Quote from: cambrianera on 01/12/2014 05:45 pmClose up with details.@Lar: the leg should be where I've put the black area.Why don't you think the tab circled here in red is the anchor for the legs? It looks right to me.I don't see anything at the "D" label. That seems to be for the dimension. What is it you think you see there?
Close up with details.@Lar: the leg should be where I've put the black area.
Quote from: Comga on 01/12/2014 10:36 pmQuote from: cambrianera on 01/12/2014 05:45 pmClose up with details.@Lar: the leg should be where I've put the black area.Why don't you think the tab circled here in red is the anchor for the legs? It looks right to me.I don't see anything at the "D" label. That seems to be for the dimension. What is it you think you see there?I think it is 45 degrees off.The hold-downs are along the principal directions of the FH. (That is, there are 8 hold-downs. 3 on each side core and 2 on the center core)The legs are along the 45-degree directions, so that they don't interfere with each other while stowed.This means the leg anchor points are back along the principal directions.* There is an additional small amount of clocking on the side cores, as seen on SpX's FH page, on the bottom view. I'd love to see that assembly first hand.
Quote from: meekGee on 01/12/2014 11:21 pmQuote from: Comga on 01/12/2014 10:36 pmQuote from: cambrianera on 01/12/2014 05:45 pmClose up with details.@Lar: the leg should be where I've put the black area.Why don't you think the tab circled here in red is the anchor for the legs? It looks right to me.I don't see anything at the "D" label. That seems to be for the dimension. What is it you think you see there?I think it is 45 degrees off.The hold-downs are along the principal directions of the FH. (That is, there are 8 hold-downs. 3 on each side core and 2 on the center core)The legs are along the 45-degree directions, so that they don't interfere with each other while stowed.This means the leg anchor points are back along the principal directions.* There is an additional small amount of clocking on the side cores, as seen on SpX's FH page, on the bottom view. I'd love to see that assembly first hand.That makes no sense to me. The basis of the Falcon 9 is the octoweb, with eight fold rotational symmetry. Any distinction of 45 degrees would involve very fine details.Your discussion of the Falcon Heavy has no bearing on what is in the image. It appears that there are four hold-downs on this Falcon 9, not eight. The two in the image seem to be at right angles. It makes great sense that the leg mounts, of which there are also four, are offset by 45 degrees to avoid interference. We would all like to see the assembly details. What we will actually get to do is to pour over launch photos like these.
I don't see anything at the "D" label. That seems to be for the dimension. What is it you think you see there?
So why are there 8 attachment points? Perhaps in order to transfer the rocket from one setup to another. Imagine that the T/E has to register and hold the rocket somewhere, so when it is erect, the other 4 bracket match the hold downs - right?
Quote from: meekGee on 01/13/2014 02:20 amSo why are there 8 attachment points? Perhaps in order to transfer the rocket from one setup to another. Imagine that the T/E has to register and hold the rocket somewhere, so when it is erect, the other 4 bracket match the hold downs - right?Take a look at cambrianera's pics a few posts back.. I think he nailed it.. octaweb handling attachments during assembly
Found this pic, courtesy of Lars_J: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32930.msg1100855#msg1100855Shows things clearly.About the "straight" eyetabs, using them during assembly means you aren't stressing the holddown eyetabs (I mean, you really don't want dents or wear on them).GH2 in the pic had a different, simplified octaweb assembly and has no "straight" eyetabs.
So the vertical tabs are part of the holddown system. That is different to the pin into Vehicle of F9.0I wonder if they may also serve as part of the core attachment system of FH.. or is that taking an elegant system to a whole new level.
Everyone seems to be focused on the bottom parts. I'm more interested in Parts B & D in this photo.
Quote from: Lars_J on 01/11/2014 11:46 pmQuote from: Lar on 01/11/2014 11:38 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 01/11/2014 11:32 pmYes, they might do RTLS but with a target in the ocean a few miles out from the shore - before going for a land landing.Perhaps, but Musk was quoted saying they were seeking permission to land back at the Cape for CRS-3.He was saying that a few months ago, yes. But without any GH2/F9R-1 test flights in McGregor or NM, I think that is a very remote possibility at this point. A couple of GH2 hops will of course change that if they happen.Judging based on the post launch Q&A of Orbital; the company knows 2014 plans extremely well. Moving this thinking over to the SpaceX side. Legs or no legs, landing etc. should have been all timed out Sept-Oct 2013.So the only information we will get is once SpaceX wishes to reveal it. Don't believe a couple of hops would make any difference regarding CRS-3.
Quote from: Lar on 01/11/2014 11:38 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 01/11/2014 11:32 pmYes, they might do RTLS but with a target in the ocean a few miles out from the shore - before going for a land landing.Perhaps, but Musk was quoted saying they were seeking permission to land back at the Cape for CRS-3.He was saying that a few months ago, yes. But without any GH2/F9R-1 test flights in McGregor or NM, I think that is a very remote possibility at this point. A couple of GH2 hops will of course change that if they happen.
Quote from: Lars_J on 01/11/2014 11:32 pmYes, they might do RTLS but with a target in the ocean a few miles out from the shore - before going for a land landing.Perhaps, but Musk was quoted saying they were seeking permission to land back at the Cape for CRS-3.
Yes, they might do RTLS but with a target in the ocean a few miles out from the shore - before going for a land landing.
Quote from: Prober on 01/12/2014 06:29 pmEveryone seems to be focused on the bottom parts. I'm more interested in Parts B & D in this photo.Attached is a photo from the CASSIOPE launch. I've circled an area in red that might be the point you marked 'B', i.e. the telescope attachment point. It's about 1 meter higher than in the image you posted. Don't pay much attention to the "SpaceX" decal as it's not in the same position or of the same scale in either image.
Found this pic, courtesy of Lars_J: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32930.msg1100855#msg1100855Shows things clearly.
Quote from: Comga on 01/12/2014 10:36 pmI don't see anything at the "D" label. That seems to be for the dimension. What is it you think you see there?Not at the "D" Label. It should be at the high of "D".The attachment point of the telescope - and the telescope itself - is covered from the leg in closed position.
I'm curious as to whether the legs will have some other material on the foot-side. Surely some kind of flexible and strong footing will be needed. Carbon Fiber isn't that great at handling hard impacts, is it?I'd be happy to learn more.