Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 CRS/SpX-10 Dragon - Feb. 19, 2017 - Discussion  (Read 330063 times)

Offline CyndyC

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?
« Last Edit: 10/16/2016 05:25 pm by CyndyC »
"Either lead, follow, or get out of the way." -- quote of debatable origin tweeted by Ted Turner and previously seen on his desk

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4605
  • Liked: 1844
  • Likes Given: 1548
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?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19581
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 7420
  • Likes Given: 993
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."
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
  • US
  • Liked: 4125
  • Likes Given: 2349
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.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19581
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 7420
  • Likes Given: 993
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.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Liked: 1978
  • Likes Given: 447
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  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.

Offline Raul

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Ústí nad Orlicí, CZECH
  • Liked: 626
  • Likes Given: 51
Actually there is granted only two FCC applications...
  Iridium NEXT from VAFB stated like F9-30, but could be changed because is issued before Amos6
and CRS-10 from LC-39A granted recently.
 No other application in this time, however there is still enough time for issuing new one.
« Last Edit: 10/17/2016 10:16 am by Raul »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
  • US
  • Liked: 4125
  • Likes Given: 2349
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
Quote
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
Quote
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/

Quote
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.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
  • US
  • Liked: 4125
  • Likes Given: 2349
Tweet from Stephen Clark
Quote
Michael Freilich/NASA’s Earth science division: Pegasus/CYGNSS launch from Cape now Dec. 12. Next SpaceX station cargo flight around Jan. 15

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4343
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2581
  • Likes Given: 531
Actually there is granted only two FCC applications...
  Iridium NEXT from VAFB stated like F9-30, but could be changed because is issued before Amos6
and CRS-10 from LC-39A 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.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2016 04:18 am by Kabloona »

Offline DOCinCT

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.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
  • US
  • Liked: 4125
  • Likes Given: 2349
Tweet from James Dean
Quote
NASA refers to next SpaceX cargo resupply mission to ISS (SpaceX-10) as hopefully in the spring.

Tweet from Jeff Foust
Quote
Scimemi: SpaceX will have to prove to NASA it’s safe to fly before we start flying CRS missions again.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4605
  • Liked: 1844
  • Likes Given: 1548
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.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline mainmind

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 28
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/

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.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5040
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1384
  • Likes Given: 599
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/

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.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2912
  • Likes Given: 2249
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/

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.

Offline Nigeluna

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 7
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.

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
  • Liked: 733
  • Likes Given: 8
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.

Offline Nigeluna

  • Member
  • Posts: 27
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 7
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 ... .

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4567
  • US
  • Liked: 4125
  • Likes Given: 2349
No more RTF and AMOS 6 failure speculation in this thread.   This isn't the RTF mission.

Tags: