SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - SES-8 - DISCUSSION THREAD

[edkyle99]

I'd understand if it was just me saying "Blimey, that's a lot of venting" before someone experienced posted "Shut up Chris, stop comparing everything to Shuttle!"  But we had engineers on that thread saying "That's not good!" (by reaction). So I don't think it was the magic LOX fairies at work - clearly something was off nominal.

The feeling of "off nominal" was clearly amplified by the sudden slewing away of camera and shutting down of video feed.  It gave the impression that there was something bad, maybe really bad, going on. 

Now, if that feed had continued uninterrupted, no bad impressions!  Just saying.

 - Ed Kyle

[QuantumG]

I'd understand if it was just me saying "Blimey, that's a lot of venting" before someone experienced posted "Shut up Chris, stop comparing everything to Shuttle!"  But we had engineers on that thread saying "That's not good!" (by reaction). So I don't think it was the magic LOX fairies at work - clearly something was off nominal.

The feeling of "off nominal" was clearly amplified by the sudden slewing away of camera and shutting down of video feed.  It gave the impression that there was something bad, maybe really bad, going on. 

Now, if that feed had continued uninterrupted, no bad impressions!  Just saying.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Live streaming of hot fire was to be discontinued last flight, which I think they did, but they released a post-video. The reason is simple "haha! your rocket didn't take off!"

[rcoppola]

I'd understand if it was just me saying "Blimey, that's a lot of venting" before someone experienced posted "Shut up Chris, stop comparing everything to Shuttle!"  But we had engineers on that thread saying "That's not good!" (by reaction). So I don't think it was the magic LOX fairies at work - clearly something was off nominal.

The feeling of "off nominal" was clearly amplified by the sudden slewing away of camera and shutting down of video feed.  It gave the impression that there was something bad, maybe really bad, going on. 

Now, if that feed had continued uninterrupted, no bad impressions!  Just saying.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Live streaming of hot fire was to be discontinued last flight, which I think they did, but they released a post-video. The reason is simple "haha! your rocket didn't take off!"

Can we please not start this again? At least not here?

[Lars_J]

Now, if that feed had continued uninterrupted, no bad impressions!  Just saying.

Uh-huh. Because there weren't assumptions of disaster and bad impressions before the feed cut out. were there?

The more likely situation in retrospect was that this camera (labelled "Maven cam") wasn't supposed to be pointing to SLC-40 in the first place - and when someone from SpaceX saw this commotion here they asked NASA to turn it off. It wasn't supposed to be on in the first place.

[QuantumG]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Live streaming of hot fire was to be discontinued last flight, which I think they did, but they released a post-video. The reason is simple "haha! your rocket didn't take off!"

Can we please not start this again? At least not here?

Start what again?

[rcoppola]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Live streaming of hot fire was to be discontinued last flight, which I think they did, but they released a post-video. The reason is simple "haha! your rocket didn't take off!"

Can we please not start this again? At least not here?

Start what again?

Oh, sorry. The whole debate about what commercial companies should and shouldn't show... when, where and how. There's a thread specifically for that debate.

[QuantumG]

Oh, sorry. The whole debate about what commercial companies should and shouldn't show... when, where and how. There's a thread specifically for that debate.

I agree, that's not where I was going. Just saying that we knew - or should have remembered - that SpaceX was not going to show the hot fire live.

[mr. mark]

Should I dare ask? Are we still on track for the 25th? I sure thought something was off but it seems the hotfire went off ok.

[Chris Bergin]

Should I dare ask? Are we still on track for the 25th? I sure thought something was off but it seems the hotfire went off ok.

I've asked SpaceX....nothing yet, but that's the current NET. LRR will confirm.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Am I the only one who thought that the large amount of LOX in the F9-1.1 1st stage (compared with, say, Delta II), the high humidity and LOX dumps for tank recycling caused such vapor venting - to the extent that it's just normal?  I remember just slightly less venting on the first Soyuz out of Kourou (it was raining on launch day) and the Zenit do have roughly comparable LOX venting too..... someone might be able to answer why the Atlas don't do such thing (or do they)?

[Chris Bergin]

Am I the only one who thought that the large amount of LOX in the F9-1.1 1st stage (compared with, say, Delta II), the high humidity and LOX dumps for tank recycling caused such vapor venting - to the extent that it's just normal? 

Clearly not, because I posted that in L2 before you posted the above.

That's the current thinking. Wasn't a leak, it was high humidity and high winds. Not an official response at this time.

[sdsds]

[...] the current thinking. Wasn't a leak, it was high humidity and high winds. [...]

SpaceX have now responded to us confirming it was a successful test and the venting wasn't a leak or hardware issue, so that's all good.

So what we saw was really atmospheric humidity condensing out as visible clouds of water vapor? All the LOX is fully accounted for, and e.g. the same amount was vented in Florida as was vented in (the dryer air of) California? Wow!

(But if all was going as planned, any idea why the camera owned and operated by NASA was suddenly shifted to point a different direction?)

(And nice how responsive SpaceX are these days!

Indeed, answering your questions seems important to them! That's good to see.

[Chris Bergin]

Yeah, keeping the other issue classed as potentially involved in L2, as I'd rather go with what the official response was. Point is it was a successful test, clearly it was 100 percent humidity at the time (so that fits) and all's good going into LRR and Monday's launch.

That's the key angle from today. Good test. Extra venting was just visually interesting. Still on for the 25th.

Oh and the article, from the live thread:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/11/spacex-falcon-9-v1-1-hot-fire-slc-40/

[Lars_J]

The extra clouds may simply have been a more thorough test (planned or not) of the venting mechanism.

[SpaceXfan]

The extra clouds may simply have been a more thorough test (planned or not) of the venting mechanism.

It's pretty clear what the potential reasons are in the article Chris wrote just above your comment. I would prefer the factual content on these threads, not speculation on your part, thank you.

[Lars_J]

The extra clouds may simply have been a more thorough test (planned or not) of the venting mechanism.

It's pretty clear what the potential reasons are in the article Chris wrote just above your comment. I would prefer the factual content on these threads, not speculation on your part, thank you.

This is the discussion thread, not the update thread.

[TrevorMonty]

(And nice how responsive SpaceX are these days!

Indeed, answering your questions seems important to them! That's good to see.
[/quote]

Best to nip any rumors in the bud.
They don't need any bad rumors floating around. Especially as this is a critical launch for them.

[Chris Bergin]

Yeah, let's not get into a smug fight. It's 5:40am here, England are doing crap in the Ashes (Quantum will be happy) and there's another launch soon

The extra clouds may simply have been a more thorough test (planned or not) of the venting mechanism.

No, that was not one of the reasons (potential or official). Probably best to work with what we know.

(And nice how responsive SpaceX are these days!

Indeed, answering your questions seems important to them! That's good to see.

Best to nip any rumors in the bud.
They don't need any bad rumors floating around. Especially as this is a critical launch for them.

Yeah, that's SpaceX for sure, but being commutative with the media will help them (they really weren't like that for a few years). I would caution against saying "bad rumors", however. Official responses is what you go with, but remember this is the sort of site that gets slightly more indepth coverage and we can provide and present both.

Again, the point I was making was the main angles here are successful test, on for the 25th, because that's all you really need to be informed about. That's hopefully represented in my article, which is where one needs to wear the "don't mess up" hat. The forum (and L2) allow for debate and discussion to get to such conclusions.

[beancounter]

So far so good.  It'll be great if SpaceX pull off both these next launches before the end of the year.  That would be a confidence boost, certainly to the less optimistic on these threads and go some way toward vindicating the growing SpaceX manifest and their ability to deliver.

[sdsds]

So those of us who hastily concluded there must have been an anomaly at the pad owe SpaceX both an apology (I herewith offer mine) and a hearty "Congratulations!" on a successful hot-fire.

In other news about this flight, Peter B. de Selding (@pbdes, SpaceNews Paris Bureau Chief) tweets that, "Insurers are OK with SpaceX explanation of Sept. 29 [...] upper-stage non-re-ignition [as being] caused by frozen fuel lines after O2 exposure. Insulation added for next flight."

The opinions of SES and its insurers really are the ones that matter, eh?

and there's another launch soon

Go Rokot! Go Briz!

(Why do these threads always end up getting hijacked by the Khrunichev fan bois? )