Quote from: Lee Jay on 04/08/2016 10:14 pmTen test fires in a row to re-qualify the booster, and another orbital launch in "June" (!).Ha! That'll drive our cape reporters crazy when we ask them questions on how many puffs they've seen so far.Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 04/08/2016 10:27 pmQuote from: Ohsin on 04/08/2016 10:25 pmShoes being welded over legs to secure it.Finally confirms - officially! - what people have been saying since the very first attempt.Rumor of those shoes started 1/2015 when Elon himself said that's what would be done in the reddit AMA. To my knowledge that is the only source material we had until he again confirmed it today.Quote from: Doesitfloat on 04/08/2016 09:38 pmFalcon FT is 2/3 on landing.While true that is the wrong statistic. Falcon FT has achieved 100% landing success, 2/2 for flights where it stood any reasonable chance of success. SES-9 was an extreme experiment in high energy physics.Take a look at the landed stage. The square which is defined by the four feet is nearly parallel and perpendicular to the deck of the ASDS. Is this intentional or coincedence? Of course you'd want it to be that way to reduce the chance of setting a foot off the deck (which it would be close to if rotated 45 degrees) but on the other hand forcing it to orient that way would add even more restraint on what the control system was tasked with.
Ten test fires in a row to re-qualify the booster, and another orbital launch in "June" (!).
Quote from: Ohsin on 04/08/2016 10:25 pmShoes being welded over legs to secure it.Finally confirms - officially! - what people have been saying since the very first attempt.
Shoes being welded over legs to secure it.
Falcon FT is 2/3 on landing.
Quote from: OxCartMark on 04/09/2016 12:08 amQuote from: Lee Jay on 04/08/2016 10:14 pmTen test fires in a row to re-qualify the booster, and another orbital launch in "June" (!).Ha! That'll drive our cape reporters crazy when we ask them questions on how many puffs they've seen so far.Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 04/08/2016 10:27 pmQuote from: Ohsin on 04/08/2016 10:25 pmShoes being welded over legs to secure it.Finally confirms - officially! - what people have been saying since the very first attempt.Rumor of those shoes started 1/2015 when Elon himself said that's what would be done in the reddit AMA. To my knowledge that is the only source material we had until he again confirmed it today.Quote from: Doesitfloat on 04/08/2016 09:38 pmFalcon FT is 2/3 on landing.While true that is the wrong statistic. Falcon FT has achieved 100% landing success, 2/2 for flights where it stood any reasonable chance of success. SES-9 was an extreme experiment in high energy physics.Take a look at the landed stage. The square which is defined by the four feet is nearly parallel and perpendicular to the deck of the ASDS. Is this intentional or coincedence? Of course you'd want it to be that way to reduce the chance of setting a foot off the deck (which it would be close to if rotated 45 degrees) but on the other hand forcing it to orient that way would add even more restraint on what the control system was tasked with.Why one more restraint? The booster knows the cardinal directions/coordinate system or it would never find the barge and the barge does, too. Only to us do all faces of a rocket look the same.
What black sheeting? The foil like stuff covering the upper part of the engine? That would probably be thermal insulation and it's been there for a while now.
I'm not sure what your trying to say. That we should call it the F9 v1.2? And we are incorrect in calling it a F9 v1.1 FT?
Is this the second stage?
Quote from: mlow on 04/09/2016 12:19 amI'm not sure what your trying to say. That we should call it the F9 v1.2? And we are incorrect in calling it a F9 v1.1 FT?Correct on both counts. Falcon 9 v1.2 is how it is referred to in official filings. Use it. Other nomenclature simply confuses matters. (If you think I'm being pedantic, you have not been a party to some earlier long-winded discussions on this site.)
Quote from: joek on 04/09/2016 12:42 amQuote from: mlow on 04/09/2016 12:19 amI'm not sure what your trying to say. That we should call it the F9 v1.2? And we are incorrect in calling it a F9 v1.1 FT?Correct on both counts. Falcon 9 v1.2 is how it is referred to in official filings. Use it. Other nomenclature simply confuses matters. (If you think I'm being pedantic, you have not been a party to some earlier long-winded discussions on this site.)SpaceX personnel have, in presentations at conferences, press and otherwise, called it, repeatedly, "Falcon 9 Upgrade". Other SpaceX workers have told us on L2 that it is named "Falcon 9 v1.1 Full Thrust". Now we have "v1.2" on some paperwork but, if memory serves, someone at SpaceX in answer to a question once pointedly said that it was not named "v1.2". I have given up trying to figure out the name. It is the "Falcon 9 with the higher thrust Merlin 1D engines and the stretched second stage and the ulta-cool LOX". - Ed Kyle
While true that is the wrong statistic. Falcon FT has achieved 100% landing success, 2/2 for flights where it stood any reasonable chance of success. SES-9 was an extreme experiment in high energy physics.
Quote from: ugordan on 04/09/2016 12:37 amWhat black sheeting? The foil like stuff covering the upper part of the engine? That would probably be thermal insulation and it's been there for a while now.Thanks, never noticed it before. Thermal insulation in black is an interesting application... High emissivity (black) is the opposite of a good radiative insulator. Usually highly reflective like MLI is a vacuum insulator.
I have given up trying to figure out the name. It is the "Falcon 9 with the higher thrust Merlin 1D engines and the stretched second stage and the ulta-cool LOX".
Did anyone else notice shat looks like a crumpled up scrap of paper on the stage 2 engine go flying off into the plume? It's in the split-screen shot just seconds after stage one landed. I've attached a video with a close up in slo-mo. Is it unusual to see something like that?
Quote from: jaufgang on 04/09/2016 01:06 amDid anyone else notice shat looks like a crumpled up scrap of paper on the stage 2 engine go flying off into the plume? It's in the split-screen shot just seconds after stage one landed. I've attached a video with a close up in slo-mo. Is it unusual to see something like that? No, it literally happens on every launch. There's what I believe as GOX vent somewhere around there and the sudden pressure drop probably causes slow buildup of oxygen ice flakes.