Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION  (Read 1087758 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1480 on: 02/29/2016 04:15 pm »
We might need to rethink the 200NM zone.

Why?  It has been in place for years.  Why is it questioned now?  Just because it affected Spacex?  Shuttle and the other vehicles deal with it.  It is a legitimate policy.  CRS-7 is a good reason for it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1481 on: 02/29/2016 04:18 pm »
True, then why can't you simply launch with something in the zone?

Because the range and the FAA have policies that don't allow launches when there is a increased risk. When expectation of casualty (Ec) is >30 × 10 −6

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1482 on: 02/29/2016 04:21 pm »

So the tank needs to be pressurized with helium right from the beginning, just to keep up 1 atmospheric pressure inside it. Otherwise the entire rocket would do a thing SpaceX is painfully familiar with from some early Falcon 1 experiences with a faulty valve.


Not really, it is the opposite.  The first LOX going into the tank flashes to gas.

Offline Zakrah

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Plant Biologist
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1483 on: 02/29/2016 04:25 pm »
Images of the Falcon9 on the pad from Friday afternoon.

I almost didn't post as they are a couple days old already, but I figure you can enjoy these while waiting for the next attempt :)

Here's hoping for a successful launch soon.



Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1484 on: 02/29/2016 04:35 pm »
We might need to rethink the 200NM zone.

Why?  It has been in place for years.  Why is it questioned now?  Just because it affected Spacex?  Shuttle and the other vehicles deal with it.  It is a legitimate policy.  CRS-7 is a good reason for it.
You make a valid point Jim, however I have a problem in general about protecting people from their own stupidity... Call it an "evolutionary self-correction mechanism"...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline WHAP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1485 on: 02/29/2016 04:40 pm »
Noted as a "developing story" so I didn't post this in "updates thread"

Via: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-attempt-launch-monday-20160229-post.html

"SpaceX’s fourth attempt to launch a communications satellite has been set for 6:46 p.m. Monday at Cape Canaveral, according to a website maintained by Space Florida.

(SpaceX itself had not on Monday morning confirmed a Monday launch. This is a developing story.)"

Seems like the vehicle would be vertical by this point if they were really preparing to launch tonight.  Anyone local able to confirm?  Or did they even bring it down after yesterday's attempt?
« Last Edit: 02/29/2016 04:41 pm by WHAP »
ULA employee.  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

Offline Alastor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 573
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1486 on: 02/29/2016 04:52 pm »
Sounds like we will be able to watch another attempt tonight after all!

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-attempt-launch-monday-20160229-post.html

Just need SpaceX to confirm...

It seems as per the linked article, that the information has been denied by the original source that moved its schedule to tomorow.

Offline LastStarFighter

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Europa
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1487 on: 02/29/2016 04:53 pm »
Noted as a "developing story" so I didn't post this in "updates thread"

Via: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-attempt-launch-monday-20160229-post.html

"SpaceX’s fourth attempt to launch a communications satellite has been set for 6:46 p.m. Monday at Cape Canaveral, according to a website maintained by Space Florida.

(SpaceX itself had not on Monday morning confirmed a Monday launch. This is a developing story.)"

Seems like the vehicle would be vertical by this point if they were really preparing to launch tonight.  Anyone local able to confirm?  Or did they even bring it down after yesterday's attempt?

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I think the article says Tuesday now

Online Chris Bergin

Noted as a "developing story" so I didn't post this in "updates thread"

Via: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-attempt-launch-monday-20160229-post.html

"SpaceX’s fourth attempt to launch a communications satellite has been set for 6:46 p.m. Monday at Cape Canaveral, according to a website maintained by Space Florida.

(SpaceX itself had not on Monday morning confirmed a Monday launch. This is a developing story.)"

They were wrong....and changed their article to note Tuesday is the NET.
« Last Edit: 02/29/2016 04:58 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline MarekCyzio

Space Florida Cape Canaveral office is next door from SpaceX LCC, but it does not mean they get updates faster.

Online wes_wilson

  • Armchair Rocketeer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Florida
    • Foundations IT, Inc.
  • Liked: 542
  • Likes Given: 377
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1490 on: 02/29/2016 05:08 pm »
True, then why can't you simply launch with something in the zone?

Because the range and the FAA have policies that don't allow launches when there is a increased risk. When expectation of casualty (Ec) is >30 × 10 −6

Curious, that implies once SpaceX proves a certain level of reliability for their rockets they can fly with people in the exclusion zone?  Since the expectation of casualty would be the probability of failure * the probability of being killed by debris upon failure; the bar is pretty low on rocket reliability for Ec < 30 x 10 ^ -6

Is there somewhere I can read more on this?

@SpaceX "When can I buy my ticket to Mars?"

Offline Kim Keller

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
  • Not OldSpace, Not NewSpace - I'm ALLSpace
  • Location: Wherever the rockets are
  • Liked: 2419
  • Likes Given: 125
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1491 on: 02/29/2016 05:14 pm »
Does anybody know the current location of the SES-9 vehicle?

Still on the pad.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1492 on: 02/29/2016 05:21 pm »

Curious, that implies once SpaceX proves a certain level of reliability for their rockets they can fly with people in the exclusion zone?  Since the expectation of casualty would be the probability of failure * the probability of being killed by debris upon failure; the bar is pretty low on rocket reliability for Ec < 30 x 10 ^ -6

Is there somewhere I can read more on this?


It has nothing to do with vehicle reliability.   It is the chance of injury when there is a problem.

Online wes_wilson

  • Armchair Rocketeer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Florida
    • Foundations IT, Inc.
  • Liked: 542
  • Likes Given: 377
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1493 on: 02/29/2016 05:21 pm »
True, then why can't you simply launch with something in the zone?

Because the range and the FAA have policies that don't allow launches when there is a increased risk. When expectation of casualty (Ec) is >30 × 10 −6

Curious, that implies once SpaceX proves a certain level of reliability for their rockets they can fly with people in the exclusion zone?  Since the expectation of casualty would be the probability of failure * the probability of being killed by debris upon failure; the bar is pretty low on rocket reliability for Ec < 30 x 10 ^ -6

Is there somewhere I can read more on this?

Nevermind, I found it.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/Ac4311fn.pdf
@SpaceX "When can I buy my ticket to Mars?"

Online wes_wilson

  • Armchair Rocketeer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
  • Florida
    • Foundations IT, Inc.
  • Liked: 542
  • Likes Given: 377
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1494 on: 02/29/2016 05:24 pm »

Curious, that implies once SpaceX proves a certain level of reliability for their rockets they can fly with people in the exclusion zone?  Since the expectation of casualty would be the probability of failure * the probability of being killed by debris upon failure; the bar is pretty low on rocket reliability for Ec < 30 x 10 ^ -6

Is there somewhere I can read more on this?


It has nothing to do with vehicle reliability.   It is the chance of injury when there is a problem.

Actually, it looks like rocket reliability is part of the equation.  Section 3.1 of that FAA doc says risk is the product of the probability of occurrence of an event (rocket failure here) and the consequences of that event (someone being hit by falling debris here)
@SpaceX "When can I buy my ticket to Mars?"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1495 on: 02/29/2016 05:57 pm »
Actually, it looks like rocket reliability is part of the equation.  Section 3.1 of that FAA doc says risk is the product of the probability of occurrence of an event (rocket failure here) and the consequences of that event (someone being hit by falling debris here)


In the end, they don't use numbers specific to a vehicle.

Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1496 on: 02/29/2016 07:50 pm »
Remember to quote posts correctly, or it breaks the thread when others quote your post, etc. Also, Range could be a good splinter topic, although anyone complaining clearly missed the range was a big deal for the attempt last night.

It's a shame the range had to call a hold, but the rules are the rules. Personally I think if you are stupid enough to wander into a well publicized restricted area, you are entitled to a chance at becoming a Darwin award winner, but I understand the legal ramifications. I was surprised they tried another launch attempt that night with the whole LOX loading finishing at T-2 or 3 seconds thing. This variant of Falcon 9 sure is looking like an instantaneous launch or bust kind of vehicle.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1498 on: 02/29/2016 09:37 pm »
It's a shame the range had to call a hold, but the rules are the rules. Personally I think if you are stupid enough to wander into a well publicized restricted area, you are entitled to a chance at becoming a Darwin award winner, but I understand the legal ramifications.

I see one problem with launching when there is someone in the hazard area. Not with the Darwin award nominee. But if this goes through you may have a hundred boats with launch watchers next time.

Offline Ohsin

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1469
  • Liked: 1453
  • Likes Given: 2379
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 FT - SES-9 - March 4, 2016 - DISCUSSION
« Reply #1499 on: 02/29/2016 09:38 pm »
Only if they are motor homes... ;) Seriously, a vessel operator is making a choice, the rural residents are probably considered "dispensable" by the communist regime and their doctrine of the "greater good" of the state...

You make a valid point Jim, however I have a problem in general about protecting people from their own stupidity... Call it an "evolutionary self-correction mechanism"...

Are you suggesting they shouldn't hold "for the greater good" as stupid people are dispensable   ::)


"Well, three cheers to Sharma, but our real baby is INSAT."

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1