Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 1 Launch 5 (RazakSat) - July 13/14 (Read 361278 times)

soldeed · « **Reply #300 on:** 07/13/2009 03:04 pm »

Quote from: thomson on 07/13/2009 02:14 pm

According to http://spacefellowship.com/2009/07/13/live-coverage-spacex-falcon-1-flight-5-razaksat/, there are actually 3 sats on-board: RazakSAT and two cube sats (InnoSat and CubeSat).

RazakSAT is 180kg. How big is an average cube sat? Are those two are going to be deployed to the same orbit as primary payload?

If you check that website again, you will see they have corrected themselves on the cubesat issue

Jim · « **Reply #301 on:** 07/13/2009 03:10 pm »

Quote from: ineedalife999 on 07/13/2009 02:58 pm

I believe that the space tracking radars at Kwajelein are used to support the shuttle, as the only other space tracking radar site in the Pacific is on Oahu.

Guam?

William Graham · « **Reply #302 on:** 07/13/2009 03:25 pm »

Quote from: GW_Simulations on 07/13/2009 04:37 am

If the Falcon goes at the start of the window (something Falcon is yet to achieve), and the Shuttle launches on time (at 22:51), then the launches will be nine minutes apart. I believe this will be the shortest ever gap between two orbital launches. I quickly wrote a programme to analyse Jonathan McDowell's launch log, and the closest launches I could find were of a Diamant A and a Voskhod on 8 February 1967; at 09:39 and 10:19 respectively (40 minutes apart). A Thor-Burner had launched earlier on the same day, and all three launches were within 150 minutes of each other. Obviously this analysis does not take into account a number of (failed) launches with no known time.

Shuttle window closes a few seconds after 22:56, so a gap of less than four minutes is possible.

Having rechecked these details, I have found two launches within the space of two minutes, on 18 August 1960: A Thor-Agena at 19:57 followed by a Thor-Ablestar at 19:58.

Art LeBrun · « **Reply #303 on:** 07/13/2009 03:29 pm »

Quote from: GW_Simulations on 07/13/2009 03:25 pm

Quote from: GW_Simulations on 07/13/2009 04:37 am
If the Falcon goes at the start of the window (something Falcon is yet to achieve), and the Shuttle launches on time (at 22:51), then the launches will be nine minutes apart. I believe this will be the shortest ever gap between two orbital launches. I quickly wrote a programme to analyse Jonathan McDowell's launch log, and the closest launches I could find were of a Diamant A and a Voskhod on 8 February 1967; at 09:39 and 10:19 respectively (40 minutes apart). A Thor-Burner had launched earlier on the same day, and all three launches were within 150 minutes of each other. Obviously this analysis does not take into account a number of (failed) launches with no known time.

Shuttle window closes a few seconds after 22:56, so a gap of less than four minutes is possible.

Having rechecked these details, I have found two launches within the space of two minutes, on 18 August 1960: A Thor-Agena at 19:57 followed by a Thor-Ablestar at 19:58.

VAFB with Discoverer 14 followed by AMR with Courier 1A....thanks for the timing information.

ineedalife999 · « **Reply #304 on:** 07/13/2009 03:31 pm »

I thought Guam was a Comms station, but I may be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network

But they can land the shuttle there!

butters · « **Reply #305 on:** 07/13/2009 03:35 pm »

The odds of both vehicles launching on time is rather slim given the weather at KSC and SpaceX still being something of a wildcard from an operational standpoint. Probably better odds that neither launch today.

But that's just me, the proud pessimist. At least when I'm wrong, it's because something good happened...

corrodedNut · « **Reply #306 on:** 07/13/2009 04:58 pm »

SpaceX's webcast page now says that the webcast will start at 3:40pm PDT:

http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php

So coverage will start 20 min before the launch window as they have previously stated.

P.S. It still says flight 4 at the top of the page, but the text is new, as it was not there an hour ago.

corrodedNut · « **Reply #307 on:** 07/13/2009 05:09 pm »

Okay, now the top banner says "Falcon 1: RazakSAT Launch Webcast"

New: SpaceX's main index page now has the link to the webcast:
"Falcon 1: RazakSAT Launch Scheduled Today"

osiossim · « **Reply #308 on:** 07/13/2009 05:29 pm »

Errrr. What is the equvalent tof PDT to CET? What time is this 3:40 PDF in Europe?

William Graham · « **Reply #309 on:** 07/13/2009 05:31 pm »

Quote from: osiossim on 07/13/2009 05:29 pm

Errrr. What is the equvalent tof PDT to CET? What time is this 3:40 PDF in Europe?

22:40 GMT
23:40 BST
00:40 CEST

Almurray1958 · « **Reply #310 on:** 07/13/2009 05:33 pm »

try here http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ for all time zones, also you can set up clocks to compare times in several different locations.

corrodedNut · « **Reply #311 on:** 07/13/2009 05:42 pm »

I forget, did they say the TPS was going to be on this flight or not?

butters · « **Reply #312 on:** 07/13/2009 05:49 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 07/13/2009 05:42 pm

I forget, did they say the TPS was going to be on this flight or not?

Same TPS as Flight 4, whose first stage burned up. New TPS that might enable recovery to debut on Falcon 9/1e.

jabe · « **Reply #313 on:** 07/13/2009 05:50 pm »

Quote from: corrodedNut on 07/13/2009 05:42 pm

I forget, did they say the TPS was going to be on this flight or not?

If i recall they took off the TPS to keep margins high for the launch..just like removing the cubesats

butters · « **Reply #314 on:** 07/13/2009 06:07 pm »

Quote from: jabe on 07/13/2009 05:50 pm

Quote from: corrodedNut on 07/13/2009 05:42 pm
I forget, did they say the TPS was going to be on this flight or not?
If i recall they took off the TPS to keep margins high for the launch..just like removing the cubesats

They removed the cubesats because they added the SoftRide vibration damper at the payload adapter. They wouldn't fly without TPS. The question was (or at least it should have been) whether they beefed up the TPS, and they haven't.

William Graham · « **Reply #315 on:** 07/13/2009 06:10 pm »

Quote from: butters on 07/13/2009 06:07 pm

Quote from: jabe on 07/13/2009 05:50 pm
Quote from: corrodedNut on 07/13/2009 05:42 pm
I forget, did they say the TPS was going to be on this flight or not?
If i recall they took off the TPS to keep margins high for the launch..just like removing the cubesats

They removed the cubesats because they added the SoftRide vibration damper at the payload adapter. They wouldn't fly without TPS.

In this case TPS refers to the recovery TPS (only used if the first stage is being recovered). IIRC, they flew without it on the last launch.

ugordan · « **Reply #316 on:** 07/13/2009 06:11 pm »

Quote from: butters on 07/13/2009 06:07 pm

They wouldn't fly without TPS. The question was (or at least it should have been) whether they beefed up the TPS.

They are flying without recovery hardware on the 1st stage. It's been all posted in this thread already.

butters · « **Reply #317 on:** 07/13/2009 06:15 pm »

I recall Musk saying (paraphrasing) that they flew with recovery hardware (parachutes etc.) on flight 4 and had TPS intended to enable recovery, but it turned out to be insufficient. Since they're not beefing up the TPS for flight 5, makes no sense to fly the recovery hardware.

Nate_Trost · « **Reply #318 on:** 07/13/2009 06:26 pm »

Except I would say: flight 4 worked fine, why change the configuration and remove the recovery hardware?

stockman · « **Reply #319 on:** 07/13/2009 06:33 pm »

Quote from: Nate_Trost on 07/13/2009 06:26 pm

Except I would say: flight 4 worked fine, why change the configuration and remove the recovery hardware?

Why waste the recovery h/w if you know it will burn up anyway?? save it for a flight where you plan to beef up the shielding