Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012  (Read 114559 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #280 on: 04/30/2012 09:09 pm »
SpaceX PAO:
So far things look good.  Engines fired for 2 seconds, as scheduled.  Engineers will now review data as we continue preparations for the upcoming launch.


--
Remember, they have to review this before May 7 is on.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7767
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 795
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #281 on: 04/30/2012 09:11 pm »
Yes, but doesn't mean the smoke is green. IIRC, the smoke was bluish-white.

Ah, of course, the colour of the flame has nothing to do with the colour of the smoke.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Davinator

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #282 on: 04/30/2012 10:33 pm »
Thanks for the excellent coverage all with the feel of an international static fire party!! That's right, we do static fire parties here! ;D

Online Chris Bergin

Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #283 on: 05/02/2012 09:23 pm »
I should have posted a redirect for the continuing update, that reverted back to the Launch Update thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28586.msg892408#msg892408

Apologies to those on notification watch for certain threads.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8338
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3163
  • Likes Given: 700
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #284 on: 05/03/2012 06:07 pm »
This ISS update video shows another view of the static fire, from a distance. Seems to have been ripped off from Ustream judging by the framerate.


Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1122
  • France
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #285 on: 05/03/2012 07:28 pm »
This ISS update video shows another view of the static fire, from a distance. Seems to have been ripped off from Ustream judging by the framerate.

Frame rate looks fine to me. The long camera-to-rocket distance coupled with rising hot air is distorting the image.
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8338
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3163
  • Likes Given: 700
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #286 on: 05/03/2012 07:30 pm »
Frame rate is at most half of normal, 30 fps for NTSC video. Trust me.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2012 07:36 pm by ugordan »

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1724
  • Liked: 1129
  • Likes Given: 2578
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #287 on: 05/04/2012 12:52 am »
After the static fire would they offload the hypergols or leave them in the Dragon?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36050
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18545
  • Likes Given: 398
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #288 on: 05/04/2012 03:19 am »
After the static fire would they offload the hypergols or leave them in the Dragon?

The hypergols weren't loaded just for the static fire, they put on board for the flight.

Offline corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #289 on: 05/04/2012 11:43 am »
After the static fire would they offload the hypergols or leave them in the Dragon?

The hypergols weren't loaded just for the static fire, they put on board for the flight.

Is there a time limit on how long Dragon can stay loaded?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17935
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 649
  • Likes Given: 7418
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #290 on: 05/04/2012 01:04 pm »
After the static fire would they offload the hypergols or leave them in the Dragon?

The hypergols weren't loaded just for the static fire, they put on board for the flight.

Is there a time limit on how long Dragon can stay loaded?

There would have to be, due to the (usually) corrosive nature of these types of propellants.

Offline MP99

Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #291 on: 05/04/2012 01:36 pm »
After the static fire would they offload the hypergols or leave them in the Dragon?

The hypergols weren't loaded just for the static fire, they put on board for the flight.

Is there a time limit on how long Dragon can stay loaded?

There would have to be, due to the (usually) corrosive nature of these types of propellants.

The DragonLab datasheet lists "Mission Duration: 1 week to 2 years", so doesn't that imply that the systems are designed for long-term storage of hypergols? (Though, I could understand if that wasn't fully developed for these early flights).

Edit: is there anything different about lifetime in orbit compared to lifetime on the ground?

cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 05/04/2012 01:37 pm by MP99 »

Offline corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #292 on: 05/04/2012 01:39 pm »
Is there a time limit on how long Dragon can stay loaded?
There would have to be, due to the (usually) corrosive nature of these types of propellants.
The DragonLab datasheet lists "Mission Duration: 1 week to 2 years", so doesn't that imply that the systems are designed for long-term storage of hypergols? (Though, I could understand if that wasn't fully developed for these early flights).

cheers, Martin

I thought the same thing, but was wondering if there were some safety/workplace rules that would necessitate defueling Dragon at some point.

Offline corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #293 on: 05/05/2012 12:44 am »
@SpaceX
Picture of Monday’s successful full rocket engine fire at our Cape Canaveral launch site. http://pic.twitter.com/SizjlGJM


Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1724
  • Liked: 1129
  • Likes Given: 2578
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #294 on: 05/05/2012 01:40 am »
Thanks for the picture corrodedNut.

I'm curious why the ladder on the strong back is located where it is.
There seems no need to go higher yet a need to go from the bottom of the ladder to the top.  ???

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1724
  • Liked: 1129
  • Likes Given: 2578
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #295 on: 05/05/2012 01:50 am »
and the umbilicals into the trunk are for?

Offline corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #296 on: 05/05/2012 01:50 am »
Thanks for the picture corrodedNut.

I'm curious why the ladder on the strong back is located where it is.
There seems no need to go higher yet a need to go from the bottom of the ladder to the top.  ???

I think the bottom of the ladder is as high as the cherry picker can go.

Offline dragon44

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #297 on: 05/05/2012 04:24 am »
and the umbilicals into the trunk are for?

Power, network and air conditioning I would bet.

Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1122
  • France
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #298 on: 05/05/2012 02:07 pm »
Frame rate is at most half of normal, 30 fps for NTSC video. Trust me.
For me it says that the video is encoded at 25 fps and I can set it to HD (1280x720). However, there's also a "stage frame rate" which is the frame rate of the player (Flash Player in this case). In my case it says "10 stage fps". So it seems that the slow frame rate stems from the player. I downloaded the video as an MP4 file and I get the 25 fps rate.

I hope we're still talking about the same video ("[SpaceX] Static Fire Update from ISS Mission Control")
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8338
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3163
  • Likes Given: 700
Re: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 Static Fire - April 30, 2012
« Reply #299 on: 05/05/2012 03:16 pm »
So it seems that the slow frame rate stems from the player. I downloaded the video as an MP4 file and I get the 25 fps rate.

I hope we're still talking about the same video ("[SpaceX] Static Fire Update from ISS Mission Control")

Sigh. The fact there are N frames per second encoded in the video does not mean there are N unique frames. For example, I can easily generate a 30 fps video which duplicates every frame and thus has an effective frame rate of only 15 fps.

I don't have to look past the actual video to see it's not full motion and if you were shown the original footage side by side, you'd notice it too. NASA's Ustream channel does not webcast at full framerate, whereas the old NASA Windows Media streams did. They made a step back in my opinion.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0