Quote from: simonbp on 10/11/2012 05:08 amThat would be quite a short stripper!Ed made a good point, though. This was the earliest engine-out that resulted in the payload reaching orbit. That's a pretty effective demonstration, and if SpaceX plays their cards right, could really lower their insurance costs for commercial sats.I'm pretty sure that the insurance costs for secondaries is going up after this mission. Even though the primary was successfully delivered to it's destination, future payloads might not be so lucky. You have to look at how close the payload comes to the full capacity of the launcher. The insurance guys are going to set their rates how they wish.
That would be quite a short stripper!Ed made a good point, though. This was the earliest engine-out that resulted in the payload reaching orbit. That's a pretty effective demonstration, and if SpaceX plays their cards right, could really lower their insurance costs for commercial sats.
Quote from: Jim on 10/11/2012 11:34 amIt isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol. Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM? Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.The first attached image shows a poster that the Japanese teams flew on HTV-2 in 2011, made up of a montage of the faces of all those who worked on the vehicle.
It isn't nonsense, it is a breach of protocol. Does MHI do it on HTV, Astrium on ATV or did Boeing on MPLM? Let the work do the talking and don't smuggle a picture of yourself onboard.
I am sorry I have missed this out. Got bussy day at work. Why did They opened Dragon one day before schedule?Thanks in advence
Weren't there stories about engineers and Astronauts sneaking all sorts of things up into the Apollo capsules? Specifically, a ceramic tile with a reduced Warhol drawing in the mylar insulation, and several playboy pictures in the checklists and in a locker on Apollo 12?-Bob
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/11/2012 03:40 amQuote from: Antares on 10/11/2012 03:18 amI don't agree with Jim on flight computers.What specifically?. On the issue of whether branches are possible (or only a go or no-go response is possible)?I think an alternate burn could've been implemented that kept Orbcomm beneath ISS, even with the health check that occurred - and failed; though at some point the idealized brevity that GN&C analyzes collides with the reality of impulse (and error bands) that Propulsion provides.In general, flight computers are limited by their available memory. They can branch go/no-go logic within that space, until it's filled. If-then-else logic is not hard to implement. It's the human management behind it in the months and weeks before liftoff that ensures all possible outcomes will fit into the onboard logic.
Quote from: Antares on 10/11/2012 03:18 amI don't agree with Jim on flight computers.What specifically?. On the issue of whether branches are possible (or only a go or no-go response is possible)?
I don't agree with Jim on flight computers.
Back to the question I wanted to ask anyone that may have any idea why SpaceX has not used this flight to advertise on the dragon.. look at all the pics.. inside and out.. no Spacex.. look at the last fight.. again.. nice white sides and no sign .. I mean U cannot miss the CANADA on the arm.. Did Spacex marketing goof?
Quote from: grythumn on 10/11/2012 03:47 amWeren't there stories about engineers and Astronauts sneaking all sorts of things up into the Apollo capsules? Specifically, a ceramic tile with a reduced Warhol drawing in the mylar insulation, and several playboy pictures in the checklists and in a locker on Apollo 12?-BobOne of my favorite astronauts is known for sneaking a corned beef sandwich onto a Gemini mission. On the other hand, I believe he got in trouble for that one.Quote from: Antares on 10/11/2012 05:08 amQuote from: yg1968 on 10/11/2012 03:40 amQuote from: Antares on 10/11/2012 03:18 amI don't agree with Jim on flight computers.What specifically?. On the issue of whether branches are possible (or only a go or no-go response is possible)?I think an alternate burn could've been implemented that kept Orbcomm beneath ISS, even with the health check that occurred - and failed; though at some point the idealized brevity that GN&C analyzes collides with the reality of impulse (and error bands) that Propulsion provides.In general, flight computers are limited by their available memory. They can branch go/no-go logic within that space, until it's filled. If-then-else logic is not hard to implement. It's the human management behind it in the months and weeks before liftoff that ensures all possible outcomes will fit into the onboard logic.Technologically, I see little reason it shouldn't be possible. I don't know what capabilities SpaceX's computer has, but I presume they gave it more memory than what was available to rockets designed a decade earlier.However, SpaceX already stated in their email update (doesn't appear to be on their website, however) they had a very narrow go/no-go criteria from the primary customer.That right there settles it, but the debate seems to be continuing almost as if that update hadn't been shared.Not to say that your point isn't a meaningful addition even after SpaceX's update clarified whey they didn't continue.Keep in mind, however, we're talking about a $6.5 million secondary. The risk analysis to expand that criteria was probably deemed not worth the cost compared to the risk of specifically this one of many possible off-nominal situations occurring.
Keep in mind, however, we're talking about a $6.5 million secondary. The risk analysis to expand that criteria was probably deemed not worth the cost compared to the risk of specifically this one of many possible off-nominal situations occurring.
The second attached image shows photos of mission trainers (faces blurred by me) that were flown on the Shuttle mid-deck ergometer.Do you disagree with these Jim?
An unmanifested photo was sent down on the last Dragon down, for the SpaceX team, from the crew of the ISS. It makes perfect sense and is a lovely gesture for SpaceX to send a photo back in return. I hope to see more of this humanisation of spaceflight, and more people doing kind and harmless things that make each other happy. This miserable griping about SpaceX being "unprofessional" is both pointless and genuinely unpleasant.More to the point, and as has been pointed out by Space Pete, everybody else does it too.
Not nearly as much as Antares and some of the other NASA folks on this forum. I always look forward to their posts, not some guy with a friggin' log on his shoulder.
Quote from: peter-b on 10/11/2012 05:33 pmAn unmanifested photo was sent down on the last Dragon down, for the SpaceX team, from the crew of the ISS. It makes perfect sense and is a lovely gesture for SpaceX to send a photo back in return. I hope to see more of this humanisation of spaceflight, and more people doing kind and harmless things that make each other happy. This miserable griping about SpaceX being "unprofessional" is both pointless and genuinely unpleasant.More to the point, and as has been pointed out by Space Pete, everybody else does it too.And then soon somebody starts smuggling trinkets on board. Where do you draw the line?
And then soon somebody starts smuggling trinkets on board. Where do you draw the line?
Quote from: Jim on 10/11/2012 06:41 pmAnd then soon somebody starts smuggling trinkets on board. Where do you draw the line?Resorting to slippery slope rhetoric? Really?
