NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Falcon Missions Section => Topic started by: Comga on 07/28/2016 04:41 am
-
Kicking off a CRS / SpX - 10 Discussion thread (with permission from Chris Bergin)
NSF Threads for CRS-10 : Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40815.0) / Updates (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42182.0) / CRS-10 Launch Viewing (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42220.msg1638098#msg1638098) / L2 January 2017 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41538.0) / L2 February 2017 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42086.0) / ASDS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=66.0) / Party (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40089.msg1520968#msg1520968)
NSF Articles for CRS-10:
Dragon pulls rank as LC-39A readiness realigns SpaceX manifest (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/01/dragon-pulls-rank-lc-39a-readiness-spacex/)
Fire to return to LC-39A with Falcon 9 static fire ahead of CRS-10 launch (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/fire-lc-39a-falcon-9-crs-10-launch/)
SpaceX debuts Falcon 9 launch from 39A with CRS-10 Dragon mission (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-historic-debut-launch-39a-crs-10-dragon/)
CRS-10 Dragon completes rendezvous and berthing with Station (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/flawless-spx-10-dragon-rendezvous-berthing-station/)
SpaceX science – Dragon delivers experiments for busy science period (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-dragon-experiments-busy-science-period/)
LC-39A Preparation Threads: Pad 39A - Transition to SpaceX Falcon Heavy debut - Thread 3 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41015.0) / L2 Coverage (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34978.0)
NSF Articles for CRS missions : https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=CRS
Successful Launch on Feb. 19, 2017 at 09:39 EST/14:39 UTC. Successful first stage landing at LZ-1. This flight used a new booster, serial number 1031.
(I don't think "NET" is appropriate for CRS missions to the ISS. "Leftward" slide unlikely but possible.)
External cargo: SAGE-III-ISS (Instrument Platform and Nadir Viewing Platform) and STP-H5
Mission patch and SAGE-III-ISS patch:
(What's with the dark blue mouse on the light blue background just below the Dragon trunk?)
Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
SpaceX News Articles (Recent) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/) / SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0)
SpaceX Dragon Articles (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon/) / SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=55.0)
L2 SpaceX Section (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0)
-
(What's with the dark blue mouse on the light blue background just below the Dragon trunk?)
It probably means that mice are being carried by SpX-10 to ISS for some experiments.
-
(What's with the dark blue mouse on the light blue background just below the Dragon trunk?)
It probably means that mice are being carried by SpX-10 to ISS for some experiments.
Answered my own question. There is a Mouse Habitat (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160002097.pdf) manifested for SpX-10 as part of the Rodent Research (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1132.html).
"NASA’s Rodent Research program traffic model is 2 flights per year on even numbered SpaceX flights."
-
How many life biological cargoes (and I'm talking about macroscopic animals here, not the microorganisms in the cheese) has Dragon carried to date?
-
How many life biological cargoes (and I'm talking about macroscopic animals here, not the microorganisms in the cheese) has Dragon carried to date?
At least 40 -- 20 mice on CRS-4 and 20 mice on CRS-6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space
In one (https://youtube.com/watch?v=G3uY3ml0uks) of the two (https://youtube.com/watch?v=EEJ7U6eWKcs) last science pressers prior to the CRS-9 launch (probably the second one I link to here), someone mentioned that mice had gone up before, but no mice had ever come back alive. Up to now they've been killing and freezing them on orbit, I guess, prior to return for ground analysis. Naturally, they don't focus on that last part in the outreach / PR.
EDIT: inserted Youtube URLs after learning how to suppress auto-embed (delete the "www." prefix).
-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SSC and Millennium Space Systems Team on Upcoming ALTAIR Launch
Solna, Sweden, (Aug. 08, 2016) – Officials with SSC, the Swedish Space Corporation, and Millennium Space Systems of El Segundo, Calif., today announced they are teaming together on the first-ever ALTAIR launch to provide customization and rapid constellation production for Millennium’s customers. The ALTAIR spacecraft, a high performance space system for LEO, GEO and deep space missions, will launch on a SpaceX Dragon as part of an International Space Station (ISS) Commercial Resupply mission in the next 90 days. Once onboard the ISS, the 6U-ALTAIR spacecraft will be launched via the NanoRacks deployment system.
SSC is providing its SSC Infinity ground operations services and operational expertise to maintain the program’s budget and schedule prior to deployment. ALTAIR will utilize SSC Infinity ground network services for launch and early orbit procedures, as well as routine support from ground stations in Hawaii, Australia and Chile throughout its mission life.
“Recent growth in new, smallsat and constellation-based space applications throughout the world has driven the need for a new approach to ground segment operations,” said Leif Osterbo, president of SSC’s Satellite Management Services Division. “SSC Infinity is that new approach. Millennium Space Systems will be able to reduce costs and risks associated with satellite launch, orbital insertion, system and constellation checkout.”
“We are proud to partner with SSC using its SSC Infinity services for our first ALTAIR launch,” stated Stan Dubyn, CEO of Millennium Space Systems. “This launch is a critical pathfinder for ALTAIR, and we chose to rely on our SSC partner based on their service to the U.S. Department of Defense for the past two decades.”
ABOUT SSC
SSC provides advanced space services to commercial and institutional customers worldwide. Built on decades of experience, we offer proven expertise in space engineering, satellite management services, and launch services for sounding rockets and balloons.
WE HELP EARTH BENEFIT FROM SPACE. www.sscspace.com
ABOUT MILLENNIUM SPACE SYSTEMS
Millennium Space Systems is a privately held, employee-owned company founded in November 2001, providing alternative, relevant and affordable solutions to today’s aerospace challenges. The company designs flight systems and develops mission and system solutions for the Intelligence Community, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics & Space Administration and commercial customers. www.millennium-space.com.
-
So Shotwell is saying that the next launch is hopefully Nov, and this is scheduled for Nov. What are the odds that a return to flight is a Dragon flight? They could leave off the external payload if the customer wished, and just fly a tang and toilet paper mission. If anything were to go wrong it wouldn't impact a customer, just SpaceX hardware and low cost consumables.
-
According to next FCC application issued at 09/23/2016 there is CRS-10 flight from LC-40 still NET 11/10/2016 with landing targeted to LZ-1.
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=73865
Explanation
Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
This STA modifies information from previous application 0830-EX-ST-2016. This STA covers the experimental first-stage recovery operation, following a Falcon 9 launch from Cape Canaveral. This request is limited to the TC uplink from an onshore station at CCAFS. This includes pre-launch check-out operations at CCAFS as pre-coordinated with the launch Range. Launch vehicle flight communications for this mission are covered by a separate STA. The current launch planning date is NET 11/10/2016. The requested expiration date is 6 months following the grant date or upon completion of the experimental recovery operation, whichever occurs first.
previous application 0830-EX-ST-2016 - is similar FCC application for CRS-9
pre-launch check-out operations at CCAFS - is LC-40
"North 28 29 11 West 80 32 51" - is LZ-1 landing pad
Little conflicting with tweet about EchoStar-23 RTF (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/785548529276166145).
-
According to next FCC application issued at 09/23/2016 there is CRS-10 flight from LC-40 still NET 11/10/2016 with landing targeted to LZ-1.
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=73865
Explanation
Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
This STA modifies information from previous application 0830-EX-ST-2016. This STA covers the experimental first-stage recovery operation, following a Falcon 9 launch from Cape Canaveral. This request is limited to the TC uplink from an onshore station at CCAFS. This includes pre-launch check-out operations at CCAFS as pre-coordinated with the launch Range. Launch vehicle flight communications for this mission are covered by a separate STA. The current launch planning date is NET 11/10/2016. The requested expiration date is 6 months following the grant date or upon completion of the experimental recovery operation, whichever occurs first.
previous application 0830-EX-ST-2016 - is similar FCC application for CRS-9
pre-launch check-out operations at CCAFS - is LC-40
"North 28 29 11 West 80 32 51" - is LZ-1 landing pad
Little conflicting with tweet about EchoStar-23 RTF (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/785548529276166145).
I don't think anything will be launching from LC-40 anytime soon.
This is an application for TC (traffic control?) uplink related to the 1st stage recovery operation. As far as I understand this, they have a transmitter at LC-40 that will be used for recovery operations. They are asking for a permit valid for 6 months, so it does not necessarily imply they will launch on 11/10/2016 but this is a (not very realistic) NET date.
-
A launch from 39-A could still land the booster at LZ-1, couldn't it? Does it matter if the launch is one place and RF another?
-
A launch from 39-A could still land the booster at LZ-1, couldn't it? Does it matter if the launch is one place and RF another?
I see no reason it couldn't. But from what we have heard so far CRS10 does not seem to be planned as a return to flight mission.
-
A launch from 39-A could still land the booster at LZ-1, couldn't it?
Yes, it's possible.
But in my humble opinion, since Pad 39A is farther north than Pad 40 and if CRS-10 was to return to LZ-1, it would probably have to conduct a longer boostback burn to land precisely on the center of the pad.
-
A launch from 39-A could still land the booster at LZ-1, couldn't it?
Yes, it's possible.
But in my humble opinion, since Pad 39A is farther north than Pad 40 and if CRS-10 was to return to LZ-1, it would probably have to conduct a longer boostback burn to land precisely on the center of the pad.
The distance added between 39A and LZ-1 compared to 40 and LZ-1 is so comparatively minor I do not think it would make any noticeable difference.
-
A launch from 39-A could still land the booster at LZ-1, couldn't it?
Yes, it's possible.
But in my humble opinion, since Pad 39A is farther north than Pad 40 and if CRS-10 was to return to LZ-1, it would probably have to conduct a longer boostback burn to land precisely on the center of the pad.
The distance added between 39A and LZ-1 compared to 40 and LZ-1 is so comparatively minor I do not think it would make any noticeable difference.
A difference easily absorbed by the grid fins.
-
A launch from 39-A could still land the booster at LZ-1, couldn't it?
Yes, it's possible.
But in my humble opinion, since Pad 39A is farther north than Pad 40 and if CRS-10 was to return to LZ-1, it would probably have to conduct a longer boostback burn to land precisely on the center of the pad.
The distance added between 39A and LZ-1 compared to 40 and LZ-1 is so comparatively minor I do not think it would make any noticeable difference.
A difference easily absorbed by the grid fins.
No, the boost back would redirect the vehicle
-
A launch from 39-A could still land the booster at LZ-1, couldn't it?
Yes, it's possible.
But in my humble opinion, since Pad 39A is farther north than Pad 40 and if CRS-10 was to return to LZ-1, it would probably have to conduct a longer boostback burn to land precisely on the center of the pad.
The distance added between 39A and LZ-1 compared to 40 and LZ-1 is so comparatively minor I do not think it would make any noticeable difference.
A difference easily absorbed by the grid fins.
No, the boost back would redirect the vehicle
The boost back would redirect the vehicle but it would still be no noticeable difference as far as the amount of boost needed.
-
A launch from 39-A could still land the booster at LZ-1, couldn't it?
Yes, it's possible.
But in my humble opinion, since Pad 39A is farther north than Pad 40 and if CRS-10 was to return to LZ-1, it would probably have to conduct a longer boostback burn to land precisely on the center of the pad.
The distance added between 39A and LZ-1 compared to 40 and LZ-1 is so comparatively minor I do not think it would make any noticeable difference.
A difference easily absorbed by the grid fins.
No, the boost back would redirect the vehicle
Of course, but the grid fins do the detail work. And the difference between these two pads is detail.
-
I don't believe grid fins would be able compensate if the booster missed LZ1 by that distance.
-
I don't believe grid fins would be able compensate if the booster missed LZ1 by that distance.
There have been calculations in prior mission threads, or perhaps the General Falcon & Dragon thread, that body lift and the grid fins' ability to modulate angle of attack basically give the F9 stage maybe 15 - 20 miles of cross-range from the end of the boost back burn to landing. Can't remember which thread(s) this has been discussed in but a search might locate the posts.
The point being, of course, that any mission capable of RTLS in the first place would have no problem if launched from LC-39A instead of LC-40. The boost back burn would be adjusted by a couple degrees and the grid fins would allow the vehicle to "fly out" the en route course corrections in any case.
-
There have been calculations in prior mission threads, or perhaps the General Falcon & Dragon thread, that body lift and the grid fins' ability to modulate angle of attack basically give the F9 stage maybe 15 - 20 miles of cross-range from the end of the boost back burn to landing. Can't remember which thread(s) this has been discussed in but a search might locate the posts.
IIRC this was mentioned regarding possible RTLS for a Vandenberg launch - Landing location would be either RTLS or the ASDS ~50 miles away, decided on short notice with one pre-planned boostback burn working for both locations.
-
So the launch angle of attack can't be changed early enough to match the trajectory and plan for de-staging at the same coordinates as de-staging from LC40?
-
Please
This has nothing to do with CRS/SpX-10
It's also kind of silly, as the distances between pads at the Cape is minuscule compared to the trajectory.
Does anyone here remember the Kerbal Space Program video where the booster lands on the ASDS? From the apogee, the barge is a spec. From the opposite vantage point the whole Cape would look like a pimple on the coast.
Can we get back to the mission, news of which is of great interest to me?
-
Looks like this launch has been delayed to December 2016, according to this report in the AMOS-6 thread.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41252.msg1598513#msg1598513
"The plan is to get back to launch in early December and that will be from pad 39A at the Cape and we will be launching around the same time from Vandenberg as well."
-
Looks like this launch has been delayed to December 2016, according to this report in the AMOS-6 thread.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41252.msg1598513#msg1598513
"The plan is to get back to launch in early December and that will be from pad 39A at the Cape and we will be launching around the same time from Vandenberg as well."
This is most likely not the RTF payload. We've heard a couple times already that CRS-10 is NET January.
-
This is most likely not the RTF payload. We've heard a couple times already that CRS-10 is NET January.
Can you let us know the source of your information? That would be very interesting if true. Makes me wonder what the RTF payload could be.
-
This is most likely not the RTF payload. We've heard a couple times already that CRS-10 is NET January.
Can you let us know the source of your information? That would be very interesting if true. Makes me wonder what the RTF payload could be.
This reddit post (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/55odps/hertz_spacex_has_told_nasa_that_crs10_will_be_in/) is an example, I think I first saw info in L2 indicating that January was a likely planning date.
I never expected CRS 10 to be RTF just due to schedule issues. They have to fit it in within ISS resupply needs and visiting vehicle schedule which requires planning ahead. On the other hand, RTF they want to get off as soon as a rocket is ready. I think I saw a rumor about Echostar 23 possibly being the RTF payload, but it was just a rumor.
-
Actually there is granted only two FCC applications...
Iridium NEXT from VAFB (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=72947&RequestTimeout=1000) stated like F9-30, but could be changed because is issued before Amos6
and CRS-10 from LC-39A (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=73837&RequestTimeout=1000) granted recently.
No other application in this time, however there is still enough time for issuing new one.
-
This is most likely not the RTF payload. We've heard a couple times already that CRS-10 is NET January.
Can you let us know the source of your information? That would be very interesting if true. Makes me wonder what the RTF payload could be.
We've mostly been tracking this in the SpaceX manifest thread instead of the mission threads right now:
Tweet from Marcia Smith @SpcPlcyOnline (https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/782973789810286592)
Hertz: SpaceX has told NASA that CRS-10 will be in Jan (was Nov), CRS-11, w/NICER, is Mar (was Feb). But depends on when they fix F9 prob,
Tweet from Peter B. de Selding (https://mobile.twitter.com/pbdes/status/785548529276166145)
SpaceX manifest: Round & round it goes, where it stops... EchoStar-23 is latest customer said to be maneuvering for F9 return-to-flight slot
(Cross-posted with the discussion thread.)
Quoted from https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/57balr/details_from_elons_speech_at_the_nro/
Details from Elon's speech at the NRO (self.spacex)
submitted 23 minutes ago * by Ravenous117
...
Addressing return to flight:
“The plan is to get back to launch in early December and that will be from pad 39A at the Cape and we will be launching around the same time from Vandenberg as well. Pad 40 will probably be back in action around March or April next year. Probably around May or so is when we will launch Falcon Heavy. We are going to re-fly the first returned core December or January. We have test fired one of the returned cores 8 times and it looks good. That is promising for testing re-flight.”
...
These are my personal accounts of what I heard from Elon live and the rough transcript is from a recording of the event. I do not know much other than what I heard but I wanted to share with you guys. Enjoy.
Still a bit early to rework the manifest until they actually announce RTF, but if this is legit then the RTF order could be something like:
1. one of the commsats, they could have several to choose from (EchoStar 23, SES-11/EchoStar 105, Koreasat, Inmarsat, ...)
2. Iridium flight 1
3. SES-10
4. CRS-10
and after they get through those they should have around a half dozen payloads waiting for launch.
-
Tweet from Stephen Clark (https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/791390174496198656)
Michael Freilich/NASA’s Earth science division: Pegasus/CYGNSS launch from Cape now Dec. 12. Next SpaceX station cargo flight around Jan. 15
-
Actually there is granted only two FCC applications...
Iridium NEXT from VAFB (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=72947&RequestTimeout=1000) stated like F9-30, but could be changed because is issued before Amos6
and CRS-10 from LC-39A (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=73837&RequestTimeout=1000) granted recently.
No other application in this time, however there is still enough time for issuing new one.
Here is the latest FCC permit application, for F9-31 from LC-39A, commercial commsat, effective beginning December.
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=74368&RequestTimeout=1000
The application was received by FCC on October 22nd, just a few days ago, so it should represent the latest manifest thinking from SpaceX. This would seem to confirm that CRS-10 will not be the RTF payload.
So the manifest numbers from the permits are:
F9-30: commercial LEO mission from VAFB
F9-31: commercial GTO mission from 39A
Although it sounds from Elon's comments that they think the order may be reversed. In any case, looks like CRS-10 will not happen until after these two.
-
Given that LC39A is about 31/2 miles north of LC-40 how does that change anything in terms of landing at LZ1? Answer it doesn't.
-
Tweet from James Dean (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/798207264939241472)
NASA refers to next SpaceX cargo resupply mission to ISS (SpaceX-10) as hopefully in the spring.
Tweet from Jeff Foust (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/798208336973864960)
Scimemi: SpaceX will have to prove to NASA it’s safe to fly before we start flying CRS missions again.
-
Recent word from LaRC points to Jan 22 launch
Recent word from GSFC points to Jan 24 launch
Quick calculation suggests launching in the middle of the night
Alt ISS 413.05 km
R1 6791 km
T1 5569.7 sec
w1 0.00113 rad/sec
wp1 -9.01E-07 rad/sec
-0.0124 day/day
0.9876 day/day interval
-17.85 min/day shift
3/23/2016 3:05 OA-6 launch UTC
3/22/2016 22:05 OA-6 launch EST
1/22/2017 2:11 SpX10 launch EST
1/23/2017 1:53 SpX10 launch EST
1/24/2017 1:35 SpX10 launch EST
1/25/2017 1:17 SpX10 launch EST
Lowering the altitude to 403 km (current value on Heavens-Above) moves the time earlier by ~20 min.
Someone must have a better estimate from the current orbit data.
-
SpaceFlightNow has EchoStar 23 launching from pad 39A on NET Jan 8, just two weeks before the listed Spx-10 on 22 Jan. http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/)
What are the chances of Space-X a) launching EchoStar 23 on time and recycling the pad in enough time to cram the SpX-10 static fire in a couple days before the 22nd? EchoStar 23 would be the first launch of a Falcon 9 from 39A.
SpX-10 is going to slip.
-
SpaceFlightNow has EchoStar 23 launching from pad 39A on NET Jan 8, just two weeks before the listed Spx-10 on 22 Jan. http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/)
What are the chances of Space-X a) launching EchoStar 23 on time and recycling the pad in enough time to cram the SpX-10 static fire in a couple days before the 22nd? EchoStar 23 would be the first launch of a Falcon 9 from 39A.
SpX-10 is going to slip.
its hard to know since its a new pad and there are always teething issues before during and after the first launch.
-
SpaceFlightNow has EchoStar 23 launching from pad 39A on NET Jan 8, just two weeks before the listed Spx-10 on 22 Jan. http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/)
What are the chances of Space-X a) launching EchoStar 23 on time and recycling the pad in enough time to cram the SpX-10 static fire in a couple days before the 22nd? EchoStar 23 would be the first launch of a Falcon 9 from 39A.
SpX-10 is going to slip.
its hard to know since its a new pad and there are always teething issues before during and after the first launch.
... and we haven't seen a fit check or a WDR.
-
ISTM two factors here. Firstly SpaceX think they have a commercially workable solution to AMOS 6 anomally and have discussed with other agencies. Such a solution can only be formally considered and agreed when SpaceX formally tables this and other agencies, while perhaps not disagreeing, are not yet totally convinced.
SpaceX must know that after two failures they will be dead in the water if they have a third blow-up in the near future. Their credibility will be zilch. While they may be confident the best arbiter I have found is peer review. If others are not yet happy with the postulated way ahead and suggest more information is required it can only be in SpaceX's interests to provide this as the other agencies are the nearest thing to peer review. If some kind of hardware changes have occurred, e.g. to the COPV system to increase resistance to solidified LOX, this would be even more important.
SpaceX is young and enthusiastic. I want to see them succeed. I want to see Red Dragon fly. I would like to think that their legally definitive failure report leading to recertification is something everyone can agree on without caveats. This was a wierd failure but arguable the laws of physics are well enough known that this should have been foreseeable. A start-up may be able to afford problems but these guys must move beyond that stage.
-
This was a weird failure but arguable the laws of physics are well enough known that this should have been foreseeable. A start-up may be able to afford problems but these guys must move beyond that stage.
Just knowing the laws of physics isn't enough to predict every single problem otherwise we would never have any problems ever. I do not believe this was foreseeable within any normal timescale.
-
JamesH65 is of course quite right. Laws of physics would enable one to predict a temperature drop around pressurising COPV's possibly leading to oxygen solidifying - then one has to decide if it matters! Some folk would, I'm sure and see in these pages, demand that full simulations/analysis be carried out to ensure there was no risk before any use of this technology. Better still use a different pressurisation system. You never break an egg but omelettes take a while!
I use the term "arguably" because personally I would be tempted to try it and then stick to a method that worked. Russian engines tend to work reliably I understand, not because they were developed with vast computing power but because they tried, failed, looked at the bits, modified and tried again repeatedly. As far as I understand it I like the SpaceX approach. It's just a pity it went pop on a launch pad with payload rather than on a test pad somewhere so one could swiftly move on ... .
-
No more RTF and AMOS 6 failure speculation in this thread. This isn't the RTF mission.
-
What are the ISS program constraints on this Dragon launch?
There's a small high-beta angle docking/berthing cut-out Feb. 21-24.
Is Dragon limited to berthing at Harmony (Node 2) nadir? If so, then it has to wait for HTV-6 to depart. Currently, that's scheduled for January 20.
Are the USOS Visiting Vehicle arrivals and departures limited to when there are a minimum of 2 USOS astronauts aboard? (Kelly and Padalka were to be the capture and berthing personnel for Dragon CRS-7.) I don't see any such limitations until next May. (Yurchikin and Fischer are the 2-person crew after the departure of Soyuz MS-03 until the arrival of Soyuz MS-05.)
Are there any other such operational constraints?
-
Is Dragon limited to berthing at Harmony (Node 2) nadir? If so, then it has to wait for HTV-6 to depart. Currently, that's scheduled for January 20.
I'm not sure about other operational constraints, but Dragon, Cygnus and HTV all have the same common berthing interface. However, Dragon has always gone in to Node 2 Nadir, while only Cygnus has berthed to Node 1 Nadir since the PMM was moved from that berth to Node 3 Forward. HTV has berthed to both Node 2 Nadir and Node 2 Zenith, visible here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station#/media/File:STS-133_International_Space_Station_after_undocking_5.jpg .
I expect they will wait for Node 2 Nadir to be clear before berthing Dragon but they could wait for a successful launch first, as it takes about 2 days to catch up to the ISS from Florida.
-
Is Dragon limited to berthing at Harmony (Node 2) nadir? If so, then it has to wait for HTV-6 to depart. Currently, that's scheduled for January 20.
I'm not sure about other operational constraints, but Dragon, Cygnus and HTV all have the same common berthing interface. However, Dragon has always gone in to Node 2 Nadir, while only Cygnus has berthed to Node 1 Nadir since the PMM was moved from that berth to Node 3 Forward. HTV has berthed to both Node 2 Nadir and Node 2 Zenith, visible here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station#/media/File:STS-133_International_Space_Station_after_undocking_5.jpg .
I expect they will wait for Node 2 Nadir to be clear before berthing Dragon but they could wait for a successful launch first, as it takes about 2 days to catch up to the ISS from Florida.
N2Z ACBM will be available for VV use until PMA-3 relocate activities are performed ahead of IDA-3 arrival and install.
-
Somewhat unexpected tweet from USLaunchReport Mike Wagner:
https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136
SpaceX confirms mating CRS-10 Dragon to Falcon 9 booster, Cape Canaveral for late January launch
The tweet includes an Eutelsat Flacon 9 picture.
-
Somewhat unexpected tweet from USLaunchReport Mike Wagner:
https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136
SpaceX confirms mating CRS-10 Dragon to Falcon 9 booster, Cape Canaveral for late January launch
The tweet includes an Eutelsat Flacon 9 picture.
Utilizing 39A full bay to process more than one at a time?
-
Somewhat unexpected tweet from USLaunchReport Mike Wagner:
https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136 (https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136)
SpaceX confirms mating CRS-10 Dragon to Falcon 9 booster, Cape Canaveral for late January launch
The tweet includes an Eutelsat Flacon 9 picture.
Some of the external cargo was shipped to Florida only a few days ago.
That has to be mounted into the trunk before the trunk can be attached to the second stage.
Have we ever seen images of the Dragon and trunk attached to a second stage that was not mounted on a first stage?
Could this have been a fit test mating of some sort?
-
Somewhat unexpected tweet from USLaunchReport Mike Wagner:
https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136 (https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136)
SpaceX confirms mating CRS-10 Dragon to Falcon 9 booster, Cape Canaveral for late January launch
The tweet includes an Eutelsat Flacon 9 picture.
Some of the external cargo was shipped to Florida only a few days ago.
That has to be mounted into the trunk before the trunk can be attached to the second stage.
Have we ever seen images of the Dragon and trunk attached to a second stage that was not mounted on a first stage?
Could this have been a fit test mating of some sort?
Maybe Dragon mating for pad fit checks, de-mating for loading payloads into Dragon and doing a static fire, then re-integrating Dragon with all the payloads on board for launch?
-
Somewhat unexpected tweet from USLaunchReport Mike Wagner:
https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136 (https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136)
SpaceX confirms mating CRS-10 Dragon to Falcon 9 booster, Cape Canaveral for late January launch
The tweet includes an Eutelsat Flacon 9 picture.
Some of the external cargo was shipped to Florida only a few days ago.
That has to be mounted into the trunk before the trunk can be attached to the second stage.
Have we ever seen images of the Dragon and trunk attached to a second stage that was not mounted on a first stage?
Could this have been a fit test mating of some sort?
Maybe Dragon mating for pad fit checks, de-mating for loading payloads into Dragon and doing a static fire, then re-integrating Dragon with all the payloads on board for launch?
Someone's reply to his tweet says that Dragon was mated to its TRUNK this weekend, which makes a heck of a lot more sense.
-
Somewhat unexpected tweet from USLaunchReport Mike Wagner:
https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136 (https://twitter.com/USLaunchReport/status/810596374718939136)
SpaceX confirms mating CRS-10 Dragon to Falcon 9 booster, Cape Canaveral for late January launch
The tweet includes an Eutelsat Flacon 9 picture.
Some of the external cargo was shipped to Florida only a few days ago.
That has to be mounted into the trunk before the trunk can be attached to the second stage.
Have we ever seen images of the Dragon and trunk attached to a second stage that was not mounted on a first stage?
Could this have been a fit test mating of some sort?
Maybe Dragon mating for pad fit checks, de-mating for loading payloads into Dragon and doing a static fire, then re-integrating Dragon with all the payloads on board for launch?
Someone's reply to his tweet says that Dragon was mated to its TRUNK this weekend, which makes a heck of a lot more sense.
That "someone" is Joe Gasbarre of the NASA Langley SAGE-III-ISS team. He should be in the know about CRS-10.
That he corrected the details of the mating but did NOT dispute the "late January launch" part is a hopeful sign.
-
SpaceflightNow (http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) just yesterday (12/24) changed the SpX-10 launch date from January to February.
Does anyone know what prompted that change?
It is now only four weeks until January 22, as if anyone here is not aware of that. :P
If SpX-10 is the third flight of 2017, including the RTF, and the second from the new LC-39A launch pad, it's not surprising that it wouldn't happen that fast, but is there some real news?
-
A new projection/rumor from GSFC says that SpX-10 is expected to slip day for day with the RTF. Jan 22 is 40 days after Dec 16, the first announced date for RTF. 40 days after Jan 8 is Feb 17. :P
-
Tweet from James Dean: (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/816722400775720967)
NASA now planning for Feb. 8 launch of Falcon 9/Dragon from KSC on SpaceX's CRS-10 cargo mission; Dragon would berth at ISS on Feb. 11.
This date doesn't seem any more likely to hold than the last one...
-
Tweet from James Dean: (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/816722400775720967)
NASA now planning for Feb. 8 launch of Falcon 9/Dragon from KSC on SpaceX's CRS-10 cargo mission; Dragon would berth at ISS on Feb. 11.
This date doesn't seem any more likely to hold than the last one...
Depends if they get Iridium launched on Sunday.
-
Tweet from James Dean: (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/816722400775720967)
NASA now planning for Feb. 8 launch of Falcon 9/Dragon from KSC on SpaceX's CRS-10 cargo mission; Dragon would berth at ISS on Feb. 11.
This date doesn't seem any more likely to hold than the last one...
Depends if they get Iridium launched on Sunday.
Probably Monday and then Echostar 23...but manifests move around all the time. Thing with CRS is they have the whole ISS berthing ops to boot.
-
With the successful launch and landing of the Iridium Next Flt 1, will the next up launch hold to its 26 Jan date?
If Echostar -23 slips then so does the CRS-10 date.
We shall see if LC-39a is really complete or has teething problems. The chances are significant that the CRS-10 planning date will slip.
-
The NASA GSFC Raven team on Wednesday sent out to involved personnel invitations for launch viewing from the Banana River Campround on Feb. 8. Confidence in that specific date was not high.
With today's successful Return to Flight something close to that seems possible.
-
I hope it will not slip too much as, for now, we have a daylight launch which would be a wonderful thing to get the first daylight first stage landing at LZ-1.
-
I find it odd that the NASA Launch Schedule page (also landings) has a listing for the Orbital ATK OA-7 mission but nothing on CRS-10.
-
Phys.org: SAGE III to provide highly accurate measurements of atmospheric gases (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-sage-iii-highly-accurate-atmospheric.html)
Nice overview of SAGE III, an external payload on CRS-10.
-
With the successful launch and landing of the Iridium Next Flt 1, will the next up launch hold to its 26 Jan date?
If Echostar -23 slips then so does the CRS-10 date.
We shall see if LC-39a is really complete or has teething problems. The chances are significant that the CRS-10 planning date will slip.
Surely there is going to be teething and learning on LC39A.
I haven't seen or recall a booster being erected and being loaded to even check the basics of the pad.
Hard to see how they go from zero to flight in 10 days.
-
The Vandenberg pad is just as new as LC-39A. Not necessarily more problems than the Iridium launch.
-
The Vandenberg pad is just as new as LC-39A. Not necessarily more problems than the Iridium launch.
I Don't think a new pad compares to upgrading another pad to Full Thrust
-
The TE is basically new. All the facilities for fuel are basically new. Those are the items that could potentially cause delays.
-
Ozone Monitoring SAGE III Set to Launch on SpaceX CRS-10
NASAKennedy
Published on Jan 17, 2017
NASA's SAGE III instrument is being prepared for launch to the International Space Station to study atmospheric “sunscreen,” the ozone layer. Testing has been taking place in Kennedy's Space Station Processing Facility, a world-class laboratory.
https://youtu.be/VVyNQXWxH24?t=001
https://youtu.be/VVyNQXWxH24
-
I find it odd that the NASA Launch Schedule page (also landings) has a listing for the Orbital ATK OA-7 mission but nothing on CRS-10.
Because while February 8th might be what everyone is working towards, NASA - as we've reported - has to review the SpaceX investigation of AMOS-6 mishap and be happy with that investigation and any and all corrective actions taken by SpaceX before they'll approve a launch of CRS-10. And NASA has remained dubious and very cautious regarding that investigation. So it's not surprising that the NASA website would not include CRS-10 at this point -- just as it's not surprising they don't have Progress MS-05 up yet... as there is an ongoing investigation and corrective action process to get Soyuz-U ready for that flight.
Also, LC-39A is not complete; it still needs a lot of check outs, verifications, and validations. And there's a mission from 39A before CRS-10.
-
The Vandenberg pad is just as new as LC-39A. Not necessarily more problems than the Iridium launch.
No, densified LOX systems were tested on GH2. TEL is the same one as Jason-3.
-
NASA Glenn / Zin Technologies Zero Boil off Tank aka ZBOT (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1270.html) experiment is finally supposed to be on this mission.
-
NASA Glenn / Zin Technologies Zero Boil off Tank aka ZBOT (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1270.html) experiment is finally supposed to be on this mission.
Is that part of STP-H5?
Is ZBOT launched full of cryogen?
How far before launch would that be done?
Where is a good list of all the elements of STP-H5?
-
Is ZBOT launched full of cryogen?
Nope, attached is description of the experiment. Propellant depots (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12338.1000) thread may be a better place for discussion.
Edit/Lar: Crosslinked there : https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12338.msg1632457 ... probably OK to continue mission/experiment specific discussion here.
-
Is ZBOT launched full of cryogen?
Nope, attached is description of the experiment. Propellant depots (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12338.1000) thread may be a better place for discussion.
From this article: (http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40988(323)94)
"The breadboard consists of an acrylic fluid test tank that is thermally isolated from the outside environment. Heaters on the tank introduce controlled energy into the fluid, a room temperature refrigerant used as a cryogenic fluid simulant, whose temperature and pressure rise is accurately measured over time. A mechanically pumped fluid loop circulates the refrigerant in the chamber to distribute heat and control pressure, and velocity flow fields are measured using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV). The test tank is constructed of stainless steel and acrylic materials. The transparent acrylic portion of the tank allows velocity flow field measurements, at rates of 1 μm/s to 2 mm/s using PIV."
So far I have not found a direct statement that this is internal cargo, to be operated directly by the astronauts, not an external experiment as are other parts of STP-H5. Needing a vacuum jacket for insulation is a pretty strong clue that it will be inside the pressurized environment, as are the hints that it will be returned and reflown.
-
So far I have not found a direct statement that this is internal cargo, to be operated directly by the astronauts, not an external experiment as are other parts of STP-H5. Needing a vacuum jacket for insulation is a pretty strong clue that it will be inside the pressurized environment, as are the hints that it will be returned and reflown.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1270.html
From the link:
Operational Requirements and Protocols
The ZBOT test points are performed at three different fill levels: 70%, 80%, and 90%. The test tank is launched at a fill level of 70%. Particles are then injected into the fluid. The test fluid, P-n-P, is pre-conditioned to a nominal starting point temperature prior to each test. Tests fall into three categories: jet-mixing, subcooled jet mixing, and self-pressurization tests. Once tests are completed, the Fluid Reservoir are used to increase the fluid level in the test to the 80% and 90%. Dissolved gas are removed from the test fluid after each fill adjustment. Also, additional particles are injected to the fluid adjustment. There are a total of 52 test points, 23 each at the 70% and 90% fill levels, and 6 test points at the 80% fill level. Data are downlinked periodically. Return of the hardware is not required for data retrieval.
On-orbit procedures cover the installation of the hardware into the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG). During installation the crew must evacuate air from hoses and fill the water loop. The hoses are evacuated using the Microgravity Science Glovebox vacuum exhaust system (MSG VES). The water loop is filled from the ZBOT Water Reservoir. After the hardware is installed, the crew inject particles into the Test Section between 3-5 times. Experimental runs are controlled from the ground.
So it will be installed internal to the station, in a glovebox, but will be operated from the ground.
edit: fixed formatting of quote
-
The launch before SpX10 has been delayed by a week (from 23 Jan to 30 Jan) https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40374.msg1632104#msg1632104 so launch now likely Feb 15 if there's a 1-for-1 delay.
Does anyone know if it is likely to be an equal delay for the launch after Echostar 23 if its problems are due to pad readiness? What is the fastest they could turn around a pad? The HIF must be sufficient for simultaneously processing two missions, right? Or are there bottlenecks in equipment?
Thanks
-
The launch before SpX10 has been delayed by a week (from 23 Jan to 30 Jan) https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40374.msg1632104#msg1632104 so launch now likely Feb 15 if there's a 1-for-1 delay.
Does anyone know if it is likely to be an equal delay for the launch after Echostar 23 if its problems are due to pad readiness? What is the fastest they could turn around a pad? The HIF must be sufficient for simultaneously processing two missions, right? Or are there bottlenecks in equipment?
Thanks
No one is going to have answers to those questions until they start flying from the pad. Speculating on the CRS-10 date is a bit futile until the pad is actually up and running.
-
CRS missions also depend on the ISS schedule and it's not that simple to just push it back by a week or two or more... So it's at least conceivable that a sufficient delay to EchoStar could end up with CRS10 launching before EchoStar.
(I don't know the ISS schedule at this time and if what I'm saying applies in this specific case, just a general thought).
And of course as gongora said, all speculation until LC 39 is actually ready.
-
NASA:
January 19, 2017
MEDIA ADVISORY M17-010
NASA Opens Media Accreditation for Next SpaceX Space Station Cargo Launch
Media accreditation now is open for launch of the next SpaceX commercial cargo resupply services mission to the International Space Station, currently targeted for no earlier than February.
The uncrewed Dragon cargo spacecraft will launch on a Falcon 9 rocket from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The exact launch date and time still are under review.
Media prelaunch and launch activities will take place at Kennedy. Credentialing deadlines are as follows:
International media without U.S. citizenship must apply by 4:30 p.m. EST Sunday, Jan. 22.
U.S. media must apply by 4:30 p.m. Sunday, Jan. 29.
-
This one is NET Feb 15 (has been for a while), but potentially moving as Echostar 23 has moved into Early Feb. We'll keep an eye on it.
-
Very much still working this, but despite some good TEL testing at the pad over recent days (including a cool test relating to how the TEL will work differently than you've seen before at SLC-40), there's a lot of doubt about making Feb 3, or even close to that.
This is literally like a brand new pad, there's bound to be teething issues and you really don't want something failing on your pad at T-0!
Working is as it's not documented (where you see "X company requesting change to NET....") but what I'm being told. Could get interesting as CRS-10 is fast becoming a priority, with Dragon barging her shoulders in the line saying "I'm more important!" in a Jim-style "more than a ComSat launch" ;)
Again, working it, preliminary - but I always pass on launch date stuff out of L2/where ever as I know folk book flights/hotels. Don't change any plans, but have options to do so.
But didn't Jim say it's just tang and t-shirts? ;)
-
Very much still working this, but despite some good TEL testing at the pad over recent days (including a cool test relating to how the TEL will work differently than you've seen before at SLC-40), there's a lot of doubt about making Feb 3, or even close to that.
This is literally like a brand new pad, there's bound to be teething issues and you really don't want something failing on your pad at T-0!
Working is as it's not documented (where you see "X company requesting change to NET....") but what I'm being told. Could get interesting as CRS-10 is fast becoming a priority, with Dragon barging her shoulders in the line saying "I'm more important!" in a Jim-style "more than a ComSat launch" ;)
Again, working it, preliminary - but I always pass on launch date stuff out of L2/where ever as I know folk book flights/hotels. Don't change any plans, but have options to do so.
But didn't Jim say it's just tang and t-shirts? ;)
Which goes to show that tang, t-shirts and toiletpaper are still more important than comsats.
-
If CRS-10 goes first, will it ride F9-31 or F9-32?
- Ed Kyle
-
If CRS-10 goes first, will it ride F9-31 or F9-32?
- Ed Kyle
F9-31 is for a GTO comsat, so it can't be that one. Here (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=73867&RequestTimeout=1000) is the FCC license for CRS-10, but it doesn't mention an F9-XX number. How do we know CRS-10 is F9-32?
-
If CRS-10 goes first, will it ride F9-31 or F9-32?
- Ed Kyle
F9-31 is for a GTO comsat, so it can't be that one. Here (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=73867&RequestTimeout=1000) is the FCC license for CRS-10, but it doesn't mention an F9-XX number. How do we know CRS-10 is F9-32?
Because there is a gap in the numbers for the comsat launches that would make CRS-10 = F9-32. What else would it be?
-
If CRS-10 goes first, will it ride F9-31 or F9-32?
- Ed Kyle
F9-31 is for a GTO comsat, so it can't be that one. Here (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=73867&RequestTimeout=1000) is the FCC license for CRS-10, but it doesn't mention an F9-XX number. How do we know CRS-10 is F9-32?
Because there is a gap in the numbers for the comsat launches that would make CRS-10 = F9-32. What else would it be?
F9-34? I don't doubt that it is F9-32, I was just wondering if we had any other sources of information regarding this.
-
There is no update thread yet. So posting here:
From SpaceX:
"SpaceX announced today that its first launch from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida will be the CRS-10 mission to the International Space Station. The launch is currently targeted for no earlier than mid-February. Following the launch of CRS-10, first commercial mission from 39A is currently slated to be EchoStar XXIII. This schedule change allows time for additional testing of ground systems ahead of the CRS-10 mission. The launch vehicles, Dragon, and the EchoStar satellite are all healthy and prepared for launch."
-
There is no update thread yet. So posting here:
From SpaceX:
"SpaceX announced today that its first launch from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida will be the CRS-10 mission to the International Space Station. The launch is currently targeted for no earlier than mid-February. Following the launch of CRS-10, first commercial mission from 39A is currently slated to be EchoStar XXIII. This schedule change allows time for additional testing of ground systems ahead of the CRS-10 mission. The launch vehicles, Dragon, and the EchoStar satellite are all healthy and prepared for launch."
Where is this? I can't find it on SpaceX's website. (Note: Not doubting it was released, just trying to find it.)
-
This is the mail spacex send out to the media
Updated Guidance on SpaceX’s First Launch from Pad 39A
HAWTHORNE, Calif. – Jan. 29, 2017. SpaceX announced today that its first launch from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida will be the CRS-10 mission to the International Space Station. The launch is currently targeted for no earlier than mid-February. Following the launch of CRS-10, first commercial mission from 39A is currently slated to be EchoStar XXIII. This schedule change allows time for additional testing of ground systems ahead of the CRS-10 mission. The launch vehicles, Dragon, and the EchoStar satellite are all healthy and prepared for launch.
U.S. media interested in covering the CRS-10 mission must apply to NASA by 4:30 p.m. EST, today, Sunday, Jan. 29 to request accreditation.
SpaceX has extended media accreditation for U.S. media wishing to cover the EchoStar XXIII mission. U.S. media who have not yet submitted requests using the form below or linked to here may now make requests to for accreditation up until 5:00 p.m. EST, Friday, Feb. 10. As indicated below, requesting accreditation is not required of media who hold current annual press credentials issued by Kennedy Space Center, but it is appreciated for planning purposes.
More details on these missions and various pre-launch activities will be made available at a later date.
-
I'll get an update thread sorted tonight.
And done:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42182.0
-
I find it odd that the NASA Launch Schedule page (also landings) has a listing for the Orbital ATK OA-7 mission but nothing on CRS-10.
Because while February 8th might be what everyone is working towards, NASA - as we've reported - has to review the SpaceX investigation of AMOS-6 mishap and be happy with that investigation and any and all corrective actions taken by SpaceX before they'll approve a launch of CRS-10. And NASA has remained dubious and very cautious regarding that investigation. So it's not surprising that the NASA website would not include CRS-10 at this point -- just as it's not surprising they don't have Progress MS-05 up yet... as there is an ongoing investigation and corrective action process to get Soyuz-U ready for that flight.
Also, LC-39A is not complete; it still needs a lot of check outs, verifications, and validations. And there's a mission from 39A before CRS-10.
Since this earlier date in this discussion, CRS-10 has become the inaugural Falcon 9 flight from LC-39A.
NASA's concerns, and the execution of any pending corrective actions, must have been answered in the meantime.
Will NASA reveal such a "punchlist" of items resolved on the return-to-flight for Dragon?
For instance, was approval of this launch predicated on a successful RTF (January 14 Iridium Next launch)?
Or will NASA at least release a summary of how they reached a decision to authorize this launch?
Or will this information be kept confidential due to ITAR and/or CRS contract confidentialities?
(This question has been asked in the L2 SpaceX sub-forum, by another member, but not yet answered. I've seen no L2 level information that would answer my question, so I'll place it here in the non-restricted SpaceX sub-forum.)
-
And an article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/01/dragon-pulls-rank-lc-39a-readiness-spacex/
Thanks for the article. There is one thing mentioned in there which I've not read about before, and that is the "throwback method". A quick search of the forum doesn't seem to give any related results.
Normally the TE retracts away from the rocket with just over three minutes to launch. However, the “Throwback” method will see the TEL remain in place, before retracting, rapidly, at T-0.
Does anyone know anything about this, and what the pros and cons might be?
-
And an article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/01/dragon-pulls-rank-lc-39a-readiness-spacex/
Thanks for the article. There is one thing mentioned in there which I've not read about before, and that is the "throwback method". A quick search of the forum doesn't seem to give any related results.
Normally the TE retracts away from the rocket with just over three minutes to launch. However, the “Throwback” method will see the TEL remain in place, before retracting, rapidly, at T-0.
Does anyone know anything about this, and what the pros and cons might be?
See Antares
-
It reduces the blast effects on the strongback and the second stage umbilicals. The hoses and cables can be shorter as well. The Antares TEL does something similar. I seem to remember (but I don't know where) that the strongback will go all the way to horizontal as the vehicle lifts off. Don't know if this is true, though.
-
And an article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/01/dragon-pulls-rank-lc-39a-readiness-spacex/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/01/dragon-pulls-rank-lc-39a-readiness-spacex/)
Thanks for the article. There is one thing mentioned in there which I've not read about before, and that is the "throwback method". A quick search of the forum doesn't seem to give any related results.
Normally the TE retracts away from the rocket with just over three minutes to launch. However, the “Throwback” method will see the TEL remain in place, before retracting, rapidly, at T-0.
Does anyone know anything about this, and what the pros and cons might be?
See Antares
What Jim means is that you can look at videos of the launch of Orbital's Antares rocket, which also retracts the mast at T=0.
Keep searching. There is plenty of discussion of this on LC-39A threads including L2. However, it is not specific to SpX/CRS-10, so can we please keep the discussion of "throwback" there?
-
Keep searching. There is plenty of discussion of this on LC-39A threads including L2. However, it is not specific to SpX/CRS-10, so can we please keep the discussion of "throwback" there?
Did a search on "throwback" and did not find anything in the public section. Been reading the Pad 39A thread and don't remember this being mentioned. Can anyone provide a more specific link?
-
Without leaking any L2 info as I know Chris writes it up in future articles like he did with the throwback. The other first timers for the next two flights just make me admire the heck out of SpaceX. No return to flight or first time ops puts these guys off the big new first time milestones.
-
Has anyone seen a launch window for Feb 14 or 15?
Heavens-above shows four over-pass possibilities between 11:00 and 23:00 hours on the 14th, and another four between 10:00 and 20:00 hours on the 15th.
Thanks
-
Has anyone seen a launch window for Feb 14 or 15?
Heavens-above shows four over-pass possibilities between 11:00 and 23:00 hours on the 14th, and another four between 10:00 and 20:00 hours on the 15th.
Thanks
1131-1136L for 14 February.
-
I thought launch windows to the ISS and LEO were instant
-
I thought launch windows to the ISS and LEO were instant
It believe it will be. My understanding is they initially set a short window that is refined closer to launch. I don't know the specifics but it is related to external influences to the ISS' orbit like drag which I guess can vary quite a bit over time.
-
I thought launch windows to the ISS and LEO were instant
Only in practice as their vehicle operations/countdown doesn't allow a recycle in the short time theoretically available based purely on vehicle capabilities; IIRC, best they can do is to recycle to beginning of terminal countdown (T-13m). Essentially necessitates an instantaneous launch even if the vehicle could physically work with a small window instead of actual instantaneous launch.
-
Any time line for when Space X will release their SpX 10 Mission Press Kit? Also when will Space X will make public their SpX 10 mission patch?
-
NASA released their CRS-10 patch back around September, but SpaceX has yet to release theirs.
-
I thought launch windows to the ISS and LEO were instant
It believe it will be. My understanding is they initially set a short window that is refined closer to launch. I don't know the specifics but it is related to external influences to the ISS' orbit like drag which I guess can vary quite a bit over time.
As it was for Shuttle, too, and all previous SpaceX missions to ISS. Set a window and refine down to the second as you get closer. This is all standard procedure.
-
So if they launch 5 seconds late for whatever weird reason, they can still make it?
-
So if they launch 5 seconds late for whatever weird reason, they can still make it?
AIUI, no. The launch program will be fixed to the instantaneous window, once its position within the current five second window is known.
-
So if they launch 5 seconds late for whatever weird reason, they can still make it?
AIUI, no. The launch program will be fixed to the instantaneous window, once its position within the current five second window is known.
Dragon has a surplus of maneuvering fuel and has the ability to be manually commanded, although how much I have no idea, or how much deltaV would be required from five extra seconds of rotation. Obviously there's no reason to actually launch late and they would just scrub and go on to the next opportunity.
-
So if they launch 5 seconds late for whatever weird reason, they can still make it?
AIUI, no. The launch program will be fixed to the instantaneous window, once its position within the current five second window is known.
Dragon has a surplus of maneuvering fuel and has the ability to be manually commanded, although how much I have no idea, or how much deltaV would be required from five extra seconds of rotation. Obviously there's no reason to actually launch late and they would just scrub and go on to the next opportunity.
It has nothing to do with Dragon's maneuvrability once in orbit and everything to do with hold capability for Falcon 9 launch countdown. A hold after terminal count begins results in a recycle to T-13mins -- and therefore blows the window. Shuttle had the ability to hold at points inside terminal count, which made it different and more flexible in that regard.
-
It has nothing to do with Dragon's maneuvrability once in orbit and everything to do with hold capability for Falcon 9 launch countdown. A hold after terminal count begins results in a recycle to T-13mins -- and therefore blows the window. Shuttle had the ability to hold at points inside terminal count, which made it different and more flexible in that regard.
That wasn't the question. The question was if it launched five seconds late "for whatever weird reason", meaning not holding. Since the Falcon 9 would in such a hypothetical (and unrealistic) scenario follow the pre-programmed trajectory, the ability (or not) of the Dragon to rendezvous with the ISS would have everything to do with the Dragon's maneuverability once on orbit.
-
Dragon has a surplus of maneuvering fuel and has the ability to be manually commanded, although how much I have no idea, or how much deltaV would be required from five extra seconds of rotation. Obviously there's no reason to actually launch late and they would just scrub and go on to the next opportunity.
Not enough to over come the inclination difference.
-
It has nothing to do with Dragon's maneuvrability once in orbit and everything to do with hold capability for Falcon 9 launch countdown. A hold after terminal count begins results in a recycle to T-13mins -- and therefore blows the window. Shuttle had the ability to hold at points inside terminal count, which made it different and more flexible in that regard.
That wasn't the question. The question was if it launched five seconds late "for whatever weird reason", meaning not holding. Since the Falcon 9 would in such a hypothetical (and unrealistic) scenario follow the pre-programmed trajectory, the ability (or not) of the Dragon to rendezvous with the ISS would have everything to do with the Dragon's maneuverability once on orbit.
Well, since they can't launch 5 seconds late as the window is instantaneous, the question is moot for the CRS10/SpX-10 Dragon update thread and should be moved to/asked in general Dragon discussion thread.
-
It has nothing to do with Dragon's maneuvrability once in orbit and everything to do with hold capability for Falcon 9 launch countdown. A hold after terminal count begins results in a recycle to T-13mins -- and therefore blows the window. Shuttle had the ability to hold at points inside terminal count, which made it different and more flexible in that regard.
That wasn't the question. The question was if it launched five seconds late "for whatever weird reason", meaning not holding. Since the Falcon 9 would in such a hypothetical (and unrealistic) scenario follow the pre-programmed trajectory, the ability (or not) of the Dragon to rendezvous with the ISS would have everything to do with the Dragon's maneuverability once on orbit.
Numerically, a 5 second delay requires a plane change burn of just over 2 meters per second, depending on the altitude at which that maneuver is performed.
A Dragon has much more delta-V available than this.
The fact that there are no credible circumstances under which this would be done doesn't affect the physics.
-
Dragon has a surplus of maneuvering fuel and has the ability to be manually commanded, although how much I have no idea, or how much deltaV would be required from five extra seconds of rotation. Obviously there's no reason to actually launch late and they would just scrub and go on to the next opportunity.
Not enough to over come the inclination difference.
Wouldn't it be RAAN difference if they kept the same launch azimuth?
-
Not enough to over come the inclination difference.
Wrong .... ;)
-
Wouldn't it be RAAN difference if they kept the same launch azimuth?
Correct, I was thinking of yaw steering capability (wrong dog leg).
-
I nominate stcks for the T-shirt . . .
-
I nominate stcks for the T-shirt . . .
Being relatively new here, I haven't the foggiest idea what is on this t-shirt. But whatever it is, I'll wear it proudly if it subtly trolls Jim (only out of love of course).
-
Cross-posting from the Viewing thread. A PM of a rumor doesn't seem enough for the Updates thread.
PM for one of the GSFC / STP-H5 experiments here. We're hearing rumors of a CRS-10 slip to 2/17/17 due to Pad39a preparations. Anyone else hearing this? No information online anywhere; everything still showing 2/14/17. We've got a ton of GSFC engineers & their families traveling down for launch. Everyone is booking travel and looking for the most up-to-date intel on a launch date.
As of right now the Launch is still occurring on 2/14/17. We have seen no evidence of a delay. Chris is always good about releasing slips to the public quickly because of people's travels plans and such. So as soon as he hears different, we will know.
This supposed delay goes against the enthusiasm for the 2/8 and 2.14 dates above and in L2, so it's very much in doubt in my mind.
-
Florida Today is reporting as of Friday 4 Feb, SpaceX doesn't have FAA approval for Feb 14 launch:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/02/04/spacex-falcon9-rocket-launch-valentines-day-kennedy-space-center-florida-international-space-station/97492766/ (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/02/04/spacex-falcon9-rocket-launch-valentines-day-kennedy-space-center-florida-international-space-station/97492766/)
-
Florida Today is reporting as of Friday 4 Feb, SpaceX doesn't have FAA approval for Feb 14 launch:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/02/04/spacex-falcon9-rocket-launch-valentines-day-kennedy-space-center-florida-international-space-station/97492766/ (http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/02/04/spacex-falcon9-rocket-launch-valentines-day-kennedy-space-center-florida-international-space-station/97492766/)
Considering they got FAA approval for the Iridium launch from VAFB like 2 days ahead of time, I doubt that's a big deal quite yet.
-
Do they even need FAA approval for a NASA or DoD launch? Seems the purchasing agency would do the permitting?
-
Do they even need FAA approval for a NASA or DoD launch? Seems the purchasing agency would do the permitting?
Yes, they do. See the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation list of active launch licenses:
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/launches/?type=license
-
Do they even need FAA approval for a NASA or DoD launch? Seems the purchasing agency would do the permitting?
In this case, yes. If it is a USG launch (non-commercial) the provider does not need an FAA license; the acquiring agency (e.g., USAF/DoD or NASA) covers it. If it is a commercial launch the provider requires an FAA license. All CRS flights are considered commercial (that is tied to FAR acquisition), therefore an FAA launch license is required by the provider (SpaceX, Orbital, whoever). In short, whether an FAA license is required it tied to how the launch services were acquired.
-
Will Dragon be mated to Falcon for the SF? I know they won't be doing it with a comms sat/fairing, but since it's a spacex payload would they do it?
-
Will Dragon be mated to Falcon for the SF? I know they won't be doing it with a comms sat/fairing, but since it's a spacex payload would they do it?
Not (really) SpaceX payload. NASA contracted supplies and science for the ISS.
Dragon is just a glorified fairing ;D
-
I'd say Dragon will most likely not be integrated for the static fire. I have absolutely no sources of proof supporting this statement.
-
Not (really) SpaceX payload. NASA contracted supplies and science for the ISS.
Yes, really a Spacex payload. It is commercial launch of a commercial spacecraft.
-
Is the cargo not yet loaded in Dragon?
I don't see why NASA would care if SpaceX does a static fire with an empty Dragon mated. NASA cargo aboard would be a different story.
-
Is the cargo not yet loaded in Dragon?
I don't see why NASA would care if SpaceX does a static fire with an empty Dragon mated. NASA cargo aboard would be a different story.
This Dragon has been in the works at the Cape since at least December. The only stuff to go in after static fire is the late load experiments: mice, frozen things etc.
Not (really) SpaceX payload. NASA contracted supplies and science for the ISS.
Yes, really a Spacex payload. It is commercial launch of a commercial spacecraft.
But it's only flying for the goal of flying 3000+kg of stuff to the ISS. It's just another method of getting contracted mass to orbit. This is NASA (contacted) mission, its there payload that's going up on that rocket next week. SpaceX is just a delivery system as always. Same for a GEO sat or otherwise.
-
But it's only flying for the goal of flying 3000+kg of stuff to the ISS. It's just another method of getting contracted mass to orbit. This is NASA (contacted) mission, its there payload that's going up on that rocket next week. SpaceX is just a delivery system as always. Same for a GEO sat or otherwise.
Wrong. It is a Spacex mission through and through. The mission is determined by who buys the launch service and not the payload on top. NASA did not buy the launch
Lockheed commercial spacecraft on an Atlas - Lockheed mission
Lockheed NASA spacecraft on an NASA procured Atlas- NASA mission
GSFC NASA spacecraft on an Air Force procured F9- Air Force mission
Air Force spacecraft on an NASA procured Delta II- NASA mission
Orbital commercial spacecraft on an F9 procured by Eutelsat - Eutelsat mission
-
Flying Beaver: Nope, Dragon is a commercial vehicle. Its value is not just the payload it contains but also the ability to haul DIFFERENT cargo back down from Station and even be reused (by SpaceX). It's a commercial vehicle.
-
But it's only flying for the goal of flying 3000+kg of stuff to the ISS. It's just another method of getting contracted mass to orbit. This is NASA (contacted) mission, its there payload that's going up on that rocket next week. SpaceX is just a delivery system as always. Same for a GEO sat or otherwise.
Wrong. It is a Spacex mission through and through. The mission is determined by who buys the launch service and not the payload on top. NASA did not buy the launch
Lockheed commercial spacecraft on an Atlas - Lockheed mission
Lockheed NASA spacecraft on an NASA procured Atlas- NASA mission
GSFC NASA spacecraft on an Air Force procured F9- Air Force mission
Air Force spacecraft on an NASA procured Delta II- NASA mission
Orbital commercial spacecraft on an F9 procured by Eutelsat - Eutelsat mission
How did NASA not buy the launch? What are they paying for?
-
You don't buy the UPS truck that delivers your packages, do you? :)
-
But it's only flying for the goal of flying 3000+kg of stuff to the ISS. It's just another method of getting contracted mass to orbit. This is NASA (contacted) mission, its there payload that's going up on that rocket next week. SpaceX is just a delivery system as always. Same for a GEO sat or otherwise.
Wrong. It is a Spacex mission through and through. The mission is determined by who buys the launch service and not the payload on top. NASA did not buy the launch
Lockheed commercial spacecraft on an Atlas - Lockheed mission
Lockheed NASA spacecraft on an NASA procured Atlas- NASA mission
GSFC NASA spacecraft on an Air Force procured F9- Air Force mission
Air Force spacecraft on an NASA procured Delta II- NASA mission
Orbital commercial spacecraft on an F9 procured by Eutelsat - Eutelsat mission
How did NASA not buy the launch? What are they paying for?
NASA paid Spacex to deliver packages and hardware to the ISS. Spacex is using their own spacecraft to deliver the hardware.
-
But it's only flying for the goal of flying 3000+kg of stuff to the ISS. It's just another method of getting contracted mass to orbit. This is NASA (contacted) mission, its there payload that's going up on that rocket next week. SpaceX is just a delivery system as always. Same for a GEO sat or otherwise.
Wrong. It is a Spacex mission through and through. The mission is determined by who buys the launch service and not the payload on top. NASA did not buy the launch
Lockheed commercial spacecraft on an Atlas - Lockheed mission
Lockheed NASA spacecraft on an NASA procured Atlas- NASA mission
GSFC NASA spacecraft on an Air Force procured F9- Air Force mission
Air Force spacecraft on an NASA procured Delta II- NASA mission
Orbital commercial spacecraft on an F9 procured by Eutelsat - Eutelsat mission
How did NASA not buy the launch? What are they paying for?
They paid for delivery of cargo to ISS. Sometimes SpaceX uses their launch for secondary payloads (a point which isn't necessary for the argument but does strengthen it).
-
Could they decide to make an extra trip to the pad with the dragon on it for fit check and testing the fluid/gas/electrical connect for the dragon and falcon 9. Then bring back and remove dragon and then do the static fire and then do the launch. Lots of trips!
-
Could they decide to make an extra trip to the pad with the dragon on it for fit check and testing the fluid/gas/electrical connect for the dragon and falcon 9.
All those connections are performed and tested when the F9 is mated with the TEL while in the HIF and horizontal. There are no vehicle interfaces at the launch pad. Only TEL to pad interfaces, which have been tested.
-
But it's only flying for the goal of flying 3000+kg of stuff to the ISS. It's just another method of getting contracted mass to orbit. This is NASA (contacted) mission, its there payload that's going up on that rocket next week. SpaceX is just a delivery system as always. Same for a GEO sat or otherwise.
Wrong. It is a Spacex mission through and through. The mission is determined by who buys the launch service and not the payload on top. NASA did not buy the launch
Lockheed commercial spacecraft on an Atlas - Lockheed mission
Lockheed NASA spacecraft on an NASA procured Atlas- NASA mission
GSFC NASA spacecraft on an Air Force procured F9- Air Force mission
Air Force spacecraft on an NASA procured Delta II- NASA mission
Orbital commercial spacecraft on an F9 procured by Eutelsat - Eutelsat mission
How did NASA not buy the launch? What are they paying for?
NASA paid Spacex to deliver packages and hardware to the ISS. Spacex is using their own spacecraft to deliver the hardware.
Yes, they bought the launch of some packages in a spacecraft, instead of the launch of a spacecraft. They still get to decide whether their packages are aboard for a static fire.
I'm not saying it's a NASA mission. SpaceX obviously owns and operates the vehicles throughout the entire mission.
-
NASA paid Spacex to deliver packages and hardware to the ISS. Spacex is using their own spacecraft to deliver the hardware.
Yes, they bought the launch of some packages in a spacecraft, instead of the launch of a spacecraft. They still get to decide whether their packages are aboard for a static fire.
I'm not saying it's a NASA mission. SpaceX obviously owns and operates the vehicles throughout the entire mission.
You suppose that NASA "still gets to decide whether their packages are aboard for a static fire."
Let's be clear about supposition and deduction versus information from official sources and first hand knowledge.
-
NASA paid Spacex to deliver packages and hardware to the ISS. Spacex is using their own spacecraft to deliver the hardware.
Yes, they bought the launch of some packages in a spacecraft, instead of the launch of a spacecraft. They still get to decide whether their packages are aboard for a static fire.
I'm not saying it's a NASA mission. SpaceX obviously owns and operates the vehicles throughout the entire mission.
You suppose that NASA "still gets to decide whether their packages are aboard for a static fire."
Let's be clear about supposition and deduction versus information from official sources and first hand knowledge.
SpaceX has officially stated that customers get to decide whether payload goes on the vehicle for the static fire. You can interpret that as you see fit, but as I see it NASA is the customer and NASA's cargo is the payload.
-
Does anyone know where CRS-10 Dragon being processed? The SMAB hurricane damage seems likely to preclude processing at that site at present, as was done in the past. I seem to recall that SpaceX said it would use the SLC 40 hangar for the work instead?
- Ed Kyle
-
It's at the PPF. Most of the repairs have been done. About the only thing left is finishing up the siding replacement.
-
Following up on my question earlier in this thread:
What are the ISS program constraints on this Dragon launch?
There's a small high-beta angle docking/berthing cut-out Feb. 21-24.
<snip>
Currently, a Dragon launch on the 18th puts capture and berthing on the 20th.
In case of further launch delay, would the launch be delayed to the 23rd, placing capture and berthing on the 25th, after a 2-day ISS rendezvous?
Or would the launch occur on the next day that ISS orbital mechanics allow, Dragon would pursue a 2 days rendezvous with the station, and then loiter a few kilometers away from ISS until the high-beta angle cut-out is over?
Or, are there other options, such as a 3 or more day rendezvous?
Can the high-beta angle cut-out be whittled down via analysis?
-
Following up on my question earlier in this thread:
What are the ISS program constraints on this Dragon launch?
There's a small high-beta angle docking/berthing cut-out Feb. 21-24.
<snip>
Currently, a Dragon launch on the 18th puts capture and berthing on the 20th.
In case of further launch delay, would the launch be delayed to the 23rd, placing capture and berthing on the 25th, after a 2-day ISS rendezvous?
Or would the launch occur on the next day that ISS orbital mechanics allow, Dragon would pursue a 2 days rendezvous with the station, and then loiter a few kilometers away from ISS until the high-beta angle cut-out is over?
Or, are there other options, such as a 3 or more day rendezvous?
Can the high-beta angle cut-out be whittled down via analysis?
Dragon is not constrained by the high beta angle. If it was, it wouldn't be launching on a 30-day docked mission until after the cutout.
-
Dragon is not constrained by the high beta angle. If it was, it wouldn't be launching on a 30-day docked mission until after the cutout.
It's not Dragon, it's the robotics ops associated with attaching Dragon to ISS.
-
Following up on my question earlier in this thread:
What are the ISS program constraints on this Dragon launch?
There's a small high-beta angle docking/berthing cut-out Feb. 21-24.
<snip>
Currently, a Dragon launch on the 18th puts capture and berthing on the 20th.
In case of further launch delay, would the launch be delayed to the 23rd, placing capture and berthing on the 25th, after a 2-day ISS rendezvous?
Or would the launch occur on the next day that ISS orbital mechanics allow, Dragon would pursue a 2 days rendezvous with the station, and then loiter a few kilometers away from ISS until the high-beta angle cut-out is over?
Or, are there other options, such as a 3 or more day rendezvous?
Can the high-beta angle cut-out be whittled down via analysis?
There's also the problem of a Progress-66 scheduled for launch on the 22nd of February followed by docking on the 24th. I don't know how closely together they want vehicles arriving, but if SpX-10 slips to 23 Feb and 66P launches as planned, they'll at least have two birds on their way at the same time.
-
Currently, a Dragon launch on the 18th puts capture and berthing on the 20th.
In case of further launch delay, would the launch be delayed to the 23rd, placing capture and berthing on the 25th, after a 2-day ISS rendezvous?
Or would the launch occur on the next day that ISS orbital mechanics allow, Dragon would pursue a 2 days rendezvous with the station, and then loiter a few kilometers away from ISS until the high-beta angle cut-out is over?
Or, are there other options, such as a 3 or more day rendezvous?
Can the high-beta angle cut-out be whittled down via analysis?
While Dragon may be capable of loitering a few extra days, part of the payload probably is not, aka live mice.
-
Currently, a Dragon launch on the 18th puts capture and berthing on the 20th.
In case of further launch delay, would the launch be delayed to the 23rd, placing capture and berthing on the 25th, after a 2-day ISS rendezvous?
Or would the launch occur on the next day that ISS orbital mechanics allow, Dragon would pursue a 2 days rendezvous with the station, and then loiter a few kilometers away from ISS until the high-beta angle cut-out is over?
Or, are there other options, such as a 3 or more day rendezvous?
Can the high-beta angle cut-out be whittled down via analysis?
While Dragon may be capable of loitering a few extra days, part of the payload probably is not, aka live mice.
If i'm not mistaken the mice stay onboard Dragon for the duration of the stay berthed to the ISS, and return for splashdown off Long Beach.
-
If i'm not mistaken the mice stay onboard Dragon for the duration of the stay berthed to the ISS, and return for splashdown off Long Beach.
I think you may be mistaken. They have been removed from Dragon in the past.
-
There's also the problem of a Progress-66 scheduled for launch on the 22nd of February followed by docking on the 24th. I don't know how closely together they want vehicles arriving, but if SpX-10 slips to 23 Feb and 66P launches as planned, they'll at least have two birds on their way at the same time.
Last year they had a Progress and Dragon going to the station at the same time.
-
If i'm not mistaken the mice stay onboard Dragon for the duration of the stay berthed to the ISS, and return for splashdown off Long Beach.
I think you may be mistaken. They have been removed from Dragon in the past.
The mice need to be a certain age (plus or minus a day or two iirc) when they arrive, and thus a particular age when their experiment is run and shortly later, some particular age when they are euthanized and frozen. The frozen parts are returned to earth when dragon returns, in its freezer.
They will typically have several cohorts of mice, born at intervals, so if the flight is delayed you can substitute out a new "late load" of the appropriate age. Again, working from memory and not direct experience, they usually prepare three-ish cohorts for these late load cargos. If the launch is delayed more than three times, then you need to wait a longer period of time for a new crop to be grown.
There are folks on this forum with direct experience. I hope they'll correct the inevitable flaws in my memories of a NASA PR piece I once saw describing this process.
Edit: and to be slightly clearer: day N is first crop of mice, delay to day N+1 and maybe N+2 is same mice, after that we have to skip a day to switch out the mice, so the next opportunities would be day N+4, N+5, maybe N+6 with next batch of mice (deliberately born four days later than first batch). Same for N+8,N+9,N+10 (born eight days after the first mice) then we need to take a month off to grow new mice. Numbers are just hand-wavy, and substitute plants or bacterial colonies or protein crystals other late load cargos for mice, but that gives you the rough idea. Note also that each "crop" is split in four, with half of the batch slated to remain on earth as 1g controls and half of both the 0g and 1g groups as experimental controls, and there are multiple experiments each with subjects to prepare. So you're potentially talking about a lot of subjects to prepare for every campaign.
-
You will notice in those last couple of shots of the Falcon rolled up to the top of 39A (but not yet standing), that the Dragon is not there for once.
-
SFN is apparently streaming the static fire attempt, they don't appear to be live yet. http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/10/pad-39a-mission-status-center/ move
-
You will notice in those last couple of shots of the Falcon rolled up to the top of 39A (but not yet standing), that the Dragon is not there for once.
Is that a special cap just for the static fire test?
-
SFN is apparently streaming the static fire attempt, they don't appear to be live yet. http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/10/pad-39a-mission-status-center/ move
That's handy! SpaceX may not be too happy about it, but not a lot they can do now this is on 39A.
-
You will notice in those last couple of shots of the Falcon rolled up to the top of 39A (but not yet standing), that the Dragon is not there for once.
Is that a special cap just for the static fire test?
Yes, a similar thing was seen on the JASON-3 booster.
-
You will notice in those last couple of shots of the Falcon rolled up to the top of 39A (but not yet standing), that the Dragon is not there for once.
Is that a special cap just for the static fire test?
Yes.
-
First rocket on LC-39 since Atlantis. Really exciting to see!
-
First rocket on LC-39 since Atlantis. Really exciting to see!
Damn straight and while I may get moderated into the party thread (that has happened, by the way - and rightly so ;)) that needs to be stressed a lot, and hopefully by SpaceX during the launch webcast. This is a synergy for Shuttle and SpaceX fans.
Edit/Lar: how about if we just edit it to say "straighten up and fly right, Mr. Bergin!!!" :) Kinda happy about 39A too!
-
SFN is apparently streaming the static fire attempt, they don't appear to be live yet. http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/10/pad-39a-mission-status-center/ move
That's handy! SpaceX may not be too happy about it, but not a lot they can do now this is on 39A.
Wonderful to see the Falcon in its right place, but my beef is with Spaceflightnow. The video only works with a Flash player, and (seeing that I am using an i-pad) since no flash players are available here, I don't get to see it.
Does anyone have a link to a non-flash site for the static fire?
-
SFN is apparently streaming the static fire attempt, they don't appear to be live yet. http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/10/pad-39a-mission-status-center/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/10/pad-39a-mission-status-center/) move
That's handy! SpaceX may not be too happy about it, but not a lot they can do now this is on 39A.
Wonderful to see the Falcon in its right place, but my beef is with Spaceflightnow. The video only works with a Flash player, and (seeing that I am using an i-pad) since no flash players are available here, I don't get to see it.
Does anyone have a link to a non-flash site for the static fire?
I also have an IPad and it seems that it isn't live yet, once it's live you'll see it.
Edit: checked on a desktop computer, requires flash.
-
Dragon is not constrained by the high beta angle. If it was, it wouldn't be launching on a 30-day docked mission until after the cutout.
It's not Dragon, it's the robotics ops associated with attaching Dragon to ISS.
Can they not do any robotics ops at all no matter the short duration of the beta exceedance? I thought it had to do with heat build-up/concentration from the radiators. Does that automatically occur once the beta angle is exceeded? I thought it took time to build up (i.e., I remember NASA stating many times during Shuttle that the start and end of the cut outs weren't firm and could wiggle with analysis.)
-
It's 10:30 Eastern. I've got 'Shockwave flash' and don't have a picture. Does anyone else?
-
It's just color bars. With 197 viewers. Most watched color bars on the internet...
-
I don't think SFN is livestreaming the static firing. I think it's just set up a week early for the launch, unless someone knows better.
-
Yeah, I think that player is mainly just used to show NASA TV and such, as opposed to their own feed, but hey you never know. They have a media hut there so they technically could do it I guess.
-
It's just color bars. With 197 viewers. Most watched color bars on the internet...
For even more entertainment there is "Watching Grass Grow (http://www.watching-grass-grow.com/)" and the eternal classic "Watching Paint Dry (http://www.watching-paint-dry.com/)".
P.S.: Completely off topic, so feel free to delete.
-
Dragon is not constrained by the high beta angle. If it was, it wouldn't be launching on a 30-day docked mission until after the cutout.
It's not Dragon, it's the robotics ops associated with attaching Dragon to ISS.
Can they not do any robotics ops at all no matter the short duration of the beta exceedance? I thought it had to do with heat build-up/concentration from the radiators. Does that automatically occur once the beta angle is exceeded? I thought it took time to build up (i.e., I remember NASA stating many times during Shuttle that the start and end of the cut outs weren't firm and could wiggle with analysis.)
It's not so much the radiators (they can turn those edge-on to the sun), it's thermal extremes all over station (structure, avionics, windows, mechanisms, etc.) from the fact that sun never sets during those periods. There's also somewhat reduced power availability from the fact that neighboring solar arrays shadow each other unless you yaw the station.
That said, on a case by case basis, they may be able to pencil whip the analysis to show that certain operations may be okay, but in general, a lot of external operations are avoided during high beta periods for the reasons I mentioned.
-
There she is! https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/830038750633791488
For those like me who struggled with the geometry of this (where's the camera shooting from?), note that this image is FLIPPED horizontally. Perhaps because it was done with a telescope. This is confirmed by the wider shot that Harwood also tweeted.
-
To me, it appears that each shot was on an opposite side of 39a.
-
To me, it appears that each shot was on an opposite side of 39a.
But the RSS can't be on the left of the FSS at the same time F9 is behind them both. It has to be horizontally flipped.
-
To me, it appears that each shot was on an opposite side of 39a.
But the RSS can't be on the left of the FSS at the same time F9 is behind them both. It has to be horizontally flipped.
It is. Look at the SpaceX letters or the US flag.
-
There she is! https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/830038750633791488
For those like me who struggled with the geometry of this (where's the camera shooting from?), note that this image is FLIPPED horizontally. Perhaps because it was done with a telescope. This is confirmed by the wider shot that Harwood also tweeted.
Flipped back to the correct way round:
-
You will notice in those last couple of shots of the Falcon rolled up to the top of 39A (but not yet standing), that the Dragon is not there for once.
Yes
There she is!
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/830038750633791488
Have we previously seen this sort of hemispherical cap on the second stage?
-
You will notice in those last couple of shots of the Falcon rolled up to the top of 39A (but not yet standing), that the Dragon is not there for once.
Yes
There she is!
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/830038750633791488
Have we previously seen this sort of hemispherical cap on the second stage?
Yes:
You will notice in those last couple of shots of the Falcon rolled up to the top of 39A (but not yet standing), that the Dragon is not there for once.
Is that a special cap just for the static fire test?
Yes, a similar thing was seen on the JASON-3 booster.
-
Have we previously seen this sort of hemispherical cap on the second stage?
It can be found on page 15 Section 3.3 of the Falcon 9 Users' Guide (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf) - it's known as the Payload Attach Fitting (PAF).
-
Does anyone know if the F9 made it to a vertical position today?
-
Have we previously seen this sort of hemispherical cap on the second stage?
It can be found on page 15 Section 3.3 of the Falcon 9 Users' Guide (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf) - it's known as the Payload Attach Fitting (PAF).
Not quite. The PAF goes in the same place and has the same shape, but is very different functionally. Also, Dragon doesn't use a PAF, so they wouldn't put one on a booster for a CRS flight.
-
A user on Facebook says it's going vertical right now.
-
A user on Facebook says it's going vertical right now.
That Facebook user being Matthew Travis. Probably pad deck/launch pad fit checks.
-
Have we previously seen this sort of hemispherical cap on the second stage?
It can be found on page 15 Section 3.3 of the Falcon 9 Users' Guide (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf) - it's known as the Payload Attach Fitting (PAF).
Not quite. The PAF goes in the same place and has the same shape, but is very different functionally. Also, Dragon doesn't use a PAF, so they wouldn't put one on a booster for a CRS flight.
Here's a closeup of what it looks like, from Jason-3.
-
Any idea of how long it will be vertical? Might ride out to see if it stays vertical for a while.
-
Any idea of how long it will be vertical? Might ride out to see if it stays vertical for a while.
will likely be vertical through NLT Sunday if everything is smooth over the next 48 hours.
-
Have we previously seen this sort of hemispherical cap on the second stage?
It can be found on page 15 Section 3.3 of the Falcon 9 Users' Guide (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf) - it's known as the Payload Attach Fitting (PAF).
Not quite. The PAF goes in the same place and has the same shape, but is very different functionally. Also, Dragon doesn't use a PAF, so they wouldn't put one on a booster for a CRS flight.
Here's a closeup of what it looks like, from Jason-3.
It's different for a Dragon/Trunk setup as shown in this SpaceX photo
-
I want someone to get to bloody KSC and take a bloody picture of this rocket on the pad! :)
-
Travis actually that it's going "veryical" right now, so ...
On another front, the live feed (of color bars) from SpaceFlight Now just went to black for a moment or two, then back to bars. I think I too may go back to bars...
-
So can we assume that since it is staying vertical, whatever caused the delay can be fixed on the pad? That would point to a minor issue, I hope.
"NLT " Sunday? Could you explain what NLT means to us uninformed folks? Not Less Than?
-
No Later Than?
-
From Elon Himself on Instagram!
-
From SpaceFlightNow.com http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/10/pad-39a-mission-status-center/
02/10/2017 15:25
The Falcon 9 rocket has been hoisted upright at pad 39A for a static fire test, which si now scheduled for some time Saturday.
This marks the first time a rocket has stood on the historic launch pad since July 2011, when the last space shuttle blasted off there.
The picture below was just shared on Instagram by SpaceX chief Elon Musk, who wrote:
"Falcon 9 rocket now vertical at Cape Canaveral on launch complex 39-A. This is the same launch pad used by the Saturn V rocket that first took people to the moon in 1969. We are honored to be allowed to use it."
-
From Elon Himself on Instagram!
Very exciting to see this!
And it seems like the tower structure really is at a perfect height to install a crew access whiteroom and arm.
-
You can really see how much of the RSS interior has been removed. A lot more than most realized, I think.
Can't wait to see this baby light tomorrow!
-
Let's get Chris Gebhardt's feature article on :)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/fire-lc-39a-falcon-9-crs-10-launch/
Excellent article.
-
From Elon Himself on Instagram!
Very exciting to see this!
And it seems like the tower structure really is at a perfect height to install a crew access whiteroom and arm.
Are they using the TEL to hang the crew access arm off of? Or are they using part of the RSS?
-
I want someone to get to bloody KSC and take a bloody picture of this rocket on the pad! :)
Sounds like Elon heard you.
-
Are they using the TEL to hang the crew access arm off of? Or are they using part of the RSS?
Neither. The crew access arm will be part of the FSS and the RSS will eventually be gone.
-
Great articles CG! Thanks for the ABCs (lettering of the pads). Find that a great bit of the history of 39a and 39b.
-
So, apologies if this has been discussed already, but since the new TEL will do a "throwback" at launch, would we expect to see that trick during the static fire? I wouldn't think so, but that would be a pretty impressive sight if it did.
-
Discussed; no certainty but majority opinion was that throwback was only after hold downs released. Thus, not during static fire.
-
So will the Falcon stay vertical until tomorrow orrr...?
-
For launches from 39A will the SpaceX LCC at CCAFS be used exclusively or will any part of the LCC at Complex 39 be used?
-
I don't believe we have seen any evidence that SpaceX is using anything other than their own Launch Control for 39A. The LCC next to the VAB at Kennedy is going to be used for the SLS.
On a different note: this launch will set a record for the least powerful rocket to be launched from 39A!
-
what are the blue cylinders at the bottom of TEL?
shock absorbers for kick back at T-0?
-
On a different note: this launch will set a record for the least powerful rocket to be launched from 39A!
I had to check this - And Saturn Ib never did launch from 39a. Only 34, 37, and 39b. That said the F9 does look a little scrawny there.
-
And Ares-1X launched from 39B, of course... I would imagine that the Falcon9 would be more powerful than a single Shuttle SRB?
-
And Ares-1X launched from 39B, of course... I would imagine that the Falcon9 would be more powerful than a single Shuttle SRB?
Actually, doesn't look that way. A single STS SRB: 13,800 kN. Falcon 9 FT: 7,607 kN.
Yeah, it's scrawny. But this is a nerd rocket all the way. Always bet on the nerds.
-
what are the blue cylinders at the bottom of TEL?
shock absorbers for kick back at T-0?
The hydraulic lift cylinders that take the TE from horizontal to vertical.
-
what are the blue cylinders at the bottom of TEL?
shock absorbers for kick back at T-0?
The hydraulic lift cylinders that take the TE from horizontal to vertical.
Thanks.
Do they also absorb the momentum when it falls back at T-0
-
This test reminds me of the ASDS spotting at Port Canaveral. Surely - between the communities - we must be able to get people with Facebook live out there and get these things streamed?
-
Epic article on the much storied 39
BA Chris G! 8) Falcon has "big shoes" to fill... Thanks Lar! ;)
-
Epic article on the much storied 39B Chris G! 8) Falcon has "big shoes" to fill...
39B ???
-
Epic article on the much storied 39B Chris G! 8) Falcon has "big shoes" to fill...
39B ???
Attaboy Lar, keep me honest 39A! :-[
-
what are the blue cylinders at the bottom of TEL?
shock absorbers for kick back at T-0?
The hydraulic lift cylinders that take the TE from horizontal to vertical.
Thanks.
Do they also absorb the momentum when it falls back at T-0
Absorb is the wrong word. They are the main mechanism that makes it possible. It doesn't just fall.
-
The GOX photo seems pretty convincing to me, so they fueled today. I wonder why they chose to, in effect, recycle until Sunday. Does NOT necessarily mean a real issue...but I wonder if they found an unexpected diff, relative to SLC-40 or Vandy. What might be different with this config?
-
On a different note: this launch will set a record for the least powerful rocket to be launched from 39A!
I had to check this - And Saturn Ib never did launch from 39a. Only 34, 37, and 39b. That said the F9 does look a little scrawny there.
Less scrawny than Aries 1-X!
-
On a different note: this launch will set a record for the least powerful rocket to be launched from 39A!
I had to check this - And Saturn Ib never did launch from 39a. Only 34, 37, and 39b. That said the F9 does look a little scrawny there.
Less scrawny than Aries 1-X!
Ares I-X went from LC 39B. Correct that Ares I-X weighed more, and produced more liftoff thrust, than Falcon 9 v1.2. It will be another story when Falcon Heavy flies, of course.
- Ed Kyle
-
I am just making an observation here:
Is it just me or does anyone else sense launch fever?
A rush to finish building a new pad; (24/7) ops for 4+ months to complete it. A rush to test their strongback; that had technical issues during the process this past week. Now a rush to throw out flight hardware to act as the test guinea pig for the first full up test of the new pad GSE. Unless some sort of path finder/tanking test was performed in the middle of night,that no one saw, to assure all the bugs have been shaken out of the hardware and software, I see this as cutting corners to meet a schedule. This is not good .... IMHO.
-
I am just making an observation here:
Is it just me or does anyone else sense launch fever?
A rush to finish building a new pad; (24/7) ops for 4+ months to complete it. A rush to test their strongback; that had technical issues during the process this past week. Now a rush to throw out flight hardware to act as the test guinea pig for the first full up test of the new pad GSE. Unless some sort of path finder/tanking test was performed in the middle of night,that no one saw, to assure all the bugs have been shaken out of the hardware and software, I see this as cutting corners to meet a schedule. This is not good .... IMHO.
A rush? I don't think we're particularly seeing a rush during the testing of the new pad and hardware - witness the delays, which are surely indicative of caution rather than cutting corners?
If the strongback had technical issues, that's not surprising - it's a new, complicated bit of equipment built to a new design. Certainly better to find any issues now rather than when it's used for a launch.
From yesterday's photos, it looks like there was venting yesterday morning, again indicative of incremental testing ahead of the static fire.
-
In my view, it is quite the contrary. SpaceX has been willing to let the date slip more than a month and change the first payload to launch to give themselves the time needed.
-
Then why risk flight hardware for pad checkout system validation/checkout The GSE is a complex set of systems that can be test individually but until they are all integrated and operated together, functioning as one and interacting with hardware, you do not know how the system will behave or respond. X has several used pieces of hardware that would be perfect to perform as a pathfinder article. It just seems like NASA is willing to take the risk with their vehicle to get this mission underway.
-
You seem confused. This isn't a NASA vehicle. It is SpaceX's vehicle and SpaceX's pad.
What evidence do you have that the GSE system has been tested individually and together? Why would a used booster be any different than a new one?
-
I am just making an observation here:
Is it just me or does anyone else sense launch fever?
A rush to finish building a new pad; (24/7) ops for 4+ months to complete it. A rush to test their strongback; that had technical issues during the process this past week. Now a rush to throw out flight hardware to act as the test guinea pig for the first full up test of the new pad GSE. Unless some sort of path finder/tanking test was performed in the middle of night,that no one saw, to assure all the bugs have been shaken out of the hardware and software, I see this as cutting corners to meet a schedule. This is not good .... IMHO.
This is the way it has always been done. 40 for Orbcomm 2, Vandy for Iridium, and now 39A for CRS-10 all were significant rebuilds/upgrades tested and proved out with flight hardware it was about to launch. There are always bugs and gremlins to chase, but it's still a pretty safe process.
-
Then why risk flight hardware for pad checkout system validation/checkout The GSE is a complex set of systems that can be test individually but until they are all integrated and operated together, functioning as one and interacting with hardware, you do not know how the system will behave or respond. X has several used pieces of hardware that would be perfect to perform as a pathfinder article. It just seems like NASA is willing to take the risk with their vehicle to get this mission underway.
Presumably the only way there would be a saving would be *if* the value of a 'flight-proven' F9 was less than a new one; and *if* something goes horribly wrong and they lose the vehicle and damage the pad - in which case the difference in cost is going to be pretty irrelevant.
There's probably also an argument that a new F9 which has already been fired at McGregor may be a slightly more known quantity than a refurbished one, which *could* have an undetected defect arising from its previous use.
-
You seem confused. This isn't a NASA vehicle. It is SpaceX's vehicle and SpaceX's pad.
What evidence do you have that the GSE system has been tested individually and together? Why would a used booster be any different than a new one?
Sir, when NASA buys a launch service they will sometimes have oversight into the building of that launch vehicle. Many times it will only be insight. But it is still that specific vehicle they follow that will be used for their mission. NASA has what is like a mini rocket company in the form of the Launch Services Program. This group has all the different disciplines you would find in any rocket company today. The people who work there are mostly direct hires From the business. This is NASA insurance policy for mission success. Their team works with the service provide to ensure that a good product is delivered. Unless something has changed in the last few years, that's how it works. So in a way, it is a NASA vehicle for that mission. They have invested their time and effort in it following its progress to ensure mission success.
You are correct; I have no direct evidence of any systems tests. But lets be real here, no one in there right mind will build a complex system and not perform some type of functional testing once it is assembled. Would you re-build your car's transmission and not take it for a test drive before loading up the family and going on a long trip?
And you are correct, there is no difference between a used or new booster. And that is my point, you are "Testing Like You Fly" by using flight-like hardware in the integrated testing of your GSE. But the difference is in the risk; if I have a valve that sticks open that over-pressurizes the system or if my software does something that I did not anticipate and again damages hardware, I am only out a used booster and not the flight hardware. Any off-nominal event casts a cloud over the hardware and it is very hard to clear that up so everyone is happy.
-
Sir, when NASA buys a launch service they will sometimes have oversight into the building of that launch vehicle. Many times it will only be insight. But it is still that specific vehicle they follow that will be used for their mission. NASA has what is like a mini rocket company in the form of the Launch Services Program. This group has all the different disciplines you would find in any rocket company today. The people who work there are mostly direct hires From the business. This is NASA insurance policy for mission success. Their team works with the service provide to ensure that a good product is delivered. Unless something has changed in the last few years, that's how it works. So in a way, it is a NASA vehicle for that mission. They have invested their time and effort in it following its progress to ensure mission success.
This is not a NASA launch service. Spacex is not launching a NASA spacecraft. NASA is paying Spacex to deliver supplies to the ISS and hence the NASA Launch Services Program does not have oversight of CRS (Spacex and OA) missions. LSP has very little involvement in these missions. Only a low level advisory role.
-
I am just making an observation here:
Is it just me or does anyone else sense launch fever?
A rush to finish building a new pad; (24/7) ops for 4+ months to complete it. A rush to test their strongback; that had technical issues during the process this past week. Now a rush to throw out flight hardware to act as the test guinea pig for the first full up test of the new pad GSE. Unless some sort of path finder/tanking test was performed in the middle of night,that no one saw, to assure all the bugs have been shaken out of the hardware and software, I see this as cutting corners to meet a schedule. This is not good .... IMHO.
This is the way it has always been done. 40 for Orbcomm 2, Vandy for Iridium, and now 39A for CRS-10 all were significant rebuilds/upgrades tested and proved out with flight hardware it was about to launch. There are always bugs and gremlins to chase, but it's still a pretty safe process.
That being the case, it should probably have been explicit in the schedule, x days for fit checks, a formal WDR, then a static fire, instead of scheduling a static fire and then having to move it to fix the inevitable bugs and gremlins.
-
You are correct; I have no direct evidence of any systems tests. But lets be real here, no one in there right mind will build a complex system and not perform some type of functional testing once it is assembled. Would you re-build your car's transmission and not take it for a test drive before loading up the family and going on a long trip?
I don't see there can be any assumption other than that full testing of the GSE is what we're seeing at the moment, up to and including the static fire.
With respect to the analogy, the work that's been undertaken has been to the pad - so it's like the car is coming out of a new garage and heading off on a long trip, not that work has been carried out to the car.
(Away from the analogy, yes the F9 has had work to deal with the Amos-6 issues - but the 'RTF' has already occurred at VAFB.).
The new pad is the potentially unknown quantity and there's not much difference whether it's tested with a new F9 or a used F9.
The consequences of a GSE issue causing LOV would go a lot, lot further than the need to build another new F9 - particularly given there are already several new F9s either complete or in testing (never mind about in build) which could fly CRS-10 instead.
-
Just my final word on this - I personally would never use the phrases "this is the way it has always been done" or "it's a pretty safe process" in the aerospace business. We all have our experiences, knowledge and opinions. I am not judging, just wanting to bring up a point of view. As we all know, there are many different ways to get from Point A to Point B.
While this is NOT the way it "has always been done", this is the way it HAS been done by some contractors. Lockheed Martin, if I remember correctly, tested SLC 41 with a flight article Atlas 5. It also used Atlas 3 flight hardware to test SLC 36, etc. There's a history there.
On the other hand, McDonnell Douglas tested SLC 37B with a pathfinder stage, if memory serves. It also used some pathfinder Delta 3 hardware to check out SLC 17 pad modifications. So that company's methods differed from Lockheed Martin methods. ULA today seems to lean more toward Lockheed-Martin protocols, but we won't know for sure until a Vulcan is stacked.
Orbital(-ATK) has used Antares flight hardware for pre-flight pad testing, including hot fire tests, but the flight stages have had to be refurbished before finally flying.
In all cases, the ground systems were almost certainly tested before a rocket arrived, pathfinder or otherwise.
- Ed Kyle
-
Just my final word on this - I personally would never use the phrases "this is the way it has always been done" or "it's a pretty safe process" in the aerospace business. We all have our experiences, knowledge and opinions. I am not judging, just wanting to bring up a point of view. As we all know, there are many different ways to get from Point A to Point B.
While this is NOT the way it "has always been done", this is the way is HAS been done by some contractors. Lockheed Martin, if I remember correctly, tested SLC 41 with a flight article Atlas 5. It also used Atlas 3 flight hardware to test SLC 36, etc. There's a history there.
On the other hand, McDonnell Douglas tested SLC 37B with a pathfinder stage, if memory serves. It also used some pathfinder Delta 3 hardware to check out SLC 17 pad modifications. So that company's methods differed from Lockheed Martin methods. ULA today seems to lean more toward Lockheed-Martin protocols, but we won't know for sure until a Vulcan is stacked.
Orbital(-ATK) has used Antares flight hardware for pre-flight pad testing, including hot fire tests, but the flight stages have had to be refurbished before finally flying.
In all cases, the ground systems were almost certainly tested before a rocket arrived, pathfinder or otherwise.
I don't have any insight into the technical discussion on this, but I do from a hardware asset standpoint.
If you have a new rocket and a new launch pad, the test schedule could be influenced by the availability of new flight ready hardware, so that would mean that testing new launch facilities needs to be done initially with what you have from the test hardware.
For SpaceX, they don't have test hardware, since they are bringing up Pad 39A during their operational phase of Falcon 9, so all they have is production hardware to use. Which the advantage of using current production hardware is that it is exactly what needs to be tested.
So from a hardware availability situation, it makes sense that SpaceX is using production hardware, because test hardware would have to have been specially built.
-
Earliest T-0 for Sunday's Static Fire attempt with the Falcon 9 on 39A is 2:30pm Eastern, per notice to KSC workers (which we get in L2).
Posting on FaceBook now suggesting NET of 3:30.
-
Earliest T-0 for Sunday's Static Fire attempt with the Falcon 9 on 39A is 2:30pm Eastern, per notice to KSC workers (which we get in L2).
Posting on FaceBook now suggesting NET of 3:30.
Wow, Mark Zuckerberg himself, or was there an actual link to an actual place that was posted? ;)
-
Earliest T-0 for Sunday's Static Fire attempt with the Falcon 9 on 39A is 2:30pm Eastern, per notice to KSC workers (which we get in L2).
Posting on FaceBook now suggesting NET of 3:30.
Wow, Mark Zuckerberg himself, or was there an actual link to an actual place that was posted? ;)
Basically what Chris is trying to say is include a link and source. Always good practice here. I know, I've been called out on it enough times.
-
Nice vantage point:
F9/CRS10: A gorgeous day here at KSC. Falcon 9 static fire at pad 39A on tap, but exact time a bit of a moving target; standing by…
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/830823693785915395 (https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/830823693785915395)
-
Plum spot, wonder if we can expect a photo when venting starts ?
-
Its the press site.
-
Its the press site.
That image is instructive. It shows that even the press site view is obstructed which explains why we haven't seen many good images. Unless the press has access to the equivalent of all of those old NASA video camera views, it won't see much more than a cloud of steam rising from behind the steel towers 3.5 miles distant (if all goes well) accompanied by a bit of delayed noise.
- Ed Kyle
-
Its the press site.
That image is instructive. It shows that even the press site view is obstructed which explains why we haven't seen many good images. Unless the press has access to the equivalent of all of those old NASA video camera views, it won't see much more than a cloud of steam rising from behind the steel towers 3.5 miles distant (if all goes well) accompanied by a bit of delayed noise.
Pretty much always the case at the press site with the Shuttle service structures at Pad A. When the 39A "skyline" changes, we'll have to see what we see...
(Parts of the causeway would provide a mostly unobstructed view, I would think; however, not sure what the folks that are "perma-badged" can access.)
-
What is the window today?
-
What is the window today?
18:00
-
Since no venting has been reported, and it's getting late, I'm assuming no fire today, unless they begin fueling pretty soon.
-
Since no venting has been reported, and it's getting late, I'm assuming no fire today, unless they begin fueling pretty soon.
Not necessarily, it's a long window that lasts for a few hours after the current T-0
-
Since no venting has been reported, and it's getting late, I'm assuming no fire today, unless they begin fueling pretty soon.
Tanks won't vent much until they're full.
Both stages are purged with nitrogen. And as they fill the tank with liquid oxygen and (boils off too) gaseous oxygen, they should push the nitrogen out the upper tank vent (N being lighter than O). Only once the tank has been fully filled with LOX should the boiling off gas exit the upper vent.
(correct if wrong plz ;D)
-
I am just making an observation here:
Is it just me or does anyone else sense launch fever?
A rush to finish building a new pad; (24/7) ops for 4+ months to complete it. A rush to test their strongback; that had technical issues during the process this past week. Now a rush to throw out flight hardware to act as the test guinea pig for the first full up test of the new pad GSE. Unless some sort of path finder/tanking test was performed in the middle of night,that no one saw, to assure all the bugs have been shaken out of the hardware and software, I see this as cutting corners to meet a schedule. This is not good .... IMHO.
This is the way it has always been done. 40 for Orbcomm 2, Vandy for Iridium, and now 39A for CRS-10 all were significant rebuilds/upgrades tested and proved out with flight hardware it was about to launch. There are always bugs and gremlins to chase, but it's still a pretty safe process.
That being the case, it should probably have been explicit in the schedule, x days for fit checks, a formal WDR, then a static fire, instead of scheduling a static fire and then having to move it to fix the inevitable bugs and gremlins.
I'm sure pad and flight engineers would enjoy some arm-chair quarterbacking of their processes. Static fire has been scrubbed for any number of reasons with fully functional pads. A WDR doesn't promise a problem-free static fire the next day. We've brought 3 different pads online multiple times, trust these guys have a decent idea of what they're doing.
-
Agree with Shawn, let's please have a bit less second guessing on a specific mission thread. If you think you have questions about process, ideas on changes, contrasts with other launchers, etc, seek out a more general thread, please.
Thanks. And keep being excellent to each other...
-
We have venting now.
William Harwood
@cbs_spacenews
F9/CRS10: Major venting event seen at pad 39A; at 4:10pm EST; similar to others seen during past fuelings
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/830887245578170371
-
SpaceX needs to cooperate with NASA and others to conduct a static fire. If they complete the needed work early and have not arranged for a static fire they have to sit and wait. They probably had a range of dates they thought they might be finished on, and the 12th may be in the middle of that range, most of us don't know. Its important to keep NASA et al happy, its important to get this task done in a timely manner, it is most important to do the job correctly.
I know there is disappointment when a static fire is indicated by closures and does not happen. If SpaceX could do the whole thing in privacy and then announce when the static fire is complete, I am sure they would.
Matthew
-
Fire in the hole!
Observed smoke from trench area on livestream from SFN.
-
Static test done!!
-
Fire in the hole!
Observed smoke from trench area on livestream from SFN.
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/830892039063625728
-
I don't recall ever before watching a livestream for 3 seconds of smoke! Thank you, SFN!!
-
One small step.
-
Nearly spilled my coffee on my shorts when I saw it fire; no T/E retract or any other obvious immediate clues to indicate firing.
-
I can't wait for the RSS to be fully removed. You'll be able to see much better from the view used by SFN.
-
I wouldn't normally say congratulations for a static fire but in this case I think it's warranted!
Great to have it done 6 days ahead of launch too. Plenty of time to integrate Dragon and be ready for launch day. Let's hope the weather plays ball.
-
Assuming data review and LRR go to plan, launch on Saturday, 18 February is targeted for 10:01 EST. Exact second of launch will be determined closer to and on the day.
-
Assuming data review and LRR go to plan, launch on Saturday, 18 February is targeted for 10:01 EST. Exact second of launch will be determined closer to and on the day.
When is LRR scheduled/ usually held? Tomorrow/ the day after?
-
Fire in the hole!
Observed smoke from trench area on livestream from SFN.
Heh, and 39A shrugged. :)
Woohoo - 6 days!
-
SpaceX - First Static Fire Test - Historic 39A 02-12-2017
USLaunchReport
Published on Feb 12, 2017
SpaceX lifted their Huge Strong Back for CRS-10 and first Static Fire Test. Excuse the editing, our equipment was hacked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6X1_IEfgtI?t=001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6X1_IEfgtI
-
Assuming data review and LRR go to plan, launch on Saturday, 18 February is targeted for 10:01 EST. Exact second of launch will be determined closer to and on the day.
When is LRR scheduled/ usually held? Tomorrow/ the day after?
According to the schedule page of the Falcon 9 User Guide (http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf) (page 51) LRR happens at L-2.
-
Are Dragon and the cargo trunk already mated together, and in the Pad 39-A horizontal integration facility?
-
Are Dragon and the cargo trunk already mated together, and in the Pad 39-A horizontal integration facility?
Almost certainly, Dragon's currently waiting for F9 integration and time-sensitive payload loading.
-
Are Dragon and the cargo trunk already mated together, and in the Pad 39-A horizontal integration facility?
The capsule and the trunk have been mated since December 18 of last year. (https://twitter.com/jgasbarre/status/810668559374356481)
-
Couple of things worth watching out for come roll out and launch:
* We haven't seen yet whether the rocket is kept horizontal as it goes up the incline to the pad - there was much talk when 39a was first announced about whether there was a need to keep things horizontal, or is Dragon or any other payload fine with pointing down hill as the stack gets pushed up hill.
* The overflowing water tower prior to Ignition. I guess the length of the static fire meant it wan't necessary to fill the tower to the brim. I didn't watch the unabridged video footage of the static fire to see if there was any sign of the overflow, but couldn't see it on the shortened version I watched, and couldn't really make out any sign of the rainbirds starting up, but I assume they did based on the size of the resulting dust/vapor cloud.
And for accredited media peeps - do you know yet where you will be able to set up your unattended cameras for the launch yet? Interested to hear what fields of view will be available to you.
Paul
-
SFN reported in their article 1.7 million pounds. If correct that is ~188klbs for the M1DFT+ engines. That would be the fuller thrust versions.
The question is the reported value correct?
article
http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/12/fire-returns-to-flame-trench-at-apollo-era-launch-pad-in-florida/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/12/fire-returns-to-flame-trench-at-apollo-era-launch-pad-in-florida/)
-
A bit of nostalgia for you, me standing in the flame trench at LC 39A in 1972.
-
How thoroughly is the flame trench cleaned, post-flight? I was wondering how much SRB exhaust residue was blown out by the Falcon-9 test fire!
-
How thoroughly is the flame trench cleaned, post-flight? I was wondering how much SRB exhaust residue was blown out by the Falcon-9 test fire!
I think I read somewhere that much of the flame trench refractory brick had to be replaced, in which case there would not have been accumulated residue. Besides, anything loose would be considered FOD, and cleaned up as part of the pad activation.
-
How thoroughly is the flame trench cleaned, post-flight? I was wondering how much SRB exhaust residue was blown out by the Falcon-9 test fire!
I think I read somewhere that much of the flame trench refractory brick had to be replaced, in which case there would not have been accumulated residue. Besides, anything loose would be considered FOD, and cleaned up as part of the pad activation.
Indeed. FOD was always cleared after each launch and before each launch. However, if the question is about washing down the flame trench after each Shuttle launch, the highly corrosive elements of the SRB exhaust was washed down/away from the entire pad after each Shuttle launch as part of an effort to keep the pad from corroding. But the trench wasn't given a scrubbing per se.
And the brick was largely replaced in large sections at 39A after STS-124 blew a lot of the bricks off and out of the trench at SRB ignition.
Reference: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/07/investigation-confirms-vertical-debris-events-during-sts-124-launch/
(Edited to include reference link)
-
How thoroughly is the flame trench cleaned, post-flight? I was wondering how much SRB exhaust residue was blown out by the Falcon-9 test fire!
I think I read somewhere that much of the flame trench refractory brick had to be replaced, in which case there would not have been accumulated residue. Besides, anything loose would be considered FOD, and cleaned up as part of the pad activation.
Indeed. FOD was always cleared after each launch and before each launch. However, if the question is about washing down the flame trench after each Shuttle launch, the highly corrosive elements of the SRB exhaust was washed down/away from the entire pad after each Shuttle launch as part of an effort to keep the pad from corroding. But the trench wasn't given a scrubbing per se.
And the brick was largely replaced in large sections at 39A after STS-124 blew a lot of the bricks off and out of the trench at SRB ignition.
Reference: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/07/investigation-confirms-vertical-debris-events-during-sts-124-launch/
(Edited to include reference link)
Correct on all counts (thanks for the link as well, Chris).
For those interested in the new material used in the trench, google "fondue fyre".
-
And for accredited media peeps - do you know yet where you will be able to set up your unattended cameras for the launch yet? Interested to hear what fields of view will be available to you.
Unfortunately, no. We haven't even gotten our schedule yet from KSC.
At SLC-40 SpaceX keeps us outside the perimeter fence on the East side. I would hope they don't repeat that policy at 39A, as it would put us about 1/3 of a mile away and possibly leave us with an obstructed view (Depending on how the TEL and various utility poles line up).
-
Unfortunately, no. We haven't even gotten our schedule yet from KSC.
At SLC-40 SpaceX keeps us outside the perimeter fence on the East side. I would hope they don't repeat that policy at 39A, as it would put us about 1/3 of a mile away and possibly leave us with an obstructed view (Depending on how the TEL and various utility poles line up).
Have they ruled in/out media access to the LC39 press site?
-
SFN reported in their article 1.7 million pounds. If correct that is ~188klbs for the M1DFT+ engines. That would be the fuller thrust versions.
The question is the reported value correct?
article
http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/12/fire-returns-to-flame-trench-at-apollo-era-launch-pad-in-florida/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/12/fire-returns-to-flame-trench-at-apollo-era-launch-pad-in-florida/)
I think they are using the numbers (7,607kN 1,710,000 lbf) from the SpaceX Falcon 9 info page. This is may be based on the Merlin 1-D promised for Block 5 or the current flying Full Thrust version.
EDIT - Revision 2 of the Falcon Users Guide lists it as 6,804 kN 1,530,000 lbf which is the often quote 170,00 lbf per Merlin 1-D.
-
Unfortunately, no. We haven't even gotten our schedule yet from KSC.
At SLC-40 SpaceX keeps us outside the perimeter fence on the East side. I would hope they don't repeat that policy at 39A, as it would put us about 1/3 of a mile away and possibly leave us with an obstructed view (Depending on how the TEL and various utility poles line up).
Have they ruled in/out media access to the LC39 press site?
Also unknown. Obviously the press site will be used to coordinate various pre- and post-launch events, but launch/landing viewing is still TBD.
-
That seems like an awfully easterly azimuth for an ISS launch. No activation of W158A or W158B?
-
Cabana: Dragon delivered to pad 39A for integration with Falcon 9 rocket. Pending normal ops and FAA license, launch Saturday a.m.
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/831560430896160768 (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/831560430896160768)
Edit: from James Dean's previous tweet "KSC Director Bob Cabana at @NSCFL"
-
F9-032 CRS-10 (https://goo.gl/umnY2Q) Launch Hazard Areas Map (Local Notice To Mariners) for February 18th, alternatively 19th.
I don't get it -- since the stage-1 landing is RTLS, and there's no fairing to jettison on this one, what's up with that orange outline? Maybe for if there's an engine failure and the booster burns to depletion to make up for it and then falls into the ocean?
-
F9-032 CRS-10 (https://goo.gl/umnY2Q) Launch Hazard Areas Map (Local Notice To Mariners) for February 18th, alternatively 19th.
I don't get it -- since the stage-1 landing is RTLS, and there's no fairing to jettison on this one, what's up with that orange outline? Maybe for if there's an engine failure and the booster burns to depletion to make up for it and then falls into the ocean?
Hazard areas are based on all possible outcomes including failures.
-
Unfortunately, no. We haven't even gotten our schedule yet from KSC.
At SLC-40 SpaceX keeps us outside the perimeter fence on the East side. I would hope they don't repeat that policy at 39A, as it would put us about 1/3 of a mile away and possibly leave us with an obstructed view (Depending on how the TEL and various utility poles line up).
Have they ruled in/out media access to the LC39 press site?
Also unknown. Obviously the press site will be used to coordinate various pre- and post-launch events, but launch/landing viewing is still TBD.
Following up on this now that the schedule is out: They are allowing a limited number of media to setup cameras inside the 39A perimeter. This is a welcome surprise as it signals NASA/KSC will be keeping coverage opportunities similar to shuttle.
Launch viewing opportunities include the usual sites: 39A press site, NASA Causeway, and the VAB roof.
-
(snip)
Launch viewing opportunities include the usual sites: 39A press site, NASA Causeway, and the VAB roof.
Where did you see this?
As far as I know official viewing will be at the Turning Basin, Kurs Park on the Banana River, and a VIP location.
The Turning Basin is one of the press sites but not one specific to 39A.
Who gets to view from the top of the VAB?
-
And in the NASA Doppelganger to NSF, where every discussion evolves to include SpaceX, every NASA discussion of anything turns into a discussion of SLS, including this morning's press release:
Friday, Feb. 17 (L-1 Day): Kennedy Director Robert Cabana will take news media on a three-part tour of facilities in the Launch Complex 39 area. Media will depart the Press Site by bus at 8 a.m. and will receive an update from NASA on transition of government facilities to the aerospace industry, and how that approach enables NASA and industry success. Media will then depart for the Vehicle Assembly Building, where they will hear about the extensive work completed in the facility to prepare for the Space Launch System, and how that work enables members of the aerospace industry to use the facility between NASA missions. The last stop will be in Boeing’s Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility, previously a shuttle processing facility, where the company is manufacturing its Starliner spacecraft for flight tests and ultimately crew rotation missions with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
-
(snip)
Launch viewing opportunities include the usual sites: 39A press site, NASA Causeway, and the VAB roof.
Where did you see this?
As far as I know official viewing will be at the Turning Basin, Kurs Park on the Banana River, and a VIP location.
The Turning Basin is one of the press sites but not one specific to 39A.
Who gets to view from the top of the VAB?
I should say LC39 press site (not 'A'); launch viewing there is a given unless otherwise noted.
Causeway and VAB were confirmed in the media advisory that went out this afternoon:
LAUNCH VIEWING
Saturday, Feb. 18 (L-0 Day): News media wanting to view the launch from the NASA Causeway will depart the Press Site by bus at 8:30 a.m.
A sign-up sheet will be available in the newsroom for media desiring to photograph the launch from the roof of the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). Space is limited for this activity, so media must sign up in person. At 8:45 a.m. Saturday, Feb. 18, media selected will depart the Press Site for the VAB.
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/15/weather-could-stand-in-way-of-falcon-9-launch-saturday/
-
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/15/weather-could-stand-in-way-of-falcon-9-launch-saturday/
This information is dated. Latest prediction is 40% chance of violation.
http://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/documents/Weather/L-2%20Forecast%2018%20Feb%20Launch.pdf?ver=2017-02-16-074911-760 (http://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/documents/Weather/L-2%20Forecast%2018%20Feb%20Launch.pdf?ver=2017-02-16-074911-760)
Edit/gongora: The Eastern Range launch weather forecasts are posted at http://www.patrick.af.mil/about-us/weather (http://www.patrick.af.mil/about-us/weather)
-
The point I was trying to make was to answer a question in L2 about whether it was ASDS or RTLS. It got moved here, I guess it wasn't worthy enough of an answer to the question in L2. I already knew the weather forecast had been upgraded.
-
The point I was trying to make was to answer a question in L2 about whether it was ASDS or RTLS. It got moved here, I guess it wasn't worthy enough of an answer to the question in L2. I already knew the weather forecast had been upgraded.
From the NASA page on SpaceX CRS-10 Briefings and Events: "SpaceX also is planning to attempt to land its Falcon 9 first stage on land."
Might also add that on Friday 2-17-2017 there is a LAUNCH COMPLEX 39A BRIEFING
NASA and SpaceX will host a briefing, followed by a question-and-answer period, in front of SpaceX’s Launch Complex 39A. The event at 3 p.m. will air live on NASA Television and the agency’s website.
Participants will be:
Robert Cabana, director, NASA’s Kennedy Space Center
Gwynne Shotwell, president and COO, SpaceX
-
No Hans. I expect having the dragon mission manager (Jessica Jensen) on the pre-launch news conference will limit questions about other missions. This has become typical with these press conferences having lots of questions from the media about launch cadence, FH, and re-use.
However, maybe Shotwell will answer some of those questions. Although, I think she is better at giving generic answers.
-
F9 with Dragon being rolled out to the pad, courtesy of TMahlman (https://www.reddit.com/user/TMahlman) on reddit. https://imgur.com/gallery/Hr1ix (https://imgur.com/gallery/Hr1ix)
-
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-087_%20(Order%20D%20rev2)_07_15_2016.pdf
FAA launch license for crs10 has been signed and approved
The last amendment for that document was signed over six months ago.
Sorry but that isn't the one for CRS-10. That licence is for all there operations at CCAFS. Its not for any particular launch. :P
-
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-087_%20(Order%20D%20rev2)_07_15_2016.pdf
FAA launch license for crs10 has been signed and approved
I noticed that in several of the documents it refers to a launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). Since this launch is from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center does the FAA consider KSC and CCAFS interchangeable as it pertains to launch sites?
-
Also. We should see Falcon being raised to vertical on 39A any minute now on SFN's live stream
http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow (http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow)
-
Also. We should see Falcon being raised to vertical on 39A any minute now on SFN's live stream
http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow (http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow)
wish the livestream was HD, but apart from that, I can't really complain :D
-
Also. We should see Falcon being raised to vertical on 39A any minute now on SFN's live stream
http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow (http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow)
Depending on late load requirements, it may not go vertical until much closer to launch, like L-12hours. It may also go vertical as a test and then return to horizontal for late load.
-
Also. We should see Falcon being raised to vertical on 39A any minute now on SFN's live stream
http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow (http://original.livestream.com/spaceflightnow)
wish the livestream was HD, but apart from that, I can't really complain :D
But you did complain!
And HD would be useless with all that intervening air.
If you have to complain make it about the RSS, which is blocking our view.
There was someone whose happiness we gauged not by whether or not he complained but on the nature of his complaints. When they got to the trivial level of not having HD or having much of the rocket hidden by the RSS, we knew he was happy, as am I.
edit: Mech31 is right. Don't they have a late load something like T-24 hr?
-
Depending on late load requirements, it may not go vertical until much closer to launch, like L-12hours. It may also go vertical as a test and then return to horizontal for late load.
Thye could be testing TEL->Dragon/payload umbilicals
-
Anyone else confused by the view? It seems like the TEL is 90° off...are we looking from the north?
-
But you did complain!
Sorry :P
-
Anyone else confused by the view? It seems like the TEL is 90° off...are we looking from the north?
Yes, Trevor was north of the pad (he was at 39B). We're seeing the reaction frame and rocket through the huge gap under the RSS.
-
Anyone else confused by the view? It seems like the TEL is 90° off...are we looking from the north?
Yes, Trevor was north of the pad (he was at 39B). We're seeing the reaction frame and rocket through the huge gap under the RSS.
I'm looking at the stream currently, a tree is blocking the gap between the pad and RSS, no Falcon in sight.
-
Anyone else confused by the view? It seems like the TEL is 90° off...are we looking from the north?
Yes, Trevor was north of the pad (he was at 39B). We're seeing the reaction frame and rocket through the huge gap under the RSS.
I'm looking at the stream currently, a tree is blocking the gap between the pad and RSS, no Falcon in sight.
I guess this is what happens when we don't quote posts. I assumed DecoLV was talking about TMalhmann's pictures, as referenced in this post.
F9 with Dragon being rolled out to the pad, courtesy of TMahlman (https://www.reddit.com/user/TMahlman) on reddit. https://imgur.com/gallery/Hr1ix (https://imgur.com/gallery/Hr1ix)
The Spaceflight Now stream appears to be looking east from the either the KSC visitors center or maybe even Titusville.
-
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/832319326891941888
how about here. Isn't that the rocket at the bottom?
-
Anyone else confused by the view? It seems like the TEL is 90° off...are we looking from the north?
Yes, Trevor was north of the pad (he was at 39B). We're seeing the reaction frame and rocket through the huge gap under the RSS.
I'm looking at the stream currently, a tree is blocking the gap between the pad and RSS, no Falcon in sight.
I guess this is what happens when we don't quote posts. I assumed DecoLV was talking about TMalhmann's pictures, as referenced in this post.
F9 with Dragon being rolled out to the pad, courtesy of TMahlman (https://www.reddit.com/user/TMahlman) on reddit. https://imgur.com/gallery/Hr1ix (https://imgur.com/gallery/Hr1ix)
The Spaceflight Now stream appears to be looking east from the either the KSC visitors center or maybe even Titusville.
Yes, sorry I did mean TMahlmann...Im on phone. I've got it sorted now, but I wish we could have the view from the HIF axis.
-
L2 Flow Notes include: Vertical for a Dry Dress Rehearsal. Horizontal on Friday for Dragon Late Cargo Loading. Vertical for launch day Saturday.
Do they return to the Horizontal Integration Facility for Dragon Late Cargo Loading, or do it on the pad surface?
-
pad surface
-
pad surface
Thanks Jim!
-
What time will the live stream be on? I have somewhere to go on Saturday afternoon.
-
What time will the live stream be on? I have somewhere to go on Saturday afternoon.
It will start around 9:40 AM, and probably end near 10:30.
-
We're we able to see if they kept the rocket horizontal as it climbed the launch mount hill or did they let it go slightly inverted?
If it was kept horizontal they must have modified the late load vehicle because it would be much higher above the tracks.
-
We're we able to see if they kept the rocket horizontal as it climbed the launch mount hill or did they let it go slightly inverted?
If it was kept horizontal they must have modified the late load vehicle because it would be much higher above the tracks.
Rocket pointed upside-down. That's not something you see unless things are going really, really wrong ;D.
-
Lights at LC-39A are on. Did SpaceX keep the xenon lights that lit up the Shuttle?
-
Lights at LC-39A are on. Did SpaceX keep the xenon lights that lit up the Shuttle?
I'm pretty sure they did, why toss them when they work, and work really well?
-
Lights at LC-39A are on. Did SpaceX keep the xenon lights that lit up the Shuttle?
Those lights are not the Xenon lights but the pad stadium lights. What gives that away is the greenish tint to the color. The Xenons have a red tint to them.
-
Falcon and Dragon on LC39.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex
Note, no core number strangely.
Also just look how complex a pad that is. Kudos to the pad rats, incredible work making this happen.
-
Wow. Those pad photos are majestic. Not gonna lie.
-
Sorry to go a little OT, especially given 39A and kerosene, but I want to see those rainbirds with an FH...
...then again, I reckon an F9 to start will do...
-
So forgive the stupid question (which obviously reveals me as a complete layman, albeit a tremendously enthusiastic one).
Looking at the pictures above, am I right in saying that there is no fairing on missions involving the Dragon capsule? And if so, is there a significant performance gain from this? If so, this gain would obviously apply to all missions involving a more robust payload like the Dragon. I'm thinking here of the Red Dragon mission. No fairing probably means greater performance, or not?
-
Looking at the pictures above, am I right in saying that there is no fairing on missions involving the Dragon capsule? And if so, is there a significant performance gain from this? If so, this gain would obviously apply to all missions involving a more robust payload like the Dragon. I'm thinking here of the Red Dragon mission. No fairing probably means greater performance, or not?
There are small fairings covering the nose of the capsule and the solar panels on the two sides.
Attached is enhanced photo of the second image, showing the base detail a little better.
-
Looking at the pictures above, am I right in saying that there is no fairing on missions involving the Dragon capsule? And if so, is there a significant performance gain from this? If so, this gain would obviously apply to all missions involving a more robust payload like the Dragon. I'm thinking here of the Red Dragon mission. No fairing probably means greater performance, or not?
There are small fairing covering the nose of the capsule and the solar panels on the two sides.
Attached is enhanced photo of the second image, showing the base detail a little better.
Thank you.
-
Looking at the pictures above, am I right in saying that there is no fairing on missions involving the Dragon capsule? And if so, is there a significant performance gain from this? If so, this gain would obviously apply to all missions involving a more robust payload like the Dragon. I'm thinking here of the Red Dragon mission. No fairing probably means greater performance, or not?
There are small fairings covering the nose of the capsule and the solar panels on the two sides.
Attached is enhanced photo of the second image, showing the base detail a little better.
I shudder to think what the repair bill would be on this pad !!
-
So forgive the stupid question (which obviously reveals me as a complete layman, albeit a tremendously enthusiastic one).
Looking at the pictures above, am I right in saying that there is no fairing on missions involving the Dragon capsule? And if so, is there a significant performance gain from this? If so, this gain would obviously apply to all missions involving a more robust payload like the Dragon. I'm thinking here of the Red Dragon mission. No fairing probably means greater performance, or not?
There is no (complete) fairing because the payload is robust enough not to need one. This will apply to Red Dragon just as much as it does to any other Dragon mission.
Interestingly, Orion does use a fairing of sorts- a Boost Protect Cover, which is jettisoned along with the launch escape system.
Dragon 2 is supposed to have a hinged nose cap which appears to be retained and reused.
-
I hope they have cameras on the old LUT tower - we've never had the classic views of a Falcon launch like we had if Saturns and the Shuttle.
-
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/LLS%2014-087_%20(Order%20D%20rev2)_07_15_2016.pdf
FAA launch license for crs10 has been signed and approved
I noticed that in several of the documents it refers to a launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). Since this launch is from Launch Complex 39A at Kennedy Space Center does the FAA consider KSC and CCAFS interchangeable as it pertains to launch sites?
No. The old FAA license (linked in the quoted comment) is strictly for launches from SLC-40. In order to use it for launches from LC-39A, they need to get it revised to add -39A (KSC) as a launch site or, in the case that the FAA won't allow a single license to cover multiple pads (even from the same range), they need either a new license for -39A or to revise the old one to totally swap. In which case, they couldn't subsequently use it for CRS launches at SLC-40 once that pad is repaired and reactivated. We'll soon see what they decide to do.
-
I really like the look of the new TEL, especially finally next to a rocket. Hopefully a similar design is used for the new SLC-40 one.
-
I really like the look of the new TEL, especially finally next to a rocket. Hopefully a similar design is used for the new SLC-40 one.
Me too, but I also really liked how SLC-40 looked.
-
Wow. Those pad photos are majestic. Not gonna lie.
Not really. The vehicle's fineness ratio is off.
;-)
-
Press Kit is out. http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/crs10presskitfinal.pdf
Somebody tell SpaceX to get that listed on their press kit page at http://www.spacex.com/press
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832480331496185857
Lol
-
Projected 70% go on weather for both planned launch day and 1-day slip; I'm thinking that the weather is as good as it is going to get for this launch opportunity.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832480331496185857
Lol
Elon trolls those who need trolling!
-
Wow. Those pad photos are majestic. Not gonna lie.
Not really. The vehicle's fineness ratio is off.
;-)
What is the ideal fineness ratio?
-
Wow. Those pad photos are majestic. Not gonna lie.
Not really. The vehicle's fineness ratio is off.
;-)
What is the ideal fineness ratio?
A spherical cow, obviously.
-
Nasa tv actually showing launch pad live
That's a fine first post, Bandito. Welcome to the forum (sorry for the non-update mods) !
-
Now - for those who're wondering why the rocket was lowered today : it was to load some last-minute cargo. Like mice :)
Mousenauts, micenauts - how'd you prefer to say it ? :)
-
Wow. Those pad photos are majestic. Not gonna lie.
Not really. The vehicle's fineness ratio is off.
;-)
What is the ideal fineness ratio?
The Falcon 9 is a very long and skinny rocket, the "ideal" fineness ratio (length / diameter) for an orbital rocket is about 14-15 to 1 and the Falcon 9 has a fineness ratio of about 18 to 1. There's not a lot of structural margin before it becomes very easy to bend the rocket.
-
Now - for those who're wondering why the rocket was lowered today : it was to load some last-minute cargo. Like mice :)
Mousenauts, micenauts - how'd you prefer to say it ? :)
Astromice and some cheese... :)
-
1 question and a followup! ;D
Do they have a special unit on the pad's surface that they are using to load the late-load cargo?
And are they confident they will get their licences from the FAA? The clocks are ticking. ;)
-
1 question and a followup! ;D
Do they have a special unit on the pad's surface that they are using to load the late-load cargo?
Same thing they used for LC-40
-
1 question and a followup! ;D
Do they have a special unit on the pad's surface that they are using to load the late-load cargo?
Same thing they used for LC-40
https://goo.gl/images/HGJSmF
-
1 question and a followup! ;D
Do they have a special unit on the pad's surface that they are using to load the late-load cargo?
Same thing they used for LC-40
https://goo.gl/images/HGJSmF
Thanks guys! :)
-
View from above the pad
https://twitter.com/deimosimaging/status/832596534432772097
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832647116816150530
@elonmusk
Investigating a (very small) leak in the upper stage. If ok, will launch tomorrow.
Guessing helium?
-
Today the #FAA approved a license for a @SpaceX launch at @NASAKennedy in #Florida. Learn more at http://bit.ly/2lfbW1f. #FAASpace
https://twitter.com/faanews/status/832645834965557248 (https://twitter.com/faanews/status/832645834965557248)
This is for CRS flights only, they'll still need another license for the next flight.
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832647116816150530
@elonmusk
Investigating a (very small) leak in the upper stage. If ok, will launch tomorrow.
Guessing helium?
Possibly. Possibly the stage pressure relief valve.
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832647116816150530
@elonmusk
Investigating a (very small) leak in the upper stage. If ok, will launch tomorrow.
Guessing helium?
Possibly. Possibly the stage pressure relief valve.
I wonder if this will be a showstopper.
-
Confirmation on why the launch was delayed to the 18th...
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98934#.WKb9MVdPwiQ.facebook
FCET Success: SSBN Launches Fleet Ballistic Missiles
Story Number: NNS170216-21Release Date: 2/16/2017 3:30:00 PM
A A A Email this story to a friend Print this story
By John M. Daniels, Strategic Systems Programs Public Affairs
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- An Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine assigned to Submarine Group 9 completed a Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Test (FCET) Feb. 16, resulting in four successful test flights of Trident II D5 missiles. Designated FCET-53, the operation spanned a three-day period.
The primary objective of an FCET is to obtain, under operationally representative conditions, valid reliability, accuracy, and performance of the missile system for use by Commander, Strategic Command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Safety of the public was paramount throughout the mission. The missiles were unarmed and all launches were conducted from the sea, flew over the sea, and landed in the sea. At no time did the missiles fly over land.
A credible, effective nuclear deterrent is essential to national security and the security of U.S. allies and friends. The Trident II D5 missile is a submarine-launched ballistic missile which is one part of the nation's strategic deterrent triad. As the most survivable leg of the triad, it provides the national command authority with assured second-strike capability. Since its introduction to the fleet in 1989, the Trident II D5 missile has completed 165 successful test flights.
-
Presumably the LRR was ok apart from the leak, as Elon said they'll launch if the leak is ok?
What I'm not clear about is what will have been loaded on S2 to leak since the static fire?
-
I wonder if this will be a showstopper.
F9 should have significantly more hellium than required. Lots of hellium is used to chill second stage engine and this flight does not have second engine burn. But who knows if the leak will stay "tiny" during flight....
-
Presumably the LRR was ok apart from the leak, as Elon said they'll launch if the leak is ok?
What I'm not clear about is what will have been loaded on S2 to leak since the static fire?
All tanks are constantly pressurized. A little, but pressurized. I guess something in stage 2 started to show dropping pressure.
-
...Lots of hellium is used to chill second stage engine...
I believe LOX, not helium, is used to chill down the engines prior to ignition (for both 1st stage and 2nd stage engines).
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832647116816150530
@elonmusk
Investigating a (very small) leak in the upper stage. If ok, will launch tomorrow.
Guessing helium?
Possibly. Possibly the stage pressure relief valve.
I wonder if this will be a showstopper.
After September 1, it should be, IMO. Is there such a thing as a "very small" leak in a rocket that can disappear in a fireball and destroy a launch pad in a fraction of a second?
- Ed Kyle
-
Just wrapped remote camera setup
-
LC39A briefing about to begin
-
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832647116816150530
@elonmusk
Investigating a (very small) leak in the upper stage. If ok, will launch tomorrow.
Guessing helium?
Possibly. Possibly the stage pressure relief valve.
I wonder if this will be a showstopper.
After September 1, it should be, IMO. Is there such a thing as a "very small" leak in a rocket that can disappear in a fireball and destroy a launch pad in a fraction of a second?
- Ed Kyle
Everyone seems to be presuming this is a helium leak. Is that confirmed? It could be a leaking pressure relief valve, umbilical connector or stage itself (not likely). But until SpaceX says what it is, everyone should just keep the catastrophizing to a minimum.
-
Confirmation on why the launch was delayed to the 18th...
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98934#.WKb9MVdPwiQ.facebook
FCET Success: SSBN Launches Fleet Ballistic Missiles
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- An Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine assigned to Submarine Group 9 completed a Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Test (FCET) Feb. 16, resulting in four successful test flights of Trident II D5 missiles. Designated FCET-53, the operation spanned a three-day period.
Only a question from someone, who is far away from the US.
The Submarine Group 9 is part of the Pacific Fleet, why they are launching their rockets from the Atlantic Ocean?
-
Only a question from someone, who is far away from the US.
The Submarine Group 9 is part of the Pacific Fleet, why they are launching their rockets from the Atlantic Ocean?
Because that is where the test range is.
-
The 2nd stage spin system is the payload separation system correct? That is where the Helium leak supposedly is.
-
The 2nd stage spin system is the payload separation system correct? That is where the Helium leak supposedly is.
No, that is what starts up the Merlin
-
The 2nd stage spin system is the payload separation system correct? That is where the Helium leak supposedly is.
No, that is what starts up the Merlin
Presumably the turbopumps?
-
Everyone seems to be presuming this is a helium leak. Is that confirmed? I
Yes. Gwynne Shotwell just confirmed. She said it was in the "spin system", which Jim noted was for engine starting. Obviously, that engine's gotta start!
- Ed Kyle
-
Wow, the helium system is the cause for so many problems...
-
Gwynne Shotwell finds destinations outside the solar system more interesting than Mars, (Elon maybe building secret Project Orion Bond villain style? ??? :P ;) )
-
The Falcon getting late payloads loaded on 39A in the background is a beautiful backdrop for the Q&A
-
The Falcon getting late payloads loaded on 39A in the background is a beautiful backdrop for the Q&A
I think this may be the most informative SpaceX press conference I've seen. Really good questions and answers.
- Ed Kyle
-
This was posted in the CRS-10 Updates thread:
Update on upper stage leak from Nasa TV 39A: Helium leak in the spin system on the second stage, "I believe we found it...as far as I know we're going to proceed into the count"
What is the "spin system" being referenced? I did some googling to try to find out and only found a reference to "spin start support systems" when LC-40 was being prepared for F9 launches. Spin-up of pumps, or what?
-
Wow, the helium system is the cause for so many problems...
Helium is a tiny molecule and very difficult to contain. Not the same issue at all as the COPV failure.
-
This was posted in the CRS-10 Updates thread:
Update on upper stage leak from Nasa TV 39A: Helium leak in the spin system on the second stage, "I believe we found it...as far as I know we're going to proceed into the count"
What is the "spin system" being referenced? I did some googling to try to find out and only found a reference to "spin start support systems" when LC-40 was being prepared for F9 launches. Spin-up of pumps, or what?
That's my understanding, and Jim may speak more to it. It is the initial starting force for the engine, to spin up the turbopump. Kind of like a starter on an auto engine, in broad terms.
- Ed Kyle
-
This was posted in the CRS-10 Updates thread:
Update on upper stage leak from Nasa TV 39A: Helium leak in the spin system on the second stage, "I believe we found it...as far as I know we're going to proceed into the count"
What is the "spin system" being referenced? I did some googling to try to find out and only found a reference to "spin start support systems" when LC-40 was being prepared for F9 launches. Spin-up of pumps, or what?
The turbine is prestarted to spin before the rp1 or lox enters the pump.
-
OK, that was a very informative Press I think.. lots of new bits of info.
However, no one figured to ask is there a Raptor powered second stage coming up anytime soon..
Is there a place to suggest press questions? :)
-
This was posted in the CRS-10 Updates thread:
Update on upper stage leak from Nasa TV 39A: Helium leak in the spin system on the second stage, "I believe we found it...as far as I know we're going to proceed into the count"
What is the "spin system" being referenced? I did some googling to try to find out and only found a reference to "spin start support systems" when LC-40 was being prepared for F9 launches. Spin-up of pumps, or what?
Second stage engine spin up system. It is on the vehicle.
-
Raptor second stage will NEVER happen, plus they just test fired the first MODEL Raptor, the first full one will probably later this year. Why do people keep asking...
I wish someone asked about FH's timeline (unless they did before I turned the stream on) and the future of Boca Chica
-
However, no one figured to ask is there a Raptor powered second stage coming up anytime soon..
Because there is no such thing
-
Wow, the helium system is the cause for so many problems...
Helium is a tiny molecule and very difficult to contain. Not the same issue at all as the COPV failure.
Even mature launch systems can have leak issues when it comes to small molecules.
GUCP anyone?
-
However, no one figured to ask is there a Raptor powered second stage coming up anytime soon..
Because there is no such thing
Gwynne did say that block 5 is the last major update to the F9 and that they will not work on upper stage reusability, so that just about rules it out. Not only is there no such thing, but there is no such thing in the plans of SpaceX (at this current time - who knows what Elon will decide in the future).
-
My only real disappointment was with the Block 5 question. When the gentleman asking about Block 5 said he had a follow-up, I was shouting at my screen saying "ask her what block is the one behind you is". Bummer.
-
Raptor second stage will NEVER happen, plus they just test fired the first MODEL Raptor, the first full one will probably later this year. Why do people keep asking...
I wish someone asked about FH's timeline (unless they did before I turned the stream on) and the future of Boca Chica
Gwynne said FH is still scheduled for mid-year but they are waiting for 40 to come back online before they will stick an FH on 39A. She also said she thinks they're still doing soil work in Boca Chica, but not much else.
-
Raptor second stage will NEVER happen, plus they just test fired the first MODEL Raptor, the first full one will probably later this year. Why do people keep asking...
I wish someone asked about FH's timeline (unless they did before I turned the stream on) and the future of Boca Chica
Gwynne said FH is still scheduled for mid-year but they are waiting for 40 to come back online before they will stick an FH on 39A. She also said she thinks they're still doing soil work in Boca Chica, but not much else.
FH and 39A both "summer", no timeline given for Boca Chica (that was the only question asked where she did not give an answer).
-
Various notes from the press conference that will need to get spread to appropriate threads:
39-A: over $100 million when complete. Will need to raise height of FSS for vertical integration of NSS missions. Crew arm installed by end of year. RSS coming down piece by piece.
Will try to recover fairing this year, don't want to land them in water.
Not sure if they want customer on FH demo flight.
Initial flight rate about every 2 1/2 weeks, aiming for every 2 weeks.
SES-10 booster coming back from Texas, launch still planned for March.
Government (NSS) missions likely to spend more time on the pad than commercial (no surprise there).
F9 flights moved to SLC-40 while they're preparing the FH demo flight.
-
I thought the big reveal - unless it is old news already - was that Red Dragon has been moved out from the 2018 to the 2020 window.
-
I thought the big reveal - unless it is old news already - was that Red Dragon has been moved out from the 2018 to the 2020 window.
It was strongly suspected, but I think this is the first public acknowledgment.
-
I thought the big reveal - unless it is old news already - was that Red Dragon has been moved out from the 2018 to the 2020 window.
That seems to be the likely NET, but priorities could shift if a image obsessed administration wants something splashy in space science, but SLS Em-1 crew is either delayed or doesn't happen.
-
Some (not cellphone) photos from this afternoon's remote camera setup and briefing:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-c9rx4HB/0/L/i-c9rx4HB-L.jpg)
EDIT: Full res here if anyone wants to peek at that second stage work: [1] (https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-BT5ZKC9/0/O/i-BT5ZKC9.jpg) [2] (https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-c9rx4HB/0/O/i-c9rx4HB.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-f5mcfJK/0/L/i-f5mcfJK-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-RBpw7kp/0/L/i-RBpw7kp-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-S2J8GBD/0/L/i-S2J8GBD-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-8gT4VM6/0/L/i-8gT4VM6-L.jpg)
-
I'm somewhat confused about the crane and sling. The late-load photo pasted earlier in the thread shows a support sling from the TEL in the location of the sling from the crane. I'm hoping this is a one-shot work-around for some hardware bits that aren't finished yet.
(edit) Upon reflection, I'm wondering if this is related to the 2nd stage work; maybe a safety issue since there are people working in a crush zone.
-
Engineers currently working on second stage right now. The fairing for the second stage GSE attachment point has been removed to provide access to the He piping system it seems.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQoKS-KDT72/?tagged=spacex
Isn't that above the GSE attachment point?
-
Engineers currently working on second stage right now. The fairing for the second stage GSE attachment point has been removed to provide access to the He piping system it seems.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQoKS-KDT72/?tagged=spacex
Isn't that above the GSE attachment point?
Yes, and it is not an attach point but a support point.
-
I'm somewhat confused about the crane and sling. The late-load photo pasted earlier in the thread shows a support sling from the TEL in the location of the sling from the crane. I'm hoping this is a one-shot work-around for some hardware bits that aren't finished yet.
(edit) Upon reflection, I'm wondering if this is related to the 2nd stage work; maybe a safety issue since there are people working in a crush zone.
No, it is a regular occurrence anything the vehicle with payload is horizontal for a long duration. It is also might have to do with the tanks being depressurized.
What crush zone? The vehicle can't move.
-
From the preflight press conference. The NASA representative said about the Amos incident, that such failures are always a very good thing. They learn a lot from them.
-
Is there a replay available of the briefing?
Edit: Found it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjXYSJF-7Cs
-
Does anyone know if there are any cameras on the tower?
-
Does anyone know if there are any cameras on the tower?
Most likely, even if for post-flight analysis.
-
From the preflight press conference. The NASA representative said about the Amos incident, that such failures are always a very good thing. They learn a lot from them.
I don't know how you were inverted. No one alerted you. With every mistake we must surely be learning. Still my guitar gently weeps.
-
These press briefings usually disappoint me because there's always some really dumb questions asked. Is it just me or did everybody seem to take a genius pill today? Lots of really really good questions! Very informative.
-
These press briefings usually disappoint me because there's always some really dumb questions asked. Is it just me or did everybody seem to take a genius pill today? Lots of really really good questions! Very informative.
They were all out in the fresh air... ;D
-
These press briefings usually disappoint me because there's always some really dumb questions asked. Is it just me or did everybody seem to take a genius pill today? Lots of really really good questions! Very informative.
They were all out in the fresh air... ;D
I'm sure 39A and the Falcon behind them made them smarter
-
Spaceflight Now @SpaceflightNow 12 min
The Falcon 9 rocket is going vertical in readiness for tomorrow’s launch. Watch live: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/17/spacex-crs-10-mission-status-center/ …
Does this imply they finished work on the second stage and believe that all is well for launch?
-
Spaceflight Now @SpaceflightNow 12 min
The Falcon 9 rocket is going vertical in readiness for tomorrow’s launch. Watch live: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/17/spacex-crs-10-mission-status-center/ …
Does this imply they finished work on the second stage and believe that all is well for launch?
Yes
-
Spaceflight Now @SpaceflightNow 12 min
The Falcon 9 rocket is going vertical in readiness for tomorrow’s launch. Watch live: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/17/spacex-crs-10-mission-status-center/ …
Does this imply they finished work on the second stage and believe that all is well for launch?
Yes
Has Spacex confirmed the leak issue has been put to bed? They could be simply raising the rocket to vertical again just to protect the option of launching IF they get the issue resolved.
-
Spaceflight Now @SpaceflightNow 12 min
The Falcon 9 rocket is going vertical in readiness for tomorrow’s launch. Watch live: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/17/spacex-crs-10-mission-status-center/ …
Does this imply they finished work on the second stage and believe that all is well for launch?
Yes
Has Spacex confirmed the leak issue has been put to bed? They could be simply raising the rocket to vertical again just to protect the option of launching IF they get the issue resolved.
Issue is definitely hardware. No point trying to work on it vertical. Must be fixed either by excepting the second stage might not restart, or by repairing hardware.
-
Confirmation on why the launch was delayed to the 18th...
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98934#.WKb9MVdPwiQ.facebook
FCET Success: SSBN Launches Fleet Ballistic Missiles
Story Number: NNS170216-21Release Date: 2/16/2017 3:30:00 PM
A A A Email this story to a friend Print this story
By John M. Daniels, Strategic Systems Programs Public Affairs
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- An Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine assigned to Submarine Group 9 completed a Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Test (FCET) Feb. 16, resulting in four successful test flights of Trident II D5 missiles. Designated FCET-53, the operation spanned a three-day period.
The primary objective of an FCET is to obtain, under operationally representative conditions, valid reliability, accuracy, and performance of the missile system for use by Commander, Strategic Command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Safety of the public was paramount throughout the mission. The missiles were unarmed and all launches were conducted from the sea, flew over the sea, and landed in the sea. At no time did the missiles fly over land.
A credible, effective nuclear deterrent is essential to national security and the security of U.S. allies and friends. The Trident II D5 missile is a submarine-launched ballistic missile which is one part of the nation's strategic deterrent triad. As the most survivable leg of the triad, it provides the national command authority with assured second-strike capability. Since its introduction to the fleet in 1989, the Trident II D5 missile has completed 165 successful test flights.
Wrong coast...Trident launches were off California coast.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/14/bright-object-seen-across-bay-area-sky/
-
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Looks like we are go for launch. Added an abort trigger at T-60 secs for pressure decay of upper stage helium spin start system.
10:07 PM - 17 Feb 2017
-
Media photo op at pad begins shortly.
-
Confirmation on why the launch was delayed to the 18th...
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=98934#.WKb9MVdPwiQ.facebook
Wrong coast...Trident launches were off California coast.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/14/bright-object-seen-across-bay-area-sky/
Potentially right reason, but wrong exercise? Though why the launch would be approved for the 18th if this was the case, I have no idea:
ATLANTIC OCEAN - GEORGIA - FLORIDA - JACKSONVILLE: U.S. NAVY EXERCISES HAZARDOUS TO SURFACE VESSEL
The following areas will contain exercises hazardous to surface vessels in the Jax/Chasnoa during 13 - 19 FEB, 2017. Mariners are advised to avoid these areas:
DATE: 13 - 19 FEB TIME: 0000-2359 (LCL)
AREA BOUNDED BY AREA
30-45N2 80-56W9 GUNEX AREA
30-45N2 80-30W1 W-137L
30-34N0 80-30W1
30-34N0 80-57W0
30-36N2 80-57W0
30-45N2 80-30W0 W-138L
30-45N2 79-38W7
30-34N0 79-41W1
30-34N0 80-30W1
DATE: 13 - 19 FEB TIME: 0000-2359 (LCL)
AREA BOUNDED BY AREA
29-20N3 79-50W1 31J
29-20N3 79-40W0
29-10N2 79-40W0
29-10N2 79-50W1
DATE: 13 - 19 FEB TIME: 0000-2359 (LCL)
AREA BOUNDED BY AREA
30-00N3 81-00W9 27C
30-00N3 80-50W3
29-50N6 80-50W3
29-50N6 81-00W9
DATE: 15 - 16 FEB TIME: 0700-1800 (LCL)
AREA BOUNDED BY AREA
30-45N2 80-56W9 MSLX
30-45N2 80-30W1 W-137L
30-34N0 80-30W
30-34N0 80-57W0
30-36N2 80-57W0
I assume based on the description that there might be prior planned surface operations in potential overflight areas or maybe conflicts with needed range assets being used for the exercises, but I don't want to try to figure out a way to map all the areas and check if that's what it might have been. At this point, I personally don't really care why the delay was to when it was. So, I'm proportionately lazy about the matter.
-
Great article William, I enjoyed the historic overview of the pads! :)
-
Apologies if I missed this, NASA pic of CRS-10 trunk
-
I'm somewhat confused about the crane and sling. The late-load photo pasted earlier in the thread shows a support sling from the TEL in the location of the sling from the crane. I'm hoping this is a one-shot work-around for some hardware bits that aren't finished yet.
(edit) Upon reflection, I'm wondering if this is related to the 2nd stage work; maybe a safety issue since there are people working in a crush zone.
The crane is a safety feature whenever people are working under the rocket or inside the interstage when there is a payload attached. Extra margin of safety in case the second stage loses pressure. Future upgrades to the TEL might eliminate some of the need for it but it will probably always be used whenever anyone goes in the interstage because it's more difficult to evacuate quickly.
-
So looking at differences between 39A and 40 and the one thing that stood out is the lightning rods. On 40 there were 4 around the pad, at 39A there's just the one on top of FSS. Guess being so close to the rocket it's fine?
-
So looking at differences between 39A and 40 and the one thing that stood out is the lightning rods. On 40 there were 4 around the pad, at 39A there's just the one on top of FSS. Guess being so close to the rocket it's fine?
There has been discussion that SpaceX has plans to build new lightening towers when they get an opportunity. Probably after the RSS comes down, the Crew Access Arm goes up, and after the tower is raised for the vertical integration hardware.
-
So looking at differences between 39A and 40 and the one thing that stood out is the lightning rods. On 40 there were 4 around the pad, at 39A there's just the one on top of FSS. Guess being so close to the rocket it's fine?
There has been discussion that SpaceX has plans to build new lightening towers when they get an opportunity. Probably after the RSS comes down, the Crew Access Arm goes up, and after the tower is raised for the vertical integration hardware.
Before would make more sense. Removing the single mast atop the tower would disable the pad without new towers in place.
-
Why is SpaceX not running video until the last few minutes? It is their flight and rocket after all, not NASA's.
-
Why is SpaceX not running video until the last few minutes? It is their flight and rocket after all, not NASA's.
Their in-house webcasts usually start around T-20 minutes or so.
-
Looks like the SpaceX live streams only set to start at 10:01am eastern, but isn't that the lift-off time?
-
Looks like the SpaceX live streams only set to start at 10:01am eastern, but isn't that the lift-off time?
While the stream countdown is set for the T0 time, the stream begins earlier than that. So just use it as a countdown clock, that's what I do.
-
The Technical Webcast started at T-minus 30 minutes. Just funky music so far ...
-
Did a bird just land on the TEL?
-
What does it mean that there is an inconsistent date on the FTS for the second stage from the Range?
-
I'm pumped for the throwback, anyone else?
-
FTS issue resolved
-
I'm pumped for the throwback, anyone else?
I'm (weirdly?) excited to see exhaust shooting out of that pad's ducts again.
-
What is "all stations null command"?
-
How come TVC not an scrub issue? How can it be resolved?
-
How come TVC not an scrub issue? How can it be resolved?
Launch was scrubbed
-
They are saying TVC was reason for the abort. Interesting that they took it to 13 seconds on that decision.
-
Throwback preceded by a retraction of arms and a 1.5 degree back-off verification of the strongback per commentary.
-
No " Go Fever " for Space X ...good for them....
-
Tomorrow Sunday, 2 Minutes earlier....9:38 am EST
-
Second stage TVC issue
TVC?
-
I didn't hear it on today's loop (maybe I missed it), but isn't there a general announcement they make sometime around T-20 minutes or so that no holds will be called after T-30 seconds or something like that? (Meaning that aborts after that are called by the vehicle health management system itself, right?) If so, did someone override that rule and call an abort late or did the vehicle do it?
-
As soon as detanking of the launch vehicle starts, a pad crew will be sent to LC-39A.
Why not wait until de-tanking is complete? Isn't risk to ground crew then minimized?
-
There was an announcement on that, but much earlier than T-20 min IIRC. It said that any operator-called hold after T-30 sec has a probability of causing hardware damage.
-
Throwback preceded by a retraction of arms and a 1.5 degree back-off verification of the strongback per commentary.
Optics are a funny thing, it looked like 5° or more.
-
Second stage TVC issue
TVC?
Thrust Vector Control.
-
I didn't hear it on today's loop (maybe I missed it), but isn't there a general announcement they make sometime around T-20 minutes or so that no holds will be called after T-30 seconds or something like that? (Meaning that aborts after that are called by the vehicle health management system itself, right?) If so, did someone override that rule and call an abort late or did the vehicle do it?
I'm pretty sure it is the 10 sec mark that is the last manual opportunity to abort (usually by the launch director). We have seen an abort at T-0 which was done by the computer.
It was pretty clear at t-1.30 when the launch director didn't confirm go for launch that they were taking a look at something.
-
On NASA TV webcast you could see at around T-2 minutes Elon and about 8 other guys standing around a laptop discussing it actively. It was clear that this was very much still an ongoing issue and I anxiously waited the T-1 minute mark which previously was said to be when they decide the TVC issue if it's go or no go. Once that rolled past and T-20s etc I assumed it was go... oh well...
-
There were callouts on the Technical Webcast for AFTS, is that what I think it is?
-
As soon as detanking of the launch vehicle starts, a pad crew will be sent to LC-39A.
Why not wait until de-tanking is complete? Isn't risk to ground crew then minimized?
I just edited my post to support your concern.
This is not the first time you posted an "update" that is not an actual update, but your understanding/assumption on what *should* be happening at a certain point in the count.
Could we stick to actual *updates* in the future, please?
-
http://jasc-controls.com/jasc-industry-listing/space/space-actuators/thrust-vector-control-actuator-part-101424-5/
Found a reference to the TVC for those who do not know what one looks like or what it does,
-
http://jasc-controls.com/jasc-industry-listing/space/space-actuators/thrust-vector-control-actuator-part-101424-5/
Found a reference to the TVC for those who do not know what one looks like or what it does,
Great, now my advert ribbon is serving up servos :o
-
There were callouts on the Technical Webcast for AFTS, is that what I think it is?
This is the first launch (at least for SpaceX) of an Autonomous FTS system.
-
Raising the strongback to full position. Vehicle safing in progress.
Zach, was this you just relaying what George was saying on NASA TV? During the countdown he appeared to be reading from an old timeline that called for strongback retract.
-
Did the rainbirds activate?
-
Raising the strongback to full position. Vehicle safing in progress.
Zach, was this you just relaying what George was saying on NASA TV? During the countdown he appeared to be reading from an old timeline that called for strongback retract.
The SpaceX webcast did state that the TE let go of the rocket and retracted to about 1 degree before liftoff. Then after the rocket gave the signal for liftoff, it'd do it's full throwback retract.
-
Possible similar issue that the thrust vector control actuator had for the Falcon 9’s second stage that aborted CRS-5 two years ago.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36490.msg1311428#msg1311428
-
This felt like a dress rehearsal since they mentioned the TVC issue.
Better luck tomorrow.
-
Second stage TVC issue
TVC?
Thrust Vector Control.
This part, specifically. It's on all the engines, but the one(s) on the 2nd stage were questionable.
http://jasc-controls.com/jasc-industry-listing/space/space-actuators/thrust-vector-control-actuator-part-101424-5/
And for those, like me, who simply can't get enough, here's a video of a pair of TVCs in action. Posted in 2003 by SpaceX, this is a test of the actuators in a frequency sweep from 1Hz to 14Hz with a gimbal angle of 1.6 degrees in either direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pigsq5rt-mY
-
Not sure whether the "Elon in the loop" and on the fly "99℅" assessment are part of the certification process or not.
We love you Elon, but please no more of these for upcoming crewed flights.
If anything Musk is showing his employees that it's OK to err on the side of caution, which is part of corrective actions they put in place after the CRS-7 flight failure.
As for NASA, they learned the hard way about the consequences of giving in to schedule pressures, or ignoring an abundance of close calls. So I would hope that NASA is heartened to see how much care SpaceX is putting into safely launching their cargo on this mission, since that helps them to understand what the thinking will be when humans are the cargo.
My $0.02
-
SpaceX having to scrub this morning makes me very happy.
Because I inadvertently slept through this morning's attempt! ;D ;D
-
There were callouts on the Technical Webcast for AFTS, is that what I think it is?
That would be the autonomous FTS. First time they are using it.
-
That would be the autonomous FTS. First time they are using it.
According to the press conference yesterday, they have been using AFTS in shadow mode for some time.
-
I didn't hear it on today's loop (maybe I missed it), but isn't there a general announcement they make sometime around T-20 minutes or so that no holds will be called after T-30 seconds or something like that? (Meaning that aborts after that are called by the vehicle health management system itself, right?) If so, did someone override that rule and call an abort late or did the vehicle do it?
I'm pretty sure it is the 10 sec mark that is the last manual opportunity to abort (usually by the launch director). We have seen an abort at T-0 which was done by the computer.
It was pretty clear at t-1.30 when the launch director didn't confirm go for launch that they were taking a look at something.
Musk also tweets:
"System was green for launch. I called it off."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832995083519614976
3 seconds before that 10 second limit.
Our steely eyed missile man blinked.
-
If anything Musk is showing his employees that it's OK to err on the side of caution, which is part of corrective actions they put in place after the CRS-7 flight failure.
As for NASA, they learned the hard way about the consequences of giving in to schedule pressures, or ignoring an abundance of close calls. So I would hope that NASA is heartened to see how much care SpaceX is putting into safely launching their cargo on this mission, since that helps them to understand what the thinking will be when humans are the cargo.
Not really. This visible event does not mean it is an engrained culture. There is public perception here. If it were a Boca Chica or VAFB launch with a comsat, the decision might have been different.
And why did he wait? Why wasn't the scrub called earlier? What could have changed after the issue was detected to make it ok to launch and then not ok. The launch decision process should work without Musk's direct involvement.
Also, NASA is not monolithic. The group that monitors these types of missions is different than the shuttle people.
-
Musk also tweets:
"System was green for launch. I called it off."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832995083519614976
Then something is wrong with the processes if it is green but they still scrubbed.
-
If anything Musk is showing his employees that it's OK to err on the side of caution, which is part of corrective actions they put in place after the CRS-7 flight failure.
As for NASA, they learned the hard way about the consequences of giving in to schedule pressures, or ignoring an abundance of close calls. So I would hope that NASA is heartened to see how much care SpaceX is putting into safely launching their cargo on this mission, since that helps them to understand what the thinking will be when humans are the cargo.
Not really. This visible event does not mean it is an engrained culture. There is public perception here. If it were a Boca Chica or VAFB launch with a comsat, the decision might have been different.
Also, NASA is not monolithic. The group that monitors these types of missions is different than the shuttle people.
Maybe. But in the video from the Orbcomm landing, a few seconds before launch he asks something like "Is there anything at all here that doesn't look right?" The answer then was No, but it would not surprise me if he asked that on many other missions as well.
-
Not really. This visible event does not mean it is an engrained culture.
I didn't say that it was. I was merely pointing out that Musk was showing his employees that it was OK to be cautious. Which could be argued to be leading by example.
There is public perception here. If it were a Boca Chica or VAFB launch with a comsat, the decision might have been different.
Maybe. Maybe not. Pure supposition.
And why did he wait? Why wasn't the scrub called earlier? What could have changed after the issue was detected to make it ok to launch and then not ok.
How do you know there weren't discussions going on out of public view about the issue? Now you seem to be arguing against gathering more information before making a decision...
The launch decision process should work without Musk's direct involvement.
Sure. But Musk is the CTO of the company, so it's not like he doesn't have the qualification to have input.
Also, NASA is not monolithic. The group that monitors these types of missions is different than the shuttle people.
My point was that Musk said he was exercising an abundance of caution by not launching, and that there have been cases where NASA did not do that and there were bad consequences. So NASA, as a customer, is evaluating SpaceX on every launch to help them understand how SpaceX deals with various types of situations. This situation will add to that, and I think they will view it in a positive light.
-
Musk also tweets:
"System was green for launch. I called it off."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832995083519614976
Then something is wrong with the processes if it is green but they still scrubbed.
Well you have to get used to the fact that in the private sector there actually are cases where there is one person who can override all other decisions and scrub a launch if he feels that even though everything is in the green he's not comfortable with the risk. There are instances that go outside the pre-defined checklists and ranges or multiple variables are green, but at the boundaries and he or someone else has a hunch that this may be benign or may be an underlying root cause that is unidentified and decides to override and err on the side of caution.
Here are the tweets that point to this being the exact reason he called it off:
Elon Musk @elonmusk 4h4 hours ago
If this is the only issue, flight would be fine, but need to make sure that it isn't symptomatic of a more significant upstream root cause
Elon Musk @elonmusk 4h4 hours ago
@Zybbby Not obviously related to the (very tiny) helium leak, but also not out of the question
I guess if there hadn't been the helium leak he may well have let the launch go forward. But he probably had a nagging feeling that there was something that they may have not caught and last time there was something like this stuff went kaboom. It's his balls on the line every time the rocket goes so ...
-
Musk was right in taking a very cautious approach, being a retired business man myself he viewed ( correctly )
a further failure would have put his Space x company on a knife edge financially speaking. Why risk anything at all when there is no pressure on a launch date at all.
-
Challenger was green when it launched but it shouldn't have. That process was really broken.
Sometimes the boss has a make a call based on a gut feeling or whatever. The fact that he did means they don't have launch fever and that's something we all like.
Musk also tweets:
"System was green for launch. I called it off."
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832995083519614976
Then something is wrong with the processes if it is green but they still scrubbed.
-
If anything Musk is showing his employees that it's OK to err on the side of caution, which is part of corrective actions they put in place after the CRS-7 flight failure.
As for NASA, they learned the hard way about the consequences of giving in to schedule pressures, or ignoring an abundance of close calls. So I would hope that NASA is heartened to see how much care SpaceX is putting into safely launching their cargo on this mission, since that helps them to understand what the thinking will be when humans are the cargo.
Not really. This visible event does not mean it is an engrained culture. There is public perception here. If it were a Boca Chica or VAFB launch with a comsat, the decision might have been different.
Also, NASA is not monolithic. The group that monitors these types of missions is different than the shuttle people.
Maybe. But in the video from the Orbcomm landing, a few seconds before launch he asks something like "Is there anything at all here that doesn't look right?" The answer then was No, but it would not surprise me if he asked that on many other missions as well.
What I think is happening with that "question" sentence, is that Musk is trying to instill in his seed group of Launch People, a culture of not being afraid to call off a launch... no pressure to launch... some of these people will possibly be responsible for 100 lives going up hill... start now before you get to 7, 50, 100, 300 passengers... and hopefully it will still be the culture 10-50 years from now...
my farthings worth :D
ps not worth a tuppenny :D
-
The software systems and processes that say GREEN for launch are never perfect. Who is to say SpaceX won't adjust the boundaries of green launch following a full review of this abort? It would only make the process stronger.
Good for Elon that he called the hold. Nothing would be more damaging than a launch failure. Another day of road blocks and support range people on the clock is still nothing compared to Losing the mission.
-
Well you have to get used to the fact that in the private sector there actually are cases where there is one person who can override all other decisions and scrub a launch
That is not unique to the private sector.
-
Stop with the Challenger references (and any for Columbia for that matter). Decades ago. Like I said, different part of NASA that works these and other non shuttle launches.
-
So, why are you same rah rah people not calling out Spacex for submerging carbon fibers in LOX?
-
Anyone know how they pressurize the TVC for pre-launch checks when the tap from the turbopump obviously isn't supplying pressure? High-pressure RP-1 though the umbilical, or do they have a RP-1 accumulator pressurized by helium just for pre-launch?
Or is tank pressure enough to move the TVC through it's checks? That's only ~50 psi while the TVC operates at ~2 ksi.
-
The point is about processes - doesn't matter if it's decades ago, today or years in the future. Sometimes blindly following a process is the wrong thing to do. Bravo Space X for not being afraid to pause and look some more. As someone else said Musk is setting a standard for the rest of the team to not be afraid to say no and that's good. Last thing any of us want is another launch failure.
Now it's me birthday tomorrow - would be nice to see this thing launch from this pad! Nice pressie.
Stop with the Challenger references (and any for Columbia for that matter). Decades ago. Like I said, different part of NASA that works these and other non shuttle launches.
-
So, why are you same rah rah people not calling out Spacex for submerging carbon fibers in LOX?
For the same reason that those who have been critical of the NASA Commercial Crew office for erring on the side of caution are now lauding Musk for the same thing.
-
The point is about processes
Correct and that is why Challenger and Columbia are no longer relevant comparisons.
Sometimes blindly following a process is the wrong thing to do. Bravo Space X for not being afraid to pause and look some more. As someone else said Musk is setting a standard for the rest of the team to not be afraid to say no and that's good. Last thing any of us want is another launch failure.
There first needs to be a process and not just gut feelings. If there was an issue, then don't even bother with continuing the count.
-
The point is about processes - doesn't matter if it's decades ago, today or years in the future. Sometimes blindly following a process is the wrong thing to do. Bravo Space X for not being afraid to pause and look some more. As someone else said Musk is setting a standard for the rest of the team to not be afraid to say no and that's good. Last thing any of us want is another launch failure.
Now it's me birthday tomorrow - would be nice to see this thing launch from this pad! Nice pressie.
Stop with the Challenger references (and any for Columbia for that matter). Decades ago. Like I said, different part of NASA that works these and other non shuttle launches.
Right. If the Process was so bullet-proof, Elon could randomly choose a fan from the causeway to push a big button to start the auto-sequence and everyone at NASA and SpaceX could just crack open a cold beer and watch from their favorite grassy spot.
They put humans on station in the control rooms to oversee what the computers are "seeing". Clearly at this stage in spaceflight tech (and since ever), humans in the loop is preferable to not.
Smart humans add value to supplement the Process to enhance the probability of success, in my opinion.
-
Right. If the Process
What process? That is the issue.
-
The Process that today recognizes that computer code and sensors aren't perfect and allows for a human-initiated abort window.
I guess I don't understand what the alternative is you would suggest they use.
-
The point is about processes
Correct and that is why Challenger and Columbia are no longer relevant comparisons.
In this case your expert opinion is still just opinion.
"Lessons Learned" are never learned by all, and never all learned. Those remain valid lessons, as do your points that some of the perceived differences aren't so different. It could be said that Challenger and Columbia are irrelevant because it's a warm day and there is no spray-on foam, bit we know that would be silly.
-
The Process that today recognizes that computer code and sensors aren't perfect and allows for a human-initiated abort window.
I guess I don't understand what the alternative is you would suggest they use.
No, if this is an issue, then there should be hard and fast rules dealing with it and not gut feeling. If it is not good to launch today, then it shouldn't be good to launch any other day.
-
The rules today indicated green to launch. But sometimes the real-world combination of factors is more than the code can handle, and it shows Green.
Understanding where weaknesses could potentially reside in your launch process, even if realized at T-15, still warrant an abort.
Should Elon stand by and say nothing if he feels the process has encountered a weakness given the unique scenario.
Processes are designed by flawed humans, very smart flawed humans. Over decades they get more robust, but can you ever just sit back and tell yourself -- it's green so we're good? Haven't there been failures (by everyone who ever endeavored to launch a rocket) in the past using that exact position?
-
Today was as good a wet rehearsal as you can get. I'm sure that they learned a number of valuable lessons about process and the new pad today. I fail to see why the Chief Technical Officer shouldn't call abort if he sees the need to.
-
The rules today indicated green to launch.
The rules were flawed then, if they stopped the launch without following them.
Also, launch rules are not just computer code. There are many that required human action and intervention.
-
The rules today indicated green to launch.
The rules were flawed, if they stopped the launch
So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?
Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.
-
The rules today indicated green to launch.
The rules were flawed, if they stopped the launch
So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?
Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.
Let it go... you're not going to change his mind... even if he's wrong he's right.
-
So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?
Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.
Again, what changed from the time they discovered the issue until T-13 seconds? If it wasn't good at T-13, why was it good earlier and they continued the count?
-
The rules today indicated green to launch.
The rules were flawed, if they stopped the launch
So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?
Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.
It's obviously not a perfect set of rules as they apparently don't even indicate any sort of clear chain of command in mission control. Or at least that the flight director is either untrusted or a toothless position.
-
Again, what changed from the time they discovered the issue until T-13 seconds? If it wasn't good at T-13, why was it good earlier and they continued the count?
I thought you told us. It was "good" earlier because the process indicated "green". However, smart people were likely throughout the count looking deeper into potential fault trees and relationship between the issues they had experienced with this vehicle and determined they'd prefer to look at it rather than bet their process was perfect.
Elon (and likely his senior group) hadn't satisfactorily convinced themselves that this issue was worth risking the mission, even if the computer said it was good enough.
Because the process and people who designed it aren't perfect, you build into the process a means for someone to say "HOLD HOLD HOLD" because they don't feel something is right.
Your options are:
1) build a perfect process and install the big GO button
2) recognize your process will never, and can never be perfect and build into it the ability to hold/abort
Action taken today to HOLD (and thus abort the instantaneous window) wasn't taken lightly. Do you think it was?
Also, just because Elon tweeted he "called the hold" doesn't mean that that Flight didn't concur and stop the clock. We don't know that. You are assuming no chain of command.
-
The rules today indicated green to launch.
The rules were flawed then, if they stopped the launch without following them.
Also, launch rules are not just computer code. There are many that required human action and intervention.
I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that the TVC was a known issue, but one that could have had at least some probability of being corrected before T-0. Therefore the launch countdown was allowed to proceed as normal. When it was determined at T-13 seconds that the TVC data was still out of the acceptable window the launch was scrubbed.
This doesn't sound like a flawed protocol, rather this sounds like a prudent path. I'm not sure as to why this is even a point of contention?
-
Johnny, I've just tapped you into the ring. I'm out.
Goodnight everyone. Let's hope for a successful, safe launch tomorrow.
-
If I were them(elon and people). It would come down to something that is okay for the computer but seems a little off and I don't understand completely why it is a little off then I would call it off until I do understand it. I am a programmer and I don't feel comfortable until I understand the reason my code fix fixed the problem.
-
lets not do Jim vs the world.
If someone experienced calls a manual hold that is an opportunity for process improvement. Leave it at that.
-
The rules today indicated green to launch.
The rules were flawed then, if they stopped the launch without following them.
Also, launch rules are not just computer code. There are many that required human action and intervention.
Of course the rules were flawed. That's why Elon stopped the launch. If the rules covered all relevant contingencies, then the board would not have been green. Calling a manual halt to this is an acknowledgement that there are still some details to work out in the process, and that's exactly what they'll spend this time doing.
All rules, all processes are flawed in some way. There's no shame in admitting that and acting on that fact when things don't look right otherwise. I don' know why Jim is making this into an attack.
-
Also, just because Elon tweeted he "called the hold" doesn't mean that that Flight didn't concur and stop the clock. We don't know that. You are assuming no chain of command.
Then flight director should have "called the hold."
Musk doesn't take part in each flight, and he doesn't take part in each training evolution with mission control so when he suddenly steps in and usurps control it sends some real mixed messages. When a split second decision matters now who does the person at the console turn to?
The decision making process has to be clear and consistent for safe operations. This may not have been a critical operation but what lesson does the flight team take in the future when a crew capsule is reentering and a split second decision has to be made and you hear the CEO in one ear telling you one thing and the director in your other ear telling you another?
-
I have insufficient data to have an opinion one way or another, so in the absence of facts I'll just hold fire at this point...
-
So from what I'm hearing you say, SpaceX should have by now designed a "perfect" process/rules. How many other organizations thought they had a perfect process, followed rules, and still experienced failures?
Realizing that your process can have weak areas and taking action, and permanent corrective action, is in my opinion smart. There is no perfect set of rules, no perfect process. If there was we'd have one button and could sit back and watch the magic without scrutinizing dozens of computer screens constantly throughout the mission.
Again, what changed from the time they discovered the issue until T-13 seconds? If it wasn't good at T-13, why was it good earlier and they continued the count?
When ULA finds an anomaly, and goes to the anomaly net to discuss it, isn't that because there isn't a "hard and fast" rule that a scrub must be called? I'm remembering them adding a timer, or something, and continuing the count, and I'm remembering them saying something like "they got comfortable" with the anomaly and proceeded to launch.
I don't know what goes on when they get onto the anomaly net, but it sure sounds like there are humans making decisions rather than just following a flight rule and either scrubbing or not.
No?
-
That's a first! :)
I have insufficient data to have an opinion one way or another, so in the absence of facts I'll just hold fire at this point...
-
That's a first! :)
I have insufficient data to have an opinion one way or another, so in the absence of facts I'll just hold fire at this point...
Yes, I'm putting on my best "Spock-face" today... ;D
-
[...] he suddenly steps in and usurps control it sends some real mixed messages.
[...]
you hear the CEO in one ear telling you one thing and the director in your other ear telling you another?
We're you on console today? If not you're making an awful lot of assumptions about what exactly look place based on zero evidence. In fact, judging by the view into the control room that was shown on NASA TV that showed Musk and a bunch of other people in the control room gathered around a computer it seems a far safer assumption that this call was made by a group of people and Musk is simply taking "blame" for the scrub.
In the absence of any sort of evidence I would say that assuming Musk went against the wishes of his launch team and "usurped" control is ridiculous. Also, unless I heard wrong, LD never gave the Go call, which again lends credence to the fact that the whole team was trying to make a last minute decision. There is ZERO factual evidence that the CEO and LD were ever in any sort of disagreement on what should be done.
It shocks me that there are so many people (edit: seemingly) arguing that they should have gone despite concerns about the issues they were working possibly causing a problem during the flight.
-
not going is exactly the right decision. this is what we want...
-
[...] he suddenly steps in and usurps control it sends some real mixed messages.
[...]
you hear the CEO in one ear telling you one thing and the director in your other ear telling you another?
We're you on console today? If not you're making an awful lot of assumptions about what exactly look place based on zero evidence. In fact, judging by the view into the control room that was shown on NASA TV that showed Musk and a bunch of other people in the control room gathered around a computer it seems a far safer assumption that this call was made by a group of people and Musk is simply taking "blame" for the scrub.
In the absence of any sort of evidence I would say that assuming Musk went against the wishes of his launch team and "usurped" control is ridiculous. Also, unless I heard wrong, LD never gave the Go call, which again lends credence to the fact that the whole team was trying to make a last minute decision. There is ZERO factual evidence that the CEO and LD were ever in any sort of disagreement on what should be done.
It shocks me that there are so many people arguing that they should have gone despite concerns about the issues they were working possibly causing a problem during the flight.
Who said they should have gone despite concerns?
-
[...] he suddenly steps in and usurps control it sends some real mixed messages.
[...]
you hear the CEO in one ear telling you one thing and the director in your other ear telling you another?
We're you on console today? If not you're making an awful lot of assumptions about what exactly look place based on zero evidence. In fact, judging by the view into the control room that was shown on NASA TV that showed Musk and a bunch of other people in the control room gathered around a computer it seems a far safer assumption that this call was made by a group of people and Musk is simply taking "blame" for the scrub.
In the absence of any sort of evidence I would say that assuming Musk went against the wishes of his launch team and "usurped" control is ridiculous. Also, unless I heard wrong, LD never gave the Go call, which again lends credence to the fact that the whole team was trying to make a last minute decision. There is ZERO factual evidence that the CEO and LD were ever in any sort of disagreement on what should be done.
It shocks me that there are so many people arguing that they should have gone despite concerns about the issues they were working possibly causing a problem during the flight.
Who said they should have gone despite concerns?
I was wondering that myself. Jim seemed to be arguing flawed commit criteria and I was arguing an unclear chain of command, both of which are systemic issues not necessarily related to the specific end decision.
But for the sake of my argument I'm willing to buy that Musk fudged the truth on twitter to take the heat off his team and wasn't actually involving himself.
-
Who said they should have gone despite concerns?
I've made a small edit to my post to clarify that this was what I was reading into some of the posts rather than a direct quote from someone saying that. I apologize if I created any misunderstanding.
That said, it seems there are many taking issue with either how or why the launch was scrubbed, including insinuations that this abundance of caution points to future launches being less safe, and it was that assertion to which I was replying. I personally disagree, and I believe that the facts as I have observed them are directly contradictory to the statements I quoted.
-
I was wondering that myself. Jim seemed to be arguing flawed commit criteria and I was arguing an unclear chain of command, both of which are systemic issues not necessarily related to the specific end decision.
But for the sake of my argument I'm willing to buy that Musk fudged the truth on twitter to take the heat off his team and wasn't actually involving himself.
To clarify I am not suggesting he lied to take heat off of his team, just that the decision wasn't his alone but was made in conjunction with the players that would normally be involved even were he not there, and I believe the visual and audio evidence supports that as well.
I also don't believe that him, or anyone else, calling a hold due to what they see as a potential issue indicates any systemic problems with the chain of command. If he overruled the LD on a call after launch I'd be open to that argument, but after CRS-7 I seem to remember it being clarified that if anyone at the company saw fit to hold a launch for any potential safety issue they were encouraged to do so. Whether it is Elon or a janitor that noticed a bolt on the floor holding for no reason will (in my opinion) always be better than going if there's any reason to believe they should have held. The range will be there to try a launch again after a scrub but once the hold down clamps release there's no changing your mind about what should or shouldn't have been done. Better to scrub for nothing at -13 than to realize you should have at +13.
-
It's just a 24 hour hold, calling a hold isn't that expensive considering the consequence of a problem. Remember, this pad is the only East Coast pad they've got right now, and Dragon crew and Falcon Heavy are all waiting on this pad to work.
-
I was wondering that myself. Jim seemed to be arguing flawed commit criteria and I was arguing an unclear chain of command, both of which are systemic issues not necessarily related to the specific end decision.
But for the sake of my argument I'm willing to buy that Musk fudged the truth on twitter to take the heat off his team and wasn't actually involving himself.
How would Elon involving himself result in an unclear chain of command? Anyone who spots an issue can call a hold, particularly Elon, who is the Head Dude In Charge.
As such, he is personally responsible for the decisions of his team, so it's hardly fudging to say he called for the hold even if he was merely assenting to their consensus to hold.
-
I was wondering that myself. Jim seemed to be arguing flawed commit criteria and I was arguing an unclear chain of command, both of which are systemic issues not necessarily related to the specific end decision.
But for the sake of my argument I'm willing to buy that Musk fudged the truth on twitter to take the heat off his team and wasn't actually involving himself.
How would Elon involving himself result in an unclear chain of command? Anyone who spots an issue can call a hold, particularly Elon, who is the Head Dude In Charge.
As such, he is personally responsible for the decisions of his team, so it's hardly fudging to say he called for the hold even if he was merely assenting to their consensus to hold.
That would make for a great phone ap. A big red button anyone at SpaceX can hit to scrub a launch.
-
Sounds like it was two issues that, although seperately were not reason enough to scrub the launch (disposal burn not critical this launch, for instance), were located close to one another physically and so could have had a common cause that may have also caused some other unseen problems for the vehicle.
It seems like a reasonable reason to call a hold, though we don't need to approvingly slap Musk on the back just because he called a hold.
As far as why wait, well the vehicle is doing different configuration changes, such as purge ending, final flight pressurization just before that point, and it sounds like they were discussing the data coming in up until that point. 10s is the last point they can safely scrub without issues.
-
I was wondering that myself. Jim seemed to be arguing flawed commit criteria and I was arguing an unclear chain of command, both of which are systemic issues not necessarily related to the specific end decision.
But for the sake of my argument I'm willing to buy that Musk fudged the truth on twitter to take the heat off his team and wasn't actually involving himself.
The chain of command is only unclear to us, so what if Elon did override LD to stop the launch? It's entirely possible the rule is written so that he has exactly this authority, it's his company after all. In fact if the rumor "anyone can write to him to stop a launch" is true, he has to have this authority. As long as he can't force a launch despite concerns (i.e. he only has the breaks), I don't see this as a problem. And this is not the first time he used this authority either, he stopped one of the Asiasat launch due to the RUD of F9R-Dev1.
As for why wait until T-13s, seems to me this one is easy: If you have humans in loop, you need to give humans some time to reach a decision. If all decisions can be made in 1s, why have manual hold in the process at all?
-
Media crew preparing to reset remote cameras. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10155108186001318/) Seems like they are confident of a launch in the morning.
Why would we not be confident of another attempt in the morning?
-
Who says it was OK to launch but turned bad 13 seconds out? Musk didn't say this. It was OK to proceed.
There are other possible scenarios that don't match any of the discussions above.
Not having been there, and not having inside information, it doesn't help to hypothesize.
We may or may not get the full story.
Hey, I was as disappointed as anyone, waiting there with a great view. I hope it goes tomorrow, as we are sure thousands of people are.
-
From the SpaceX Launch Log this looks to be the 5th scrub because of actuator.
Previous missions with an actuator scrub were:
OG2 Mission 1 (twice)
CRS-5
Thaicom-8
Hard to say whether the issue was bigger or smaller than these previous scrubs. However, it seems like SpaceX hasn't had a problem scrubbing a launch do to an actuator issue.
-
Maybe Elon aborted this launch so the abnormal actuator can be removed for further detailed analysis in order to close this mystified situation?
-
From the SpaceX Launch Log this looks to be the 5th scrub because of actuator.
Previous missions with an actuator scrub were:
OG2 Mission 1 (twice)
CRS-5
Thaicom-8
Hard to say whether the issue was bigger or smaller than these previous scrubs. However, it seems like SpaceX hasn't had a problem scrubbing a launch do to an actuator issue.
I'd say 5 scrubs due to TVC issues IS a problem.
-
Separating the stages to work on? (TVC actuators?) (He spin up plumbing?)
Where do you see the stages separated? doesn't look like they are in that pic. That crane is reportedly used when there is someone working under or in the interstage. Though I'm not sure how they get someone inside the interstage without separating.
-
Has any new info come out regarding if they are fixing at the pad tonight or if they think they can fix for a attempt tomorrow?
-
So, why are you same rah rah people not calling out Spacex for submerging carbon fibers in LOX?
You can always double down on that bet and build the whole LOX tank out of composites...
-
There are pictures in the update thread showing them working on the stage tonight.
-
Though I'm not sure how they get someone inside the interstage without separating.
Access panels, no doubt.
-
Separating the stages to work on? (TVC actuators?) (He spin up plumbing?)
Where do you see the stages separated? doesn't look like they are in that pic. That crane is reportedly used when there is someone working under or in the interstage. Though I'm not sure how they get someone inside the interstage without separating.
You forgot when "tin snips guy" went in there... ;)
-
Though I'm not sure how they get someone inside the interstage without separating.
Access panels, no doubt.
Probably, but I can't find any interstage pictures showing them.
-
Separating the stages to work on? (TVC actuators?) (He spin up plumbing?)
Where do you see the stages separated? doesn't look like they are in that pic. That crane is reportedly used when there is someone working under or in the interstage. Though I'm not sure how they get someone inside the interstage without separating.
You forgot when "tin snips guy" went in there... ;)
Not forgotten... just wondering how he got in. And that rocket is vertical, so he's 100+ feet off the ground.
-
Separating the stages to work on? (TVC actuators?) (He spin up plumbing?)
Where do you see the stages separated? doesn't look like they are in that pic. That crane is reportedly used when there is someone working under or in the interstage. Though I'm not sure how they get someone inside the interstage without separating.
You forgot when "tin snips guy" went in there... ;)
Not forgotten... just wondering how he got in. And that rocket is vertical, so he's 100+ feet off the ground.
Vertical or horizontal, a side panel comes off and in you go...
-
SpaceX did a similar repair / changeout on the TVC actuators on the second stage after they scrubbed the first launch attempt of Thaicom-8. They rolled the Falcon9 back into the HIF at SLC-40 for the repairs, and then went vertical the next morning in plenty of time for the successful launch that afternoon.
-
I'd say 5 scrubs due to TVC issues IS a problem.
Or maybe SpaceX simply has very stringent specifications for the TVC performance range?
After all, a tvc problem on the second stage is a criticality-1 item, almost guaranteeing mission failure if it sticks for even a few seconds, so a high level of paranoia would be a good thing to have towards their performance...
-
maybe, Musk hand trembled? ;)
-
Perhaps the "larger" question is "why" does the TVC issue keep reoccurring..?
-
Perhaps the "larger" question is "why" does the TVC issue keep reoccurring..?
That's one question I'd like someone to ask at the post-launch presser.
-
Indeed. At one point late in the countdown I heard them saying something about TVC motion check and then shortly afterwards "good feedback on TVC motion". Seems to be that while it worked it either was slightly off or something in SpaceX's memory raised a flag about previous history with this equipment.
It obviously is self adjusting and compensates maybe there is a manufacturing issue with tolerances being out a little too much for comfort.
Perhaps the "larger" question is "why" does the TVC issue keep reoccurring..?
-
Hosted webcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI
Technical webcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPVRRtNxw5Q
-
Rockets vertical per the Spaceflight now livestream (http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/17/spacex-crs-10-mission-status-center/)
-
Hum, not according to the NASA TV livestream. It's horizontal and the sling crane is still attached.
Pre-recorded, they should have put a graphic on that as I was confused for a bit also!
-
Hum, not according to the NASA TV livestream. It's horizontal and the sling crane is still attached.
Are you sure it is a livestream? SpaceflightNow has had a camera aimed at the pad for the last few days
-
Hum, not according to the NASA TV livestream. It's horizontal and the sling crane is still attached.
Are you sure it is a livestream? SpaceflightNow has had a camera aimed at the pad for the last few days
It was canned video - I just deleted my previous post to avoid confusion.
-
Hum, not according to the NASA TV livestream. It's horizontal and the sling crane is still attached.
Pre-recorded, they should have put a graphic on that as I was confused for a bit also!
I hate it when that happens. I once watched an entire livestream of a launch that was actually an old one. I was confused because they were launching from a different location than I thought they were going to be and the payload was different than I thought it was going to be, but I just attributed that to me remembering incorrectly what was going to be launched that day :Ţ
-
Absolutely pouring rain at LC-39A right now.
-
I posted this to the update thread as well, but just so that people can discuss if wanted without having to do quote gymnastics:
William Harwood
@cbs_spacenews
F9/CRS10: For the record, SpaceX PAO says company is 'go' for launch after replacing parts in the 2nd stage TVC steering system
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/833308402898042880
-
By now, the Launch Conductor at the SpaceX Control Room in Hawthorne, California should be polling the launch team to start prop loading.
there is no launch conductor in Hawthrone
Just edited that error.
I know it's borderline on wether this should be in discussion or not, but I'm not sure ZachS09 reads it in discussion on-time. People have asked it MANY times that please keep Updates to actual factual updates. Or at the very least prefix your posts with the information that this is NOT an update, but you are reading from some pre-written script that may or may not be actually happening.
I apologize, but it's hard to distinguish the two MCCs in Canaveral and Hawthorne. You know, trying to determine which one is monitoring the SpX-10 launch.
That's why I thought the launch team was in Hawthorne.
From past launch campaigns, it's pretty clear even in the absence of formal references that the launch teams are local, and the Dragon mission control team is in Hawthorne.
But if you need reference, the SpaceX Falcon 9 payload user's guide notes that launch control facilities are local to the launch pads; see, e.g., pp. 41 and subsequent.
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falcon_9_users_guide_rev_2.0.pdf
-
Controllers have thus far reported no issues that would prevent the teams from getting into LOX load of the Falcon 9.
Any topics discussed at all besides weather?
-
Looks like they messed up technical webcast and both are hosted today
-
Arhg! Inane hosted webcast being played on the technical webcast too!
-
Why is there a guy speaking in the Technical Webcast? :-\
-
Steven's arghhh! Should be in the discussion thread :-)
-
They must have figured it out. Are they reposting a link for tech webcast?
-
New link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUDLxFUMC9c
-
Dear SpaceX, thanks so much for fixing te technical webcast!
-
Too bad, with this kind of clouds, the F9 will not be visible a lot from the ground..
-
No John Insbrucker?
-
No video feed from rocket.
-
OK Now getting stage 1 feed.
-
Reminds me a lot of the launch of STS-50 (saw that live on my honeymoon) - off the pad, into the clouds 8 sec later, and that was all there was to see...
-
Lovely staging video
-
That shot of the SpaceX logo scrolling upwards past the LUT... Remind you of anything? :p
-
Great landing!
-
Damn, those guys are good!!
-
I haven't been on the forum much in recent times.
I'd just like to pop in and say I was watching this landing and it sent chills down my spine.
Well done SpaceX.
Rockets coming safely down to land is a reality. 8)
-
Someone has a video of the ground view of LZ1... right?
-
SpaceX has done it again! A beautiful launch from famed Launch Complex 39-A after almost 6 years of no launch operations. A successful landing at LZ-1 followed by a successful deployment of the CRS-10 Dragon. This, my friends, is what I think of when I hear American exceptionalism.
No other company, currently launching orbital missions has successfully launched and recovered a first stage booster upon completion of its assigned role. Now, some may claim Jeff Bezos has done the same thing but, one HUGE difference is the Bezos rocket has, thus far, only demonstrated the capability to fly sub-orbital flights and has yet to fly an orbital mission profile.
-
At T+6min40sec, during its descent, the first stage passed very close to two large pieces that were descending at a much lower speed.
Were these the fairings under parachute by any chance?
-
It didn't hit the center of the X i consider this a partial failure. :P
I panicked a bit just after liftoff when they change to a wide view of the pad and the rocket was nowhere to be seen.
-
Orbital versus suborbital I believe is about 10x more challengning, correct? In terms of energy requirements?
-
At T+6min40sec, during its descent, the first stage passed very close to two large pieces that were descending at a much lower speed.
Were these the fairings under parachute by any chance?
No "big" fairings on Dragon missions.
-
Also, right after sep, you can see the 1st stage boostback from the cam on the 2nd stage. Amazing shot.
-
At T+6min40sec, during its descent, the first stage passed very close to two large pieces that were descending at a much lower speed.
Were these the fairings under parachute by any chance?
No "big" fairings on Dragon missions.
Of course, you're right. But something big for sure, two large pieces at T+6min32sec precisely. Just replayed it.
-
Entry burn started up looking symmetric and round, then transitioned to something else. Maybe just the normal startup sequence, hadn't noticed that before.
-
Are there plans to remove the large shuttle launch tower from pad 39A ?
-
Did the rain birds work as expected? I didn't see much water coming out.
-
Was nervous about this one. Human progress in space conquest is at stake. Was praying to Thrusticus and he was kind :)
-
At T+6min40sec, during its descent, the first stage passed very close to two large pieces that were descending at a much lower speed.
Were these the fairings under parachute by any chance?
Dragon flights don't use payload fairings - there's a cap on the Dragon, which could be seen being jettisoned not long after S2 startup.
The objects visible at T+6.37 (ish) are right on engine start-up for the entry burn, so presumably are some sort of debris from the engine(s).
-
Just out of interest, how long has it been since LC-39A has seen an orbital launch?
Are there plans to remove the large shuttle launch tower from pad 39A ?
There are long-term plans but I don't think that anyone considers it an immediate priority.
-
At T+6min40sec, during its descent, the first stage passed very close to two large pieces that were descending at a much lower speed.
Were these the fairings under parachute by any chance?
No "big" fairings on Dragon missions.
Of course, you're right. But something big for sure, two large pieces at T+6min32sec precisely. Just replayed it.
Yes there was definitely something there, but it couldn't have been the fairings. Could it have been the small nose cone? It seems pretty far back all the way near KSC.
-
After watching this 5 times, I now believe these are small specks of material detaching from the rocket.
Sorry for the confusion.
-
At T+6min40sec, during its descent, the first stage passed very close to two large pieces that were descending at a much lower speed.
Were these the fairings under parachute by any chance?
No "big" fairings on Dragon missions.
Of course, you're right. But something big for sure, two large pieces at T+6min32sec precisely. Just replayed it.
Yes there was definitely something there, but it couldn't have been the fairings. Could it have been the small nose cone? It seems pretty far back all the way near KSC.
Nothing that was ejected during the flight would be anywhere near the stage, it would still be going ballistic, the boostback burn means the returning core is on a completely different trajectory.
-
That shot of the SpaceX logo scrolling upwards past the LUT... Remind you of anything? :p
USA! USA!
Question, why no rocketcam this launch?
-
Landing from VAB.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5CUugJUkAAcpCq.jpg)
@trevormahlmann
Full Res
http://photos.tmahlmann.com/Rockets/SpaceX/CRS-10/i-P6z59rK/A
-
And we have another one down!
Due the the confusion with the technical feed, I ended up watching the hosted feed. Has it always been this poor? The camera views were way worse than those used in the technical feed (which I just quickly re-watched).
-
Did the rain birds work as expected? I didn't see much water coming out.
I was wondering the same thing. A little concerned that the pad suffered damage because of it. Hopefully it went as expected and it looked strange because it just looks differently on this pad.
-
That shot of the SpaceX logo scrolling upwards past the LUT... Remind you of anything? :p
USA! USA!
Question, why no rocketcam this launch?
They probably lost the signal for some time and the one in charge of the feed forgot (?) to change it until 1st stage sep. ::)
BTW the rocket has the number "31" painted on its bottom. ;)
-
Did the rain birds work as expected? I didn't see much water coming out.
I was wondering the same thing. A little concerned that the pad suffered damage because of it. Hopefully it went as expected and it looked strange because it just looks differently on this pad.
It appear they do not come on full force until the clamps are released.
-
Is there any thing in the CRS contract that would prevent SpaceX from putting advertisement on it's rockets or Dragon Capsule?
As I was watching the array deployment I was thinking that wouldn't be a bad spot for Musk to put some advertisement for his solar panels since there is a significant amount of eyeballs watching.
-
Per KSC PAO - Dragon rendezvous with ISS is Wednesday, 22 February. Grapple coverage begins 4:30a EST, installation coverage starts 8a EST.
-
Did the rain birds work as expected? I didn't see much water coming out.
I was wondering the same thing. A little concerned that the pad suffered damage because of it. Hopefully it went as expected and it looked strange because it just looks differently on this pad.
It appear they do not come on full force until the clamps are released.
Flyright is correct. You can see them kick on right as the clamps release. (Sorry for the poor image quality)
-
OK, maybe I haven't been reading up on the latest... but was anyone else freaked out as the count got to T-10sec and the strongback (or whatever this new one is called) was still next to the F9. The old one on previous launches pulled away by T-1:00 minute. This new one really didn't seem to separate until ignition. Would there be an abort if the motion was too slow? Anyway, just something that caught me totally off guard.
-
OK, maybe I haven't been reading up on the latest... but was anyone else freaked out as the count got to T-10sec and the strongback (or whatever this new one is called) was still next to the F9. The old one on previous launches pulled away by T-1:00 minute. This new one really didn't seem to separate until ignition. Would there be an abort if the motion was too slow? Anyway, just something that caught me totally off guard.
This was known. Pulls back 1.5° just before T-2:00, then "throwsback" at clamp release.
-
OK, maybe I haven't been reading up on the latest... but was anyone else freaked out as the count got to T-10sec and the strongback (or whatever this new one is called) was still next to the F9. The old one on previous launches pulled away by T-1:00 minute. This new one really didn't seem to separate until ignition. Would there be an abort if the motion was too slow? Anyway, just something that caught me totally off guard.
No. This is how the TEL operates at Pad-A.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/02/spacex-historic-debut-launch-39a-crs-10-dragon/
-
OK, maybe I haven't been reading up on the latest... but was anyone else freaked out as the count got to T-10sec and the strongback (or whatever this new one is called) was still next to the F9. The old one on previous launches pulled away by T-1:00 minute. This new one really didn't seem to separate until ignition. Would there be an abort if the motion was too slow? Anyway, just something that caught me totally off guard.
That was by design with the new TE. This is the first time we've actually seen it, though.
-
Here's the Dragon nosecone visible at T+3:12.
-
Congrats on the launch. One thing that's also being somewhat wondered on the public side, it looked like the rainbirds only came online at T-0 and even then seemed to be quite low pressure. Is that just a visual misrepresentation or was there some issue with them?
Edit: and any clues as to what the two distinct object were that flew out of the rocket or close to it prior to entry burn?
-
At T+6min40sec, during its descent, the first stage passed very close to two large pieces that were descending at a much lower speed.
Were these the fairings under parachute by any chance?
No "big" fairings on Dragon missions.
Of course, you're right. But something big for sure, two large pieces at T+6min32sec precisely. Just replayed it.
Yes there was definitely something there, but it couldn't have been the fairings. Could it have been the small nose cone? It seems pretty far back all the way near KSC.
Nothing that was ejected during the flight would be anywhere near the stage, it would still be going ballistic, the boostback burn means the returning core is on a completely different trajectory.
Whatever it was it looks to have been flexible / irregular in shape (and two separate pieces). Very strange. And a bit concerning.
Strange. Hopefully there will be a comment later on what it was. I'm sure SpaceX will be on top of it.
-
Anyway, just something that caught me totally off guard.
I was expecting it but it still caught me off-guard. That was awesome!
-
OK, maybe I haven't been reading up on the latest... but was anyone else freaked out as the count got to T-10sec and the strongback (or whatever this new one is called) was still next to the F9. The old one on previous launches pulled away by T-1:00 minute. This new one really didn't seem to separate until ignition. Would there be an abort if the motion was too slow? Anyway, just something that caught me totally off guard.
There has been a lot of discussion about the new strongback in these forums and elsewhere. But if you missed those discussions, watching this launch would have been freaky for sure.
Those discussions talked about the risk/benefit of the new setup. In terms of your question, the consensus is that there could not be an abort if the motion is too slow. All available evidence seems to show that the quick throwback is triggered by the same action that releases the rocket for launch. And there is no abort when those clamps are released.
-
Is there any thing in the CRS contract that would prevent SpaceX from putting advertisement on it's rockets or Dragon Capsule?
As I was watching the array deployment I was thinking that wouldn't be a bad spot for Musk to put some advertisement for his solar panels since there is a significant amount of eyeballs watching.
I agree.
-
Core has gotten a number since rollout when it was absent.
#31
-
At T+6min40sec, during its descent, the first stage passed very close to two large pieces that were descending at a much lower speed.
Were these the fairings under parachute by any chance?
No "big" fairings on Dragon missions.
Of course, you're right. But something big for sure, two large pieces at T+6min32sec precisely. Just replayed it.
Yes there was definitely something there, but it couldn't have been the fairings. Could it have been the small nose cone? It seems pretty far back all the way near KSC.
Nothing that was ejected during the flight would be anywhere near the stage, it would still be going ballistic, the boostback burn means the returning core is on a completely different trajectory.
Whatever it was it looks to have been flexible / irregular in shape (and two separate pieces). Very strange. And a bit concerning.
Strange. Hopefully there will be a comment later on what it was. I'm sure SpaceX will be on top of it.
Maybe the stiffening rings from the second stage engine bell? Those are jettisoned right around ignition.
-
Maybe the stiffening rings from the second stage engine bell? Those are jettisoned right around ignition.
I agree with those who posted later. It must have been debris from the first stage, like ice or something. I don't think it's anything to worry about.
-
Did anyone notice flame on the TEL (maybe around S2 umbilical) right after liftoff? Did it retract as far and fast as expected?
-
Did anyone notice flame on the TEL (maybe around S2 umbilical) right after liftoff? Did it retract as far and fast as expected?
Yes it did.
-
I'm thinking residual fluids coming out of one of the fill or drain lines being ignited by the exhaust heat from the main engines.
-
That's not flame, that's light reflected off of the vapor cloud.
-
At around 3:17 a white spherical object maybe the size of a basketball? entered from frame right and quickly disappeared. Any idea as to what that was?
Look back to page #29 here. It's the dragon's nosecap.
-
Woohoo! No work tonight or tomorrow! Was getting worried watching the weather. Minus the cloud coverage it was an awesome sight to see! On another note, for me this really brings it full circle. After the last launch from there I was sitting in my jeep in the parking lot there teary eyed writing a post on this forum. Within a month I, along with a few thousand others, was seeking employment elsewhere. Now I can officially say that I have returned and can't wait to add some more history to this piece of sacred ground. I hope that we can do you all proud and it feels great to be back in the launching business (Florida side) and feels great to be back at 39A. Let's keep it going!
P.S. And yes, it will be a double shot of Jack no.22 tonight! 8)
I share your emotions!
I remember watching Atlantis launching for the final time from the NASA causeway... The feeling of sadness as the launch I just had witnessed would be something USA could not do again! The future looked very uncertain for when a crewed mission would again roar off that pad? Today has indeed bring it full circle with the return of launches from 39A.
I got teary eyed on July 8, 2011 and I got teary eyed today with happy tears as we are finally starting the next chapter in space exploration on the back of the Space Shuttle and Apollo missions!
Well done SpaceX, Well done launch team and all the workers that worked on getting 39A ready!
Padrat, next time I visit KSC I will buy you a beer! :-)
-
At around 3:17 a white spherical object maybe the size of a basketball? entered from frame right and quickly disappeared. Any idea as to what that was?
Look back to page #29 here. It's the dragon's nosecap.
Full image for clarity.
-
Hella lot of bits of things flying around today:
-
Congrats on the launch. One thing that's also being somewhat wondered on the public side, it looked like the rainbirds only came online at T-0 and even then seemed to be quite low pressure. Is that just a visual misrepresentation or was there some issue with them?
Edit: and any clues as to what the two distinct object were that flew out of the rocket or close to it prior to entry burn?
It occurred pretty much simultaneously with the entry burn startup, so possibly ice or small bits of debris from the base area of the stage - perhaps pieces of cork dislodged by the overpressure of the engine start sequence. Post-landing inspection of the stage would confirm if it's stage debris, but SpaceX may not choose to disclose whatever it was.
-
Here's the Dragon nosecone visible at T+3:12.
That's no moon. ;)
-
(http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/bitrix/components/bitrix/forum.interface/show_file.php?fid=68735&width=500&height=500)
-
Ice ? Hard to figure out it's size given the position of the camera.
(http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/bitrix/components/bitrix/forum.interface/show_file.php?fid=68735&width=500&height=500)
-
Jay is still there asking questions! Asking about schedule. Comes out with one of his usually strange comments. Didn't quiet catch it.
He wanted Jessica to share her phone number to SpaceX party goers so that she can bail them out of jail instead of him ;)
-
"No date but approx two weeks for next launch".
Hmmm. 10 days was the plan. We'll have to see.
-
Ice ? Hard to figure out it's size given the position of the camera.
See my sequence above. Initially presents very small and the pair exit top-right of frame about 3 seconds later. I could be being tricked by perspective but I lean toward thinking it not something frome Stage 1. Is that unlikely at the altitude prior to the landing burn?
-
FAA lady is happy with the safety of the launch.
Her responses sounded like she was reading off a script, and she kept reading it over and over again without actually answering any of the questions. She midaswell not have even bothered showing up.
-
I wrongly posted this in the update thread, don't want to loose it:
I took this picture looking directly out the window of the @SpaceflightNow office at KSC. First launch from pad 39A in nearly six years.
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/833340909844570113 (https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/833340909844570113)
-
FAA lady is happy with the safety of the launch.
Her responses sounded like she was reading off a script, and she kept reading it over and over again without actually answering any of the questions. She midaswell not have even bothered showing up.
She a government administrator charged with enforcing regulations enacted pursuant to federal law in an even-handed and non-discriminatory (*) manner. In what way would you prefer her to have answered any particular question?
(*) Non-discriminatory as to any other applicant for commercial space launch and landing applicants.
-
I thought she was expecting a question about the pending extra funding for commercial operations.
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
My guess is they have refined the Rainbird startup to be "just in time" rather than to soak down the base of the rocket.
-
FAA lady is happy with the safety of the launch.
Her responses sounded like she was reading off a script, and she kept reading it over and over again without actually answering any of the questions. She midaswell not have even bothered showing up.
She a government administrator charged with enforcing regulations enacted pursuant to federal law in an even-handed and non-discriminatory (*) manner. In what way would you prefer her to have answered any particular question?
(*) Non-discriminatory as to any other applicant for commercial space launch and landing applicants.
She could have said Launch Licenses are not generally denied, but issuance is withheld until issues are resolved and a license is granted (presuming it's true, or simply yes, but I'm not a liberty to discuss specifics otherwise)
She could have said that issuance of a license takes roughly n FTE hours, but it varies widely and we make every effort to complete the work before a scheduled launch.
She could have said that since the recently issued license covers Dragon from Pad 39A launches for two years, that the next Dragon launch would indeed be easier because it's already licensed.
Any of these statement or similar ones wouldn't be giving anything away and would let her not come across as a useless parrot.
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
My guess is they have refined the Rainbird startup to be "just in time" rather than to soak down the base of the rocket.
Just in Time seemed to be at T-.05 seconds more for protection of the pad than noise suppression?
-
SpaceX has done it again! A beautiful launch from famed Launch Complex 39-A after almost 6 years of no launch operations. A successful landing at LZ-1 followed by a successful deployment of the CRS-10 Dragon. This, my friends, is what I think of when I hear American exceptionalism.
No other company, currently launching orbital missions has successfully launched and recovered a first stage booster upon completion of its assigned role. Now, some may claim Jeff Bezos has done the same thing but, one HUGE difference is the Bezos rocket has, thus far, only demonstrated the capability to fly sub-orbital flights and has yet to fly an orbital mission profile.
Well said, drnscr
-
Launch/landing photos, now that I've had a chance to get them on a computer...
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-DxK4kxC/0/L/i-DxK4kxC-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-TjKBMtt/0/L/i-TjKBMtt-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-S9JG9TV/0/L/i-S9JG9TV-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Other/201702-CRS10/n-p6PtMj/i-xnFhwsJ/0/L/i-xnFhwsJ-L.jpg)
Still waiting in the news center for pad remotes.
-
@mdeep, where were you when you took those shots? They appear to be taken from an elevated spot.
-
Slightly annoying glitch in the NASA recap of the event where they talk about Dragon separation before showing the landing sequence (which also shows S2 still accelerating). Also missed a trick by not including the "Apollo 11"-inspired shot of Falcon rising from the FSS. Nice sonic booms on landing though.
-
@mdeep - nice photos! Great launch - worth getting up at 6 a.m. for here in the left coast.
-
I'm surprised that the first operational use of the Autonomous Flight Termination System (AFTS) hasn't received more comments.
I was actually suprised by this statement from USAF because my assumption had been that Atlas V already started utilizing this. When I think about it more, it might "only" have switched to GPS-assisted ascent tracking currently?
-
@mdeep, where were you when you took those shots? They appear to be taken from an elevated spot.
VAB roof
-
I'm surprised that the first operational use of the Autonomous Flight Termination System (AFTS) hasn't received more comments.
I was actually suprised by this statement from USAF because my assumption had been that Atlas V already started utilizing this. When I think about it more, it might "only" have switched to GPS-assisted ascent tracking currently?
They may have been using it in shadow mode on Atlas V launches, but the first operational usage happened to be for Falcon 9 just as a result of scheduling.
-
https://youtu.be/glEvogjdEVY
-
Launch/landing photos, now that I've had a chance to get them on a computer...
Maybe it has to do with the zoom lens, but the 1st stage looks massively big in the pics.
-
Launch/landing photos, now that I've had a chance to get them on a computer...
Maybe it has to do with the zoom lens, but the 1st stage looks massively big in the pics.
It is big. It is longer than a 737, etc. The first stage and interstage together are about 80% as tall as a complete Atlas 5-401. 150+ feet.
- Ed Kyle
-
Wow - SpaceX clearly got permission to fly a drone in CCAFS airspace to film the landing! This begs the question - did they launch the drone after the Falcon 9 cleared the area, or was it already in the air at F9 launch? And if so, is there some aerial footage of the F9 launch, too? I've always said that the drone footage of the Grasshopper flights is some of the most impressive SpaceX video ever, and they really ought to work to get those shots on launches, too - maybe it's coming soon?
-
From the updates thread,
Presumably Dragon...
42053 OBJECT A 2017-009A 90.11min 51.63deg 363km 209km
I'm confused - I thought I heard one of the guys in the hosted webcast mention a parking orbit of 200 x 600 Km. (and I assume that this apogee does not necessarily has to be the ISS altitude). Saw it around min. 37 27:30 of the webcast.
( Apologies, I don't know how to post a link without the video getting pseudo-embedded. See watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI&t= 2219 1640 )
Edit: the video somehow changed length :o
-
FAA lady is happy with the safety of the launch.
Her responses sounded like she was reading off a script, and she kept reading it over and over again without actually answering any of the questions. She midaswell not have even bothered showing up.
She a government administrator charged with enforcing regulations enacted pursuant to federal law in an even-handed and non-discriminatory (*) manner. In what way would you prefer her to have answered any particular question?
(*) Non-discriminatory as to any other applicant for commercial space launch and landing applicants.
She could have said ... (SNIP)
None of that is really accurate, however. The first is simply not true - there is nothing "routine" about commercial spacecraft launch licenses. There are simply not that many of them issued in any given year. Each one is unique to vehicle configuration and operator and the administrators who review and approve the paperwork must have latitude to review each application within the constraints of the then-existing FAA regulations, without having public statements made in a news conference used as some form of precedent or argument by another provider in the future.
As to the rest ... she may not know how many full-time employee-equivalent hours it takes to issue a license because, again, each launch provider is different, there aren't that many issued every year from which to draw generalized conclusions and amateurs on the internet playing lawyer from the comfort of their living rooms would take any such statement and use it to argue about future launch license issuances (or presumed denials) from some claimed citation to authority based on a news conference statement.
Et ceter, ad nauseum, ad tedium.
tl;dr - that's not how government regulatory administrators work when facing the public. There's a lot more technical detail shared and meaningful give and take within the constraints of officialdom when shielded by "proprietary" technical data interchange with the applicants. Rest assured, when CST-100 launches, she or her equivalent will be there saying the same stuff.
edit: typos
-
I'm confused - I thought I heard one of the guys in the hosted webcast mention a parking orbit of 200 x 600 Km.
Pretty sure that 600 Km was misspoken, Dragons are inserted below ISS orbit.
Apologies, I don't know how to post a link without the video getting pseudo-embedded.
You can't, not without breaking the url with tags in clever places. One of the "features" of this forum...
-
Presumably Dragon...
42053 OBJECT A 2017-009A 90.11min 51.63deg 363km 209km
very likely. Stage 2 was deorbited and only other orbital objects are solar array fairing and I forget when nose fairing jettison occurs.
During second-stage boost before orbit is achieved; there was excellent video of it falling behind the MVac nozzle this time.
-
Don't believe Wikipedia. This was the 95th launch from LC 39A, a number that includes 12 Saturn 5 and 82 Space Shuttle liftoffs. You can count the STS launches yourself at http://www.planet4589.org/space/lvdb/launch/STS
Any confirmation of second stage de-orbit burn?
- Ed Kyle
-
Edit: the video somehow changed length :o
After the event is over, SpaceX trims the video so that all the excess of just opening splash screen with music running is removed and then posts it using the same url as the livestream. So, if you had taken the time stamp from the video including the filler, then it won't be accurate any longer.
-
At T+6min40sec, during its descent, the first stage passed very close to two large pieces that were descending at a much lower speed.
Were these the fairings under parachute by any chance?
No "big" fairings on Dragon missions.
Of course, you're right. But something big for sure, two large pieces at T+6min32sec precisely. Just replayed it.
Yes there was definitely something there, but it couldn't have been the fairings. Could it have been the small nose cone? It seems pretty far back all the way near KSC.
Nothing that was ejected during the flight would be anywhere near the stage, it would still be going ballistic, the boostback burn means the returning core is on a completely different trajectory.
Whatever it was it looks to have been flexible / irregular in shape (and two separate pieces). Very strange. And a bit concerning.
Strange. Hopefully there will be a comment later on what it was. I'm sure SpaceX will be on top of it.
It looked like a leaf to me, but that 'leaf' would have to be 1m in diameter or larger...
-
Ice ? Hard to figure out it's size given the position of the camera.
(http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/bitrix/components/bitrix/forum.interface/show_file.php?fid=68735&width=500&height=500)
bird
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glEvogjdEVY
Reminds of the 50's sci-fi movies side shot of the Heinlien-esque tail first landing on the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBEfpVkwWS4
-
It was visible on the video, tumbling away.
Visible passing the S2 MVac at T+3:12
-
Just looking at the cropped drone video, no signs of flames on the legs post MECO- looks like that's another thing they've fixed, compared to the early landings.
-
Just looking at the cropped drone video, no signs of flames on the legs post MECO- looks like that's another thing they've fixed, compared to the early landings.
Probably flame-retardant materials installed recently
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
Nope...check this out:
https://youtu.be/vFwqZ4qAUkE?t=11m54s
-
Every time I see those grid fins working away it makes me smile... :) It doesn't matter that when I thought of them years ago here on NSF or SpaceX came up with the idea to use them on their own. The fact that they work so well still fills this "space-nerd" with satisfaction with every landing... Go SpaceX!
-
FAA lady is happy with the safety of the launch.
Her responses sounded like she was reading off a script, and she kept reading it over and over again without actually answering any of the questions. She midaswell not have even bothered showing up.
She a government administrator charged with enforcing regulations enacted pursuant to federal law in an even-handed and non-discriminatory (*) manner. In what way would you prefer her to have answered any particular question?
(*) Non-discriminatory as to any other applicant for commercial space launch and landing applicants.
She could have said ... (SNIP)
None of that is really accurate, however. The first is simply not true - there is nothing "routine" about commercial spacecraft launch licenses. ...
Where is the inaccurate part of saying 'She could have said A if that's how it happens, or otherwise B'? It's only inaccurate if they blindly approve them all, which I doubt you're contending.
As to the rest ... Et ceter, ad nauseum, ad tedium. ...
You're missing the point, which is that she could have sounded intelligent and provided useful, relevant information, whatever it was, as other government administrators have without giving away any proprietary information, or making any promises. She chose not to. Her presence, as executed, was pointless other than to claim that the FAA was there.
-
What was the extra plume down along the length of the vehicle at launch, that seemed to ignite down near the engines? I don't recall seeing that during previous launches.
-
You're missing the point, which is that she could have sounded intelligent and provided useful, relevant information, whatever it was, as other government administrators have without giving away any proprietary information, or making any promises. She chose not to. Her presence, as executed, was pointless other than to claim that the FAA was there.
Having dealt professionally with government regulators and attorneys for many years of my life, I'm not missing your point at all. I'm saying it's invalid.
To my mind, she was there because either she herself, or someone higher up, believed or suggested that she should be there to represent her regulatory agency entity on the occasion of what is actually quite an historic event (first-ever commercial orbital launch from KSC off of the venerable LC-39A pad). Furthermore, given the constraints I mentioned in my first post, I believe what she said was both interesting and informative, not just for the content, but for what she declined to address as well.
There's information in silence as well for those who would suspend condescension and judgment and pay close attention. ;)
-
What was the extra plume down along the length of the vehicle at launch, that seemed to ignite down near the engines? I don't recall seeing that during previous launches.
I'm guessing you're describing is either some vented LOX (looks like white gas due to condensing water vapor out of the air) which starts reflecting light from the engine exhaust as opposed to actually igniting, or is water from the flame trench/sound suppression system that gets blasted upwards and is reflecting light. But to be absolutely clear, it would help if you attached a screen capture of what you are talking about so that we can be sure about talking about the same thing.
-
[snip]
There's information in silence as well [snip]
Would you mind sharing what you heard in the silence? I can't say that I'm very practiced and reading silence in these kind of situations.
-
[snip]
There's information in silence as well [snip]
Would you mind sharing what you heard in the silence? I can't say that I'm very practiced and reading silence in these kind of situations.
[Jim]Read my previous posts on this subtopic.[/Jim]
-
... suspend condescension and judgment ...
Good advice, infrequently heeded.
-
What was the extra plume down along the length of the vehicle at launch, that seemed to ignite down near the engines? I don't recall seeing that during previous launches.
Do you mean the cloud of condensed water vapour from the air that streams off the vehicle from top to bottom?
-
What was the extra plume down along the length of the vehicle at launch, that seemed to ignite down near the engines? I don't recall seeing that during previous launches.
I thought it was explained in another thread that recirculation caused the effect near the bottom of the rocket. I doubt I could find the post now though.
-
What was the extra plume down along the length of the vehicle at launch, that seemed to ignite down near the engines? I don't recall seeing that during previous launches.
I thought it was explained in another thread that recirculation caused the effect near the bottom of the rocket. I doubt I could find the post now though.
I thought it was just the engine flare reflecting off the water vapor. Similar to the "fire" on the TE.
-
I don't recall seeing that during previous launches.
If you are talking about the water vapour then there is more of it than in past launches due to the RP-1 now being cooled as well as the LOX. Plus it just quit raining at the pad so humidity would be very high.
-
Ice ? Hard to figure out it's size given the position of the camera.
(http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/bitrix/components/bitrix/forum.interface/show_file.php?fid=68735&width=500&height=500)
bird
Clearly not ice or a bird. Far too large for either, far too high up for a bird, and clearly tumbling in free fall with a periodic rotation.
The stage was moving at hundreds of meters per second in free fall at that point. It was still far above the cloud deck. It hadn't even done its entry burn yet (the entry burn started immediately after the debris).
Even if it's just some sort of insulation, nobody likes a strike at high speeds. :Ţ
-
Just a bit more... reentry burn begins at around 70km (correct?) so that was passed at just above 70km.
Does anyone know the velocity at the time of the reentry burn? Running the free-fall numbers from ~200km I get around 1600 m/s velocity (not taking into account air resistance, so that's a maximum). Aka, it was moving fast when it passed the debris.
-
It hadn't even done its entry burn yet (the entry burn started immediately after the debris).
The audio loop was about 1-2 seconds ahead of the video from the descending stage. I think it almost a certainty that whatever it was, it was liberated from the lower part of the vehicle as a result of the startup sequence for the entry burn.
-
On behalf of the teams, thank you for the kind words and your amazing support! We still have Dragon to complete arrival at the ISS of course.
-
Ice ? Hard to figure out it's size given the position of the camera.
(http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/bitrix/components/bitrix/forum.interface/show_file.php?fid=68735&width=500&height=500)
bird
Clearly not ice or a bird. Far too large for either, far too high up for a bird, and clearly tumbling in free fall with a periodic rotation.
The stage was moving at hundreds of meters per second in free fall at that point. It was still far above the cloud deck. It hadn't even done its entry burn yet (the entry burn started immediately after the debris).
Even if it's just some sort of insulation, nobody likes a strike at high speeds. :Ţ
The debris almost looks like a broken impeller, but I honestly have no idea what it is. :o
-
FWIW, the press conference Q&A was where that info on the TVC actuator being completely replaced was first mentioned. There is a full video of the press conference in the UPDATES thread.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glEvogjdEVY
"Picking up some dust..."
-
FWIW, the press conference Q&A was where that info on the TVC actuator being completely replaced was first mentioned. There is a full video of the press conference in the UPDATES thread.
Some of the press new beforehand:
Tweet from William Harwood (CBS) before launch (http://Tweet from William Harwood (CBS) before launch)
F9/CRS10: For the record, SpaceX PAO says company is 'go' for launch after replacing parts in the 2nd stage TVC steering system
-
Ice ? Hard to figure out it's size given the position of the camera.
(http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/bitrix/components/bitrix/forum.interface/show_file.php?fid=68735&width=500&height=500)
bird
Clearly not ice or a bird. Far too large for either, far too high up for a bird, and clearly tumbling in free fall with a periodic rotation.
The stage was moving at hundreds of meters per second in free fall at that point. It was still far above the cloud deck. It hadn't even done its entry burn yet (the entry burn started immediately after the debris).
Even if it's just some sort of insulation, nobody likes a strike at high speeds. :Ţ
The debris almost looks like a broken impeller, but I honestly have no idea what it is. :o
Maybe just a random gap in the clouds. Notice the shape of the "wing" (if it were a bird) follows the same curvature as the surrounding puffs of cloud.
-
Maybe just a random gap in the clouds. Notice the shape of the "wing" (if it were a bird) follows the same curvature as the surrounding puffs of cloud.
It moves at significant velocity, so no.
-
I haven't seen it mentioned, but I was very excited to see the boostback burn start from the perspective of the second stage. The call wasn't synchronized with the visual of the burn - but it was obviously lit on camera. Might just be me - but I think that is the quickest rotation after separation that I've witnessed, and for sure it is the first time I have seen the first stage light up so close to the second stage.
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
Here's a Youtube link to the same moment (https://youtube.com/watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI#t=19m55s); you can slow it down to 1/4-time to get a better look at the water plume.
It looks to me like they never quite reached the platform, rather were missing it. But that is based on this one camera angle and zero experience.
-
The water in the rain birds did not flow at full pressure until just after liftoff. That may have been by design.
-
Video focusing on F9 CRS-10's 1st Stage w/ Tech Audio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNmF7rhymGU
-
Looking again at the video, the two pieces of debris appear around T+6:30, the call out for entry burn is at T+6:35 and we see the engine come on at T+6:38 so the video is ~3+ seconds delayed.
But the debris became visible about 8 or so seconds before the entry burn. What could cause such an event that much before the engine startup. As I've understood most of the startup stuff happens within a few seconds before ignition so 8s seems quite a long time.
-
Do we have an exact launch time ?
Ed Kyle :14:38
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/
14:38:59
http://www.orbita.zenite.nu/
14:39:00
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.1240
16:38
http://prehled-druzic.blogspot.de/2017/02/2017-009.html#yA
-
This debris really looks like birds as they "flap" past the camera... Of course, its much too high up in the atmosphere to be actual birds flying there, but could it be that there were birds (or bats?) which somehow hiked a ride on the first stage (weren't there stories about bats and birds clinging to the main tank of several space shuttle flights?), died outside the atmosphere and were only shaken loose once the first stage started to re-enter the denser parts of the atmosphere?
-
It is clearly some debris thrown loose during the Merlin restart. Why look for rube goldberg solutions when the obvious answer is staring you in the face?
-
It's either ice or pieces of TPS coming off during the M1D chilldown/purge before restart. Watch the technical webcast *really* carefully and you can see pieces coming off after the reentry burn, too, but the drag is so high at that point that the pieces only show up as dark spots in single frames in the video.
-
It's either ice or pieces of TPS coming off during the M1D chilldown/purge before restart. Watch the technical webcast *really* carefully and you can see pieces coming off after the reentry burn, too, but the drag is so high at that point that the pieces only show up as dark spots in single frames in the video.
Another thing you don't know is the scale of those things. They could be close and small, or far and larger, but with a single camera you have no real perspective.
-
It's either ice or pieces of TPS coming off during the M1D chilldown/purge before restart. Watch the technical webcast *really* carefully and you can see pieces coming off after the reentry burn, too, but the drag is so high at that point that the pieces only show up as dark spots in single frames in the video.
I agree. Which would reduce the relative velocity and size of the debris vs. if it were something just being passed. It looks like they pass the top of the stage at around 3 seconds after they break off. The stage is 42,6m long. With constant acceleration they would be passing the top of the stage moving at 28,4 m/s. The only obvious protrusions being at risk being the grid fins anyway, which aren't all the way at the top, so a bit slower there. Probably no threat at all.
On the other hand, it'd probably be worse if something sizeable broke off at the landing burn, I'd imagine it'd move at significantly greater velocity due to the higher wind resistance. I wonder how heavy these things are? Note that I watched in slow motion and I didn't see your dark spots. I saw some well before the burn but they appeared more to be rain.
Those grid fins are some pretty sturdy structures. I imagine they could take a reasonable-sized strike.
-
Watching the hosted webcast, they gave some more details about the TVC issue. The primary TVC was working fine, but the backup secondary TVC was not working properly. A similar thing happened with the Apollo 16 CSM while orbiting the Moon. With Apollo 16, they decided to continue since the secondary system could still be used. As we all know now, SpaceX decided to scrub the launch at T-13 seconds and perform some replacements of the TVC system. That was the right call in my opinion since if the primary system failed during flight, the secondary system could probably not be relied upon to do its job.
-
Looks like there *was* a camera on the LUT - still, but the brief video shot during the countdown suggests there may be video to come as well.
-
Looks like there *was* a camera on the LUT - still, but the brief video shot during the countdown suggests there may be video to come as well.
There is a video camera on the tower, it was shown on the hosted webcast at T-57sec and at T+5sec, but it's located at a lower level than the photo above. I'm guessing the latter is one of Ben Cooper's remote cameras.
-
Do we have an exact launch time ?
Ed Kyle :14:38
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/
14:38:59
http://www.orbita.zenite.nu/
14:39:00
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.1240
16:38
http://prehled-druzic.blogspot.de/2017/02/2017-009.html#yA
It was originally 14:38:59 going into Sunday, but they updated it to exactly 14:39:00 a few hours before launch.
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
Here's a Youtube link to the same moment (https://youtube.com/watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI#t=19m55s); you can slow it down to 1/4-time to get a better look at the water plume.
It looks to me like they never quite reached the platform, rather were missing it. But that is based on this one camera angle and zero experience.
The rainbirds are for sound suppression. The peak sound is usually occurs after the vehicle is few hundred above the pad. And it is the sound reflected of the pad structure that is the issue. This when the rainbirds need to be at their full volume and not at T-0. That how it was with the shuttle.
-
Is it just me or did the rainbirds activate awfully late?
Visible on this clip: https://streamable.com/v9zjg
Here's a Youtube link to the same moment (https://youtube.com/watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI#t=19m55s); you can slow it down to 1/4-time to get a better look at the water plume.
It looks to me like they never quite reached the platform, rather were missing it. But that is based on this one camera angle and zero experience.
The rainbirds are for sound suppression. The peak sound is usually occurs after the vehicle is few hundred above the pad. And it is the sound reflected of the pad structure that is the issue. This when the rainbirds need to be at their full volume and not at T-0. That how it was with the shuttle.
You can see the rainbirds at full throttle at this point of the webcast: https://youtu.be/giNhaEzv_PI?t=19m59s
When the shot goes a bit wider, you can see the rainbirds really ramp up after the rocket clears them.
-
Do we have an exact launch time ?
Ed Kyle :14:38
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/
14:38:59
http://www.orbita.zenite.nu/
14:39:00
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.1240
16:38
http://prehled-druzic.blogspot.de/2017/02/2017-009.html#yA
It was originally 14:38:59 going into Sunday, but they updated it to exactly 14:39:00 a few hours before launch.
Thank you !
*some are now corrected
-
SECO seemed to happen about 20 seconds late, any explanation?
Some, if not all of that, is webcast latency. There was, for example, a 10 second delay between ground and on-board views of the first stage landing on the SpaceX split-screen. I would guess that the second stage view has 10 seconds or more of delay. The on-screen mission elapsed time clock does not have the same delay.
- Ed Kyle
-
This debris really looks like birds as they "flap" past the camera... Of course, its much too high up in the atmosphere to be actual birds flying there, but could it be that there were birds (or bats?) which somehow hiked a ride on the first stage (weren't there stories about bats and birds clinging to the main tank of several space shuttle flights?), died outside the atmosphere and were only shaken loose once the first stage started to re-enter the denser parts of the atmosphere?
Cork
-
This debris really looks like birds as they "flap" past the camera... Of course, its much too high up in the atmosphere to be actual birds flying there, but could it be that there were birds (or bats?) which somehow hiked a ride on the first stage (weren't there stories about bats and birds clinging to the main tank of several space shuttle flights?), died outside the atmosphere and were only shaken loose once the first stage started to re-enter the denser parts of the atmosphere?
Cork
I should know this... What sections of the exterior is the cork exactly?
-
This debris really looks like birds as they "flap" past the camera... Of course, its much too high up in the atmosphere to be actual birds flying there, but could it be that there were birds (or bats?) which somehow hiked a ride on the first stage (weren't there stories about bats and birds clinging to the main tank of several space shuttle flights?), died outside the atmosphere and were only shaken loose once the first stage started to re-enter the denser parts of the atmosphere?
Cork
I should know this... What sections of the exterior is the cork exactly?
Most of the interstage and part of the octaweb are insulated with cork.
-
Congrats to Buzz Aldrin, who made it to another launch. (Had a conversation with him! He praised a mutual colleague, touted some of his own inventions, and told a chiding and affectionate story about Neil Armstrong. It was another amazing few minutes.)
Can we please have those stories retold here? :)
-
There was a delay on the onboard views for sure, but it doesn't fully explain the difference vs. press kit times. I assume the press kit was wrong, unless some other information comes up.
-
Going back to CRS-8 and CRS-9 webcasts to compare, curiously, SECO was significantly *later* on CRS-8 with the ASDS landing than on CRS-9, a RTLS flight. One might have expected the opposite to be the case, given lower delta V requirements for ASDS, even despite CRS-8 apparently carrying 900 kg more cargo.
CRS-10 falls in the middle in terms of SECO timing.
-
Could there be a weight difference in the loading of Dragon on the different flights. From what I understand even small changes in weight up there have pretty noticeable changes in burn times, etc...
-
I wonder what caused the plume that appeared at the upper stage umbilical area on the TEL as it was leaning back? Seems like those propellant lines should be purged by that point. Maybe exhaust glare reflecting from a LOX cloud?
-
I wonder what caused the plume that appeared at the upper stage umbilical area on the TEL as it was leaning back? Seems like those propellant lines should be purged by that point. Maybe exhaust glare reflecting from a LOX cloud?
residual prop igniting or TEL LOX are the usual culprits
-
I wonder what caused the plume that appeared at the upper stage umbilical area on the TEL as it was leaning back? Seems like those propellant lines should be purged by that point. Maybe exhaust glare reflecting from a LOX cloud?
I think that's just a reflection of the engine plume off vented LOX.
-
Space-Track has cataloged the ejected solar panel covers as objects B and C, named "DRAGON CRS-10 DEB" but
object A (42053) is still named "OBJECT A" by them instead of "DRAGON CRS-10". Possibly they are not sure yet if they are tracking CRS-10 or the second stage (which shouldn't be in orbit any more)?
In related news, no orbit maneuvers by object A yet. I don't know the rendezvous schedule for CRS-10, some
CRS missions raised orbit in a few hours, others took over a day.
-
I watched the launch videos and I cant see any difference in time between clamp release and tel throwback. ( at least as far as youtube single step). So I would say the tel is NOT released even 10ms before the falcon is released.
-
I watched the launch videos and I cant see any difference in time between clamp release and tel throwback. ( at least as far as youtube single step). So I would say the tel is NOT released even 10ms before the falcon is released.
Clamp release and the 1.5ş lean back is at T-2 minutes. The TE does throw back at T-0, but at that point it's already detached and slightly away from the rocket.
-
Congrats to Buzz Aldrin, who made it to another launch. (Had a conversation with him! He praised a mutual colleague, touted some of his own inventions, and told a chiding and affectionate story about Neil Armstrong. It was another amazing few minutes.)
Can we please have those stories retold here? :)
He was gently mocking Gene Cernan and contrasting him with Neil Armstrong. Buzz said that Neil was so conservative about not giving endorsements that he didn't wear his watch on his moonwalk, lest he be seen as giving the company a promotion. "What commander doesn't wear his watch" on a mission? he asked. Buzz said that he wore his, and sent it to the Smithsonian, but it disappeared.
He credited the late Dr. Chauncey Uphoff of GSFC, JPL, and later Ball Aerospace, with inventing the "backflip rendezvous" which I think may have been used in the Lunar Module rendezvous with the Command Service Module on the moon landings. Chauncey was the author of GSFC's orbital dynamics code for interplanetary trajectories, which he took to JPL. (Buzz is "Dr. Rendezvous" after all, so this backflip stuff was really important to him.)
He made sure I knew (which of course I did) that he invented neutral buoyancy training, and that it was some of hie "out of the box thinking". He complained that they named the NBL after "some Navy guy" and that they only name things after people who are deceased. A mild annoyance that he had to sort of choose between having it named after him and staying alive. I expressed all of our preferences that he remain ineligible for naming rights. ;D
The conversation was the capstone to an incredible day.
-
I watched the launch videos and I cant see any difference in time between clamp release and tel throwback. ( at least as far as youtube single step). So I would say the tel is NOT released even 10ms before the falcon is released.
Clamp release and the 1.5ş lean back is at T-2 minutes. The TE does throw back at T-0, but at that point it's already detached and slightly away from the rocket.
I think rsdavis9 is referring to the hold-down clamps, not the TEL upper stage clamps.
-
Could there be a weight difference in the loading of Dragon on the different flights. From what I understand even small changes in weight up there have pretty noticeable changes in burn times, etc...
CRS-8: 3,136 kg cargo
CRS-9: 2,222 kg cargo
CRS-10: 2,490 kg cargo
- Ed Kyle
-
I noticed in the first stage landing drone video there is a new building at LZ-1. IIRC it was not there last April during Family Day. Is it for more storage?
-
I noticed in the first stage landing drone video there is a new building at LZ-1. IIRC it was not there last April during Family Day. Is it for more storage?
It's been there since CRS-9. (http://imgur.com/a/xce16)
-
I noticed in the first stage landing drone video there is a new building at LZ-1. IIRC it was not there last April during Family Day. Is it for more storage?
It's been there since CRS-9. (http://imgur.com/a/xce16)
Guess I don't member seeing it then. Any idea what it is for?
-
Do we have an exact launch time ?
Ed Kyle :14:38
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/
14:38:59
http://www.orbita.zenite.nu/
14:39:00
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.1240
16:38
http://prehled-druzic.blogspot.de/2017/02/2017-009.html#yA
It was originally 14:38:59 going into Sunday, but they updated it to exactly 14:39:00 a few hours before launch.
The hosted webcast shows the time on the camera inside the solar array fairing. At T+12:00 (https://youtu.be/giNhaEzv_PI?t=1910) it shows 14:51:11.
Assuming the clock on the camera is correct (not that I do), that would put the launch time at 14:39:11
-
Do we have an exact launch time ?
Ed Kyle :14:38
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/
14:38:59
http://www.orbita.zenite.nu/
14:39:00
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.1240
16:38
http://prehled-druzic.blogspot.de/2017/02/2017-009.html#yA
It was originally 14:38:59 going into Sunday, but they updated it to exactly 14:39:00 a few hours before launch.
The hosted webcast shows the time on the camera inside the solar array fairing. At T+12:00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI?t=1910) it shows 14:51:11.
Assuming the clock on the camera is correct (not that I do), that would put the launch time at 14:39:11
After the scrub on the 18th a half dozen reports were about evenly split on 9:38:58am EST and 9:38:59 as the targeted T=0 time for the 19th.
About 9 hours before the launch on the 19th the SpaceX home web page said that the targeted launch time was 9:38:58am EST.
Of course, the targeted launch time is determined closer to launch based on updated ISS TLEs.
About 1 hour before launch on the 19th the 45th Space Wing tweeted that launch would be 09:38:59.5 EST and hence they would call it 09:39am EST.
I find it very difficult to believe that T=0 [and hence liftoff] did not occur between 09:38:59am EST and 09:39:00am EST on February 19th.
I usually wait for the millisecond time to be released for the definitive launch time.
Carl
-
Through rolling the dice on reddit, I discovered a thread about stange "UFO" sightings over Iran from yesterday. Based on the available track in the webcast, and the fact that this was reported at about 10:15 EST, that these were videos of post SECO-1 maneuvers. I wont trouble this audience with linked directly to this strange thread, but the videos linked may be of interest. They appear to catch either dragon, or the F9 second stage performing a maneuver.
Sorry of this is the wrong thread for this, but I think additional video of post launch activities is pretty cool, especially because a thruster (or engine) impulse is visible in some of these videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUOscYxN9Ps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUOscYxN9Ps)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEtQ-ck_glM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEtQ-ck_glM)
-
Through rolling the dice on reddit, I discovered a thread about stange "UFO" sightings over Iran from yesterday. Based on the available track in the webcast, and the fact that this was reported at about 10:15 EST, that these were videos of post SECO-1 maneuvers. I wont trouble this audience with linked directly to this strange thread, but the videos linked may be of interest. They appear to catch either dragon, or the F9 second stage performing a maneuver.
Sorry of this is the wrong thread for this, but I think additional video of post launch activities is pretty cool, especially because a thruster (or engine) impulse is visible in some of these videos.
Very very cool. Must be S2 de-orbit burn.
Awesome find!
-
SECO seemed to happen about 20 seconds late, any explanation?
Some, if not all of that, is webcast latency. There was, for example, a 10 second delay between ground and on-board views of the first stage landing on the SpaceX split-screen. I would guess that the second stage view has 10 seconds or more of delay. The on-screen mission elapsed time clock does not have the same delay.
- Ed Kyle
Also, for both Iridium-1 and CRS-10 the first stage has not been running at full thrust. They were both at about 92% of FT for most of their burns.
-
I noticed in the first stage landing drone video there is a new building at LZ-1. IIRC it was not there last April during Family Day. Is it for more storage?
It's been there since CRS-9. (http://imgur.com/a/xce16)
Guess I don't member seeing it then. Any idea what it is for?
It's labeled as "Hangar" in the recent environmental reports on LZ-1 expansion. And with some rough Google Earth estimation, it appears to be just the right size for a first stage.
-
They are going to have plenty of space to store stuff. Between this LZ-1 hangar and the old Spacehab facility at the port.
-
A quick question for the collective wisdom here.
The thick cloud layer rule for launch. I don't remember a daytime launch going through the soupy clouds (at least from the vantage point of the camera angles) as we saw on Sunday. How thick is too thick? I assumed the rule was in part to allow for tracking cameras to follow the launch.
-
Maximum cloud thickness is 500 ft at 5000 ft.
-
The hosted webcast shows the time on the camera inside the solar array fairing. At T+12:00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNhaEzv_PI?t=1910) it shows 14:51:11.
Assuming the clock on the camera is correct (not that I do), that would put the launch time at 14:39:11
After the scrub on the 18th a half dozen reports were about evenly split on 9:38:58am EST and 9:38:59 as the targeted T=0 time for the 19th.
About 9 hours before the launch on the 19th the SpaceX home web page said that the targeted launch time was 9:38:58am EST.
Of course, the targeted launch time is determined closer to launch based on updated ISS TLEs.
About 1 hour before launch on the 19th the 45th Space Wing tweeted that launch would be 09:38:59.5 EST and hence they would call it 09:39am EST.
I find it very difficult to believe that T=0 [and hence liftoff] did not occur between 09:38:59am EST and 09:39:00am EST on February 19th.
I usually wait for the millisecond time to be released for the definitive launch time.
Carl
The technical webcast showed the rocket cam and a ground camera for the landing. Using this you can estimate the lag from the rocket camera as about 10 seconds. This would roughly apply to the upper stage as well, so after accounting for lag, that clock on the camera is probably correct with the video, but the mission clock overlay does not account for video lag.
-
A quick question for the collective wisdom here.
The thick cloud layer rule for launch. I don't remember a daytime launch going through the soupy clouds (at least from the vantage point of the camera angles) as we saw on Sunday. How thick is too thick? I assumed the rule was in part to allow for tracking cameras to follow the launch.
The cloud thickness rule is 4,500 feet extending into freezing conditions I believe. You can look at the first stage landing video and see that those clouds were not that thick. It broke out around 1,000 agl
-
A quick question for the collective wisdom here.
The thick cloud layer rule for launch. I don't remember a daytime launch going through the soupy clouds (at least from the vantage point of the camera angles) as we saw on Sunday. How thick is too thick? I assumed the rule was in part to allow for tracking cameras to follow the launch.
IIRC, Jessica Jensen said in the post-launch presser that the primary reason for the thick cloud rule was the risk of a lightening strike triggered by the static electricity buildup on the rocket.
As other's noted, the clouds were low but not very thick.
-
It was so nice of SpaceX to paint the bingo squares on LZ1. I think I won!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNmF7rhymGU?t=198
-
Something of note. Since this was an FAA licensed launch from KSC, there was no Air Force Launch Decision Authority. The range provided support but not range safety (AFTS took care of that).
-
Speaking of AFTS, I noticed the callout that the first-stage AFTS was safed before the stage went transonic on the re-entry. That was much further out than I had imagined. Is there no FTS at that point or do they revert to the shadow FTS? If no FTS, isn't that a bit soon for the FTS to be safed? Or would it be counterproductive to terminate the stage past that point, from a safety standpoint?
-
Speaking of AFTS, I noticed the callout that the first-stage AFTS was safed before the stage went transonic on the re-entry. That was much further out than I had imagined. Is there no FTS at that point or do they revert to the shadow FTS? If no FTS, isn't that a bit soon for the FTS to be safed? Or would it be counterproductive to terminate the stage past that point, from a safety standpoint?
I heard that call-out too. My supposition is that FTS is active when the IIP (instantaneous impact point) of the returning stage is on or near land, and then safed again during final descent once the IIP is safely inside LZ-1 with negligible rate of change, sufficient to ensure that if things go pear-shaped, it'll all be roughly contained within the landing area with no risk to people of other facilities.
-
Speaking of AFTS, I noticed the callout that the first-stage AFTS was safed before the stage went transonic on the re-entry. That was much further out than I had imagined. Is there no FTS at that point or do they revert to the shadow FTS? If no FTS, isn't that a bit soon for the FTS to be safed? Or would it be counterproductive to terminate the stage past that point, from a safety standpoint?
Both the primary and backup FTS systems are safed at the same time by the same command.
-
Thanks @HerbSchaltegger and @russianhalo117, both those comments make sense. I am just surprised it is safed so high, I guess. From the technical webcast:
21:45 AFTS safed
22:00 Stage transsonic
22:18 Landing burn start
22:48 Touchdown
(Note that some of these are a bit unreliable as the video of the landing from the ground is ahead of the stage camera and the touchdown callout is also ahead (but not as much) of the stage camera).
Regardless it must be as Herb suggests, so I guess they are just confident the landing burn and/or grid fins won't suddenly go crazy, or the control authority of the two combined along with the descent velocity would be unable to take it outside the confines of the landing zone...
-
Seems like the air force is calling it AFSS not AFTS
https://m.facebook.com/AirForceSpaceCommand/posts/10154514359132074
-
Seems like the air force is calling it AFSS not AFTS
https://m.facebook.com/AirForceSpaceCommand/posts/10154514359132074
its both
-
Anyone have any understanding of the Dragon's relative GPS and how an unconverged filter fits into the mechanism? In my layman comprehension, it sounds like it is possible that the problem could be with software or hardware based on the info we currently have from NASA.
-
Do any one catch that on NasaTV, "wrong hard drive" installation?
-
Do any one catch that on NasaTV, "wrong hard drive" installation?
Heard that haha. Sounds like that issue was fixed :)
-
Anyone have any understanding of the Dragon's relative GPS and how an unconverged filter fits into the mechanism? In my layman comprehension, it sounds like it is possible that the problem could be with software or hardware based on the info we currently have from NASA.
I think it looks like a typo or wrong data being sent up. Did someone forget the 1 day delay in the launch and didn't update the relevant bits? :D
-
Oops! I hope the fix is that easy.
Good to see though that Dragon safety protocols worked; bodes well for commercial crew.
-
Any implications for cargo with the one day launch delay and (hopefully) one day berthing delay?
I'm thinking particularly of late load items in fridges etc. How long before there's an issue with spoiling?
-
Nasa TV said no implications for the mices(!) or any other cargo. Looks like some incorrect data was entered somewhere along the chain but nice to see the systems catch it and back off. Shame it had to be caught this late in the game though.
-
In the NASA tweet
https://twitter.com/NASA/status/834336113884012544
on the Dragon a dark spot is visible on the top.
Is it a shadow or what ?
-
In the NASA tweet
https://twitter.com/NASA/status/834336113884012544
on the Dragon a dark spot is visible on the top.
Is it a shadow or what ?
That may be an archive photo of a previous rendezvous and it would be a shadow of some part of the ISS.
-
In the NASA tweet
https://twitter.com/NASA/status/834336113884012544
on the Dragon a dark spot is visible on the top.
Is it a shadow or what ?
Yes, from one of the ISS modules.
-
Based on what was just said, it sounds like a prime suspect in the abort and unconverged filter is an incorrect value having been processed by Dragon's computers, that value regarding the vector and position of the ISS. So, plausibly a software issue (possibly human error-related, given Dragon's triple redundancy against cosmic ray bit-flipping).
Just out of interest, how would you fix something like this? I'm presuming that MCC-X at Hawthorne can just upload a revised and error-checked navigational data-set to the Dragon's computers and recommence the program.
-
So does anybody have or know where there is a timeline of loading of propellants and other pre launch events? I heard the callouts but it would be nice to see one list to see how they modified the loading to prevent the copv burst.
-
Speaking of AFTS, I noticed the callout that the first-stage AFTS was safed before the stage went transonic on the re-entry. That was much further out than I had imagined. Is there no FTS at that point or do they revert to the shadow FTS? If no FTS, isn't that a bit soon for the FTS to be safed? Or would it be counterproductive to terminate the stage past that point, from a safety standpoint?
I heard that call-out too. My supposition is that FTS is active when the IIP (instantaneous impact point) of the returning stage is on or near land, and then safed again during final descent once the IIP is safely inside LZ-1 with negligible rate of change, sufficient to ensure that if things go pear-shaped, it'll all be roughly contained within the landing area with no risk to people of other facilities.
If they IIP is in the sea, and the final burn is designed to push it just enough to the LZ, then it might be pretty safe to turn off the FTS.
-
SpaceX Dragon Rendezvous and Docking Waved Off for Today
Posted on February 22, 2017 at 4:38 am by mcsumner.
The SpaceX Dragon cargo spacecraft waved off its planned rendezvous with the International Space Station at 3:25 a.m. EST. Onboard computers triggered the abort after recognizing an incorrect value in data about the location of the space station. Per the re-rendezvous plan built into every mission, the spacecraft automatically reset for another rendezvous and docking attempt in 24 hours.
The spacecraft is in excellent shape with no issues, and the crew aboard the space station is safe. The next rendezvous attempt is targeted for Thursday morning. NASA TV coverage will begin at 4 a.m. with grapple expected around 6 a.m. Installation coverage will begin at 8 a.m. Watch live on NASA TV and online at: http://www.nasa.gov/live.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2017/02/22/spacex-dragon-rendezvous-and-docking-waved-off-for-today/ (https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2017/02/22/spacex-dragon-rendezvous-and-docking-waved-off-for-today/)
Any reason why it must be a 24 hour delay?
I understand that the automatic reset could be for 24 hours, but I would assume they can send up new commands to proceed earlier?
(don't they have to send up new commands anyway to fix the issue? or is there a reason to allow the autonomous code run it's course - maybe they are deliberately waiting just to verify the autonomous code in real life?)
-
Just guessing, but I imagine it would be more fuel efficient to circle the ISS slowly than quickly. They could of course choose not to circle the ISS, but another reason for the 24 hours is to allow lots of time to solve unknown problem.
-
Just guessing, but I imagine it would be more fuel efficient to circle the ISS slowly than quickly. They could of course choose not to circle the ISS, but another reason for the 24 hours is to allow lots of time to solve unknown problem.
rescheduling activities on the ISS for the crew may also play a role...
-
Just guessing, but I imagine it would be more fuel efficient to circle the ISS slowly than quickly. They could of course choose not to circle the ISS, but another reason for the 24 hours is to allow lots of time to solve unknown problem.
rescheduling activities on the ISS for the crew may also play a role...
It's the crew schedule, yes.
-
Was the incorrect data coming from the ISS or pre-loaded into Dragon computers?
-
Just guessing, but I imagine it would be more fuel efficient to circle the ISS slowly than quickly. They could of course choose not to circle the ISS, but another reason for the 24 hours is to allow lots of time to solve unknown problem.
If the dragon is sitting just below the station and moving at the same speed it will move around the station once per orbit.
-
I've got a question about the second stage reentry. In the launch updates thread, these two reentry map images were posted (click the quote links to see the images):
This was from Raul's hazard map (https://goo.gl/umnY2Q). If you zoom out far enough to see Australia, you'll see the re-entry hazard zone for the upper stage. I have seen no information on the accuracy of the actual reentry. This was just the planned area.
Something like this orbit
The first is the NOTAM map showing a region extending down to 61 deg South.
The second is the ISS orbital track showing paths down to the nominal 51.6 deg South. The thing is, that reentry is NOT something like that orbit, for reasonable values of "something" :)
Why was the reentry zone planned for so much further south than the orbital track? 10 degrees of inclination is nothing to sneeze at. Was SpaceX doing a delta-V / plane-change test with their second stage, after Dragon sep?
-
I've got a question about the second stage reentry. *snip*
Look at the 2nd stage re-entry track in the spaceflight101 article. http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/falcon-9-deorbit-burn-seen-over-iran-kuwait/
-
Look at the 2nd stage re-entry track in the spaceflight101 article. http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/falcon-9-deorbit-burn-seen-over-iran-kuwait/
I assume you're talking about this image (http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2017/02/F9-SpX-10-Ground-Track.jpg). That's a ground track, not a reentry zone. Those video views were due to fuel dumps and the very brief deorbit burn. Reentry would still be very far downrange -- recall the Shuttle deorbit burns which would take place near Australia, yet land in US? Thank you, but my question stands :)
-
Look at the 2nd stage re-entry track in the spaceflight101 article. http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/falcon-9-deorbit-burn-seen-over-iran-kuwait/
I assume you're talking about this image (http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2017/02/F9-SpX-10-Ground-Track.jpg). That's a ground track, not a reentry zone. Those video views were due to fuel dumps and the very brief deorbit burn. Reentry would still be very far downrange -- recall the Shuttle deorbit burns which would take place near Australia, yet land in US? Thank you, but my question stands :)
So, your question revolves around the reentry zone going further south than the inclination of the station. It looks like the zone is also much wider than it needs to be. I think somebody just had to calculate the worst case scenario for the reentry zone, such as if it lost TVC during the burn but didn't shut off the engine, how far off track could it go before it ran out of fuel. I think you are just reading too much into it.
-
Look at the 2nd stage re-entry track in the spaceflight101 article. http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/falcon-9-deorbit-burn-seen-over-iran-kuwait/
I assume you're talking about this image (http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2017/02/F9-SpX-10-Ground-Track.jpg). That's a ground track, not a reentry zone. Those video views were due to fuel dumps and the very brief deorbit burn. Reentry would still be very far downrange -- recall the Shuttle deorbit burns which would take place near Australia, yet land in US? Thank you, but my question stands :)
Do the ground track image and the "something like this orbit" image match up?
-
Just guessing, but I imagine it would be more fuel efficient to circle the ISS slowly than quickly. They could of course choose not to circle the ISS, but another reason for the 24 hours is to allow lots of time to solve unknown problem.
I believe that the Dragon circled the ISS once per orbit.
There is no "fast" vs "slow" circling, only the relative distance.
They have to keep the same orbital period, which means the same semi-major axis. The orbit is just given some ellipticity and the distance can be made to stay relatively constant without further maneuvering.
-
Interestingly if you look here: https://www.n2yo.com/?s=42053|25544 (https://www.n2yo.com/?s=42053|25544) dragon and iss are still far apart. (not sure how many miles, no idea how to translate lat/lng to miles)
Edit: 273.5 km according to http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html (http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html).
Edit 2: this is not taking into account altitude.
-
Anyone know if the first stage is still at LZ-1?
-
Interestingly if you look here: https://www.n2yo.com/?s=42053|25544 (https://www.n2yo.com/?s=42053|25544) dragon and iss are still far apart. (not sure how many miles, no idea how to translate lat/lng to miles)
Edit: 273.5 km according to http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html (http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html).
Edit 2: this is not taking into account altitude.
Sites like n2yo just take the published TLEs and propagate "current" positions based on the data. They are only accurate to the extent they use current and accurate TLE data, which is typically generated by Space Command. Sometimes n2yo and similar sites are on the spot and use the absolute latest data but often - expecially for maneuvering spacecraft - they are more likely to be wrong than right. This has to do with how often the site retrieves the latest public TLEs as well as how often Space Command generates them, which in turn generates how often tracking assets are available, how interested Space Command and its government customers are in the spacecraft, etc.
-
The first is the NOTAM map showing a region extending down to 61 deg South. The second is the ISS orbital track showing paths down to the nominal 51.6 deg South. The thing is, that reentry is NOT something like that orbit, for reasonable values of "something" :) Why was the reentry zone planned for so much further south than the orbital track? 10 degrees of inclination is nothing to sneeze at. Was SpaceX doing a delta-V / plane-change test with their second stage, after Dragon sep?
Do the ground track image and the "something like this orbit" image match up?
Ha, NO, hence the question :)
So, your question revolves around the reentry zone going further south than the inclination of the station. It looks like the zone is also much wider than it needs to be. I think somebody just had to calculate the worst case scenario for the reentry zone, such as if it lost TVC during the burn but didn't shut off the engine, how far off track could it go before it ran out of fuel. I think you are just reading too much into it.
If that was the case, I would expect an extremely wide impact zone that straddled the nominal orbit track, not a zone biased in one direction.
Nobody else is jumping in on this 10-deg plane change with delta-V calcs and whatnot, so I guess I am reading into it.
-
I would if I understood it.
-
In a worst case scenario, do we know how many berthing attempts the Dragon's fuel capacity can provide for, before having insufficient propellant left for a successful return to Earth?
-
In a worst case scenario, do we know how many berthing attempts the Dragon's fuel capacity can provide for, before having insufficient propellant left for a successful return to Earth?
I can't answer that, but would like to add to it- is it technically or procedurally possible to adjust the ISS's own position to make up for a shortfall in performance of a VV?
-
I've got a question about the second stage reentry. In the launch updates thread, these two reentry map images were posted (click the quote links to see the images):
This was from Raul's hazard map (https://goo.gl/umnY2Q). If you zoom out far enough to see Australia, you'll see the re-entry hazard zone for the upper stage. I have seen no information on the accuracy of the actual reentry. This was just the planned area.
Something like this orbit
The first is the NOTAM map showing a region extending down to 61 deg South.
The second is the ISS orbital track showing paths down to the nominal 51.6 deg South. The thing is, that reentry is NOT something like that orbit, for reasonable values of "something" :)
Why was the reentry zone planned for so much further south than the orbital track? 10 degrees of inclination is nothing to sneeze at. Was SpaceX doing a delta-V / plane-change test with their second stage, after Dragon sep?
I agree that without a maneuver, the impact zone should not extend south of the southernmost ground track. A back of the envelope calculation makes a maneuver look possible. To change orbital plane by 10 degrees will take something like 1000 m/s of delta V. But the second stage is quite light after separating from Dragon, something like 5000 kg. Given the vacuum thrust of 911kn, that's something like 182 m/s (18G) acceleration. So only a 5-6 second burn would be required, and it's certainly possible they had that type of reserves.
-
Maybe the deorbit burn was to depletion and out of plane. They might be trying to get an accurate measurement of second stage performance. By burning out of plane they would reduce the possibility of the re-entry trajectory being too steep and short if the remaining prop reserves were more than anticipated. The width of the exclusion zone could reflect uncertainty of the quantity of remaining prop in a worst case scenario.
-
Maybe the deorbit burn was to depletion and out of plane. They might be trying to get an accurate measurement of second stage performance. By burning out of plane they would reduce the possibility of the re-entry trajectory being too steep and short if the remaining prop reserves were more than anticipated. The width of the exclusion zone could reflect uncertainty of the quantity of remaining prop in a worst case scenario.
Does SpaceX have the capability of monitoring a re-entry burn on the other side of the planet?
What does it mean that the re-entry trajectory being too steep? What does "too steep" mean in this context?
Also, a burn out of plane would mean no re-entry if there was not sufficient prop.
-
Maybe the deorbit burn was to depletion and out of plane. They might be trying to get an accurate measurement of second stage performance. By burning out of plane they would reduce the possibility of the re-entry trajectory being too steep and short if the remaining prop reserves were more than anticipated. The width of the exclusion zone could reflect uncertainty of the quantity of remaining prop in a worst case scenario.
Does SpaceX have the capability of monitoring a re-entry burn on the other side of the planet?
TDRSS?
What does it mean that the re-entry trajectory being too steep? What does "too steep" mean in this context?
That the stage might fall short of the designated zone if the burn was longer than anticipated.
Also, a burn out of plane would mean no re-entry if there was not sufficient prop.
True. That would have to be factored into how far out of plane the burn would be.
-
In a worst case scenario, do we know how many berthing attempts the Dragon's fuel capacity can provide for, before having insufficient propellant left for a successful return to Earth?
I can't answer that, but would like to add to it- is it technically or procedurally possible to adjust the ISS's own position to make up for a shortfall in performance of a VV?
Yes, it is possible. There were real plans in case for a shuttle underperformance. It went by the name of "Join Underspeed Recovery", JURe. It was discussed at least here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6156.msg165806#msg165806
edit:
Just to add, I doubt any real plans exist for these commercial or Russian visiting vehicle launches. Shuttle was a special case.
-
Does SpaceX have the capability of monitoring a re-entry burn on the other side of the planet?
TDRSS?
Spacex doesn't use TDRSS. There are two USN stations on the Australian west coast and that's who Spacex uses.
-
Does SpaceX have the capability of monitoring a re-entry burn on the other side of the planet?
TDRSS?
Spacex doesn't use TDRSS. There are two USN stations on the Australian west coast and that's who Spacex uses.
Not even for Dragon?
45 seconds into this video, an avionics intern says otherwise.
https://youtu.be/wEduiMyl0ko?t=45s
-
Does SpaceX have the capability of monitoring a re-entry burn on the other side of the planet?
TDRSS?
Spacex doesn't use TDRSS. There are two USN stations on the Australian west coast and that's who Spacex uses.
Not even for Dragon?
45 seconds into this video, an avionics intern says otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEduiMyl0ko?t=45s
We are talking about the Falcon
-
Following up on my question earlier in this thread:
What are the ISS program constraints on this Dragon launch?
There's a small high-beta angle docking/berthing cut-out Feb. 21-24.
<snip>
Currently, a Dragon launch on the 18th puts capture and berthing on the 20th.
In case of further launch delay, would the launch be delayed to the 23rd, placing capture and berthing on the 25th, after a 2-day ISS rendezvous?
Or would the launch occur on the next day that ISS orbital mechanics allow, Dragon would pursue a 2 days rendezvous with the station, and then loiter a few kilometers away from ISS until the high-beta angle cut-out is over?
Or, are there other options, such as a 3 or more day rendezvous?
Can the high-beta angle cut-out be whittled down via analysis?
There was some interesting information and discussion that followed this post on this thread--thank you, NSF members!
To my knowledge, my question regarding capture and berthing during the high-beta angle cut-out was not answered. What was the solution?
(Launch occurred on 2/19 UTC. Capture and berthing occurred on 2/23 UTC, within the cut-out.)
Thank you.
-
I've got a question about the second stage reentry. In the launch updates thread, these two reentry map images were posted (click the quote links to see the images):
This was from Raul's hazard map (https://goo.gl/umnY2Q). If you zoom out far enough to see Australia, you'll see the re-entry hazard zone for the upper stage. I have seen no information on the accuracy of the actual reentry. This was just the planned area.
Something like this orbit
The first is the NOTAM map showing a region extending down to 61 deg South.
The second is the ISS orbital track showing paths down to the nominal 51.6 deg South. The thing is, that reentry is NOT something like that orbit, for reasonable values of "something" :)
Why was the reentry zone planned for so much further south than the orbital track? 10 degrees of inclination is nothing to sneeze at. Was SpaceX doing a delta-V / plane-change test with their second stage, after Dragon sep?
I agree that without a maneuver, the impact zone should not extend south of the southernmost ground track. A back of the envelope calculation makes a maneuver look possible. To change orbital plane by 10 degrees will take something like 1000 m/s of delta V. But the second stage is quite light after separating from Dragon, something like 5000 kg. Given the vacuum thrust of 911kn, that's something like 182 m/s (18G) acceleration. So only a 5-6 second burn would be required, and it's certainly possible they had that type of reserves.
What I additionally found, there were several little confusing modifications of S2 debris area (http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/msi/query_results.jsp?MSI_queryType=BroadcastWarning&MSI_generalFilterType=Category&MSI_generalFilterValue=P&MSI_additionalFilterType1=NumberRange&MSI_additionalFilterType2=-999&MSI_additionalFilterValue1=528_2017%3A609_2017&MSI_additionalFilterValue2=-999&MSI_outputOptionType1=SortBy&MSI_outputOptionType2=-999&MSI_outputOptionValue1=Number_ASC&MSI_outputOptionValue2=-999).
Launch date 18 Feb, alternatively 19 Feb:
HYDROPAC 528/2017 (http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/msi/query_results.jsp?MSI_queryType=BroadcastWarning&MSI_generalFilterType=Category&MSI_generalFilterValue=P&MSI_additionalFilterType1=SpecificNumber&MSI_additionalFilterType2=-999&MSI_additionalFilterValue1=528_2017&MSI_additionalFilterValue2=-999&MSI_outputOptionType1=SortBy&MSI_outputOptionType2=-999&MSI_outputOptionValue1=Number_ASC&MSI_outputOptionValue2=-999) - 13 Feb 04:01 UTC - bounded area with higher then ISS inclination
HYDROPAC 556/2017 (http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/msi/query_results.jsp?MSI_queryType=BroadcastWarning&MSI_generalFilterType=Category&MSI_generalFilterValue=P&MSI_additionalFilterType1=SpecificNumber&MSI_additionalFilterType2=-999&MSI_additionalFilterValue1=556_2017&MSI_additionalFilterValue2=-999&MSI_outputOptionType1=SortBy&MSI_outputOptionType2=-999&MSI_outputOptionValue1=Number_ASC&MSI_outputOptionValue2=-999) - 15 Feb 20:45 UTC - area within 150 miles of trackline joining - with higher then ISS inclination
HYDROPAC 592/2017 (http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/msi/query_results.jsp?MSI_queryType=BroadcastWarning&MSI_generalFilterType=Category&MSI_generalFilterValue=P&MSI_additionalFilterType1=SpecificNumber&MSI_additionalFilterType2=-999&MSI_additionalFilterValue1=592_2017&MSI_additionalFilterValue2=-999&MSI_outputOptionType1=SortBy&MSI_outputOptionType2=-999&MSI_outputOptionValue1=Number_ASC&MSI_outputOptionValue2=-999) - 17 Feb 17:32 UTC - bounded area with ISS inclination - consistent with observed groundtrack (http://spaceflight101.com/dragon-spx10/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2017/02/F9-SpX-10-Ground-Track.jpg).
Launch date 19 Feb, alternatively 21 Feb:
HYDROPAC 601/2017 (http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/msi/query_results.jsp?MSI_queryType=BroadcastWarning&MSI_generalFilterType=Category&MSI_generalFilterValue=P&MSI_additionalFilterType1=SpecificNumber&MSI_additionalFilterType2=-999&MSI_additionalFilterValue1=601_2017&MSI_additionalFilterValue2=-999&MSI_outputOptionType1=SortBy&MSI_outputOptionType2=-999&MSI_outputOptionValue1=Number_ASC&MSI_outputOptionValue2=-999) - 18 Feb 16:02 UTC - bounded area with ISS inclination
HYDROPAC 602/2017 (http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/msi/query_results.jsp?MSI_queryType=BroadcastWarning&MSI_generalFilterType=Category&MSI_generalFilterValue=P&MSI_additionalFilterType1=SpecificNumber&MSI_additionalFilterType2=-999&MSI_additionalFilterValue1=602_2017&MSI_additionalFilterValue2=-999&MSI_outputOptionType1=SortBy&MSI_outputOptionType2=-999&MSI_outputOptionValue1=Number_ASC&MSI_outputOptionValue2=-999) - 18 Feb 18:42 UTC - again area within 150 miles of trackline joining - still with higher then ISS inclination
HYDROPAC 608/2017 (http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/msi/query_results.jsp?MSI_queryType=BroadcastWarning&MSI_generalFilterType=Category&MSI_generalFilterValue=P&MSI_additionalFilterType1=SpecificNumber&MSI_additionalFilterType2=-999&MSI_additionalFilterValue1=608_2017&MSI_additionalFilterValue2=-999&MSI_outputOptionType1=SortBy&MSI_outputOptionType2=-999&MSI_outputOptionValue1=Number_ASC&MSI_outputOptionValue2=-999) - 19 Feb 16:28 UTC - HYDROPAC 602/17 operations completed
HYDROPAC 609/2017 (http://msi.nga.mil/NGAPortal/msi/query_results.jsp?MSI_queryType=BroadcastWarning&MSI_generalFilterType=Category&MSI_generalFilterValue=P&MSI_additionalFilterType1=SpecificNumber&MSI_additionalFilterType2=-999&MSI_additionalFilterValue1=609_2017&MSI_additionalFilterValue2=-999&MSI_outputOptionType1=SortBy&MSI_outputOptionType2=-999&MSI_outputOptionValue1=Number_ASC&MSI_outputOptionValue2=-999) - 19 Feb 16:38 UTC - HYDROPAC 601/17 operations completed
So we have two areas and one trackline (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1GwvMWuWyokeVZJWqy9nNMH_Pug4&ll=-46.180016800695455%2C130.5689578003018&z=3) with two different inclinations. Because area with ISS inclination is consistent with observed groundtrack over Saudi Arabia, other area could be wrong or alternative in case of plane change maneuver, which probably wasn't performed.
-
I don't think anyone posted this yet, poor quality technically but gives a graphic sense of how fast the stage is still moving close to touchdown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYCLgkdtj00
-
Did we ever find out when the 1st stage was moved from LZ-1? I spotted the transporter at pad 39A on Wednesday, so I wondered if it had already been moved.
-
In a worst case scenario, do we know how many berthing attempts the Dragon's fuel capacity can provide for, before having insufficient propellant left for a successful return to Earth?
I can't answer that, but would like to add to it- is it technically or procedurally possible to adjust the ISS's own position to make up for a shortfall in performance of a VV?
Yes, it is possible. There were real plans in case for a shuttle underperformance. It went by the name of "Join Underspeed Recovery", JURe. It was discussed at least here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6156.msg165806#msg165806
edit:
Just to add, I doubt any real plans exist for these commercial or Russian visiting vehicle launches. Shuttle was a special case.
It has to be possible, but it's kind of just as silly as the supertanker maneuvering because the mail boat can't quite make it close enough. such a big contrast in fuel usage to move ISS instead of Dragon....
-
Not sure that this has been posted for this flight already.
Flight Club has visually modeled the launch and landing trajectory of several SpaceX missions.
The link below is for CRS-10.
Impressive visuals, particularly the plots on the right side of the screen!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSmDa6z9Gh8
-
In a worst case scenario, do we know how many berthing attempts the Dragon's fuel capacity can provide for, before having insufficient propellant left for a successful return to Earth?
I may be wrong but I think Dragon starts out in an parallel intercept orbit with the same period but different perigee and apogee that leads it to observationally appear to be orbiting the ISS. All orbits change over a period of months and years. Manoeuvring burns are needed for the Dragon to pull out of the 'racetrack' into a slow approach to the station.
-
In a worst case scenario, do we know how many berthing attempts the Dragon's fuel capacity can provide for, before having insufficient propellant left for a successful return to Earth?
I may be wrong but I think Dragon starts out in an parallel intercept orbit with the same period but different perigee and apogee that leads it to observationally appear to be orbiting the ISS. All orbits change over a period of months and years. Manoeuvring burns are needed for the Dragon to pull out of the 'racetrack' into a slow approach to the station.
That's not how it's done.
That would require additional phasing on the part of the ISS, among other problems.
Dragon is launched into a coplanar lower orbit with a shorter period. It "catches up" to the ISS.
Your idea about an "orbit with the same period but different perigee and apogee" is what happened to the Dragon after the approach abort. It does then "appear to be orbiting the ISS", going around once per orbit.
-
Here's a timelapse video of the STP-H5 installation by Spaceflight101:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stQvMaz-5gY (https://youtube.com/watch?v=stQvMaz-5gY)
Published on 3 Mar 2017: Sped-up video from the International Space Station showing robotic activity from February 26 through 28, covering the removal of the STP-H5 payload pallet from the Trunk Section of the Dragon SpX-10 spacecraft, the removal & temp-stowage of the OPALS payload and the installation of STP-H5 in OPAL's place on Express Logistics Carrier 1.
This is a fantastic video, and worth sharing on social media. Play it at double speed (via settings / gear symbol in lower right corner) to move things along at a brisk clip. Absolutely gorgeous shots, and provides the Regular Joe with a peek into what's going on over our heads.
-
In a worst case scenario, do we know how many berthing attempts the Dragon's fuel capacity can provide for, before having insufficient propellant left for a successful return to Earth?
Consider Dragon arrives at the 500 meters distance to ISS. If it then moved at 1m/s directly it would take just 5 minutes to arrive.
Approach speeds are likely in the 0.2m/s range (just an educated guess). That means nearly inconsequential fuel requirements even considering all the intermediary start/stops along the way.
I recall from memory the Dragon de orbit burn is 100m/s.
I would be really surprised if Dragon doesn't have enough hydrazine for ten attempts at normal speeds.
Additional consideration, if fuel were short, Dragon could use even slower speeds to save fuel. Let the approach take 2 hours.
Of course that's just a poorly educated guess.
-
In a worst case scenario, do we know how many berthing attempts the Dragon's fuel capacity can provide for, before having insufficient propellant left for a successful return to Earth?
Consider Dragon arrives at the 500 meters distance to ISS. If it then moved at 1m/s directly it would take just 5 minutes to arrive.
Approach speeds are likely in the 0.2m/s range (just an educated guess). That means nearly inconsequential fuel requirements even considering all the intermediary start/stops along the way.
I recall from memory the Dragon de orbit burn is 100m/s.
I would be really surprised if Dragon doesn't have enough hydrazine for ten attempts at normal speeds.
Additional consideration, if fuel were short, Dragon could use even slower speeds to save fuel. Let the approach take 2 hours.
Of course that's just a poorly educated guess.
Any attempt to do linear calculations on orbital maneuvers is futile. NOTHING up there works like that.
Plus we can safely assume that the biggest limitation is not fuel. The abort started a procedure for another attempt the next day, 24 hours out. They will run out of time and patience long before they run out of fuel.
-
In a worst case scenario, do we know how many berthing attempts the Dragon's fuel capacity can provide for, before having insufficient propellant left for a successful return to Earth?
Consider Dragon arrives at the 500 meters distance to ISS. If it then moved at 1m/s directly it would take just 5 minutes to arrive.
Approach speeds are likely in the 0.2m/s range (just an educated guess). That means nearly inconsequential fuel requirements even considering all the intermediary start/stops along the way.
I recall from memory the Dragon de orbit burn is 100m/s.
I would be really surprised if Dragon doesn't have enough hydrazine for ten attempts at normal speeds.
Additional consideration, if fuel were short, Dragon could use even slower speeds to save fuel. Let the approach take 2 hours.
Of course that's just a poorly educated guess.
Any attempt to do linear calculations on orbital maneuvers is futile. NOTHING up there works like that.
Plus we can safely assume that the biggest limitation is not fuel. The abort started a procedure for another attempt the next day, 24 hours out. They will run out of time and patience long before they run out of fuel.
Are my assumptions about fuel consumption actually wrong or you're just pointing out that other resources / limits would run out before they make that many approach attempts (which I agree with) ? I would appreciate a more educational answer rather than to censure the non rocket engineer trying to thing. After all I did say it was a poorly educated guess.
Yes, the bottom line is there's an implicit assumption that such problems won't repeat themselves consecutive times. They should be really rare such that even single approach problems would happen less than 10% of the time. But that wasn't the question.
-
The answer to all of your questions is yes
The math is not extremely high level, but it's not linear. You can't divide distance by time to get velocity. All velocities are perturbations to the ~7 km/sec orbital velocity and everything rotates every orbit.
Yes there are other considerations
I don't know the fuel capacity and total delta-V capability. While some here do, that's not the limit.
But like the wise owl in the 1960's Tootsie Pop ad, our answer to your initial question is "two" 😉
-
What might help your understanding is to remember that all these objects are in elliptical orbits around the Earth (counting a circle as a special ellipse). At perigee (closest to Earth), an object in an elliptical orbit moves faster than an object in a circular orbit at the same height. At apogee (furthest from Earth) an object moves slower than an object in a circular orbit.
If you change velocity at perigee that changes the altitude of apogee (highest point), which is clear on the other side of the planet. And vice versa. If you were in a circular orbit and you sped up, you'd now be in an elliptical orbit, at the perigee.
What all this means is that when you accelerate toward the space station, you are now in a different orbit. If you miss it, you'll gradually move higher above the Earth, moving slower, and it'll pass under you and leave you behind. By the time of your next perigee, it'll be way ahead of you.
Since the orbit time of the space station is 90 minutes, anything that happens in a small fraction of that time can generally ignore the orbital effects. Five minutes is probably fairly safe, assuming you do some course correcting when you get close. But 25 minutes is probably not safe. (It could be a fun problem to work out the exact amounts of error involved.)
-
What might help your understanding is to remember that all these objects are in elliptical orbits around the Earth (counting a circle as a special ellipse). At perigee (closest to Earth), an object in an elliptical orbit moves faster than an object in a circular orbit at the same height. At apogee (furthest from Earth) an object moves slower than an object in a circular orbit.
If you change velocity at perigee that changes the altitude of apogee (highest point), which is clear on the other side of the planet. And vice versa. If you were in a circular orbit and you sped up, you'd now be in an elliptical orbit, at the perigee.
What all this means is that when you accelerate toward the space station, you are now in a different orbit. If you miss it, you'll gradually move higher above the Earth, moving slower, and it'll pass under you and leave you behind. By the time of your next perigee, it'll be way ahead of you.
Since the orbit time of the space station is 90 minutes, anything that happens in a small fraction of that time can generally ignore the orbital effects. Five minutes is probably fairly safe, assuming you do some course correcting when you get close. But 25 minutes is probably not safe. (It could be a fun problem to work out the exact amounts of error involved.)
One of the most counter intuitive things about orbital maneuvers is that if you do a prograde burn forward, you actually will be moving more slowly relative to an object in the same orbit that didn't do that burn. So to catch up to an object ahead of you, you born retrograde, to slow down to allow an object behind you to catch up, you burn prograde. Then once you've rendezvoused to within a few hundred meters, you null out your relative velocities, and then more or less you can translate to docking in a more intuitive manner.
-
One of the most counter intuitive things about orbital maneuvers is that if you do a prograde burn forward, you actually will be moving more slowly relative to an object in the same orbit that didn't do that burn. So to catch up to an object ahead of you, you born retrograde, to slow down to allow an object behind you to catch up, you burn prograde. Then once you've rendezvoused to within a few hundred meters, you null out your relative velocities, and then more or less you can translate to docking in a more intuitive manner.
On average, yes, you'll be moving slower, but immediately after your burn, you'll be moving faster because you are at the perigee of your new orbit (assuming the original orbit was circular). This is why you can ignore the orbital effects on a time scale that's small compared to your orbital period.
-
We're we able to see if they kept the rocket horizontal as it climbed the launch mount hill or did they let it go slightly inverted?
If it was kept horizontal they must have modified the late load vehicle because it would be much higher above the tracks.
I don't know if we got an answer to the above question in this thread, but I found the following discussion from a couple years ago that says the vehicle is kept roughly level.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36100.msg1390980#msg1390980
-
We're we able to see if they kept the rocket horizontal as it climbed the launch mount hill or did they let it go slightly inverted?
If it was kept horizontal they must have modified the late load vehicle because it would be much higher above the tracks.
I don't know if we got an answer to the above question in this thread, but I found the following discussion from a couple years ago that says the vehicle is kept roughly level.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36100.msg1390980#msg1390980
The text on that link includes
There is a hydraulic system to keep the vehicle "roughly level" as it goes up the ramp to the pad. This is not intrinsically necessary, but they raise the payload end to keep it from hitting the ground as the rocket transitions from level to the ramp.
The 39A TE will retract all the way back to horizontal prior to launch. This is "a big benefit" with the enhanced Merlins running at 100%. This will be for both the Heavies and the F9 "single stick".
We know that the second statement is not what happened with the TEL at LC-39A for CRS-10 and won't be true for future launches. Both details, the timing and angle, are at best modified since that June 2015 post.
That says we cannot rely on the first statement.
-
Well, if we do the geometry we can figure out what angle is necessary to keep the fairing from hitting the ground. It's probably a safe bet the TEL hydraulic system allows at least that amount of levelling.
Of course, if the math shows that 0 degrees is sufficient to keep the fairing from scraping the ground, then perhaps the whole levelling system was omitted. But if not, then there definitely has to be *some* truth to the first statement.
-
Lights at LC-39A are on. Did SpaceX keep the xenon lights that lit up the Shuttle?
the range owned the lights
-
Lights at LC-39A are on. Did SpaceX keep the xenon lights that lit up the Shuttle?
xenon lights? Interesting. Xenon lights are typically not used as floodlights but in applications that require a high CRI... I did some research but I cannot find more details why xenon lights were (are?) used
-
Lights at LC-39A are on. Did SpaceX keep the xenon lights that lit up the Shuttle?
xenon lights? Interesting. Xenon lights are typically not used as floodlights but in applications that require a high CRI... I did some research but I cannot find more details why xenon lights were (are?) used
Given the age and application, I would expect they'd be fairly standard industrial Mercury Vapour lamps - not Xenon.. Just FWIW.
-
Lights at LC-39A are on. Did SpaceX keep the xenon lights that lit up the Shuttle?
xenon lights? Interesting. Xenon lights are typically not used as floodlights but in applications that require a high CRI... I did some research but I cannot find more details why xenon lights were (are?) used
Given the age and application, I would expect they'd be fairly standard industrial Mercury Vapour lamps - not Xenon.. Just FWIW.
C'mon, guys. A quick Google search will confirm NASA used xenon lights.
Now back to our SpX-10 discussion.
-
A birthday surprise arrived with @SpaceX Dragon, hidden by my teammates until 27 Feb in collusion with Houston! You can not trust anyone ;)
https://twitter.com/thom_astro/status/841042883721408513]https://twitter.com/thom_astro/status/841042883721408513[/url]
Possibly the second saxophone in space. There are photos of the late Ron McNair playing a soprano sax on STS-41-B (and it was presumably also aboard the ill fated STS-51-L). Article here: http://www.kurtheisigmusic.com/sax-in-space/
-
A quick return cargo question -- I read that when Dragon leaves the ISS there will be some material placed in the un-pressurized trunk. How does that work? Isn't the trunk jettisoned before entry exposing the heat shield? Is that just a way of disposing junk?
-
A quick return cargo question -- I read that when Dragon leaves the ISS there will be some material placed in the un-pressurized trunk. How does that work? Isn't the trunk jettisoned before entry exposing the heat shield? Is that just a way of disposing junk?
Yeah the trunk is jettisoned before re entry. The items placed in the trunk are meant to be disposed by burning up in the atmosphere.
-
Per a spaceflightnow story, 104 kg of EVA equipment was brought home on Dragon. Does anyone (hi, Pete?) know what that was? Substantial - sounds like an EMU or at least a PLSS or HUT or something
Would it have been the leaky Parmitano / Kopra suit equipment, maybe? Or would that have come down on CRS-9?
-
I hadn't seen any of these "Flight Club" videos before, don't recall them being mentioned here, though there are a lot of them. The animations are fun to watch, especially for RTLS missions like this one.
Being able to watch the various burns occur along the trajectory, their timing with respect to velocity, the RTLS maneuver makes so much more sense now, seeing it like this. It really is quite elegant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSmDa6z9Gh8
-
I hadn't seen any of these "Flight Club" videos before, don't recall them being mentioned here, though there are a lot of them. The animations are fun to watch, especially for RTLS missions like this one.
Being able to watch the various burns occur along the trajectory, their timing with respect to velocity, the RTLS maneuver makes so much more sense now, seeing it like this. It really is quite elegant.
For those interested, go to the website: https://flightclub.io/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a18289/choose-your-own-spacex-adventure-with-this-website/