SpaceX COTS Demo 1 Updates

[Antares]

Why would someone take photos of a nozzle aft-end weld while it was in the interstage, mated and maybe vertical?  That doesn't make sense.  IMEO, these photos have been around for months or weeks, and they're just now looking at them.

[Namechange User]

Why would someone take photos of a nozzle aft-end weld while it was in the interstage, mated and maybe vertical?  That doesn't make sense.  IMEO, these photos have been around for months or weeks, and they're just now looking at them.

Agreed.  I think what may have been likely is that someone was reviewing the build package, the x-rays, etc I discussed earlier, for this nozzle, noted a possible discrepency, and while investigating that went into the interstage to document the current condition for data collection. 

[Kabloona]

Why would someone take photos of a nozzle aft-end weld while it was in the interstage, mated and maybe vertical?  That doesn't make sense.  IMEO, these photos have been around for months or weeks, and they're just now looking at them.

I'll just make 2 quick points:

1. The NASA press release clearly stated that the defect was spotted during a "routine review of close-out photos." Their phrase: close-out.

2. It's not unprecedented to do a nozzle inspection like this after mating and before closing out an interstage. I personally inspected the TOS/Orbus 21 carbon-carbon nozzle AFTER stacking on Titan III for the Mars Observer mission, as a final check to verify that the nozzle hadn't been damaged during stacking. Yes, a weld crack may have occurred much earlier in the process. But it's not terribly surprising to me that SpaceX would take one last look at the nozzle before closing out the interstage.

[Robotbeat]

Why would someone take photos of a nozzle aft-end weld while it was in the interstage, mated and maybe vertical?  That doesn't make sense.  IMEO, these photos have been around for months or weeks, and they're just now looking at them.

Agreed.  I think what may have been likely is that someone was reviewing the build package, the x-rays, etc I discussed earlier, for this nozzle, noted a possible discrepency, and while investigating that went into the interstage to document the current condition for data collection. 

Sounds reasonable to me.

[KSC Engineer]

It is clear they are the political favorite at this time due to the desire of the WH and NASA to promote "commercialization of space".   Don't kid yourself.

Oh, please.

1) Political favoritism,
2) low transparency on the part of SpaceX,
3) pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle,
4) FAA waiver for Europe flyover,
5) increased funding - during hard times in Washington

1) What favoritism? The fact Obama visited SLC-40 instead of SLC-41 where an Atlas was sitting with a military payload? I don't exactly see either LockMart, Boeing, ULA, Orbital being locked out of any "commercial" crew program.

2) Low transparency on what? Did you actually watch the press conference, specifically NASA managers' comments on this topic? Or do you expect they're obliged to tell outside people *everything*? Were they not forthcoming with telling us what the current issue is? You want actual images of the cracks?

3) What pressure? Are you talking about the 15 minute extension granted by the Range the other day? You think the Range guys wouldn't do the same for ULA or NASA, but would rather close up shop at 3 PM sharp because, hey, it's their end of day?

4) I think nblackwell already made the point here.

5) What increased funding?

Anyone can see things they want to see. The question is are they really there?

I agree with Ugordan on this. If you are going to make claims like those, you will need better arguments than a "don't be so naive" argument. Although I saw that you later back tracked on many of your arguments once Jim told you this was not the case.

Backdown? - I would call it being reasonable when better data is brought forward.  Jay Barbree is a veteran reporter and maybe he got the question all wrong about the European flyover and obviously the response to his question was not very good either.  I accept that based on some folks here like Jim who seem to know this topic. Jim has proven to have good data and I trust his judgment in areas he has expertise. So on that issue yes I concede that there is better data out there and this item may be non important and Jay should not have raise the question. 

The other topics I mentioned are clear to those who work near to these areas but if you are an outsider I can understand how it might be hard to believe this.  Naive is a strong word but I see it a lot from people who don't know how things work within our government.  Go work in WDC for five years and let me know what you think after that. 

Focused favoritism, relatively low transparency overall (did you not hear the questions in the presser over this - not just my opinion), Range streamlining in certain areas, increased/add on funding - its all there if you will allow yourself to be objective.   Shooting the messenger is not going to change reality. 

[sdsds]

The most likely path forward is that we will trim off the thinnest portion of the nozzle extension, which is where the cracks are located, perform a thorough systems check and resume launch preparation.

First thoughts:  "Incredible.  They must be insane."

But then, trying to interpret this in a way that doesn't seem surreal, maybe SpaceX knew long ago that this portion of the nozzle extension was going to be difficult to manufacture and might cause trouble.  Maybe they have already done a complete analysis of the vehicle flying in the "shortened extension" configuration, including performance effects, vibro-acoustic coupling effects, and kinematics.  Maybe they already have a process for removing this part from the nozzle extension, tested on other units that failed in this way during manufacturing.

Yes, with all that, the idea doesn't seem surreal at all.

[Lee Jay]

Go work in WDC for five years and let me know what you think after that. 

Wouldn't a lobotomy be quicker and less painful?

[Antares]

1. The NASA press release clearly stated that the defect was spotted during a "routine review of close-out photos." Their phrase: close-out.

On another issue several years ago, I was corrected by public affairs officers even though they were technically inaccurate.  They had already gone public and didn't want to be seen as wrong.

(shrugs)

[llo2015]

Jay Barbree's question about launch azimuth and European flyover was exactly correct.  In the event of a second stage engine-out event during the last minute of powered flight, SpaceX's Falcon-9/Dragon has sufficient velocity and energy to make a sub-orbital European over flight and uncontrolled decent.

[Kabloona]

1. The NASA press release clearly stated that the defect was spotted during a "routine review of close-out photos." Their phrase: close-out.

On another issue several years ago, I was corrected by public affairs officers even though they were technically inaccurate.  They had already gone public and didn't want to be seen as wrong.

(shrugs)

Granted, wouldn't be the first or last time PAO is wrong! Just sayin...that's how the whole "close-out" thing got started.

[ugordan]

Jay Barbree's question about launch azimuth and European flyover was exactly correct.  In the event of a second stage engine-out event during the last minute of powered flight, SpaceX's Falcon-9/Dragon has sufficient velocity and energy to make a sub-orbital European over flight and uncontrolled decent.

At 34.5 target inclination on this flight, that's going to be a stretch.

[wjbarnett]

Since I just checked, I thought I would share: Gibraltar is at 36N

[yg1968]

It is clear they are the political favorite at this time due to the desire of the WH and NASA to promote "commercialization of space".   Don't kid yourself.

Oh, please.

1) Political favoritism,
2) low transparency on the part of SpaceX,
3) pressure on the Range to make exceptions for SpaceX which are not granted to EELV or Shuttle,
4) FAA waiver for Europe flyover,
5) increased funding - during hard times in Washington

1) What favoritism? The fact Obama visited SLC-40 instead of SLC-41 where an Atlas was sitting with a military payload? I don't exactly see either LockMart, Boeing, ULA, Orbital being locked out of any "commercial" crew program.

2) Low transparency on what? Did you actually watch the press conference, specifically NASA managers' comments on this topic? Or do you expect they're obliged to tell outside people *everything*? Were they not forthcoming with telling us what the current issue is? You want actual images of the cracks?

3) What pressure? Are you talking about the 15 minute extension granted by the Range the other day? You think the Range guys wouldn't do the same for ULA or NASA, but would rather close up shop at 3 PM sharp because, hey, it's their end of day?

4) I think nblackwell already made the point here.

5) What increased funding?

Anyone can see things they want to see. The question is are they really there?

I agree with Ugordan on this. If you are going to make claims like those, you will need better arguments than a "don't be so naive" argument. Although I saw that you later back tracked on many of your arguments once Jim told you this was not the case.

Backdown? - I would call it being reasonable when better data is brought forward.  Jay Barbree is a veteran reporter and maybe he got the question all wrong about the European flyover and obviously the response to his question was not very good either.  I accept that based on some folks here like Jim who seem to know this topic. Jim has proven to have good data and I trust his judgment in areas he has expertise. So on that issue yes I concede that there is better data out there and this item may be non important and Jay should not have raise the question. 

The other topics I mentioned are clear to those who work near to these areas but if you are an outsider I can understand how it might be hard to believe this.  Naive is a strong word but I see it a lot from people who don't know how things work within our government.  Go work in WDC for five years and let me know what you think after that. 

Focused favoritism, relatively low transparency overall (did you not hear the questions in the presser over this - not just my opinion), Range streamlining in certain areas, increased/add on funding - its all there if you will allow yourself to be objective.   Shooting the messenger is not going to change reality. 

Jim said that the FAA did not grant any favours to SpaceX and you seem to have accepted that. So I was under the impression that you changed your mind on this issue.

As far as favoritism, SpaceX was granted money under COTS which was a program started under Griffin and Bush. This is a continuation of the same program. Let's wait and see what happens under commercial crew before saying that there is SpaceX favoratism. Remember that SpaceX did not win any awards under CCDev 1 despite this "alleged" favoratism.

I am not convinced that the additionnal COTS money will ever be appropriated by Congress and NASA has yet to even make a sollicitation for this new COTS round. Chances are by the time that it gets appropriated (if it ever is), Space X will no longer need it. Orbital has more chances of being awarded that money than SpaceX does.

SpaceX has to fly 3 COTS demo flights. Orbital only has to fly one test flight under COTS. Some of the COTS money could be awarded to Orbital in order for them to provide more test flights. Some additional money could also be provided for Orbital to develop down mass capacity (which they do not currently intend to provide). Most of this additionnal COTS money will likely be going to Orbital if you ask me. But if Spacex is awarded commercial crew development money and Orbital isn't, perhaps the results will even out.   

Incidentally, SpaceX also gets less money per flight (and per KG of cargo) than Orbital in their CRS contract. This also tends to discredit your SpaceX favoratism theory. Incidentally, I am not saying that there is a favoratism towards Orbital. Orbital negotiated a better deal. That's all there is to it.   

On your last point, I agree with the lack of transparency. But that is typical of private companies. They try to disclose as little information as possible. Partly because they don't want their competition to know what they are doing. Partly because the more information you give, the more your enemies can attempt to use it against you. 

[Kabloona]

Nice commentary in Space News:

http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/101206-not-because-easy-because-hard.html

[jabe]

if it is too believed..wednesday launch...Orlando Sentinel article
jb

The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources.

[Kabloona]

Quote:

"The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources."

A few feet? LOL. Try "inches."

[llo2015]

Since I just checked, I thought I would share: Gibraltar is at 36N

Thanks for your info -

Launch Azimuth of 69.7° from KSC/Cape Canaveral corresponds to an orbit of 34.5° inclination.  This launch azimuth takes the Falcon-9/Dragon in a direction north of Bermuda and a subsequent over-flight track over Gibraltar and the Mediterranean makes sense.

Concerning Jay Barbree's question, Europe or Gibraltar are basically the same concerning his main point which was over-flight due to an event of an engine-out late in powered flight and the potential consequences of an uncontrolled descent.

[XNASA]

Quote:

"The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources."

A few feet? LOL. Try "inches."

Nope, a few feet is correct.  That isn't a typo.

[Johnny Rönnberg]

Nasa twitter
It's Go for launch. The launch of the SpaceX Falcon 9 is on for Weds.The window opens at 9am ET. Watch it on

[Kabloona]

Quote:

"The long-awaited first launch, which was delayed a day by cracks in the nozzle of the upper-stage engine of the company's Falcon 9 rocket, was set after engineers decided that they could get rid of the cracks by trimming a few feet off the nozzle extension without significantly impacting the performance of the rocket, according to company sources."

A few feet? LOL. Try "inches."

Nope, a few feet is correct.  That isn't a typo.

As in, a few feet of length? Holy moly...please elaborate.