Author Topic: California Secrets - SpaceX F9 v1.1 Cassiope Launch Party Thread  (Read 290684 times)

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
SpaceX don't have a landing pad yet at VAFB.

What about that big slab of concrete due east of the launch site and directly adjacent to it, with slopes on three sides?  On Google Maps it looks like it could set down about 300 feet east of where it took off.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7447
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2341
  • Likes Given: 2942
I am not qualified to put numbers on the likelihood of those milestones. But I am sure if SpaceX were not very confident they have at least better than 95% to reach

Quote
7. #6 plus also the primary payload is deployed successfully into the correct orbit.
and
Quote
8. #6 plus also the five secondary payloads are deployed successfully into the correct orbits.

they would not launch. So I go with that.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25597
  • Likes Given: 12246
95% confidence is incredibly high for the first launch of a new launch vehicle. I put that optimistically at 90% for this launch. Realistically would be more like 75-80% (somewhat better than historical 50%, if only because they have done a lot of ground-testing and v1.1 isn't COMPLETELY new and have an inordinate amount of margin in case of performance problems or engine failure).

This is going to be a nail-biter. There's a fairly high chance of failure.

EDIT:Noticed this is the party thread... Sorry!!!
« Last Edit: 09/01/2013 06:09 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7447
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2341
  • Likes Given: 2942

This is going to be a nail-biter. There's a fairly high chance of failure.

EDIT:Noticed this is the party thread... Sorry!!!

I don't disagree.

Let's have a nail biting party.


Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458

This is going to be a nail-biter. There's a fairly high chance of failure.

EDIT:Noticed this is the party thread... Sorry!!!

I don't disagree.

Let's have a nail biting party.

The higher we think the odds of failure are, the more we'll enjoy the party when it succeeds! :-)

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
95% confidence is incredibly high for the first launch of a new launch vehicle. I put that optimistically at 90% for this launch. Realistically would be more like 75-80% (somewhat better than historical 50%, if only because they have done a lot of ground-testing and v1.1 isn't COMPLETELY new and have an inordinate amount of margin in case of performance problems or engine failure).

Agree here, there is a reason so many of us that have been following SpaceX's progress over the years would not miss a SpaceX livestream for the world.

You tune in for a ULA launch, it's going to be an HD stream of a perfect launch 95%+ of the time.

SpaceX has crashed first stages into reefs, crashed first stages into second stages, rolling first stages just a few feet off the ground , Oscillations and a rolls on second stages, engines blowing fairings off the stage and shutting down, capsules tumbling uncontrolled in orbit...

SpaceX party treads are the parties delivered by SpaceX themselves, sometimes, they bring the fireworks, sometimes they bring the drama, but at the very least it's never dull or boring.  And with the group of professionals around here, and L2 access, you can see a lot of the story behind the stories.

Here is hoping SpaceX continues to get more boring and predictable as time goes on, maybe some day 10 years from now I will not stare so intently at the screen during a launch, :)
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 678
  • Likes Given: 195

This is going to be a nail-biter. There's a fairly high chance of failure.

EDIT:Noticed this is the party thread... Sorry!!!

I don't disagree.

Let's have a nail biting party.

The higher we think the odds of failure are, the more we'll enjoy the party when it succeeds! :-)

I see this party thread - like most SpaceX threads recently - has been taken over by the SpaceX 'concern' squad.  ::)
« Last Edit: 09/01/2013 06:38 am by Lars_J »

Offline bjornl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Netherlands
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 90
Here is hoping SpaceX continues to get more boring and predictable as time goes on, maybe some day 10 years from now I will not stare so intently at the screen during a launch, :)
Well, I hope they keep pushing the envelope and never get boring!

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
SpaceX don't have a landing pad yet at VAFB.

Is there anything in the vicinity of VAFB that deserves to be hit by a ballistic missile?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15705
  • N. California
  • Liked: 15863
  • Likes Given: 1443

SpaceX has crashed first stages into reefs, crashed first stages into second stages, rolling first stages just a few feet off the ground , Oscillations and a rolls on second stages, engines blowing fairings off the stage and shutting down, capsules tumbling uncontrolled in orbit...

...

Here is hoping SpaceX continues to get more boring and predictable as time goes on, maybe some day 10 years from now I will not stare so intently at the screen during a launch, :)

One of the best posts ever...     'sactly so.    When you're moving this fast, there's gotta be flutter.

With all previous parties, we were crossing our fingers that nothing will go wrong - but the nominal was "just a launch".  In this new one, we're actually (finally) looking forward to a first-of-its-kind.

Flutter warning!
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 727
  • Likes Given: 626
Saturn 1B = 1,600,000 lbf
F9 V1.1 = 1,100,000 lbf

1,100,000 lbf is for F9v1.0.  For F9v1.1 the figure is 1,323,000 lbf at sea level, 1,500,000 lbf in vacuum.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9


Oops! Sorry, my fault.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7447
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2341
  • Likes Given: 2942
Here is hoping SpaceX continues to get more boring and predictable as time goes on, maybe some day 10 years from now I will not stare so intently at the screen during a launch, :)
Well, I hope they keep pushing the envelope and never get boring!

I hope for both.

Lots and lots of boring routine launches.

Plus a steady advance on new developments for the excitement.

Falcon 9R, we are all waiting to know the payload with first stage RTLS.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 68
Chance of successful launch to first stage MECO 60%

Chance of successful payload fairing separation 75%

Chance of successful upper stage burn 85%

Chance of successful water landing of first stage 2%

Chance of all 9 first stage engines performing nominally 95%

I attribute most of the chance of failure to the rocket not going where it's supposed to go (GNC).

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8661
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 808
More from the interwebz:


Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 824
Chance of successful launch to first stage MECO 60%

Chance of successful payload fairing separation 75%

Chance of successful upper stage burn 85%

Chance of successful water landing of first stage 2%

Chance of all 9 first stage engines performing nominally 95%

I attribute most of the chance of failure to the rocket not going where it's supposed to go (GNC).

If you pull numbers out of your butt, make sure not to touch them.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
Chance of successful launch to first stage MECO 60%

Chance of successful payload fairing separation 75%

Chance of successful upper stage burn 85%

Chance of successful water landing of first stage 2%

Chance of all 9 first stage engines performing nominally 95%

I attribute most of the chance of failure to the rocket not going where it's supposed to go (GNC).

Since your probability for a successful upper stage burn is higher than your first stage success probability, may I safely assume the 85% you give for upper stage burn is the conditional probability given that the first stage is successful?  Is it conditioned just on first stage through MECO or also conditioned on successful stage separation?  And is the 2% water landing probability conditional on anything?

Offline smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 727
  • Likes Given: 626
Chance of successful launch to first stage MECO 60% ...... P1

Chance of successful payload fairing separation 75% ....... P2

Chance of successful upper stage burn 85% ................... P3

Chance of successful water landing of first stage 2%

Chance of all 9 first stage engines performing nominally 95%

I attribute most of the chance of failure to the rocket not going where it's supposed to go (GNC).

Let us see, your first three events comprise successful mission up to primary payload separation event (I use 'event' in its statistical sense). All four events are statistically independent, e.g. nominal first stage burn does not affect in any way the probability of fairing separation failure. Or, faulty pneumatic pusher which dooms fairing - it has no influence on the first stage performance.

So, the probability of successful primary payload launching can be calculated as "combined event":
P(primary payload success) = P1 *  P2 * P3 * P4
(where P4 is probability of successful separation/initiation of CASSIOPE). Plugging your numbers:
P(primary payload success) = 0.6 *  0.75 * 0.85 * P4 = 0.383 * P4
gives to Cassiope pretty low chances of less than 38% - P4 should be considered (conservatively) less than unity as SpaceX never flied payload adapter before.

Well, your estimate is definitely more conservative than 50%. You are not in optimistic mood today
 ;)
« Last Edit: 09/01/2013 11:50 am by smoliarm »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
More from the interwebz:

Does anyone know what that big flat, black piece is between the TE and the vehicle about where the interstage is?

Also, does anyone know why the interstage is white here (it's more visible in the other picture)?  The graphics on the current SpaceX web page show it as black.  I think when they first rolled out F9v1.0 it was black, but then later it was white when launching Dragon.

Offline smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 727
  • Likes Given: 626
...

Since your probability for a successful upper stage burn is higher than your first stage success probability, may I safely assume the 85% you give for upper stage burn is the conditional probability given that the first stage is successful?

...


I have one more question for your list:
What is the chance that our opponent does know the definition of conditional probability?
:)


Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8661
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3881
  • Likes Given: 808
Does anyone know what that big flat, black piece is between the TE and the vehicle about where the interstage is?

I think it might be a net for the 2nd stage umbilicals. On F9-02 there was no net and the disconnected hoses impacted the T/E, presumably sparked and created a fireball from residual propellant in the lines.

Quote
Also, does anyone know why the interstage is white here (it's more visible in the other picture)?  The graphics on the current SpaceX web page show it as black.  I think when they first rolled out F9v1.0 it was black, but then later it was white when launching Dragon.

It was always white on actual F9s and only black in their renderings.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0