Quote from: mr. mark on 08/22/2013 08:51 pmEveryone over at SpaceX, how about some in hangar pics for this flight? I wonder if the lack of pics has to do with USAF restrictions on base? Will SpaceX even have launch coverage for this flight? The Air Force definitely doesn't have some sort of blanket ban on pictures taken on base at Vandenberg. This spring they allowed part of the route of the Solvang Century bike ride to go through VAFB. They only allowed U.S. citizens, checked IDs at the gate, and had personnel at every road intersection to make sure nobody wandered where they weren't supposed to go, but there was no restriction on picture taking along the (miles long) route of the ride through the base. I got lots of great shots of many facilities on the base, though, sadly, the route didn't go near the SpaceX pad.
Everyone over at SpaceX, how about some in hangar pics for this flight? I wonder if the lack of pics has to do with USAF restrictions on base? Will SpaceX even have launch coverage for this flight?
Here is something new to chew on while we wait....https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-20726.pdf
I can see this thread is impossible to control when people feel obligated to post their "thoughts of the day" all over it Look, they are a commercial company who - like most - have absolutely no need - or wish - to stick webcams all over their processing facilities, or provide some daily update blog, warts and all.I have absolutely no doubt there are people at these companies who - if they had it their way - would have radio silence until after spacecraft separation, before issuing a post-mission presser, before saying "thanks! Didn't we do well!" This is not NASA. This is not Shuttle. And I think a lot of the charm of Shuttle has been lost, because if she had a problem you had a NASA TV presser and about 20 meaty documents on L2 (with permission I might add). You respected Shuttle and her engineers a lot because when they solved issues and flew that big lady, it was a victory.However, I do know - cause I speak with them - people at SpaceX who understand, appreciate, and wish they could probably do a bit more for the people on this very site, as they totally know 99.9 percent of the people posting on and reading these SpaceX threads only want them to succeed.They do know it's a fan base, as opposed to a bunch of "I could do it better" types (as much as we've got a few of those).So all we can do is cover this the best we can, respectfully, and what will happen will happen. No amount of "I want daily updates and I want them yesterday" posts on a space site's forum is going to change that.
Quote from: AJW on 08/26/2013 04:42 pmHere is something new to chew on while we wait....https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-20726.pdfAn excellent find! Wonder how this plays into things."The first stage will coast after stage separation, and then perform an experimental burn with three engines to reduce the entry velocity just prior to entry. Prior to landing in the water, it will perform a second experimental burn with one engine to impact the water with minimal velocity. The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion".The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion". - This I don't think any of us knew. Looks like maybe SpaceX will set the second stage up for a false reentry as if it would have a landing profile.
And for those feeling just a bit nervous.... "The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a new launch vehicle. The U.S. Air Force has determined that its overall failure probability is nearly fifty percent for each of the first two launches."
Quote from: AJW on 08/26/2013 04:42 pmHere is something new to chew on while we wait....https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-20726.pdfAn excellent find! Wonder how this plays into things."The first stage will coast after stage separation, and then perform an experimental burn with three engines to reduce the entry velocity just prior to entry. Prior to landing in the water, it will perform a second experimental burn with one engine to impact the water with minimal velocity. The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion".The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion". - This I don't think any of us knew. Looks like maybe SpaceX will set the second stage up for a false reentry as if it would have a landing profile.Second stage burn as in "reetry burn"? Now that would be something.
"The launch vehicle will also carry five secondary payloads to the same orbit."
Quote from: mr. mark on 08/26/2013 04:46 pmQuote from: AJW on 08/26/2013 04:42 pmHere is something new to chew on while we wait....https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-20726.pdfAn excellent find! Wonder how this plays into things."The first stage will coast after stage separation, and then perform an experimental burn with three engines to reduce the entry velocity just prior to entry. Prior to landing in the water, it will perform a second experimental burn with one engine to impact the water with minimal velocity. The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion".The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion". - This I don't think any of us knew. Looks like maybe SpaceX will set the second stage up for a false reentry as if it would have a landing profile.Second stage burn as in "reetry burn"? Now that would be something.There is nothing to indicate that the second stage burn is a velocity reduction burn - note that this is specified for the first stage but *not* the second stage. It could just be simple restart to simulate GTO deployment.
Since next mission is GTO, more likely the S2 burn is a sim of next mission profile, IMO.
Quote from: AJW on 08/26/2013 05:00 pmAnd for those feeling just a bit nervous.... "The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a new launch vehicle. The U.S. Air Force has determined that its overall failure probability is nearly fifty percent for each of the first two launches."I have trouble believing the Air Force did a thorough risk analysis in coming up with numbers like that.
Quote from: AJW on 08/26/2013 05:00 pmAnd for those feeling just a bit nervous.... "The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a new launch vehicle. The U.S. Air Force has determined that its overall failure probability is nearly fifty percent for each of the first two launches."I have trouble believing the Air Force did a thorough risk analysis in coming up with numbers like that.And +1 on the nice find BTW.
I don't think they have done a particular analysis on the F9R. The 50% number was probably based on all new rockets historically.
Quote from: king1999 on 08/26/2013 06:29 pmI don't think they have done a particular analysis on the F9R. The 50% number was probably based on all new rockets historically.Even so, to be fair: F1 first flight = extra exciting. F9 first flight = exciting, but nominal(ish). A case can be made across the industry or specific to SpaceX. Though I suspect the odds are a bit better than 50%. A more relevant statistic might be comparing first launch of 3rd new launcher success rates per entity/company. Filet this red herring however you want; approval has been granted.
