Author Topic: California Secrets - SpaceX F9 v1.1 Cassiope Launch Party Thread (Read 287358 times)

edkyle99 · « **Reply #20 on:** 08/30/2013 01:39 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 08/30/2013 01:15 pm

Just to be clear, I do agree it will be a milestone but just not in the class of the Wright Bros. Additionally, it is not a first, the Shuttle did the reusable thing more than 30 years ago. This is like first jet engine flight or first helicopter. It is a variation on an existing theme and not a new endeavor.

I see it as akin to an X-13. Something technically interesting, and worth investigating, but with uncertain practicality. The big yet-to-be-answered question in my mind, beyond "can they do it", is "is it worth doing"?

As for the Wright Brothers, it ultimately wasn't about who was first into the air. It was about who was first to come up with a real airplane, which the Brothers did in Dayton in 1905. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Wright_Flyer_III_above.jpg

- Ed Kyle

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #21 on:** 08/30/2013 01:39 pm »

Some of you got trolled by someone pretending to be a SpaceX fan. His posts and responses have been removed.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #22 on:** 08/30/2013 01:47 pm »

You mean this isn't the Delta IV Heavy party thread?

Probably need to use the search function for great balls of fire

AJW · « **Reply #23 on:** 08/30/2013 01:53 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 08/30/2013 01:15 pm

Just to be clear, I do agree it will be a milestone but just not in the class of the Wright Bros. Additionally, it is not a first, the Shuttle did the reusable thing more than 30 years ago. This is like first jet engine flight or first helicopter. It is a variation on an existing theme and not a new endeavor.

The Wright flight was not a wholly new endeavor either. Records of unpowered flights, many far longer than the Wright’s first powered flight, go back over a thousand years. Dozens were working towards powered flight, which is one reason why we moved so quickly from flights over the sands of Kitty Hawk to fighters over the trenches of Europe in the Great War.

V1.1 won’t be historically remarkable for VTVL, or reusability, these have been done before. The breakthrough, if it occurs, will be a change in launch economics.

QuantumG · « **Reply #24 on:** 08/30/2013 01:54 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2013 01:39 pm

Some of you got trolled by someone pretending to be a SpaceX fan. His posts and responses have been removed.

How did we get "trolled"? I had no problem with any of his posts and I'm kind of annoyed that you've bounced the only guy who was actually enjoying the party.

AJW · « **Reply #25 on:** 08/30/2013 02:02 pm »

Looks like we lost the Neil Degrasse Tyson thread as well. What I was going to say there is just as applicable here:

"It's not possible. Space is dangerous. It's expensive. There are unquantified risks," Neil deGrasse Tyson tells us.

So let's address 'dangerous'. That applies to every new human endeavor. There are always some among us willing to reach for immortality. Is Neil suggesting that we should stand in their way?

'Expensive', sure, but can you suggest a less expensive approach than building your own rockets and private pad and be able to launch at cost?

'Unqualified risks'? Well congratulations. Along with the 'dangerous' things we already know about, there are the 'unqualified risks' that we will ONLY learn about by trying.

When asked about Musk’s leadership, one SpaceX employee described an inspirational speech Musk gave following an early launch failure. “We would have followed him into the gates of hell carrying suntan oil.” To have such leadership is a truly rare thing and when I seek inspiration, I go back and read Kennedy’s Rice speech and really pay attention to those words.

Will SpaceX succeed? None of us knows, but I’d still rather be encouraging those who are willing to take risks and reach for immortality than worry about what is being said on the sidelines.

Prober · « **Reply #26 on:** 08/30/2013 02:23 pm »

Quote from: QuantumG on 08/30/2013 01:54 pm

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2013 01:39 pm
Some of you got trolled by someone pretending to be a SpaceX fan. His posts and responses have been removed.

How did we get "trolled"? I had no problem with any of his posts and I'm kind of annoyed that you've bounced the only guy who was actually enjoying the party.

He must have been in the wrong party....aka a party crasher.

kirghizstan · « **Reply #27 on:** 08/30/2013 02:32 pm »

my sources have told me that not only did the DIVH send a spy satelite into space but ULA attached a spy camera to the side of the rocket to get pics of what was going on over at SLC-4E.

rcoppola · « **Reply #28 on:** 08/30/2013 03:03 pm »

A few thoughts:

Yes... VTVL and/or reusability have been attempted and/or achieved to some varying degrees of technical success.

No...Boost-back & propulsive landing of a first stage from a fully operational commercial rocket system has never been done before.

The Wright brothers "First Powered Flight" example is a good one but not for its' historical "First" comparisons but rather for who and how it was achieved. 2 Bicycle designers, on their own initiative, self taught, self funded and self motivated helped to change the world. Recent US history is replete with guys in garages and dorm rooms changing the world.

It's so much more then the science, the technology, the big tube of metal that lands. It's about the imagination, the will and the drive to create, to push the boundaries, to alter what is to what could be.

This is what I find most inspiring and why this matters so much. I don't know if they will succeed, although I'd like to think they will. I just love that they are trying.

And I hope to God they have a camera or two on that first stage as it approaches those waves.

Lars_J · « **Reply #29 on:** 08/30/2013 03:28 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2013 01:39 pm

Quote from: Jim on 08/30/2013 01:15 pm
Just to be clear, I do agree it will be a milestone but just not in the class of the Wright Bros. Additionally, it is not a first, the Shuttle did the reusable thing more than 30 years ago. This is like first jet engine flight or first helicopter. It is a variation on an existing theme and not a new endeavor.
I see it as akin to an X-13. Something technically interesting, and worth investigating, but with uncertain practicality. The big yet-to-be-answered question in my mind, beyond "can they do it", is "is it worth doing"?

By "worth doing", do you mean economically worth it, or a whether or not it is a good idea in the first place?

I would certainly argue the latter... We aren't going to do much in space until we start reusing equipment. So the more, the better. As for economics - yes, it might not be as cost effective initially as most of us hope, but eventually it should start lowering costs. This is baby steps for the VTVL approach to reusability. (I do realize that Shuttle did partial reusability for 30 years, so it's not a SpaceX idea)

douglas100 · « **Reply #30 on:** 08/30/2013 03:32 pm »

Quote from: kirghizstan on 08/30/2013 02:32 pm

my sources have told me that not only did the DIVH send a spy satelite into space but ULA attached a spy camera to the side of the rocket to get pics of what was going on over at SLC-4E.

Yeah, bring on the hi-res pictures!

mrmandias · « **Reply #31 on:** 08/30/2013 03:35 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/29/2013 03:18 pm

.OK, I was over-thinking this

Not like that's something that ever occurs in this forum.

Jason1701 · « **Reply #32 on:** 08/30/2013 04:50 pm »

Quote from: QuantumG on 08/30/2013 01:54 pm

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2013 01:39 pm
Some of you got trolled by someone pretending to be a SpaceX fan. His posts and responses have been removed.

How did we get "trolled"? I had no problem with any of his posts and I'm kind of annoyed that you've bounced the only guy who was actually enjoying the party.

You didn't get an OV-106 vibe from him all along?

edkyle99 · « **Reply #33 on:** 08/30/2013 05:05 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 08/30/2013 03:28 pm

Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2013 01:39 pm
Quote from: Jim on 08/30/2013 01:15 pm
Just to be clear, I do agree it will be a milestone but just not in the class of the Wright Bros. Additionally, it is not a first, the Shuttle did the reusable thing more than 30 years ago. This is like first jet engine flight or first helicopter. It is a variation on an existing theme and not a new endeavor.
I see it as akin to an X-13. Something technically interesting, and worth investigating, but with uncertain practicality. The big yet-to-be-answered question in my mind, beyond "can they do it", is "is it worth doing"?

By "worth doing", do you mean economically worth it, or a whether or not it is a good idea in the first place?

I would certainly argue the latter... We aren't going to do much in space until we start reusing equipment. So the more, the better. As for economics - yes, it might not be as cost effective initially as most of us hope, but eventually it should start lowering costs. This is baby steps for the VTVL approach to reusability. (I do realize that Shuttle did partial reusability for 30 years, so it's not a SpaceX idea)

I think that it is clearly worth trying. Only after trying will SpaceX really be able to determine if it is worth doing, as in cost effective. On the one hand, returning a stage has a substantial cost in lost payload capability, which means lost revenue opportunity. On the other hand, a returned stage will cost a certain amount of money to re-fly.

I don't know why some are expecting to see a stage sitting itself softly onto the ocean surface during this first flight. This first flight is only an experiment in engine restarting really. I would be surprised if the thing survived reentry. I'm not sure the stage has any directional control, for example, besides Merlin TVC.

- Ed Kyle

Jason1701 · « **Reply #34 on:** 08/30/2013 05:20 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2013 05:05 pm

Quote from: Lars_J on 08/30/2013 03:28 pm
Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2013 01:39 pm
Quote from: Jim on 08/30/2013 01:15 pm
Just to be clear, I do agree it will be a milestone but just not in the class of the Wright Bros. Additionally, it is not a first, the Shuttle did the reusable thing more than 30 years ago. This is like first jet engine flight or first helicopter. It is a variation on an existing theme and not a new endeavor.
I see it as akin to an X-13. Something technically interesting, and worth investigating, but with uncertain practicality. The big yet-to-be-answered question in my mind, beyond "can they do it", is "is it worth doing"?

By "worth doing", do you mean economically worth it, or a whether or not it is a good idea in the first place?

I would certainly argue the latter... We aren't going to do much in space until we start reusing equipment. So the more, the better. As for economics - yes, it might not be as cost effective initially as most of us hope, but eventually it should start lowering costs. This is baby steps for the VTVL approach to reusability. (I do realize that Shuttle did partial reusability for 30 years, so it's not a SpaceX idea)
I think that it is clearly worth trying. Only after trying will SpaceX really be able to determine if it is worth doing, as in cost effective. On the one hand, returning a stage has a substantial cost in lost payload capability, which means lost revenue opportunity. On the other hand, a returned stage will cost a certain amount of money to re-fly.

I don't know why some are expecting to see a stage sitting itself softly onto the ocean surface during this first flight. This first flight is only an experiment in engine restarting really. I would be surprised if the thing survived reentry. I'm not sure the stage has any directional control, for example, besides Merlin TVC.

- Ed Kyle

It has cold gas ACS.

AJW · « **Reply #35 on:** 08/30/2013 05:32 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 08/30/2013 05:05 pm

I don't know why some are expecting to see a stage sitting itself softly onto the ocean surface during this first flight. This first flight is only an experiment in engine restarting really. I would be surprised if the thing survived reentry. I'm not sure the stage has any directional control, for example, besides Merlin TVC.

This is from the FAA Waiver for the flight. The impression is that they will attempt the whole kit and caboodle. How far they get is conjecture.

"The first stage will coast after stage separation, and then perform an experimental burn with three engines to reduce the entry velocity just prior to entry. Prior to landing in the water, it will perform a second experimental burn with one engine to impact the water with minimal velocity. The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion."

Jim · « **Reply #36 on:** 08/30/2013 05:33 pm »

Quote from: rcoppola on 08/30/2013 03:03 pm

And I hope to God they have a camera or two on that first stage as it approaches those waves.

If they do, they will have an asset out there to pick up the signal since it will be beyond the horizon of VAFB recievers. And for that matter, I wonder what they will be using for for picking up telemetry? TDRSS, an ocean going platform or an aerial asset?

baldusi · « **Reply #37 on:** 08/30/2013 05:53 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 08/30/2013 05:33 pm

Quote from: rcoppola on 08/30/2013 03:03 pm

And I hope to God they have a camera or two on that first stage as it approaches those waves.

If they do, they will have an asset out there to pick up the signal since it will be beyond the horizon of VAFB recievers. And for that matter, I wonder what they will be using for for picking up telemetry? TDRSS, an ocean going platform or an aerial asset?

Does normal F9 telemetry go through TDRSS? If I had to chose an additional asset, I would chose the aerial, given both the uncertainty of where will it actually fall, and the fact that it's easier to move keep a safe distance from a fast moving rocket on a plane that on a boat. On the other hand they might need a radar system to track it, which would need a very serious plane.

meekGee · « **Reply #38 on:** 08/30/2013 06:00 pm »

If they are in communication with the stage when it is still high up (i.e. during the 3-engine burn) then it can tell them where it's going, at which point the airplane can position itself very reliably.

If they lose contact with the stage, then the plane can fly perpendicular to the entry vector and be in a safer spot within seconds, so there's plenty of margin.

Finally, if the plane is flying at 5000', it is completely oblivious to any explosion that might occur at the surface.

douglas100 · « **Reply #39 on:** 08/30/2013 06:08 pm »

Also the aircraft doesn't have to be near the predicted point of impact. A clear line of sight is all that's needed to get a good signal.

On the down side, an aircraft is more expensive to operate than a boat and may have limited endurance for staying on station if there are launch delays.

But obviously they want to get as much data back as possible from this experiment.