Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 (Flight 2) - COTS-1 - Launch Updates - December 8, 2010  (Read 541315 times)

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8521
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3550
  • Likes Given: 762
probably nothing important - just an observation

One arm of the strongback got blown off. I'm not surprised there was debris flying around as a result.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6343
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4213
  • Likes Given: 2
Did a bit of cropping & a gamma correction, and it shows that same dark discoloration extending well into the PICA-X TPS.  Looks like it could well be ablation products that deposited on the downstream structures. Image not attached, the forum is ghosting the file dialog from my phone.
« Last Edit: 12/16/2010 12:42 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1223
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 12
Love to see the vid from inside dragon while it enters atmosphere...
If Spacex eventually does land landings I guess all of the picax needs to be replaced...
jb

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1694
  • Likes Given: 601
SpaceX has an edited highlights video up on their site:

http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6479
  • Liked: 4590
  • Likes Given: 5219
From the update:

"The Dragon spacecraft orbited the Earth at speeds greater than 7,600 meters per second (17,000 miles per hour), reentered the Earth’s atmosphere, and landed just after 2:00 PM EST less than one mile from the center of the targeted landing zone in the Pacific Ocean."

For those who have wasted time debating Musk's nationality, this is proof that he is a true American.   Who else would insist on using archaic Imperial units like miles to measure speed and distance? 
« Last Edit: 12/16/2010 02:31 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Who else would insist on using archaic Imperial units like miles to measure speed and distance? 

LOL +1
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8521
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3550
  • Likes Given: 762
Uh, they do their ascent callouts in the metric system (thankfully), and the imperial unit is in the parentheses above so it's clearly of secondary importance. I fail to see how that "proves" his nationality or why that should matter at all in the first place. If anything, the above shows they insist on the metric system.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39283
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25276
  • Likes Given: 12124
Uh, they do their ascent callouts in the metric system (thankfully), and the imperial unit is in the parentheses above so it's clearly of secondary importance. I fail to see how that "proves" his nationality or why that should matter at all in the first place. If anything, the above shows they insist on the metric system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke ;)
« Last Edit: 12/16/2010 03:10 pm by Robotbeat »
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

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
This was the first US Army satellite to be launched in 50 years so here is the story on the US Army Space Command site.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/12/08/49115-army-nanosatellite-on-first-flight/
« Last Edit: 12/16/2010 03:12 pm by mr. mark »

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • V
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Time to bump this thread, update:

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

The updates mentions "splashed less than a mile from the target" which is not 800m, but still pretty impressive for a first flight.

Offline stockman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6916
  • Southern Ontario - Canada
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Time to bump this thread, update:

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

The updates mentions "splashed less than a mile from the target" which is not 800m, but still pretty impressive for a first flight.

How is 800 meters NOT less than a mile??  ;)
One Percent for Space!!!

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Time to bump this thread, update:

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

The updates mentions "splashed less than a mile from the target" which is not 800m, but still pretty impressive for a first flight.

It doesn't necessary exclude it either... often when people blurt out "800m", it is intended as a rough approximation. Whatever GPS reading(s) they took probably did not report an exact "800.0 m" distance from target point. ;) It may have been reported as roughly half a mile ("less than a mile"), which it metric is close to 800 m, a nice round number.

It's the whole issue of implied (or un-implied) :) numerical precision thing that is frequently a problem with large numbers.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Looking at the video, it is obvious there was roll torque during liftoff again, perhaps as much as in the last flight, but the vehicle immediately countered and rolled back (unlike the last time where it just stopped the roll). Also, after stage sep it looks like the first stage induced a tumble on purpose, probably to aid recovery attempts.

I have to respectfully disagree... Unless you are seeing something I am missing in this video I don't see any roll at launch, certainly nothing compared to the almost 90 degree roll the first time..

Look carefully at the erector and the right portion of the screen where the sprinklers are in the onboard video, when the vehicle is released. Also, note I specifically said roll torque, not roll. Don't confuse the two. The magnitude of the torque appeared very similar to F9-01. However, as I said the vehicle quickly took action and brought back the roll angle to "null". Looked like 10 degrees or less in roll excursion this time.

FWIW, this looks similar to what happened to the first Atlas III. It takes some time to fully characterize a new propulsion unit.

I dunno... I've looked at the HD footage (in the video SpaceX released) as well now many times. I just don't see any torque-induced roll at liftoff, no matter how close I look. Sure, if you concentrate on the flame-trench sprinklers only there might be a hint of a wobble or quick rotation, but that video feed part is really poor quality and the image wobbles back and forth before and after that due to A) transmission interference and B) compression artifacts on top of that. It just isn't enough info to tell for sure what is causing that "wobble".

When we see other HD closeup footage in the next couple of days, we should be able to determine it with more confidence.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Looking at the video, it is obvious there was roll torque during liftoff again, perhaps as much as in the last flight, but the vehicle immediately countered and rolled back (unlike the last time where it just stopped the roll). Also, after stage sep it looks like the first stage induced a tumble on purpose, probably to aid recovery attempts.

I have to respectfully disagree... Unless you are seeing something I am missing in this video I don't see any roll at launch, certainly nothing compared to the almost 90 degree roll the first time..

Look carefully at the erector and the right portion of the screen where the sprinklers are in the onboard video, when the vehicle is released. Also, note I specifically said roll torque, not roll. Don't confuse the two. The magnitude of the torque appeared very similar to F9-01. However, as I said the vehicle quickly took action and brought back the roll angle to "null". Looked like 10 degrees or less in roll excursion this time.

FWIW, this looks similar to what happened to the first Atlas III. It takes some time to fully characterize a new propulsion unit.

I dunno... I've looked at the HD footage (in the video SpaceX released) as well now many times. I just don't see any torque-induced roll at liftoff, no matter how close I look. Sure, if you concentrate on the flame-trench sprinklers only there might be a hint of a wobble or quick rotation, but that video feed part is really poor quality and the image wobbles back and forth before and after that due to A) transmission interference and B) compression artifacts on top of that. It just isn't enough info to tell for sure what is causing that "wobble".

When we see other HD closeup footage in the next couple of days, we should be able to determine it with more confidence.
I agree. I don't think there was much if any roll on this launch. Some things I would like to see corrected on future launches:

First stage recovery: Once again the first stage was lost. Hopefully they can get this to work as engine reuse is very critical to cost efficiency.

Fuel umbilical hose fire: Ideally we would not like to see the fuel line catching fire again. I think this is an easy fix though.

All thrusters working on landing: At the press conference they said that two of the 18 draco thrusters stopped functioning. All thought thats not really a big deal at all, ideally you would like to see them all functional at the end of the mission.

Would like to discuss these issues further and how they can be correct, may start a thread for this.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
All thrusters working on landing: At the press conference they said that two of the 18 draco thrusters stopped functioning. All thought thats not really a big deal at all, ideally you would like to see them all functional at the end of the mission.

??? That's not what they said at the press conference. They said all thrusters worked.

Now Chris had a source (not sure who) that claimed a Draco thruster failed, but that has not been the official word from SpaceX. Hopefully it will be clarified in the near future.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39283
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25276
  • Likes Given: 12124
All thrusters working on landing: At the press conference they said that two of the 18 draco thrusters stopped functioning. All thought thats not really a big deal at all, ideally you would like to see them all functional at the end of the mission.

??? That's not what they said at the press conference. They said all thrusters worked.

Now Chris had a source (not sure who) that claimed a Draco thruster failed, but that has not been the official word from SpaceX. Hopefully it will be clarified in the near future.
I remember hearing over the live webcast feed something about a thruster failing. But it could've been a false negative, or something like that.
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

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
All thrusters working on landing: At the press conference they said that two of the 18 draco thrusters stopped functioning. All thought thats not really a big deal at all, ideally you would like to see them all functional at the end of the mission.

??? That's not what they said at the press conference. They said all thrusters worked.

Now Chris had a source (not sure who) that claimed a Draco thruster failed, but that has not been the official word from SpaceX. Hopefully it will be clarified in the near future.
I remember hearing over the live webcast feed something about a thruster failing. But it could've been a false negative, or something like that.

I don't remember if it was one or two. It was elon who said it.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
I don't remember if it was one or two. It was elon who said it.

Source?

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Stupid question alert! Just what did Elon Musk say at the post flight Q&A? I am constantly going back and forth with people that think that Elon Musk said that Dragon 2 would be a powered launching and landing vehicle like Venture Star. I don't think he meant that. I'm sure he meant a powered lander with using Falcon 9 as a launcher. Which is it?

Offline jwade

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 140
I don't remember if it was one or two. It was elon who said it.

Elon said that they could lose any two draco thrusters and have no impact on the mission.   And depending on which thusters they lost, they could lose up to six without impacting the mission. ( 24:21 into the Post Flight press Conference)    He did not say that they had lost any, in fact he said that they all worked. "All eighteen worked flawlessly (~5 minutes into the the Post Flight press Conference )
 

« Last Edit: 12/16/2010 09:48 pm by jwade »

Tags:
 

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