\but you need base access to go there.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/21/2017 10:32 pmBut, and this was a debate that recurred many times, the "simple controller" model of traditional launch vehicles is a result of the era in which they were designed, and a computational capacity of a gnat.There is no reason why a flying vehicle designed from scratch in the 21st century would abide by any of those rules, and every time we get a glimpse into how things are done, it's clear that F9 is a lot cleverer then a simple automaton.That's what I was wondering, if this could be a harbinger of more ground control to come, except would mission control really want or need it? It might add too much complexity to already complex procedures.
But, and this was a debate that recurred many times, the "simple controller" model of traditional launch vehicles is a result of the era in which they were designed, and a computational capacity of a gnat.There is no reason why a flying vehicle designed from scratch in the 21st century would abide by any of those rules, and every time we get a glimpse into how things are done, it's clear that F9 is a lot cleverer then a simple automaton.
Quote from: CyndyC on 01/21/2017 11:13 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/21/2017 10:32 pmBut, and this was a debate that recurred many times, the "simple controller" model of traditional launch vehicles is a result of the era in which they were designed, and a computational capacity of a gnat.There is no reason why a flying vehicle designed from scratch in the 21st century would abide by any of those rules, and every time we get a glimpse into how things are done, it's clear that F9 is a lot cleverer then a simple automaton.That's what I was wondering, if this could be a harbinger of more ground control to come, except would mission control really want or need it? It might add too much complexity to already complex procedures.It's not a harbinger of "more" ground control, since that implies that there is some, and that isn't true. Falcon 9 doesn't appear to be any cleverer than "traditional" launch vehicles. It does "more", because it has the ability to land, but nothing there seems any "cleverer" than a DC-X landing. For example, neither one was able to recover from a broken landing leg.I believe people are misinterpreting the quote to assume that there is some ground control. SpaceX (the upper stage) is sending a signal to the Iridium dispenser. That's all.
I believe people are misinterpreting the quote to assume that there is some ground control. SpaceX (the upper stage) is sending a signal to the Iridium dispenser. That's all.
Quote from: WHAP on 01/22/2017 04:05 pmI believe people are misinterpreting the quote to assume that there is some ground control. SpaceX (the upper stage) is sending a signal to the Iridium dispenser. That's all.What is your source that SpaceX and stage 2 of the Falcon 9 are one and the same?
Quote from: CyndyC on 01/22/2017 10:40 pmQuote from: WHAP on 01/22/2017 04:05 pmI believe people are misinterpreting the quote to assume that there is some ground control. SpaceX (the upper stage) is sending a signal to the Iridium dispenser. That's all.What is your source that SpaceX and stage 2 of the Falcon 9 are one and the same?The words "I believe" should give you a clue. Do you believe that SpaceX's primary method of commanding spacecraft separation is via ground commands? What advantages do you believe this provides over the S2 flight computer, which has the best knowledge of orbital position, the least command latency, and would not be affected by data dropouts from relay spacecraft or ground stations? Remember, we're only talking spacecraft separation here. There are a lot of other times when ground command capability would be very useful.
The primary mechanism should be self contained, in case of a communication break, but there should be the ability to control from the ground, in case (for example) the orbit achieved is not what was planned.So basically, S2 should check the final orbit, and if within an envelope - deploy as planned. If not, wait for a phone call.
Doesn't CRS-1 demonstrate that S2 is prett much autonomous in deciding what to do in the event of anomolies?
Quote from: Kaputnik on 01/23/2017 11:50 amDoesn't CRS-1 demonstrate that S2 is prett much autonomous in deciding what to do in the event of anomolies?Didn't they decided not to proceed with the next burn due to concerns about ISS?
Quote from: meekGee on 01/23/2017 12:45 pmQuote from: Kaputnik on 01/23/2017 11:50 amDoesn't CRS-1 demonstrate that S2 is prett much autonomous in deciding what to do in the event of anomolies?Didn't they decided not to proceed with the next burn due to concerns about ISS?Based on everything we know, it was an autonomous decision programmed into the stage to decide on the burn whether or not the propellant margin measured by the stage allowed for it. To this very day I have not seen any evidence of any ground commanding of the F9 vehicle, both in burn commands or onboard camera view switching. Preemptive statement that callouts on flight loop like "FTS is safed" do not imply ground commanding.
Quote from: ugordan on 01/23/2017 02:35 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/23/2017 12:45 pmQuote from: Kaputnik on 01/23/2017 11:50 amDoesn't CRS-1 demonstrate that S2 is prett much autonomous in deciding what to do in the event of anomolies?Didn't they decided not to proceed with the next burn due to concerns about ISS?Based on everything we know, it was an autonomous decision programmed into the stage to decide on the burn whether or not the propellant margin measured by the stage allowed for it. To this very day I have not seen any evidence of any ground commanding of the F9 vehicle, both in burn commands or onboard camera view switching. Preemptive statement that callouts on flight loop like "FTS is safed" do not imply ground commanding.The decision to stop the timeline was automatic. I think there was a window where they could have started it, but we're not allowed to, due to ISS concerns.
The Falcon 9 has no capability of receiving RF commands except for destruct.
The Falcon 9 has no capability of receiving RF commands except for destruct. It has nothing to do with computational ability. The Saturn V did have the ability to receive guidance updates but no other vehicle has this capability. It is not needed for basic launch vehicles. Their mission timeline is short. Also, there likely is no transmitter or ground station in the appropriate locations. Launch control centers lose "control" at launch. Launch vehicles have no "Mission Control Centers" controlling them for flight. Launch vehicle are autonomous. All control centers that shown during a launch vehicle flight are just monitoring data.
Furthermore, it can't deploy its solar panels while attached, so it's going to run out of power quickly.
...... she was over-simplifying the process for the general public.
The separation signal wouldn't require a ground station if it can be bounced off a satellite, technology the Russians are using with their new ISS vehicles.
So all that is the case for launch vehicles (thank you, Jim!), but Lauren's statement was that a separation signal would be sent to a brand new invention between the launch vehicle and the satellites, the dispensers. Satellites receive ground commands all the time, so why not a structure so closely aligned with them.
Great tool to visualize all our Launch #1 NEXT sats. See them spreading in Plane 6 as they are tested and moved: stuffin.space/?search=2017-0…