SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Jason 3 - SLC-4E Vandenberg - Jan 17, 2016 - DISCUSSION

[CorvusCorax]

You can actually see one set of solar panels glinting during deployment at 8:36 into this video (sourced from the SpaceX no-host feed). I guess people missed it at the time since they waited over 20 minutes to get a confirmation of that.

From 8:30 to 8:48 in the video -- is that "Jason 2" zooming through the video feed?  There's definitely a 2nd spacecraft visible in relatively close proximity. Jason 2 would be plausible considering the orbital insertion was synced to place Jason3 in orbit right behind its predecessor in order to calibrate its sensors based on Jason2 data (according to press statement)

[Kaputnik]

This might be the worst article I have read yet about a SpaceX launch.  And it's in the Orlando Sentinel too, they ought to know better 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/technology/os-spacex-failure-natural-obstacle-in-emerging-industry-20160118-post.html

That was painful. WTH does 'escort' mean? It makes it sound as though the F9 was a secondary payload or something, rather than the actual LV.

Makes me all the more grateful for NSF of course

[abaddon]

It sounds like an accurate description of the events to me. It did explode after it delivered the satellite.

So every launch byline should be "Rocket launches satellite then crashes into ocean"?  (Or land, depending).

[ugordan]

From 8:30 to 8:48 in the video -- is that "Jason 2" zooming through the video feed?  There's definitely a 2nd spacecraft visible in relatively close proximity.

Most definitely not. It's most likely a chunk of ice floating about.

[ugordan]

That was painful. WTH does 'escort' mean?

I don't know, but I think stabilizer arm should totally be a thing.

[OnWithTheShow]

Can someone link me up with how there would be condensation turning to ice on the fuel tank when this wasn't supercooled fuel (or was it?)?  The legs don't extend up to the LOX tank.  Or is his theory that ice fell from above onto  the collet / latch?  Wait, the collet / latch is on the cylinder which is protected from falling ice until the last few seconds before landing because its sheltered between the leg and the fuel tank.  Help me understand.

Maybe it was the leg that was leeward of the LOX umbilical. The moisture in the air (dense fog) blowing over the LOX umbiical would cause ice buildup downwind.

Someone was talking about the fire master stream nozzles. Its hard to say since alot of them look alike but normal flow for nozzles like that are in the range of 1500 to 2000 gallons per minute (5700 to 7600 liters per minute). Source: I'm a firefighter.

[RoboGoofers]

I expected better BBC....

That makes it sound like a failure

I'm OK with it as long as they use a similar headline for every rocket that isn't returned intact. Maybe the bad press will get the other launch providers off their butts.

[rpapo]

Can someone link me up with how there would be condensation turning to ice on the fuel tank when this wasn't supercooled fuel (or was it?)?  The legs don't extend up to the LOX tank.  Or is his theory that ice fell from above onto  the collet / latch?  Wait, the collet / latch is on the cylinder which is protected from falling ice until the last few seconds before landing because its sheltered between the leg and the fuel tank.  Help me understand.

Think about it.  Vandenberg was shrouded in fog.  The water was condensing straight on to anything, forget about whether or not it was cold.  Then they launched the rocket, and the surroundings went from damp and cool to freezing cold in less than a minute.  Should we be surprised if any condensation freezes?

[MKremer]

This might be the worst article I have read yet about a SpaceX launch.  And it's in the Orlando Sentinel too, they ought to know better 

Not really that bad, IMO. Just reporting that rocket development and technology setbacks can happen, but they'll be solved. Probably assigned to report if the leg failure was a disaster for SpaceX's business. Answer is no.

[sghill]

I'm sorry they lost their booster, but I'm very happy that it happened on the barge. The booster was going to topple and explode anyway with the strut lock failure. It would have been much bigger news and a major setback if their first attempt at a west coast land landing (near endangered species habitats) had failed.

[MKremer]

From 8:30 to 8:48 in the video -- is that "Jason 2" zooming through the video feed?  There's definitely a 2nd spacecraft visible in relatively close proximity. Jason 2 would be plausible considering the orbital insertion was synced to place Jason3 in orbit right behind its predecessor in order to calibrate its sensors based on Jason2 data (according to press statement)

Looked much closer; as bright as it was, probably ice. Initial J-3 orbit is in same plane as J-2, but lower (meaning faster) until s/c checkout complete, then raised to follow behind to calibrate instruments.

[macpacheco]

Was it the first time when the Falcon's 2d stage made 3 burns?

Doesn't every GTO mission involves 3 burns ?
The Cassiope mission had a secondary job of performing a restart test, because the next mission (SES-8) required a restart.
I then assume there's a 3rd burn for deorbit.

[Star One]

I expected better BBC....

That makes it sound like a failure

I'm OK with it as long as they use a similar headline for every rocket that isn't returned intact. Maybe the bad press will get the other launch providers off their butts.

Again I could find no article with that headline on the BBC website.

[Lars-J]

Was it the first time when the Falcon's 2d stage made 3 burns?

Doesn't every GTO mission involves 3 burns ?
The Cassiope mission had a secondary job of performing a restart test, because the next mission (SES-8) required a restart.
I then assume there's a 3rd burn for deorbit.

All F9 GTO missions so far have done only two burns. No deorbit burn.

[Mapperuo]

I expected better BBC....

That makes it sound like a failure

I'm OK with it as long as they use a similar headline for every rocket that isn't returned intact. Maybe the bad press will get the other launch providers off their butts.

Again I could find no article with that headline on the BBC website.

It has since been removed.

[OxCartMark]

All F9 GTO missions so far have done only two burns. No deorbit burn.

Gotta keep them up there in the big circle until ElonX figgers out a way to grab them and take them back to Florida.

[NovaSilisko]

The US version of the BBC website has a big front-page video feature (down the page a little) with a sane description that makes clear the difference between mission success and landing success.

I saw another article earlier higher up on the page which only mentioned the landing failure as a secondary note further down the article, and had some nice explanations of what Jason-3 would do. Can't find it now, though.

[Lar]

It sounds like an accurate description of the events to me. It did explode after it delivered the satellite.

So every launch byline should be "Rocket launches satellite then crashes into ocean"?  (Or land, depending).

Close...

Rocket served as an escort vehicle for the Mumble satellite, and then crashed into the ocean.

After about the third time an ULA or ArianeSpace rocket was described that way it would get fixed.

[manoweb]

1. The drone ship is on the northern hemisphere. It's video link is via a geostationary sattelite, so the sat dish points more or less straight south

Well not really, it depends on the position of the satellite they use for relay- it could be many degrees off the South, up to 30 or 40...


A live video transmission requires a good amount of bandwidth, this at the end requires high gain antennas that by definition are very directional, it's not a small feat to keep one pointed correctly on a moving platform; not only the aim but typically also the skew.

[OxCartMark]

One seemingly positive observation that I don't think has been pointed out - the small fire that was seen after the Orbcomm 2 landing didn't appear to be present after this landing.  Problem corrected?  Just better luck this time?  V1.1FT vs. V1.1w70%T issue? Or single camera angle we have for this landing didn't see the fire?