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

[llanitedave]

bringing over from updates thread:

Case of go fever.

And that's why some of us love a SpaceX launch!

Shouldn't have started the terminal count if their data review wasn't complete.

And yet, if they had completed the review before T -1min, then a launch would have been possible. What your asking for is that they do what others do, no "rocking the boat" and all that. Stick with the status quo, and all will be fine. What a great future that will bring. 

Who's watching the rocket? And who is reviewing data?

Seriously? They probably have well over a hundred core rocket engineers, and only a handful are actually on console during launch. Also, the rocket is well capable of watching itself.

Oh dear. Going head-to-head with Jim? Sure you wanna do this?

He's been known to be wrong.  HE doesn't know it, but it's happened.

[sugmullun]

  It would seem that SpaceX has conflicting imperatives with every launch, for a while at least.  They want to deliver with every launch attempt for the obvious reasons, but also they want their full-rapid reuse concept to come into being. The latter, it seems to me, would cause them to want to shut down every launch attempt with anomalous readings, maybe considered fine for a launch where the rocket is discarded, but needs to be studied when the the new machinery is going to be reused at least several times. A "cheaply" built and operated system would need to operate with internal conditions less constrained but with wider variations, well understood, and further away from engineering performance limits.

[cro-magnon gramps]

check the times in the lower left hand corner...

edit, sorry, #8 doesn't have the clock... but the Strong Back was retracting/retracted

[Lars_J]

check the times in the lower left hand corner...

edit, sorry, #8 doesn't have the clock... but the Strong Back was retracting/retracted

What is your point? The strongback is retracted minutes before launch.

[rdale]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that yesterday's problems weren't really "problems" at all?

[LouScheffer]

Oh dear. Going head-to-head with Jim? Sure you wanna do this?

He's been known to be wrong.  HE doesn't know it, but it's happened.

Jim represents the Voice of Experience.  This is often, but not always, the same as the Voice of Reason.

[Prober]

bringing over from updates thread:

Case of go fever.

And that's why some of us love a SpaceX launch!

Shouldn't have started the terminal count if their data review wasn't complete.

And yet, if they had completed the review before T -1min, then a launch would have been possible. What your asking for is that they do what others do, no "rocking the boat" and all that. Stick with the status quo, and all will be fine. What a great future that will bring. 

Who's watching the rocket? And who is reviewing data?

Seriously? They probably have well over a hundred core rocket engineers, and only a handful are actually on console during launch. Also, the rocket is well capable of watching itself.

Yes, but you forgot to discount the rocket engineers being on holiday.   We don't know the numbers working or on holiday.

[sugmullun]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that yesterday's problems weren't really "problems" at all?

If that's directed at my post:
No, not necessarily, but I wondered at the second abort, if there was a discussion about whether the risk level was small (always risk, right?) enough to go ahead and launch, but they decided that they wanted to study the issue. I doubt that, but it brought up the idea in my mind that unlike any rocket before, the F9 is going to be more of NASCAR vehicle and less of a dragster, so would need to be engineered with different parameters.

[sugmullun]

Maybe not such a good analogy

[Prober]

For what (little) it is worth, I'm glad they called the abort and ultimately didn't launch. As a slight aside, when the customer gave the okay to extend the window by 20 minutes, can anyone give an explanation of the implications to the payload?

For me this explains Jims comments.   Clearly, the customer or SpaceX or both have pressure to launch.   

What I do not understand is how this would work with the Window they were under.

[Jarnis]

I doubt reusability is a factor yet. Building a track record for the launcher in general is.

This is the second flight of a new rocket. With a Really Really Expensive comsat on top. Fail this, and it may cost them a lot of business at least in the medium term.

Would *you* roll a dice over potentially hundreds of millions if there is clearly a deviation from pre-set values that have been set after careful consideration? Even if the odds were good? The team would have facepalmed hard had they pressed on with some doubt as to the health of the engines and the rocket had gone all Kerbal on them. Better call a timeout, and try again another day.

[Chris Bergin]

Discuss the subject. Stop discussing members.

Football (soccer) analogy "Play the ball, not the man." (Reference to you can wipe someone out and it's no foul providing you play the ball first).

Better explain: Argue the posts, not who's making the posts.

[Nomadd]

Discuss the subject. Stop discussing members.

Football (soccer) analogy "Play the ball, not the man." (Reference to you can wipe someone out and it's no foul providing you play the ball first).

Better explain: Argue the posts, not who's making the posts.

And here I thought football analogies were an American thing.
In making the process more efficient SpaceX chose to start at the bottom and work their way up, as opposed to starting off with traditional processes and trying to refine them. The problems with that are predictable. The results remain to be seen.
 They might screw up more that way, but they seem to learn fast. How right they are will depend on how good they are. Being the manufacturer of so many components most launchers buy or contract should be a huge advantage when they need to figure out what was less than optimal fast.

[Jim]

Minus the clock-is-ticking psychological effects, the procedure seems pretty good.  Say there are 33 minutes left in the launch window.  They get 20 minutes to look for big problems, if none are obvious then start the count at 13:00.

That is just a number game.  Use 30 minutes to look for big things, and start the count at 3:00.  This way you are less susceptible to outside influences.

[ugordan]

That is just a number game.  Use 30 minutes to look for big things, and start the count at 3:00.  This way you are less susceptible to outside influences.

Of all the lengthy sequences in the count, seems to me the engine chilldown is one of the bigger ones and that it wouldn't fit inside 3 min. What would be the alternative, to keep the engines chilling the entire time? Is that healthy for the hardware?

[Jim]

Of all the lengthy sequences in the count, seems to me the engine chilldown is one of the bigger ones and that it wouldn't fit inside 3 min. What would be the alternative, to keep the engines chilling the entire time? Is that healthy for the hardware?

I was just throwing out numbers, 4, 5 or 6, may be better

[pippin]

What makes me a bit curious: for SpaceX with this flight (and the next few to fly) there's more at stake than just a delayed or even lost bird.
If they don't play it safe right now, their business model might be at stake, too.

What SpaceX has been repeatedly communicating is that they want to do things in a more iterative way and be much more efficient than "OldSpace" this way. Here, they have a customer who's clearly interested in making this better efficiency a reality so they are prepared to take quite a risk.

But if SpaceX fails on one of their first commercial flights and the actual reason for the failure turns out to be too relaxed procedures, there will be immense pressure to change these procedures. Let's not forget that launches need to be insured. This alone could mean they'd have to forget about a good number of things they plan to do to reduce cost. Reuse included. It could really tear their business model apart if they get forced to implement the very procedures and limitations they want to do away with.

SpaceX has to be aware of this so somehow I really don't believe they are taking substantial risks right now and my gut feeling would be that they are likely nervous on the conservative side of things with these early flights. Do we really know they were serious about the second attempt and didn't just try to keep the chance of using their window in case their analysis team stumbles about some "stupid us, we don't have a problem"-reason for the shutdown?

[edkyle99]

Case of go fever.
 Shouldn't have started the terminal count if their data review wasn't complete.
Who's watching the rocket? And who is reviewing data?

They didn't succumb to it, but starting the countdown put some extra pressure on the review team.  It is only human nature. I am glad they didn't go and took the conservative path. 

I am wondering if Spacex shouldn't revaluate the length of the terminal count and try to shorten it. More complex vehicles have done it, the shuttle was 9 minutes vs the 13 of a F9.  It helps with launch window management.   It might have an affect on recycle time, but that is a trade that can be done.

I could swear that I've seen Atlas Centaur or Delta 2 countdowns run down purposefully toward a known end of window T-0 while waiting out a technical issue, or weather, despite a red condition with everyone aware that a last moment abort would almost certainly be called.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

Listening to the count(s), they seem a lot less crisp and "rehearsed" than the ULA or shuttle counts, although they seem to hit the milestones just as well.

In my personal experience, having sat in control rooms at KSC and listened to all manner of gab-fests, moments of confusion, and even joking on the net, SpaceX during the SES 8 campaign seems no less "crisp" (whatever that means) than anyone else in this business.  I think your perception is created by the fact that SpaceX actually shared a bit more of the typical countdown chatter on Thanksgiving Day than ULA currently shares during its webcasts.  And thank you for that SpaceX!

 - Ed Kyle

[Joffan]

Listening to the count(s), they seem a lot less crisp and "rehearsed" than the ULA or shuttle counts, although they seem to hit the milestones just as well.

In my personal experience, having sat in control rooms at KSC and listened to all manner of gab-fests, moments of confusion, and even joking on the net, SpaceX during the SES 8 campaign seems no less "crisp" (whatever that means) than anyone else in this business.  I think your perception is created by the fact that SpaceX actually shared a bit more of the typical countdown chatter on Thanksgiving Day than ULA currently shares during its webcasts.  And thank you for that SpaceX!

 - Ed Kyle

Seconded, especially the thanks.