The significance of this launch is that SX can field a finished Falcon 9 system where all the parts work on a major mission, flown under AF/FAA supervision. That means missions can continue now working down a manifest.Prior to this they had lost that confidence due to an obvious, unanticipated failure when no expectation of such was present. Why this was so bad wasn't just due to the loss of the mission/payload/vehicle, but more so because they clearly did not understand that they were under risk of such.
Don't think that's true. There's been photos of returned stages in the HIF with legs removed that had an ID #. The number was much (much) smaller and IIRC, was obscured when the leg was folded up. I was pretty stoked to see such large numbers, in multiple locations, and in plain sight at launch time. Was a definite move towards giving individual cores a pronounced identity - something not surprising now that they will have both histories and futures...
Quote from: Johnnyhinbos on 01/15/2017 03:42 pmDon't think that's true. There's been photos of returned stages in the HIF with legs removed that had an ID #. The number was much (much) smaller and IIRC, was obscured when the leg was folded up. I was pretty stoked to see such large numbers, in multiple locations, and in plain sight at launch time. Was a definite move towards giving individual cores a pronounced identity - something not surprising now that they will have both histories and futures...When you start having multiple cores sitting around it becomes more important to be able to tell them apart at a quick glance than going searching for some small serial number somewhere.
The problem with SX (or others) aerospace agile development is that, in contrast to ULA (or others) system engineering is that these lapses are themselves excessively costly to all, and simply cannot be overlooked as many might. And where an engine anomaly (e.g. OA6) might bring things close to the edge of margin, during the same period lapses for SX have meant multiple lost missions.For SX just flying does not mean they have reached parity with ULA/others - they need to be able to do "agile development" at comparable not excessive cost.And its not just SX here that are affected by this - all other providers will be competing more with SX, and thus must be more "agile" to do so, otherwise they won't be competitive. They risk the same as SX in doing so.SX is behind on FH. They also have a pad to rebuild. And another version of F9 to field, likely with 3 COPV's of improved design. Those that want to wish away the problem will be disappointed. SX needs to have carbon fiber subcooled LOX tanks of radically excessive performance by current standards. Plus more.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/15/2017 05:51 pmThe significance of this launch is that SX can field a finished Falcon 9 system where all the parts work on a major mission, flown under AF/FAA supervision. That means missions can continue now working down a manifest.Prior to this they had lost that confidence due to an obvious, unanticipated failure when no expectation of such was present. Why this was so bad wasn't just due to the loss of the mission/payload/vehicle, but more so because they clearly did not understand that they were under risk of such.Emphasis yours.Unknown unknows. Those have happened to all major players in the launch industry. And all of them have lost payloads or had failed missions because of them.Had it been 1997 you could have written your post by simply replacing SpaceX with Arianespace and AF/FAA with ESA.Had it been 1997 you could have written your post by simply replacing SpaceX with McDonnell DouglasHad it been 2007 you could have written your post by simply replacing SpaceX with ULA
Whats the alternative? Stagnate for the next 30 years just like we have for the last? For me, I'd rather take the "odd" failure in return for the many steps forward we get.
What these agile developers are doing is pushing forward trying new systems, new approaches, trying things that were ignored or dismissed. Even BO is redefining how sub-orbital is approached. I say bring it on and let's keep taking big steps rather than sit on our asses doing the same thing over and over.
The problem with SX (or others) aerospace agile development is that, in contrast to ULA (or others) system engineering...
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/15/2017 05:51 pmThe problem with SX (or others) aerospace agile development is that, in contrast to ULA (or others) system engineering... I don't understand the contrast you draw - can you elaborate?
Agile development is ahistorical - you do something that was never done before, attempting to prove all elements of it and dependencies from the ground up."Systems engineering" is proving things that work (or not) from history, within very specific scope/bounds, and carefully composing/"evolving" subsystems/components along those rules, tracking dependences through provenance, such that you can prove the "atomic" risks at all points, and by summing/multiplying such can accurately "know" your risks well ahead of use.The first allows for radical speed/scope increase at the cost of exponential risk (provable but won't detail this, do your own homework).The second always bounds risk and allows for deterministic fault tree analysis. But is slower/narrower in time/scope.My point here is that you can have a hybrid that can have best trade of bounded risk with most of the speed/scope.And that this hybrid is a responsible approach for acceptable rate of speed/scope change.
SpaceX's launch reliability is fully in line with professional industry norms for a new launch vehicle, and is still way better than Proton for instance (both historical and modern) ...
In the Iridium-1 technical webcast there is a tumbling object visible from 25:12 to 25:21 to the left of the left grid fin. My first thought was that it was one of the fairing halves. But would that still be visible after the boostback burn? Also, it is tumbling very fast for something as large as a fairing half. Does anyone know what it is?
This is strange, because this morning JSPoC is still tracking 11 objects in orbit from the launch. If the 11th object is not the second stage, perhaps it is a small piece of debris of some kind, but it doesn't seem to be decaying rapidly.
Are there covers of any sort associated with the grid fins? Perhaps around the hinge areas?
Any idea what the audible gasp from the crowd right around fairing sep was about? Also interesting they didn't show fairing sep on either feed. Perhaps it wasn't clean?
Quote from: OnWithTheShow on 01/16/2017 04:18 amAny idea what the audible gasp from the crowd right around fairing sep was about? Also interesting they didn't show fairing sep on either feed. Perhaps it wasn't clean? Agreed, faring separation was conspicuous by its absence. I'll be paying attention to future lunches to see if they show fairing separation.