I find the lawyerly nitpicking of this to be very revealing.
Quote from: OxCartMark on 01/06/2015 01:08 pmI find the lawyerly nitpicking of this to be very revealing.So is seeing little painted men on rockets
So let the ASDS speculation begin: what will the ASDS do in the meantime? and will the GoQuest and Elsbeth III crews host a tailgate party on the barge during the downtime?
Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 01/06/2015 10:40 amSo let the ASDS speculation begin: what will the ASDS do in the meantime? and will the GoQuest and Elsbeth III crews host a tailgate party on the barge during the downtime? Not enougn time to head into port and get back on station by Friday morning. So they hold position and try to conserve fuel. Maybe the tug hooks back onto ASDS so the barge doesn't have to burn 3 days worth of stationkeeping fuel.Meanwhile, a street hockey game breaks out on deck.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6ph-aTCYAA9UNH.png:largeDon't know how accurate this is...
Quote from: QuantumG on 01/06/2015 06:31 amhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6ph-aTCYAA9UNH.png:largeDon't know how accurate this is...Here is the timed schedule.
Quote from: Kabloona on 01/06/2015 02:26 pmQuote from: Llian Rhydderch on 01/06/2015 10:40 amSo let the ASDS speculation begin: what will the ASDS do in the meantime? and will the GoQuest and Elsbeth III crews host a tailgate party on the barge during the downtime? Not enougn time to head into port and get back on station by Friday morning. So they hold position and try to conserve fuel. Maybe the tug hooks back onto ASDS so the barge doesn't have to burn 3 days worth of stationkeeping fuel.Meanwhile, a street hockey game breaks out on deck.I wonder if they could position new fuel containers on deck? (likely using a helicopter)It would likely require calm seas however.
Quote from: OxCartMark on 01/06/2015 10:46 ambad weather in the landing zone was a risk that SpaceX bore and that it would be likely that they'd need to launch a customer's freight even if there was no chance of recovery. Not so, at least on this NASA launch. SpaceX seems to have gotten agreement to not launch if waves are beyond 6 feet in the LZ.Nope. They still launched rockets even when this criteria was NO GO/EXCEED (it is NOT first time this row in table was present). No one will hold up launch for that reason. If landing is NO GO, they launch anyway and stage will be disposed to not endanger barge. Or perform practice "landing" somewhere far away from barge.
bad weather in the landing zone was a risk that SpaceX bore and that it would be likely that they'd need to launch a customer's freight even if there was no chance of recovery. Not so, at least on this NASA launch. SpaceX seems to have gotten agreement to not launch if waves are beyond 6 feet in the LZ.
So it remains to be seen, it is still an open question. I'm leaning towards thinking that if they put the rule up, then there's a reason they did so.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/06/2015 05:57 pmSo it remains to be seen, it is still an open question. I'm leaning towards thinking that if they put the rule up, then there's a reason they did so.No, it isn't an open question. Spacex isn't going to affect the ISS schedule by delaying when the launch weather is good and the sea state is bad. There is a whole lot of impacts in rescheduling a visiting vehicle. Spacex is on contract to deliver cargo to the ISS. Stage recovery is secondary.The likely reason that this "new" rule is there, is to get the range use to accessing and reporting it.
but also the impact of losing a reusable stage,
This is very much like "will NASA (or customers) revolt at SpaceX for putting legs and other reusability hardware on their launches". You were all up in arms about it, but it ended up that logic prevailed, and reasonable parties arrived at reasonable understandings.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/06/2015 06:35 pm but also the impact of losing a reusable stage,Those don't exist at this time and so there is no loss. Even if it is recovered it is not a reusable stage.
Quote from: Jim on 01/06/2015 06:11 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/06/2015 05:57 pmSo it remains to be seen, it is still an open question. I'm leaning towards thinking that if they put the rule up, then there's a reason they did so.No, it isn't an open question. Spacex isn't going to affect the ISS schedule by delaying when the launch weather is good and the sea state is bad. There is a whole lot of impacts in rescheduling a visiting vehicle. Spacex is on contract to deliver cargo to the ISS. Stage recovery is secondary.The likely reason that this "new" rule is there, is to get the range use to accessing and reporting it.I understand the impact of a launch delay, but also the impact of losing a reusable stage, and so it is up to SpaceX to negotiate that with each customer, whether NASA or commercial.
A delay to ISS scheduling is not the end of the world, it is simply an inconvenience for NASA and a whole bunch of other people. It happens anyway due to many reasons. OTOH, a loss of a stage that contains valuable data is a bummer for SpaceX.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/06/2015 06:35 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/06/2015 06:11 pmQuote from: meekGee on 01/06/2015 05:57 pmSo it remains to be seen, it is still an open question. I'm leaning towards thinking that if they put the rule up, then there's a reason they did so.No, it isn't an open question. Spacex isn't going to affect the ISS schedule by delaying when the launch weather is good and the sea state is bad. There is a whole lot of impacts in rescheduling a visiting vehicle. Spacex is on contract to deliver cargo to the ISS. Stage recovery is secondary.The likely reason that this "new" rule is there, is to get the range use to accessing and reporting it.I understand the impact of a launch delay, but also the impact of losing a reusable stage, and so it is up to SpaceX to negotiate that with each customer, whether NASA or commercial.If SpaceX negotiates a lower price for a launch in return for recovering the hardware, then it would be reasonable to delay if the sea state makes recovery impossible.If SpaceX are charging full price (IE expendable) rates for the launch, then it would be perfectly reasonable for the customer to request / insist that this not delay an otherwise viable launch.cheers, Martin
Quote from: meekGee on 01/06/2015 07:25 pmBut it seems that it's all been resolved, and NASA money was not really wasted.Jason-3 has been delayed again and none of the delays are due to the spacecraft.
But it seems that it's all been resolved, and NASA money was not really wasted.