Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION  (Read 1087770 times)

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11933
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #360 on: 02/02/2016 02:44 am »
Is it possible (completely hypothetically) that SX is taking the extra time to get one of the OrbComm engines ready to be reflown on the SES-9 core?

Though SES has stated publicly that they would be interested in reusing the stage that lifts their upcoming SES-9 satellite, I don't think it's likely that they would be interested in delaying the revenue from SES-9 just so SpaceX can make the SES-9 flight more risky - SpaceX hasn't had enough time (or data) to make decisions about reusability yet, which means their customers don't have enough either.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Chris Bergin

Is it possible (completely hypothetically) that SX is taking the extra time to get one of the OrbComm engines ready to be reflown on the SES-9 core? I.e after the static fire at SLC-40 they removed one of the fully functioning engines and shipped it back to McGregor for a full set of qualification tests. To then get it back to the cape for integration with the awaiting SES-9 stage.

This would add weeks onto the launch schedule but the chance to reuse one of the engine would be a major step towards reusability of the entire stage. Plus SX could pretty much guarantee a success having the ability to test the engine fully at McGregor.

But as I said, purely hypothetical.

*In the style of Jim*

No.
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.**

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #362 on: 02/02/2016 03:05 am »
Is it possible (completely hypothetically) that SX is taking the extra time to get one of the OrbComm engines ready to be reflown on the SES-9 core? I.e after the static fire at SLC-40 they removed one of the fully functioning engines and shipped it back to McGregor for a full set of qualification tests. To then get it back to the cape for integration with the awaiting SES-9 stage.

This would add weeks onto the launch schedule but the chance to reuse one of the engine would be a major step towards reusability of the entire stage. Plus SX could pretty much guarantee a success having the ability to test the engine fully at McGregor.

But as I said, purely hypothetical.

I don't think so, not even hypothetically.

Convincing a customer to take a risk on a launch is one thing.  Holding up an entire year's manifest for that?  nah.  There's always a next flight for that sort of experiment.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #363 on: 02/02/2016 03:34 am »
i was wondering if maybe some of the data from last launch's second stage mimiced some things from the second stage failure that they thought they had fixed.

That's a good conjecture IMO. They probably instrumented/telemetered the heck out of the new S2, to verify the strut fix, gather data on other potential CRS-7 failure modes that they may have suspected but couldn't completely rule out, and monitor the effects of the S2 redesign. With all that telemetry there's a good chance they saw something they didn't like.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #364 on: 02/02/2016 04:55 am »
I thought about that possibility, but AFAIK F9 v1.1 and v1.2 share the same strut design.  If Orbcomm showed strut issues, I can't imagine that Jason would have been allowed to launch.

Offline dorkmo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 848
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #365 on: 02/02/2016 05:07 am »
*speculation zone* (top gun music blares)

perhaps they beefed up the struts but still showed an unexplained pressure spike. small leak from copv?

thatd be my first off-the-shelf pet theory

if they had some sort of microphone in the tank could they have heard a bubbling or fizzing sound?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2016 05:10 am by dorkmo »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1860
  • Germany
  • Liked: 4010
  • Likes Given: 2738
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #366 on: 02/02/2016 08:23 am »
If I remember right there was an announcement during the last webcast (Jason) that there would be "no more inside views of the Falcon 9 in the webcasts" from then on

Would that be because SpaceX entirely removed the cameras from the tanks? Or because of secrecy/intellectual property concerns? (I think they were originally added to help resolve sloshing issues, but that too is speculation)

Could electronics in the tanks be a suspect to cause issues for some weird reason?

Then again, that was before the current delays became known, but maybe SpaceX already knew they had an issue when Jason launched? (If that's the case, then the problem would not affect v 1.1 though, which would rule out the camera as a potential cause)

The current lack of information is almost as frustrating as the delay itself.

Online Toastmastern

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 216
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #367 on: 02/02/2016 08:41 am »
If I remember right there was an announcement during the last webcast (Jason) that there would be "no more inside views of the Falcon 9 in the webcasts" from then on

I believe that had something to do with number of video feed they could use and SpaceX wanted to stream the videofeed from the barge instead of the tanks. But not sure.

//Toastmastern

Offline rocx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • NL
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #368 on: 02/02/2016 11:24 am »
Edit: add pdf on SES-9 & 10

Very interesting pdf! For example on page 14 there is the line "Fully reusable launch vehicles (Falcon 9-R) which amortises rocket costs over multiple missions" under the heading "Next next gen: 2019". I wonder if they mean upper stage reuse by that, how recent the information is, and if this takes into account the recent news about a Raptor Falcon upper stage.
Any day with a rocket landing is a fantastic day.

Online LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3383
  • Liked: 6110
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #369 on: 02/02/2016 01:13 pm »
i was wondering if maybe some of the data from last launch's second stage mimicked some things from the second stage failure that they thought they had fixed.
That's a good conjecture IMO. They probably instrumented/telemetered the heck out of the new S2, to verify the strut fix, gather data on other potential CRS-7 failure modes that they may have suspected but couldn't completely rule out, and monitor the effects of the S2 redesign. With all that telemetry there's a good chance they saw something they didn't like.
This fits the timescale and lack of comments very well.  For example, they might find some case where they thought they had 40% margin, but telemetry showed only 10% (numbers obviously made up).  Now they need to re-design the bracket/fitting/plate/whatever, build a new set of them, install them in the S2 they already built (which might be tedious, depending on the part), and perhaps test them in a complete stage to make sure (a) the fix works, and (b) there are no un-intended consequences.  This is a serial process (design, build, install, test) and could easily take a month or two. 

This is business as usual for the first test of a new or modified design, with no long term consequences to the production rate, performance, or cost,  so no need to make any public clarification or announcement.

Offline MarekCyzio

**** speculations ****

Supercooled kerosene will solidify much faster than regular kerosene - maybe the issue is with max time that second stage can handle? It would not be an issue with Orbcomm as tests were performed imidiately after releasing sateliites, but may be a major issue when flying to GTO with long coast phase.

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #371 on: 02/02/2016 02:42 pm »

That's a good conjecture IMO. They probably instrumented/telemetered the heck out of the new S2, to verify the strut fix, gather data on other potential CRS-7 failure modes that they may have suspected but couldn't completely rule out, and monitor the effects of the S2 redesign. With all that telemetry there's a good chance they saw something they didn't like.

If that's the case, then I'd expect the helium bottles to come out of the LOX tank and S2 would look a lot more like its contemporary counterparts. That sort of redesign would shift schedules to the right.

Speculation, of course. We'll know when Elon tweets or there's a press release.

Offline mheney

  • The Next Man on the Moon
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Silver Spring, MD
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #372 on: 02/02/2016 04:45 pm »
**** speculations ****

Supercooled kerosene will solidify much faster than regular kerosene - maybe the issue is with max time that second stage can handle? It would not be an issue with Orbcomm as tests were performed imidiately after releasing sateliites, but may be a major issue when flying to GTO with long coast phase.

You super-cool the kerosene (and the LOX) to increase it's density, allowing you to increase the mass of propellants in a given-sized tank.  For the second stage, you're going to light it up immediately after first stage sep, and consume enough propellant so that density won't be an issue - the tank will be partially empty at the conclusion of the burn.  The kerosene can be permitted to warm up with no real issue.  The LOX needs to be kept cool enough to stay liquid ...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #373 on: 02/02/2016 04:58 pm »
Propellant densification is only used on the first stage.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #374 on: 02/02/2016 05:06 pm »
Propellant densification is only used on the first stage.
Pretty sure you are wrong.

Offline MarekCyzio

The kerosene can be permitted to warm up with no real issue

So you need kerosene heater - does second stage have something like that?

Offline mheney

  • The Next Man on the Moon
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Silver Spring, MD
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #376 on: 02/02/2016 05:58 pm »
The kerosene can be permitted to warm up with no real issue

So you need kerosene heater - does second stage have something like that?

Between sunshine and earthshine, it'll warm up just fine on it's own.  No heaters needed.

Offline marokrile

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • GB
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #377 on: 02/02/2016 07:05 pm »
Any possibility that mission delay is related because landing leg didn't "click" on last landing, so SX is making some changes?

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #378 on: 02/02/2016 07:50 pm »
Any possibility that mission delay is related because landing leg didn't "click" on last landing, so SX is making some changes?

No

Non-Jim Mode:  They have aid they don't delay paying missions for landing issues.
We were also told that the leg is not the specific issue.
There were also statements that the issue with the leg on the Jason flight had to do with the humid environment in CA.

edit:  We were all urged NOT to speculate.  We will learn the reason for the delay when we are told, or we won't learn at all.  Can we all just "hold our horses"?
« Last Edit: 02/02/2016 07:52 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #379 on: 02/02/2016 11:55 pm »
<snip>
edit:  We were all urged NOT to speculate.  We will learn the reason for the delay when we are told, or we won't learn at all.  Can we all just "hold our horses"?

Wait, what? That would not be in the finest traditions of NSF I believe.

[mindless speculation]

Given that they have had time to closely examine their first RTLS first stage I would mindlessly speculate that they found something they didn't expect. Possibly unexpected physical materials damage from exposure to very low temp LOX?

[/mindless speculation]
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1