SpaceX Falcon 9 - CRS-8 Dragon - NET April, 2016 - DISCUSSION

[Rik ISS-fan]

For the CRS-8 launched from Cape Canaveral, if they attempt landing with is very likely, it is most likely at Landing zone 1 LZ-1. Although possibly it's a barge landing because the Dragon is heavy, it caries the BEAM and is possibly heavily loaded. I don't know, I think LZ-1. 

[Rik ISS-fan]

Unless you count the 1.1-based (IIRC) in-flight abort vehicle.

Isn't that the F9 v1.1 aka Grasshopper Dev2 with only three engines? Or is it a full F9 v1.1 or did they change  the plan to a F9 FT? Do we know this for certain? 

[whitelancer64]

Unless you count the 1.1-based (IIRC) in-flight abort vehicle.

Isn't that the F9 v1.1 aka Grasshopper Dev2 with only three engines? Or is it a full F9 v1.1 or did they change  the plan to a F9 FT? Do we know this for certain?

It is the F9r Dev2, and it seems unlikely they'd build a new core for the in-flight abort when they have this one available to expend.

[Lar]

I believe that F9FT is preferred to 1.2 but I get confused easily

[the_other_Doug]

I believe that F9FT is preferred to 1.2 but I get confused easily

SpaceX wants to completely blur the lines and call all flights of the Falcon 9 just... Falcon 9. No bloody v1.0, v1.1, v1.2, FT, or anything else.

They're all just Falcon 9's.  Period.

At least, that's the direction SpaceX seems to want to go...

[Chris Bergin]

Correct. Which is why we're not using the "FT" designation in the thread titles. Just F9 now.

PS We're watching the launch date again. Don't have enough specifics for an update yet, but be pre-warned this one could slip again. Rocket issue, enough to threaten the launch date even this far out.

[vandersons]

PS We're watching the launch date again. Don't have enough specifics for an update yet, but be pre-warned this one could slip again. Rocket issue, enough to threaten the launch date even this far out.

If it's a Falcon issue would that not also affect the SES-9 date? Or is it something speciffic to the CRS-8 1st/2nd stage?

[Chris Bergin]

PS We're watching the launch date again. Don't have enough specifics for an update yet, but be pre-warned this one could slip again. Rocket issue, enough to threaten the launch date even this far out.

If it's a Falcon issue would that not also affect the SES-9 date? Or is it something speciffic to the CRS-8 1st/2nd stage?

Specific to the CRS-8 F9, so I doubt any relation to SES-9's date.

[Chris Bergin]

Still working this. Obviously I wouldn't have said anything unless it was solid info, but nailing down the specifics is always the challenge, thus the vague note above....but I always post if there's a potential impact to the launch date as not saying something and then hearing a reader just booked a hotel and flight.....anyway.

What we know so far:

Hot Fire was completed - that was good.
A subsequent test at McGregor suffered an issue, resulting in damage to the First Stage engine hardware.
We don't know if they can repair at McGregor (would assume they are evaluating that, which would explain why we don't know the plan yet).
No impact to CRS-8's date at this time as they need to know the above before they can evaluate how that fits into the flow, and then ISSP need to work out the Visiting Vehicle slots if they do delay. NASA is aware.

I'll add a line to this weeks article about the hot fire success and subsequent issue, but it'll be for SpaceX (and probably Elon) to say something official. My fear is some overly excited site feeds off this and makes it more dramatic. After all, you guys here understand that issues during testing are always better than issues going uphill....but TechReportAndSomeRocketNewsDramaAlert.com's (not a real site ) readers probably don't.

[abaddon]

Hot Fire was completed - that was good.
A subsequent test at McGregor suffered an issue, resulting in damage to the First Stage engine hardware.

Can you clarify if the subsequent test was another test of the same First Stage, or some other test that impacted the First Stage while it was not being tested?

[Chris Bergin]

Hot Fire was completed - that was good.
A subsequent test at McGregor suffered an issue, resulting in damage to the First Stage engine hardware.

Can you clarify if the subsequent test was another test of the same First Stage, or some other test that impacted the First Stage while it was not being tested?

CRS-8 S1 - Hot Fire, Friday. Good test.
CRS-8 S1 - Additional test (not a hot fire), Monday. Problem with the test. Caused damage.

[MarekCyzio]

Are these "additional tests" something that SpaceX does every time or it was something new?

[mn]

If they are expecting to launch 'every few weeks' I would expect a line of cores nearly ready to go, couldn't the 'next' core in line just move in to this mission while the damaged core gets fixed and put back in the lineup.

Aren't the cores identical?

Is there a reason why the 'next' core can't be used, or are there no cores available? (are cores being produced just barely in time).

Is reassigning cores a no no in this business for some reason?

[OnWithTheShow]

A core being ready every three weeks means a three week delay.

Could it have been a landing leg deployment test? Do they have the capability to do that at McGregor?

[Kryten]

A core being ready every three weeks means a three week delay.

Could it have been a landing leg deployment test? Do they have the capability to do that at McGregor?

Chris' updated article has the damage specifically to 'engine hardware', I don't see how the landing legs could do that.

[The Roadie]

Could it have been a landing leg deployment test? Do they have the capability to do that at McGregor?

Legs are installed at the Cape. Not present in McGregor.

[The Roadie]

Orbital is being delayed due to mold contamination on cargo bags. Might be a bit of pressure relief on CRS8? http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2016/02/10/black-mold-delays-iss-cargo-launch-cape-canaveral/80174420/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

[zubenelgenubi]

Is there a thread (or segments of threads) about "dual berthing?"

If all goes as currently scheduled, Cygnus OA-6 and Dragon SpX-8 will be the first two craft simultaneously berthed on the USOS portion of the ISS.

[Shanuson]

Following tweet from Orbital ATK:

.@Space_Station update: March 22, 2016 has been approved as the launch date for OA-6 mission to resupply the @Space_Station. #Cygnus (1/2)

This makes the Cygnus launch on March 22th official which I think rules out the march 29th launch of CRS-8 shown pending in the picture above.

[feynmanrules]

It seems both the orbital and spacex ISS resupply dates have been moved back a day, CRS8 also dependent on successful SES launch though.

Jeff Foust
‏@jeff_foust
Scimemi: SpaceX CRS-8 launch tentatively scheduled for Mar 30, but yet to be finalized; waiting on when SES-9 launches.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/705093609410834432