detached. It made the control system fight itself and it resulted in hydraulic fluid depletion.  The 4 hz roll mode along with 56 others were known preflight, it was just thought that it was a secondary and not a primary mode.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/27/2012 11:34 am
So in this case the software made a structural resonance worse, so the answer was to fix the software and not the structure.


No, it is not make the "structural resonance worse".  The structure remained intact and it did not break apart from destructive resonance.  The mode was the vehicle rolling back and forth, that became worse.  It was not the SRMs rocking back and forth and becoming detached. It made the control system fight itself and it resulted in hydraulic fluid depletion.  The 4 hz roll mode along with 56 others were known preflight, it was just thought that it was a secondary and not a primary mode.

We agree on what happened; the (root) problem, a resonance that was not correctly accounted for, did not directly cause a structural failure.   Instead, it caused steering fluid depletion, which caused the rocket to not point into the wind, which did cause structural failure.  I'm just considering it as an example of  "problem caused by a resonance".  I agree the resonance itself did not break the rocket, or any part of the rocket, directly.

By the way, the same thing very nearly happened on Mariner 10.  Fortunately, it was in real time communication, controllers saw the cold gas supply dropping, they figured it must be an oscillation, and turned the gyros off to stop it.  But it lost a good chunk of its cold gas supply in an hour, and almost cost the mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 01/06/2013 07:58 pm
I want to believe, but I am still having trouble buying into the 27 engine thing.

 - Ed Kyle

Care to expand of this Ed?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/06/2013 08:13 pm
I want to believe, but I am still having trouble buying into the 27 engine thing.

 - Ed Kyle

Care to expand of this Ed?


Why does this need expanding? 27 is a lot of engines, more chance one of them could fail. Ed thinks that the last Falcon 9 flight was a launch failure because it had an engine out and so couldn't fully complete secondary tasks, even though the primary was a smashing success.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 01/07/2013 12:19 am
So far they haven't had any catastophic engine failures so the power plant seems pretty robust.  Even their latest incident wasn't really an RUD.  They seem confident that they've identified the issue and if so, then the fix will be in future engines eliminating that particular issue. 
SpaceX are flying a lot of engines and getting lots of experience with their hardware.  Seems like their power plant and systems will be pretty well know by the time FH flies.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/07/2013 12:23 am

As I've said before, I think that had this happened on a Falcon 9 v1.1, its 50%+ higher payload numbers would have made coping far easier.

No, you can't come to that conclusion.  If this was on a V1.1, the same manifest would not have flown.  With the extra performance, Spacex could/would fly more cargo in the Dragon, more secondary payloads, another Orbcomm, etc
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/07/2013 01:20 am

As I've said before, I think that had this happened on a Falcon 9 v1.1, its 50%+ higher payload numbers would have made coping far easier.

No, you can't come to that conclusion.  If this was on a V1.1, the same manifest would not have flown.  With the extra performance, Spacex could/would fly more cargo in the Dragon, more secondary payloads, another Orbcomm, etc

I can see more cargo in Dragon, but NASA is probably not going to need an extra 4000 kg of it on ISS, nor do I see a risk incentive for Orbcomm to commit to yet another satellite, and more orders for secondary payloads aren't necessarily going to just appear because Spacex is offering extra capacity.  These are new, relatively unproven rockets and some satellite companies will hold back until they're proven, limiting the secondary payloads Spacex can attract this early on.  While the manifest might be a couple mt heavier, I doubt they'd find enough additional payloads to get to the same engine-out margin they had on CRS-1.  Besides, Spacex also has their reliability reputation to consider.  They may be able to handle this happening on the v1.0, but on v1.1 or Falcon Heavy? 

For now Spacex needs to concern themselves with curbing chances of catastrophic engine failures on the Falcon 9 family and giving themselves enough margin that a second Orbcomm-like incident doesn't happen.  Attracting more payloads is fine, but I'm willing to bet they're going to make sure it will not come at the expense of failure tolerance for Falcon 9 v1.1 or Falcon Heavy going forward. 



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/07/2013 02:24 am


For now Spacex needs to concern themselves with curbing chances of catastrophic engine failures on the Falcon 9 family and giving themselves enough margin that a second Orbcomm-like incident doesn't happen.  Attracting more payloads is fine, but I'm willing to bet they're going to make sure it will not come at the expense of failure tolerance for Falcon 9 v1.1 or Falcon Heavy going forward. 


If so, then secondaries like Orbcomm aren't going to be manifested
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 01/07/2013 04:08 am
If so, then secondaries like Orbcomm aren't going to be manifested

I'm dubious that any more are going to manifested for ISS flights. If CRS-1 had not injected coorbital to ISS, the secondary would still have been deployed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 01/07/2013 06:49 am

For now Spacex needs to concern themselves with curbing chances of catastrophic engine failures on the Falcon 9 family and giving themselves enough margin that a second Orbcomm-like incident doesn't happen. 


I think your use of the term 'catastrophic' is a bit loose.  If it had been a 'catastrophic engine failure' then it would have been mission over not primary mission successful.  JM2CW.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/07/2013 06:54 am

For now Spacex needs to concern themselves with curbing chances of catastrophic engine failures on the Falcon 9 family and giving themselves enough margin that a second Orbcomm-like incident doesn't happen. 


I think your use of the term 'catastrophic' is a bit loose.  If it had been a 'catastrophic engine failure' then it would have been mission over not primary mission successful.  JM2CW.

Quick clarification--I didn't mean the CRS-1 engine failure was catastrophic.  I was merely pointing out if they can keep their engine failures more benign, there's a much better chance of the Falcon Heavy's design will be more successful.  Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 01/07/2013 04:57 pm
Quick clarification--I didn't mean the CRS-1 engine failure was catastrophic.  I was merely pointing out if they can keep their engine failures more benign, there's a much better chance of the Falcon Heavy's design will be more successful.  Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding.
Margin is something to be negotiated with the customer(s), not hard and fast rules that dictate all future flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 01/07/2013 08:46 pm
Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 
The engine did not explode.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: HMXHMX on 01/07/2013 10:38 pm
Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 
The engine did not explode.

Then what did it do?  Chunks flew off.  Until SpaceX comes clean about what happened, people will speculate.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/07/2013 11:00 pm
Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 
The engine did not explode.

Then what did it do?  Chunks flew off.  Until SpaceX comes clean about what happened, people will speculate.

They're welcome to do so.. unfortunately, they continue to do so by stating their arrogant opinion as fact.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/07/2013 11:17 pm
I for one highly value Mr. Hudson's opinion.

By naming they part that failed, one creates the belief that the event was not an energetic event.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 01/07/2013 11:20 pm
Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 
The engine did not explode.

Then what did it do?  Chunks flew off.  Until SpaceX comes clean about what happened, people will speculate.
AFAIK, the "explosion" (implosion, actually) was due to the sudden loss of air pressure inside the cone, when the engine shut down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hyperion5 on 01/07/2013 11:39 pm
Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 
The engine did not explode.

I wasn't saying it did.  I was making a general point that avoiding catastrophic engine failures will really be the key for Falcon Heavy's success. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 01/07/2013 11:49 pm
Premature engine shutdowns and other more benign engine failures are a lot easier to deal with than engines exploding. 
The engine did not explode.

I wasn't saying it did.  I was making a general point that avoiding catastrophic engine failures will really be the key for Falcon Heavy's success. 
I agree but that would also apply to any other vehicle no matter which organisaton not just SpaceX.
Wrt the 'explosion', I believe that there was some sort of safety pressure release action (deliberate) that caused some bits and pieces to fly loose but can't for the life of me find the source, so, like other theories, must be considered unsubstantiated.
Would really like SpaceX to clarify the event but not holding my breath or particularly upset by it.  Just looking forward to the next flight and an increase in rates.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jaufgang on 01/16/2013 04:20 am
From http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/01/11/SpaceX-sets-March-1-for-launch-to-ISS/UPI-90401357951647/ (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/01/11/SpaceX-sets-March-1-for-launch-to-ISS/UPI-90401357951647/):

Quote
One of the Falcon rocket's nine engines shut down prematurely during the last launch on Oct. 7, but SpaceX said it did not endanger that mission and that they've identified the problem.

"We've gotten to root cause and we've briefed that to our customer (NASA)," Garrett Reisman, SpaceX's Commercial Crew project manager, said.

"Right now we're just making sure that all of our i's are dotted and our t's are crossed," he said. "we do intend to make that information more widely disseminated very, very soon."

That's two "VERYs", if anyone's counting. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Geron on 01/31/2013 03:43 am
They came clean. The engine was ordered to shut down due to partial pressure loss, this caused part of the engine fairing to break off. No explosion.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/31/2013 03:48 am
They came clean. The engine was ordered to shut down due to partial pressure loss, this caused part of the engine fairing to break off. No explosion.

What caused the partial pressure loss?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: llanitedave on 01/31/2013 04:48 am
They came clean. The engine was ordered to shut down due to partial pressure loss, this caused part of the engine fairing to break off. No explosion.

What caused the partial pressure loss?

Fairing debris.   ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/31/2013 04:49 am
I thought it was a sudden pressure loss...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 01/31/2013 11:07 am
That last semi-official word was a sudden pressure loss in the engine which caused an automatic shutdown. With the engine venting into the engine compartment the overpressure panels blew. As this happened near max-q one of the fairings broke free.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2013 11:24 am
Yep, the flavored drink mix consumption is in full till. 
I frequently used the term "sudden pressure loss" when describing a balloon that instantly no long holds air.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mlindner on 01/31/2013 12:06 pm
Yep, the flavored drink mix consumption is in full till. 
I frequently used the term "sudden pressure loss" when describing a balloon that instantly no long holds air.

Take a look at the article Chris just posted. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/spacex-win-contract-ahead-crs-2-mission/

"The pressure loss resulted in the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads to rupture, giving the impression of an explosion. However, this was not the case and the remaining eight engines were unaffected by the event."

"Preliminary source information noted the failure appeared to be related to a fracturing of the Merlin 1C engine’s fuel dome, localized solely in that area on Engine 1, explaining why the engine continued to send data after the event."

You're claiming an explosion. Which goes against how everything else has been stated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2013 01:29 pm

You're claiming an explosion. Which goes against how everything else has been stated.
Just that "sudden pressure loss" is a gross understatement. 
Just keeping drinking and ignore the man behind the curtain.

Also, how is it not an explosion? Or rupture?

And furthermore, still sending data has no bearing on the definition of the event.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/31/2013 01:53 pm
I frequently used the term "sudden pressure loss" when describing a balloon that instantly no long holds air.
From asprin and headache standpoint it's easier on NSF to use that term ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 01/31/2013 02:49 pm
You're claiming an explosion. Which goes against how everything else has been stated.

Disputes over what to call this event seem rather silly and even childish.  From an engineering point of view, we need to know:
   (a) What went wrong;
   (b) What were the consequences, and what could have been the consequences in other situations;
   (c) What will be done to prevent this from happening, limit the consequences, or otherwise deal with this problem.

These activities are completely independent of whether we call the event an explosion, a pressure loss, a RUD, or a hula dance for that matter.  I'm  certain that the professionals at SpaceX, NASA, and customers will treat it the same way no matter what it is called.

This reminds me of when president Carter forbade the economist Alfred Kahn from using the words depression or recession. So he used the word "banana" instead, as in "We’re in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years."  Surely we can be as smart as the average listener to a speech on economics, and realize it matters not at all what you call it, but only what you do about it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/31/2013 04:08 pm

You're claiming an explosion. Which goes against how everything else has been stated.
Just that "sudden pressure loss" is a gross understatement. 
Just keeping drinking and ignore the man behind the curtain.

Also, how is it not an explosion? Or rupture?

And furthermore, still sending data has no bearing on the definition of the event.

As we already found out, "explosion" is used by different people to denote different things.

It "exploded" in the same way that a compressed air tank can "explode" - it is only a significant event if the tank is large.  For something the size of the fuel chamber, meh.

From the way I read it, it didn't even directly blow out the fairing - it's the loss of pressure under the fairing that caused aerodynamic pressure to break it.

In the context of a rocket engine under power, I wouldn't use the word explosion unless we're talking about propellant igniting very rapidly and uncontrollably, creating a shock-wave.  And even then we can argue (and have!) whether a rapid fire is truly an explosion.   None of that happened here.

The dome failed, the engine shut down, the fairing failed under aero loads - unless SpaceX is lying, but there's no evidence that I've seen indicating that they are.  Do you know something that we don't?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SF Doug on 01/31/2013 05:29 pm
Yep, the flavored drink mix consumption is in full till. 
I frequently used the term "sudden pressure loss" when describing a balloon that instantly no long holds air.

Take a look at the article Chris just posted. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/spacex-win-contract-ahead-crs-2-mission/

"The pressure loss resulted in the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads to rupture, giving the impression of an explosion. However, this was not the case and the remaining eight engines were unaffected by the event."

"Preliminary source information noted the failure appeared to be related to a fracturing of the Merlin 1C engine’s fuel dome, localized solely in that area on Engine 1, explaining why the engine continued to send data after the event."

You're claiming an explosion. Which goes against how everything else has been stated.

I am not an engineer.  I welcome corrections.

A classic "rocket engine explosion" is a rupture of the combustion chamber.  Big bang.  It can also be any failure resulting in massive external mixing of high-pressure fuel and oxidiser.  The Falcon 9 is designed to contain such explosions.

The fuel dome fractured and caused
  1)  a reduced flow of fuel  into the combustion chamber.  This gave the pressure loss in the combustion chamber that was detected and triggered closure of the main fuel and oxidiser valves, shutting down the engine.
  2)  for a short time, fuel escaped into the space around the engine.

  Could the escaping fuel have mixed with atmospheric oxygen, resulting in a small "explosion?"  Is this a possible alternate cause of the fairing failure?  I don't think so.

I do know about drinking the mix.  I once attempted to launch my Dodge Dart into the sun.

I found this diagram helpful.

From http://pinehead.tv/space/under-the-hood-with-the-spacex-merlin-engine/ (http://pinehead.tv/space/under-the-hood-with-the-spacex-merlin-engine/)
(http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles9/516194/projects/4492983/aa78b394999ce40837b114a0b6357678.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/31/2013 06:09 pm
Can someone correct me, but isn't the fuel dome pressure the same as the combustion chamber since it really is the top of the combustion chamber.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 01/31/2013 06:25 pm
By definition, rocket is controlled explosion. So whatsever mishap, you can call it "explosion gone wrong".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/31/2013 06:40 pm
Can someone correct me, but isn't the fuel dome pressure the same as the combustion chamber since it really is the top of the combustion chamber.
Fuel dome pressure is always higher since there is a significant pressure drop across the injector(s).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 01/31/2013 06:55 pm
As we already found out, "explosion" is used by different people to denote different things.

I really don't get this. We all love spacex and wish them all the best. I would invest in them in a second if they were public.

But it is perfectly correct to call what happened an explosion. The definition of explosion on wikipedia is just a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, which is exactly what happened. There is even a subsection on wikipedia for this particular kind of explosion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion#Mechanical_and_vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion#Mechanical_and_vapor).

There was no detonation (supersonic shockwave), and the combustion chamber did not explode. But there was an explosion. Makes it even more impressive that the vehicle survived and continued on its way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWnL8SipXT8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWnL8SipXT8)
Nothing to worry about. Just a rapid pressure release.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 01/31/2013 07:09 pm
As we already found out, "explosion" is used by different people to denote different things.

I really don't get this. We all love spacex and wish them all the best. I would invest in them in a second if they were public.

But it is perfectly correct to call what happened an explosion. The definition of explosion on wikipedia is just a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, which is exactly what happened. There is even a subsection on wikipedia for this particular kind of explosion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion#Mechanical_and_vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion#Mechanical_and_vapor).

There was no detonation (supersonic shockwave), and the combustion chamber did not explode. But there was an explosion. Makes it even more impressive that the vehicle survived and continued on its way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWnL8SipXT8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWnL8SipXT8)
Nothing to worry about. Just a rapid pressure release.

This is semantics, but there was no increase in pressure. The pressure container failed, and the pressure was orders of magnitude lower than when a chemical reaction causes a sudden rise in pressure....  Outside the dome, the outflow of propellant was not even enough to break the fairing.

In other contexts, people will say that a compressed air cylinder "exploded", and I'd have no problem with this usage.

When talking about an engine under thrust, I'd personally reserve this word to the case where something caused the reaction to accelerate, and this self-amplified to a very fast event.  You know - an explosion!

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: padrat on 01/31/2013 07:12 pm
Makes it even more impressive that the vehicle survived and continued on.

I'd say this is what really matters. Yes, try to figure out what happened so you can prevent it from happening in the future. But when it comes down to it, it still accomplished the mission, besides Orbcomm. Which I think we know wasnt their call either....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: notsorandom on 01/31/2013 07:44 pm
The engine did not explode and it did not implode. However something clearly traumatic happened. Perhaps the most appropriate term would be that the engine "ploded". Can we leave it there?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/31/2013 07:49 pm
Asploded. It asploded.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: llanitedave on 01/31/2013 07:50 pm
If anything, I would have called it an implosion.  The engine shutdown caused a sudden pressure drop at the base of the fairing and essentially sucked it into the low-pressure zone under the force of the slipstream above it.

Call me a "flavored drink consumer", but at least I'm not addicted to sour mash.  That stuff warps your mind just as bad, if not worse.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/31/2013 07:55 pm
Makes it even more impressive that the vehicle survived and continued on.

I'd say this is what really matters. Yes, try to figure out what happened so you can prevent it from happening in the future. But when it comes down to it, it still accomplished the mission, besides Orbcomm. Which I think we know wasnt their call either....
Indeed, and I think the transition of space launch away from "brittle" systems with no margin for error is a very good sign. It's got to be really frustrating to engineers at ULA, SpaceX and others that whenever something goes wrong (but the main mission is accomplished), some people are quick to jump on the "anything wrong is a full failure" bandwagon. It's just dumb to equate partial failure of secondary missions to full launch failure, and such an attitude will keep spaceflight expensive, risky, and rare.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 01/31/2013 09:24 pm
If anything, I would have called it an implosion.  The engine shutdown caused a sudden pressure drop at the base of the fairing and essentially sucked it into the low-pressure zone under the force of the slipstream above it.
That is exactly how I read it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/31/2013 09:39 pm
I don't care what you call it, but explaining what happened by saying "there was a sudden loss of pressure" is *not* explaining what caused that to happen. Root cause, any ideas? If not, keep looking.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2013 11:03 pm
The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/01/2013 12:11 am
The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 

That's interesting, I was wondering what happened.  Do you have a source?

The formal line that I saw was that the fairing cannot sustain max-Q if there isn't a working engine under it, and so *it is inferred* that aerodynamic loads tore it apart after the engine broke.

I'd love to know if there's evidence that the engine blow out (hey - can we use "blow out"?  I like that term) knocked the fairing outwards against the flow.

But if there isn't any - why assume the opposite of what they said?

The reason I tend to believe their line is that a) why lie on such a detail, and b) if IIUC, the fuel under the fuel dome is still liquid.  Liquids don't store pressure energy very well.  (This is why you fill pressure vessels with water in burst tests)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/01/2013 01:42 am
The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 

That's interesting, I was wondering what happened.  Do you have a source?

The formal line that I saw was that the fairing cannot sustain max-Q if there isn't a working engine under it, and so *it is inferred* that aerodynamic loads tore it apart after the engine broke.

I'd love to know if there's evidence that the engine blow out (hey - can we use "blow out"?  I like that term) knocked the fairing outwards against the flow.

There is nothing that says "pressure loss" in the aft compartment resulted in the loss of panels.  It is saying that pressure loss in the engine led to loss of panels.  The pressure loss in the engine is from a release of pressure and where does it go?

Read here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-stay-minor-issues-falcon-9-investigation/

"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured. The engine did not explode, but did cause the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads to rupture and fall away from the vehicle due to the engine pressure release."

Think people.  There isn't outside pressure on a surface parallel to the flow, in fact, it is the opposite, there is lower pressure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 02/01/2013 01:44 am
"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured.

Why did the fuel dome rupture?

I can play this game all day.

They haven't identified the root cause, which means it could happen again.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 02/01/2013 02:09 am
Yay pointless semantics arguments. It exploded. It also held together to a large extent (telemetry) and disassembled itself in a planned way.

The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 

True. But SpaceX doesn't get any extra credit since those panels were designed to blow off?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/01/2013 03:57 am
"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured.

I can play this game all day.

They haven't identified the root cause, which means it could happen again.


This is the most important question, there is no argument about that.
But while we're waiting for an answer, we're looking at what happened afterwards, just for kicks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/01/2013 04:37 am
The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 

That's interesting, I was wondering what happened.  Do you have a source?

The formal line that I saw was that the fairing cannot sustain max-Q if there isn't a working engine under it, and so *it is inferred* that aerodynamic loads tore it apart after the engine broke.

I'd love to know if there's evidence that the engine blow out (hey - can we use "blow out"?  I like that term) knocked the fairing outwards against the flow.

There is nothing that says "pressure loss" in the aft compartment resulted in the loss of panels.  It is saying that pressure loss in the engine led to loss of panels.  The pressure loss in the engine is from a release of pressure and where does it go?

Read here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-stay-minor-issues-falcon-9-investigation/

"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured. The engine did not explode, but did cause the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads to rupture and fall away from the vehicle due to the engine pressure release."

Think people.  There isn't outside pressure on a surface parallel to the flow, in fact, it is the opposite, there is lower pressure.

I don't know what happened to the fairing, but it's definitely not a "think people" no-brainer.  I didn't invent the speculation that the fairing is supported from below by engine pressure, though I don't have a reference to the source of that.

The corner fairing sticks out of the main body cross-section quite a bit, and this was near max-Q, so I would actually expect an inwards/downwards force on it.

Anyway, it's really unimportant.  Liquid fuel came out of the dome, and either it knocked the fairing out, or the fairing collapsed.  Same difference.  Now that I realize the fuel was liquid, I don't even want to call it a blow-out, not to mention an explosion.  It is exactly what SpaceX said - loss in pressure.

(btw - a Merlin consumes ~80 lb of propellant per second, says the internet, out of which about 1/4 by mass is fuel?  If the shut-off happened within 0.1 seconds of the pressure drop-off (WAG), we're talking about 2 pounds of liquid still supplied at pressure.  And since there's no nozzle but rather a breaking wall, why would the speed of the fuel be much?)

Like I said before - unless you show a better source than SpaceX's statement, I'll continue to go by what they say, or as you call it, drinking the sweet red stuff.

And as QG keeps saying - what's really important is figuring out why the dome failed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 02/01/2013 05:22 am
"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured.

Why did the fuel dome rupture?

I can play this game all day.

They haven't identified the root cause, which means it could happen again.

Correction, they have not *announced* that they have found the root cause. There is significant difference. They do not need to release any more info to the public than they have to, and they certainly won't release more info then they have to if they feel that such information would be used against them - if that is the case. As long as NASA is happy, we'll just have to be happy with what we get.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: aero on 02/01/2013 11:16 am
Well, this is a speculation thread so why don't we speculate about why the dome might have failed? The answer we have been given is somewhat circular, it is:

The operational lifetime of the dome due to testing and flight was exceeded by the time on the engine.

Or, the time on the engine, due to testing and flight, exceeded the operational lifetime of the dome.

Since no one flys an engine that has exceeded its design lifetime, the failure seems to have resulted from the difference between "operational" and "design" lifetimes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/01/2013 11:25 am

Like I said before - unless you show a better source than SpaceX's statement, I'll continue to go by what they say, or as you call it, drinking the sweet red stuff.


They haven't said anything.  Also, no one has said only fuel was released.

This is why your posts have less credibility
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 02/01/2013 12:15 pm
They haven't said anything.  Also, no one has said only fuel was released.

This is why your posts have less credibility
Just as much credibility as your claims that SpaceX are deliberately and purposefully lying in their press statements, Jim.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: go4mars on 02/01/2013 12:31 pm
Liquid fuel came out of the dome... Now that I realize the fuel was liquid... It is exactly what SpaceX said - loss in pressure.
It seems to me that a fluid was liberated from the higher pressure fuel dome to the relatively lower pressure area outside of the fuel dome (thus increasing the pressure of the area outside of the fuel dome).  This increase in pressure in the area outside of the fuel dome caused a fluid liberation event to the lower pressure area outside of the engine shroud. 

Just to be `that guy` because I feel the semantics are very unimportant here:  The best technical terms are `Rapid Unexpected Fluid Liberation Event (RUFLE)` or `Pressure Always from Higher to Lowest Through Ruptures`(PAHLTR). 

Anyway, it's really unimportant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/01/2013 01:03 pm
They haven't said anything.  Also, no one has said only fuel was released.

This is why your posts have less credibility
Just as much credibility as your claims that SpaceX are deliberately and purposefully lying in their press statements, Jim.

Please point out where I said they are lying. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 02/01/2013 01:15 pm
Everyone we've been through this whole conversation before, do we have to repeat it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/01/2013 02:38 pm
Personally, I think Jim doing a wonderful job explaining what happened.

So if you have thrown your diner in a pressure cooker and the little pressure relief valve clogs, when the fuel dome, ...eeer lid fly's off coating your entire kitchen with diner, do you call it the lid flying off, or something else.

This is the same thing that is going here, the fuel dome did something similar (except you had torn metal), the word being used is failed, just like a pressure cooker lid flying off, the word failed under values how nasty this failure is. Very high pressure liquids (Kero and LOX) where released in large quantities inside the engine compartment. The loss of pressure was sensed and the turbo shut down, preventing an overspeed and an even worse RUD.

What has not been answered (and probably not possible without recovery, hence a lack of root cause) was what section of the fuel dome failed. Did the wall on it fail somewhere, did the weld between it and the combustion chamber fail dropping the whole combustion chamber in the ocean, ect? We do not know, SpaceX has said they have telemetry from after the event, does that mean all the sensors remained working, including pressure sensors on the combustion chamber, hence major parts did not fall off?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/01/2013 02:39 pm
btw. Jim, I like the balloon analogy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mlindner on 02/01/2013 05:41 pm
Personally, I think Jim doing a wonderful job explaining what happened.

So if you have thrown your diner in a pressure cooker and the little pressure relief valve clogs, when the fuel dome, ...eeer lid fly's off coating your entire kitchen with diner, do you call it the lid flying off, or something else.

This is the same thing that is going here, the fuel dome did something similar (except you had torn metal), the word being used is failed, just like a pressure cooker lid flying off, the word failed under values how nasty this failure is. Very high pressure liquids (Kero and LOX) where released in large quantities inside the engine compartment. The loss of pressure was sensed and the turbo shut down, preventing an overspeed and an even worse RUD.

What has not been answered (and probably not possible without recovery, hence a lack of root cause) was what section of the fuel dome failed. Did the wall on it fail somewhere, did the weld between it and the combustion chamber fail dropping the whole combustion chamber in the ocean, ect? We do not know, SpaceX has said they have telemetry from after the event, does that mean all the sensors remained working, including pressure sensors on the combustion chamber, hence major parts did not fall off?

I think we all mostly agree with this. You state you agree with Jim, but Jim keeps stating other more extreme things though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/01/2013 05:51 pm
but Jim keeps stating other more extreme things though.

What other more extreme things?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/01/2013 08:06 pm
Personally, I think Jim doing a wonderful job explaining what happened.

So if you have thrown your diner in a pressure cooker and the little pressure relief valve clogs, when the fuel dome, ...eeer lid fly's off coating your entire kitchen with diner, do you call it the lid flying off, or something else.

This is the same thing that is going here, the fuel dome did something similar (except you had torn metal), the word being used is failed, just like a pressure cooker lid flying off, the word failed under values how nasty this failure is. Very high pressure liquids (Kero and LOX) where released in large quantities inside the engine compartment. The loss of pressure was sensed and the turbo shut down, preventing an overspeed and an even worse RUD.

What has not been answered (and probably not possible without recovery, hence a lack of root cause) was what section of the fuel dome failed. Did the wall on it fail somewhere, did the weld between it and the combustion chamber fail dropping the whole combustion chamber in the ocean, ect? We do not know, SpaceX has said they have telemetry from after the event, does that mean all the sensors remained working, including pressure sensors on the combustion chamber, hence major parts did not fall off?

First, it matters a whole lot whether the cooker was 90% full of water or 10% full of water.

The pressure dome was 100% full of liquid propellant, which is the best case.

Second, when I was a kid, I was next to a pressure cooker doing exactly that. Let me tell you - it did not explode, not even close.  It made a hell of a mess on the hood, but did not even knock it away.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/01/2013 08:11 pm
Second, when I was a kid, I was next to a pressure cooker doing exactly that. Let me tell you - it did not explode, not even close.  It made a hell of a mess on the hood, but did not even knock it away.

That's because it was designed to gracefully degrade.  It lets off steam before it blows its top.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: zodiacchris on 02/01/2013 08:38 pm
Guys, this is the Falcon Heavy thread, can you please take the CRS1 failure somewhere else? Heavy won't be flying with the Merlin1C, and whatever remedy SpaceX will find (if needed for the 1D) will be well established by the time Heavy flies. And yes, we have been over this rupture/explosion ground before, it is getting rather stale now. So please, discuss this in the CRS1 thread or somewhere else...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/01/2013 11:45 pm
60 something posts from the FH thread - that are mainly about CRS-1 and the Engine 1 issue - split and merged into this related thread.

Do not take other threads off topic.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/02/2013 04:09 am
That's because it was designed to gracefully degrade.  It lets off steam before it blows its top.
Actually pressure cookers have two valves. One, the little weight on the top is what lets the steam out slowly to keep the pressure below a safe level. The other is a blowout plug that lets loose if the first gets clogged  and is what sprays your contents all over the place. If both fail, you get shrapnel... But that is something really hard to do with a modern pressure cooker.

As far as Merlin's go they have shielding to protect the other engines if one or more parts produce shrapnel. With out visible inspection of the failed fuel dome we do not know if shrapnel was produced. All we know is the pressure suddenly dropped in the dome. The rest is recover and reaction to the event.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 02/02/2013 04:47 pm
It's just terribly odd that non-pros question so rampantly the pros.  Part of the value of NSF is that there are industry people here.  Worse, especially that there are and will be more proprietary restrictions on commercial and SLS is hiding behind eyetar, there will continue to be more instances where the pros can't say why they know what they claim as truth.  The debates become tedious for all sides.  I recommend looking at a user's accuracy record on items that are public and using that to measure whether they are accurate on something where they can't share the background.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 02/02/2013 04:57 pm
 Not that it matters, but the weight at the top of a pressure cooker is to keep the pressure up, at a desired level. You control pressure by rotating the weight to change the surface area of the pressurized area on the bottom. Smaller area means more pressure to lift the weight needed. The safety valve is in case the orifice on top gets plugged.
 It does sort of relate. If some sort of pressure event caused an overpressure of the combustion chamber. But, I take it the data would have showed that happening.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 02/03/2013 01:31 am
It's just terribly odd that non-pros question so rampantly the pros.

Don't question the experts?

Quote
Part of the value of NSF is that there are industry people here.  Worse, especially that there are and will be more proprietary restrictions on commercial and SLS is hiding behind eyetar, there will continue to be more instances where the pros can't say why they know what they claim as truth.

Then, in my opinion, they have no business saying anything at all. If they can't back up their comments with facts and evidence (which is public information), then they shouldn't say a word.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: padrat on 02/03/2013 02:25 am
So we should say nothing while those who aren't experts make statements and spread false info or speculation, sometimes mistakenly, sometimes blantently, or just to push their own agenda? Isn't that one reason Space Policy is now only open to posting by L2 members?

Ought to be some nice lively conversations. I'll grab some popcorn....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 02/03/2013 02:44 am
So we should say nothing while those who aren't experts make statements and spread false info or speculation, sometimes mistakenly, sometimes blantently, or just to push their own agenda? Isn't that one reason Space Policy is now only open to posting by L2 members?

Ought to be some nice lively conversations. I'll grab some popcorn....

I don't want you to get fired for posting something that you were not supposed to.

I also hate it when people say "I can't tell you why I know that", as it just grates to hear it.

Those two things seem to work against posting. But I hope you and other experts find a balance and continue to provide information. (and debunk incorrect information) Sometimes it might be questioned when you do that.  That's life. Just do the best you can. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/03/2013 05:07 am
My definition of "explosion" comes from NFPA-921 "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations", which is a guide to the particular work I do these days. 

It says that an explosion is a "sudden conversion of potential energy (chemical or mechanical) into kinetic energy with the production and release of gases under pressure, or the release of gas under pressure. These high-pressure gases then do mechanical work such as moving, changing, or shattering nearby materials."

The "sudden" and the "release of gas under pressure" and the "mechanical work" all clearly apply to what happened to that Merlin 1C.  There was an explosion, though a relatively small one, emanating from the top of the engine.  If it had been in a building, it would have messed up a room or two or three, but it wouldn't have taken the entire building down.

That's how I see it.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mlindner on 02/03/2013 05:29 am
Some people are their own sources.

In academia a source isn't a source unless the source also explains how it derived the information or points to other sources for its information and even then the source can sometimes be wrong because it improperly derived the information.

Experts are free to state things, but they shouldn't be expected to be believed at face value without explanation or reasoning. I rank statements on here in the order of: Experts with correct explanation/reasoning > non-experts with correct explanation/reasoning > experts stating information > non-experts stating information. A key piece of information for believing an expert source is some kind of record that shows their area of expertise. Of note I rank padrat rather highly whenever he talks about whats going on with pad ops or integration or related because that is directly with what he is involved with.

It would be great if this forum had a way for people who work in industry be able to have a location in their profile to give a quick summary of their knowledge base (if they so wish to state it) for people who are new to the forums or for people who are new to seeing that expert's posts.

I know Jim has worked on many launches and worked on spacehab and works on various ULA launches, but beyond that and I have yet to see him state why he is an expert for SpaceX related launches. He may have stated it long before I came to these forums. He has a notably high rate of one-liner posts which are usually very bereft of of an kind of reasoning or background on why he is correct.

We are getting _very_ off topic right now though. This is a topic for the main general discussion forum.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Carl G on 02/03/2013 11:17 am
Agreed and trimmed. Thread title is what this is about. No more unless it's relevant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/03/2013 12:44 pm
I know Jim has worked on many launches and worked on spacehab and works on various ULA launches,

NASA uses other vehicles and not just ULA's.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 02/03/2013 02:16 pm
It's just terribly odd that non-pros question so rampantly the pros.

Don't question the experts?

Quote
Part of the value of NSF is that there are industry people here.  Worse, especially that there are and will be more proprietary restrictions on commercial and SLS is hiding behind eyetar, there will continue to be more instances where the pros can't say why they know what they claim as truth.

Then, in my opinion, they have no business saying anything at all. If they can't back up their comments with facts and evidence (which is public information), then they shouldn't say a word.

Alternatives are no info, or info when understood why it can't be backed up. Happy to take the info in those circumstances, with allowance for the poster's previous history.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/03/2013 03:55 pm
Then, in my opinion, they have no business saying anything at all. If they can't back up their comments with facts and evidence (which is public information), then they shouldn't say a word.

Then continue to live in ignorance
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SF Doug on 02/03/2013 05:46 pm
Much thanks to Ed Kyle for the explosion definition and to all other expert contributors and reasoned debaters.  My on-topic questions are reduced to:   

Engineering: Was the fairing/panels detachment caused by 1) the fuel dome explosion or 2) an engine shutdown at MaxQ or 3) both.

Management: Were the statements by SpaceX  1) poorly-worded 2) intentionally misleading or 3) spin.

I am willing to wait for more investigation results to decide.

Doug
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/03/2013 08:00 pm
Spacex is just putting things in a good light. And really, considering the primary mission was a big success and the (very small) secondary even acheived many of its objectives. This was in spite of an engine-out, which is impressive.

Meanwhile, you should be aware that Ed Kyle tends to put things in a bad light. If there's anything that goes off-nominal and leads to a little less performance or something (even if the primary mission is a success), he will label that a full failure. It borders on schadenfraude.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cambrianera on 02/03/2013 08:03 pm
My take about panel detachement:
Broken fuel dome (or fuel line) creates a fuel mist inside the fairing; the resulting fireball blows out the lateral panel, the top fairing follows after few seconds due to air stream.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 02/03/2013 08:22 pm
Thanks cambrianera. What are the 'thingys' between the two lateral panels? Would it have been a less benign event if the number 2 engine had the same thing happen to it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cambrianera on 02/03/2013 08:33 pm
Still lateral panels.
Only corner engines have top fairing.
Here a pic without panels and top fairing.

About eng. n°2 I don't know, but probably not different, that panel blow out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 02/03/2013 08:37 pm
Thanks cambrianera. What are the 'thingys' between the two lateral panels?
IIUC, those are the hold-down points where the base holds onto the first stage until the engines are fully running.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cambrianera on 02/03/2013 08:44 pm
Yes Comga, in the red circles the hold down holes for the hold down pins.
In the green ellipse the stand up step where the rocket is hold up (and some fluid or electrical connection, don't know exactly)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/03/2013 09:36 pm
Actually, it is pretty effective for figuring out whether there is any truth to a rumor or not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: thebartonfox on 02/03/2013 10:25 pm
Yep, the flavored drink mix consumption is in full till. 
I frequently used the term "sudden pressure loss" when describing a balloon that instantly no long holds air.

Take a look at the article Chris just posted. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/spacex-win-contract-ahead-crs-2-mission/

"The pressure loss resulted in the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads to rupture, giving the impression of an explosion. However, this was not the case and the remaining eight engines were unaffected by the event."

"Preliminary source information noted the failure appeared to be related to a fracturing of the Merlin 1C engine’s fuel dome, localized solely in that area on Engine 1, explaining why the engine continued to send data after the event."

You're claiming an explosion. Which goes against how everything else has been stated.

I am not an engineer.  I welcome corrections.

A classic "rocket engine explosion" is a rupture of the combustion chamber.  Big bang.  It can also be any failure resulting in massive external mixing of high-pressure fuel and oxidiser.  The Falcon 9 is designed to contain such explosions.

The fuel dome fractured and caused
  1)  a reduced flow of fuel  into the combustion chamber.  This gave the pressure loss in the combustion chamber that was detected and triggered closure of the main fuel and oxidiser valves, shutting down the engine.
  2)  for a short time, fuel escaped into the space around the engine.

  Could the escaping fuel have mixed with atmospheric oxygen, resulting in a small "explosion?"  Is this a possible alternate cause of the fairing failure?  I don't think so.

I do know about drinking the mix.  I once attempted to launch my Dodge Dart into the sun.

I found this diagram helpful.

From http://pinehead.tv/space/under-the-hood-with-the-spacex-merlin-engine/ (http://pinehead.tv/space/under-the-hood-with-the-spacex-merlin-engine/)
(http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles9/516194/projects/4492983/aa78b394999ce40837b114a0b6357678.jpg)

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 02/04/2013 12:54 am
Still waiting for word on the 'suspected' root cause of the issue.  SpaceX did say 'soon'.  One hopes that it will be before the next flight but I don't mind either way, just so long as SpaceX continue to fly successfully.
In fact, does it really matter whether or not anyone in the public arena knows?  I think not.  The ones who matter are NASA and SpaceX customers.  If they're satisfied, then so am I.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/04/2013 12:55 am
Spacex is just putting things in a good light. And really, considering the primary mission was a big success and the (very small) secondary even acheived many of its objectives. This was in spite of an engine-out, which is impressive.

Meanwhile, you should be aware that Ed Kyle tends to put things in a bad light. If there's anything that goes off-nominal and leads to a little less performance or something (even if the primary mission is a success), he will label that a full failure. It borders on schadenfraude.
There's no pleasure in logging failures.  But someone has to do it!

Because, as we have seen many times before and again in this case, the manufacturer (not just SpaceX - some others are more blatant) tends to, lets say, De-emphasize what really happens when things don't go perfectly.  The general media tends to repeat what the manufacturer tells them, and then the story of no failure at all gets passed down through the history books when, in fact, a paying customer's satellite burned up in the atmosphere.

That doesn't mean I'm not impressed that Falcon 9 flew on and that Dragon succeeded.  That was impressive, but lets remember the whole story.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 02/04/2013 12:59 am
when, in fact, a paying customer's satellite burned up in the atmosphere.

That satellite was always going to burn up in the atmosphere. That was the plan. The only result of the incorrect orbit deployment was that the customer got less time to evaluate the spacecraft. As it turns out, that didn't matter either. The customer got the data they needed and are they're proceeding with the dedicated launch campaign.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/04/2013 01:07 am
BTW, Ed, I do thank you for keeping track of all this stuff with your website.

(And likewise QuantumG for yours).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: R7 on 02/04/2013 06:01 pm
I got to ask: The implosion/MaxQ-aerodynamic-forces-tearing-panels theory is still circulated, and sometimes even as official fact now. Where's official statement from SpaceX that this is the case? All I've ever seen while following this case is references to Rand Simberg's op-ed where he writes about it and refers to SpaceX press release which did not mention anything about implosions nor wind tearing bits off.

AFAIK fuel dome rupturing is the official main suspect. Which leads to my other question: What is the fuel dome? I know what LOX dome is on many engines, distributing LOX over injector plate and carrying loads to gimbal.

I found SF Doug's posted diagram very informative, helped make an educated guess. It lacked though any labeling so I made an attempt to add some, the one's I'm unsure of are with question mark.

(http://s7.postimage.org/d07uo1qaj/Merlin_Diagram.jpg)

If the orange part on top of SC is the fuel dome then here's an image of it in the making, from jongoff's old article:

http://selenianboondocks.com/2006/10/spacex-comstac-briefing/ (http://selenianboondocks.com/2006/10/spacex-comstac-briefing/)
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1613/496/400/Merlin1C_HeadEnd.jpg)

What confused me is knowing that LOX dome is full of LOX, so when heard of fuel dome I started to ponder "where's a dome full of fuel on this engine??". Apparently it isn't, instead a wall milled cooled closing section of CC, with a hole for pintle in the center.

What happens when such fuel dome ruptures? First would need to know did it rupture all the way to CC, or only the outer surface? A fitting failure (fuel bypass lines and assorted other lines going into fuel dome) ?

In any case, CC pressure listed at 6.77MPa/982psi. Fuel dome coolant lines have that plus injector drop, about 20-25% extra. Since it's mostly done it's cooling job it's hot, probably above boiling point (~200C) at 1atm (actual ambient pressure lower), possibly above autoignition temperature (~245C).

Now imagine (do not try  :D) that you adjust a steam pressure washer to about 80bar / 1200psi, connect the input hose to heating fuel tank, turn the washer on and start spraying. Now, tough questions; would you feel safe? Is it likely that the output would mix with air? Wonder what would happen if you'd spray in a cramped compartment next to hot GG/turbine/turbine exhaust assembly? Or next to eight running rocket engines and one shutting down?

While back I captured a few frames from the launch video, I'll attach them here. If interested I recommend downloading and viewing with your preferred image viewer in order to quickly flip between frames. Added minor commenting. I believe object number two to be item that eventually floats in front of the plume, prominently visible in the image used in several articles now. Six frames, first being the last when everything seems OK.

YMMV but I see implosion only when viewing frames in reverse.

Original video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4FB6e-xs-c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4FB6e-xs-c)

PS. Sorry for the lengthy rant, I'm new and having a slow day.

[edit: typos]

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/04/2013 06:14 pm
R7 Excellent 9th post!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: R7 on 02/04/2013 06:17 pm
Can someone correct me, but isn't the fuel dome pressure the same as the combustion chamber since it really is the top of the combustion chamber.

I believe the answer is yes and no. Pressure behind fuel dome's inner wall is CC pressure because it's part of it. Pressure inside fuel dome wall cooling channel's is CC + injector drop (+ flow losses along the channel)

PS. Thanks  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cambrianera on 02/04/2013 07:36 pm
@R7:
Your takes on the various parts of the merlin are correct; for your reference I attach an old picture of merlin 1C (posted many times, but always useful).

My take about the fuel dome rupture is that SpaceX has a pressure sensor in the fuel dome, hence looking at low reading in that sensor they said fuel dome rupture (obviously other sensors upfront looking nominal).

Your example of the pressure washer is enlightening, nice fireball coming out!
By the way, some frames after the ones you posted, another object falls, following the plume; due to the shape and the path, I guess this is the top fairing of the corner engine, while the objects you circled are pieces of the lateral (and bottom) panel.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: R7 on 02/04/2013 08:27 pm
for your reference I attach an old picture of merlin 1C (posted many times, but always useful).

Thanks! Very useful, faint recollection that I've seen that before. Noticeable difference at the TPA section between wireframe diagram and image. But wireframe had better sectioning of the thrust assembly.

Quote
By the way, some frames after the ones you posted, another object falls, following the plume; due to the shape and the path, I guess this is the top fairing of the corner engine, while the objects you circled are pieces of the lateral (and bottom) panel.

Do you mean the triangular object in this one?

(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Z331.jpg)

If so I agree that it's the top fairing, shape and size fits. When first saw it I thought "hello nozzle??" but if it were that we wouldn't have this conversation. I think it could be object #2 in my frames, but not sure. Moves erratically in the beginning, thought it's bouncing in supersonic wind like a leaf in hurricane.


Whatever the event was it looks very energetic. IMO it was very impressive that the LV continued to function and engine-out worked as advertised.

SpaceX was also very lucky that this happened during night launch. Would have looked much uglier in daylight, and none of any "oh I think it's just the cloud deck" comments.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cambrianera on 02/04/2013 08:54 pm
Do you mean the triangular object in this one?
Yes, it falls due to the air stream (hence the erratic behaviour and the path close to the plume), not blown by the fireball.

When first saw it I thought "hello nozzle??" but if it were that we wouldn't have this conversation.
Exactly my idea at the very beginning; but when SpaceX said the engine was not damaged I realized doing this at a sturdy, first stage nozzle, in the short time of the accident was very difficult.

Whatever the event was it looks very energetic.
Don't think so; very energetic if happening in my backyard (Wow, that pressure washer!) but it happened in the hot part of a 400 ton rocket.
Useful to consider that the lateral panel is broken and ejected, but not disintegrated.

IMO it was very impressive that the LV continued to function and engine-out worked as advertised.
I completely agree ! !

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 03/04/2013 05:09 am
So hiding behind the Dragon glitch, was the comment by Shotwell about the engine failure:

"There was a material flaw that went undetected in the jacket of the Merlin engine, resulting in a breach ... causing depressurization of the combustion chamber, then the flight computer recognized that depressurization and commanded shutdown," said Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX, during a press conference Thursday.

Questions that come to mind;

1) Since the engine was not recovered, how do they know about the (singular) material flaw? Material samples?  Were more engines made from the same batch and had to be reworked?  Can they tell where in the Jacket the breech occurred?  How much of a pressure drop was there?

2) What was the chain of events during the failure?  Did the outflow of propellant blast the fairing out, or did it indeed collapse because the engine was shut down?

3) How certain are they about this root cause?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/04/2013 05:13 am
My guess to your first question is that they probably rechecked close-out pictures (and possibly X-Rays or something) that were made after the unit was manufactured but before it flew and spotted a possible flaw that they hadn't noticed before (or that they had judged non-critical).

Akin's Law #25:
"25. (Bowden's Law) Following a testing failure, it's always possible to refine the analysis to show that you really had negative margins all along."
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/05/2013 12:11 am
My guess to your first question is that they probably rechecked close-out pictures (and possibly X-Rays or something) that were made after the unit was manufactured but before it flew and spotted a possible flaw that they hadn't noticed before (or that they had judged non-critical).

Akin's Law #25:
"25. (Bowden's Law) Following a testing failure, it's always possible to refine the analysis to show that you really had negative margins all along."
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

Gwynne made a comment earlier on the root cause determination...I didn't go back to find her exact quote, but it was to the effect that NDE (non-destructive evaluation) is an art that they are learning...which suggests to me that they did indeed go back and find something in their NDE test results that suggested a material flaw. Typical NDE methods include X-ray, ultrasound, and eddy current. Ultrasound will detect subsurface defects such as debonds that X-ray will miss. Ultrasound is also easier to do than X-ray. I'm wondering if they do ultrasound all around on the jacket after electroplating. Possible that they actually did identify an area of concern via ultrasound after manufacture, but that the variation was not significant enough to be considered a defect that would affect material strength. Often issues like this are identified during manufacture (eg a part gets dinged or dropped) and go through a standardized review process where an engineer(s) make a determination as to whether the part can be used or not. This review process for a potential flaw in the jacket would have been on record, and one of the first things they would have done is go back to the manufacturing records for the engine and review all the documented manufacturing issues for that engine. Could well be that this was a previously documented and analyzed issue that the engineers decided would not compromise material strength, and they were wrong this time, because, as Gwynne said, interpreting NDE results is more art than science. But they won't make that mistake twice.

Edit: Found that quote from Gwynne, about 16 minutes into the CRS-2 preflight presser on YouTube. She says "NDE is as much art as science...we're getting better at it," then makes "shameless plug" asking NDE experts to submit resumes to SpaceX...so clearly this is an area they feel they need help with.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/05/2013 12:23 am
If a piece is small enough, you can also use CT scanners... or so I know from a rather trustworthy source ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2013 01:02 am
If a piece is small enough, you can also use CT scanners... or so I know from a rather trustworthy source ;)
...which use X-Rays. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 03/05/2013 02:15 am
They also have detailed mechanical simulations, so they know where the stresses are highest. If peak stresses overlap with the recently discovered defect, that would increase their confidence in a root cause.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 03/05/2013 02:38 am
If the jacket indeed failed as described above, then they can look at how pressure dropped in the chamber and figure out how wide (around the perimeter) the chunk was.

If it was on the nozzle, I wonder if it had enough reaction force to register as a disturbance on the gimbal.  If it did, then they can figure out how far down the nozzle it was. (from the torque)

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/05/2013 11:28 am

If it was on the nozzle, I wonder if it had enough reaction force to register as a disturbance on the gimbal.  If it did, then they can figure out how far down the nozzle it was. (from the torque)
I read somewhere they used this in the investigation of the recent Centaur problems.  They knew the angle the engine had to point to keep the rocket going straight, which gives the side torque from the leak.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/05/2013 11:28 pm
If a piece is small enough, you can also use CT scanners... or so I know from a rather trustworthy source ;)
...which use X-Rays. ;)
Duh ;)
But a simple x-ray image is not as cool as a CT scan ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2013 11:32 pm
If a piece is small enough, you can also use CT scanners... or so I know from a rather trustworthy source ;)
...which use X-Rays. ;)
Duh ;)
But a simple x-ray image is not as cool as a CT scan ;)

Moar X-RAYS!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/05/2013 11:42 pm
Moar X-RAYS!
All fine with me as long as they are used in CT scanners. Good for the business ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 06/17/2013 10:40 am
This AvWeek blog post (https://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post:929ec15c-3c9e-4e8d-b3db-bf0f65af09ad) seems to have a few more bits of info on the engine failure.