NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Missions Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 06/10/2012 05:25 pm

Title: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/10/2012 05:25 pm
PENDING OFFICIAL GO FOR SPX-1 (Will realign in the highly unlikely event of NASA calling for another COTS Demo).

FOR SPECIFIC PRE-LAUNCH/PROCESSING UPDATES, SEE THIS THREAD:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29131.0

Please note the difference between this thread and the update thread.

Resources:

Other Threads for SpX-1:
SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 PROCESSING/Pre-LAUNCH UPDATES (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29131.0)
SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS-1 (SpX-1) LAUNCH UPDATES (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.0)
SpaceX Dragon CRS-1 (SpX-1) RNDZ, Capture, Berthing to ISS & Hatch Opening (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30059.0)
SpaceX Dragon CRS-1 (SpX-1) (EOM) Unberthing, Entry, Splashdown (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30190.0)
SpaceX CRS-1 Software/Computer Design Discussion Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30423.0)
Dragons for everyone! It's another SpaceX Party Thread (CRS-1) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30041.0)
Year In Review (Part IV - Covering SpaceX Missions COTS 2+ and CRS-1) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30741.0)

SpaceX GENERAL Forum Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=45.0 - please use this for general questions NOT specific to SpX-1.

SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0

SpaceX News Articles (Recent):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/


L2 SpaceX Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=tags&tags=SpaceX

L2 SpaceX Dragon C2+ Mission Special (Exclusively acquired pre-launch and Mission Coverage, Presentations, Graphics, Videos, Updates) - in the new L2 Commercial Crew and Cargo Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=54.0
(The above is now moving to SpX-1 Coverage).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Bubbinski on 06/10/2012 11:30 pm
Is there a launch time/window set for this?  I see the Spaceflightnow.com schedule says 9/24 for launch date.

And will the window be instantaneous like the last flight or will there be a few minutes in it like there was with shuttle?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 06/11/2012 12:41 am
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 06/11/2012 04:10 am
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?
It would represent a significant quickening in SpaceX's operations for them to get both of those flights this year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 06/11/2012 04:15 am
From tests to operations?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 06/11/2012 06:45 am
From NET to actual launch.  :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 06/11/2012 03:14 pm
Is there a launch time/window set for this?  I see the Spaceflightnow.com schedule says 9/24 for launch date.

And will the window be instantaneous like the last flight or will there be a few minutes in it like there was with shuttle?
I think they stated the windows are instantaneous, but the launch opportunities are daily, for the CRS flights. BTW, that's a NET flight. The LV is already at the cape, but the Dragon should arrive by August. I guess when the Dragon is shipped we'll know how close to launch we'll be. There's also the WDR rehearsal. As SPX approaches continuous operations, we'll start to see more fixed patterns (things like LV shipement T-90 days, Dragon shipment T-45days, WDR T-6 days, etc.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: stockman on 06/11/2012 03:23 pm
Is there a launch time/window set for this?  I see the Spaceflightnow.com schedule says 9/24 for launch date.

And will the window be instantaneous like the last flight or will there be a few minutes in it like there was with shuttle?
I think they stated the windows are instantaneous, but the launch opportunities are daily, for the CRS flights. BTW, that's a NET flight. The LV is already at the cape, but the Dragon should arrive by August. I guess when the Dragon is shipped we'll know how close to launch we'll be. There's also the WDR rehearsal. As SPX approaches continuous operations, we'll start to see more fixed patterns (things like LV shipement T-90 days, Dragon shipment T-45days, WDR T-6 days, etc.)


Was there a slip in Dragon delivery?? I know this is not official but the SFN artical on June 2 said it would be delivered as early as next month (implying early July.)...

Quote
SpaceX's next launch to the space station is tentatively scheduled for Sept. 24. The Falcon 9 rocket for the flight is being checked out in a hangar at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., and the Dragon payload will be shipped to the Florida launch site as soon as next month, according to SpaceX officials
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/11/2012 06:04 pm
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?

If they are able to do it, and its a big if, would be positive because it would mean flight rates finally ramping up as they have been trying to do for years now.

Big difference between now and then is previously, despite their wildly optimistic schedules in past years they were still in the development phase of their systems, now, for F9 standard anyway, they are moving past that with  F9V1.1 representing the final step.

So in theory now they should be able to ramp up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 06/11/2012 11:11 pm
They also have the motivation that SpX-1 and SpX-2 are the only remaining v1.0 flights, so they've got to get them off the pad before they can modify it for all future flights. Hopefully SpX-1/2 don't become a bottleneck for everything else...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 06/11/2012 11:19 pm
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?

If they are able to do it, and its a big if, would be positive because it would mean flight rates finally ramping up as they have been trying to do for years now.

Big difference between now and then is previously, despite their wildly optimistic schedules in past years they were still in the development phase of their systems, now, for F9 standard anyway, they are moving past that with  F9V1.1 representing the final step.

So in theory now they should be able to ramp up.

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 06/11/2012 11:31 pm
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?

If they are able to do it, and its a big if, would be positive because it would mean flight rates finally ramping up as they have been trying to do for years now.

Big difference between now and then is previously, despite their wildly optimistic schedules in past years they were still in the development phase of their systems, now, for F9 standard anyway, they are moving past that with  F9V1.1 representing the final step.

So in theory now they should be able to ramp up.

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?


No, CASSIOPE will be first.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/12/2012 03:24 am

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?


Doesn't matter, NASA doesn't care about LV operations as long as the range is ok with it and SpaceX delivers its cargo commitment. Crew will be a different story.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 06/12/2012 03:12 pm

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?


Doesn't matter, NASA doesn't care about LV operations as long as the range is ok with it and SpaceX delivers its cargo commitment. Crew will be a different story.

seem to recall one of the Q&A before Congress was this "insurance", Responsibility issues.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Dave G on 06/13/2012 04:10 am
2 more flights this year (another is penciled in for Dec. 15)?
It would represent a significant quickening in SpaceX's operations for them to get both of those flights this year.

We've not seen SpaceX's operations pace yet.  We've only seen their development pace.  With the exception of Falcon 1 Flight 5, all launches have been test flights with a lot of development in the critical path.

Now that the development and testing is done, we'll see SpaceX's operations potential, both in terms of pace and success rate.

To be clear, I'm not saying SpaceX will have phenomenal operations, I'm just pointing out that we haven't seen this side of SpaceX yet, so nobody knows.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/13/2012 01:03 pm
Now that the development and testing is done, we'll see SpaceX's operations potential, both in terms of pace and success rate.

Cough, Cough,... v1.1, Heavy, Vadenberg Pad, Fairing...

Though to be fair, CRS-1 and CRS-2 are are v1.0 Falcon's.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/13/2012 01:26 pm
Now that the development and testing is done, we'll see SpaceX's operations potential, both in terms of pace and success rate

This actually raises a valid question.  Does anyone know how similar the CRS-1 launch vehicle will be to the COTS-2+ one? If the Falcon-9 Block-1 is considered an essentially finalised design now, it should be easier to meet the schedule for the first two CRS launches; if not there is more potential for delays.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 06/13/2012 01:30 pm
I'd say Falcon 9 block 1 is a done deal, they only have 2 more launches proposed with this variant. There is an upgrade for flight 6.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Halidon on 06/13/2012 08:07 pm
A full month berthed at the station as opposed to a week, won't have that new car smell by the time it gets back.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 06/21/2012 02:31 pm
Any more news as to assembly of the launch vehicle? I'm wondering how work flow is progressing. For me, this and Orbitals upcoming Cygnus /Antares launches are the real story. Mars and reuse can wait for me. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/21/2012 02:57 pm
How much more cargo mass are they taking up this time than on the demo flight?  I assume they will have confidence to fly with less  margin this time?

Does anyone know how much extra prop was left at the end of the Demo mission?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 06/25/2012 01:02 am
How much more cargo mass are they taking up this time than on the demo flight?  I assume they will have confidence to fly with less  margin this time?

Does anyone know how much extra prop was left at the end of the Demo mission?

They seemed limited by hypergols on dragon due to the extended mission which may have been the limiting factor for mass rather than F9 capabilities. Initially they spoke about having carry ons during this mission which suggests they had extra upmass capability. Just a thought.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/26/2012 02:19 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 06/26/2012 02:36 pm
COTS and CRS are separate contracts. All that would happen is flight hardware for C3 would become SpX-1. Othwerwise there would be no incentive for SpaceX to combine the flights in the first place if NASA instead just got an extra CRS flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 06/26/2012 02:36 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?

No.

1.  NASA did not pay for a flight under COTS.  It paid for certain milestones and data whose cost were much less than a whole flight

2.  Since COTS 3 milestones were met with the COTS 2 flight, Spacex would get paid for those milestones without having to expend a vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: wolfpack on 06/26/2012 02:52 pm

F9V1.1 has yet to be flown.  Would NASA put expensive cargo on an untested launcher?


Doubtful that the CRS contract gives NASA any say with regards to the LV. SpX has to deliver the cargo in order to get paid, so if F9 v1.1 unzips then it's a matter for the underwriters. SpX would then have to decide to refly v1.1 or go back to v1.0, but regardless they have to meet their upmass obligations under CRS in order to get paid. Miss enough and the customer walks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 06/26/2012 04:37 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?

No.

1.  NASA did not pay for a flight under COTS.  It paid for certain milestones and data whose cost were much less than a whole flight

2.  Since COTS 3 milestones were met with the COTS 2 flight, Spacex would get paid for those milestones without having to expend a vehicle.

Ah...this clears it up nicely.  Thank you!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 07/02/2012 05:15 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?

No.

1.  NASA did not pay for a flight under COTS.  It paid for certain milestones and data whose cost were much less than a whole flight

2.  Since COTS 3 milestones were met with the COTS 2 flight, Spacex would get paid for those milestones without having to expend a vehicle.
Was the Cots2+ cargo in the contract, added for free or is SpaceX getting extra for the delivery?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nate_Trost on 07/02/2012 05:28 pm
If they only do the one test flight, does NASA get an extra CRS flight in under the existing contract?  Or does that flight just get dropped?

No.

1.  NASA did not pay for a flight under COTS.  It paid for certain milestones and data whose cost were much less than a whole flight

2.  Since COTS 3 milestones were met with the COTS 2 flight, Spacex would get paid for those milestones without having to expend a vehicle.
Was the Cots2+ cargo in the contract, added for free or is SpaceX getting extra for the delivery?

They got around ~$10 million for the C2+ cargo delivery. That agreement was bundled with the supplemental COTS milestones.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: max_schmurz on 07/27/2012 09:08 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 07/27/2012 09:20 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?
The Kurs-NA troublesome equipment is already on the Progress. Unless they can actually dock again, and assuming that Kurs-NA is not needed for un docking, and assuming that the cosmonauts have the necessary tooling, and the problem is with equipment inside the pressure cabin, then yes, it could be done. I seriously doubt it will be done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 07/30/2012 05:33 am
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?
The Kurs-NA troublesome equipment is already on the Progress. Unless they can actually dock again, and assuming that Kurs-NA is not needed for un docking, and assuming that the cosmonauts have the necessary tooling, and the problem is with equipment inside the pressure cabin, then yes, it could be done. I seriously doubt it will be done.
In the Live: Progress M-15M undocking & redocking thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29505.msg934639#msg934639) it was stated that the now successful hardware has been removed "for future return".  Since most of the download will be by Dragon, and useable stuff clears as much space as trash which will be shipped down, the KURS hardware may come down on Dragon.

edit: but not necessarily on CRS-1
(The above discussion is not really about CRS-1 the topic of this thread.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 07/30/2012 05:40 am
It is noted that we are half-way from the May 22 launch of COTS-2+ to the currently listed and relatively stable Oct 5 scheduled launch date of CRS-1. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg927944#msg927944)  Yet no photos of new hardware at the Cape, the CRS-1 Dragon, launch preps, cargo, anything (unless I missed it.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 07/30/2012 06:50 am
It is noted that we are half-way from the May 22 launch of COTS-2+ to the currently listed and relatively stable Oct 5 scheduled launch date of CRS-1. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg927944#msg927944)  Yet no photos of new hardware at the Cape, the CRS-1 Dragon, launch preps, cargo, anything (unless I missed it.)
Nothing that I know of, maybe L2 has some info?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 07/30/2012 07:18 am
It is noted that we are half-way from the May 22 launch of COTS-2+ to the currently listed and relatively stable Oct 5 scheduled launch date of CRS-1. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg927944#msg927944)  Yet no photos of new hardware at the Cape, the CRS-1 Dragon, launch preps, cargo, anything (unless I missed it.)
Nothing that I know of, maybe L2 has some info?

Unfortunately not. But it's still worth every penny!

I did hear unofficially that the Dragon is just about ready for shipping. Second stage is likely at the Cape already.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 07/30/2012 10:53 am
Second stage is likely at the Cape already.

They showed both stages already at Hangar AO at the time of the C2+ launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 07/30/2012 11:39 am
Second stage is likely at the Cape already.

They showed both stages already at Hangar AO at the time of the C2+ launch?
That they did.

"While Saturday's Falcon 9 is on the pad, the rocket for our next mission is already in FL." - May 18, 2012
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/30/2012 02:58 pm
That they did.

"While Saturday's Falcon 9 is on the pad, the rocket for our next mission is already in FL." - May 18, 2012

From that picture, it looked like some stuff still remained to do at the HIF - Applying insulation and decails to the skin as well as the fairing around the thrust structure on the core.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 07/30/2012 03:08 pm
That they did.

"While Saturday's Falcon 9 is on the pad, the rocket for our next mission is already in FL." - May 18, 2012

From that picture, it looked like some stuff still remained to do at the HIF - Applying insulation and decails to the skin as well as the fairing around the thrust structure on the core.

Don't forget the Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/30/2012 03:26 pm
Don't forget the Dragon.

Of course Dragon would be the pacing item for CRS-1, considering many of it's systems had their 1st live run ending June 1st.  I honestly would be shocked it any component was signed off on for CRS-1 till COTS2/3 was sitting on the floor at Hawthorne in 1000 pieces & every piece of data was gone over 3-4 times.

If they are almost ready to ship CRS-1 to the cape I count that as a pretty fast turn around.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/01/2012 05:41 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 08/01/2012 05:57 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.

I thought the Russians regularly returned Progress KURS equipment in Soyuz - is that not the case?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/01/2012 08:12 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.

The Shuttle is irrelevant.  His question was about bringing down the KURS-NA internal equipment in the CRS-1 Dragon.

"Downmass costs" aren't "at a premium". That doesn't make gramatical sense.  With Dragon performing CRS there is a much larger dowmass limit, whose price is already negotiated.  edit: It's close to $1K/lb, not $1M.  3000 kg/Dragon

It's more valuable than garbage, and bringing it down clears out the volume on the station.  The issue is one of resource allocation, whether NASA has reason to give some their limited downmass capacity to the Russian partner, and what NASA has already planned to put into the departing CRS-1 Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/01/2012 08:15 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.

I thought the Russians regularly returned Progress KURS equipment in Soyuz - is that not the case?

Danderman said they were brought back in the Shuttle.
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/01/2012 08:32 pm
Imaging that forthcoming Progress M-15M docking would have success. How do you think if it's teoretically feasibly to make any agreement between Roscosmos and NASA to downmass KURS-NA internal equipment onboard Dragon CRS SpX-1 in case such a need arises to analyse system malfunction?

good idea.  But since the shuttle is now gone, downmass costs are at a premium.   NASA will have to charge 1 million dollars a pound to return the KURS-NA.   These costs can be bartered against the 60 million dollar launch costs Roscosmos charges.

The Shuttle is irrelevant.  His question was about bringing down the KURS-NA internal equipment in the CRS-1 Dragon.

"Downmass costs" aren't "at a premium". That doesn't make gramatical sense.  With Dragon performing CRS there is a much larger dowmass limit, whose price is already negotiated.  edit: It's close to $1K/lb, not $1M.  3000 kg/Dragon

It's more valuable than garbage, and bringing it down clears out the volume on the station.  The issue is one of resource allocation, whether NASA has reason to give some their limited downmass capacity to the Russian partner, and what NASA has already planned to put into the departing CRS-1 Dragon.

Sorry if the truth hurts but we do not have the same Downmass system with the shuttle gone.  Keep in mind the last shuttle visit was a year ago plus so my statement is correct.   As to the costs those are contractor & NASA agreements.

Russian "Downmass" using a NASA contractor service is open to Negotiation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/01/2012 11:00 pm
Sorry if the truth hurts
Dont be patronizing.

Quote
but we do not have the same Downmass system with the shuttle gone.  Keep in mind the last shuttle visit was a year ago plus so my statement is correct.
True but not the issue.  Being "correct is not the issue either.

Quote
As to the costs those are contractor & NASA agreements.
True but so what?  Your numbers are wrong.

Quote
Russian "Downmass" using a NASA contractor service is open to Negotiation.
True, obvious, and not in doubt.  Why say it?

Now you can get the last word in.  I'm done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 08/07/2012 12:44 pm
I'm getting concerned on the lack of info on the flight, I wonder if October 5th is still the planned launch date.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/08/2012 11:49 pm
Still two months to go, no news might be good news.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/09/2012 02:52 am
Some speculation here. We saw in the HIF construction pictures that the door between the old and new sections of the building is up sometimes for construction purposes. They may be waiting to ship Dragon to Florida until construction has progressed enough to leave that door closed most of the time so they can set up the clean environment to process Dragon. That might be soon, as almost all of the walls are up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 08/09/2012 04:17 am
Public documents still show F9 launching back to back before the end of the year.

Spx-1 is supposed to be visiting as soon as HTV leaves.

The chart that I'm looking at has this below the title though.

Quote
(Pre-decisional, For Internal Use, For Reference Only)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 08/09/2012 03:17 pm
Spx-1 is supposed to be visiting as soon as HTV leaves.

Not quite - HTV-3 will leave ISS on September 6, but Dragon CRS-1 won't arrive until a month later on October 7.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/09/2012 06:28 pm
Spx-1 is supposed to be visiting as soon as HTV leaves.

Not quite - HTV-3 will leave ISS on September 6, but Dragon CRS-1 won't arrive until a month later on October 7.

Ample time to do the mission without any slips.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 08/11/2012 12:49 pm
I'm getting concerned on the lack of info on the flight, I wonder if October 5th is still the planned launch date.
Still two months to go, no news might be good news.

Don't forget about Orbcomm, sounds like their payload is ready now:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sierra-nevada-corporation-announces-the-completion-of-environmental-testing-for-orbcomms-second-generation-prototype-spacecraft-2012-08-09

http://spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/120810-orbcomm-competition-ais.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: zerm on 08/13/2012 09:38 pm
Spx-1 is supposed to be visiting as soon as HTV leaves.

Not quite - HTV-3 will leave ISS on September 6, but Dragon CRS-1 won't arrive until a month later on October 7.

Ample time to do the mission without any slips.

This is SpaceX we're talking about here... they have slips, but we're not supposed to notice. (posted while wearing my SpaceX golf shirt)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: zt on 08/14/2012 07:04 am
Realistically, for a launch on the stated date in October, when do we have to see a capsule at the Cape?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/14/2012 03:58 pm
Realistically, for a launch on the stated date in October, when do we have to see a capsule at the Cape?

Probable processing steps: (min days: max days)

1) Dragon checkout. (7 days: 14days)
2) Pack with storable items. (2 days: 5 days)
3) Mate to Trunk. (1 day: 2 days)
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)
5) Mate to F9. (1 day: 2 days)
6) Checkout complete stack. (2 days: 5 days)
7) Move to pad for hot-fire test. ( 2 days: 7 days)
7) Complete packing of Dragon with moderately time sensitive items. (1 day: 2 days)
8 ) Fuel Dragon. (1 day: 3 days)
9) Move F9 stack to pad for launch. (1 hour: 3 hours)
10) Late load of final cargo. (2 hours: 5 hours)
11) Erect F9 stack. (1 hour: 2 hours)
12) Launch. (12 hours: 10 days)

Min – 20 days
Max – 46 days + 10 days for launch due to scrubs
Note: times are estimates only to show what needs to be done and approximate durations to accomplish.

On Dragon arrival, I would say no later than the 1st week in Sept but I would expect last week in Aug, and the Trunk not more than a week later.

For schedule padding for processing problems I would expect arrival this week.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/14/2012 05:45 pm
Realistically, for a launch on the stated date in October, when do we have to see a capsule at the Cape?

Probable processing steps: (min days: max days)

1) Dragon checkout. (7 days: 14days)
2) Pack with storable items. (2 days: 5 days)
3) Mate to Trunk. (1 day: 2 days)
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)
5) Mate to F9. (1 day: 2 days)
6) Checkout complete stack. (2 days: 5 days)
7) Move to pad for hot-fire test. ( 2 days: 7 days)
7) Complete packing of Dragon with moderately time sensitive items. (1 day: 2 days)
8 ) Fuel Dragon. (1 day: 3 days)
9) Move F9 stack to pad for launch. (1 hour: 3 hours)
10) Late load of final cargo. (2 hours: 5 hours)
11) Erect F9 stack. (1 hour: 2 hours)
12) Launch. (12 hours: 10 days)

Min – 20 days
Max – 46 days + 10 days for launch due to scrubs
Note: times are estimates only to show what needs to be done and approximate durations to accomplish.

On Dragon arrival, I would say no later than the 1st week in Sept but I would expect last week in Aug, and the Trunk not more than a week later.

For schedule padding for processing problems I would expect arrival this week.


we need to turn on some cams
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/14/2012 08:26 pm
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/14/2012 09:51 pm
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?

Goes 'Smoothly' - then thank God.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/14/2012 09:59 pm
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?

From personal experience 2 days is a very short time. And for a first test after electrical connectors have been plugged together nothing ever goes without problems which also includes plugging in the test equipment itself. The Trunk has active electronics and checkout also includes letting the Dragon computers run a complete system diagnostics test. This is the first time this has been run because you need the Trunk mated to do a full test. This test is not short. Other tests are performed before even that test can be done. Validating power connectors (the old fashioned way with volt meters to look for continuity and connector resitance and O-scopes to look for connector noise) before any electronics is turned on. Also critical command lines are also checked so that when powered on control is maintained.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/15/2012 04:09 am
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?

From personal experience 2 days is a very short time. And for a first test after electrical connectors have been plugged together nothing ever goes without problems which also includes plugging in the test equipment itself. The Trunk has active electronics and checkout also includes letting the Dragon computers run a complete system diagnostics test. This is the first time this has been run because you need the Trunk mated to do a full test. This test is not short. Other tests are performed before even that test can be done. Validating power connectors (the old fashioned way with volt meters to look for continuity and connector resitance and O-scopes to look for connector noise) before any electronics is turned on. Also critical command lines are also checked so that when powered on control is maintained.

Thanks. I think the full diagnostic could mostly be run over night? I wonder if you could build a jig to speed up the power testing. Or how much of this can be done overlapping (not a lot i'm guessing). I guess 1 day might be possible with a really good day .... that's just unlikely. Maybe with practice they'll get it down :P With one launch a year though, a day doesn't mean a whole lot.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 08/15/2012 12:17 pm
4) Checkout mate. (2 days: 5 days)

Really? What do they do for two full days if everything goes smoothly?

From personal experience 2 days is a very short time. And for a first test after electrical connectors have been plugged together nothing ever goes without problems which also includes plugging in the test equipment itself. The Trunk has active electronics and checkout also includes letting the Dragon computers run a complete system diagnostics test. This is the first time this has been run because you need the Trunk mated to do a full test. This test is not short. Other tests are performed before even that test can be done. Validating power connectors (the old fashioned way with volt meters to look for continuity and connector resitance and O-scopes to look for connector noise) before any electronics is turned on. Also critical command lines are also checked so that when powered on control is maintained.

Thanks. I think the full diagnostic could mostly be run over night? I wonder if you could build a jig to speed up the power testing. Or how much of this can be done overlapping (not a lot i'm guessing). I guess 1 day might be possible with a really good day .... that's just unlikely. Maybe with practice they'll get it down :P With one launch a year though, a day doesn't mean a whole lot.

Manpower is the only way to shorten it.  I believe is going by single shifts per day.

The standard is about two days after the LV to spacecraft disconnects are mated.  (the spacecraft EGSE has already been mated to the launch vehicle umbilicals and tested, which is also a one day test or so)  One shift for the spacecraft to do an aliveness test which by default checks out the disconnects and then another shift for combined LV/spacecraft test.

The longer testing is the EGSE validation but that can be in parallel with other ops.  Spacex does need to move their EGSE from when used in testing Dragon to interfacing with the Falcon so this may be transparent.  Or they might use the GC3 system for both Dragon and Falcon



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/15/2012 10:32 pm
Manpower is the only way to shorten it.

Lol. Cause technology and spaceflight is perfect and unchanging. They solved it during Apollo and like MSDOS will never be changed or replaced. Sorry for the sarcasm. But it drives me nuts when you say things like fact that patently aren't.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 08/16/2012 12:34 am
Manpower is the only way to shorten it.

Lol. Cause technology and spaceflight is perfect and unchanging. They solved it during Apollo and like MSDOS will never be changed or replaced. Sorry for the sarcasm. But it drives me nuts when you say things like fact that patently aren't.

It drives me nuts when you make consistently wrong statement like the above. What I said it a fact.  You don't know enough to know that.  Testing is what ever it takes and depends on spacecraft complexity and what can and needs be tested in the pad configuration. Technology isn't going to change that a spacecraft has to connected to the launch vehicle.  There will be a mechanical attachment with a sep system and there will be some type of electrical interface that will be disconnected at launch/in flight. Those will take a finite amount of time to do. 

Anyways, my comment was about shifts and a "jig".  Testing over night would take multiple shifts.  With a small crew that Spacex has, that might not be possible.  A "jig" is not going to reduce testing.  Spacecraft usually have standard tests from simple aliveness to comprehensive performance.   For projects that have common sense (this is directed at the whole spacecraft community, DOD, NASA, NRO, commercial, JPL, APL, GSFC,etc), aliveness tests after major milestones (spacecraft delivery, movement between facilities, prop loading, sc mate, launch day, etc) should be sufficient.  Also, they can look at their risk posture and reduce or eliminate testing after certain ops.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/16/2012 04:48 pm
Jim, yes adding more manpower given a specific set of test equipment may decrease the process time but that is definitely not a given. Multiple items that have to be performed consecutively in the flow will still take the same amount of execution time. So going to a 24/7 footing may reduce your overall process dates start to finish. It won’t be an exact multiplier due to inefficiencies of not having all the skills needed to perform the right task at the right time for minimal number of days.

My time working Shuttle Canadarm showed me that test equipment on Shuttle was an afterthought and received scant funding so it was poorly designed making it cumbersome and time consuming to calibrate/validate. Well-designed test equipment, especially BIT (Built in Test) capable equipment that run a validation at every power-on and uses a laptop connected through a USB to do all the Human Interface and only having a few switches for safeing the test equipment, would do wonders for task time and manpower reduction for tasks that have to be done just once every couple of months even. The calibration/validation test procedure on the Canadarn test equipment took a crew 8 hours to accomplish. The crew consisted of: 2 techs, test manager (a test director that was not much more than a tech), the contractor engineer, a QA, and the NASA engineer. In manpower alone running the calibration/validation test cost ~$400. If it was reduced to a 5 minute POT at the beginning of running a test with the flight hardware you would save $400.

If SpaceX has not gone the route of doing good engineering for their specialized test equipment to minimize manpower requirements for its use then they have areas other than increasing manpower, going to 24/7 operations, that will reduce the number of days for processing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: watermod on 08/16/2012 07:34 pm
Interesting ... space launches don't, in general, use automated test tools?
I sense a market opportunity... to bad I am more a comm. background...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 08/16/2012 08:01 pm
Interesting ... space launches don't, in general, use automated test tools?
I sense a market opportunity... to bad I am more a comm. background...


They do.  Most of the time is spend in getting the hardware into the test configuration. For example, when some launch vehicles do a simulated flight test.  All the ordnance circuits are not connected to ordnance but to a ground telemetry system to verify that all ordnance signals were sent during the simulated flight.  After this, the ordnance is hooked up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/16/2012 09:05 pm
The calibration/validation test procedure on the Canadarn test equipment took a crew 8 hours to accomplish. The crew consisted of: 2 techs, test manager (a test director that was not much more than a tech), the contractor engineer, a QA, and the NASA engineer. In manpower alone running the calibration/validation test cost ~$400. If it was reduced to a 5 minute POT at the beginning of running a test with the flight hardware you would save $400.

Thanks for the interesting post but your math here tripped me up... 6 people over 8 hours at space engineer wages is at least $3,000 cost to the company. How did you get $400? Or did you mean 8 man hours?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/16/2012 10:14 pm
Well,today anik (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg940586#msg940586) has moved CRS-1 launch from ' Oct 5" to "NET Oct 6".
Small slip, which could be due to a lot of things, and an expression of more uncertainty, which could be for a lot of reasons.  But if anik keeps it on the schedule, there is a good probability that nothing major is impacting the schedule.

51 days out.  That is approaching AtlasEguy's upper limit of 46 days, and the upper limit is what one would want to use for a schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/17/2012 05:28 pm
The calibration/validation test procedure on the Canadarn test equipment took a crew 8 hours to accomplish. The crew consisted of: 2 techs, test manager (a test director that was not much more than a tech), the contractor engineer, a QA, and the NASA engineer. In manpower alone running the calibration/validation test cost ~$400. If it was reduced to a 5 minute POT at the beginning of running a test with the flight hardware you would save $400.

Thanks for the interesting post but your math here tripped me up... 6 people over 8 hours at space engineer wages is at least $3,000 cost to the company. How did you get $400? Or did you mean 8 man hours?



I used just the wage pay at 1985 average rates or ~$8.33 an man-hour. If the modern costs is $3,000 for 8 manhours then the test costs would be a lot more today. But also most recently developed test equipment has a great deal of automation in it. In some ways its even easier to develop the test equipment with automation than without. If SpaceX wqas smart they went this route where ever it made cost effective sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 08/17/2012 07:37 pm
Quote
...for 8 manhours...

Six people for eight hours is 48 man-hours, not 8, which I think you know because 48 * $8.33 is $399.50.  I'm shocked that anyone in aerospace made eight bucks an hour at any point during my lifetime though, and I'd hazard a WAG that the modern prices are higher than that by a factor of 5 - 10?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/17/2012 08:21 pm
The calibration/validation test procedure on the Canadarn test equipment took a crew 8 hours to accomplish. The crew consisted of: 2 techs, test manager (a test director that was not much more than a tech), the contractor engineer, a QA, and the NASA engineer. In manpower alone running the calibration/validation test cost ~$400. If it was reduced to a 5 minute POT at the beginning of running a test with the flight hardware you would save $400.

Thanks for the interesting post but your math here tripped me up... 6 people over 8 hours at space engineer wages is at least $3,000 cost to the company. How did you get $400? Or did you mean 8 man hours?



I used just the wage pay at 1985 average rates or ~$8.33 an man-hour. If the modern costs is $3,000 for 8 manhours then the test costs would be a lot more today. But also most recently developed test equipment has a great deal of automation in it. In some ways its even easier to develop the test equipment with automation than without. If SpaceX wqas smart they went this route where ever it made cost effective sense.

ok this will go slightly off topic maybe for a couple of posts only.  Watched the prep of a Mission (just a sat) and 15 people were in the room to install the fairing etc.  Seemed like alot.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: aero on 08/17/2012 08:30 pm
I would guess that several of them were on site for another function or aspect of the launch but with nothing to do at the time, they watched or participated in the activity. Salaried people don't go off the clock just because their function is not active at the moment so it looks like a lot of people but the skill sets are quite different.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/23/2012 05:43 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?


thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/23/2012 06:59 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?


thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.
Who said they'd tell us?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/23/2012 07:09 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?

Who said they'd tell us?

thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.

taxpayer funds have paid for the pre-mission planning and will pay for the mission this should be open book information.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 08/23/2012 07:13 pm
taxpayer funds have paid for the pre-mission planning and will pay for the mission this should be open book information.

Riiiight...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/23/2012 07:16 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?


thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.
Who said they'd tell us?

taxpayer funds have paid for the pre-mission planning and will pay for the mission this should be open book information.
Uh huh. You do know that SpaceX employees aren't civil service, right?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 08/23/2012 07:18 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?

Who said they'd tell us?

thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.

taxpayer funds have paid for the pre-mission planning and will pay for the mission this should be open book information.

Taxpayers are paying for the service of transportation.  Just because you hire semi truck to transport something from place to place doesn't mean the truck owner or transport company has to open their books for you.  They just have to provide the service that was contracted for.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/23/2012 07:57 pm
I assume the Dragon for this mission is also in it's final stages of checkout / integration testing, right ?

When does the actual cargo for the mission arrive, and get loaded into the Dragon ? I assume that all has to happen in the next 2 or 3 weeks, right ?


thought we were waiting for a Dragon to get an ok before shipping....confused.

If Bolden says SpaceX has the go ahead for their CRS contract, and the launch date is very early October, then things should be coming together very soon. I have my own project that needs to be complete by October 1st, and I know that there aren't many weeks left in the calendar between now and then.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/25/2012 04:05 pm
Aug 14 for Dragon arrival means that my max estimate of processing time (46 days) was the correct estimate. They are making sure they have plenty of time to handle problems in order to maintain the launch date.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 08/25/2012 06:01 pm
Aug 14 for Dragon arrival means that my max estimate of processing time (46 days) was the correct estimate. They are making sure they have plenty of time to handle problems in order to maintain the launch date.

sounds like you know your stuff oldAtlas Guy, well done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/28/2012 11:25 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

For all those saying SpX-1 will have no new software.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 08/28/2012 11:37 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

For all those saying SpX-1 will have no new software.


Well, that sounds like a modification/upgrade to their current software, not whole new untested software.  I don't think that would be a huge setback.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/28/2012 11:38 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

For all those saying SpX-1 will have no new software.

This is at least an order of magnitude less significant than from COTS 1->2+
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/28/2012 11:43 pm
I don't care about your goalpost moving. The claim was that no new software had been added to Dragon. It has, those making the claim were wrong. The end.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten. We do know that some has been changed. Knowing a little about the SpaceX philosophy, it's probably a lot more than they're saying publicly and NASA probably hasn't reviewed any of it yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/28/2012 11:57 pm
I don't care about your goalpost moving. The claim was that no new software had been added to Dragon. It has, those making the claim were wrong. The end.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten. We do know that some has been changed. Knowing a little about the SpaceX philosophy, it's probably a lot more than they're saying publicly and NASA probably hasn't reviewed any of it yet.

You seem to be spoiling for a fight.  "New" software vs "Modified" software vs "Patched" software.  We agree "some has changed".  Please Relax.

If NASA approved of the COTS-2+ Dragon approaching with patched software, how difficult will it be to approve tested code that does the same thing?  (My educated guess is that the patch did more than electronically limit the FOV, and the rest is easily testable on the ground.)

Does NASA get approval rights to the lidar software, or do they mearly require that the lidar return a range value in agreement with other determinations while approaching the ISS?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 08/29/2012 12:00 am
I don't care about your goalpost moving. The claim was that no new software had been added to Dragon. It has, those making the claim were wrong. The end.

Well then whomever made that claim doesn't understand much about software development. Those of use who do work in the software field (I do) certainly know that software is always a moving target - it continually gets improved and tweaked.

So I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal out of it. The Shuttle software continued to improve over the life of the program. MSL has already gotten at least two major software upgrades, and will get several more - and that is just one mission.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten. We do know that some has been changed. Knowing a little about the SpaceX philosophy, it's probably a lot more than they're saying publicly and NASA probably hasn't reviewed any of it yet.

 ::) Really? Look who's making unfounded claims now. Got a source?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/29/2012 12:03 am
You seem to be spoiling for a fight.

Exactly the opposite. I'm shutting down the "but.. but.. but.." arguing the inevitably follows from telling someone they were wrong.

In this case, I don't even remember who it was that said SpX-1 had no software changes, but at least three people came to the argument's defense with watered down versions.

Edit: it was...

In all of their previous flights they've done something new, and have needed new software.

Now they are not doing anything they did not do during COTS2+. So no need for new software.

Can we all just agree that this was simply wrong?


Quote
Does NASA get approval rights to the lidar software, or do they mearly require that the lidar return a range value in agreement with other determinations while approaching the ISS?

NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 08/29/2012 01:00 am
You seem to be spoiling for a fight.

Exactly the opposite. I'm shutting down the "but.. but.. but.." arguing the inevitably follows from telling someone they were wrong.

In this case, I don't even remember who it was that said SpX-1 had no software changes, but at least three people came to the argument's defense with watered down versions.

Edit: it was...

In all of their previous flights they've done something new, and have needed new software.

Now they are not doing anything they did not do during COTS2+. So no need for new software.

Can we all just agree that this was simply wrong?


Quote
Does NASA get approval rights to the lidar software, or do they mearly require that the lidar return a range value in agreement with other determinations while approaching the ISS?

NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.


Really?!!  NASA has qualified SpaceX to commence their CRS contract.  Why would they now require oversight on a commercial company's software? 
Can't see it happening.  They would have had to have this written into the CRS and since it's a cargo supply contract, it's reasonable to expect that it would only deal with that.
Software would be part of a development contract i.e. COTS, which is now complete.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 08/29/2012 01:04 am
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/29/2012 01:05 am
NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.

Really?!!  NASA has qualified SpaceX to commence their CRS contract.  Why would they now require oversight on a commercial company's software? 
Can't see it happening.  They would have had to have this written into the CRS and since it's a cargo supply contract, it's reasonable to expect that it would only deal with that.
Software would be part of a development contract i.e. COTS, which is now complete.

I didn't say anything controversial.. NASA reviews the software of all visiting vehicles.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 08/29/2012 07:34 am
They're flying a completely different profile to the ISS and they completely rewrote the LIDAR software after the hiccup on the COTS2+ flight which required them to hack the FOV so the approach could continue.

We have no idea how much code SpaceX have rewritten.

So... which is it and who's moving the goalposts?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 08/29/2012 11:33 am
Omg he said nothing was new but actually only way way way less than before is new! Goalposts!!

QG, the general idea that this should be the beginning of routine operations holds, as does the general impression that you're spoiling for a fight. This is silly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/29/2012 12:00 pm
How's this for spoiling for a fight: wait and see.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/29/2012 12:12 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 08/29/2012 12:18 pm
How's this for spoiling for a fight: wait and see.

It's a deal. =)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 08/29/2012 06:18 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.


New software is worthy of a bump in the major version number. Show me a software shop where every patch requires a new version number. Not gonna happen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: majormajor42 on 08/29/2012 07:10 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752

Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

I not sure if this quote also implies that the same sort of (update/revision... that which is being debated here) will be required every time a new CRS mission is on the way up after some physical exterior change has occurred on ISS. Does it?

Does/will NASA provide them (and ORB) with an accurate up to date model as changes take place? I would hope so.

How has this "updating" occurred on other VV's or are their Proximity Ops so different that a very accurate up-to-date model of the ISS is not necessary?





Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 08/29/2012 07:27 pm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/coming-in-october-spacex-dragon-gets-down-to-work-11953752
Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station. "There was a reflector on the Japanese model that was extremely bright and it was showing up to a far greater degree than we expected," Musk says. SpaceX solved the problem on the fly by uploading some new code to narrow the field of view, similar to putting blinders on a horse so it doesn’t get distracted. That temporary fix has morphed into a permanent reprogramming. "We’ve improved the software on the LIDAR, on the image-recognition software, so if it encounters this again it would not have a problem," Musk says.

I not sure if this quote also implies that the same sort of (update/revision... that which is being debated here) will be required every time a new CRS mission is on the way up after some physical exterior change has occurred on ISS. Does it?

Does/will NASA provide them (and ORB) with an accurate up to date model as changes take place? I would hope so.

How has this "updating" occurred on other VV's or are their Proximity Ops so different that a very accurate up-to-date model of the ISS is not necessary?

This is misleading, at best.  The retros on the JEM were part of the ISS model for a long time before the COTS-2+ flight.  The models are up to date.  If you watch the most recent SNC CGI video of DreamChaser flying to the station, you can see four tiny objects on the edge of the black and white docking target as DreamChaser departs.  These are of no consequence to DC, but are part of the model, even though they were iinstalled long after the JEM was launched.  There is no need to update the model, just use the current version.

The STS-127 DragonEye images showed that retro returns were going to be problematic.  I assumed that the STS-133 reflight was to test fixes, but they never released images from that approach.  How they overlooked this is a mystery.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: majormajor42 on 08/29/2012 07:41 pm
So, this sentence in the article
Quote
During that first approach in May, the Dragon was working from a model of the ISS that wasn’t totally accurate, as pieces have been added to and subtracted from the real-life station.

...was it said by Elon? It is not in quotes. Are they Elon's words or Joe Pappalardo's, the author?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/29/2012 08:44 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.


You aren't a programmer. No coder I know would call a patch over a hotfix 'new software'. Elon Musk is a programmer from the start. He likely would be of the same mindset as other programmers on this issue too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/29/2012 08:54 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.


You aren't a programmer. No coder I know would call a patch over a hotfix 'new software'. Elon Musk is a programmer from the start. He likely would be of the same mindset as other programmers on this issue too.

Regression testing performed at 3 a.m. on a Sunday morning when the modified program will be doing a production run at 3:15 a.m. is very limited.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 08/30/2012 01:00 am
NASA will want to review all the software changes, every flight, thus the strong desire to claim that there hadn't been any.

Really?!!  NASA has qualified SpaceX to commence their CRS contract.  Why would they now require oversight on a commercial company's software? 
Can't see it happening.  They would have had to have this written into the CRS and since it's a cargo supply contract, it's reasonable to expect that it would only deal with that.
Software would be part of a development contract i.e. COTS, which is now complete.

I didn't say anything controversial.. NASA reviews the software of all visiting vehicles.


Do they?  Well in development, test, etc, but in under normal operations?  Source please?  I presume this also applies to HTV ATV Soyuz?  Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere before. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/30/2012 01:02 am
Do they?  Well in development, test, etc, but in under normal operations?  Source please?  I presume this also applies to HTV ATV Soyuz?  Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere before. 

Yes. I heard it at the press conference during COTS2+, but I'm sure someone can provide you with a link to the visiting vehicle requirements.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 08/30/2012 02:47 am
Do they?  Well in development, test, etc, but in under normal operations?  Source please?  I presume this also applies to HTV ATV Soyuz?  Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere before. 

Yes. I heard it at the press conference during COTS2+, but I'm sure someone can provide you with a link to the visiting vehicle requirements.


Yep appreciate that.  Be very surprised if it includes NASA oversight on any existing vehicle with agreements (contracts) in place.  Mind you, guess the term 'oversight' could be construed in both general or very specific terms.  I'd interpret it in very general terms, ie. tests must have been done, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 08/30/2012 03:12 am
Yep appreciate that.  Be very surprised if it includes NASA oversight on any existing vehicle with agreements (contracts) in place.  Mind you, guess the term 'oversight' could be construed in both general or very specific terms.  I'd interpret it in very general terms, ie. tests must have been done, etc.

It seems you're very surprised over everything.

Yes, NASA reviews the code in the Soyuz, and the Progress, and the ATV and the HTV. It's a requirement of bringing your vehicle into the exclusion zone of the ISS. Yes, that includes every software change, otherwise what would be the point?

This is not news.


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 08/30/2012 12:54 pm
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 08/30/2012 02:04 pm
I've been in software development my entire career and new software generally doesn't mean modified, upgraded software with tested fixes. It generally means rewritten software. So, to me, the original statement that no new software is required is a reasonable statement. Somebody is itching for an argument where no ground for such exists.

Sorry, but every new line of code IS NEW SW. Yes, that new Sw module gets tested again, just like the old code that was replaced. There may be no new functionality, but you still need regression testing.


You aren't a programmer. No coder I know would call a patch over a hotfix 'new software'. Elon Musk is a programmer from the start. He likely would be of the same mindset as other programmers on this issue too.

I'm not ?? Does that mean I can go home now ?? I'm so confused about what I've been doing the last 35 years of my life. (Yes, I've been doing software development MUCH LONGER than Lord Elon Musk).

There may be different review and testing processes for source code changes less than 5 or 6 lines, versus a replacement of an entire module. Either way, reviews and testing are going to be required if your organization has any type of structured development process in place.


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Idiomatic on 08/30/2012 06:48 pm
I never said they wouldn't review and test the patch. I only was speaking of pedantics. A complete module rewrite could probably be called new software, an actual new module would almost certainly be called new software, a patch, even hundreds or thousands of lines ... probably not. Anyways, I'm done, I wasn't debating you so much as Quantum's fight picking.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: friendly3 on 08/30/2012 07:26 pm
I'm so confused about what I've been doing the last 35 years of my life. (Yes, I've been doing software development MUCH LONGER than Lord Elon Musk).

Lord Elon Musk Vader has been doing rocket development MUCH LONGER than you !
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 09/04/2012 02:39 am
Yep appreciate that.  Be very surprised if it includes NASA oversight on any existing vehicle with agreements (contracts) in place.  Mind you, guess the term 'oversight' could be construed in both general or very specific terms.  I'd interpret it in very general terms, ie. tests must have been done, etc.

It seems you're very surprised over everything.

Yes, NASA reviews the code in the Soyuz, and the Progress, and the ATV and the HTV. It's a requirement of bringing your vehicle into the exclusion zone of the ISS. Yes, that includes every software change, otherwise what would be the point?

This is not news.


Ok so every vehicle?  A full review of all onboard software code?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2012 03:01 am
Ok so every vehicle?  A full review of all onboard software code?

Anything that changed.. that's why they have strict change control.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 09/04/2012 03:19 am
Ok so every vehicle?  A full review of all onboard software code?

Anything that changed.. that's why they have strict change control.


I understand change control.  So what we've got to is that NASA has not only oversight but the right to fully review any software changes that are made.  No changes, no review.  Btw, I'd consider right to fully review somewhat further along than simply oversight but it's a small point.
And no need for the narky, some may interpret as rude response.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2012 03:51 am
I understand change control.  So what we've got to is that NASA has not only oversight but the right to fully review any software changes that are made.  No changes, no review.  Btw, I'd consider right to fully review somewhat further along than simply oversight but it's a small point.

And no need for the narky, some may interpret as rude response.

Sorry, I'm baffled as to why we're still having this discussion.

This has nothing to do with "oversight". It's a requirement of the ISS visiting vehicles standards. No-one is allowed into the exclusion zone without meeting those standards.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 09/04/2012 05:55 am
I understand change control.  So what we've got to is that NASA has not only oversight but the right to fully review any software changes that are made.  No changes, no review.  Btw, I'd consider right to fully review somewhat further along than simply oversight but it's a small point.

And no need for the narky, some may interpret as rude response.

Sorry, I'm baffled as to why we're still having this discussion.

This has nothing to do with "oversight". It's a requirement of the ISS visiting vehicles standards. No-one is allowed into the exclusion zone without meeting those standards.


Well think it started out as NASA 'oversight' but has now turned into 'standards'.  Oh well.  As you say, why bother. 
Looking forward to the first CRS flight but lost my bet on 3 flights this year.  Still 2's better than none.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2012 06:24 am
Well think it started out as NASA 'oversight' but has now turned into 'standards'. 

Huh? The visiting vehicle standards were written before the commercial cargo program was even imagined. Who do you imagine they were overseeing?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/04/2012 07:10 pm
Well think it started out as NASA 'oversight' but has now turned into 'standards'. 

Huh? The visiting vehicle standards were written before the commercial cargo program was even imagined. Who do you imagine they were overseeing?



Since the F9 software for ascent is run on the computers of the F9 US and the Dragon is not a active participant, any changes of the F9 software would not be reviewed by NASA due to the VV "standards".

Only the spacecraft software must be shown as not having a safety issue. Not all tests would be done for a given software change on the Dragon either. Most software changes would only involve a small subset of the complete test set.

BTW this is from my experience being the Chairman of the AF Software Review Board for the Atlas E/F guidance software.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/04/2012 09:30 pm
Since the F9 software for ascent is run on the computers of the F9 US and the Dragon is not a active participant, any changes of the F9 software would not be reviewed by NASA due to the VV "standards".

We were talking about the software on the Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 09/06/2012 03:54 am
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)

Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)

Out of curiosity QuantumG, have you ever actually developed software yourself?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/06/2012 04:00 am
Out of curiosity QuantumG, have you ever actually developed software yourself?

Yes, do it for a living.

I've also gone through "code review" for a government agency.

I know their pain first hand.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 09/06/2012 12:46 pm
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)

Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)
Is that pin [head] round in the shape of a disc or round in the shape of a ball? :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 09/06/2012 04:21 pm
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)

Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)
Is that pin [head] round in the shape of a disc or round in the shape of a ball? :D

Ooh - too subtle there!! Had to read it a couple of times (while composing my own response) before I got it.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sojourner on 09/06/2012 05:59 pm

New software is worthy of a bump in the major version number. Show me a software shop where every patch requires a new version number. Not gonna happen.

Sorry about dredging this up a week later, but the irony of reading this on FireFox 15 was just too good to pass up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/06/2012 08:00 pm
The software versioning system used is arbitrary, which is that the meaning behind what the difference in a version identification value means is also arbitrary and is defined by the software developer team. Normally for a normal systems development on a cost plus NASA contract software is a deliverable with a very large set of requirements associated with it as to how it is written including the versioning system to be used. But SpaceX software is not a deliverable and does not have NASA specific requirements other than indirect requirements based on the VV requirements for ISS. There are also some detailed interface specifications that control SpaceX software design between the ISS and SpaceX flight hardware as well as interface specifications for between SpaceX ground control and NASA systems it must interface with. Adopting the NASA versioning control system may make it easier to deal with NASA but it is not a requirement.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 09/06/2012 08:46 pm
The software versioning system used is arbitrary, which is that the meaning behind what the difference in a version identification value means is also arbitrary and is defined by the software developer team. Normally for a normal systems development on a cost plus NASA contract software is a deliverable with a very large set of requirements associated with it as to how it is written including the versioning system to be used. But SpaceX software is not a deliverable and does not have NASA specific requirements other than indirect requirements based on the VV requirements for ISS. There are also some detailed interface specifications that control SpaceX software design between the ISS and SpaceX flight hardware as well as interface specifications for between SpaceX ground control and NASA systems it must interface with. Adopting the NASA versioning control system may make it easier to deal with NASA but it is not a requirement.
You can also have a version for your interface, and you can coordinate that with the NASA CVS. At the same time, I think, that the next software uptdate for the ISS was going to make a common packet to communicate with VV given the amount that they have to support (Soyuz/Progress/ATV/HTV/Dragon/Cygnus/Commercial Crew).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/08/2012 06:17 am
Approximately one month until launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mikes on 09/08/2012 07:00 am
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)
Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)

You're an order of magnitude out - there are 100 mm2 in a cm2.
If it's a circular pinhead with diameter 1mm, pi*r2 = 0.78mm2
At 32GB/cm2 that's 257MB (minus overhead).

Are we off topic yet? :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/08/2012 02:54 pm
How much software can dance on the head of a pin? ;)
Well, say a typical NAND flash chip is about 1 cm2 and has a capacity of 32 GB. The head of a pin is about 1 mm2, so that's about 32 MB. Allowing for file system overhead and whatnot, that's about 30 MB of software on the head of a pin. ;)

You're an order of magnitude out - there are 100 mm2 in a cm2.
If it's a circular pinhead with diameter 1mm, pi*r2 = 0.78mm2
At 32GB/cm2 that's 257MB (minus overhead).

Are we off topic yet? :)

This is what you get if you ask a bunch of engineers a rhetorical question.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Salo on 09/20/2012 08:19 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html
Quote
Date: October 7
Time: 8:34 p.m.
Mission: SpaceX-1 Commercial Resupply Services flight
0034UTC October 8
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/20/2012 11:37 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/21/2012 01:15 am
Why is the payload only 1000 pounds?

Does the station not need any more supplies?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/21/2012 01:53 am
Why is the payload only 1000 pounds?

Does the station not need any more supplies?

I am curious about that myself.. Is this Dragon up-mass limit on F9 v1.0 or is this cargo volume limited?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 09/21/2012 02:48 am
Jim talked about Falcon 9 version 1.0 underperforming before. Perhaps this is what he meant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 09/21/2012 03:01 am
Jim talked about Falcon 9 version 1.0 under performing before. Perhaps this is what he meant.

It is true that 1.0 is underperfoming and that is why they are upgrading to 1.1.

However, I doubt that is the reason for 1,000 pounds of cargo this time.  Last time they had about 1300-1400 pounds of cargo with less fuel to work with.  This time SpaceX does not need need to perform the COTS2 objectives, they've already done that.  This time they are pretty much going to just approach and berth normally.  For that reason, I don't think underperformance is the issue here.  It's probably just that NASA doesn't need as much cargo as Dragon can actually take.

But then again, who is to care.  SpaceX is driving the UPS truck.  They aren't concerned with what's in it, just about getting the delivery safely there.  Though, I am also curious what cargo will be on this flight.  Hopefully we'll have the full cargo manifest soon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 09/21/2012 05:07 am
... It's probably just that NASA doesn't need as much cargo as Dragon can actually take.

But then again, who is to care.  SpaceX is driving the UPS truck.  They aren't concerned with what's in it, just about getting the delivery safely there.  Though, I am also curious what cargo will be on this flight.  Hopefully we'll have the full cargo manifest soon.
I'm not saying you're wrong about the requirements of the ISS being low at present, but it's kind of surprising that NASA are low-balling this one and then going ahead with another SpaceX supply run in December or January. As well as whatever they pack onto the Orbital demonstration run, if that happens in the same period.

Of course, it's entirely possible that 1000 pounds of the right sort of material has high value and NASA are perfectly happy to get that much into the station, with lower-value stuff waiting until (say) there's more space/personnel up there.

By comparison, the downmass capability of Dragon would seem to me to be immensely valuable. Perhaps that's the focus.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 09/21/2012 05:28 am
By comparison, the downmass capability of Dragon would seem to me to be immensely valuable.

It is.  No other existing vehicle has significant downmass capability.  Remember that Progress, ATV, HTV, and Cygnus all burn up on re-entry. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/21/2012 09:47 am
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?

IIRC, the first trunk payload is going to be on SpX-3 next year.

CORRECTION:
I've just seen the article on the front page.  The first trunk cargo will be SpX-2 which could be as early as the end of this year, although I understand that there are some NASA documents that are saying mid-January 2013.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 09/21/2012 10:06 am
Why is the payload only 1000 pounds?

Does the station not need any more supplies?
Volume limited?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dasmoth on 09/21/2012 10:10 am
Is there still supposed to be some late-load cargo on SpX-1?

Could the 1000lbs be a baseline figure chosen to make sure there is plenty of space/mass margin for late-loaded stuff?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2012 10:12 am
Is there still supposed to be some late-load cargo on SpX-1?

Could the 1000lbs be a baseline figure chosen to make sure there is plenty of space/mass margin for late-loaded stuff?

it is to be all inclusive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/21/2012 11:24 am
FWIW, I think that this is about performance margins.  Simply put, NASA don't want to push Falcon-9 v1.0 too hard. This isn't test flight mode anymore, it's an operational mission so they want to have a payload level that puts Dragon-CRS1 straight down the middle of its performance envelope as demonstrated by the C2+ flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 09/21/2012 12:27 pm
I wonder if they'll put those strawberries in this time. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: billh on 09/21/2012 01:28 pm
By comparison, the downmass capability of Dragon would seem to me to be immensely valuable.

It is.  No other existing vehicle has significant downmass capability.  Remember that Progress, ATV, HTV, and Cygnus all burn up on re-entry. 

As indicated by the fact that the downmass is larger than the upmass for this mission: 1238 lbs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/21/2012 07:29 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/21/2012 07:35 pm
Why is the payload only 1000 pounds?

Does the station not need any more supplies?
Volume limited?
It doesn't look like all the volume has been utilized yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/21/2012 08:03 pm
It doesn't look like all the volume has been utilized yet.

That space is there so Elon can pop out of the center of a Cheese Wheel, eer ... Cake,  or something!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 09/21/2012 09:26 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

wasn't an orbitcom Sat going in the trunk on this mission?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29476.msg956623#msg956623

SpX-1 Updates:
- Dragon fuelling is scheduled for next week.
- Secondarily payloads, Orbcomm satellite fuelling is scheduled tomorrow.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 09/21/2012 09:34 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

wasn't an orbitcom Sat going in the trunk on this mission?


Yes, I was going to post: "Oh yeah, I forgot about Orbcomm"...but you beat me to it.  Not much chance of a (other than cubesats) secondary payload going up with any significant unpressurized cargo.

Was it decided if it was one or two Orbcomm sats?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/21/2012 09:48 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

wasn't an orbitcom Sat going in the trunk on this mission?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29476.msg956623#msg956623

SpX-1 Updates:
- Dragon fuelling is scheduled for next week.
- Secondarily payloads, Orbcomm satellite fuelling is scheduled tomorrow.
Nope, the Orbcomm sat is on the second stage, not in the trunk.

Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

wasn't an orbitcom Sat going in the trunk on this mission?


Yes, I was going to post: "Oh yeah, I forgot about Orbcomm"...but you beat me to it.  Not much chance of a (other than cubesats) secondary payload going up with any significant unpressurized cargo.

Was it decided if it was one or two Orbcomm sats?
It's a single satellite. See slide 44 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 09/21/2012 10:33 pm
Pardon my laziness, but do we know if there is to be any unpressurized/external cargo on this mission, or not until CRS-2?
Planned external Cargo as of July 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672214main_1-Hartman_July12_NAC_Final_508.pdf)
CRS SpX-1 (2012-10-07): None
CRS SpX-2 (2012-12-17): Two HRSGFs
CRS SpX-3 (2013-7-20): High Definition Earth Viewing (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110019797_2011017932.pdf) (HDEV), Optical PAyload for Lasercomm Science (http://phaeton.jpl.nasa.gov/external/projects/optical.cfm) (OPALS) and Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend (https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/Greg_Mungas.pdf) (NOFBX).
CRS SpX-4 (2013-10-9): None

Also if I remember correctly two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) are scheduled to be launched independently to the ISS in Dragon's trunk during the 2014 to 2016 timeframe.

This is not SpX-1 related but I believe SAGE-III from NASA Langley and Ball Aerospace, (http://sage.nasa.gov/) with its Hexapod mount and other supporting hardware, is supposed to ride to the ISS in August 2014 on SpX-6 or SpX-7, give or take a few flights.

edit: fixed a typo, added hyperlink
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/22/2012 02:09 am
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html
Quote
Date: October 7
Time: 8:34 p.m.
Mission: SpaceX-1 Commercial Resupply Services flight
0034UTC October 8

Can anyone please look at the sun angles for that time, want to see if the upperstage burn will be visible for Virginia this time like last.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 09/22/2012 09:35 am
Can anyone please look at the sun angles for that time, want to see if the upperstage burn will be visible for Virginia this time like last.

No joy on that. I worked out that Earth's shadow will extend to more than 500 km altitude at CCAFS at the T-0 of 0034 UTC October 8. Similar situation will be for northern latitudes as well.

Drat. A regular night launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/22/2012 01:06 pm
Hope the folks in FL like their new sound & light show every few months from now on.  ;D

Anyone got a estimate of the decibel level of 9 Merlin 1-D and how far away can the rumble be heard? I am guessing it's more intense than the current Falcon 9 V1.0 LV.

Of course, there will be a more spectacular show when the FH begin East Coast ops.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/22/2012 03:57 pm
Hope the folks in FL like their new sound & light show every few months from now on.  ;D

I presume that the launch windows for ISS rendezvous move steadily throughout the year.  How long will it be before they are launching CRS missions in the day-time again?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/22/2012 10:16 pm
FWIW, I think that this is about performance margins.  Simply put, NASA don't want to push Falcon-9 v1.0 too hard. This isn't test flight mode anymore, it's an operational mission so they want to have a payload level that puts Dragon-CRS1 straight down the middle of its performance envelope as demonstrated by the C2+ flight.

Possibly, but it still seems odd that the payload will be less than 1/3 of the contracted rate per flight (20k kg / 12). They surely don't need that much margin.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DaveH62 on 09/23/2012 12:19 am
FWIW, I think that this is about performance margins.  Simply put, NASA don't want to push Falcon-9 v1.0 too hard. This isn't test flight mode anymore, it's an operational mission so they want to have a payload level that puts Dragon-CRS1 straight down the middle of its performance envelope as demonstrated by the C2+ flight.

Possibly, but it still seems odd that the payload will be less than 1/3 of the contracted rate per flight (20k kg / 12). They surely don't need that much margin.
It reads like a lot of the load is science racks. Does that further mass limit the payload?
Also, won't trunk loads, on future flights be heavier systems/hardware type payloads?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: grythumn on 09/23/2012 12:30 am
Possibly, but it still seems odd that the payload will be less than 1/3 of the contracted rate per flight (20k kg / 12). They surely don't need that much margin.

I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module. It's hard to find recent numbers, but figure about 4.2k kg dry mass for the dragon, 454 kg for the payload, up to 1200 kg of fuel for the dragon (who knows how full it needs to be), 124 kg + payload adapter + any booster per orbcomm bird. That's about 5.5-6k kg there; still a lot of margin, but not 2/3rds.

-R C
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 09/23/2012 03:45 am
It reads like a lot of the load is science racks. Does that further mass limit the payload?


Not racks but contents of racks, which is not mass limiting
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 09/23/2012 03:46 am

I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module.

not with dragon
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: subzero788 on 09/23/2012 06:47 am


I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module. It's hard to find recent numbers, but figure about 4.2k kg dry mass for the dragon, 454 kg for the payload, up to 1200 kg of fuel for the dragon (who knows how full it needs to be), 124 kg + payload adapter + any booster per orbcomm bird. That's about 5.5-6k kg there; still a lot of margin, but not 2/3rds.

-R C

Falcon 9 1.0 was supposed to be about 10mt to LEO, but that was for around ~200km, 28.5 inclination, vs 400 km, 56.1 inclination of the ISS.
Besides, I don't believe Falcon 9 achieved that predicted performance.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: grythumn on 09/23/2012 01:53 pm

I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module. It's hard to find recent numbers, but figure about 4.2k kg dry mass for the dragon, 454 kg for the payload, up to 1200 kg of fuel for the dragon (who knows how full it needs to be), 124 kg + payload adapter + any booster per orbcomm bird. That's about 5.5-6k kg there; still a lot of margin, but not 2/3rds.

-R C

Falcon 9 1.0 was supposed to be about 10mt to LEO, but that was for around ~200km, 28.5 inclination, vs 400 km, 56.1 inclination of the ISS.
Besides, I don't believe Falcon 9 achieved that predicted performance.

Yeah, I was looking for that NASA pdf with better performance numbers and graphs and I couldn't find it, so I ended up trying to dig up what I could online. Should've known better.

-Bob
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: grythumn on 09/23/2012 02:08 pm

I seem to recall that Falcon 9 1.0 only gets about 10k kg to LEO, including the dragon module.

not with dragon

The 10mt (or whatever the actual performance of the falcon 9 1.0 to ISS orbit; I don't have better numbers but I know that is too high) payload has to include the dragon... it doesn't ride up for free. 4mt or so for the dragon itself, another mt or so for fuel, leaving at most 5mt for cargo, likely significantly less. nyet?

-R C
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 09/23/2012 02:26 pm
Falcon 9 1.0 was supposed to be about 10mt to LEO

The F9 User Guide published January 2009 states that 10 tonnes was the Block 2 target so it's clear that 1.0 was known to have lower performance than that long before it actually flew. Whether 1.0 subsequently fell short of its own performance goals and by how much, I have no idea, but it's more complicated than saying that 1.0 was supposed to be 10 mt to LEO. Perhaps originally when the vehicle was first unveiled that was the case.

FWIW, the NASA ELV page shows about 9 tonnes to LEO for v1.0. Whether that itself is up to date, I don't know since that would have been based on two flights only, one with roll issues and another with a truncated MVac nozzle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Guy on 09/23/2012 06:29 pm

I presume that the launch windows for ISS rendezvous move steadily throughout the year.  How long will it be before they are launching CRS missions in the day-time again?

Launch time, same as shuttle, gets 23-25 minutes earlier each day. About 8:34pm Oct 7, 8:12pm Oct 8, 7:45pm Oct 9, etc. Every 60 days approximately it returns back to the same time again.

Sunset is right around 7:00pm at that time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Salo on 09/24/2012 05:39 am
http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/elvMap/staticPages/launch_vehicle_info1.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: grythumn on 09/24/2012 02:35 pm
http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/elvMap/staticPages/launch_vehicle_info1.html

That was what I was remembering and couldn't find. Thank you! So about 8.1mt gross payload to ISS orbit for F9 1.0, and about 15mt gross for F9 1.1 for the same.

-R C
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Salo on 09/24/2012 06:02 pm
about 15mt gross for F9 1.1 for the same.

Mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO):    13,150 kg (29,000 lb)
Inclination:    28.5 degree

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/24/2012 07:48 pm
about 15mt gross for F9 1.1 for the same.

Mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO):    13,150 kg (29,000 lb)
Inclination:    28.5 degree

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
Isn't the same as other figures that are used, such as what NASA uses for mission-planning (NLS II). Ironically, the SpaceX.com figures are /lower/ than the ones NASA uses for Falcon 9 v1.1. Why that is exactly is up for debate, but I tend to give more credence to NASA's numbers (which are up for more scrutiny).

It's possible, for instance, that SpaceX is planning on having small secondaries on /every single non-NASA flight/ unless a premium (i.e. above the posted cost) is charged. This may help them hit their rather tight per-launch cost figures.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: vigleik on 09/24/2012 11:43 pm
Isn't the same as other figures that are used, such as what NASA uses for mission-planning (NLS II). Ironically, the SpaceX.com figures are /lower/ than the ones NASA uses for Falcon 9 v1.1. Why that is exactly is up for debate, but I tend to give more credence to NASA's numbers (which are up for more scrutiny).

Engine out capability? That would also explain the low SpX-1 payload; starting from Nasa's 8.6t number and subtracting an appropriate amount for engine out only leaves about that much after accounting for the dragon dry mass and fuel.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: stone on 09/28/2012 07:51 am
The very low cargo mass (500kg) which is roughly 15% of what is possible makes me wonder. They have to transport avg. 1700kg to get 20000kg to the station in 12 flights. Is it possible that the fueled capsule + 500kg is the max mass they get to LEO? This would mean that only V.1.1 will get them to the point were Dragon makes sense. I do not belief the numbers for LEO of the Falcon9 V1.0 published, sorry.   
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 09/28/2012 08:02 am
Is it possible that the fueled capsule + 500kg is the max mass they get to LEO?

I wonder about actual margins as well, but consider that they're flying an Orbcomm satellite on this flight as well. AFAIK that requires a 2nd stage restart to about a 700 km apogee. That's bound to account for a couple of hundred kg (WAG) of mass reallocated from Dragon payload to F9 propellant load.

I do not belief the numbers for LEO of the Falcon9 V1.0 published, sorry.

And you would believe anything anyone says over here if it's not what you're expecting to hear? Why ask these questions in the first place, then?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: stone on 09/28/2012 08:22 am
I do not believe the numbers for LEO of the Falcon9 V1.0 published, sorry.

And you would believe anything anyone says over here if it's not what you're expecting to hear? Why ask these questions in the first place, then?
[/quote]

I would believe when somebody points out that there is a second payload,  a design change, the necessity to transport helium balloons  for a birthday party, the NASA requirement that they reach orbit with only 7 Merlins running .....

But with the published numbers for LEO and the payload one number is wrong and this is not the payload number.

So I miss a good explanation.

The 700km for the secondary payload is partly what I searched for.




Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/28/2012 09:23 am
Stone does make a good point.  Has anyone calculated what the ORBCOMM payload and its orbital insertion requirements will be cutting off of Dragon's theoretical maximum payload to ISS? That might explain the relatively low NASA payload
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: subzero788 on 09/28/2012 10:29 am
Another reason could simply be that the cargo going up on this flight has a large volume to weight ratio
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 09/28/2012 10:45 am
... That might explain the relatively low NASA payload


It reads like a lot of the load is science racks. Does that further mass limit the payload?

Not racks but contents of racks, which is not mass limiting

I take Jim's comment to mean that Dragon is volume-limited for this cargo. AIUI, Dragon needs a very dense cargo to carry it's max pressurised payload.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: stone on 09/28/2012 11:07 am
If they need dense cargo how do they meet the 20000kg in 12 flights requirement?

The point is where is the extra lift capability of V1.1 going? If it is not needed for CRS missions why should they use it?

So I do not believe that the V1.0 has the capability to lift a fully loaded Dragon. This is why the V1.1 has to be developed.

Everything will clear up when the payload of the first CRS  with V1.1 is announced.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 09/28/2012 01:26 pm
If they need dense cargo how do they meet the 20000kg in 12 flights requirement?

Unpressurised cargo in the trunk?



The point is where is the extra lift capability of V1.1 going? If it is not needed for CRS missions why should they use it?

So I do not believe that the V1.0 has the capability to lift a fully loaded Dragon. This is why the V1.1 has to be developed.

NASA are paying for this flight. The Orbcomm sat wouldn't be on there as a secondary if they were limited by the F9, or NASA could get in more payload.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 09/28/2012 01:38 pm
AFAIK, the ISS is not short of supplies. I do not regard this Dragon flight as a critical supply run, just a top-up, but I can see two important things NASA might be trying to achieve with this flight:
1. Establish their own supply chain independent of other countries, whether there is an urgent need or not
2. Get downmass capacity. SpX-1 will be carrying MORE downmass than it did upmass.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 09/28/2012 01:48 pm
AFAIK, the ISS is not short of supplies. I do not regard this Dragon flight as a critical supply run,

It is for experiments
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 09/28/2012 11:42 pm
AFAIK, the ISS is not short of supplies. I do not regard this Dragon flight as a critical supply run,

It is for experiments

Did you mean:-

1) Agree ISS is not short of supplies - this flight is just for experiments;
or
2) It is critical for experiments?

Thanks, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jabe on 09/29/2012 07:26 pm
ok..a possibly off topic question...When the Dragon arrived at ISS, a Spacex or Dragon logo was nonexistent...any thoughts if it will have logo's this time around?
 
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 09/29/2012 10:42 pm
Why they did static fire test without Dragon on top?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/29/2012 10:50 pm
Why they did static fire test without Dragon on top?

My thoughts exactly.. it's the final week and the Dragon still isn't integrated? That's odd.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jabe on 09/29/2012 11:03 pm
My thoughts exactly.. it's the final week and the Dragon still isn't integrated? That's odd.

my WAG..still packing dragon, so it needs to stay in vertical position?  :-\
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 09/29/2012 11:16 pm
My thoughts exactly.. it's the final week and the Dragon still isn't integrated? That's odd.

my WAG..still packing dragon, so it needs to stay in vertical position?  :-\
jb

Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.  If Murphy decides to rapidly deconstruct F9 during the static fire, this at least saves SpaceX the expense of scraping bits of Dragon off of the pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/29/2012 11:18 pm
Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.

It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Silmfeanor on 09/29/2012 11:24 pm
Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.

It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.


it's weird and unexpected, I'll give you that. But something is wrong? If it was serious, wouldn't we have heard something about a launch slip by now instead of range-approved dates in conjunction with ISS readiness and all?

Too little information to start talking about something being wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 09/29/2012 11:25 pm
It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.

Bold mine. Why is that a fact? The previous flight had at least one WDR without Dragon. In fact, having WDR so early in the Dragon processing flow almost guarantees the spacecraft won't be ready to be mated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 09/29/2012 11:26 pm
Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.

It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.

Where do you get that from? It's not like Soyuz where it's been the same over and over for decades. It's still early enough in the game for things to change occasionally. Maybe something is just different.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 09/29/2012 11:28 pm
Or maybe they just decided that Dragon is an expensive piece of hardware that provides only marginal utility as a part of these tests.

It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.



I am not going to even pretend to dispute that except to point out that its speculation to infer that something is "wrong" when someone changes their plan.  All things being equal I'd agree that something is fishy.

However, in the context of exploring "not wrong, just different" would SpaceX be able to speed up processing time by conducting WDR's and static fire's on just the launcher while processing the payload in parallel and only performing final integration as a last step?

Going forward they need to up their flight rate, which might mean we will see changes to streamline procedures.

Edit: And by "fishy" I mean "worthy of notice"
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 09/29/2012 11:45 pm
ok..a possibly off topic question...When the Dragon arrived at ISS, a Spacex or Dragon logo was nonexistent...any thoughts if it will have logo's this time around?
 
jb
I have no idea but I'm hoping to see an American flag.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 09/29/2012 11:46 pm
However, in the context of exploring "not wrong, just different" would SpaceX be able to speed up processing time by conducting WDR's and static fire's on just the launcher while processing the payload in parallel and only performing final integration as a last step?

Going forward they need to up their flight rate, which might mean we will see changes to streamline procedures.

Yes, that seems reasonable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/30/2012 01:26 am
Have been really busy (understatement) with work lately but I am really looking forward to the mission. Hoping everything goes as well as it did for COTS 2/3.


Glad that things have been relatively successful with the idea of commercial spaceflight (thus far) and I hope they continue to be. The more I look at these companies, and their vehicles the more I think this really is the best way forward, especially in lieu of the obvious political issues with something like SLS.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mike_1179 on 09/30/2012 02:01 am


It's a nice theory, but the fact is that Dragon is supposed to have been on the stack for both the WDR and the static fire... something is wrong.



The spacecraft is not on top for WDR of Delta or Atlas vehicles.  They don't do static fires, so how do you know it's SOP for the payload to be on top for this test? 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 09/30/2012 06:30 am
Interesting point. For COTS-2+, the markings were on the solar farings and the nose cap, so gone by docking. I could see SpaceX putting some markings on the trunk proper given how good the images were last time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/COTS_2_Falcon9Dragon_-_May_18.jpg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: paycom on 09/30/2012 09:57 am
According to the F9 users's guide, payload mate to launch vehicle is supposed to take place 8 to 9 days prior to launch. So SpaceX is not much behind schedule if the Dragon integration takes place today or tomorrow.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 09/30/2012 11:50 pm
Specifically regarding this flight, has there been any mention of an abort mode in which the Dragon would separate and save the cargo should the Falcon flight be terminated early?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 10/01/2012 12:08 am
Specifically regarding this flight, has there been any mention of an abort mode in which the Dragon would separate and save the cargo should the Falcon flight be terminated early?
AFAIK there is nothing like LAS in unmanned missions. Main reason is that most of cargo/satellites would not survive abort g loads. Humans are surprisingly resilent creatures.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/01/2012 12:28 am
AFAIK there is nothing like LAS in unmanned missions. Main reason is that most of cargo/satellites would not survive abort g loads. Humans are surprisingly resilent creatures.

I take your main point: "old space" doesn't do it that way. ;) But is SpaceX different, especially when it's launching Dragon on F9?

Many cargo/satellite launch vehicles rely on solids, the presence of which massively complicate an abort. For an abort of the all-liquid F9 isn't it possible the range might simply terminate thrust, rather than destroy the vehicle? Wouldn't that create an environment where the Dragon separation motors could detach the capsule from the trunk without exposing the interior cargo to off-nominal g forces?

Of course we all hope nothing like that is required! I'm just wondering if SpaceX is prepared to "snatch victory from the jaws of defeat" on this flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spacetraveler on 10/01/2012 12:44 am
Many cargo/satellite launch vehicles rely on solids, the presence of which massively complicate an abort. For an abort of the all-liquid F9 isn't it possible the range might simply terminate thrust, rather than destroy the vehicle? Wouldn't that create an environment where the Dragon separation motors could detach the capsule from the trunk without exposing the interior cargo to off-nominal g forces?

I don't think the engines have remote control. I believe the only remote system on the vehicle is the FTS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/01/2012 01:07 am

Many cargo/satellite launch vehicles rely on solids, the presence of which massively complicate an abort. For an abort of the all-liquid F9 isn't it possible the range might simply terminate thrust, rather than destroy the vehicle?

No and Mmst do not.  Solids are not the reason for destruct charges.  Liquid vehicles like Delta IV and Atlas V have them to disperse propellants.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/01/2012 01:09 am

1. I take your main point: "old space" doesn't do it that way. ;) But is SpaceX different, especially when it's launching Dragon on F9?

2. Wouldn't that create an environment where the Dragon separation motors could detach the capsule from the trunk without exposing the interior cargo to off-nominal g forces?


1.  No, it has nothing to do with "old space", it has to do with protecting the public.

2.  No, the sep system does not provide enough distance
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 10/01/2012 05:54 pm
Thanks Chris good time for a launch.

Monday morning for me  :D

Dragon been seen yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/01/2012 07:16 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/01/2012 07:54 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(
There's aerospace hardware all over the place, they'd have to hide it all and provide extra security if they allowed foreigners, impacting their operations. ITAR is eyeTAR, I agree, but it makes some sense in this case.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/01/2012 08:14 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 05:20 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(
There's aerospace hardware all over the place, they'd have to hide it all and provide extra security if they allowed foreigners, impacting their operations. ITAR is eyeTAR, I agree, but it makes some sense in this case.

???  What would be the difference between US media and foreign media ???
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 05:23 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: manboy on 10/02/2012 07:07 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!

International partners aren't funding it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 07:25 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!

International partners aren't funding it.

They take international cargo up....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/02/2012 07:33 am

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!

International partners aren't funding it.

They take international cargo up....

But that does not make the cargo-mission international. It's a cargo mission being carried out under the US obligations to ISS. So, it's a US mission, regardless of what cargo is on-board. Same applies to cargo missions of ATV and HTV. Those are European and Japanese cargo-flights, despite the fact that they carry cargo from just-about all participating nations.

(Un)fortunately, ESA is a little more consistent in it's policies regarding near-pad photography. They allow exactly nobody to set up near-pad set-ups, except the people of CSG and their in-house photographer  :P
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2012 03:02 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(
There's aerospace hardware all over the place, they'd have to hide it all and provide extra security if they allowed foreigners, impacting their operations. ITAR is eyeTAR, I agree, but it makes some sense in this case.

???  What would be the difference between US media and foreign media ???

The State Department believes there's a difference between US citizens and non-US citizens. That's the difference.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/02/2012 03:22 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!


now your in the downside of "commercial"......SpaceX can make their own rules.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2012 03:25 pm

FALCON 9 LAUNCH PAD PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

 SpaceX security regulations require that media representatives
attending this event be U.S. citizens.

REMOTE CAMERA SETUPS

SpaceX security regulations require that news media representatives
participating in any activity inside the pad be U.S. citizens.


I thought by now, foreign media would be welcome, but still not.....  >:( :o :o >:(

Would any bus taking you to the pad have to go by LC-37B, LC-41 or the DoD spacecraft handling facilities? That alone might be a cause for security restrictions.

And why can I as foreign media go to launches of Atlas and Delta rockets... I would see that to then... I can even drive my own car to go to remote camera set up for ULA launches... So what SpaceX does makes no sense at all.... They have to let Foreign media in at some point since this is an INTERNATIONAL space station flight !!!

I think the SpaceX press event (if it's like any of their other ones) includes stuff inside their hangar, which has eye-tar-sensitive stuff all over.

It sucks, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 03:32 pm

I think the SpaceX press event (if it's like any of their other ones) includes stuff inside their hangar, which has eye-tar-sensitive stuff all over.

It sucks, though.

Yea sure, and why was it possible to see everything inside the hangar in July 2011, even for foreign media, and get close to the Falcon rocket, and photograph everything you would like ..... And now they say we are not welcome anymore...that is the strange part of it....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2012 03:34 pm

I think the SpaceX press event (if it's like any of their other ones) includes stuff inside their hangar, which has eye-tar-sensitive stuff all over.

It sucks, though.

Yea sure, and why was it possible to see everything inside the hangar in July 2011, even for foreign media, and get close to the Falcon rocket, and photograph everything you would like ..... And now they say we are not welcome anymore...that is the strange part of it....

They made a mistake?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/02/2012 03:48 pm
I suppose it could be something specifically about this flight, although what could be visible from the base of the pad that would be a security risk is beyond my knowledge.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/02/2012 04:02 pm
Yea sure, and why was it possible to see everything inside the hangar in July 2011, even for foreign media, and get close to the Falcon rocket, and photograph everything you would like ..... And now they say we are not welcome anymore...that is the strange part of it....

Have you contacted anyone about this? To the effect of why "Social media users selected to attend the SpaceX launch will be given the same access as journalists in an effort to align the access and experience of social media representatives with those of traditional media." when clearly social media are allowed to be non-U.S. AND be allowed on site:
"International social media users without U.S. citizenship must apply for credentials to cover the prelaunch and launch activities by Wednesday, Sept 26. "


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/sep/HQ_12-336_Social_Media_Accred.html

Complaining about it here won't change anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 10/02/2012 04:12 pm
I suppose it could be something specifically about this flight, although what could be visible from the base of the pad that would be a security risk is beyond my knowledge.

Take your engineer hat off and put your American lawyer hat on. It only has to be vaguely worded somewhere. Doesn't have to make sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 04:28 pm
Yea sure, and why was it possible to see everything inside the hangar in July 2011, even for foreign media, and get close to the Falcon rocket, and photograph everything you would like ..... And now they say we are not welcome anymore...that is the strange part of it....

Have you contacted anyone about this? To the effect of why "Social media users selected to attend the SpaceX launch will be given the same access as journalists in an effort to align the access and experience of social media representatives with those of traditional media." when clearly social media are allowed to be non-U.S. AND be allowed on site:
"International social media users without U.S. citizenship must apply for credentials to cover the prelaunch and launch activities by Wednesday, Sept 26. "


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/sep/HQ_12-336_Social_Media_Accred.html

Complaining about it here won't change anything.

I do not think social media people will go to the pad for remote camera set up.... or even get close to the rocket at all.... but if they do I'm going to complaine about it  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/02/2012 04:38 pm
You haven't really answered my question and it's no longer clear to me what you're complaining about, either. Are you dissatisfied with the (in)ability to see or photograph hardware?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/02/2012 05:06 pm
With any security matter it is frequently worth while checking to see if permission has to come from the Pentagon.  If so, does SpaceX know who to contact and the correct procedure?

ULA launches classified payloads so the DOD security and vetting people will have contacted them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/02/2012 05:35 pm
So if your a US citizen who works for a foreign media outlet, you can attend?

See, problem solved, hire american reporters/photographers and tell them Ms. Lohan will be on the pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 06:50 pm
You haven't really answered my question and it's no longer clear to me what you're complaining about, either. Are you dissatisfied with the (in)ability to see or photograph hardware?

My complaint is that, I, (as media from Europe) can not see (or photograph) the Falcon rocket on the launch pad, and can not set up a remote camera for launch.... US media can...

What is the difference between US media and World media (other then that I'm born outside the USA..  (In other words if I give my camera's to a US reporter he can take them and shoot the images, and then return the camera to me... And then I use the images...)

What would be the difference if I took those images myself ???  that is the point I'm trying to make here... it makes no sense to rule out foreign media...if you can swap camera's...

And to be clear, for any Air Force launch, Delta or Atlas, (a DOD mission or a commercial mission) I'm welcome at CCAFS, I get accreditation, can walk around the Rocket, set up a remote camera etc... (I can even drive my own car on site, something I can not do at KSC anymore, but that is a whole other story).....

So the question is WHY is SpaceX doing this ?  (As said before in July 2011 foreing media was welcome to photograph their rocket and take a look around their hangar at LC-41).

So why rule out Foreing media now ?? What did we do  :o  or did not do  :-X
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/02/2012 06:58 pm
Can we please change this train of thought?

Keep in mind that 9/11 changed everything.

Also as I have said before this is "commercial" they can do most of what they wish.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 07:09 pm
Can we please change this train of thought?

NO, it is a discussion thread, I'm intrested to read what others think...but ok I know 99% of you think with American glasses on...

Quote
Keep in mind that 9/11 changed everything.


That was 11 year ago... I think it is time to change again..(and what has 9/11 to do with me taking photos of a Falcon Rocket ???)

Quote
Also as I have said before this is "commercial" they can do most of what they wish.

You are right about that, but that does not mean they do the right thing....

Jacques


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: wolfpack on 10/02/2012 07:24 pm
My complaint is that, I, (as media from Europe) can not see (or photograph) the Falcon rocket on the launch pad, and can not set up a remote camera for launch.... US media can...

What is the difference between US media and World media (other then that I'm born outside the USA..  (In other words if I give my camera's to a US reporter he can take them and shoot the images, and then return the camera to me... And then I use the images...)

What would be the difference if I took those images myself ???  that is the point I'm trying to make here... it makes no sense to rule out foreign media...if you can swap camera's...

And to be clear, for any Air Force launch, Delta or Atlas, (a DOD mission or a commercial mission) I'm welcome at CCAFS, I get accreditation, can walk around the Rocket, set up a remote camera etc... (I can even drive my own car on site, something I can not do at KSC anymore, but that is a whole other story).....

So the question is WHY is SpaceX doing this ?  (As said before in July 2011 foreing media was welcome to photograph their rocket and take a look around their hangar at LC-41).

So why rule out Foreing media now ?? What did we do  :o  or did not do  :-X

Maybe the customer requested it? CRS works under different rules than COTS? Just a guess.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 07:26 pm


Maybe the customer requested it? CRS works under different rules than COTS? Just a guess.

No the last launch (early this year) it was the same, but what has the customer has to do with the rocket being photographed ???
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/02/2012 07:49 pm
Keep in mind that 9/11 changed everything.

No way, this is simple, ordinary protectionism that has nothing to do with security.
The US - other than what they claim - have always been good at that, just look at the rules for carmakers and stuff like that.
If you can get an advantage for US media guys, do it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/02/2012 07:53 pm
What is the difference between US media and World media ?
...
So why rule out Foreing media now ?? What did we do  :o  or did not do  :-X

Are you really trying to troll, or are you not getting it?

Presumably they don't want to deal with background checks for non-US citizens. It may not be for just ITAR or national security reasons, it could also be for corporate espionage reasons. (Harder to verify your identity)

But it doesn't matter - It is their rocket, their facility, their rules.

The outrage you feel is just bizarre to me, at it has nothing to do with "American blinders". I would not *expect* an American to have full access at a Russian pad, nor at a European pad. Does it happen anyway on occasion? Sure, and that's great. But your sense of entitlement is surprising.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/02/2012 07:55 pm
That's nonsense. If you give access to media, what's the difference where the media come from? Do you have any way to limit what a US media rep writes after the visit?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/02/2012 07:58 pm
Can we please change this train of thought?

NO, it is a discussion thread, I'm intrested to read what others think...but ok I know 99% of you think with American glasses on......
I think it's worthwhile for you to ask the question!

You should seriously see if you can ask SpaceX for details, see if you can go as a "social media" person.

Wishing you all the luck.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jacqmans on 10/02/2012 08:07 pm

Are you really trying to troll, or are you not getting it?
   I think I do not get it then...But I think you do NOT get it.....

Quote
Presumably they don't want to deal with background checks for non-US citizens. It may not be for just ITAR or national security reasons, it could also be for corporate espionage reasons. (Harder to verify your identity)

NASA does the media accreditation not SpaceX, and trust me the background checks are hard for foreign media.... and what is there to espionage for me what a US media guy can do (espionage) also.... :P


Quote
But it doesn't matter - It is their rocket, their facility, their rules.

Yes you are right about that  :-X

Quote
The outrage you feel is just bizarre to me, at it has nothing to do with "American blinders". I would not *expect* an American to have full access at a Russian pad, nor at a European pad. Does it happen anyway on occasion? Sure, and that's great. But your sense of entitlement is surprising.

It has everything to do with "Amarican blinders" and that funny ITAR rule you have.... If you look at photos of Soyuz launches you can see that (world, USA) media have the same access as Russian media, and even better then they have in the USA....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/02/2012 08:16 pm
Jacques, your best bet is to send an email to [email protected] and ask if they can make any accommodation for you.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/02/2012 08:19 pm
The outrage you feel is just bizarre to me, at it has nothing to do with "American blinders". I would not *expect* an American to have full access at a Russian pad, nor at a European pad. Does it happen anyway on occasion? Sure, and that's great. But your sense of entitlement is surprising.

It has everything to do with "Amarican blinders" and that funny ITAR rule you have.... If you look at photos of Soyuz launches you can see that (world, USA) media have the same access as Russian media, and even better then they have in the USA....

You miss my point. It is great when Americans have access there, and Europeans have access here, wonderful. My point is that where and when such access is offered it is should be graciously received, and not EXPECTED or DEMANDED. It is a bonus, a perk. But here you are throwing a fit about it. (Or so it seems)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/02/2012 09:28 pm
Quote
Keep in mind that 9/11 changed everything.

That was 11 year ago... I think it is time to change again..

Whether it is time to change is not the question.  Things have changed, but for the worse, getting tighter, not looser.

Quote
Quote
Also as I have said before this is "commercial" they can do most of what they wish.

You are right about that, but that does not mean they do the right thing....
Jacques

I think that is not right.  Being commercial means they have liability, particularly for ITAR compliance.  If the Air Force allows access to set up remote cameras, that's the decision.  The State Department is not going to threaten to prosecute anyone for an ITAR violation.  A company is always under implied threat.  Therefore the most cautious approach is the least debatable and the highest benefit/cost ratio.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/02/2012 09:48 pm

Are you really trying to troll, or are you not getting it?
   I think I do not get it then...But I think you do NOT get it.....

Quote
Presumably they don't want to deal with background checks for non-US citizens. It may not be for just ITAR or national security reasons, it could also be for corporate espionage reasons. (Harder to verify your identity)

NASA does the media accreditation not SpaceX, and trust me the background checks are hard for foreign media.... and what is there to espionage for me what a US media guy can do (espionage) also.... :P


Quote
But it doesn't matter - It is their rocket, their facility, their rules.

Yes you are right about that  :-X

Quote
The outrage you feel is just bizarre to me, at it has nothing to do with "American blinders". I would not *expect* an American to have full access at a Russian pad, nor at a European pad. Does it happen anyway on occasion? Sure, and that's great. But your sense of entitlement is surprising.

It has everything to do with "Amarican blinders" and that funny ITAR rule you have.... If you look at photos of Soyuz launches you can see that (world, USA) media have the same access as Russian media, and even better then they have in the USA....

Now your going off the wall.    You know very well Russia doesn’t broadcast “live” their launches from  Pleseck.   

Even our NRO launches can be watched.  What more do you want?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/02/2012 10:45 pm
Um... he did already say what more he wants, that's what we are talking about here. Not live broadcasts from NRO launches but being able to take his own photos of commercial ISS resupply missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/02/2012 11:42 pm
The State Department believes there's a difference between US citizens and non-US citizens. That's the difference.

To be clear it's between US persons (including US permanent residents and certain foreign representatives of US organizations) and non-US persons. Explaining this to ditsy HR departments back when I had a Green Card was quite annoying...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: go4mars on 10/02/2012 11:47 pm
In my very limited experience, it also may depend on which country you come from (whether you can come in and look around or not).  I'm not sure if that's actually true or not.  I'll leave it at that without elaborating.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/03/2012 01:37 am
The State Department believes there's a difference between US citizens and non-US citizens. That's the difference.

To be clear it's between US persons (including US permanent residents and certain foreign representatives of US organizations) and non-US persons. Explaining this to ditsy HR departments back when I had a Green Card was quite annoying...
Quite true. Glad to have you here, by the way! :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Possum on 10/03/2012 02:04 am
Allow me to wade in here. Part of the reason is probably that the Spacex pad is on the Canaveral Air Force Station property. I took the tour of that place about a week ago, and we were restricted as to what we could photograph. We weren't allowed to photograph Pad 37 where the Delta 4 Medium was being processed, even though it's not a classified payload. The instant we crossed back out the AFB gate, our tour guide said "Take all the pictures of the Pad you want. It's OK now!" The tour guides mumbled that the restrictions were ridiculous, and they are right. My only explanation is...well...that's the Government for you!  ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Rocket Guy on 10/03/2012 02:28 am
The things they tell the tourists on the bus tour, like not shooting the Deltra IV pad, are equally ridiculous and are not representative of the rules for employees and media.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/03/2012 02:41 am
great nick there Space Possum
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: G-pit on 10/03/2012 03:17 am
Has there been any information on whether the cargo Dragon being flown this launch is evolved much from the Dragon flown on the demo flights?

I wonder if they discovered any room for improvement with the cargo config of Dragon. or if they are using these CRS flights to test out systems that are only *required* on a manned Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/03/2012 03:46 am
Orbcomm logo visible at the base of the solar wing fairing

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=62553&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=2012-5643&sn=KSC-2012-5643 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=62553&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=2012-5643&sn=KSC-2012-5643)

What is that other logo below the red lettered "Orbcomm"?
Is that also Orbcomm?  I don't see it on their website.

The website does have a countdown to the launch. (http://www.orbcomm.com/)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/03/2012 04:01 am
Orbcomm logo visible at the base of the solar wing fairing

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=62553&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=2012-5643&sn=KSC-2012-5643 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=62553&mr=l&w=0&h=0&fn=2012-5643&sn=KSC-2012-5643)

What is that other logo below the red lettered "Orbcomm"?
Is that also Orbcomm?  I don't see it on their website.

The website does have a countdown to the launch. (http://www.orbcomm.com/)
I'm assuming that it's Orbcomm's mission badge. I'm pretty sure it's theirs and not SpaceX's. You can see it in another shot of the vehicle, http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2012-5631.jpg but not much better I'm afraid.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/03/2012 10:27 am
Someone up-thread asked if the SpX-1 spacecraft will have any SpaceX graphics on the hull.  I've just seen a picture over on the processing updates thread that shows the spacecraft has the Dragon logo on the GNC sensor bay door, so it will be hidden in flight.  Your guess is as good as mine why that is.

Does NASA have a prohibition of the logos of commercial entities appearing on spacecraft performing NASA missions?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/03/2012 12:33 pm
A simpler explanation might be, no logo's anywhere that might complicate thermal management Hence a logo on the GNC sensor bay door and the outriggers.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: nlec on 10/03/2012 01:02 pm
From some of the post-flight images I've seen, the outer (thermal?) covering of Dragon seems a bit fragile. Maybe there is some concern about applied logos damaging the covering during ascent or descent.  I realized this doesn't explain the lack of logos on the trunk, which does not seem to have this same covering.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/03/2012 01:13 pm
Logos, Why? It's not like there is any other US private cargo spacecraft visiting ISS at this time. Put a logo on it to tell it apart from who?  ??? Maybe next year after Cygnus is flying.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 10/03/2012 03:17 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/03/2012 03:40 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)

A bit of a straw man, don't you think? I think most of us just expected something minimalist like the Shuttle's decorations. A flag and company logo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/03/2012 06:01 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)

still waiting for one day to see Coke or Pepsi on the side of a launcher.  It just might happen.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/03/2012 06:23 pm
Pizza Hut already won that war on a Proton in 2000.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pizzahut-00b.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/03/2012 08:25 pm
In the Updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29131.msg960513#msg960513) there is a dispute over whether the (single Gen 2) Orbcomm is mounted in the Trunk or on the second stage.  Does anyone have a reliable reference on this? 
(Or just an answer from L2.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ChefPat on 10/03/2012 08:36 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)

A bit of a straw man, don't you think? I think most of us just expected something minimalist like the Shuttle's decorations. A flag and company logo.
Strawman? I think not. Nobody looks at rocket thats just launched & says to themselves; "I wish that rocket had a company logo on it so I could tell who it belongs to."
The only people that give a hoot is us space junkies, & we don't need anything to tell us who's rocket is, who's payload is on it & every other minute detail of it.
Sheesh!!!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/03/2012 08:54 pm
Maybe we could dress it up like NASCAR? ::)

A bit of a straw man, don't you think? I think most of us just expected something minimalist like the Shuttle's decorations. A flag and company logo.
Strawman? I think not. Nobody looks at rocket thats just launched & says to themselves; "I wish that rocket had a company logo on it so I could tell who it belongs to."
The only people that give a hoot is us space junkies, & we don't need anything to tell us who's rocket is, who's payload is on it & every other minute detail of it.
Sheesh!!!

Do I need to explain to you what a strawman is? Nobody is suggesting it to be covered like a Nascar car.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/03/2012 09:09 pm
As to the lack of logos, it is hard to imagine any thermal impact from a logo.  (I deal with solar absorption and emissivity all the time.)   The outer surface is not fragile, as the marks from reentry can be removed, even accidentlally as seen in recovery photos.  It is could an issue with  flaking paint, particularly for intermittant Sun exposure on the thermal protection, but look at the Shuttle logos, and how long and well they lasted.

It is more likely NASA wanting to keep logos out of the view of the cameras on the ISS.   Certain NASA centers have been known to be very strict about this in the past.  Logos on the solar panel pontoons and second stage conform to that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: thydusk666 on 10/03/2012 09:14 pm
Continuing my question from the Updates thread. Anyone has any relevant information on this?
Quote
Orbcomm statement on upcoming launch.(Original 2011)

"The planned Falcon 9 launch will place ORBCOMM’s first two OG2 satellites
into a 52° inclined 350 by 750 km insertion orbit. The satellites’ onboard propulsion systems will then be used to circulize the orbit at 750 km".

http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/spacexlaunch.pdf

How do they plan to get to a 350x750km orbit?
Probably that 350km perigee is outdated, since ISS' current altitude is ~410km, and it wouldn't make sense to do a retro-burn just to follow the pdf., unless I'm missing something.
After unberthing from ISS, Dragon will probably make a burn to increase its orbit to 410x750km then will dispense the satellite. It would save some delta-v for Orbcomm. Following that, a retrograde burn at perigee to circularise at 410km or lower, then proceed with nominal re-entry steps.

Would that make sense?

The satellites are on the second stage, not on Dragon. After dropping Dragon off, the second stage will re-light and increase its apogee. (Further discussion should go to a discussion thread.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/03/2012 09:27 pm
Continuing my question from the Updates thread. Anyone has any relevant information on this?
Quote
Orbcomm statement on upcoming launch.(Original 2011)

"The planned Falcon 9 launch will place ORBCOMM’s first two OG2 satellites
into a 52° inclined 350 by 750 km insertion orbit. The satellites’ onboard propulsion systems will then be used to circulize the orbit at 750 km".

http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/spacexlaunch.pdf

How do they plan to get to a 350x750km orbit?
Probably that 350km perigee is outdated, since ISS' current altitude is ~410km, and it wouldn't make sense to do a retro-burn just to follow the pdf., unless I'm missing something.
After unberthing from ISS, Dragon will probably make a burn to increase its orbit to 410x750km then will dispense the satellite. It would save some delta-v for Orbcomm. Following that, a retrograde burn at perigee to circularise at 410km or lower, then proceed with nominal re-entry steps.

Would that make sense?

The satellites are on the second stage, not on Dragon. After dropping Dragon off, the second stage will re-light and increase its apogee. (Further discussion should go to a discussion thread.)

I am not aware of any sources that say Dragon will deploy secondary payloads from the trunk. They will always be on the upper stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/03/2012 11:33 pm
With regards to the lack of logos on the CRS-1 Dragon, here is an image of COTS-1 Dragon with a big SpaceX logo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: bocephus419 on 10/04/2012 01:12 am
Looks like the nose cone gets the Spacex logo.  Image from http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 04:36 am
Looks like the nose cone gets the Spacex logo.  Image from http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225)

Another logo that's jettisoned before approaching the ISS.

Any ideas about the pink poly (pink poly!) taped over the hatch with four days to go?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/04/2012 05:35 am
Looks like the nose cone gets the Spacex logo.  Image from http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=225)

Another logo that's jettisoned before approaching the ISS.

Any ideas about the pink poly (pink poly!) taped over the hatch with four days to go?

Probably because the hatch hasn't been 100% sealed yet. I seem to recall reading that they are demonstrating late load capability on this flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/04/2012 06:00 am
Notice the launch and return cargo manifests posted on the spaceflightnow web site.

Stuff going up link:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html)

Stuff coming down link:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/returnmanifest.html (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/returnmanifest.html)

So is the cargo going to the ISS relatively low density?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/04/2012 08:29 am

Another logo that's jettisoned before approaching the ISS.

Looks like the suggestion that NASA doesn't want any visible commercial logos on the spacecraft while approaching the ISS might be correct.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/04/2012 08:38 am

I seem to recall reading that they are demonstrating late load capability on this flight.

That seems likely. You can see the cabin used for late loading parked to the left of the hangar door.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=62620 (http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=62620)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 03:37 pm
Notice the launch and return cargo manifests posted on the spaceflightnow web site.

Stuff going up link:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/launchmanifest.html)

Stuff coming down link:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/returnmanifest.html (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/returnmanifest.html)

So is the cargo going to the ISS relatively low density?

This I find curious:
Up cargo: Cabin fan for ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle
Down cargo: Cabin filter and ATV cabin fan for ESA.

Notice how many of the items have masses like 8.8 lbs, coincidently 4.0 kg.  NASA and the units issue....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/04/2012 03:41 pm
This I find curious:
Up cargo: Cabin fan for ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle
Down cargo: Cabin filter and ATV cabin fan for ESA.

IIRC, it was on ATV-2 that there was an issue with a faulty circulation fan that made it initially difficult and somewhat hazardous to access the cargo module of the spacecraft.  They may now carry a spare as standard and had to remove a defective one from ATV-3.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Thunderbird5 on 10/04/2012 07:18 pm
This I find curious:
Up cargo: Cabin fan for ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle
Down cargo: Cabin filter and ATV cabin fan for ESA.

IIRC, it was on ATV-2 that there was an issue with a faulty circulation fan that made it initially difficult and somewhat hazardous to access the cargo module of the spacecraft.  They may now carry a spare as standard and had to remove a defective one from ATV-3.

Which now (or once again), they have the option to return for proper diagnosis rather than just have it burn-up as junk and then have to surmise why it failed.

Obvious, I know, but still very cool!  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 07:36 pm
...here's the Press Kit for this mission:
http://www.spacex.com/downloads/spacex-crs-1presskit.pdf

Thermal Protection System
• Primary heat shield: Tiled phenolic impregnated carbon ablator (PICA-X), fabricated in-house.
• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).

SPAM *on* a can!  :-O
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 07:51 pm
Courtesy of Space Pete in the Live: JAXA deploys cubesats from the ISS (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24308.msg960929#msg960929) thread

Video from today's ISS update discusses CRS-1 starting around 3:56.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoNSlxWgnuU

edit:grammar
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 10/04/2012 07:55 pm
Thanks for the link! The video says ISS Commander Williams tested CUCU; then there's a lot of summary-and-overview talk.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/04/2012 08:43 pm

• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).


I can hear Elon giggling like a teenager having conducted a successful prank when he signed that into the patent application.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/04/2012 09:24 pm

• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).


I can hear Elon giggling like a teenager having conducted a successful prank when he signed that into the patent application.
Except Elon said they prefer not to do patents at SpaceX.
They do have a talent for cool names though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/04/2012 09:35 pm
This I find curious:
Up cargo: Cabin fan for ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle
Down cargo: Cabin filter and ATV cabin fan for ESA.

IIRC, it was on ATV-2 that there was an issue with a faulty circulation fan that made it initially difficult and somewhat hazardous to access the cargo module of the spacecraft.  They may now carry a spare as standard and had to remove a defective one from ATV-3.

Yes, that's correct.

The cabin fans failed on both the ATV-2 and ATV-3 missions, and so they will now keep one good spare aboard the ISS to guard against a failure on ATV-4, and return an already failed unit to Earth to try to determine why they're failing so much.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/04/2012 11:12 pm

• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).

I can hear Elon giggling like a teenager having conducted a successful prank when he signed that into the patent application.

Except Elon said they prefer not to do patents at SpaceX.
They do have a talent for cool names though.

But I did!  Once I got a patent partly because of the cool acronym, a variant of Gadfly.  :-)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/04/2012 11:26 pm

• Backshell: SpaceX Proprietary Ablative Material (SPAM).

I can hear Elon giggling like a teenager having conducted a successful prank when he signed that into the patent application.

Except Elon said they prefer not to do patents at SpaceX.
They do have a talent for cool names though.

But I did!  Once I got a patent partly because of the cool acronym, a variant of Gadfly.  :-)

a patent? you mean a trademark.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 10/05/2012 12:45 am
 Maybe it really is SPAM. That stuff would probably last for four or five missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/05/2012 04:32 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/connect/hangout.html

Google Hangout with Elon Musk and Charlie Bolden today at 1PM EDT.  I'll listen in and see if there is anything interesting.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/05/2012 05:36 pm
Question on Mars exploration:
Bolden: Humans make the real discoveries, not the robots. 
Elon:  Mars colonization the goal.

Changes to CRS-1 Dragon?
Elon: Minor changes on software side from COTS2 Dragon.  addressed LIDAR issue.  improved thermal imagery software

Mining the Moon and Mars?
Elon: Not a huge proponent for mining Moon or Mars, hugely expensive even if costs are brought down.  Would make more since if there was already a base on Mars
Bolden:  Focus should be on enhancing survivability on Mars... producing food, concrete, etc.  so we don't have to lift tons from earth.  finding resources are more important

Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission

Dragon for Space tourism?
Elon: Yeah.  People buy seats on Soyuz.  Would be great to have American option, revenue for here.  Love to do it.  Possibly offer at lower cost.  Possibility of sending people to private space station for Bigelow.
Bolden:  NASA role is not to develop capability, but to facilitate success.  Encouraging to see SpX work with Bigelow, expand commercial sector.  Most SpaceX manifest flights are non-NASA.  NASA not primary source of income for SpaceX.

New propulsion such as solar?
Bolden:  Essential for interplanetary travel, need to revolutionize.  Can't be done on chemical.  Got to make some progress.
Elon:  Right.  Chemical good for getting to orbit, but for interplanetary travel, ion drives can be quite helpful.  can't use to get off planet, but can be used when in space.

SpaceX participating EML2 Lunar Farside Gateway?
Bolden:  Daily conversation among our people with SpaceX.  Do talk about collaboration all the time, focused on LEO right now before BEO, but BEO is an option in the future.
Elon:  Completely agree.  Gotta make sure can do routine LEO flights.  Efficiently, good foundation before BEO.  Are conversations about Dragon going to other parts of solar system.  Working to leverage investment.  Right now focused on ISS.

When are you going into space Elon?
Bolden:  Great for Elon and me to take a trip to ISS.  (smiles and laughs)
Elon: Got to resist temptation to be CEO and Test Pilot, but I really want to go.  (smiling)

Anything fun or special on Dragon?
Elon:  No cheese, haha.
Bolden:  23 student experiments.  Making an obligation to students, that's really special.

How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.


Weather favorable for sunday launch?
Elon:  60% likely.  40% not.  Might have to scrub for weather.

How long does docking take?
Elon:  Several hours.  Working to tighten timeline in the future.
Bolden:  Progress had same day rendezvous.  Want that for commercial flights.  Biological samples, quicker the better.  Same day is ideal.

SpaceX surpise NASA?
Bolden:  We expected SpaceX to be revolutionary.  Streamlining processes, costs, secret is big numbers.  More rapidly we can get to point where can reliably to space.

Dragon and Orion are small.  How can they live in it for months?
Elon:  Wouldn't ask people to live in just Dragon to go to Mars.  Much bigger spacecraft needed.

How cheap can space become?
Elon:  Hope so.  Energy requirements greater, 1000 times more expensive to go to space than air.  Hope to bring it down to 10 times.  Would require big improvements, but it needs to happen.  Fully reusable is key.

Most interesting new technologies?
Elon: Have to have re-usability.  Pivotal breakthrough that's needed.   Needs to make rockets light.  Really efficient engines needed.  Without reusable, space will always be constrained.
Bolden:  Game changing communication technologies, LBAND communications, etc.  Becoming more reliant on composites.  Improving processes for strength of vehicle.

Elon, how do you balance both businesses for a normal life?
Elon:  I don't have a normal life.  Low amount of time at Solar City, most time at SpaceX and Tesla, spending time with kids.

Elon:  Very exciting night on Sunday.  kinda nervous, what if we miss?  I think we've done the best we can.  I hope people enjoy watching.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/05/2012 06:09 pm
Dragon for Space tourism?
Elon: Yeah.  People buy seats on Soyuz.  Would be great to have American option, revenue for here.  Love to do it.  Possibly offer at lower cost.  Possibility of sending people to private space station for Bigelow.
Bolden:  NASA role is not to develop capability, but to facilitate success.  Encouraging to see SpX work with Bigelow, expand commercial sector.  Most SpaceX manifest flights are non-NASA.  NASA not primary source of income for SpaceX.

What is interesting about that response is that it shows that NASA likely does not want spaceflight participants to go the ISS. They would prefer that space tourists go to a Bigelow station. There is some logic in NASA refusing to compete with Bigelow. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 10/05/2012 06:19 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2012 06:33 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
Elon is learning. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/05/2012 06:40 pm
"Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission"

same fluff answer (sorry fanboys) Elon has been giving for the last 1-2 years.....like time stopped.

The real question should have been asked

Elon is 2015 still on schedule?



Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 10/05/2012 06:49 pm
Why is there such concern about schedules? Do you have any experience in project management? I do and I know executives always quote unrealistic target dates. I asked one of them and he told me that he knows the dates he had given the ultimate users of the project were not possible, but his rationale was that if you were to give honest dates, the project might be defunded. Basically, this plays to the sentiment of the listener to keep support.

It's better to sin and be forgiven than never to have sinned at all.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 10/05/2012 06:52 pm
Quote
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.

Current manifest for F9 is 6 for 2013, 7 if no more 2012 flights. And 10 for 2014.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2012 06:56 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
4 in 2013 sounds pretty realistic. Even if they can't improve upon their current max of 2 launches per year per pad, they'll have two pads in 2013. And they really SHOULD be able to improve on just 2 launches per year per pad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/05/2012 07:09 pm
Why is there such concern about schedules? Do you have any experience in project management? I do and I know executives always quote unrealistic target dates. I asked one of them and he told me that he knows the dates he had given the ultimate users of the project were not possible, but his rationale was that if you were to give honest dates, the project might be defunded. Basically, this plays to the sentiment of the listener to keep support.

It's better to sin and be forgiven than never to have sinned at all.  ;)

Note that some 80% of this program is being paid for by the US taxpayer.

Don’t you feel the truth should be explained to those paying for the R&D?   
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2012 07:14 pm
Why is there such concern about schedules? Do you have any experience in project management? I do and I know executives always quote unrealistic target dates. I asked one of them and he told me that he knows the dates he had given the ultimate users of the project were not possible, but his rationale was that if you were to give honest dates, the project might be defunded. Basically, this plays to the sentiment of the listener to keep support.

It's better to sin and be forgiven than never to have sinned at all.  ;)

Note that some 80% of this program is being paid for by the US taxpayer.

Don’t you feel the truth should be explained to those paying for the R&D?   
Since when does NASA do any better? Just saying...

(That said, I sure hope both SpaceX and NASA start being more realistic in their estimates.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/05/2012 07:25 pm
The 2015 commercial crew date was assuming optimal funding which isn't there. Nobody has been lied to. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 10/05/2012 07:33 pm
In this case I think that they are not exaggerating the timeline. It's just that in the real world, delays happen. Look at Tesla for example. They said they would produce 500 vehicles in Q3. They had a supplier of a part whose factory was flooded be unable to deliver enough parts to meet the goal and that caused them to miss the target by 111 vehicles.

Stuff happens.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: PahTo on 10/05/2012 07:48 pm
Thanks to Fuji for posting about the power issues with the robotics workstation in the the Exp 33 thread.  Has this been satisfactorily resolved to move forward with the planned launch Sunday evening?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.30
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/05/2012 08:10 pm
Thanks to Fuji for posting about the power issues with the robotics workstation in the the Exp 33 thread.  Has this been satisfactorily resolved to move forward with the planned launch Sunday evening?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.30

Yes - the newly installed jumper will maintain power to the Lab RWS (Robotic Work Station) even if an RPCM (Remote Power Control Module) trips.

So ISS looks go for launch right now.

One thing to keep an eye on is the two SIGIs (Space Integrated GPS/INS), since both of those being operational is a LCC (Launch Commit Criteria) for a Dragon launch, and one of the SIGIs failed close to the previous Dragon launch. Dragon uses the SIGIs for RGPS (Relative GPS) navigation with the ISS.

You can keep track of the two SIGI's status on ISSLive! here, where they are noted as GPS-1 and GPS-2. Their nominal state is "DOING POSIT".
http://spacestationlive.jsc.nasa.gov/displays/adcoDisplay4.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/05/2012 08:46 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
4 in 2013 sounds pretty realistic. Even if they can't improve upon their current max of 2 launches per year per pad, they'll have two pads in 2013. And they really SHOULD be able to improve on just 2 launches per year per pad.

We are going to have poll on 2013 later this year much like this one for 2012 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29919.0).  This is not the place to start expressing our opinions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/05/2012 09:47 pm
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
4 in 2013 sounds pretty realistic. Even if they can't improve upon their current max of 2 launches per year per pad, they'll have two pads in 2013. And they really SHOULD be able to improve on just 2 launches per year per pad.

We are going to have poll on 2013 later this year much like this one for 2012 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29919.0).  This is not the place to start expressing our opinions.
It's a discussion thread, so it's valid enough (considering we're hearing new expectations from SpaceX's CTO), as long as it doesn't drag on too much (pun not intended...).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/06/2012 01:51 am
The SpaceX press kit for the mission makes zero mention of orbcomm and no mention of a second stage re-ignition. Was this an oversight, are they intentionally down-playing this aspect of the flight, or just keeping things simple for the press?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/06/2012 01:58 am
The SpaceX press kit for the mission makes zero mention of orbcomm and no mention of a second stage re-ignition. Was this an oversight, are they intentionally down-playing this aspect of the flight, or just keeping things simple for the press?

This is explained in L2, but is not public.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/06/2012 05:36 am
The SpaceX press kit for the mission makes zero mention of orbcomm and no mention of a second stage re-ignition.

It's unrelated to the CRS-1 mission. They also don't mention anything about the other payloads the Dragon is carrying to the ISS.. for example, I don't see anything about the Nanoracks payloads.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/06/2012 05:45 am
It's unrelated to the CRS-1 mission.

Yeah. And the other SpaceX press kit, the one for the Orbcomm mission which shares the same launch vehicle, is likely really good too.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/06/2012 08:06 am
Dragon human flights?
Elon: Orbital flight with people on board - about 3 years.  year of margin... 3-4 years.  4 years for manned ISS mission
How long to assemble Falon 9?
Elon:  Takes about a year or so.  12-18 months now.  Aim to 4-6 launches in 2013.  need to accelerate.  Want spaceflight to be routine.
What dark sorcery is this? This sound actually realistic. Noted toned down count from 8 promised by Gwynne.
Elon is learning. :)

I was amazed when Gwynne said 8 (and listed them all, too). Such a huge ramp-up, while I thought she was less infected with the over-optimism.

Disappointing that has dropped to six already, though she did say FH was tentative, IIRC.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 10/06/2012 12:28 pm
Question on Mars exploration:
Bolden: Humans make the real discoveries, not the robots. 
Elon:  Mars colonization the goal.
...

Thanks for the transcription.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: nisse on 10/06/2012 01:03 pm
Why is there only 450 kg on board when a Dragon can carry 6000 kg according to Wikipedia?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/06/2012 01:13 pm
Why is there only 450 kg on board when a Dragon can carry 6000 kg according to Wikipedia?
This has been discussed previously in this thread. Synopsis: no-one has a definitive answer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/06/2012 01:42 pm
Big news: An EVA has been scheduled on the ISS within the next few weeks, possibly to R&R DCSU-3A.

Unknown at this time if it will affect the CRS-1 mission timeline, but if the EVA does occur during the CRS-1 mission, then we should get some very nice photos of Dragon berthed to the ISS from the EVA wide-angle lens. :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.msg961540#msg961540
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: psloss on 10/06/2012 01:51 pm
Big news: An EVA has been scheduled on the ISS within the next few weeks, possibly to R&R DCSU-3A.

Unknown at this time if it will affect the CRS-1 mission timeline, but if the EVA does occur during the CRS-1 mission, then we should get some very nice photos of Dragon berthed to the ISS from the EVA wide-angle lens. :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.msg961540#msg961540
Hopefully the subject will come up in the pre-launch this evening.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/06/2012 03:05 pm
Big news: An EVA has been scheduled on the ISS within the next few weeks, possibly to R&R DCSU-3A.

Unknown at this time if it will affect the CRS-1 mission timeline, but if the EVA does occur during the CRS-1 mission, then we should get some very nice photos of Dragon berthed to the ISS from the EVA wide-angle lens. :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801.msg961540#msg961540

An update: This EVA will be to re-fill/repair an ammonia leak on power channel 2B on the P6 Truss, and will likely occur after Dragon has left the ISS, so it should be no impact to the CRS-1 mission.

Full info on the Expedition 33 thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27801
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: LegendCJS on 10/06/2012 03:05 pm
Why is there only 450 kg on board when a Dragon can carry 6000 kg according to Wikipedia?
This has been discussed previously in this thread. Synopsis: no-one has a definitive answer.
Feel I should point out that the press kit says that with packaging there is 905 kg cargo mass.  And this should give a hint: if packaging nearly doubles your cargo mass it must all be pretty bulky stuff, so I'm in the volume limited camp.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/06/2012 04:25 pm
Feel I should point out that the press kit says that with packaging there is 905 kg cargo mass.  And this should give a hint: if packaging nearly doubles your cargo mass it must all be pretty bulky stuff, so I'm in the volume limited camp.

Assuming Dragon is fully packed and the cargo is volume limited. Would this mean that SpaceX have fulfilled their contractual obligations in full despite the lack in cargo mass?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/06/2012 05:07 pm
Feel I should point out that the press kit says that with packaging there is 905 kg cargo mass.  And this should give a hint: if packaging nearly doubles your cargo mass it must all be pretty bulky stuff, so I'm in the volume limited camp.

Assuming Dragon is fully packed and the cargo is volume limited. Would this mean that SpaceX have fulfilled their contractual obligations in full despite the lack in cargo mass?



SpaceX's contract is for 12 flights, the cargo on the flights is up to NASA.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: 2552 on 10/06/2012 05:59 pm
Not to jinx it but.. so far it seems the launch date for SpaceX CRS-1 has only been pushed back by about a week and a half from the Sep 28 date posted to anik's ISS schedule (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.msg911999#msg911999) on June 12. *fingers crossed*

Also, a tiny bit off topic, but is the Falcon 9 for flight 5 at the Cape yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/06/2012 06:01 pm
Also, a tiny bit off topic, is the Falcon 9 for flight 5 at the Cape yet?

I think the first stage is still waiting for its acceptance test(s) in Texas.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 10/06/2012 08:36 pm
Also, a tiny bit off topic, is the Falcon 9 for flight 5 at the Cape yet?

I think the first stage is still waiting for its acceptance test(s) in Texas.

A first stage was undergoing acceptance tests around the 13th September. It is not clear on what day the video was taken and whether the test(s) had already occurred or not.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29476.msg953006#msg953006
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/06/2012 08:39 pm
When I say "waiting for its acceptance test(s)", I mean "sitting on top of the test stand"
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: yg1968 on 10/06/2012 09:37 pm
During the science press conference, a reporter asks why there was only 1000 pounds going up on Dragon, the response was that the 1000 pounds was only for research, the rest of Dragon is carrying spare parts and supplies. She said that it was a full load.

http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7882:iss-science-briefing&catid=1:latest
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/06/2012 09:42 pm
That seems at odds with everything that's been reported so far. We'll probably see that same question brought up at the prelaunch briefing in 20 minutes, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/06/2012 10:55 pm
Indeed the question was asked and responded to. From the update thread:
Marcia Dunn asks about the low mass of cargo up. Shotwell dodged the question.
Disagree - there was an interesting assertion of 60 metric tons over the contract! (adding up and down - but still!)

I certainly meant no disrespect for Shotwell. To the contrary she does her job excellently well!

In this case the question was essentially, "Couldn't you have carried more up mass on this flight?" And the answer she avoided giving was, "No, for this flight we really couldn't do that while maintaining the margins we want."

Instead of giving that answer she essentially gave us, "No problem getting to 20 tons up mass over the twelve flights," and as a distraction threw in, "Expecting 60 tons combined up and down mass total."

(Of course they will achieve all that, but not using Falcon and Dragon vehicles exactly like those used for this flight.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/07/2012 04:26 am
And a reminder that the downmass this time is 2000 pounds, twice the upmass of 1000 pounds. The fact that both are so close to Nice Round Numbers that I'm suspicious that they are numbers that NASA gave to SpaceX as a minimum for the first flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/07/2012 07:17 pm
One thing to keep an eye on is the two SIGIs (Space Integrated GPS/INS), since both of those being operational is a LCC (Launch Commit Criteria) for a Dragon launch, and one of the SIGIs failed close to the previous Dragon launch. Dragon uses the SIGIs for RGPS (Relative GPS) navigation with the ISS.

You can keep track of the two SIGI's status on ISSLive! here, where they are noted as GPS-1 and GPS-2. Their nominal state is "DOING POSIT".
http://spacestationlive.jsc.nasa.gov/displays/adcoDisplay4.html

Just an update, but the SIGIs look like they're holding up!

So that's in violation of the old engineering rule "If anything can go wrong, it will do so at the most inopportune time". ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/07/2012 07:41 pm
L-6 hours, so the most inopportune times are still ahead.

After the scrub, we can look back at this post as the moment Pete jinxed it. :)

*Disclaimer: Pete reserves the right not to be held liable for any Dragon launch scrubs due to SIGI failure(s). :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/07/2012 11:23 pm
L-6 hours, so the most inopportune times are still ahead.

L-1h 15m, and they're still going strong.

Come on, little SIGIs! :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/07/2012 11:37 pm
Down to 20% unfavorable!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Man Spiff on 10/07/2012 11:40 pm
Is this an instantaneous launch window, or could they recycle?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/07/2012 11:41 pm
Is this an instantaneous launch window, or could they recycle?

Instant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/07/2012 11:43 pm
Is this an instantaneous launch window, or could they recycle?

It's short enough that they can't recycle in time after a hold, so effectively instantaneous.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 12:16 am
Any idea whose the dragon catcher this time?
*edit* Never mind, they just answered it. It's Sunita Williams and Akihiko Hoshide.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Pete on 10/08/2012 01:01 am
L-6 hours, so the most inopportune times are still ahead.

After the scrub, we can look back at this post as the moment Pete jinxed it. :)

Well, those SIGIs held up! They must have got the good vibes I sent them. ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: AS-503 on 10/08/2012 01:10 am
Why did the second stage roll control thruster only fire (repeatedly) in one direction?

Normally you see it burn aprox. equally amount of times (about 45 degrees left/right).

Any thoughts?
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/08/2012 01:11 am
Why did the roll control thruster only fire (repeatedly) in one direction?

Normally you see it burn aprox. equally amount of times (about 45 degrees left/right).

Any thoughts?

Gwynne said in the preflight press conference that they're going to a different orbit this time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 01:13 am
Anyone knows why Falcon's engines shine in the form of a six pointed star?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 01:17 am
Anyone knows why Falcon's engines shine in the form of a six pointed star?
That is an artifact from the camera (diffraction about a hexagonal aperture).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/08/2012 01:17 am
do we have a timeline for the orbcomm deployment?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/08/2012 01:19 am
do we have a timeline for the orbcomm deployment?

I've not seen anything reliable about it at all.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 01:21 am
do we have a timeline for the orbcomm deployment?

I've not seen anything reliable about it at all.


It is supposed to happen at 937pm et, so in about 15 minutes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 01:28 am
Anyone knows why Falcon's engines shine in the form of a six pointed star?
That is an artifact from the camera (diffraction about a hexagonal aperture).
i.e lens flare. Thank you. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 01:35 am
Anyone knows why Falcon's engines shine in the form of a six pointed star?
That is an artifact from the camera (diffraction about a hexagonal aperture).
i.e lens flare. Thank you. 
Not caused by lenses, really. ;) caused by the shape of the aperture iris.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 01:42 am
"Corner"? Something seems to disintegrate right at +1:20. MaxQ, "vehicle is supersonic" then poof. Looks too rough to be a shock ring type effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRTYh71D9P0&feature=plcp
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: StephenB on 10/08/2012 01:43 am
Wow. Fortunately the first stage seems to have been robust enough.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 01:46 am
Might be the cloud layer
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 01:48 am
Might be the cloud layer

Watching the replay, that's what I'm thinking too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: friendly3 on 10/08/2012 01:53 am
Might be the cloud layer

No, something is torn away then you have a dark smoke near a corner (the top one on the video) during one second.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 10/08/2012 01:56 am
This article says the Orbcomm waits half an hour before the 2nd stage relights and takes it above ISS.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20121007/SPACE/310070040/Company-s-prototype-tags-along-into-orbit?nclick_check=1

That's what I thought was going to happen all along. Why wasn't this reported clearly?  ???
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 01:56 am
I thought it might be a large chunk of ice breaking off and impacting the corner.  Seeing the replay, it does look like a pretty violent event.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 10/08/2012 01:57 am
Some stills, in chronological order.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 01:59 am
Wow, that looked extremely violent, like a turbopump exploding. We may have just seen the first real test of engine out capability...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sitharus on 10/08/2012 02:00 am
I thought it might be a large chunk of ice breaking off and impacting the corner.  Seeing the replay, it does look like a pretty violent event.

I'd bet on ice after watching closely, it has the look I remember from the shuttle - spray of particles then chunks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 02:02 am
I also thought that the first stage burned ~20 seconds longer than planned, but it might have been that the audio and video were out of sync.

An exploding turbopump could also explain that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 02:04 am
I also thought that the first stage burned ~20 seconds longer than planned, but it might have been that the audio and video were out of sync.

An exploding turbopump could also explain that.
Doubtful. Probably the least likely explanation. If it had been, then MECO 2 would've been delayed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 02:04 am
Guesstimation at best. Better to wait for post flight briefing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 02:09 am
Engine one anomaly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 02:10 am
I also thought that the first stage burned ~20 seconds longer than planned, but it might have been that the audio and video were out of sync.

An exploding turbopump could also explain that.

I think Gwynne just confirmed that, or something like it.   ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 02:10 am
"Corner"? Something seems to disintegrate right at +1:20. MaxQ, "vehicle is supersonic" then poof. Looks too rough to be a shock ring type effect.

See attached (modestly enhanced and slowed down 30x, at full resolution).  Gwen just said there was an anomaly on engine one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:10 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 10/08/2012 02:11 am
Engine one anomaly.

Anomaly and a longer burn was basically confirmed.  Implied engine out?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 02:11 am
Engine one anomaly.

I guess we all heard that.  :o
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kirghizstan on 10/08/2012 02:11 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

who makes M1C turbopumps?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Silmfeanor on 10/08/2012 02:13 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

please note : this is not official, just a guess by the poster.
No mention whatsoever of a turbopump exploding on the presser.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 02:13 am
Too much speculation until updates are announced.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 02:17 am
Obviously not a clean shut down of engine 1, yet no fratricidal damage to the other engines. Wondering if the cowling is designed to fail in that circumstance, allowing the energetic debris to flow out and away?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rdale on 10/08/2012 02:17 am
I also thought that the first stage burned ~20 seconds longer than planned, but it might have been that the audio and video were out of sync.

An exploding turbopump could also explain that.

I think Gwynne just confirmed that, or something like it.   ;)

What could be like an exploding turbopump that isn't?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 02:18 am
Engine one anomaly.

Anomaly and a longer burn was basically confirmed.  Implied engine out?

FWIW, engine 1 should be the upper left one in the onboard video and I noticed no venting at its supposed shutdown at announced MECO-1. All other launches had it very noticeable. Either it was left burning to compensate for something or it shut down earlier than that (my guess).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:19 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 02:19 am
Believe Barber-Nichols makes M1C pumps. I've heard that the M1D ones that SpaceX makes have tighter tolerances.

Could the big chunk that falls away be a nozzle?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 02:22 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

She said "anomaly on Engine 1", not "lost engine 1", not "turbopump explosion", and not "violent event".  All of that is pure speculation.  At this point we only know there was some sort of anomaly on engine 1.  It could be as simple as an early shutdown due to high temperatures.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kirghizstan on 10/08/2012 02:22 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

please note that she said anomaly NOT loss of engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 02:23 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

She said "anomaly on Engine 1", not "lost engine 1", not "turbopump explosion", and not "violent event".  All of that is pure speculation.  At this point we only know there was some sort of anomaly on engine 1.  It could be as simple as an early shutdown due to high temperatures.

Well, the video shows a lot of parts coming off too, so more than just an early shutdown.  I'm not entirely convinced that it shut down from the video alone, but it might have.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 02:25 am
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 02:26 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

She said "anomaly on Engine 1", not "lost engine 1", not "turbopump explosion", and not "violent event".  All of that is pure speculation.  At this point we only know there was some sort of anomaly on engine 1.  It could be as simple as an early shutdown due to high temperatures.

Well, the video shows a lot of parts coming off too, so more than just an early shutdown.  I'm not entirely convinced that it shut down from the video alone, but it might have.


Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 02:27 am
Speculation: the event came suspiciously close to max-Q. If it was indeed the corner engine fairing that broke off (and that was a fairly large piece visible), it might have damaged the corner engine enough to cause the engine controller to shut it down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:27 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

Edit: yes, this is pure speculation on my part, but the fact that Gwynne just verified an engine was lost, along with obvious visual evidence of a major violent event occurring, it's pretty evident that something serious happened to Engine 1. And I'm just saying...my first reaction was that it looked to me like a turbopump explosion...

please note that she said anomaly NOT loss of engine.

I do stand corrected there, she did say "anomaly" and not "loss."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sitharus on 10/08/2012 02:27 am

Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

Looks like parts to me, shapes are too regular
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 02:29 am
I called it first: turbopump exploded.

who makes M1C turbopumps?
Barber-Nichols
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 02:30 am
Speculation: the event came suspiciously close to max-Q. If it was indeed the corner engine fairing that broke off (and that was a fairly large piece visible), it might have damaged the corner engine enough to cause the engine controller to shut it down.

I like this one better.  Since the turbopumps are supposed to be compartmentalized to prevent collateral damage, why would a failed turbopump cause such a large piece to fall off?

otoh, ugordan's explanation is a single cause proposal.  my vote's here.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 02:32 am
Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

See if you can play the video I posted above.  It's conclusive that parts came off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kirghizstan on 10/08/2012 02:33 am
i cannot do screen captures on this but the video from below seems to show something happening at that moment to like the plume of one engine changes and after a few seconds shuts down.  maybe someone here can take a look and let me know if i'm seeing things.  it looks like there is a darker streak on one of the corners relative to the others.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 02:35 am
Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

See if you can play the video I posted above.  It's conclusive that parts came off.

I still disagree.  It happens right as the vehicle passes through the cloud deck.  It could be a part falling off, or a turbopump exploding.  I'd rather wait for something official before jumping to conclusions.  And, yes, the video DOES simply look like a pass through the cloud layer to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:38 am
Speculation: the event came suspiciously close to max-Q. If it was indeed the corner engine fairing that broke off (and that was a fairly large piece visible), it might have damaged the corner engine enough to cause the engine controller to shut it down.

I like this one better.  Since the turbopumps are supposed to be compartmentalized to prevent collateral damage, why would a failed turbopump cause such a large piece to fall off?

otoh, ugordan's explanation is a single cause proposal.  my vote's here.

I agree, on further review, with ugordan. There were big, big pieces coming off right after going supersonic, and it's more likely aero forces than an exploding turbopump making those big pieces come off. I retract my rash exploding turbopump theory...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 02:38 am
Looks like Spacex just pulled the video off their YouTube channel...

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 10/08/2012 02:40 am
Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

See if you can play the video I posted above.  It's conclusive that parts came off.

I saw parts.   I like the fairing hypothesis but thats just speculation.  However, my reading of the presser is that an engine out scenario was all but confirmed by Gywnne Showell.  Of course this is still speculation until we get info from SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 02:40 am
Looks like Spacex just pulled the video off their YouTube channel...

S

It's unlisted now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:42 am
Does it?  I see what looks like the vehicle passing through the cloud deck.

See if you can play the video I posted above.  It's conclusive that parts came off.

I still disagree.  It happens right as the vehicle passes through the cloud deck.  It could be a part falling off, or a turbopump exploding.  I'd rather wait for something official before jumping to conclusions.  And, yes, the video DOES simply look like a pass through the cloud layer to me.

There were DEFINITELY large pieces coming off, and immediately that engine plume becomes suddenly less fire and more smoke...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DaveJ576 on 10/08/2012 02:42 am
I watched the video several times with rapid start/stops and it really looks like something exploded followed by an engine shut down. Large chunks of something came off the vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 02:45 am
Yes, and there was speculation an hour ago that the Orbcomm satellite was lost too.  This wild speculation is just that: wild speculation.  Until we hear something conclusive I'm reserving judgement happened.


EDIT: for those wanting the reference to the Orbcomm: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg962364#msg962364
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 02:45 am
I can pull three distinct images from the youTube video.

One clearly shows large pieces in the exhaust flow.

The second shows the smaller ones, but you can make the large piece just exiting the flow's background, on the top edge.  It is illuminated - it looks like a "bump" in the flow.

The third is just starting to get blurry, it's hard to tell what's what, but if you count the bulges the define the nozzle of the engines, you usually see 5 (with the corner engine in the middle) and now only 4 are visible, with the center one missing.  Once you know what it was, it's clear that the dark streak is from the engine - as if it is either very damaged or in the process of shutting down.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 02:46 am
As for whether this CRS-1 event will impact the CRS-2 launch: it's almost certain that somebody now has a lot more work to do between now and then! I hope they are open about it. Can anyone confirm the investigation will need to fully include the range operator (USAF) at a minimum? Does NASA pay for insight into this at all?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 02:47 am
From what I saw in the video that's not on YouTube any more I'm surprised none of the other engines were taken out by an explosion of that size.

S

(Edited to correct terminology.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: trothamel on 10/08/2012 02:48 am
I posted this in the other thread - sorry if that was the wrong place for it - but it looks like two pieces fell off a fraction of a second before the three images meekGee posted.

Although it's hard to catch in stills, those pieces appear to be tumbling.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 02:50 am
Can anyone work out what would be the extra gravity losses incurred by an engine shutdown at 1:20 and the correspondingly delayed MECO-1 and MECO-2 (the former presumably with only one additional engine shut down)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: david1971 on 10/08/2012 02:51 am
Didn't see the SpaceX feed, was there "cheerleading" like the last time, or was it "transition to business as usual"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jimvela on 10/08/2012 02:51 am
Looks too violent to me to be anything but a RUD on engine #1.  The dark flow looks like it was spewing kerosene for a couple of seconds.

Impressive that they made it to orbit none the less.

During the call, It seemed to me that they also had other issues- I recall they announced nav1 and computer 2, and seemed to have a safing event of some kind.

Robustness in a system is a very good thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: catdlr on 10/08/2012 02:51 am
The SpaceX launch video can be  seen at this alternate YouTube posting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kGaKsSFS6E

The event is at 5:20.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 02:53 am
From what I saw in the video that's not on YouTube any more I'm surprised none of the other engines were taken out by a detonation of that size.

S

It wasn't a "detonation." It was most likely either aero loads breaking off a corner fairing which then knocked out an engine, as ugordan has suggested, or a turbopump disintegrating. As someone else pointed out earlier, turbopump failure was something SpaceX considered in their design, and compartmentalized to prevent a turbopump failure from knocking out other engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: notsorandom on 10/08/2012 02:54 am
After watching the video in high resolution several times now I'm also pretty convince something violent happened. It didn't look that bad when I watched it live as it seemed like it was just going through some clouds as other have pointed out. Something clearly happened though. It has to be the anomaly which was mentioned. It also seemed like MECO happened a few seconds later then when it was called out. That could just be a delay in the video feeds but the first stage burning longer would make sense if they lost an engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: GBpatsfan on 10/08/2012 02:58 am
The SpaceX launch video can be  seen at this alternate YouTube posting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kGaKsSFS6E

The event is at 5:20.
At 5:32 in the right frame you can see the metal bending inwards.  Is that normal?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 02:58 am
Looks too violent to me to be anything but a RUD on engine #1.  The dark flow looks like it was spewing kerosene for a couple of seconds.

What if the faring came off and smacked the engine nozzle?  It's cooled, right?  That could take off part of the nozzle, cause a huge leak, and thus lead the computer to shut it down fuel-rich.

Does that SPECULATION make sense to the experts here?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 02:59 am
From what I saw in the video that's not on YouTube any more I'm surprised none of the other engines were taken out by a detonation of that size.

S

It wasn't a "detonation." It was most likely either aero loads breaking off a corner fairing which then knocked out an engine, as ugordan has suggested, or a turbopump disintegrating. As someone else pointed out earlier, turbopump failure was something SpaceX considered in their design, and compartmentalized to prevent a turbopump failure from knocking out other engines.


It certainly appears that large pieces of debris managed to be propelled forward into the supersonic airflow...

How do you think a hot gas turbine spinning at 30,000+ RPM fails? "Disintegrate" seems to be putting it a bit mildly.

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: zephyrus on 10/08/2012 03:06 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:10 am
From what I saw in the video that's not on YouTube any more I'm surprised none of the other engines were taken out by a detonation of that size.

S

It wasn't a "detonation." It was most likely either aero loads breaking off a corner fairing which then knocked out an engine, as ugordan has suggested, or a turbopump disintegrating. As someone else pointed out earlier, turbopump failure was something SpaceX considered in their design, and compartmentalized to prevent a turbopump failure from knocking out other engines.


It certainly appears that large pieces of debris managed to be propelled forward into the supersonic airflow...

How do you think a hot gas turbine spinning at 30,000+ RPM fails?

S

"Detonation" has a very specific physico-chemical definition. Look it up. A turbopump coming apart at 30,000 rpm, while a very violent event, is not "detonating."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jimvela on 10/08/2012 03:11 am
Looks too violent to me to be anything but a RUD on engine #1.  The dark flow looks like it was spewing kerosene for a couple of seconds.

What if the faring came off and smacked the engine nozzle?  It's cooled, right?  That could take off part of the nozzle, cause a huge leak, and thus lead the computer to shut it down fuel-rich.

Does that SPECULATION make sense to the experts here?

Any large chunks of FOD into the airstream could do serious damage.  Faring hitting a part of an engine would be plausible.

I've replayed that video section a number of times.  I "Think" I see things being blown outward in all directions before the chunks start to fall, and I'm not sure a separated fairing would account for that.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 03:14 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.

Thanks for posting the video! That slow-motion is very detailed... It certainly *appears* that the corner engine in question was shut down - note the dark trail which *appears* to be kerosene and/or oxygen that is eventually shut off. (after 2 seconds)

Speculation: It would certainly seem that either the engine was damaged by debris and shut down, or failed in some manner.

Fortunately the F9 appears to be robust! A great launch otherwise! :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:15 am
Zephyrus just posted a link to a slo-mo YouTube video of the event, and it clearly shows an engine plume brightening and changing shape BEFORE the chunks start to fly. In that slo-mo, it looks very much like an engine exploding and blowing out chunks of corner fairing, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jimvela on 10/08/2012 03:21 am
If you study the video, there is a bright spot along the edge of the nozzle in the upper right corner of the #1 engine that moves about for a few seconds, becomes very bright, widens, forms two bright spots and then the destructive event happens.

There are similar bright spots on other engines about the same time, however what is happening on #1 is out of character with the others.

At the time of the destructive event, there are at least two items thrown outward at different angles from the rough position of the #1 engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 03:21 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).
definitely is something! Wow. Engine-out seems to work pretty well! Engine-out capability converts Russian Roulette into five-finger fillet. A much better trade, IMHO.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 10/08/2012 03:25 am
The Merlin 1C nozzle is quite robust.

How many have flown? 40?

One nozzle popped isn't too bad. Happened right at Max-Q so my speculation is it cracked and just couldn't handle the load no longer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 03:31 am
What's important is the fact that both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite were delivered successfully. Let's hope both have success. SpaceX will learn from the engine anomaly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:31 am
If you study the video, there is a bright spot along the edge of the nozzle in the upper right corner of the #1 engine that moves about for a few seconds, becomes very bright, widens, forms two bright spots and then the destructive event happens.

There are similar bright spots on other engines about the same time, however what is happening on #1 is out of character with the others.

At the time of the destructive event, there are at least two items thrown outward at different angles from the rough position of the #1 engine.

I'm thinking the bright "spot" is the flame near the nozzle throat, and because of the camera angle it appears that the throat "spot" is aligned with the very edge of the nozzle. A sudden change in chamber pressure or mixture ratio due to imminent turbopump failure would likely cause that flame "spot" to change characteristic just before the violent explosion.

So I still think that the failure was upstream of the throat, in the chamber or turbopump, not in the nozzle per se.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 03:35 am
"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down," Musk wrote in an email...

Judging by the video, the engine had already RUD'd and shut itself down de facto by the time it was told to quit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 03:35 am
What's important is the fact that both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite were delivered successfully. Let's hope both have success. SpaceX will learn from the engine anomaly.

The problem is, they have another CRS flight on this vehicle and this engine, and that vehicle and engine set are already built.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 03:37 am
What's important is the fact that both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite were delivered successfully. Let's hope both have success. SpaceX will learn from the engine anomaly.

The problem is, they have another CRS flight on this vehicle and this engine, and that vehicle and engine set are already built.

But we've seen that the corner fairings are not installed until after the vehicle is delivered to the HIF. So if their fragility was the cause of the problem, it might be easier to fix.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 03:41 am
"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down," Musk wrote in an email...

Judging by the video, the engine had already RUD'd and shut itself down de facto by the time it was told to quit.
It looked like there was more unburnt propellant before it actually was shut down. Or, put another way, its exhaust velocity was less than nominal. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 03:42 am
The slow-motion makes it look like the engine RUD'd and took out the corner fairing and probably some of the aft skirt.  Nothing to do with a fragile corner fairing.  As scary as it looked and unknown how close it was to fratricide, it's the more amazing that Dragon was dropped off where it was supposed to be.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:43 am
What's important is the fact that both Dragon and the Orbcomm satellite were delivered successfully. Let's hope both have success. SpaceX will learn from the engine anomaly.

The problem is, they have another CRS flight on this vehicle and this engine, and that vehicle and engine set are already built.

Definitely hard to see how this doesn't seriously impact schedule in the short-medium term.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 03:43 am
It looked like there was more unburnt propellant before it actually was shut down.

When Elon asserts F9 shut down the engine, I interpret him to mean it shut down flow of propellant to the engine. Is it fair to assume they do that fuel-rich, i.e. cut the oxidizer flow first?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:44 am
The slow-motion makes it look like the engine RUD'd and took out the corner fairing and probably some of the aft skirt.  Nothing to do with a fragile corner fairing.  As scary as it looked and unknown how close it was to fratricide, it's the more amazing that Dragon was dropped off where it was supposed to be.

Pretty bad and pretty impressive, all at the same time...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 03:46 am
The first frame that looks anomalous has expanding "stuff" in at least two directions.  The next frame shows that "stuff" igniting bright orange.  Does that mean it's fuel?  The vehicle was pretty high at the time, so I'm not sure a fuel leak would do that.  Do these engines run fuel-rich?  If so, a LOX plume could ignite in the excess fuel.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 03:47 am
Official confirmation from Elon is that an anomaly occurred in an engine and it was shut down prematurely by the onboard computer.  Nothing about an explosion in that official statement.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:48 am
The first frame that looks anomalous has expanding "stuff" in at least two directions.  The next frame shows that "stuff" igniting bright orange.  Does that mean it's fuel?  The vehicle was pretty high at the time, so I'm not sure a fuel leak would do that.  Do these engines run fuel-rich?  If so, a LOX plume could ignite in the excess fuel.

Sure looks consistent with a fuel turbopump letting go...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 03:49 am
Zephyrus just posted a link to a slo-mo YouTube video of the event, and it clearly shows an engine plume brightening and changing shape BEFORE the chunks start to fly. In that slo-mo, it looks very much like an engine exploding and blowing out chunks of corner fairing, etc.

Still consistent with a fairing failure.  If the fairing hits the nozzle, the effect on the plume propagates backwards at several km/sec, whereas the fairing itself is only accelerating from "rest" due to the force of the flow and the acceleration of the rocket, so is not anywhere near as fast.

So you'll see the plume deform before you see the fairing cross in front of the engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 03:50 am
It looked like there was more unburnt propellant before it actually was shut down.

When Elon asserts F9 shut down the engine, I interpret him to mean it shut down flow of propellant to the engine. Is it fair to assume they do that fuel-rich, i.e. cut the oxidizer flow first?
I'd call it hardware-rich combustion. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:51 am
Official confirmation from Elon is that an anomaly occurred in an engine and it was shut down prematurely by the onboard computer.  Nothing about an explosion in that official statement.

And the word "explosion" is never going to come from Elon or SpaceX in describing what happened, no matter what happened, so don't hold your breath. It'll be called a turbopump failure, or words to that effect.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 03:57 am
Zephyrus just posted a link to a slo-mo YouTube video of the event, and it clearly shows an engine plume brightening and changing shape BEFORE the chunks start to fly. In that slo-mo, it looks very much like an engine exploding and blowing out chunks of corner fairing, etc.

Still consistent with a fairing failure.  If the fairing hits the nozzle, the effect on the plume propagates backwards at several km/sec, whereas the fairing itself is only accelerating from "rest" due to the force of the flow and the acceleration of the rocket, so is not anywhere near as fast.

So you'll see the plume deform before you see the fairing cross in front of the engine.

But if you look at the trajectory of the pieces being ejected, they're being blown OUTWard, not just backward by the slipstream, and in multiple pieces that sure suggest an RUD.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: zeaman on 10/08/2012 04:00 am
Did anyone notice the ice falling from the walls of Lox tanks, approximately at T-5:00 (on NasaTV live).   It happened on all previous missions, but today it was heavier (air humidity?). The falling pieces might hit the engine fairings...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:05 am
Zephyrus just posted a link to a slo-mo YouTube video of the event, and it clearly shows an engine plume brightening and changing shape BEFORE the chunks start to fly. In that slo-mo, it looks very much like an engine exploding and blowing out chunks of corner fairing, etc.

Still consistent with a fairing failure.  If the fairing hits the nozzle, the effect on the plume propagates backwards at several km/sec, whereas the fairing itself is only accelerating from "rest" due to the force of the flow and the acceleration of the rocket, so is not anywhere near as fast.

So you'll see the plume deform before you see the fairing cross in front of the engine.

But if you look at the trajectory of the pieces being ejected, they're being blown OUTWard, not just backward by the slipstream, and in multiple pieces that sure suggest an RUD.

Yup - this one I'm still scratching my head over... 

See, while the turbo pump is spinning very fast, the rotor is not that heavy.  The pieces will have lost a lot of energy busting through the case and whatever ballistic protection they have there, so I can't see the shrapnel transferring enough momentum to the fairing (which is thin) and causing pieces to go THAT far out. 

And the pieces that appear to be flying outwards are very large too.

Could it be that they only appear to fly out due to camera angle?

But, you maybe be right.  If the pump shreds both propellant lines, you could get a mixture inside the cavity enclosed by the fairing, and if that ignites, it would indeed transfer well onto the fairing and knock it out.

In that case, btw, there would be some serious sideways impulse to the side of the rocket - above and beyond the aerodynamic imbalance that's just getting created, and obviously the thrust imbalance.

Wow. 

Can we see the nozzles compensating?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 04:05 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 04:06 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Elon said it was an engine problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: spectre9 on 10/08/2012 04:07 am
I'm going with a nozzle failure.

Lots of exposed tubes on a Merlin 1C. How humid has it been at the pad?

I worry about rocket engines rusting away. I don't like to see launch vehicles rolled around outdoors too often. Just put them on the pad and fire them off, don't expose them to the elements.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: M_Puckett on 10/08/2012 04:08 am
Quote
looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Did you bother to watch the slo-mo video?

That was certainly NOT just ice falling off!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:12 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly.

... which clearly indicates the anomaly was caused by a ghoul - you can hear it clearly at 1:16, and if you play it backwards it says: "Engine one is toast".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:16 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly.

... which clearly indicates the anomaly was caused by a ghoul - you can hear it clearly at 1:16, and if you play it backwards it says: "Engine one is toast".

LOL...as I was watching NASA TV, at one point one of the console guys jumped out of his chair like something on his screen just went very bad...but there was no other indication of an anomaly, so I shrugged it off...now I'm wondering if that was the propulsion guy seeing Engine 1 shutdown on his screen...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:17 am
Kabloona - I'm going to partially back away from my first "single cause" argument.

It only holds if the engine ballistic protection is placed all around the engine (as might be the case if it's part of the engine itself).

If it's only between engines (as would be the case if it's part of the 3x3 thrust structure) then the turbine failure could knock out the fairing without requiring a second failure, and so this is equally likely.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:19 am
Kabloona - I'm going to partially back away from my first "single cause" argument.

It only holds if the engine ballistic protection is placed all around the engine (as might be the case if it's part of the engine itself).

If it's only between engines (as would be the case if it's part of the 3x3 thrust structure) then the turbine failure could knock out the fairing without requiring a second failure, and so this is equally likely.

Eh, either way, I think we're agreeing that the engine most likely RUD'd.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 04:20 am
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:21 am
at one point one of the console guys jumped out of his chair like something on his screen just went very bad...but there was no other indication of an anomaly, so I shrugged it off...now I'm wondering if that was the propulsion guy seeing Engine 1 shutdown on his screen...

I was wondering if there was any footage like that. 

Also, they had the com loops configured so that none of the important contingency chatter made it to the public airwaves. (But of course the ijit with the "small fires on the deck" made it through anyway.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:26 am
at one point one of the console guys jumped out of his chair like something on his screen just went very bad...but there was no other indication of an anomaly, so I shrugged it off...now I'm wondering if that was the propulsion guy seeing Engine 1 shutdown on his screen...

I was wondering if there was any footage like that. 

Also, they had the com loops configured so that none of the important contingency chatter made it to the public airwaves. (But of course the ijit with the "small fires on the deck" made it through anyway.)

Yeah, he jumped like he'd been poked with an electric cattle prod, but fortunately for him, the words that came out of his mouth were shielded from public scrutiny  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rdale on 10/08/2012 04:29 am
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!

No evidence of explosion yet, and no reason to think that this was one hair from LOM.

This thread is a great example of why companies don't bother releasing info in the first place. Too many Internet experts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 04:31 am
Since the rocket cam feed was delayed, the failure can be seen with the dual camera view
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 04:32 am
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!

No evidence of explosion yet, and no reason to think that this was one hair from LOM.


What do you call all that debris flying sideways away from the rocket?

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: brtbrt on 10/08/2012 04:33 am
Thanks for posting the slo-mo video, Zephyrus.

I looked at the few frames just before the event, and I think I'm seeing significant combustion instability 3-4 frames ahead. That is consistent with both propellant flow changes (think a problem in the turbopump) but also with exterior flow disruptions (ice shearing off the fairing, or just plain MaxQ). And it's also possible that the combustion instability was caused by small variations in the manufacturing of the combustion chamber.

In either case, I think the combustion instability caused structural failure of the nozzle, followed by the fairing separation. I think the large triangular object in the exhaust stream is the fairing, not the engine nozzle.

I believe that the turbopumps continued to spin for some time thereafter, because I don't think the volume of propellants dumped into the exhaust could have come out without them - tank pressurization shouldn't have delivered that volume all by itself. So I don't think the TP let go.

If I'm right, the impact on schedule might be significant, as inherent combustion instability problems take time to solve.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 10/08/2012 04:34 am
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!

S

Skin of their teeth or not, I am very impressed.  Whether you want to call it an explosion or not the event looked very energetic and big chunks of the rocket got blown out into the slipstream and other big chunks fell off.  Falcon 9 just kept on trucking.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:34 am
This thread is a great example of why companies don't bother releasing info in the first place. Too many Internet experts.

hey!  I am NOT an expert!

But I'm having fun, and this thread is not a reliable source - it's a discussion thread....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 04:39 am
Quote
looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Did you bother to watch the slo-mo video?

That was certainly NOT just ice falling off!

ya, i watched both. the rocket just went supersonic at that point. things look funny is normal.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:42 am
Thanks for posting the slo-mo video, Zephyrus.

I looked at the few frames just before the event, and I think I'm seeing significant combustion instability 3-4 frames ahead. That is consistent with both propellant flow changes (think a problem in the turbopump) but also with exterior flow disruptions (ice shearing off the fairing, or just plain MaxQ). And it's also possible that the combustion instability was caused by small variations in the manufacturing of the combustion chamber.

In either case, I think the combustion instability caused structural failure of the nozzle, followed by the fairing separation. I think the large triangular object in the exhaust stream is the fairing, not the engine nozzle.

I believe that the turbopumps continued to spin for some time thereafter, because I don't think the volume of propellants dumped into the exhaust could have come out without them - tank pressurization shouldn't have delivered that volume all by itself. So I don't think the TP let go.

If I'm right, the impact on schedule might be significant, as inherent combustion instability problems take time to solve.

I'm skeptical. They've tested the heck out of this engine design, and I've got to believe they've characterized its stability with known and robust stability margins. But hopefully they've got high-frequency Pc telemetry and will know right away whether or not combustion stability was an issue.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 04:43 am
Statement out:

Quote
The Falcon 9 rocket, powered by nine Merlin engines, performed nominally today during every phase of its approach to orbit

Aw :(

They should have said
Quote
The Falcon 9 rocket, powered by nine then eight Merlin engines
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:45 am
yeah, just like the announcer on NASA TV, at about 2:30:
"All nine Merlin engines are performing nominally"

9 +/- 11%, that is.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: BobCarver on 10/08/2012 04:47 am
I'm thinking there's no way to actually test a fully-rocking and rolling 9-engine rocket at Max-Q other than by flying it and seeing what kind of failures occur. They may have to institute a throttle back like Shuttle to avoid a repeat of this problem. Or, it may have been a one-off. But, I'm thinking those turbopumps may be prone to failure under this condition (if it was the turbopump, that is).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 04:47 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Elon said it was an engine problem.

where? link please.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 04:50 am
yeah, just like the announcer on NASA TV, at about 2:30:
"All nine Merlin engines are performing nominally"

9 +/- 11%, that is.

I'm pretty sure they kept George Diller out of the vehicle systems comm loop  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 04:50 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Elon said it was an engine problem.

where? link please.

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/status.html
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/10/spacex-crs-1-st.html
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/10/07/falcon-9-suffers-engine-anomoly/
As well as Gwynne's statement in the presser.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/08/2012 04:51 am
I'm thinking there's no way to actually test a fully-rocking and rolling 9-engine rocket at Max-Q other than by flying it and seeing what kind of failures occur. They may have to institute a throttle back like Shuttle to avoid a repeat of this problem. Or, it may have been a one-off. But, I'm thinking those turbopumps may be prone to failure under this condition (if it was the turbopump, that is).

F9 1.1 will throttle its M1Ds back at max-q.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 04:55 am
Looking at the slow-motion Youtube video, the double view, righthand rocket cam... at T+1:30 as indicated in the video.

Is it a trick of the lighting or does the entire skin of the vehicle deflect "inwards" just above the center of the frame?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 05:01 am
I don't think it is coincidence that this event occurred at Max-Q... Therefore I don't think the "combustion instability" theory floated a few posts above mine is very likely. It seems more likely that some external event impacted the engine.

All 100% armchair Internet speculation of course.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 05:04 am
When I watched it live, the 'anomaly' startled me at first, but since the rocket had just passed Mach 1 (and kept on flying), I assumed it was either the shock wave or a big chunk of ice falling off.

But after watching the replays, both at normal speed and in slow motion, it sure looks like an explosion of some kind occurred.

And I did notice that the first stage burned longer than expected.  I wasn't just imagining things.  (At the time I thought the audio and video were out of sync.)

It looks like they have a very robust design there.  They may have proven that they really do have engine-out capability, just as they claimed.

It's probably lucky that Dragon was not carrying its maximum payload weight, though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/08/2012 05:05 am
Oh, I'm pretty sure I saw a gremlin at T+1:18.256... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare_at_20,000_Feet)

Seriously guys, enough "interpreting" a blurry, badly-lit video.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 05:07 am
I have made a slow motion video of the anomaly. Please tell me if I this is not fair use and I will remove it immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Of course we will have to wait for an official assessment but I would say that something has definitely happened and it is not just some clouds.


Sorry for the slowed down audio, I could not find the exact mencoder option to kill it.

(P.S. Moved from the other thread due to moderator indications).

looks to me was just ice falling off the rocket while passing max-q.

Elon said it was an engine problem.

where? link please.

http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/status.html
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/10/spacex-crs-1-st.html
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/10/07/falcon-9-suffers-engine-anomoly/
As well as Gwynne's statement in the presser.

thanks, i watched nasatv earlier,  Gwynne didn't say anything about that. Don't think it's on spacex frontpage, twitter neither.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 10/08/2012 05:07 am
I'm thinking there's no way to actually test a fully-rocking and rolling 9-engine rocket at Max-Q other than by flying it and seeing what kind of failures occur. They may have to institute a throttle back like Shuttle to avoid a repeat of this problem. Or, it may have been a one-off. But, I'm thinking those turbopumps may be prone to failure under this condition (if it was the turbopump, that is).

The only thing that (probably) isn't speculation at this point is that an energetic event occurred which caused large pieces of the rocket to separate and led to the shutdown of engine 1.

Speculation about the cause at this point is just speculation.  Folks at SpaceX have a ton of actual data to look at while the rest of us have a few frames of blurry video.

Bottom line, there was no LOM and SpaceX gets paid for cargo delivery.  There aren't bonus points awarded for perfection.  Personally, I am skeptical of theories that rely on a fundamental design flaw for a system that has made orbit 4 times now.

The Merlin is designed to be inexpensive and reliable enough.  The rest of the SpaceX validation process and ultimately the engine out capability of Falcon 9 are designed to weed out bad engines and mitigate the effects of a failure like this one.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: starsilk on 10/08/2012 05:18 am
Oh, I'm pretty sure I saw a gremlin at T+1:18.256... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare_at_20,000_Feet)

Seriously guys, enough "interpreting" a blurry, badly-lit video.

isn't that what the people on the airliner said?  ;)

(http://content6.flixster.com/question/36/66/54/3666548_std.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 05:40 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/08/2012 05:41 am
The Orbcomm satellite was deployed. But was it deployed in the intended orbit? Meaning, did the second stage fire for a second time as planned? There was the option to deploy it on lower orbit if the second burn of the second stage does not occur.

I did not hear about that.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 05:50 am
Some quotes from a SpaceX statement re: the engine anomaly found at SFN's mission status page: http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/status.html

Quote
"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down," Musk wrote in an email to Spaceflight Now. "As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in realtime to reach the target orbit, which is why the burn times were a bit longer."

The first stage burned nearly 30 seconds longer than planned.

Quote
"Like the Saturn 5, which experienced engine loss on two flights, the Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine flameout and still complete its mission," Musk said. "I believe Falcon 9 is the only rocket flying today that, like a modern airliner, is capable of completing a flight successfully even after losing an engine. There was no effect on Dragon or the space station resupply mission."

Quote
A company spokesperson said more details on the problem would be released Monday.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marshal on 10/08/2012 05:52 am
The Orbcomm satellite was deployed. But was it deployed in the intended orbit? Meaning, did the second stage fire for a second time as planned? There was the option to deploy it on lower orbit if the second burn of the second stage does not occur.

I did not hear about that.



They call ORBCOMM successfully deployed, so it must into intended orbit .
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/08/2012 05:54 am
The Orbcomm satellite was deployed. But was it deployed in the intended orbit? Meaning, did the second stage fire for a second time as planned? There was the option to deploy it on lower orbit if the second burn of the second stage does not occur.

I did not hear about that.



Could be a problem. Standby. (NORAD now tracks 6 objects from the launch (probably Dragon + second stage + Orbcomm + 2x Dragon solarr array blankets + Dragon nose cover), all seems to be in a ~ 200 x 330 km orbit)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marshal on 10/08/2012 05:59 am
The Orbcomm satellite was deployed. But was it deployed in the intended orbit? Meaning, did the second stage fire for a second time as planned? There was the option to deploy it on lower orbit if the second burn of the second stage does not occur.

I did not hear about that.



Could be a problem. Standby. (NORAD now tracks 6 objects from the launch (probably Dragon + second stage + Orbcomm + 2x Dragon solarr array blankets + Dragon nose cover), all seems to be in a ~ 200 x 330 km orbit)

So where are Orbcomm intended orbit ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 06:04 am
The nose cover is jettisoned before it reaches orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/08/2012 06:05 am
Could be a problem. Standby. (NORAD now tracks 6 objects from the launch (probably Dragon + second stage + Orbcomm + 2x Dragon solarr array blankets + Dragon nose cover), all seems to be in a ~ 200 x 330 km orbit)
So where are Orbcomm intended orbit ?

The second stage was supposed restart and raise the apogee to 700 km.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/08/2012 06:31 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 06:35 am
Did the initial 2nd stage burn last longer then expected as well?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 10/08/2012 06:37 am
Holy cow - this is crazy.

Engineering friend said this was certainly a major event.  Also said calling it a RUD or fairing right now is too early to tell.  This video is sobering.  Look at the chunks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998

Whatever happened, the engineering into the Falcon 9 is some good stuff.  We did suffer a very serious anomaly and kept on trucking.  Wins for SpaceX and NASA here.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: aquanaut99 on 10/08/2012 06:54 am
Quote
Whatever happened, the engineering into the Falcon 9 is some good stuff.  We did suffer a very serious anomaly and kept on trucking.  Wins for SpaceX and NASA here.

Judging by the admittedly poor, badly lit video, this event to me looks very serious.

I think it's too early to call this a win for SpaceX. It might just have been sheer luck that we did not see a LOM tonight. And this may well impact greatly on their future CRS schedule.

At the very least, they will have to do some serious investigating on what actually happened.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 07:00 am
Elon Musk has said, from the start, that an eventual engine failure was inevitable with so many engines on each first stage, and that SpaceX were confident that even a catastrophic engine failure would not result in LOM.

There was an engine failure. It did not result in LOM.

Seems to me like good engineering, not a "serious problem".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/08/2012 07:01 am
This thread is a great example of why companies don't bother releasing info in the first place. Too many Internet experts.
Best post of this whole thread. Geezz... I've never seen so much armchair engineering posts in a single thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 10/08/2012 07:45 am
This thread is a great example of why companies don't bother releasing info in the first place. Too many Internet experts.
Best post of this whole thread. Geezz... I've never seen so much armchair engineering posts in a single thread.

Until you know the facts, educated (and uneducated!) guesses are all you have.  Besides which, it's fun:)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: savuporo on 10/08/2012 08:06 am
I think it's too early to call this a win for SpaceX.
Anything but a perfect record is not a win for a launch company with so few launches under their belt.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 08:22 am
I think it's too early to call this a win for SpaceX.
Anything but a perfect record is not a win for a launch company with so few launches under their belt.

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kojak on 10/08/2012 08:24 am
Elon Musk has said, from the start, that an eventual engine failure was inevitable with so many engines on each first stage, and that SpaceX were confident that even a catastrophic engine failure would not result in LOM.

There was an engine failure. It did not result in LOM.

Seems to me like good engineering, not a "serious problem".

Something that sould not normally happen probably just did. They need to investigate it before anyone can say how "serious" the problem is.

When an airliner has an engine flame out, most of the times it can still fly. Though, depending on the reason for the failure, the fleet might be grounded for weeks/months and may require system redesign/modification before being allowed to fly again.
This, even if "good engineering" designed the aircraft with more than one engine!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/08/2012 08:42 am

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.

Hopefully SpaceX went through that phase with Falcon 1.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 09:00 am
Elon Musk has said, from the start, that an eventual engine failure was inevitable with so many engines on each first stage, and that SpaceX were confident that even a catastrophic engine failure would not result in LOM.

There was an engine failure. It did not result in LOM.

Seems to me like good engineering, not a "serious problem".

It was good engineering. Brilliant engineering on the part of whoever designed the lightweight shields between the engines.

But not calling this a serious problem would be deluded. An engine shutting itself down gracefully because some reading like the chamber pressure or the turbine speed is too high would not be a serious problem for a design with built-in redundancy. But an engine undergoing what can only be described as a rapid unscheduled disassembly aka explosion is a serious problem.

The good thing is that their design is so robust that in this case it was able to survive a serious problem without loss of mission. Reminds me of the flight of the DC-X where a hydrogen explosion blew half the fairing away. But having engines blowing up is nevertheless not acceptable. Hopefully they will find something in the telemetry which will allow them to detect such failures quicker and shut down the engine gracefully.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 09:12 am

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.

Hopefully SpaceX went through that phase with Falcon 1.

I was going to ask this: Was the core engine on F-1 flight 1 a Merlin-1C? If so, then we're looking at two failures in about 40 or so units flown.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/08/2012 09:19 am
That was F1 #003, I believe (first flight with regen nozzle, and shutdown transients caught them out, making first stage recontact second stage).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/08/2012 09:25 am

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.

Hopefully SpaceX went through that phase with Falcon 1.

I was going to ask this: Was the core engine on F-1 flight 1 a Merlin-1C? If so, then we're looking at two failures in about 40 or so units flown.

Nope, F1 flights 1 and 2 used the Merlin-1A. Flight 3 was the first flight with the regen nozzle (Merlin-1C).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Fivey on 10/08/2012 09:28 am
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/spacex-acknowledges-falcon-engine-anomaly-during-latest-launch.html

Note dates
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/08/2012 09:41 am
I have looked at the frames before that "explosion" one by one.

There were dark streaks in the exhaust well before that event. As dark indicates unburnt kerosene, does that indicate the shutdown was already initiated? In that case might the debris be really only the shirt that was torn loose by pressure change of shutdown?

Could this be a possible explanation of what we see?

Edit: Can somebody please explain the meaning of RUD event?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 10/08/2012 09:49 am
Edit: Can somebody please explain the meaning of RUD event?

Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly (explosion)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/08/2012 09:51 am

Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly (explosion)


 :)

Thanks

Edit corrected quote
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 10:17 am
I think it's too early to call this a win for SpaceX.
Anything but a perfect record is not a win for a launch company with so few launches under their belt.

Given that the majority of new rocket designs experience a catastrophic loss of vehicle in the first few launches, spacex has been doing pretty well.
I suppose with any other launcher this would have led to LOM.

There have now been two launches (excluding the Falcon 1 launches) and the engine failure is 1 in 18 (give or take and ignoring changes to the engine design). Would F9 survive two engines failing? The chances of that are about 1 in 360 (without doing the full statistics), which is borderline acceptable for a manned launcher (assuming the launch escape system works 90% of the time).

That said, if good telemetary has been received, SpaceX can make the engine more reliable. They might also have better data to extrapolate the effect of 2 engines exploding (or RUD - must remember that one).

Is Orbcomm confirmed orbited yet?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 10:36 am
It obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.

I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.

If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.

Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).
Primary mission goes to completion.
Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.

As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?

No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).

I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.

No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 10:36 am
I'm wondering if moving forward with Merlin 1d production is the the answer. We've heard that the design is more straight forward.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 10:39 am
I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

I'm not sure that debris would get far enough into the supersonic airflow to impinge on the Dragon, but okay.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Bogeyman on 10/08/2012 10:44 am
Could the fragment seen on the launch screenshot be part of the engine shroud?:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/38/falcon9triebwerksfehler.jpg/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lol on 10/08/2012 10:46 am

There have now been two launches (excluding the Falcon 1 launches) and the engine failure is 1 in 18 (give or take and ignoring changes to the engine design). Would F9 survive two engines failing? The chances of that are about 1 in 360 (without doing the full statistics), which is borderline acceptable for a manned launcher (assuming the launch escape system works 90% of the time).

There have been 4 successful launches of Falcon 9.
So 40 Merlin 1C flown there.

There was 3 launches of Falcon 1 with Merlin 1C. In each launch engine performed nominally.

So out of 43 Merlin 1C flown to this date, 42 performed good.

How you came up with one out of 18 failure rate is above me.

EDIT: Besides, do not forget that Falcon 9 could tolerate 2 engines failures. Probably not in early stages of the flight(first few dozens seconds), but if second engine fail after one minute or so that should be no biggie too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 10:48 am
I'm not sure that debris would get far enough into the supersonic airflow to impinge on the Dragon, but okay.
What people are worried about and what they *should* be worried about are not always the same  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 10:49 am
Could the fragment seen on the launch screenshot be part of the engine shroud?:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/38/falcon9triebwerksfehler.jpg/

That's why I think too. Onboard video shows outlines of 2 engine fairings and engine #1 fairing definitely looks missing/modified. Each fairing is made of two pieces and you can see the split line in your image, the debris piece is consistent with the upper panel of the fairing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: boinc on 10/08/2012 10:51 am
Could the fragment seen on the launch screenshot be part of the engine shroud?:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/38/falcon9triebwerksfehler.jpg/

There is definetly some debris coming out there. Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 10:54 am
Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?

Of course it will. It's only logical to assume the vehicle is grounded until anomaly investigation is performed and corrective actions identified/implemented.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: boinc on 10/08/2012 11:01 am
Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?

Of course it will. It's only logical to assume the vehicle is grounded until anomaly investigation is performed and corrective actions identified/implemented.

On the second look it seems like the engine cover rather crashed into the engine. The boardcomputer detected that and shut the engine down.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lol on 10/08/2012 11:03 am
Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?

Of course it will. It's only logical to assume the vehicle is grounded until anomaly investigation is performed and corrective actions identified/implemented.

With next launch scheduled for January next year, there is no reason to believe that investigation and corrective measures wont be done by that time. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 11:08 am
On the second look it seems like the engine cover rather crashed into the engine. The boardcomputer detected that and shut the engine down.

Or something blew off the lower fairing panel and then the upper part just collapsed with no support and under aerodynamic load.

With next launch scheduled for January next year, there is no reason to believe that investigation and corrective measures wont be done by that time. 

There is no particularly good reason to think that it will be done by then, either. Why do you assume root cause analysis and corrective action will be as trivial as that?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 11:11 am

There have been 4 successful launches of Falcon 9.
So 40 Merlin 1C flown there.

There was 3 launches of Falcon 1 with Merlin 1C. In each launch engine performed nominally.

So out of 43 Merlin 1C flown to this date, 42 performed good.

How you came up with one out of 18 failure rate is above me.

EDIT: Besides, do not forget that Falcon 9 could tolerate 2 engines failures. Probably not in early stages of the flight(first few dozens seconds), but if second engine fail after one minute or so that should be no biggie too.
Sorry about that (must stop posting before thinking).

On the basis of this the statistical chances of multiple engine failure leading to LOM are tiny.

Next step is to identify a failure which could knock out all engines, including an analysis of how well the correction software (and hardware) performed (it appears to have done its job). Could one engine failure plus a computing failure lead to LOM.

SpaceX would I'm sure love to get their hands on the engine shielding for the neighbouring engines. Did it contain all the damage - or were neighbouring engines lucky to survice (saved by the bell)? Did they get some high resolution pictures? Or will they be able to recover this stage?

What happened when the engine failed to the vehicle flight path. Was there a shock to the system which might damage other equipment? I assume they have accelerometer telemetary to measure just that.

Lots of analysis to do but this failure does demonstrate the safety of the rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 11:15 am
Basically the B-17 of the US space fleet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 11:16 am
Really, a lot depends on the actual cause of the 'anomaly'.

If it was an engine failure (and subsequently RUD), then F9 Block 1 is grounded until a fix for Merlin-1C is identified and implemented.  The fact that this happened after acceptance tests and a static fire with no pre-warnings of a fault would raise issues about the engine's overall reliability.

However, if (as boinc suggests up-thread), the engine shut down after the bell contacted with debris, perhaps the side aerodynamic cover coming off, then it is just a case of double-checking the securing of the covers.  Are more rivets or welds needed? Is there an issue with metal fatigue?

An engine problem could impact on the schedule for SpX-2, but a structural issue might not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 11:17 am
Will this engine failure have any impact on future operations?

Of course it will. It's only logical to assume the vehicle is grounded until anomaly investigation is performed and corrective actions identified/implemented.
It probably will be grounded but I disagree that that is the logical step.

An anomaly ocurred and therefore without corrective actions may occur again. However, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.

I assume there is a period of analysis after which a decision is made on wheter to launch the next mission before corrective action is taken or after. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: hrissan on 10/08/2012 11:19 am
Next step is to identify a failure which could knock out all engines, including an analysis of how well the correction software (and hardware) performed (it appears to have done its job). Could one engine failure plus a computing failure lead to LOM.

SpaceX would I'm sure love to get their hands on the engine shielding for the neighbouring engines. Did it contain all the damage - or were neighbouring engines lucky to survice (saved by the bell)? Did they get some high resolution pictures? Or will they be able to recover this stage?

What happened when the engine failed to the vehicle flight path. Was there a shock to the system which might damage other equipment? I assume they have accelerometer telemetary to measure just that.

Lots of analysis to do but this failure does demonstrate the safety of the rocket.
Another reason for reusability. :) If the rocket did not explode completely, you could investigate hardware after you get it back to Earth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 11:23 am
However, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.

I shudder to think that we've come to a point where a potential engine RUD is not labeled as a mission-endangering event. Just like Delta IV a couple of days ago, they might have been lucky this time. If you don't treat this as a major anomaly that it is, you're back to "normalization of deviance".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lol on 10/08/2012 11:23 am
There is no particularly good reason to think that it will be done by then, either.
Quite contrary.

Few reasons for that.

In most cases(>50%) root cause of rocket failure was determined in well under 3 months.
SpaceX is vertically integrated, most work done by them and they are quite independent of supply chain. 

For example, Falcon 1 Flight 3 failure was investigated and corrective measures were taken, so Flight 4 occurred less then 2 months after Flight 3.

Why do you assume root cause analysis and corrective action will be as trivial as that?
Trivial? I never said that. Please stop imagining things.

But what is your reasons for assuming that it wont be done by next year?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 11:33 am
But what is your reasons for assuming that it wont be done by next year?

Because this wasn't a trivial software timing issue that could have been fixed in a couple of minutes like your other example. An engine that went through an engine acceptance test and at least two stage acceptance tests and which, during development, accumulated several thousand seconds of firing time apparently let go spectacularly. If you believe this to be a quick fix, that's your right. I am not nearly as optimistic as you that even if RCA is done swiftly that corrective actions will be possible on such a short order.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 11:35 am
That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Harold KSC on 10/08/2012 11:39 am
Catching up. These guys are scary. Need to stop dodging bullets before they put a crew anywhere near this LV.

That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.

"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening. What next, the vehicle blows up and you'll praise their excellent FTS? :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 11:41 am
However, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.

I shudder to think that we've come to a point where a potential engine RUD is not labeled as a mission-endangering event. Just like Delta IV a couple of days ago, they might have been lucky this time. If you don't treat this as a major anomaly that it is, you're back to "normalization of deviance".
But isn't it progress where a potential engine RUD is not a mission endangering event? Where we can treat this specific failure mode (if it can be found out) in the same way as an airline treats an enegine failure.

The cautionary principle means no more flights until either:
1. The cause of the engine failure is identified and fixed
2. It is proven this is not a Mission Endangering Event.

Of course, the key to (2) would be to analyse the engines and see whether it was luck or good design that saved the vehicle. That may not be possible. (Where is the engine now?)


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 11:46 am
The cautionary principle means no more flights until either:
1. The cause of the engine failure is identified and fixed
2. It is proven this is not a Mission Endangering Event.

Given that there are only two (?) more flights of this engine design scheduled, the engine-out capability has been demonstrated, the engines and stages have already been constructed, and the flights are unmanned, I wonder if it'll be cheaper for SpaceX to fly them anyway (even with slightly higher insurance premiums) than to modify/rebuild the engines/stages...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/08/2012 11:54 am
Given that there are only two (?) more flights of this engine design scheduled, the engine-out capability has been demonstrated, the engines and stages have already been constructed, and the flights are unmanned, I wonder if it'll be cheaper for SpaceX to fly them anyway (even with slightly higher insurance premiums) than to modify/rebuild the engines/stages...
That would be normalization Of Deviance, which as we have seen is a deadly combination.  Better to just stop and fix it now, as whatever might be wrong with Falcon 9 1.0 might be able to occur on 1.1 as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 10/08/2012 11:56 am
The cautionary principle means no more flights until either:
1. The cause of the engine failure is identified and fixed
2. It is proven this is not a Mission Endangering Event.

Given that there are only two (?) more flights of this engine design scheduled, the engine-out capability has been demonstrated, the engines and stages have already been constructed, and the flights are unmanned, I wonder if it'll be cheaper for SpaceX to fly them anyway (even with slightly higher insurance premiums) than to modify/rebuild the engines/stages...

I believe CRS-2 is the sole remaining F9 v-1.0/M1C flight, the next being an essentially new bird: the Q1 2013 flight of F9 v-1.1 from Vandenberg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 11:57 am

Just saw this on NewSpace Watch. No idea if it has been posted already.

http://spaceref.biz/news/viewsr.html?pid=42263

Quote
According to a statement provided to NASAWatch by Elon Musk at SpaceX:

"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down. As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in realtime to reach the target orbit, which is why the burn times were a bit longer. Like Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, the Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine flameout and still complete its mission. I believe F9 is the only rocket flying today that, like a modern airliner, is capable of completing a flight successfully even after losing an engine. There was no effect on Dragon or the Space Station resupply mission."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: VatTas on 10/08/2012 12:00 pm
Looking at the slow-motion Youtube video, the double view, righthand rocket cam... at T+1:30 as indicated in the video.

Is it a trick of the lighting or does the entire skin of the vehicle deflect "inwards" just above the center of the frame?
Somehow everybody on the thread is ignoring this. That's clearly deformation, not some trick of light. It appears to happen several seconds after engine 1 problem (note that external and on-board camera views are out of sync). It's interesting what might have caused this? This must have been some considerable force acting to cause such effect.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 12:03 pm
I believe CRS-2 is the sole remaining F9 v-1.0/M1C flight

+ Jason-3 for NASA.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 12:04 pm
Catching up. These guys are scary. Need to stop dodging bullets before they put a crew anywhere near this LV.

That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.

"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening. What next, the vehicle blows up and you'll praise their excellent FTS? :)
They're bound to get an engine failure, so designing your rocket to work with an engine failure is a good idea.

I do computer storage engineering as a part time job. We often have hard drive failures, but because we use RAID, we haven't ever totally lost any data. Part failure is inevitable. System failure is not. How your system deals with part failure shows your true engineering capability.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: VatTas on 10/08/2012 12:12 pm
Screen captures showing dent appearing in the interstage.
(very noticeable when you switch between these two pictures in some picture viewer)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 12:16 pm
We often have hard drive failures, but because we use RAID, we haven't ever totally lost any data.

Come on. Hard drive failures don't have the tendency of destroying other hard drives when they fail. I cannot believe how you can say that one occurence of a engine anomaly not resulting in LOV proves the vehicle is robust. By the same token STS-27 "proved" that Shuttle will survive tile damage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 12:27 pm
We often have hard drive failures, but because we use RAID, we haven't ever totally lost any data.

Come on. Hard drive failures don't have the tendency of destroying other hard drives when they fail....
actually, yes it does. The rebuilding process really stresses the drives and can cause another hard drive to fail much earlier, which is why you have RAID 6 and synchronous mirroring.


Before this flight, SpaceX had flown more Merlins than Atlas V has flown rd180s. There is no evidence SpaceX has a higher than industry standard level of engine failure. But they are the only folks who can survive engine failure and still complete the mission. To hold another view is to have a bias in systems engineering towards systems without redundancy, which are simpler and will thus have a lower incidence of per mission parts failures, but will have higher system failure rates than a properly engineered redundant system.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 12:27 pm
Screen captures showing dent appearing in the interstage.
(very noticeable when you switch between these two pictures in some picture viewer)

That is a umbilical connection point for the upper stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 12:30 pm
We often have hard drive failures, but because we use RAID, we haven't ever totally lost any data.

Come on. Hard drive failures don't have the tendency of destroying other hard drives when they fail. I cannot believe how you can say that one occurence of a engine anomaly not resulting in LOV proves the vehicle is robust. By the same token STS-27 "proved" that Shuttle will survive tile damage.

They do in RAID 0.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Diagoras on 10/08/2012 12:32 pm
Quote
To hold another view is to have a bias in systems engineering towards systems without redundancy, which are simpler and will thus have a lower incidence of per mission parts failures, but will have higher system failure rates than a properly engineered redundant system.

I think Robotbeat's point here is the key one. Is there a reason to bias against redundant systems like F9 in favor of simpler ones?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 12:41 pm
"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening.
You're not an engineer, are you? At least I hope you're not with an attitude like that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 12:45 pm
Catching up. These guys are scary. Need to stop dodging bullets before they put a crew anywhere near this LV.

There will be a lot of flights before commercial crew. And things like this are exactly why it is a good idea to do many unmanned flights before the first manned one.

Quote
That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.

"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening. What next, the vehicle blows up and you'll praise their excellent FTS? :)

Completely avoiding any anomalies is not excellent engineering, but magical engineering. As in: impossible. See every launch vehicle ever flown.

Designing a lightweight system to contain a RUD is excellent engineering. The engineering or quality control on the engine was less than excellent, but because the vehicle survived, now they have a lot of video data and telemetry to sift through to find the cause of the failure.

I don't have the slightest doubt that they will take the time necessary to find the root cause of this and take corrective actions, even if it means delaying the second operational flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 12:49 pm
Anyone knows when the GNC bay door is supposed to open?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 12:55 pm
Anyone knows when the GNC bay door is supposed to open?

About 10 hours ago. Hopefully has, but no official word yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/08/2012 12:55 pm
Should already be open. Seems there is a lot to update in next report.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: VatTas on 10/08/2012 01:06 pm
That is a umbilical connection point for the upper stage.
Chris, you mean circular opening on the left side of the picture? Of course it is. But look at what's happening right next to it (as I suggested, save-as these images and switch back and forth in some image viewer). Is it physical deformation or some strange video artifact?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 01:30 pm
That is a umbilical connection point for the upper stage.
Chris, you mean circular opening on the left side of the picture? Of course it is. But look at what's happening right next to it (as I suggested, save-as these images and switch back and forth in some image viewer). Is it physical deformation or some strange video artifact?

I see it, too. Right as announcer calls out MaxQ. I think it's easier to see on the video than the stills.

Keep in mind that the wide angle lens of the on-board camera exaggerates the differences between foregound and background, making objects in the foreground seem big. The area in question may only be a few inches.

Afterwards, some trim around the umbilical orifice becomes partially detatched and flaps around for a while.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 01:33 pm
Catching up. These guys are scary. Need to stop dodging bullets before they put a crew anywhere near this LV.

That they survived this flight wasn't luck. It was excellent engineering.

"Excellent engineering" avoids the anomaly from happening. What next, the vehicle blows up and you'll praise their excellent FTS? :)

If you actually are a staff member at KSC perhaps you would like to look up how many crewed launch vehicles (operated by NASA or anyone else) have reached orbit when one of their main engines *explodes* (not shuts down a bit early).

I'll stick with Mary Shaeffer's view that "Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 01:35 pm
Moved from the launch updates thread:

Dragon will have to do a larger out of plane burn but within limits.

You mean on account of some 30 second delay to SECO-1?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 01:38 pm
I'm predicting when the details of this event are released later today, a lot of this speculation will turn out to be wrong and those same people will start yelling "CONSPIRACY!  THEY'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE EXPLOSION!"  Let's let the rocket experts be rocket experts.

Remember when the shuttle returned to flight after the Columbia disaster?  There was one member of the press who took every tiny piece of foam liberation she saw and started screaming "they're all gonna die" at every press conference (not in those exact words, but in her questions).  This whole thread is starting to sound just like that...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 01:38 pm
I'll stick with Mary Shaeffer's view that "Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."

Seems like a good time to read these:
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/after-ten-years-why-write-now/
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/after-ten-years-dramatis-personae-part-1/
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/ten-years-after-columbia-balancing-life-and-work/
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/ten-years-after-columbia-balancing-work-and-life/
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/after-ten-years-the-tyranny-of-requirements/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rubicondsrv on 10/08/2012 01:59 pm
I'm predicting when the details of this event are released later today, a lot of this speculation will turn out to be wrong

That is quite possible especially considering the low quality of the video publicly available.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SpacexULA on 10/08/2012 02:05 pm
I just don't understand the level of the hand wringing here.  I am sure people from SpaceX where reviewing the video/sensors trying to figure out what happened starting seconds after the warning came up on the telemetry board.

At this point it could be anything from a fairing shacking loose hitting Engine 1 all the way up to fundamental flaw in the design of the thrust structure or Merlin engine.  We have no way ATM to tell how extreme this issue is, but am 100% sure plenty of smart folks are banging their head against the problem, and more will be in shared in the near future.

SpaceX has to keep the confidence of their current customers, future customers, investors, and future investors, I very seriously doubt that the reason for the engine out will be a mystery for very long.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 02:22 pm
This video steps through the anomaly frame by frame:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEl7udPQoGk

The frame immediately prior to failure shows what I infer is combustion chamber glow seen through the chamber throat (the corner engines are angled outward the most so the viewing geometry would be most favorable for this engine). Next frame shows a point of light quite a bit upstream and slightly "above" and would be consistent with the turbopump location. Overall engine plume location in the two frames suggests this isn't the same glow of the combustions chamber shifted due to camera FOV shifting, but that it's a different light source and that the failure did originate upstream of the chamber, i.e. it doesn't suggest combustion chamber failure. Normally, this location in the engine would I think be obscured by the fairing and TPS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 02:23 pm
I just don't understand the level of the hand wringing here.  I am sure people from SpaceX where reviewing the video/sensors trying to figure out what happened starting seconds after the warning came up on the telemetry board.

At this point it could be anything from a fairing shacking loose hitting Engine 1 all the way up to fundamental flaw in the design of the thrust structure or Merlin engine.  We have no way ATM to tell how extreme this issue is, but am 100% sure plenty of smart folks are banging their head against the problem, and more will be in shared in the near future.

SpaceX has to keep the confidence of their current customers, future customers, investors, and future investors, I very seriously doubt that the reason for the engine out will be a mystery for very long.

Exactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 02:27 pm
@ ugordon,

Nice video. 

Purely uneducated layman's view: Those bits of debris look too big to be bits of the engine bell to me; whatever happened may have knocked their aerodynamic fairing off or, alternately, the aerodynamic fairing coming off caused whatever that happened.


@SpacexULA

It isn't really hand-wringing.  We're space geeks and we're really interested to know what happened here.  :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 02:29 pm
Exactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.
I never claimed they wouldn't analyse it -- in fact I'm sure they're doing just that, in great detail. I merely suggested that it might not be cost-effective to correct it for exactly one final flight of the model of engine that failed. I.e. the cost of LOM on SpX-2 multiplied by the probability of the same issue both recurring and resulting in LOM, might be less than the cost of effectively rebuilding an entire Falcon 9 LV. I'm 100% certain that any necessary changes will be introduced to new build Falcon 9s and the Merlin 1D engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 02:30 pm
Can't rule out the gas generator or turbine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Dave Huntsman on 10/08/2012 02:34 pm
Quote
Exactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.

That brings up another question, though: I'll hazard a guess that launch video will prove significant in diagnosing what happened. Yet, if I am not mistaken, launch video was not a Go/No Go requirement for launch.  After they institute a fix(es) before next flight, will they also have to insist that launch video systems- and sufficiently clear weather - also be launch constraints for flight? If so, that could end up being one of the bigger impacts from this.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 02:51 pm
At this point as far as we know, Orbcomm ended up in the 200kmx330km orbit?

I hope their business as a satellite communications provider doesn't like...depend on having operating satellites in the correct orbits or anything.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 10/08/2012 03:00 pm
What a shame...  This thread was perfectly good up to page 24. And then we got 13 pages mostly filled with assumptions, uneducated guessing and armchair engineering.  :(

Thank goodness the big boss on this forum writes his articles based on hard facts only.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 03:01 pm
Exactly. They have lots of telemetry and video both from the vehicle and from the tracking camera. The idea that they would fly again without analysing and correcting this issue is frankly ridiculous.
I never claimed they wouldn't analyse it -- in fact I'm sure they're doing just that, in great detail. I merely suggested that it might not be cost-effective to correct it for exactly one final flight of the model of engine that failed. I.e. the cost of LOM on SpX-2 multiplied by the probability of the same issue both recurring and resulting in LOM, might be less than the cost of effectively rebuilding an entire Falcon 9 LV. I'm 100% certain that any necessary changes will be introduced to new build Falcon 9s and the Merlin 1D engine.
I bet they will do what they need to do, actually. If this had been an actual full failure, they would really be paying for it, so they will reduce that risk as much as they can, even if just for a single flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:03 pm
As for whether this CRS-1 event will impact the CRS-2 launch: it's almost certain that somebody now has a lot more work to do between now and then! I hope they are open about it. Can anyone confirm the investigation will need to fully include the range operator (USAF) at a minimum? Does NASA pay for insight into this at all?

No need for USAF as range operator but maybe USAF as potential user.  Via the NLS contract, NASA has insight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:04 pm
Why did the second stage roll control thruster only fire (repeatedly) in one direction?

Normally you see it burn aprox. equally amount of times (about 45 degrees left/right).

Any thoughts?
 

because it was correcting the attitude.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 03:10 pm
Looking at the slow-motion Youtube video, the double view, righthand rocket cam... at T+1:30 as indicated in the video.

Is it a trick of the lighting or does the entire skin of the vehicle deflect "inwards" just above the center of the frame?
Somehow everybody on the thread is ignoring this. That's clearly deformation, not some trick of light. It appears to happen several seconds after engine 1 problem (note that external and on-board camera views are out of sync). It's interesting what might have caused this? This must have been some considerable force acting to cause such effect.

This is just Max-Q pressure effects, in my opinion.  We've seen parts of the Shuttle External Tank (or fairings on the ET), and other rockets I believe, deflect in similar ways.  These rockets are flexible!

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 03:13 pm
At this point as far as we know, Orbcomm ended up in the 200kmx330km orbit?

I'm going to wait a day to see how Space Trak sorts things out. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:15 pm
I'm going with a nozzle failure.

Lots of exposed tubes on a Merlin 1C. How humid has it been at the pad?

I worry about rocket engines rusting away. I don't like to see launch vehicles rolled around outdoors too often. Just put them on the pad and fire them off, don't expose them to the elements.

Nozzle failure would not have those affecs.  Rusting?  That is never an issue, even if sat on the pad for a year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:16 pm
Simply amazing that this (explosion) didn't turn into a a loss of mission.  They'll probably call it a success because it "proves" the robustness of their design.

I call it by the skin of their teeth!


No, they got the same benefit as Delta IV did recently.  They had excess performance.

Skin of their teeth or not, I am very impressed.  Whether you want to call it an explosion or not the event looked very energetic and big chunks of the rocket got blown out into the slipstream and other big chunks fell off.  Falcon 9 just kept on trucking.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Tcommon on 10/08/2012 03:16 pm
At this point as far as we know, Orbcomm ended up in the 200kmx330km orbit?

I'm going to wait a day to see how Space Trak sorts things out. 

 - Ed Kyle

"Falcon 9 did not make its second upper stage burn, and the Orbcomm satellite is being tracked in low orbit instead of its elliptical target orbit."
http://www.facebook.com/jsrpage/posts/10151048911726680
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:19 pm

Bottom line, there was no LOM and SpaceX gets paid for cargo delivery.  There aren't bonus points awarded for perfection.  Personally, I am skeptical of theories that rely on a fundamental design flaw for a system that has made orbit 4 times now.

The Merlin is designed to be inexpensive and reliable enough.  The rest of the SpaceX validation process and ultimately the engine out capability of Falcon 9 are designed to weed out bad engines and mitigate the effects of a failure like this one.

Wrong on many counts.
There are penalty points for successful missions with problems
4 flights does not prove a design.
And the last sentence is unsubstantiated.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:20 pm
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

No, there is nothing historic about it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:21 pm
It obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.

I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.

If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.

Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).
Primary mission goes to completion.
Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.

As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?

No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).

I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.

No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme.

Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:22 pm
However, if the anomoly did not endanger the mission (within allowable levels) then there is no logical reason to delay the next launch.

I shudder to think that we've come to a point where a potential engine RUD is not labeled as a mission-endangering event. Just like Delta IV a couple of days ago, they might have been lucky this time. If you don't treat this as a major anomaly that it is, you're back to "normalization of deviance".

bingo
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 03:23 pm
There is no particularly good reason to think that it will be done by then, either.
Quite contrary.

Few reasons for that.

In most cases(>50%) root cause of rocket failure was determined in well under 3 months.
SpaceX is vertically integrated, most work done by them and they are quite independent of supply chain. 

For example, Falcon 1 Flight 3 failure was investigated and corrective measures were taken, so Flight 4 occurred less then 2 months after Flight 3.

Why do you assume root cause analysis and corrective action will be as trivial as that?
Trivial? I never said that. Please stop imagining things.

But what is your reasons for assuming that it wont be done by next year?

Wrong.  You have no basis for your points
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 10/08/2012 03:30 pm
It obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.

I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.

If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.

Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).
Primary mission goes to completion.
Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.

As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?

No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).

I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.

No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme.

Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.

I assume you shouldn't consider secondary satellites placed in the wrong orbit a success either.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: krytek on 10/08/2012 03:30 pm
So the second stage failed to restart?  That sounds bad.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/08/2012 03:33 pm

I assume you shouldn't consider secondary satellites placed in the wrong orbit a success either.


Has that been confirmed?

Also, any status on the GNC door? 

The silence is deafening.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 10/08/2012 03:35 pm
So the second stage failed to restart?  That sounds bad.

I doubt it "failed" but simply couldn't restart due to fuel depletion from the longer burn to get Dragon into orbit.

I know everyone here want's to figure out what happened but would it not be made easier by waiting for just a bit of detailed information?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 03:36 pm
If you don't like armchair engineering, you should get off the internet.

The problem with a vehicle being reliable enough is that customers see videos like this and freak out, even if it's an emotional response.  Most satellite customers are not that embracing of risk.

I'll hazard a guess that launch video will prove significant in diagnosing what happened. Yet, if I am not mistaken, launch video was not a Go/No Go requirement for launch.  After they institute a fix(es) before next flight, will they also have to insist that launch video systems- and sufficiently clear weather - also be launch constraints for flight?

No.  That's what telemetry is for.  Engine parameters are more than sufficient for diagnosing problems.  Shuttle, with its heat shield in the wrong place for ascent, needed video and radar because there was not telemetry that could tell if foam was separating.

The fact that this happened after acceptance tests and a static fire with no pre-warnings of a fault would raise issues about the engine's overall reliability.

I don't think anyone outside of SpaceX and customers watching data last night know if there were leading indicators of the event.

I really think the agora needs to recalibrate what normalization of deviance means with SpaceX.  SpaceX will not take months or years to stand down like NASA would.  SpaceX will evaluate the risks, Pareto the causes, control the most likely ones and move on.  SpaceX will not correct the things that it finds to be low likelihood, unlike NASA.  It's a difference in culture that customers need to be aware of.

If SpaceX does not intend this to be the perception, then its actions need to better match its rhetoric.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: brettreds2k on 10/08/2012 03:37 pm
You have to wonder the condition of this flight due to no information has been given since launch on the status it seems, No confirmation of the health of the craft this morning or if the doors opened as planned, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 03:43 pm
*If* this was a RUD event for engine 1 - Would this be the first time a LV has survived an "engine RUD" and still delivered the payload successfully?

I'm wondering about that too.  Did we witness an historic first tonight?

No, there is nothing historic about it.

Can you give us examples of this happening before, then? Not engine shutdowns, but engine 'RUD's that did not cause LOV/LOM.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 03:43 pm
I'm sure SpaceX will take the problem extremely seriously and get a fix that will be acceptable to customers.  How long it will take depends on how long it will take.

But as a distinterested bystander, I was really impressed that their rocket survived and thrived.  Luck?  No, good engineering.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: brettreds2k on 10/08/2012 03:45 pm
Id agree, they designed the vehicle to survive a break down of 1 engine it seems, they promised this when it was in testing. Great job to them, just wish they would give some updates on the mission
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 03:48 pm
Every Falcon 9 launch to date has had anomalies. Remember the liftoff roll? The 2nd stage roll? The fireball? The fuel-rich shutdown? All of these problems got "fixed".  This one will get fixed too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 03:50 pm
Vehicle #3 was fairly clean, at least judging by public info.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/08/2012 03:52 pm

But as a distinterested bystander, I was really impressed that their rocket survived and thrived.  Luck?  No, good engineering.

We won't know how lucky or otherwise they were until we know the cause of the failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 03:55 pm
Vehicle #3 was fairly clean, at least judging by public info.

Oh, was that early shutdown flight 2?  I thought is was flight 3.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 03:55 pm
What early shutdown?

#2 had an oxygen-rich condition at 1st stage shutdown and a truncated MVac nozzle, I'm not aware of any early shutdowns.

#3 other than burning MVac longer than published info stated (stale info or underperfomance?), was pretty uneventful.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/08/2012 03:59 pm
What early shutdown?

Ok, my bad...it was something about fuel-rich or out-of-parameters on one engine... got over blown...the infamous e-mail and lawsuit.  Maybe it wasn't early shutdown, and I forget what flight now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 04:01 pm
Ah, that. I think that might have been a case of someone hearing about the anomaly on #2 (oxygen-rich shutdown) and not understanding the preplanned MECO-1 cutoff, added 2 and 2 and got 5.

Back on topic, Ben Cooper's launch photos: http://launchphotography.com/SpX-1.html
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Genuine on 10/08/2012 04:01 pm
Quote
4 flights does not prove a design.

Ok, Jim, I'm an engineer and a scientist. One successful launch demonstrates that a design is capable of working. Engineering is a science. Science doesn't prove anything, it demonstrates the veracity of a design, whether that design is mere langauge or a complex system. That demonstration is temporary, as all designs should be. Designing is a continuous process, and the reason this domain is in so much trouble is that people take a design and run with it ad infinitum, expecting it to work over and over again with little or no improvement. That may work for NASA and the Air Force, but it's not going to work with the new paradigm of commercial space flight if you expect progress in the timeframes of your lifetime. Still starting your car with a lead acid battery charged by an alternator are you? Got jumper cables in your trunk?

[Impolite but well deserved snark removed by Genuine]
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 04:07 pm
This video steps through the anomaly frame by frame:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEl7udPQoGk


This movie adds a lot of context.
In the second frame, there's what looks to me like the first piece of large debris exiting the top of the exhaust stream.  (it looks like a flame extension, but look carefully, you can see the object)

It is the largest piece, and I think it is the lower fairing.  It is shown again at about frame #6, already far outside the flow.

At this point the engine reacts, there's a lot of disturbance to the flow (~10 frames)

Only then do other large (but smaller) pieces show up a, including what is very likely the upper part of the fairing

Then, the engine shuts off.

I'm still with the torn fairing proposal then.

----

Near LOM?  maybe.  It's definitely not a ho-hum nothing-serious-happened event.   If you design reliability for a single engine-out, then this must be a rare event.  If it isn't, then you need to design reliability for a dual engine-out.

That said, they indeed flew 40 engines already, and this might not even be an engine-related problem, but loss-of-engine due to an external issue.  Time to wait and see.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: aero on 10/08/2012 04:25 pm
I guess that means Falcon 9 v1.0 is not quite reusable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/08/2012 04:26 pm
This is an interesting time lapse from Ben Cooper's amazing set.  Does the brightening along the early part of the ascent document the Engine 1 anomaly?

http://www.launchphotography.com/SpX-1.jpg
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/08/2012 04:27 pm
This is an interesting time lapse from Ben Cooper's amazing set.  Does the brightening along the early part of the ascent document the Engine 1 anomaly?

http://www.launchphotography.com/SpX-1.jpg

I think there's an easier explaination: a cloud deck.  ;)

That said, "that thing" happened just as the F9 went throught a cloud deck....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Nomadd on 10/08/2012 04:36 pm
 The F9 shuts down two engines part way through the boost to keep Gs down, right? Does anybody know how an unplanned shutdown would affect the planned shutdowns?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 04:41 pm
Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
Let me qualify that. *If* it turns out to be an engine explosion then in term of *vehicle* design this may well be Spacex's finest hour to date.

Engine explodes.

Debris shields between engines contain damage (BTW do other LV's have this? Xcorp have talked about it for Lynx but that's sub orbital at present)

Primary payload continues to orbit. Secondary payload in backup orbit (IIRC the 2nd stage was supposed to have a 2nd burn but if it was not possible the Orbcomm satellite was to be deployed in the parking orbit which was presumably *agreed* with Orbital before it was fitted)

The fact it happened is *not* their finest hour, but how they *respond* to it (like NASA's response to Apollo 13) is likely to be a defining moment for the company.

As for "they got lucky." Well no they didn't. Having an engine (probably) blow up on you is not most peoples idea of good luck. Having it happen and still completing the mission and discovering (later) that is because the fragments hit nothing vital *would* be good luck.

But it's impossible to say if they had that either. They *prepared* for possible failure by deciding to have multiple engines (for a *benign* shutdown) and blast shields between them (for a non benign shutdown).
That's not "luck," that's engineering.

As for "performance critical" missions I'd guess they'd start by not carrying any *secondary* payloads (which, if the payload was that heavy or the orbit that difficult the primary customer would not agree to anyway). So the question becomes are there parts of the F9 payload/orbit operating envelope that are marginal with *all* engines operating normally and standard margins on propellants?

IDK. I'm not that familiar with the F9 payload manual and I'm not sure it would be *explicitly* mentioned anyway.
That's a question of how close to F9's *absolute* performance the nominal range runs. 

Do you have any *specific* examples where their indicated payload/orbit parameters are pushing the limits of the vehicles capabilities? If you don't then is there *any* reason to expect the results of such a mission to be any worse than the ones today?

I'll note it's still *possible* the contents of Dragon may be severely damaged (and were it carrying passengers they might be badly hurt or even dead) and the Orbcomm sat situation still seems unclear. But (in so far as anything *is* known) they both seem OK. Which I think is a lot better than they would be on *any* other current generation launch vehicle.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:00 pm
I will continue to respond to your inanities until I am banned here.

Not a very nice way to introduce yourself with your first post.
Can we please be polite?

Sure, I can be polite. The question is, can Jim?
You're confusing "impoliteness" with "bluntness". If the latter offends you, then you need to consider avoiding internet forums in general, and scientific/engineering orientated forums in particular.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/08/2012 05:01 pm
I guess that means Falcon 9 v1.0 is not quite reusable.

Finally, a sensible bit of armchair engineering! :D

Though, I really wish they had gotten the first stage recovery thing working, as it would have been cool to see the aftereffects.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rubicondsrv on 10/08/2012 05:06 pm
[quote author=simonbp link=topic=29130.msg962967#msg962967
Though, I really wish they had gotten the first stage recovery thing working, as it would have been cool to see the aftereffects.
[/quote]

If they want to see the damage badly enough they can always go fishing.

The range tracking should give them a very good idea of where the first stage crashed, so it could be recovered for examination if there was a need.

That being said, i doubt there is much value in doing that.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: butters on 10/08/2012 05:06 pm
I hope this is something simple, like the engine faring came loose and hit the nozzle. As we saw with Columbia, things coming off near max-q and hitting other things can cause surprising amounts of damage. They'd have to figure out if it was a failure of a fastener or the faring itself. The woman on the SpaceX webcast who manages the dynamic testing group seemed to be very uncomfortable at the end of the webcast, FWIW.

Either way, there's not actually that much commonality between the M1C and the M1D. Different turbopumps, different nozzles, different engine installations. No engine farings on the F9 v1.1 of course. It's hard to imagine this failure having any impact on M1D development.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jabe on 10/08/2012 05:07 pm
while we are waiting for news..what are people's thoughts on this..
lets say the GNC door failed to open and can't be opened...  What will Spacex Do  with Dragon? fly it in orbit for as long as they can or get it down ASAP?
jb
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:08 pm
Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
Of course this isn't the finest hour. A fine hour is one which goes unheard of, like a good referee/umpire at a football game.

But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P

If indeed luck has played a part, then today was their unlucky day, and the previous 3 flights were their lucky days.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 10/08/2012 05:13 pm
The F9 shuts down two engines part way through the boost to keep Gs down, right? Does anybody know how an unplanned shutdown would affect the planned shutdowns?
That is simple. You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown and a couple more out after it. The number of engines out before normal shutdown delays the shutdown time (or even cancel it) and a new pattern of engines to be cut off is generated. No sense on cutting 2 engines of the same side.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 05:13 pm
Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.
Of course this isn't the finest hour. A fine hour is one which goes unheard of, like a good referee/umpire at a football game.

But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P

If indeed luck has played a part, then today was their unlucky day, and the previous 3 flights were their lucky days.

The fact that the vehicle continued to orbit is indeed a good thing.  The appearance of a possible engine explosion is not a good thing and I concur with Jim they got "lucky".  There are likely a host of scenarios where it could have ended differently and performance relative to other potential payloads could be a factor in the future. 

Regardless of the outcome of this specific launch, it is imperative a root cause is determined.  There could be other engines with similar issues (if and when the problem is discovered) that need correcting.  It could be a process issue, which goes beyond that specific serial number or even engine design.

Spinning it as no big deal really devalues what must be done from an investigation data collection and evaluation standpoint. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 05:14 pm
But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P

Luck as in the vehicle had enough performance left to complete the primary mission (Dragon). The fact the required performance "reserve" might have come from propellant actually allocated for the secondary (Orbcomm) I'm sure makes Orbcomm folks feel warm and fuzzy.

For example, it could have survived the engine failure and still put the payload in the drink .
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:16 pm
Designing is a continuous process, and the reason this domain is in so much trouble is that people take a design and run with it ad infinitum, expecting it to work over and over again with little or no improvement. That may work for NASA and the Air Force, but it's not going to work with the new paradigm of commercial space flight if you expect progress in the timeframes of your lifetime.


That just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

a. Launch vehicle designs are not static.  That is not a "new" paradigm of "commercial" space flight.  That is very old school spaceflight.  Look at the first Delta and the last Delta II.  Look at the first Atlas Centaur and look at the last Atlas III.  The current Delta IV's and Atlas V's are not even the same as the ones that first flew in 2003. 

b.  And NASA and the Air Force have been onboard with this and are big drivers
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:18 pm
From the Update thread (trying to keep it free from general discussion)
The silence surrounding the GNC door is starting to worry me. It should have opened by now, and it's not like SpaceX to ignore facts surrounding successful milestones.
Wouldn't SpaceX public relations be hard at work now trying to word a new document (or Elon Musk tweet) about the engine failure? Maybe "boring" stuff like GNC door opening is way down on their list for the mo?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Genuine on 10/08/2012 05:18 pm
I will continue to respond to your inanities until I am banned here.

Not a very nice way to introduce yourself with your first post.
Can we please be polite?

Sure, I can be polite. The question is, can Jim?
You're confusing "impoliteness" with "bluntness". If the latter offends you, then you need to consider avoiding internet forums in general, and scientific/engineering orientated forums in particular.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

I assure you my skin is thick and I can outblunt Jim with finesse.

Bluntness does not change the content of my rebuttal. He makes these kinds of blunt 'not even wrong' absolute statements with impunity here because very few people here have the experience and knowledge to disqualify these kinds of obvious falsehoods and 'old wives tales'.

If you care to comment on the topics of proof and demonstration and the demonstrable decades' long standing problems of the lack of design innovation and progress within the NASA and Air Force launch vehicle procurement process, then I would love to hear about it.

Reusable launch and propulsion is going to be a huge industry in the very near future, with hoppers moving from pad to pad delivering upper and core stages to low Earth orbit and beyond with airline like efficiency, and I'll use any technique I have to knock down the barriers to progress. Statements like the one I commented here have thus far escaped even the most mildest of rebuttals, and that's something I just wanted to bring to the immediate attention of those interested in this industry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:20 pm

If you care to comment on the topics of proof and demonstration and the demonstrable decades' long standing problems of the lack of design innovation and progress within the NASA and Air Force launch vehicle procurement process, then I would love to hear about it.

More proof of lack of basic understand of the industry.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/08/2012 05:20 pm
The F9 shuts down two engines part way through the boost to keep Gs down, right? Does anybody know how an unplanned shutdown would affect the planned shutdowns?

Under normal conditions, two engines shut down to avoid going over a G-limit.

Speculation:-

With only eight engines the thrust is lower, so the stage could in theory continue on all eight engines until 8/9ths of nominal thrust hits the same G-load (ie less thrust so later in the burn, as measured by prop load). Would help a bit to compensate for gravity losses earlier in the flight. Basically, what IRobot said.

OTOH, maybe the off-axis burn puts stress on the core that need to be relieved by an earlier MECO-1.

Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.



ISTR the voiceover on the SpaceX feed saying they'd hit the time of nominal MECO-1, but don't remember them saying a MECO-1 actually occured. Was there anything that said there was a MECO-1 that cutoff the eighth engine, or did anyone observe a MECO-1 shutdown?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/08/2012 05:22 pm
Reusable launch and propulsion is going to be a huge industry in the very near future, with hoppers moving from pad to pad delivering upper and core stages to low Earth orbit and beyond with airline like efficiency, and

Whatever you're drinking, send some this way.

In the meantime, please define "very near future" and "airline like efficiency," and correlate with the known rate of airline mergers and bankruptcies.

Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:23 pm

But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P


Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Genuine on 10/08/2012 05:23 pm
Quote
[Impoliteness snipped]
Launch vehicle designs are not static.

The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:25 pm
1. There are likely a host of scenarios where it could have ended differently and performance relative to other potential payloads could be a factor in the future. 

2. There could be other engines with similar issues (if and when the problem is discovered) that need correcting.  It could be a process issue, which goes beyond that specific serial number or even engine design.
1. says who? we still have no factual info on what happened.
2. a lot of ifs.

Today was a bad day for SpaceX. We'll know soon hopefully whether luck or good engineering saved their bacon today.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:26 pm

The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.

you still don't know what you are talking about.

The HSF industry is separate and different from the rest of the launch industry.  Their paradigms are not applicable.

Wrong about the EELV program
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:26 pm
Quote
[Impoliteness snipped]
Launch vehicle designs are not static.

The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.
Tell that to passengers of a Boeing 747!
Sheesh!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 05:27 pm
Quote
[Impoliteness snipped]
Launch vehicle designs are not static.

The SRB joints were redesigned after the loss of seven lives and the addition of post launch inspection didn't occur until another seven lives were lost. The overall configuration of the vehicle didn't change for the entire life of the program. Ditto the EELV program. Compare to SpaceX.

That is indeed a very wrong statement.  The configuration changed all the time, as has been suggested in previous statements. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 05:28 pm
Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight

And even that "luck" may be cold comfort if it is true that the Orbcomm satellites were delivered to the wrong orbit and if the Dragon's GNC door is jammed shut. That would mean the mission was a total failure. I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing.

It goes to show how wrong people are to call the ELC a subsidy. There's a reason the DoD pays good money for assured access to space.

It also shows how important it is to have a steady stream of cheap cargo, especially if nothing important depends on it as it does in this case. We could have had many propellant flights this year if the right choices had been made. It would have been the perfect payload to get the last bugs out of a launch system and to build up a reliability record. It's no big deal if a propellant flight is lost.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 05:30 pm
1. There are likely a host of scenarios where it could have ended differently and performance relative to other potential payloads could be a factor in the future. 

2. There could be other engines with similar issues (if and when the problem is discovered) that need correcting.  It could be a process issue, which goes beyond that specific serial number or even engine design.
1. says who? we still have no factual info on what happened.
2. a lot of ifs.

Today was a bad day for SpaceX. We'll know soon hopefully whether luck or good engineering saved their bacon today.

1.  True with respect to knowing precisely what happened.  But an engine appears to have exploded based on known evidence now.  If you think that scenario always will end well you are fooling yourself. 

2.  "Ifs" are based on the fact that this is speculation because as you said we do not know the precise cause.  These "ifs" however are based on engineering knowledge of space hardware and common sense best practices.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/08/2012 05:31 pm
Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight

And even that "luck" may be cold comfort if it is true that the Orbcomm satellites were delivered to the wrong orbit and if the Dragon's GNC door is jammed shut. That would mean the mission was a total failure. I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing.

It goes to show how wrong people are to call the ELC a subsidy. There's a reason the DoD pays good money for assured access to space.

It also shows how important it is to have a steady stream of cheap cargo, especially if nothing important depends on it as it does in this case. We could have had many propellant flights this year if the right choices had been made. It would have been the perfect payload to get the last bugs out of a launch system and to build up a reliability record. It's no big deal if a propellant flight is lost.

Heh nice doom and gloom scenario you have here. The most likely reason for no information is that they want to be able to present all the facts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: PreferToLurk on 10/08/2012 05:32 pm
Mainstream media have ended their silence on the RUD, SpaceX better hurry up and put out a statement or risk losing control of the narrative. 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/that-smooth-spacex-launch-turns-out-one-of-the-engines-exploded/

That is now the top headline in the google news coverage of the launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 05:33 pm
The fact that the vehicle continued to orbit is indeed a good thing.  The appearance of a possible engine explosion is not a good thing and I concur with Jim they got "lucky".

I'm not sure just yet what I think I'm seeing in the video.  It might just be an engine shutdown, which if you go back and look at the older Merlin 1C static test videos has a certain violence of its own.  This happened at altitude, which can enhance plume effects, etc.  On the other hand, fragments of something are visible after the shutdown.  These might be structural, but are just as likely to be ice or insulation.

Hopefully SpaceX will be able to fill in the blanks.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: thydusk666 on 10/08/2012 05:33 pm
Is there a backup plan in case the GNC door cannot be opened?
Would it be technically possible to perform an autonomous docking?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/08/2012 05:33 pm
if it is true that the Orbcomm satellites were delivered to the wrong orbit and if the Dragon's GNC door is jammed shut.

I dont think anyone of repute is suggesting this at this time.  Remember that SpaceX is busy with a bunch of things from the first stage issue, orbcomm ect.  The PAO plays to the "science is cool" crowd and probably is not doing a step-by step update.  Lts not jump to conclusions based on a lack of updates.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 05:34 pm

But saying they got lucky is unsubstantiated, unless of course you have inside info (that quick!?), which is unfair on the rest of us :P


Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight
Ah, that's beyond what I know. I had the understanding that F9 had engine out capability, i.e. it always has "performance margin" for such events. Is that not the case?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 05:34 pm
Is there a backup plan in case the GNC door cannot be opened?
Would it be technically possible to perform an autonomous docking?

Can a blind man navigate without his stick?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 05:39 pm
Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight

And even that "luck" may be cold comfort if it is true that the Orbcomm satellites were delivered to the wrong orbit and if the Dragon's GNC door is jammed shut. That would mean the mission was a total failure. I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing.

::) Going a bit overboard, eh? If nothing else, engine-out capability of the F9 has gone from theory to FACT. (even if it comes out of the performance margin, which existed in this flight)

It also shows how important it is to have a steady stream of cheap cargo, especially if nothing important depends on it as it does in this case. We could have had many propellant flights this year if the right choices had been made. It would have been the perfect payload to get the last bugs out of a launch system and to build up a reliability record. It's no big deal if a propellant flight is lost.

No worries, I'm sure you would still be there saying "I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing" if this had occurred in a hypothetical 4th propellant delivery flight. You don't see the contradiction in your two paragraphs?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DMeader on 10/08/2012 05:39 pm
Is there a backup plan in case the GNC door cannot be opened?
Would it be technically possible to perform an autonomous docking?

CBM-equipped vehicles don't "dock", they are "berthed". The vehicle alone can't do that, it needs done by the arm, which needs the grapple fixture exposed, hence the need for the door to open.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Bugfix on 10/08/2012 05:41 pm
Wasn't there a NOTAM for the Pacific for yesterday, in case they had to deorbit the Dragon shortly after launch? And if the GNC door didn't open, wouldn't this be such a case? Or can Dragon not initiate the deorbit burn without the GNC door open?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/08/2012 05:44 pm
It obviously *looked* pretty serious and Spacex confirm early engine shutdown.

I'll note that concerns about aerodynamic forces shredding the engine nozzle tend to be about the engine at *sea* level, not when the engine, or rather the nozzle on it reaches (or exceeds) its designed altitude. On that basis the idea that the engine was starting to spin down (smoky exhaust suggesting unburnt RP1) and the unbalenced aero forces tearing the nozzle off seem unlikely.

If it was a full on RUD event this could be Spacex's *finest* hour.

Engine is not just shut down early, it's *destroyed* (if correct).
Primary mission goes to completion.
Secondary mission also appears to have successfully been carried out.

As others have asked, has a mission *ever* survived that much damage and still succeeded?

No LOM, No LOV and I suspect (but cannot prove) had it been a crewed Dragon no LOC (I can imagine ways to kill the crew which leave the capsule intact but I can't believe they would not be picked up in design or test).

I also suspect ISS crew will be taking a *very* detailed look over the whole of Dragon looking for damage before they commit to berthing.

The key issues are design flaw Vs fabrication flaw and how to correct and/or detect it.

No doubt a lot of telemetry is being chewed through right now and I hope NASA don't get cold feet over Dragon and CRS. while shocking I believe the results will be of *huge* benefit to the programme.

Wrong, this is not a finest hour.  They just got lucky.  A performance critical mission would not have the same out come.

agree, they got luckey twice IMHO, last mission something funky with their tank pressurization.   This mission they seem to have fixed that issue.

I did notice another item kinda strange.  Was wondering if this was the tank that long ago had "welding issues" ?   

Something wierd I also noticed in some of the Pics.   Some of the vertical lighting makes the LV look all pure white.   While in some other pics the engine section looks like its been out in the sun for a few years (kinda yellow).  Makes the whole LV look like it was parts of several reassembled for this mission.   Another key give away is the SpaceX letters on the bottom and nothing on the tank above....its kinda strange.


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: craigcocca on 10/08/2012 05:45 pm
We can stop the speculation now. The GNC door opened as planned last night, per SpaceX (posted on SFN at 1:35pm ET)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 05:49 pm
::) Going a bit overboard, eh? If nothing else, engine-out capability of the F9 has gone from theory to FACT. (even if it comes out of the performance margin, which existed in this flight)

That's only a silver lining, it's still very bad news overall.

Quote
No worries, I'm sure you would still be there saying "I had expected something to go wrong sooner or later, but nothing this bad, it's really disappointing" if this had occurred in a hypothetical 4th propellant delivery flight. You don't see the contradiction in your two paragraphs?

No, I wouldn't because there would be very little riding on it. No prospective customers to scare off, no funding in danger of drying up, no ISS resupply in jeopardy. I'd be saying "this is why these flights are so useful".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 05:50 pm
We can stop the speculation now. The GNC door opened as planned last night, per SpaceX (posted on SFN at 1:35pm ET)

Thank goodness. Any official word on the Orbcomm satellites?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JohnFornaro on 10/08/2012 05:50 pm
"Falcon 9 detected an anomaly on one of the nine engines and shut it down," Musk wrote in an email to Spaceflight Now. "As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in realtime to reach the target orbit, which is why the burn times were a bit longer."

Totally excellent recovery.  Scary that it happened.

"rapid unscheduled disassembly"

Most American families with small children experience this every Christmas.  Not sure what all the fuss is about.

Basically the B-17 of the US space fleet.

A tough, airplane, among my favorites.

"normalization of deviance"

You talkin' to me???

Awaiting on further input from Snappy Comeback Department.

If you don't like armchair engineering, you should get off the internet.

+1

Quote
I really think the agora needs to recalibrate what normalization of deviance means with SpaceX.  SpaceX will not take months or years to stand down like NASA would.  SpaceX will evaluate the risks, Pareto the causes, control the most likely ones and move on.  SpaceX will not correct the things that it finds to be low likelihood, unlike NASA.  It's a difference in culture that customers need to be aware of.

+1 more.

Plus, sincere thanks for the new (for me) term Pareto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency#Use_in_engineering), which is exactly how one must work in the real world.

Learn something new every day.

Still starting your car with a lead acid battery charged by an alternator are you? Got jumper cables in your trunk?

Great [edited] snappy comeback, except for this question, which left me scratching my head.  At least I'm not cranking the engine by hand...

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

What he said.  This is probably the best forum, but hey, there I go expressing an opinion not based on hard, factual data.

Great flight so far.  Hope the landing goes well.  Enjoy your ice cream up there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: titanmiller on 10/08/2012 05:52 pm
From the Ars article :

Quote
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/that-smooth-spacex-launch-turns-out-one-of-the-engines-exploded/
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Mongo62 on 10/08/2012 05:53 pm
From SpaceX:

Quote
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.

So I am guessing that unplanned sideways jetting exhaust impacted the adjacent fairing, which broke apart.  This would presumably be the large objects seen falling from the base of the first stage.  It would seem that the engine did NOT explode, but instead developed a "leak".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 05:54 pm
Heh nice doom and gloom scenario you have here. The most likely reason for no information is that they want to be able to present all the facts.

I wasn't saying the mission was a total failure, just that it could turn out to be a total failure. I'm really relieved the GNC door rumour was wrong, and I hope the Orbcomm one is too. The mission could still turn out to be a total success, though one with a very worrying anomaly. However, even now for all we know it could still end in total failure. Let's not count our Dragons before they hatch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 05:54 pm
As people like Jim know only too well, this business is not easy. A bit of humility as to that fact, is never a bad thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 05:57 pm


Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.

The 1.14 G overload would only cause stress (or rather compression) above plan at the cabin end. This might be an issue with tourists but hopefully not for cargos.

At the engine end, the force on the frame is what the engines produce. It will be designed for 9 engines. 8 engines firing compared to 7 is still 8/9th of launch compression, even if the acceleration is higher.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 10/08/2012 05:58 pm
Not there finest hour by any stretch of the imagination. Yes it survived the RUD (love that we have an acronym for something like this), but how much was that down to luck and how much down to engineering?

Overall maybe this will calm down some of this Space X good ULA & everyone else bad I have noted about.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 06:00 pm
Perhaps not the finest hour, but if the mission is sucsessful (I take it we don't know yet), then they'll have learnt a lot more from this than with a routine mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rdale on 10/08/2012 06:01 pm
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:01 pm
From the Ars article :

Quote
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

Falcon 9 did exactly what it was designed to do. Like the Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine out situation and still complete its mission.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/that-smooth-spacex-launch-turns-out-one-of-the-engines-exploded/

"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, perhaps...

But however you interpret "engine pressure release," it looks like they believe the engine was, in fact, the point of failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: IRobot on 10/08/2012 06:02 pm
I wasn't saying the mission was a total failure, just that it could turn out to be a total failure. I'm really relieved the GNC door rumour was wrong, and I hope the Orbcomm one is too. The mission could still turn out to be a total success, though one with a very worrying anomaly. However, even now for all we know it could still end in total failure. Let's not count our Dragons before they hatch.

Dragon aside, this mission may well be a future reference for their marketing and even a reference for new rocket designs by other companies. Engine redundancy can save the day!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 06:03 pm
I did notice another item kinda strange.  Was wondering if this was the tank that long ago had "welding issues" ?

Can you be more specific about this? The tank itself seems to have performed well - if it had a leak, I suspect it would not gone as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 06:04 pm
The F9 shuts down two engines part way through the boost to keep Gs down, right? Does anybody know how an unplanned shutdown would affect the planned shutdowns?

Well, based purely on the MET clock, both MECO events were later than expected by about 30 seconds if my memory serves me well.


Re.: 'pressure release'.  I'm betting a fuel or oxidiser line downstream of the turbopump disconnected and the stream of high-flow-rate fluid coming out of the pump blew the fairing off.

If I'm right (remember: amateur here), I would have the guys at SLC-40 go over every nut and joint on the SpX-2 LV's fuel system and give them a few extra turns for luck.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: gwiz on 10/08/2012 06:05 pm
Any official word on the Orbcomm satellites?
And if the Orbcomm is in the wrong orbit, does it have enough manoeuvre capability in its own right to get to the correct orbit?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 06:06 pm
From SpaceX:

Quote
... Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued immediately. ... Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event.

Can someone clarify these two bolds? Does lost pressure imply a leak somewhere and what is the mechanism by which "engine pressure release" would affect something upstream? Is a sudden propellant line leak implied here?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: titanmiller on 10/08/2012 06:06 pm



"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 06:08 pm
And if the Orbcomm is in the wrong orbit, does it have enough manoeuvre capability in its own right to get to the correct orbit?

AFAIK, the 700x300 km orbit already was a compromise where the satellite would circularize itself and spend a good deal of propellant doing that. Reaching 700 km circular is probably out of the question if the satellite is stranded in a 200x300 km orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 06:10 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

We're going to have six pages of discussion about the definition of "explosion" now...

In my opinion, mission-wise, a second stage restart failure, if that turns out to be the case, is more significant to potential SpaceX customers than the first stage engine shutdown, because a restart issue would be a flat out launch failure.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:10 pm



"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Well, what's interesting is that they're saying the engine did NOT "explode" because they continued to receive telemetry from it...so clearly it was a violent failure, but it left some of the engine intact...which would be the case for a turbopump coming apart, for example...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: titanmiller on 10/08/2012 06:11 pm
I don't understand the talk about the Orbicom satellite being in the wrong orbit. Wasn't it in Dragon's trunk? If Dragon reached the correct orbit, then so must have Orbicom.

I remember seen an animation that showed the satellite in the trunk and not on the second stage. Does anybody know?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: neilh on 10/08/2012 06:11 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

I'm fairly certain those terms are not in any way synonyms.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 10/08/2012 06:11 pm


Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.

The 1.14 G overload would only cause stress (or rather compression) above plan at the cabin end. This might be an issue with tourists but hopefully not for cargos.

At the engine end, the force on the frame is what the engines produce. It will be designed for 9 engines. 8 engines firing compared to 7 is still 8/9th of launch compression, even if the acceleration is higher.

Simulating the flight, I get the following times:
Engine out (9 drop to 8 engines): 80 seconds
5G limit engine out (8 drop to 7 engines): 191.6 seconds
S1 MECO: 195.3 seconds

Skipping the 5G limit shutdown gives a Meco of 194.7 seconds and 47.4m/s acceleration.

Run with an estimated payload of 6.6 tonnes.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/08/2012 06:12 pm
Any official word on the Orbcomm satellites?
And if the Orbcomm is in the wrong orbit, does it have enough manoeuvre capability in its own right to get to the correct orbit?

Increasing apogee and perigee to ~700km from ~230km? I would say "no" and "forget about it".  It was mounted on the second stage (although the Dragon's trunk was doubling as its PLF) and needed the M-Vac's power to reach its insertion orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 10/08/2012 06:13 pm
"engine pressure release" sounds like they know something happened but not specifically what, yet. Give it a few days and things will become better defined.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/08/2012 06:13 pm
Heh nice doom and gloom scenario you have here. The most likely reason for no information is that they want to be able to present all the facts.

I wasn't saying the mission was a total failure, just that it could turn out to be a total failure. I'm really relieved the GNC door rumour was wrong, and I hope the Orbcomm one is too. The mission could still turn out to be a total success, though one with a very worrying anomaly. However, even now for all we know it could still end in total failure. Let's not count our Dragons before they hatch.
Do we know now that the GNC door rumour is wrong?

Agree the mission could be a total success, with both a worrying anaomoly and a "good learning experience".

If it is just a case of single engine failure, then the 1 in 40 engine failure rate compares well with most launchers. The arguments over the  benefits of multiple engines have been discussed a lot here and are about to be settled.

Within about 2 years SpaceX should have launched more engines than the shuttle program launched SRBs. That should allow a proven track record.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars_J on 10/08/2012 06:14 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Don't jump to conclusions. Besides, the term "explosion" is not precise and can mean a lot of things to us not in the business. For example, see the lengthy arguments that have been made re: Challenger exploding or conflagrating.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:14 pm
I don't understand the talk about the Orbicom satellite being in the wrong orbit. Wasn't it in Dragon's trunk? If Dragon reached the correct orbit, then so must have Orbicom.

I remember seen an animation that showed the satellite in the trunk and not on the second stage. Does anybody know?

Orbcomm stayed on stage 2, which was supposed to have a second burn to reach a higher orbit after dropping off Dragon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SF Doug on 10/08/2012 06:15 pm
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?

How about a "luck" thread?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 06:16 pm
Do we know now that the GNC door rumour is wrong?

SpaceX have confirmed the door has opened.

Quote
If it is just a case of single engine failure, then the 1 in 40 engine failure rate compares well with most launchers. The arguments over the  benefits of multiple engines have been discussed a lot here and are about to be settled.

Well, they do have 10 of those engines on each vehicle, so they need higher reliability.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Arceus12345 on 10/08/2012 06:17 pm
So was the satellite deployment a failure? I heard it was miles off of the orbit its supposed to be on!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: asmi on 10/08/2012 06:19 pm
Whatever happened to the engine, ultimately it's a good thing for SpaceX. Most LVs in a history had much worse luck, and their failures had occured later in their lifecycle, and that overconfidence was paid by the blood of humans.
As an engineer I know that if your system goes live without a hitch, it's a sign that troubles are ahead. And that's always been like that. So SpaceX has got a chance to refine system well before anyone is onboard, and that is indeed a very good thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Pelorat on 10/08/2012 06:20 pm



"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

It's just a way to spin the words I guess. Technically the engine didn't explode. Instead something ruptured, possibly between the turbo pump and the engine thrust chamber, causing a pressure release that had the strength of a small explosion. This pressure release caused a pressure increase in the engine housing which ultimately resulted in the faring being blown to bits. Where you draw the line between a pressure release capable of causing structural damage and an explosion is a matter of semantics I guess ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SpacexULA on 10/08/2012 06:25 pm
So was the satellite deployment a failure? I heard it was miles off of the orbit its supposed to be on!

This has not been confirmed.  It's also not been confirmed whether they hit Santa Clause on the way up, or if the North Koreans shot engine 1 out .

Just wait, everything will be updated, NASA nor Aerospace companies run at the Space Forum Tempo.  I am sure we will have official confirmation by SpaceX or Orbcomm by Tuesday.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 06:25 pm



"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

It's just a way to spin the words I guess. Technically the engine didn't explode. Instead something ruptured, possibly between the turbo pump and the engine thrust chamber, causing a pressure release that had the strength of a small explosion. This pressure release caused a pressure increase in the engine housing which ultimately resulted in the faring being blown to bits. Where you draw the line between a pressure release capable of causing structural damage and an explosion is a matter of semantics I guess ;D

I'm not so sure about semantics.

A Gas Line "Rupture" is when gas flows out of it's containment vessel. A Gas Line "Explosion" is when the gas is ignited...and well...much more kinetic energy is released and much more damage is done.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/08/2012 06:26 pm
The fact that the vehicle continued to orbit is indeed a good thing.  The appearance of a possible engine explosion is not a good thing and I concur with Jim they got "lucky".

I'm not sure just yet what I think I'm seeing in the video.  It might just be an engine shutdown, which if you go back and look at the older Merlin 1C static test videos has a certain violence of its own.  This happened at altitude, which can enhance plume effects, etc.  On the other hand, fragments of something are visible after the shutdown.  These might be structural, but are just as likely to be ice or insulation.

Hopefully SpaceX will be able to fill in the blanks.

 - Ed Kyle

What we need is a time line of events compared to the video.

At what time was the anomaly detected?
At what time did shut down occur?
Was this before, after, or during the observed debris?

Since the vehicle was at near max-Q I am still not convinced what we are seeing is not the aero forces ripping the engine (or nozzle) off as it shut down.

A Nozzle is to a degree pressurized stabilized, just as the Atlas Balloon tank was. You shutdown the engine and you loose that stabilization and the aero forces could collapse then rip it off.

Also, the structure is designed to have the engine pushing on it. The mount might not be strong enough at max-Q to support the drag from an engine that has shutdown.

Have not seen anyone note that they extended the first stage burn, this means they managed to shutoff the propellant flow to the engine. If the valves had left with the engine best case they would have run out of propellants at the nominal time. So what ever happened, happened down stream of the valves. That is good.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SF Doug on 10/08/2012 06:27 pm

Quote
Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release


Could it mean that the loss of the thrust plume from engine 1 changed the flow/pressure gradient over the fairing?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 10/08/2012 06:29 pm
The fact that the vehicle continued to orbit is indeed a good thing.  The appearance of a possible engine explosion is not a good thing and I concur with Jim they got "lucky".

I'm not sure just yet what I think I'm seeing in the video.  It might just be an engine shutdown, which if you go back and look at the older Merlin 1C static test videos has a certain violence of its own.  This happened at altitude, which can enhance plume effects, etc.  On the other hand, fragments of something are visible after the shutdown.  These might be structural, but are just as likely to be ice or insulation.

Hopefully SpaceX will be able to fill in the blanks.

 - Ed Kyle

What we need is a time line of events compared to the video.

At what time was the anomaly detected?
At what time did shut down occur?
Was this before, after, or during the observed debris?

Since the vehicle was at near max-Q I am still not convinced what we are seeing is not the aero forces ripping the engine (or nozzle) off as it shut down.

A Nozzle is to a degree pressurized stabilized, just as the Atlas Balloon tank was. You shutdown the engine and you loose that stabilization and the aero forces could collapse then rip it off.

Also, the structure is designed to have the engine pushing on it. The mount might not be strong enough at max-Q to support the drag from an engine that has shutdown.

Have not seen anyone note that they extended the first stage burn, this means they managed to shutoff the propellant flow to the engine. If the valves had left with the engine best case they would have run out of propellants at the nominal time. So what ever happened, happened down stream of the valves. That is good.

They mentioned last night that they had an extra 30sec of thrust due to the loss of #1.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:30 pm

Quote
Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release


Could it mean that the loss of the thrust plume from engine 1 changed the flow/pressure gradient over the fairing?

No. Their wording is PR-speak for a catastrophic engine failure that blew the fairing off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Pelorat on 10/08/2012 06:35 pm

I'm not so sure about semantics.

A Gas Line "Rupture" is when gas flows out of it's containment vessel. A Gas Line "Explosion" is when the gas is ignited...and well...much more kinetic energy is released and much more damage is done.


I stand corrected :)

On topic. Glad to hear that the engine didn't disassemble itself completely. The fact that they continued to receive telemetry should make it easier to locate the point of failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/08/2012 06:45 pm
So was the satellite deployment a failure? I heard it was miles off of the orbit its supposed to be on!

This has not been confirmed.  It's also not been confirmed whether they hit Santa Clause on the way up, or if the North Koreans shot engine 1 out .

Just wait, everything will be updated, NASA nor Aerospace companies run at the Space Forum Tempo.  I am sure we will have official confirmation by SpaceX or Orbcomm by Tuesday.


Nevertheless, USSTRATCOM tracking on SpaceTrack shows the objects that are probably Orbcomm and Stage 2 in a low orbit. I agree it's not confirmed that one of these objects is Orbcomm, but the lack of any tracked objects in the correct orbit and the number of objects tracked in the low orbit is strongly suggestive. In contrast, I see no evidence in the orbital data for a polar sleigh intercept propelled by antisatellite ballistic reindeer
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/08/2012 06:45 pm

Quote
Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release


Could it mean that the loss of the thrust plume from engine 1 changed the flow/pressure gradient over the fairing?

Yes, a very high probability of what happened. The vehicle was still in atmosphere and there would have been a positive back pressure in the engine 1 compartment area. When engine 1 shuts down the back pressure from the plume would drop suddenly causing a rapid pressure drop, an almost explosive pressure event (here I mean a very rapid and large pressure change not an explosion) occurring on the outside of the faring as related to the pressure on the inside of the faring. All it would take is enough flexing in a a near max Q environment and the engine faring would shred.

As far as engine pressure loss it only means that a pressure sensor backed by a simultaneous reading from the backup pressure sensor detected a lower pressure than the limits allowed for the engine operation. Merlin engines are highly instrumented like the Shuttle's RS-25s because they were meant to be a man rated system. The engine controllers and system responses are also designed with that end goal in mind.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 06:47 pm
For those who don't approve the use of the term "explosion" we may have a new acronym: EPR - Engine Pressure Release.

S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 06:49 pm
For those who don't approve the use of the term "explosion" we may have a new acronym: EPR - Engine Pressure Release.

Not to be confused with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 06:52 pm
To what degree would this event be mitigated, or not, with the new engine configuration of F9 V1.1?  (at least with what we know thus far)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 06:53 pm
For those who don't approve the use of the term "explosion" we may have a new acronym: EPR - Engine Pressure Release.

Not to be confused with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox).


Obviously! Thanks!!


S
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chandonn on 10/08/2012 06:54 pm
For those who don't approve the use of the term "explosion" we may have a new acronym: EPR - Engine Pressure Release.

S

Official statement from SpaceX: "We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it."  Did you even read it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: leetdan on 10/08/2012 06:55 pm
I've been reading this thread since launch, and it was mentioned that the Orbcomm timeline was completely absent from the F9 press kit and not public (though, of course, on L2).  Is there any chance that the Space Track data, facebook / forum speculation, and everything else about the supposed doom of the Orbcomm payload is once again due to lack of released information, as with the GNC door?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 06:57 pm

Quote
Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release


Could it mean that the loss of the thrust plume from engine 1 changed the flow/pressure gradient over the fairing?

Yes, a very high probability of what happened. The vehicle was still in atmosphere and there would have been a positive back pressure in the engine 1 compartment area. When engine 1 shuts down the back pressure from the plume would drop suddenly causing a rapid pressure drop, an almost explosive pressure event (here I mean a very rapid and large pressure change not an explosion) occurring on the outside of the faring as related to the pressure on the inside of the faring. All it would take is enough flexing in a a near max Q environment and the engine faring would shred.

As far as engine pressure loss it only means that a pressure sensor backed by a simultaneous reading from the backup pressure sensor detected a lower pressure than the limits allowed for the engine operation. Merlin engines are highly instrumented like the Shuttle's RS-25s because they were meant to be a man rated system. The engine controllers and system responses are also designed with that end goal in mind.


Maybe only a nit, but they didn't say engine pressure "loss," which I would expect them to say in case of low chamber pressure. They say pressure "release," which seems to me a euphemism for something breaking apart inside the engine and unleashing enough force to blow the fairing off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 06:59 pm
To what degree would this event be mitigated, or not, with the new engine configuration of F9 V1.1?  (at least with what we know thus far)

We know nothing much at this point other than:
1) engine #1 experienced a rapid pressure drop and was commanded to shut down
2) engine pressure release or EPR (TM), caused the fairing to blow off

Now, Occam's razor would suggest that the pressure loss is in the engine is directly responsible for the fairing. i.e. that by the time the engine was commanded to shut down, the fairing was already coming off.

Video shows everything happening virtually instantaneously, there is no visible engine plume decay before EPR that would suggest it was the lack of backpressure that caused the fairing to collapse. It looks to me the engine shutdown follows first visual indications of failure, not precedes it.

In either case, the root cause appears to be pressure loss in the engine and I don't see why a new engine arrangement alone would alleviate that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 10/08/2012 06:59 pm
I've been reading this thread since launch, and it was mentioned that the Orbcomm timeline was completely absent from the F9 press kit and not public (though, of course, on L2).  Is there any chance that the Space Track data, facebook / forum speculation, and everything else about the supposed doom of the Orbcomm payload is once again due to lack of released information, as with the GNC door?

been looking for Orbcomm FM44  .. don't see any data yet..
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 07:01 pm
Official statement from SpaceX: "no explosion".  They continued to receive telemetry from the engine after the event.  Did you even read it?

Well, a very quick increase in pressure that leads to structural damage of rugged components that are meant to survive supersonic airflow (the fairing) could be called an explosion according to the definition of the word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JustPassingThrough on 10/08/2012 07:10 pm
  This may have been mentioned already but most likely the debris is just external fairing.  When you shut down an engine with a turbo pump you don't just slam the fuel valves shut.  You have to bypass the injector and do something with the fuel as the turbo pump spools down.

That fuel is dumped.  If it gets contained in the fairing you're going to have an overpressure event as seen at launch.   The fact that it happened around Max-Q just makes it more difficult for those trapped gasses to escape. If the engine shut down happened 60 seconds later it probably wouldn't have done anything.

Watch this test video of the Merlin 1C engine and go to about 2:53 second when they shut down the engine.. You can see just such an event occur as the dumped fuels cause a pressure pulse when the gases ignite outside of the chamber.  (external fuel dump igniting)

You can also see the fuel dump as the turbo pump spools down.  Which is clearly visible in the flight footage.. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRaeqmYzumc

I think the events are probably just as they said.  An engine lost chamber pressure when something caused the combustor to fail.  This initial gas pulse from the leaking chamber is seen in the video.  The computer shut down the engine and the propellant was diverted to a dump line this dumped fuel built up in the fairing and ignited causing a pressure pulse that tore off a section of the fairing. 

A few seconds later the turbo pump spooled down and the fuel dumping stopped. The INU made the adjustments it needed to get the Delta-V required.

Eric
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 07:12 pm
This thread has truly jumped the shark, now that people appear to be arguing over which misreading of SpaceX's press releases lets them complain most bitterly about how SpaceX is run by terribly irresponsible naifs who clearly don't know the first thing about anything and should be shut down for the safety of the public.

 :P

Seriously, though, insisting on an interpretation that "pressure release" really means "explosion" implies that you are also claiming that SpaceX are wilfully lying in press releases.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JohnFornaro on 10/08/2012 07:13 pm
We're going to have six pages of discussion about the definition of "explosion" now...

...or "detonated"...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: savuporo on 10/08/2012 07:14 pm
It didn't explode, just blew itself to bits.
Briz-M market value recovered a little last night and CZ-4C is as strong as ever.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 07:17 pm
It didn't explode, just blew itself to bits.

This was clearly not the case.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: titanmiller on 10/08/2012 07:18 pm
I've been reading this thread since launch, and it was mentioned that the Orbcomm timeline was completely absent from the F9 press kit and not public (though, of course, on L2).  Is there any chance that the Space Track data, facebook / forum speculation, and everything else about the supposed doom of the Orbcomm payload is once again due to lack of released information, as with the GNC door?

Is there any reason to assume that the second burn had to happen right away? What prevents the second stage from doing its second burn 24 hours later...battery power?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 07:19 pm
battery power?

... LOX boiloff, inertial platform drift...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:24 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 07:25 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72


(before shutdown-> n(n-1)

9 possibilities for the first engine out,  8 remaining for the second:

1-2, 1-3, 1-4, ..., 1-9   (8 possibilities)

2-1, 2-3, ...

3-1, 3-2, ...

...

9-1, 9-2, ... , 9-8

total of 9*(9-1). Even less, if the sw-developers take symmetries into acount.)


Quote
and a couple more out after it. [shutdown]
Right, it increases the number of scenarios to be handled.

For sure they would shut down (in a planned way) two opposing engines. Things gets a little bit more difficult, if the center engine was shut down early. As the thrust vector needs to go through the center of gravity, they would need to change the angle of the rocket to the flight path. As it is happening after 160 seconds, it shouldn't matter any more (I guess)?



Edit: n*(n-1)+9

if you take single engine shutdowns into account.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/08/2012 07:25 pm

Well, a very quick increase in pressure that leads to structural damage of rugged components that are meant to survive supersonic airflow (the fairing) could be called an explosion according to the definition of the word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion).

Nit (maybe not so minor, actually): Having not seen supersonic wind tunnel imagery of the F9 configuration at all, let alone throughout the entire flight regime, the fairing itself may not even have been experiencing supersonic flow at the time of the incident, depending on where the closest shock has attached itself to the vehicle. Flow behind the shock is, of course, subsonic.  And even if the shock was attached at the leading edge of the fairing at the time, the flow behind it would be subsonic and certainly fairly turbulent as well; any significant pressure surges next to or immediately aft of the fairing will (and quite probably did) cause a change in structural loading of the fairing and resultant failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 07:25 pm
To what degree would this event be mitigated, or not, with the new engine configuration of F9 V1.1?  (at least with what we know thus far)

We know nothing much at this point other than:
1) engine #1 experienced a rapid pressure drop and was commanded to shut down
2) engine pressure release or EPR (TM), caused the fairing to blow off

Now, Occam's razor would suggest that the pressure loss is in the engine is directly responsible for the fairing. i.e. that by the time the engine was commanded to shut down, the fairing was already coming off.

Video shows everything happening virtually instantaneously, there is no visible engine plume decay before EPR that would suggest it was the lack of backpressure that caused the fairing to collapse. It looks to me the engine shutdown follows first visual indications of failure, not precedes it.

In either case, the root cause appears to be pressure loss in the engine and I don't see why a new engine arrangement alone would alleviate that.
Pardon, let me be more specific.
We do know that the fairing was blown out due to some pressure release scenario. The F9 V1.1 has a new faring design to accommodate the new engine configuration. I am curious as to what would happen if this event occurred within the context of the new faring design and engine configuration. Either way, I'm sure some additional dynamic load tests among others will be cycled into V1.1 simulations.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 07:26 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: happyflower on 10/08/2012 07:27 pm
How can an engine "explode" and yet still send telemetry to SpaceX? To me "explode" is very specific. After an engine explodes, its non functional in every aspect of that word.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 07:27 pm
The order of events as stated in the press release:

1. The engine lost pressure suddenly.
2. The engine was commanded to shut down.
3. They continued to receive data from the engine.


They then go on to say the EPR is the cause of the fairing rupture.

That's all we know and this thread does appear to be going in circles. Perhaps we should start a Merlin failure and damage mitigation techniques thread.

S




Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:30 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 07:31 pm
After an engine explodes, its non functional in every aspect of that word.

Well, generaly the part that does the exploding and the part that sends telemetry are physically separated so if the explosion/rupture is not big, it's not unreasonable to have it be left alive from a telemetry standpoint. Engine controllers have to withstand pretty rough conditions in normal operation, anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 07:33 pm
Lucky that they had performance margin on this flight
You've used the word "luck" on several occasions and commented that Spacex would not be so lucky on "performance critical" missions.

But as for "performance critical" missions I'd guess they'd start by not carrying any *secondary* payloads (which, if the payload was that heavy or the orbit that difficult the primary customer would not agree to anyway). So the question becomes are there parts of the F9 payload/orbit operating envelope that are marginal with *all* engines operating normally and standard margins on propellants?

Do you have any *specific* examples where their indicated payload/orbit parameters are pushing the limits of the vehicles capabilities? If you don't then is there *any* reason to expect the results of such a mission to be any worse than the ones today?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rklaehn on 10/08/2012 07:33 pm
One other thing: losing an "edge" engine very near max-q is probably almost a worst case scenario from a control point of view. The vehicle seemed to handle that sudden loss of thrust very gracefully.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mduncan36 on 10/08/2012 07:37 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event."
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 07:37 pm
How can an engine "explode" and yet still send telemetry to SpaceX?
Electronics is placed (due to the high sensitivity of components [mechanical, dirt, water, ...]) into very rigid housings. I guess, that the nozzles of the neighbouring have a higher risk to be damaged by an explosion (if it was one). Also due to vibrations the pcb is typically mechanically seperated by vibration dampers (can be even some special type of foam).

If I could ask a question, it would be, what "telemetry was received" means exactly. Where all sensors/actors responding? It might be, that just the engine control computer responded to the guidance computer, but most of the s/a where damaged, not responding or responding of scale.

Quote
To me "explode" is very specific.
Depending on where it happens, what energies were released, ... to me it is not specific at all.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 07:38 pm
"the fairing ruptured...due to the engine pressure release..." so they already know it wasn't aero loads that broke the fairing loose, it was "engine pressure release," which I'm not sure how to interpret...a turbopump self-destructing, or ???

"engine pressure release" sounds synonymous to "explosion" to me. Maybe it wasn't a catastrophic explosion, but it definitely went out with a bang.

Think about it, if you were SpaceX, would you want to say that one of your engines "exploded"?

We're going to have six pages of discussion about the definition of "explosion" now...

In my opinion, mission-wise, a second stage restart failure, if that turns out to be the case, is more significant to potential SpaceX customers than the first stage engine shutdown, because a restart issue would be a flat out launch failure.

 - Ed Kyle
BTW, I think that there's a good chance that the reason the second stage didn't restart wasn't that there was some sort of problem with the second stage but that the second stage had eaten up the delta-v losses caused by losing an engine, ensuring primary mission full success (i.e. putting Dragon at the exact right orbit) at the expense of putting the secondary payload in a lower than planned orbit.


Also, BTW, the Orbcomm secondary payload was never to be put in a regular operational orbit anyway*. It is a prototype and a test payload for the operational next-gen Orbcomm constellation. So, a lower than planned orbit should still be almost as useful to Orbcomm as the full orbit, from what I can see so far. Disappointing, of course, but should be still useful for testing out the next-gen Orbcomm constellation (a constellation of one, until the next one goes up sometime).

They probably got a really good deal on this flight.


*(This is based on the assumption that the operational constellation will be put at something other than 52 degrees... The current operational Orbcomm constellation is at mostly 45 degrees.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 10/08/2012 07:40 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?
My simulator calculated almost zero increase in gravity losses if the 1st stage compensated at 90 seconds into the flight (10 seconds after event).  I determined this would not be the best time to increase the angle of attack since your still in the atmosphere and dynamic pressure is still high.  If it waited until 160 seconds to transition from a gravity turn to a guided compensation profile then the dynamic pressure would be nearly zero and the total increase was only 100 m/s.

This is simulated data and not based on an actual Falcon 9 trajectory.  This is using a guidance system I wrote.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/08/2012 07:41 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?

What matters is how much extra time was spent flying up the vertical portion of the ascent vector.  The majority of the extra seconds of flight in this case were likely spent flying horizontally in space, during the second stage portion of the ascent.  Gravity losses in horizontal flight at orbital altitude are near-zero.  Some pitch up gravity losses likely did occur, but I wouldn't expect as much as 200 m/s.  Note that the pitch angle is probably within 5-15 degrees of horizontal during the latter portions of first stage flight.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 07:42 pm
Do you have any *specific* examples where their indicated payload/orbit parameters are pushing the limits of the vehicles capabilities? If you don't then is there *any* reason to expect the results of such a mission to be any worse than the ones today?

Most GTO/GSO and all planetary missions
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:42 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45

9 (9-choose-1) combinations of one engine-out. 36 (9-choose-2) combinations of two engines-out.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 07:43 pm
Overall maybe this will calm down some of this Space X good ULA & everyone else bad I have noted about.

Certainly not, because it takes two sides to quarrel, and the anti-SpaceX side (they protest they aren't, but they protest too much) will  make hay.  Eliciting a response.

The funny thing is that everybody more or less agrees on the facts and that the engine failure is bad while the rocket continuing on is good.  All that's left is arguing about entirely subjective over-all emotional responses.  Which isn't non-partisan.  If you subtract out the partisanship, there's nothing left.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 07:46 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event."

Well, now we know why there appeared to be debris.

I still think that some people in this thread are massively over-reacting to this incident.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/08/2012 07:47 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45

9 (9-take-1) combinations of one engine-out. 36 (9-take-2) combinations of two engines-out.

72

9 possibilities for the first engine times 8 possibilities (8 remaining) for the second. = 72


S

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 07:51 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45

9 (9-take-1) combinations of one engine-out. 36 (9-take-2) combinations of two engines-out.

72

9 possibilities for the first engine times 8 possibilities (8 remaining) for the second. = 72

Hi! You're both right. There are 45 possible pairs of engines. There are 72 possible ways in which to choose one engine, and then choose another engine.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:51 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45
72
45

Math is fun! And OT. You forget that A and B is the same as B and A.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 07:52 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. "

Oh, that's interesting.  Are they saying that the deliberate ejection of panels is somehow part of their engine protection scheme?  I'm having a hard time visualizing how that would work.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 07:53 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?

What matters is how much extra time was spent flying up the vertical portion of the ascent vector.  The majority of the extra seconds of flight in this case were likely spent flying horizontally in space, during the second stage portion of the ascent.  Gravity losses in horizontal flight at orbital altitude are near-zero.  Some pitch up gravity losses likely did occur, but I wouldn't as much as expect 200 m/s.

 - Ed Kyle
But remember, that's 200m/s (or 50m/s, whathaveyou) pushing a full Dragon, etc... If the second stage was just pushing the Orbcomm bird, that 50m/s could be much more, perhaps even that whole 100-150m/s needed to push Orbcomm to the desired orbit plus margin.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 07:53 pm
You have 9 engines. There are a few hundred of combinations of 1-2 engines out before shutdown
72
45

9 (9-choose-1) combinations of one engine-out. 36 (9-choose-2) combinations of two engines-out.

I respectfully disagree.

(I guess, 9-choose-2 are the binomial coefficients). That was my first guess too, but then I thought that engine 1 shutdown, followed by an engine two shutdown is not the same as the reverse, so you have to take into account the different orders, too. These are negelected by the binomial coefficients.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 07:57 pm
Hi! You're both right. There are 45 possible pairs of engines. There are 72 possible ways in which to choose one engine, and then choose another engine.
No, there are 36 possible pairs (engine A and engine B is the same as engine B and engine A). And 9 ways to choose a single engine. 45 in total.

EDIT: I will stop here before being banned from the forum... It's getting a bit silly....
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 07:57 pm
How can an engine "explode" and yet still send telemetry to SpaceX?
Electronics is placed (due to the high sensitivity of components [mechanical, dirt, water, ...]) into very rigid housings. I guess, that the nozzles of the neighbouring have a higher risk to be damaged by an explosion (if it was one). Also due to vibrations the pcb is typically mechanically seperated by vibration dampers (can be even some special type of foam).

If I could ask a question, it would be, what "telemetry was received" means exactly. Where all sensors/actors responding? It might be, that just the engine control computer responded to the guidance computer, but most of the s/a where damaged, not responding or responding of scale.

Although the exact data isn't included in the press release, SpaceX likely knows very precisely the extent of the damage based on which sensors did/did not continue returning valid data.  You are correct that the "big brain" of the telemetry system is sequestered away someplace safe far from the engine, but the actual sensors are placed in the engine bay itself at various locations.  If you'll recall, investigators were able to reconstruct Colombia's breakup in the atmosphere by following the millisecond-by-millisecond progress of sensors going silent or returning anomalous data, starting from "tire overpressure" readings as the landing gear wheel wells heated up.  When SpaceX reviews its telemetry data, it is also reconstructing the exact nature and progress of the "pressure release" by determining what other sensors were affected, and when.  So although it's true that just "continuing to return data" doesn't tell you much by itself, SpaceX stated unequivocally "no explosion"---which means they were able to determine that the pattern of sensor failure (or non-failure) indicated that there was not a large-scale destructive event.

Although it would be lovely to see an actual millisecond-level animation of the sensor data like the Columbia investigation eventually produced, it is likely that even describing the locations of the sensors involved would be way too much information for a press release less than 24 hours after the event.  The sensor locations may also be considered proprietary information.  So to some extent we have to take their word for it: there were lots of sensors, and the pattern of those that continued reporting data (perhaps all of them) indicated that there was "no explosion".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mikegi on 10/08/2012 07:58 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event."
Facts aren't nearly as fun as biased speculation. SpaceX's reputation is doing a whole lot better than that of many posters on this thread, that's for sure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Maciej Olesinski on 10/08/2012 07:58 pm
It takes too long for SpaceX. I bet they will give us complete report with solutions ready to apply. I belive that also Orbcomm mission is successful!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 07:59 pm
Rocket pressure vessels don't develop nice, smooth, symmetrical holes in them, unless some sort of port or fitting that's part of the existing design comes loose.  They crack, which creates stress concentrations, which open the cracks quite quickly.  EPR and explosion, especially when heat + oxidizer without fuel yields burning metal, are essentially the same.

Oh, and the post about dumping fuel inside the stage during shutdown??  If that were the design, how would that work during static fire or an on-pad abort?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joel on 10/08/2012 08:06 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?

What matters is how much extra time was spent flying up the vertical portion of the ascent vector.  The majority of the extra seconds of flight in this case were likely spent flying horizontally in space, during the second stage portion of the ascent.  Gravity losses in horizontal flight at orbital altitude are near-zero.  Some pitch up gravity losses likely did occur, but I wouldn't as much as expect 200 m/s.

 - Ed Kyle
But remember, that's 200m/s (or 50m/s, whathaveyou) pushing a full Dragon, etc... If the second stage was just pushing the Orbcomm bird, that 50m/s could be much more, perhaps even that whole 100-150m/s needed to push Orbcomm to the desired orbit plus margin.

Right. I forgot the changing mass. It all starts to make sense now. The engine out could have eaten up the whole second burn.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 08:13 pm
Perhaps of interest: the SpaceX press release originally read:
"Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event."

Arstechnica (and my own memory) document this wording.

This was fairly quickly rewritten to:
"Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event."

The rewrite makes sense, but knowing that two versions were floating around at different times might help mitigate some confusion among readers here.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/08/2012 08:13 pm
I'm trying to let this thread flow as freely as possible, as there are going to be a lot of differing opinions on this. I have removed a few rude posts.

Don't quote or respond to uncivil posts, report them and a moderator will remove the offending post (if it is a breach of rules).

I'll write a new article on this when we have enough info to hand. I'm working on that in L2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: JustPassingThrough on 10/08/2012 08:14 pm
Rocket pressure vessels don't develop nice, smooth, symmetrical holes in them, unless some sort of port or fitting that's part of the existing design comes loose.  They crack, which creates stress concentrations, which open the cracks quite quickly.  EPR and explosion, especially when heat + oxidizer without fuel yields burning metal, are essentially the same.

Oh, and the post about dumping fuel inside the stage during shutdown??  If that were the design, how would that work during static fire or an on-pad abort?

Rocket combustors can and do develop nice round holes in them; If you have a burn through.  They normally start as a hot spot then as the wall fails the combustion gas pushes through the hole.  You end up with a hole that looks like someone took a cutting torch and cut a hole out.

Static tests for the merlin engines don't include a fairing.  On pad aborts and tests have water suppression systems running prior to shutdown. 

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/08/2012 08:22 pm
How many permutations of combinations can produce an explosion that is not an explosion but which dumps fuel maybe, and enough to cause a second stage to not restart, unless it did, but where would it go?

;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 08:24 pm
I still say something with unstable stress concentrations is more likely, be it pointy or with degraded material properties from heat.  Water inside the heat shield for this posited dumping?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 08:26 pm
Rocket pressure vessels don't develop nice, smooth, symmetrical holes in them, unless some sort of port or fitting that's part of the existing design comes loose.  They crack, which creates stress concentrations, which open the cracks quite quickly.  EPR and explosion, especially when heat + oxidizer without fuel yields burning metal, are essentially the same.

Sure, and the internal combustion engine in your car undergoes thousands of explosions per minute.

Containment is the significant difference.  When an "explosion" occurs in a space designed to contain it, and the containment works, it is a "pressure release".  We usually refer to the event as an "explosion" only when it is not contained and causes unexpected damage.  A boiler that pops a safety valve and vents did not "explode".  Similarly, the SpaceX event occurred within a fairing that was designed for a pressure release and behaved as expected (ie, the fairing redirected the pressure away from neighboring engines by popping off).

Quote
Oh, and the post about dumping fuel inside the stage during shutdown??  If that were the design, how would that work during static fire or an on-pad abort?

Did you watch the video on that post?  It shows exactly that.  There is a fireball and rise of pressure but usually (for the static fire or pad abort case) the pressure is redirected by the fairing but does not require a safety release.  At Max-Q the loads are different and the response is different.  It's still working as designed.

Obviously, we'd all be happier if that particular design feature didn't need to be demonstrated in flight.  But lets try to keep our heads on: the pressure drop was unexpected and an anomaly.  The various visible responses to the pressure drop (fuel venting, engine shutdown, fairing separation) were, as far as we can tell, designed features of the spacecraft performing nominally.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 08:28 pm
Just for my understanding. Does 30 seconds of extra burn roughly equate to 30 seconds of extra gravity losses, or around 300 m/s lost delta-v?

Only if you're flying straight up. It's less of an issue if your velocity vector is more toward horizontal.

Well... divided by the square root of two if horizontal... But we are still talking about between 200 and 300 m/s lost delta-v?

What matters is how much extra time was spent flying up the vertical portion of the ascent vector.  The majority of the extra seconds of flight in this case were likely spent flying horizontally in space, during the second stage portion of the ascent.  Gravity losses in horizontal flight at orbital altitude are near-zero.  Some pitch up gravity losses likely did occur, but I wouldn't as much as expect 200 m/s.

 - Ed Kyle
But remember, that's 200m/s (or 50m/s, whathaveyou) pushing a full Dragon, etc... If the second stage was just pushing the Orbcomm bird, that 50m/s could be much more, perhaps even that whole 100-150m/s needed to push Orbcomm to the desired orbit plus margin.

Right. I forgot the changing mass. It all starts to make sense now. The engine out could have eaten up the whole second burn.
That's what I think happened, based on the very limited information we have now. Still, I think the Orbcomm bird is in a usable orbit, if far from ideal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 08:30 pm
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

On net I give this release 7 out of 10 possible stars. Because it is essentially complete it gets a base score of 5 stars. It gets 1 bonus point for timeliness. It gets 3 bonus points for the sentence, "We will continue to review all flight data in order to understand the cause of the anomaly, and will devote the resources necessary to identify the problem and apply those lessons to future flights." It loses 1 point for each of the sentences, "It is worth noting that Falcon 9 shuts down two of its engines to limit acceleration to 5 g's even on a fully nominal flight. The rocket could therefore have lost another engine and still completed its mission." 5+1+3-1-1=7.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 08:31 pm
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

On net I give this release 7 out of 10 possible stars. Because it is essentially complete it gets a base score of 5 stars. It gets 1 bonus point for timeliness. It gets 3 bonus points for the sentence, "We will continue to review all flight data in order to understand the cause of the anomaly, and will devote the resources necessary to identify the problem and apply those lessons to future flights." It loses 1 point for each of the sentences, "It is worth noting that Falcon 9 shuts down two of its engines to limit acceleration to 5 g's even on a fully nominal flight. The rocket could therefore have lost another engine and still completed its mission." 5+1+3-1-1=7.
Why does it lose a point for those? It's technically correct, isn't it?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: peter-b on 10/08/2012 08:32 pm
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

On net I give this release 7 out of 10 possible stars. Because it is essentially complete it gets a base score of 5 stars. It gets 1 bonus point for timeliness. It gets 3 bonus points for the sentence, "We will continue to review all flight data in order to understand the cause of the anomaly, and will devote the resources necessary to identify the problem and apply those lessons to future flights." It loses 1 point for each of the sentences, "It is worth noting that Falcon 9 shuts down two of its engines to limit acceleration to 5 g's even on a fully nominal flight. The rocket could therefore have lost another engine and still completed its mission." 5+1+3-1-1=7.

I'm sure SpaceX will be excited to hear how their press release scored on sdsds's arbitrary and incomprehensible press release scoring system. I on the other hand don't have a clue what you're talking about...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 08:34 pm
Why does it lose a point for those? It's technically correct, isn't it?

Perhaps. But the first sentence is purely marketing spin; the second involves a hypothetical scenario which did not take place on this mission. "It's worth noting the glacier freezer could have delivered Ben and Jerry's. In which case we would have sent them "Coffee Coffee Buzz Buzz Buzz" flavor.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kniklas on 10/08/2012 08:41 pm
It is the first F9 launch with engine failure. How problematic it is for the mission we will see....

If I were astronaut to fly with F9 with consciousness that every fourth flight there might be engine failure it would me feel very uneasy (I fully appreciate engine-out capability). Therefore SpaceX must do better then this.

If I remember correctly previous F9 launch attempt had problem with pressure drop caused by faulty check valve (?). Launch was aborted. I'm not sure if recent and previous pressure drop events in engine chamber share the same root cause.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 08:42 pm
Why does it lose a point for those? It's technically correct, isn't it?

Perhaps. But the first sentence is purely marketing spin; the second involves a hypothetical scenario which did not take place on this mission. "It's worth noting the glacier freezer could have delivered Ben and Jerry's. In which case we would have sent them "Coffee Coffee Buzz Buzz Buzz" flavor.
It is worth noting because the first thing someone might wonder if they see that SpaceX has engine-out capability is what they would do if they lost another, and that engine-out is kind of done anyway as part of a normal launch, so it is a relatively well-exercised "feature," i.e. that it wasn't just a stroke of luck that they succeeded in spite of losing an engine but that it was due to careful engineering. And that's true, because it DOES take a lot of work to make sure engine-out is a useful capability... It doesn't come for free with all multi-engine rockets.

(That said, there is a period of time that Falcon 9 v1 can't lose an engine and still make orbit... though, presumably, that's well before Max-Q and presumably there is enough warning that they can shut down before release if the problem shows hints at ignition.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: iamlucky13 on 10/08/2012 08:47 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. "

Oh, that's interesting.  Are they saying that the deliberate ejection of panels is somehow part of their engine protection scheme?  I'm having a hard time visualizing how that would work.

Keep in mind, this almost certainly refers to the overall engine bay, not blowouts on the failed engine itself.

The engine bay is the space above the nozzles, which mostly-encloses the combustion chambers with the aerodynamic fairings and the debris shields between the engines, etc. See a photo with covers in place here:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/spacex-launch-aborted-as-engine-ignition-begins/

If you have a combustion chamber or turbopump failure, that means combustion gasses or possibly even fuel and oxidizer in an enclosed space. Hot gas + nowhere to go equals increasing pressure and heat.

(the engine bay isn't even close to sealed as far as I know, but the pressure may rise faster than whatever is leaking into the bay can leak out)

That could potentially damage the other engines, or their fuel lines, actuators, and instrumentation, or even the rocket structure.

So you can design some of those panels to deliberately be the weak point in all the structure that encloses the engine bay. When the pressure reaches a certain point, the panels burst or tear off instead of the pressure reaching the point where something more important fails.

Anybody started the betting yet? My money is on turbopump RUD.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/08/2012 08:48 pm
For modemeagle: in your simulations if F9v1 loses thrust from two engines at T+1:20 does the payload reach any orbit at all?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 08:48 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/08/2012 08:52 pm
Did you watch the video on that post?  It shows exactly that.  There is a fireball and rise of pressure but usually (for the static fire or pad abort case) the pressure is redirected by the fairing but does not require a safety release.  At Max-Q the loads are different and the response is different.  It's still working as designed.

The OP said that fuel is dumped inside the mold line of the vehicle by design.  I see nothing in the video to support that claim.  It would be a really unsafe design.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Oersted on 10/08/2012 08:53 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 08:55 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 10/08/2012 08:57 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets

That's because cars are designed to be reusable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 09:00 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.
Even in a low orbit, Orbcomm can probably spin this as a success to their investors, since the whole point is to demonstrate the viability of the satellite and its function, etc, before they send them all up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/08/2012 09:01 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets


The difference between a machine that rarely breaks down and a machine that cannot break down is that when the machine that cannot break down breaks down, the consequences are much more severe.

  -- paraphrasing the late and great Douglas Adams
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 09:07 pm
Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features?
I think for the same reason, as 90% of all questions, starting with "why don't we build in..." are rejected: weight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 09:08 pm
I'm trying to let this thread flow as freely as possible, as there are going to be a lot of differing opinions on this. I have removed a few rude posts.

Don't quote or respond to uncivil posts, report them and a moderator will remove the offending post (if it is a breach of rules).

I'll write a new article on this when we have enough info to hand. I'm working on that in L2.

Thanks, and looking  forward to the article.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: johnbellora on 10/08/2012 09:09 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Garrett on 10/08/2012 09:10 pm
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?
Can I +1 this and suggest that we not sweep it under the rug?
I'm not a big fan of letting people forget how absurd they come across when they assert speculation masked as fact.
That also goes for those who started and stoked the GNC door rumour.

*grumbles in his armchair*

Edit: am mildly tempted to snark about "luck" comments. Hmmm, maybe I just did.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: leetdan on 10/08/2012 09:13 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Thanks, are you able to reveal your sources?  And I'm curious, just who are the "both sides" you mention?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/08/2012 09:18 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Welcome
Best, most informative first post I have seen.

So you are confirming that the Falcon 9 second stage did ignite for the second burn after the Dragon was deployed, contradicting previous reports?

If the second stage is in some intermdiate orbit with an average height around the current ISS altitude (~410 km) do we have an tracking data on it?

edit to add first question
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 09:18 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.
Thanks for letting us know in changing this from complete speculation to informed speculation!!!

Also it seems like my educated guess ended up not being so far off.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 09:19 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.
This sounds plausible. IIRC some coverage on the Orbcomm launch (Parabolic arc?) said a 2nd stage 2 burn would take place if *possible* but otherwise the satellite would be deployed at the parking orbit. Which presumably means Orbital can make it work. The satellite is described as a *prototype* 2nd generation Orbcomm, so not hitting it's *exact* orbit should still give them the data to prove out systems functions.

I've been presuming that since no one *seemed* to be worrying about Dragon being off its nominal trajectory to ISS the 2nd stage had to have delivered *enough* delta v to get it on the right vector and therefor the 2nd stage at least on its nominal orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 10/08/2012 09:19 pm
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets

That's because cars are designed to be reusable.

No, it's not. If a car's crumple zone is necessary, that car will never be used again (except for spare parts, perhaps). 

They have crumple zones because there are many orders of magnitude more of them rolling around the streets than there are rockets flying, and thus statistically more likely to crash into one another than rockets are to suffer just the right kind of structural overload that their presence would make any difference.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: kch on 10/08/2012 09:19 pm
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Interesting indeed!  'Preciate the information -- hope it goes well.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: john smith 19 on 10/08/2012 09:41 pm
I'm not a big fan of letting people forget how absurd they come across when they assert speculation masked as fact.
TBF the video *looked* very serious and an explosion sounded plausible.

I would have gone with "explosion" too except for my natural caution about trusting *anything* where the only evidence is blurry video with poor lighting conditions that lasts a few seconds.


Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cambrianera on 10/08/2012 09:41 pm
About the damage done by the accident, did someone noticed that the view we have of the octopus manifold shows no signs of damage ?
It's few inches away from the engines.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 10/08/2012 09:49 pm
Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.

The 1.14 G overload would only cause stress (or rather compression) above plan at the cabin end. This might be an issue with tourists but hopefully not for cargos.

At the engine end, the force on the frame is what the engines produce. It will be designed for 9 engines. 8 engines firing compared to 7 is still 8/9th of launch compression, even if the acceleration is higher.

Simulating the flight, I get the following times:
Engine out (9 drop to 8 engines): 80 seconds
5G limit engine out (8 drop to 7 engines): 191.6 seconds
S1 MECO: 195.3 seconds

Skipping the 5G limit shutdown gives a Meco of 194.7 seconds and 47.4m/s acceleration.

Run with an estimated payload of 6.6 tonnes.

If it reaches 5G at 191.6s, then 47.4 m/s @ 194.7s can't be right because I make that only 4.8G.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 10/08/2012 09:50 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 09:51 pm
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?
Can I +1 this and suggest that we not sweep it under the rug?
I'm not a big fan of letting people forget how absurd they come across when they assert speculation masked as fact.
That also goes for those who started and stoked the GNC door rumour.

*grumbles in his armchair*

Edit: am mildly tempted to snark about "luck" comments. Hmmm, maybe I just did.

No comment on the GNC door but if people want to talk SpaceX, they have to speak about all of it.

An "engine pressure release" that blows a fairing off your rocket is not a normal thing.  I think people should indeed acknowledge they were lucky that it was not more serious because an "engine pressure release" that causes an engine to shut down, the first stage to burn longer, etc could certainly have had a much stronger impact on the climb up hill.

There is nothing wrong with discussing, if after all that is what people want to do, and suggesting that a root cause be found and determined and making sure whatever that was does not have an impact on other engines, in production or design. 

That is good engineering.  That is smart business.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Peter NASA on 10/08/2012 09:52 pm
That's because it wasn't an explosion. I would expect Chris will be writing an article out of L2 content soon. Already excellent information in there.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mrmandias on 10/08/2012 09:52 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

I saw that.  Unless Orbcomm is lying or there is some kind of complicated connection, it looks like loss of fuel on the second stage wasn't the reason for the Orbcomm failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/08/2012 09:55 pm
Unless Orbcomm is lying or there is some kind of complicated connection, it looks like loss of fuel on the second stage wasn't the reason for the Orbcomm failure.

They're not lying and there is a connection.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: DEL on 10/08/2012 09:55 pm
Very new here, please forgive me if I am saying something odd, but reading all these posts, am I to understand there are folks actually cheerleading for a mission to fail? Looking for any potential way they possibly can to deem a successful mission ( so far ) a failure?

Personally I wish them all success, even the Chinese missions ( we could use a little competition )

I will as heartily hope Orbital's attempts a success as I have Space X, and the MSL and every ULA mission.

On a positive side some of the posts here are extremely informative, I will likely be a rare poster, but avid reader.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 10/08/2012 09:59 pm
Very new here, please forgive me if I am saying something odd, but reading all these posts, am I to understand there are folks actually cheerleading for a mission to fail? Looking for any potential way they possibly can to deem a successful mission ( so far ) a failure?

Of course not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: neilh on 10/08/2012 09:59 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

Could anyone explain a little more about what's meant by the ISS "safety gate"?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 09:59 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

I saw that.  Unless Orbcomm is lying or there is some kind of complicated connection, it looks like loss of fuel on the second stage wasn't the reason for the Orbcomm failure.
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.

Just goes to show you that this is a very difficult and highly constrained business.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/08/2012 10:02 pm
ISS Collision avoidance?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mmeijeri on 10/08/2012 10:02 pm
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.

Don't you think that is caused by a lack of propellant?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rcoppola on 10/08/2012 10:03 pm
An ISS Safety Gateway? I get this conceptually but what is this specifically.
What triggers the gate to close? And is it a relevant trigger with the way the Falcon 9 was designed to handle certain engine out events?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Lurker Steve on 10/08/2012 10:03 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.

I don't believe OrbComm originally signed up as a secondary payload. They got screwed once already because SpaceX cancelled the F1, where they would have been the primary payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/08/2012 10:04 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

Could anyone explain a little more about what's meant by the ISS "safety gate"?

Terminology that means position of the stage and release of the sats will not have a chance of intersecting ISS within a specific box/radius around the station.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/08/2012 10:09 pm
Very new here, please forgive me if I am saying something odd, but reading all these posts, am I to understand there are folks actually cheerleading for a mission to fail? Looking for any potential way they possibly can to deem a successful mission ( so far ) a failure?

Personally I wish them all success, even the Chinese missions ( we could use a little competition )

I will as heartily hope Orbital's attempts a success as I have Space X, and the MSL and every ULA mission.

On a positive side some of the posts here are extremely informative, I will likely be a rare poster, but avid reader.


No one here is cheerleading for failure. We all wish SpaceX success (and I say that as a former Orbital engineer). Just different observers offering different speculations about what may have happened.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: douglas100 on 10/08/2012 10:19 pm
An ISS Safety Gateway? I get this conceptually but what is this specifically.
What triggers the gate to close? And is it a relevant trigger with the way the Falcon 9 was designed to handle certain engine out events?

That's an excellent question. Maybe it was a requirement (by NASA?) for this flight that if any anomaly occurred during ascent that the second burn was automatically canceled. I'll be interested to hear what the professionals have to say on this point.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: marsman2020 on 10/08/2012 10:19 pm
As far as the "ISS safety gate"...

The 2nd stage + Orbcomm ended up in the ~200 x 330 km orbit.  The intent was for the 2nd stage to relight to boost to 350 x 750 km.

If propellant in the 2nd stage was insufficient to complete the burn to 350 x 750 km with margins appropriate for any unknowns, if could instead end up in a ~400-430 x 330 km orbit, which might bring it close to ISS.

The "safety gate" was probably related to having enough propellant for be sure that everything ended up in orbits not a hazard to ISS.  Since it wasn't met - no relight.

Orbcomm keeps getting shafted.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 10:22 pm
Am I late with this? - http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20121008

"Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. "

Oh, that's interesting.  Are they saying that the deliberate ejection of panels is somehow part of their engine protection scheme?  I'm having a hard time visualizing how that would work.

Keep in mind, this almost certainly refers to the overall engine bay, not blowouts on the failed engine itself.

The engine bay is the space above the nozzles, which mostly-encloses the combustion chambers with the aerodynamic fairings and the debris shields between the engines, etc. See a photo with covers in place here:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/05/spacex-launch-aborted-as-engine-ignition-begins/

If you have a combustion chamber or turbopump failure, that means combustion gasses or possibly even fuel and oxidizer in an enclosed space. Hot gas + nowhere to go equals increasing pressure and heat.

(the engine bay isn't even close to sealed as far as I know, but the pressure may rise faster than whatever is leaking into the bay can leak out)

That could potentially damage the other engines, or their fuel lines, actuators, and instrumentation, or even the rocket structure.

So you can design some of those panels to deliberately be the weak point in all the structure that encloses the engine bay. When the pressure reaches a certain point, the panels burst or tear off instead of the pressure reaching the point where something more important fails.

Anybody started the betting yet? My money is on turbopump RUD.

FOr spacex, it's always valve problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: thydusk666 on 10/08/2012 10:24 pm
Very new here, please forgive me if I am saying something odd, but reading all these posts, am I to understand there are folks actually cheerleading for a mission to fail? Looking for any potential way they possibly can to deem a successful mission ( so far ) a failure?

Personally I wish them all success, even the Chinese missions ( we could use a little competition )

I will as heartily hope Orbital's attempts a success as I have Space X, and the MSL and every ULA mission.

On a positive side some of the posts here are extremely informative, I will likely be a rare poster, but avid reader.

+1 for all the above.
I am surprised by some posts in this thread which leave a bitter taste...
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 10:26 pm
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.

Don't you think that is caused by a lack of propellant?

Well, at first, they said engine one exploded. Engine one didn't exploded but shut down. And then they said second stage didn't restart, now low on fuel.

It's getting clear, romney is attacking elon again.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 10:30 pm
ORBCOMM press release in updates thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30042.msg963292#msg963292).  Interesting bit:
Quote
However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended.

Could anyone explain a little more about what's meant by the ISS "safety gate"?

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: joek on 10/08/2012 10:34 pm
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.
Don't you think that is caused by a lack of propellant?

Very possibly.  In any case, the situation must have been fairly clear as they didn't spend much time before deciding.  According the ORBCOMM press release, separation was "approximately 9:00PM EST", ~L+25min, or ~15min after Dragon separation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 10/08/2012 10:41 pm
For modemeagle: in your simulations if F9v1 loses thrust from two engines at T+1:20 does the payload reach any orbit at all?
Yes, according to my simulation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/08/2012 10:49 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.

I don't believe OrbComm originally signed up as a secondary payload. They got screwed once already because SpaceX cancelled the F1, where they would have been the primary payload.


I think OG-2 are very cheap satellites, and Orbcomm have 18 of them. i suspect they rather lose 1/3 of the satellites than launch with falcon 1e or  Pegasus.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 10/08/2012 10:50 pm
Depending on the payload, and if the engine failed early (ie navigation predicts it can't hit the target orbit even using all margin), I wonder if navigation might keep all eight engines firing - not do a MECO-1 at all and just hope everything survives the G overload (which could be up to 1.14 x nominal, ie 8/7ths).

Reminder: all speculation from first principles.

The 1.14 G overload would only cause stress (or rather compression) above plan at the cabin end. This might be an issue with tourists but hopefully not for cargos.

At the engine end, the force on the frame is what the engines produce. It will be designed for 9 engines. 8 engines firing compared to 7 is still 8/9th of launch compression, even if the acceleration is higher.

Simulating the flight, I get the following times:
Engine out (9 drop to 8 engines): 80 seconds
5G limit engine out (8 drop to 7 engines): 191.6 seconds
S1 MECO: 195.3 seconds

Skipping the 5G limit shutdown gives a Meco of 194.7 seconds and 47.4m/s acceleration.

Run with an estimated payload of 6.6 tonnes.

If it reaches 5G at 191.6s, then 47.4 m/s @ 194.7s can't be right because I make that only 4.8G.

cheers, Martin
The difference is due to drag gravity losses of acceleration.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/08/2012 11:00 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 11:00 pm
Very interesting, and not quite what anyone speculated about as a reason. ...not caused by a failure of the upper stage, not even necessarily because of extra gravity losses but because of ISS safety constraints.

Don't you think that is caused by a lack of propellant?

Well, at first, they said engine one exploded. Engine one didn't exploded but shut down. And then they said second stage didn't restart, now low on fuel.

It's getting clear, romney is attacking elon again.
dahell? Why do you keep saying that?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 11:01 pm


Very possibly.  In any case, the situation must have been fairly clear as they didn't spend much time before deciding.  According the ORBCOMM press release, separation was "approximately 9:00PM EST", ~L+25min, or ~15min after Dragon separation.

There isn't any "deciding".   Launch vehicles are autonomous.  There is no ground commanding.  The propellant check failed so then the vehicle go on to next task in the flight program
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Remes on 10/08/2012 11:01 pm
The part falling away here seems to be much heavier then the ice (and the ice doesn't leave a trail of fume). It's before the engine shutdown. Seen in "SpaceX CRS-1 Dragon Launch Replays.mp4" at 05:03:04, roughly 45s into flight (UCS-7 Tracker).
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: bubbagret on 10/08/2012 11:03 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.

I don't believe OrbComm originally signed up as a secondary payload. They got screwed once already because SpaceX cancelled the F1, where they would have been the primary payload.


I think OG-2 are very cheap satellites, and Orbcomm have 18 of them. i suspect they rather lose 1/3 of the satellites than launch with falcon 1e or  Pegasus.
$6.5 Million each per: http://www.sncorp.com/press_more_info.php?id=371
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 11:03 pm
As far as the "ISS safety gate"...

The 2nd stage + Orbcomm ended up in the ~200 x 330 km orbit.  The intent was for the 2nd stage to relight to boost to 350 x 750 km.

If propellant in the 2nd stage was insufficient to complete the burn to 350 x 750 km with margins appropriate for any unknowns, if could instead end up in a ~400-430 x 330 km orbit, which might bring it close to ISS.

The "safety gate" was probably related to having enough propellant for be sure that everything ended up in orbits not a hazard to ISS.  Since it wasn't met - no relight.
...
Ah, plausible. And probably the best answer so far.

Could also be unrelated to level of propellant... I.e. because the ascent took longer, the orbital elements were different than expected, and thus the second stage relight wasn't cleared.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 10/08/2012 11:07 pm
Very possibly.  In any case, the situation must have been fairly clear as they didn't spend much time before deciding.  According the ORBCOMM press release, separation was "approximately 9:00PM EST", ~L+25min, or ~15min after Dragon separation.

There isn't any "deciding".   Launch vehicles are autonomous.  There is no ground commanding.  The propellant check failed so then the vehicle go on to next task in the flight program

Jim: Is this a statement of fact based on flight telemetry or based on the operations of rockets in general and Falcon 9 in particular?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 10/08/2012 11:07 pm
Asked on the updates thread...
Only one question, why deploy if it was not in the " pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate".. why detach it from the stage.. ?

I'm guessing that your question is "Why not leave the Orbcomm satellite attached to Falcon Upper Stage and try the apogee raise a bit later at the next opportunity that is also safe for the ISS?"

And if that's the question, I'd like to know too. Are there limits on how long Falcon US can loiter up there and be effective? Or a limit on time between engine out and engine restart? And I see the speculation in this thread that the Falcon US didn't have enough fuel to guarantee an orbit clear of ISS altitudes - I'd have to say that that off-nominal possibility must have been worked out in advance, in that case, to make the decision in the timeframe.

My thought from the satellite end of the business would be whether the satellite needed to deploy solar arrays to get powered in some shortish window and couldn't wait for a further orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/08/2012 11:10 pm
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.

I don't believe OrbComm originally signed up as a secondary payload. They got screwed once already because SpaceX cancelled the F1, where they would have been the primary payload.


I think OG-2 are very cheap satellites, and Orbcomm have 18 of them. i suspect they rather lose 1/3 of the satellites than launch with falcon 1e or  Pegasus.
$6.5 Million each per: http://www.sncorp.com/press_more_info.php?id=371

A little more than half the cost of a Falcon 1e launch, back when they were still selling them. And replacement ones are probably less expensive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 11:11 pm
Very possibly.  In any case, the situation must have been fairly clear as they didn't spend much time before deciding.  According the ORBCOMM press release, separation was "approximately 9:00PM EST", ~L+25min, or ~15min after Dragon separation.

There isn't any "deciding".   Launch vehicles are autonomous.  There is no ground commanding.  The propellant check failed so then the vehicle go on to next task in the flight program

Jim: Is this a statement of fact based on flight telemetry or based on the operations of rockets in general and Falcon 9 in particular?

in general
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/08/2012 11:15 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 11:15 pm

I'm guessing that your question is "Why not leave the Orbcomm satellite attached to Falcon Upper Stage and try the apogee raise a bit later at the next opportunity that is also safe for the ISS?"

 Are there limits on how long Falcon US can loiter up there and be effective?

There is battery life constraints.    Most LEO launch vehicles have only a couple to a few hour lifetime.  Most launch vehicles have limited capability to adapt on the fly.  They just follow a timeline and have no guidance updates. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/08/2012 11:20 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 

Do you have a source for that?
I believe they are required to keep 18  m/s for end of life disposal, so yes, they are out of luck if you are correct.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 10/08/2012 11:24 pm

in general

Jim... in general, how can one determine the amount of fuel left in a stage that is in free flight..?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 10/08/2012 11:24 pm
I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 

This was no ordinary OG-2. They were planning to circularize their own orbit in the nominal flight plan.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 10/08/2012 11:25 pm
Hitchhikers might not always get to their ideal destination.

Secondary means sacrificed if something arises that threatens the primary, in this case Dragon/ISS.

Legal Rules of the road. Good for NASA, bad for SpX and Orbcomm. If this indeed is the case, lawyers scrapped a satellite, I would be PO'd.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: upjin on 10/08/2012 11:27 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 


Thanks.  What ORBCOMM's corrective actions are and how much they can accomplish based on their original plans, would be reflective of how much not reaching the desired orbit was a problem.

It may be that the best way to view the present SpaceX launch is as mostly successful, with some significant issues. 

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/08/2012 11:36 pm

in general

Jim... in general, how can one determine the amount of fuel left in a stage that is in free flight..?


Burn time or delta V are some of the ways.  Vehicles like Centaur have PU systems and know what is in the tanks.  BTW, some vehicles, like Centaur, are never in "free flight", they have settling thrusters firing almost all the time.  Watch the animated coast footage of an Atlas V or Delta IV next time and you will see what I mean.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/08/2012 11:37 pm
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 

Do you have a source for that?
I believe they are required to keep 18  m/s for end of life disposal, so yes, they are out of luck if you are correct.

Nothing 100% definitive by any means.

I found it mentioned here on NSF in another thread and a pdf that looks like it is from Sierra Nevada from a presentation in 2009. 
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS7/SESSIONS/Session%20III/3001_Mosher/3001C.pdf
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 10/08/2012 11:49 pm
Playing spot the parts.. not sure if this has been completely played out yet...

My guess.. [ Images sourced from NSF :)]
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 10/09/2012 12:01 am
I've read through this entire thread, and as far as I'm concerned, SpaceX is fully justified to launch the next F9 without any changes while they work on the issue.  Why?  TWA Flight 800.

Now if Flight 800, instead of exploding, had merely blown out a section of fusilage and vented the center tank, and if the crippled 747 had completed its mission and landed safely with no loss of life...
AND if all 747s were then grounded and inspected and upgraded before ever being allowed to fly again, THEN SpaceX could resonably be expected to behave in a similar fashion.

But that never happend.  A 747 exploded for no good reason, 400 people died, and the 747 fleet was never grounded.  They were not inspected in a timely fashion, and it was 12 years later (2008) before final concensus was reached on a corrective action, with passengers flying unprotected the entire time.  Unmodified 747s with potential fatal defects continue to fly thousands of passengers every day.

When Flight 800 exploded there were probably a dozen loaded 747s around the world waiting for takeoff.  None of the passengers were informed they may be sitting on a bomb, none were given a choice to change aircraft.  Someone rolled the dice and gambled thousands of lives, because at that time in 1996 there was no indication that all 747s didn't have the same defect.  There was no indication that every other 747 wouldn't do the exact same thing.

There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.

Unless someone can explain why bags of M&Ms and clean underwear are more deserving of protection than living breathing human beings.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 10/09/2012 12:01 am
Nice pic of an array.. http://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/255454339936686081/photo/1/large
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cordor on 10/09/2012 12:05 am
Hitchhikers might not always get to their ideal destination.

Secondary means sacrificed if something arises that threatens the primary, in this case Dragon/ISS.

Legal Rules of the road. Good for NASA, bad for SpX and Orbcomm. If this indeed is the case, lawyers scrapped a satellite, I would be PO'd.

I think orbcomm knew what they paid for. 1e was 8.5M per launch(?), i guess now is 10M. on the other hand, i bet spacex is offering basement price for secondary payload right now, could be as low as 2~3M.

There are ways to lower satellite launch cost. Go reusable is one way, but it's not going to happen in the next few years. 2, FH does lower price per pound a lot and ready to launch next year. but first, spacex really need to master  how to do one launch multiple payload.  Secondary payloads on F9 give them chances to practice.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 12:09 am
Can anybody make an educated guess on the orbit that the ORBCOMM's prototype OG-2 could possibly get to?

And at this point it can't be said that SpaceX failed in regards to the OG-2 prototype, because it's not clear what it can't do at the lower orbit.  It might be that it can complete all of it's tests at the lower orbit, or at least most of them and the important ones.

I looked around and it appears that the OG-2 has a deltav capability of 140 m/s.  From what I can tell the with a planned orbit of 350 x 700 km it was going to take about 110m/s to circularize at 700km.  With only 140 m/s to use there is no way they can make it to the desired orbit. 

Do you have a source for that?
I believe they are required to keep 18  m/s for end of life disposal, so yes, they are out of luck if you are correct.

Nothing 100% definitive by any means.

I found it mentioned here on NSF in another thread and a pdf that looks like it is from Sierra Nevada from a presentation in 2009. 
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS7/SESSIONS/Session%20III/3001_Mosher/3001C.pdf

Thanks
Hmm, the flyer on SNC's site seems to be 2011 and says 70 m/s - it may really be older.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cleonard on 10/09/2012 12:12 am
I've read through this entire thread, and as far as I'm concerned, SpaceX is fully justified to launch the next F9 without any changes while they work on the issue.  Why?  TWA Flight 800.

Now if Flight 800, instead of exploding, had merely blown out a section of fusilage and vented the center tank, and if the crippled 747 had completed its mission and landed safely with no loss of life...
AND if all 747s were then grounded and inspected and upgraded before ever being allowed to fly again, THEN SpaceX could resonably be expected to behave in a similar fashion.

But that never happend.  A 747 exploded for no good reason, 400 people died, and the 747 fleet was never grounded.  They were not inspected in a timely fashion, and it was 12 years later (2008) before final concensus was reached on a corrective action, with passengers flying unprotected the entire time.  Unmodified 747s with potential fatal defects continue to fly thousands of passengers every day.

When Flight 800 exploded there were probably a dozen loaded 747s around the world waiting for takeoff.  None of the passengers were informed they may be sitting on a bomb, none were given a choice to change aircraft.  Someone rolled the dice and gambled thousands of lives, because at that time in 1996 there was no indication that all 747s didn't have the same defect.  There was no indication that every other 747 wouldn't do the exact same thing.

There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.

Unless someone can explain why bags of M&Ms and clean underwear are more deserving of protection than living breathing human beings.



That's not really a valid comparison.  At the time of flight 800 countless thousands of safe 747 flights had occurred.  The Falcon 9 1.0 has a total of four flights. 

While I do in a way agree, I am also sure that SpaceX is working really hard to understand exactly what happened yesterday.  If they find something to fix, they will fix it before the next flight. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kaputnik on 10/09/2012 12:12 am
There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?

If the fourth flight of a 747 had suffered a significant anomaly, the fifth flight would not have gone up until the cause had been identified and rectified.
If one in every 40 aircraft engines failed in flights, I for one would not get on the plane until they had found out why, and done something about it.

Aircraft are produced and flown on a scale that completely dwarfs LVs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 12:17 am

It may be that the best way to view the present SpaceX launch is as mostly successful, with some significant issues. 




Agreed. I'm trying to quantify that to have a metric that I can apply fairly
to other companies' launches. I'm come up with the following strawman scheme, and welcome comments:

 Primary payloads reach some orbit and separate from LV -  30 percent
 Primary payload orbit is usable, not necessarily perfect      -  25
 Primary payload orbit is as planned (within quoted sigmas)  -  20
 Secondary payload separated in orbit -                              10
  Secondary payload orbit usable -                                     10
  Secondary payload orbit as planned -                                 5

by this metric, the Falcon 9 launch scores 85 percent

For a launch with no secondary payloads, add the corresponding secondary scores to the primary, so 40/35/25

For a launch with multiple primary payloads, divide scores evenly


one might tweak this to cover cases where the LV damages the
satellite in some way - limited damage, subtract 20 percent,
satellite inoperable scores same as failure to orbit (i.e. total 0)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: johnbellora on 10/09/2012 12:21 am
the only thing at this point is they are going to try to do is change the orbit to more of a circular orbit which will buy a few months of operation. Right now it is in an elliptical orbit. They are going to try to use the small amount of remaining fuel to do this. If it is not sucessfull then it will plummet in a few weeks. if sucessfull then maybe three months. evidently its average height is about what the space station is. Not good enough. The Orbcomm is working so well they had to attenuate it. it is overloading the system
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: corrodedNut on 10/09/2012 12:35 am
About the damage done by the accident, did someone noticed that the view we have of the octopus manifold shows no signs of damage ?
It's few inches away from the engines.

I did notice, was going to make the same post. Looks remarkably clean in there, doesn't it?

When I saw it live (and knowing nothing of the anomaly yet) I thought to myself: "there's a lot less exhaust circulating in here than last time".

Now I'm thinking it's that way because either the kevlar shields and thermal protection work really well...or the engine compartment has extra "ventilation".
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/09/2012 12:36 am
Hi John -

 Welcome to the site's forum. We've got some raw notes - matching what you're saying - and I'm about to start drafting up what we have on all of this.

 What we didn't have is potential outcomes for this, so appreciate your insight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 12:38 am

Unless someone can explain why bags of M&Ms and clean underwear are more deserving of protection than living breathing human beings.


Because the TWA 800 analogy is not applicable
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/09/2012 12:38 am
Playing spot the parts.. not sure if this has been completely played out yet...

My guess.. [ Images sourced from NSF :)]

The F9 Merlin configuration does not have those panels.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: cygnusx112 on 10/09/2012 12:42 am
Last night they had a fire on the pad and the announcer mentioned it as being “normal”? Does anyone know what the fire was and if this is normal?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 12:46 am
the only thing at this point is they are going to try to do is change the orbit to more of a circular orbit which will buy a few months of operation. Right now it is in an elliptical orbit. They are going to try to use the small amount of remaining fuel to do this. If it is not sucessfull then it will plummet in a few weeks. if sucessfull then maybe three months. evidently its average height is about what the space station is. Not good enough. The Orbcomm is working so well they had to attenuate it. it is overloading the system

That's great information, thanks for sharing it.
BTW, as far as I can see, average height is only about 260 km while station is at 400 km.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/09/2012 12:48 am
There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.


I seriously doubt anyone is suggesting "grounding" the Falcon 9, at least anyone credible.  You should probably be careful about what you read on the internet and how you interpret it.

There is a huge difference in waiving something away and pretending it did not happen and doing the proper investigation to determine root cause, correcting the problem and making any changes (if necessary) one may need to make to production end items or design. 

With respect to the former, I can only presume that some want to have so much faith in anything that comes from SpaceX that anything *perceieved* as negative (even though it happened) causes an adverse defensive reaction. 

The latter is good engineering and good business and can likely be done within the normal time between launches.  If not, it slips a little.  It won't be the first time they have nor will it be the last.  It happens but customer satisfaction and demonstrating one is committed to product reliability goes a long way. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: tigerade on 10/09/2012 01:10 am
Some questions for anyone that wants to take a shot:

1. With the ORBCOMM satellite in the wrong orbit, will SpaceX have to payback money to ORBCOMM?
2. Would this have been the same problem even if this was V1.1 where both the first and second stages had more performance? 
3.  How much propellant is usually stored on a satellite like this OG2?  Do we realistically think it has enough to make big correction like this one?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/09/2012 01:15 am
Some questions for anyone that wants to take a shot:

1. With the ORBCOMM satellite in the wrong orbit, will SpaceX have to payback money to ORBCOMM?
2. Would this have been the same problem even if this was V1.1 where both the first and second stages had more performance? 
3.  How much propellant is usually stored on a satellite like this OG2?  Do we realistically think it has enough to make big correction like this one?

1.  It really depends on the terms of the contract.  Most likely Orbcomm had insurance, which certainly took the launch vehicle into consideration.
2.  No one can really say, at least with good authority, without seeing or having knowledge of the downlinked data from this flight on what precisely happened and without knowing the exact differences on 1.1
3.  No
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris-A on 10/09/2012 01:16 am
A few images from the Vozoff Presentation on February 11, 2010
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 10/09/2012 01:21 am
If one in every 40 aircraft engines failed in flights, I for one would not get on the plane until they had found out why, and done something about it.

That's poor statistics.  The failure rate isn't 1 in 40.  If a widget has a 1 in a million failure rate, it doesn't matter if the failure is in unit 1, 40, 7012, or 1 million, the rate is the same.  For all we know the next 800 Merlin 1Cs could fly without another incident.

Except there won't be another 800 1Cs, or even another 40.  So there is little reason to expect the next F9 flight of 10 engines will experience the same failure.  I agree it may make more fiscal sense to launch it anyway, pending review of course.

I do admit this failure does now highlight the second stage's single point of failure.  If engine #1 had been #10 instead, the second stage never makes orbit.  LOM.

But Jim you are correct that Flight 800 is a bad analogy.  And that's because dozens of 747s with thousands of lives on board had already taken off before a Boeing engineer could even consider if the failure could be systemic or not.  Given that level of cavalier, I really do not understand the politically driven slowdown I know is coming.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/09/2012 01:30 am
If one in every 40 aircraft engines failed in flights, I for one would not get on the plane until they had found out why, and done something about it.

That's poor statistics.  The failure rate isn't 1 in 40.  If a widget has a 1 in a million failure rate, it doesn't matter if the failure is in unit 1, 40, 7012, or 1 million, the rate is the same.  For all we know the next 800 Merlin 1Cs could fly without another incident.

Except there won't be another 800 1Cs, or even another 40.  So there is little reason to expect the next F9 flight of 10 engines will experience the same failure.  I agree it may make more fiscal sense to launch it anyway, pending review of course.

I do admit this failure does now highlight the second stage's single point of failure.  If engine #1 had been #10 instead, the second stage never makes orbit.  LOM.

But Jim you are correct that Flight 800 is a bad analogy.  And that's because dozens of 747s with thousands of lives on board had already taken off before a Boeing engineer could even consider if the failure could be systemic or not.  Given that level of cavalier, I really do not understand the politically driven slowdown I know is coming.

What?  This is arm-waving pure and simple, at least when you are not contradicting yourself. 

What *you* were suggesting in one statement is cavalier by suggesting everyone should just move out and pretend this never happened.  In the next beat you suggest "pending review" and at least theorize what would have happened if this was the second stage engine.

Increadibly strange.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/09/2012 01:32 am
There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.


  You should probably be careful about what you read on the internet and how you interpret it.


thats good advice everyone should do......but sadly blogs are taken as facts now etc.

Was eating dinner and just about choked when I changed channels and heard the local news.

The SpaceX engine exploded says the news.  They showed the video frames on TV.

SpaceX time to turn ur PR people on overdrive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 10/09/2012 01:38 am
There is a glaring double standard at work here which has never made an ounce of sense.  Boeing never grounded the 747 which exploded, so why should SpaceX ground the F9 which didn't?  Per established aerospace operating practice, SpaceX can launch the exact same unmanned rocket again while they work on the problem and consider this an isolated incident.  They can implement their resolution sometime in 2024.


  You should probably be careful about what you read on the internet and how you interpret it.


thats good advice everyone should do......but sadly blogs are taken as facts now etc.

Was eating dinner and just about choked when I changed channels and heard the local news.

The SpaceX engine exploded says the news.  They showed the video frames on TV.

SpaceX time to turn ur PR people on overdrive.

Given enough rope...

If PR jumped at every turn, it would become expected.
It's likely that once the Dragon berths, they'll answer all questiona at a presser (imo).

It may be bad for Orbcomms position, but as previosuly mentioned, Dragon still made it to orbit - which says a LOT for their system design. I'm actually impressed it kept on chugging along considering the damage.

(though imagine if it was an inboard engine!)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: system9 on 10/09/2012 01:39 am
I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 10/09/2012 01:41 am
I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

I think you will find a resounding YES to that question  :)
I've not heard anything new on the fire, but good to bring that up (though I'm sure it's a minor issue, perhaps a hose failure)

Welcome to the site!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: notsorandom on 10/09/2012 01:47 am
About the damage done by the accident, did someone noticed that the view we have of the octopus manifold shows no signs of damage ?
It's few inches away from the engines.

I did notice, was going to make the same post. Looks remarkably clean in there, doesn't it?

When I saw it live (and knowing nothing of the anomaly yet) I thought to myself: "there's a lot less exhaust circulating in here than last time".

Now I'm thinking it's that way because either the kevlar shields and thermal protection work really well...or the engine compartment has extra "ventilation".
I am pretty sure, but correct me if I am wrong, that that view is from the top of the first stage looking up at the Mvac.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/09/2012 01:49 am
Could be just a grass fire, too.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: system9 on 10/09/2012 01:49 am
I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

I think you will find a resounding YES to that question  :)
I've not heard anything new on the fire, but good to bring that up (though I'm sure it's a minor issue, perhaps a hose failure)

Welcome to the site!

Here is one of my videos. (My Father shot this one.) Youtube is still processing it so the quality may improve later but for now...

I think the event occurs at 5:16

http://youtu.be/6QFUGEarTNQ

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 10/09/2012 02:08 am
What *you* were suggesting in one statement is cavalier by suggesting everyone should just move out and pretend this never happened.

Except I didn't say that.  I fully expect SpaceX to conduct a full review.  If they scrap the 1C and never fly it again based on their engineering judgement, great.  But if they review the data and say they're flying again unchanged, it's justified.

Because all it takes is the notion that the IC is failure prone or dangerous, and suddenly the failure of the next flight is all but assured and the next flight is in 2014 with 500 extra pounds of diagnostics.

I can't balance that level of risk adversity against how airliner crashes are reacted to.  I trust SpaceX to be inteligent about this, I don't trust the politicians.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/09/2012 02:22 am
I was on the causeway last night. I have two videos of the launch and I am also curious if anyone knows more about the fire on the launchpad. Let me know if you are interested in seeing my pics or videos.

I think you will find a resounding YES to that question  :)
I've not heard anything new on the fire, but good to bring that up (though I'm sure it's a minor issue, perhaps a hose failure)

Welcome to the site!

Here is one of my videos. (My Father shot this one.) Youtube is still processing it so the quality may improve later but for now...

I think the event occurs at 5:16

http://youtu.be/6QFUGEarTNQ



nice video.....like the sun comes out during a night launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: rickl on 10/09/2012 02:25 am
I said last night that I think this proves the overall robust design of the Falcon 9.  Whatever the cause, it suffered a pretty violent loss of an engine and still made it to orbit. 

As others have pointed out, the 747 analogy isn't good, since that plane had made thousands of safe flights before TWA 800.  But I don't see much reason for SpaceX to unduly delay the next flight, since the Falcon 9 v1.0 and Merlin 1C are about to be discontinued.  I guess SpaceX has to weigh the cost/benefit between risking LOM on CRS-2 vs. spending time and money to fix this problem.

As I understand it, Merlin 1D is a completely different engine, and Falcon 9 v1.1 has a different arrangement of engines (a circle instead of a square).  So the v1.1 will have different engines as well as different fairings.

Obviously, they will want to learn as much as possible about this failure, particularly as regards to any parts that may be common between the Merlin 1C and 1D.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be much of a delay in the next cargo flight.

I think it's great that they are flying a dozen cargo flights, in addition to satellite launches, before they attempt to launch a human crew.  That should give them ample time to work out all the major bugs in the F9.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 02:28 am
  Given that level of cavalier, I really do not understand the politically driven slowdown I know is coming.

It is not politically driven.  It is smart engineering and common sense.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 02:33 am
What *you* were suggesting in one statement is cavalier by suggesting everyone should just move out and pretend this never happened.

Except I didn't say that.  I fully expect SpaceX to conduct a full review.  If they scrap the 1C and never fly it again based on their engineering judgement, great.  But if they review the data and say they're flying again unchanged, it's justified.

Because all it takes is the notion that the IC is failure prone or dangerous, and suddenly the failure of the next flight is all but assured and the next flight is in 2014 with 500 extra pounds of diagnostics.

I can't balance that level of risk adversity against how airliner crashes are reacted to.  I trust SpaceX to be inteligent about this, I don't trust the politicians.

huh?  politicians have nothing to do with this.  No, it has nothing to do with notions.  I am glad you are not the one to balance that level of risk adversity.  You don't understand what is going one. There could be many legitimate reasons for the next flight to be 2014 with 500 extra pounds of diagnostics.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 10/09/2012 02:34 am
since the Falcon 9 v1.0 and Merlin 1C are about to be discontinued....

As I understand it, Merlin 1D is a completely different engine, and Falcon 9 v1.1 has a different arrangement of engines (a circle instead of a square).  So the v1.1 will have different engines as well as different fairings.

Obviously, they will want to learn as much as possible about this failure, particularly as regards to any parts that may be common between the Merlin 1C and 1D.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that there has to be much of a delay in the next cargo flight.


Wrong, there are more similarities than differences.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Go4TLI on 10/09/2012 02:35 am
I trust SpaceX to be inteligent about this, I don't trust the politicians.

I would think they would be so what the hell do politicians have to do with this?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 10/09/2012 02:43 am
couple of ?

Who was doing the audio for the NASA transmission?   Someone from SpaceX or NASA?

Did anyone capture the NASA tail end video of the replays?    Would enjoy watching that again.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/09/2012 02:50 am
Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: beancounter on 10/09/2012 03:06 am
Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/



Thanks Chris.  As usual, great article.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/09/2012 03:15 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 03:17 am
Does anyone know if the Falcon 9 took off fully fueled? 

My concern is that an engine loss at 1:20 already caused enough extra propellant to be consumed so that there was not enough to loft the tiny orbcomm into the higher orbit - and this was a lightly loaded Dragon.

Maybe with the lighter load, they also did not top off the tanks. (Or also maybe the decision not to fire the second stage was due to a combination of factors (e.g. orbital position), and actually there was enough propellant.

Anyway, even if they did take off fully fueled, with the 1.1 coming up, I hope this gets resolved.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: darkenfast on 10/09/2012 03:17 am
THIS is why this site is worth it! Good job, Chris!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: HMXHMX on 10/09/2012 03:24 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 10/09/2012 03:30 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.

He said the powerhead remained "intact." Which sounded to me like a contradiction of Chris' article saying that the fuel dome fractured. I guess it depends on one's definition of "intact." Maybe he was just trying to say that the powerhead stayed mostly in one piece.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 03:37 am
It would be great if someone posted a picture of a Merlin showing where the fuel done is located and explaining where it fits in the plumbing
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 10/09/2012 03:42 am
It would be great if someone posted a picture of a Merlin showing where the fuel done is located and explaining where it fits in the plumbing

L2 :D
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: HMXHMX on 10/09/2012 03:42 am
It would be great if someone posted a picture of a Merlin showing where the fuel done is located and explaining where it fits in the plumbing

Here you go.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: HMXHMX on 10/09/2012 03:44 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.

He said the powerhead remained "intact." Which sounded to me like a contradiction of Chris' article saying that the fuel dome fractured. I guess it depends on one's definition of "intact." Maybe he was just trying to say that the powerhead stayed mostly in one piece.

The powerhead is the pump and turbine plus GG.  If the dome failed, the TPA could have remained intact, easily.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: SpaceX_MS on 10/09/2012 03:48 am
Article on the latest. Held as long as I could to let things settle and get a better picture of status.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-spacex-review-falcon-9-ascent-issues/



Thank you for being balanced Chris! Now for berthing!!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/09/2012 03:56 am
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

In this case, I suspect that the Orbcomm people might agree with a failure listing.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 03:58 am

Here you go.

Thanks!

So do I understand correctly that it is the back-end of the combustion chamber, and so a rupture there would cause the outflow to be mixed and basically already ignited.

I'm trying to understand whether we have the outflow rapturing the fairing outwards, or the lack of proper engine output causing the airflow to rapture the fairing inwards.

Also - since it is at the top of the engine, it can fail due to something like metallurgy issue or internal engine event, or it can fail due to mechanical impact from the outside.  No indication on that yet, right?   Out of curiosity, how thick is it (roughly) and what metal is it made from?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: savuporo on 10/09/2012 04:05 am
In this case, I suspect that the Orbcomm people might agree with a failure listing.
Here is Orbcomm press release (http://www.orbcomm.com/Collateral/Documents/English-US/ORBCOMM%20Launches%20Prototype%20OG2%20Satellite%20FINAL.pdf)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Halidon on 10/09/2012 04:08 am
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

In this case, I suspect that the Orbcomm people might agree with a failure listing.

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/

 - Ed Kyle
That's interesting, thanks for the input. Is this the first time a failure to reach the secondary payload orbit has caused a failure by those criteria?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: HMXHMX on 10/09/2012 04:20 am

Here you go.

Thanks!

So do I understand correctly that it is the back-end of the combustion chamber, and so a rupture there would cause the outflow to be mixed and basically already ignited.

I'm trying to understand whether we have the outflow rapturing the fairing outwards, or the lack of proper engine output causing the airflow to rapture the fairing inwards.

Also - since it is at the top of the engine, it can fail due to something like metallurgy issue or internal engine event, or it can fail due to mechanical impact from the outside.  No indication on that yet, right?   Out of curiosity, how thick is it (roughly) and what metal is it made from?

I'd call it "head end" or "top end" not back end.  It's part of the combustion chamber/throat/nozzle assembly which is called a TCA ("thrust chamber assembly") in most publications.

The pressure inside the TCA, exhausted via the throat and through the nozzle, is what creates thrust.  Any opening or venting outside of the nozzle will lower combustion pressure, and that will be sensed as fault by the engine controller.  Presumably if that happened, the engine would command itself to shut down.

I don't have any details about the engine but the walls are likely fairly thin, perhaps only a few millimeters thick.  There are many failure modes, from burn-though, stress cracking, etc., that generally require analysis of the post-failure hardware to determine.  That may not be possible in this case.

But since there is only one (?) flight of Merlin 1C left, and then SpaceX transitions to the very different Merlin 1D, the failure has come at about the worst time in that version's manufacturing cycle.  SpaceX has a few hard decisions to make going forward (in my view).  While unlikely, they might wish to transition earlier to the F9v1.1 than they had planned...but that creates it own set of problems.  Tough call and I wish them the best.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: dunderwood on 10/09/2012 04:22 am
Quote
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 10/09/2012 04:46 am
Quote
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion as well. It was not the second stages fault that the command was not given to raise Orbcomm's satellite to it's proper orbit. NASA's parameters did not allow for it. I would classify the mission as a partial success and that is only if and when Dragon fulfills it's intended flight plan.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 04:51 am
Quote
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?

This is of course the problem with black and white pass/fail.
Does it mean "fully successful / something failed" or "partly successful/total fail"?  A similar case is the first Delta 4 Heavy where the nanosats did not achieve orbit and the primary payload achieved a suboptimal orbit - I counted that one as a failure but this Falcon as a success. I hesitated though, and can understand Ed's choice.

I'm considering changing all my databases from pass/fail to a numeric score. Pass/fail does have the advantage that you can use Poisson statistics to get a confidence interval on the failure rate; but for most purposes it is rather a blunt instrument.

I'm tired and not coming up with another good example of 'primary payload perfect, secondary payload failed/wrong orbit' off the top of my head - I guess the Tsiklon-3 with Sich-1 and Fasat-Alfa where the secondary payload failed to separate is one example, any others?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 10/09/2012 04:58 am
Quote
Many people aren't going to like me for this, but given the now-confirmed improper Orbcomm orbit result, my methodology requires me to categorize this as a launch vehicle failure. 

Those familiar with my system know that I list launches as successes if proper orbits are achieved, and failures if not, without compromise.  I show three Space Shuttle failures and one Atlas 5 failure, for example.  I list SA-502/Apollo 6 as a failure. 

I think it's fairly obvious to the casual observer that this launch succeeded at its primary objective (deploy Dragon such that it can berth with the ISS) and failed at it's secondary objective (deploy OrbComm in it's proper orbit).

I understand the desire for a black and white pass/fail criteria, but saying this launch is a complete failure seems a bit much.  Did you mark down Falcon 9 Flight 1 as a failure since it failed to achieve a restart burn?

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion as well. It was not the second stages fault that the command was not given to raise Orbcomm's satellite to it's proper orbit. NASA's parameters did not allow for it. I would classify the mission as a partial success and that is only if and when Dragon fulfills it's intended flight plan.

You're conflating the Dragon mission and the Falcon launch. We traditionally separate reliability studies of rocket and payload because they are largely independent. Whether the Dragon mission succeeds or not, Falcon delivered it to substantially the correct orbit.
  And you are partly incorrect about the 'command' - there was no external command, it was a second stage program and the reason it didn't pass NASA's parameters was because of the first stage issues. So it was the Falcon's fault (the first stage, not the second stage, though,  you're right to that extent).

The problem here is that there's 'secondary' and 'secondary'. The Falcon 1 restart test was a launch vehicle provider's 'nice to have'. The Falcon 9 Orbcomm deploy was a customer's 'must have'. I would classify both of those missions as partial success, the Falcon 1 at 90/95 percent and this one at 85 percent.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 10/09/2012 05:05 am
I'd call it "head end" or "top end" not back end.  It's part of the combustion chamber/throat/nozzle assembly which is called a TCA ("thrust chamber assembly") in most publications.

The pressure inside the TCA, exhausted via the throat and through the nozzle, is what creates thrust.  Any opening or venting outside of the nozzle will lower combustion pressure, and that will be sensed as fault by the engine controller.  Presumably if that happened, the engine would command itself to shut down.

I don't have any details about the engine but the walls are likely fairly thin, perhaps only a few millimeters thick.  There are many failure modes, from burn-though, stress cracking, etc., that generally require analysis of the post-failure hardware to determine.  That may not be possible in this case.

But since there is only one (?) flight of Merlin 1C left, and then SpaceX transitions to the very different Merlin 1D, the failure has come at about the worst time in that version's manufacturing cycle.  SpaceX has a few hard decisions to make going forward (in my view).  While unlikely, they might wish to transition earlier to the F9v1.1 than they had planned...but that creates it own set of problems.  Tough call and I wish them the best.

Directionality is always a bitch...   Yeah, I used "back" since I was looking at the gas flow....

The interesting part is that they've had many many hours on the stand.  So if the failure originated in the engine, there's a good chance it has to do with the operating environment.  Something like less convective or radiative heat transfer, etc.  (Does the test chamber replicated the emissivity of the surrounding space?  Do they insulate the surfaces?)

Lacking a post-mortem, and if they can't replicate the problem (assuming they even have enough 1Cs left to play with) my vote would be to fly again.

Based on the sample set we have, there's a 1:4 chance that they'll have an engine out, but if it happens, the rocket can recover.  It is now only a numbers game, since they will not be putting anything at risk other than the up-going payload.  And if the rocket wasn't fully fueled, then it should be next time.  And no secondaries.  :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: sdsds on 10/09/2012 05:14 am
For modemeagle: in your simulations if F9v1 loses thrust from two engines at T+1:20 does the payload reach any orbit at all?
Yes, according to my simulation.

Thanks very much for this! The G-force chart (hope you don't mind I attached a screen shot) really makes this seem plausible; the set-back caused by the engines out shifts the curve "right" in time, but it otherwise follows nicely what would have happened.

Robotbeat: I accept your assertion that the press release phrasing wasn't inaccurate, and is helpful in explaining how well Falcon 9 could perform in its "Falcon 7" configuration!
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/09/2012 05:44 am
In terms the general public can understand:

On SpaceX launch CRS-1 engine #1, part of the first stage of Falcon 9 launch vehicle, burst near its top.  This engine anomaly is not actually an explosion but does make a bang.  SpaceX turned off the fuel lines to the engine #1, dumped the broken engine and continued the flight.  The main payload - the Dragon capsule - successfully made it to orbit but there was insufficient time to boost the secondary payload - the OrbComm satellite - to its correct (higher) orbit.

This is a video of a tank bursting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qbi-YtrjFI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qbi-YtrjFI)

edit : spelling
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Hooperball on 10/09/2012 05:51 am
Obviously there are different mechanical characteristics between a cylindrical chamber and a fuel dome with penetrations but this may shed some light on the forces involved with a possible fuel dome failure as well as some of the design features that saved the day.


From the Merlin 1C thread this quote was given by Spacex in 2005.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10356.135

1.) From http://spacex.com/updates_archive.php?page=0605-1205
"Then there is the question of dealing with the comparatively rare case of a chamber rupture. To protect against this, Falcon 9 will have a blast shield protecting the entire base of the vehicle just above the gimbal joints of the engines. In addition, there will be fireproofed Kevlar fragment containment around each engine, similar to those present in jet engine nacelles. The explosive power of a liquid rocket chamber is actually not exceptionally high – it can be thought of as simply a small pressure vessel containing (in our case) 800 psi hot gas. During the development of Merlin, we saw several of what we refer to as RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) events and no fragments have ever penetrated more than 2mm of aluminum. Also, the direction of fragments is in a shallow downward cone away from the vehicle.

As additional measures of protection, all propellant and pneumatic lines have either pre-valves or check valves nested up high in the thrust structure. If anything happens to the engine, the flight computer is able to cut off all propellant and pressurant flow immediately."

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 10/09/2012 06:35 am
It was not the second stages fault that the command was not given to raise Orbcomm's satellite to it's proper orbit. NASA's parameters did not allow for it. I would classify the mission as a partial success and that is only if and when Dragon fulfills it's intended flight plan.

What evidence do you have that those were NASA's parameters?  And even if they were, there's the whole protecting the $100B asset thing, one that Congressmen like to trot out if NASA doesn't do so.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 10/09/2012 06:42 am
In car racing terms, this sounds more like a cracked cylinder head vs. a blown engine where the block fractures and the bolts let go.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: alexterrell on 10/09/2012 07:20 am


The pressure inside the TCA, exhausted via the throat and through the nozzle, is what creates thrust.  Any opening or venting outside of the nozzle will lower combustion pressure, and that will be sensed as fault by the engine controller.  Presumably if that happened, the engine would command itself to shut down.

If this were the upper stage, or the third engine to fail, would the controller still shut down the engine, knowing that would lead to loss of mission, or would it continue in the hope of carrying on, or that the sensors had failed?

I suppose with a manned Dragon capsule it would shut down to provide for a controlled seperation and re-entry. With an unmanned cargo it might carry on.

Also, it seems the sudden pressure loss caused the fuel dome to implode - I assume its not designed for compression. Would it not be possible to regulate the shut-down to provide balanced pressure? Or would that be akin to throttling the engine down to just above 0% thrust, which doesn't seem possible. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 10/09/2012 07:23 am

So do I understand correctly that it is the back-end of the combustion chamber, and so a rupture there would cause the outflow to be mixed and basically already ignited.

Actually the fuel is not ignited at this point. What would escape due to a rupture is the unignited fuel/oxidizer mix.

I attach a photo I took a few days ago at the ILA in Berlin Germany. It is a completely different engine, the Hydrolox upper stage engine of the Ariane 5 but it is an actual engine cut open for display. The basics are the same. I marked the part that is the fuel dome and it is above the injectors that get the fuel mix into the combustion chamber below.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/09/2012 07:33 am
So, could this be a turbopump running too fast and causing the fuel dome to overpressure and rupture? Or, an overpressure caused by a blockage down the line? It's a pintle engine, so only one injector to block.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 10/09/2012 07:45 am
So, could this be a turbopump running too fast and causing the fuel dome to overpressure and rupture? Or, an overpressure caused by a blockage down the line? It's a pintle engine, so only one injector to block.

The 1st scenario is unlikely, IMHO. It would take a certain amount of time for the turbopump to overspeed, during which the shutdown limit would probably have been reached before structural limits of the chamber were reached.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/09/2012 07:50 am
For those interested in the engine one depress and shutdown, there is a slow motion video clip someone made showing the event in relatively good detail. Not sure if this was already posted so here it is (at around 25 seconds in):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zsZiVa998



Pretty violent regardless of whether the engine destroyed itself or merely rapidly depressurized.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/09/2012 07:57 am
IMO, pause the video at exactly 30 seconds and take a look at what you see full screen. It appears to me the failure of the fuel dome resulted in a small explosion as opposed to just depressurization. It looks, however, like the engine shutdown command went through such that by the time the rupture/explosion was occurring, the engine was already terminating its fuel/oxidizer supply and shutting down, which may be why it was as small as it was. So really it was ultra rapid depressurization or essentially a very small brief explosion that was contained.


This is still a significant failure, but it is really surprising to me that the vehicle not only survived this, but continued on a nominal trajectory (barring of course the inability to deploy the orbcomm sat properly). Very lucky.


It also occurs to me, it worth asking: if this had occurred on a manned flight would it have triggered activation of the LAS on dragon or would the flight have continued on the other 8 (considering the apparent violence of the failure, brief though it was)?
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: simonbp on 10/09/2012 08:02 am
It also occurs to me, it worth asking: if this had occurred on a manned flight would it have triggered activation of the LAS on dragon or would the flight have continued on the other 8 (considering the apparent violence of the failure, brief though it was)?

Excellent question.

My guess is no, not unless the GNC computed that they could not reach the desired orbit. An abort is almost as dangerous as staying on a deranged-but-intact rocket, so you don't want to trigger it if you don't have to.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/09/2012 08:03 am
It also occurs to me, it worth asking: if this had occurred on a manned flight would it have triggered activation of the LAS on dragon or would the flight have continued on the other 8 (considering the apparent violence of the failure, brief though it was)?

Excellent question.

My guess is no, not unless the GNC computed that they could not reach the desired orbit. An abort is almost as dangerous as staying on a deranged-but-intact rocket, so you don't want to trigger it if you don't have to.

True. Although I still think its somewhat open ended given how violent that was. But I think your probably correct.

Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: pippin on 10/09/2012 08:31 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/why-the-engine-failure-could-be-good-news-for-spacex-13520351?src=rss

Who is this Rand Simberg, and why is he claiming absolute knowledge of what failed, in apparent contradiction to Chris' article stating that SpaceX says the fuel dome ruptured ? 

Rand is a highly experienced "recovering" aerospace engineer who published a blog called Transterrestrial Musings (www.transterrestrial.com).  He is a thirty-plus year veteran of the industry.  Nothing he said in that article seem to me to contradict what Chris wrote.

That doesn't change the fact that he's writing a lot of wrong things in that article, especially around the term "pressure". Almost every sentence there having the word "pressure" in it is simply wrong from a physics/engineering standpoint.

I'm talking stuff like "When this happened, the pressure of the gases exiting the rocket nozzle went to zero." a sentence that only can make you shudder. The whole explanation around what happened then and why is also just plain wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
Post by: