Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS-2 (SpX-2) LAUNCH and FD-1 UPDATES (Read 278942 times)

QuantumG · « **Reply #300 on:** 03/01/2013 04:36 pm »

Note, pods != thrusters. There's multiple thrusters per pod, could they be opposite thrusters? That'd make sense.

Bugfix · « **Reply #301 on:** 03/01/2013 04:37 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 03/01/2013 04:34 pm

Quote from: IRobot on 03/01/2013 04:32 pm
AFAIK, pod 1&3 are working, if sequence number makes normal sense, it might indicate that they are opposite.

Where does it say two are working?

Well, Elon did first tweet "Holding on solar array deployment until at least two thruster pods are active" and later "Solar array deployment successful", so you could conclude that two pods are working.

IRobot · « **Reply #302 on:** 03/01/2013 04:39 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 03/01/2013 04:34 pm

Quote from: IRobot on 03/01/2013 04:32 pm
AFAIK, pod 1&3 are working, if sequence number makes normal sense, it might indicate that they are opposite.

Where does it say two are working?

Elon twitted "Attempting to bring up of thruster pods 2 and 4" after tweeting that #3 was had pressure trending positive...

Lee Jay · « **Reply #303 on:** 03/01/2013 04:39 pm »

Quote from: Bugfix on 03/01/2013 04:37 pm

Quote from: ugordan on 03/01/2013 04:34 pm
Quote from: IRobot on 03/01/2013 04:32 pm
AFAIK, pod 1&3 are working, if sequence number makes normal sense, it might indicate that they are opposite.

Where does it say two are working?

Well, Elon did first tweet "Holding on solar array deployment until at least two thruster pods are active" and later "Solar array deployment successful", so you could conclude that two pods are working.

Or that they changed their minds and deployed the arrays anyway.

clegg78 · « **Reply #304 on:** 03/01/2013 04:39 pm »

He also posted they are working on pair 2 and 4 now, which would infer that 1 and 3 were operational already.

mmeijeri · « **Reply #305 on:** 03/01/2013 04:40 pm »

Quote from: Bugfix on 03/01/2013 04:37 pm

Well, Elon did first tweet "Holding on solar array deployment until at least two thruster pods are active" and later "Solar array deployment successful", so you could conclude that two pods are working.

But later they said only one was working. It could be that #3 is down again, or maybe they just decided to take the risk and deploy the arrays before they had #3 operational. After all, they said that having two pods was preferable for deployment, not that it was mandatory.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #306 on:** 03/01/2013 04:40 pm »

Quote from: Bugfix on 03/01/2013 04:37 pm

Quote from: ugordan on 03/01/2013 04:34 pm
Quote from: IRobot on 03/01/2013 04:32 pm
AFAIK, pod 1&3 are working, if sequence number makes normal sense, it might indicate that they are opposite.

Where does it say two are working?

Well, Elon did first tweet "Holding on solar array deployment until at least two thruster pods are active" and later "Solar array deployment successful", so you could conclude that two pods are working.

Yeah, I'm going with that myself. SpaceX PAO did seem to suggest they got the go for Solar Array deploy with one thruster pod, so there is some confusion.

We'll find out soon enough, but it all appeared to be heading in a positive way at least.

joertexas · « **Reply #307 on:** 03/01/2013 04:40 pm »

They'd better hurry on that burn - they're past apogee now...

JR

R7 · « **Reply #308 on:** 03/01/2013 04:40 pm »

RTFUpdates:

"SpaceX PAO:

Falcon 9 lifted off as planned and experienced a nominal flight. After Dragon achieved orbit, the spacecraft experienced an issue with a propellant valve. One thruster pod is running. We are trying to bring up the remaining three. We did go ahead and get the solar arrays deployed. Once we get at least 2 pods running, we will begin a series of burns to get to station."

ugordan · « **Reply #309 on:** 03/01/2013 04:41 pm »

Quote from: Bugfix on 03/01/2013 04:37 pm

Quote from: ugordan on 03/01/2013 04:34 pm
Quote from: IRobot on 03/01/2013 04:32 pm
AFAIK, pod 1&3 are working, if sequence number makes normal sense, it might indicate that they are opposite.

Where does it say two are working?

Well, Elon did first tweet "Holding on solar array deployment until at least two thruster pods are active" and later "Solar array deployment successful", so you could conclude that two pods are working.

I would, had there not been a SpaceX release in the meantime saying that they went ahead with panel deployment anyway, on 1 pod. Elon only said that *tank* #3 pressure showed positive, not that any additional pod was working.

Bugfix · « **Reply #310 on:** 03/01/2013 04:41 pm »

Quote from: Lee Jay on 03/01/2013 04:39 pm

Quote from: Bugfix on 03/01/2013 04:37 pm
Quote from: ugordan on 03/01/2013 04:34 pm
Quote from: IRobot on 03/01/2013 04:32 pm
AFAIK, pod 1&3 are working, if sequence number makes normal sense, it might indicate that they are opposite.

Where does it say two are working?

Well, Elon did first tweet "Holding on solar array deployment until at least two thruster pods are active" and later "Solar array deployment successful", so you could conclude that two pods are working.

Or that they changed their minds and deployed the arrays anyway.

Yes, the PAO's statement suggests that they deployed the arrays with only one working pod.

mlindner · « **Reply #311 on:** 03/01/2013 04:41 pm »

Quote from: Bugfix on 03/01/2013 04:41 pm

Quote from: Lee Jay on 03/01/2013 04:39 pm
Quote from: Bugfix on 03/01/2013 04:37 pm
Quote from: ugordan on 03/01/2013 04:34 pm
Quote from: IRobot on 03/01/2013 04:32 pm
AFAIK, pod 1&3 are working, if sequence number makes normal sense, it might indicate that they are opposite.

Where does it say two are working?

Well, Elon did first tweet "Holding on solar array deployment until at least two thruster pods are active" and later "Solar array deployment successful", so you could conclude that two pods are working.

Or that they changed their minds and deployed the arrays anyway.

Yes, the PAO's statement suggests that they deployed the arrays with only one working pod.

Elon's twitter account suggests otherwise and I would trust it over the PAO.

Jason1701 · « **Reply #312 on:** 03/01/2013 04:44 pm »

At this point, the coelliptic burn should have occurred, and I think it's safe to say it didn't. The timeline for rendezvous is probably greatly extended now.

Jim · « **Reply #313 on:** 03/01/2013 04:46 pm »

Quote from: mlindner on 03/01/2013 04:41 pm

Elon's twitter account suggests otherwise and I would trust it over the PAO.

Elon has yet to say that any thruster capability was recovered.

simonbp · « **Reply #314 on:** 03/01/2013 04:54 pm »

And hasn't said anything at all for about an hour now...

wolfpack · « **Reply #315 on:** 03/01/2013 04:57 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 03/01/2013 04:46 pm

Elon has yet to say that any thruster capability was recovered.

I read SpX's tweets and PAO announcements as the 3 pods are still down. They just popped out the arrays, probably to save batteries if this thing takes more than 18 hours to fix.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #316 on:** 03/01/2013 04:57 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 03/01/2013 04:54 pm

And hasn't said anything at all for about an hour now...

Yeah. I've been messaging people I know who will be inside this mission, but more in the style of leaving a message, as I really don't want to be buzzing people who are likely hard at work.

I assume there's no way around it on the coelliptic burn. If that did not happen as planned in the schedule, Saturday berthing is off the table?

John44 · « **Reply #317 on:** 03/01/2013 05:04 pm »

Expedition 34 - ISS/SpaceX Dragon-2 Update - March 1
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8105

SpaceX/Dragon-2 Launch
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8102

SpaceX/Dragon-2 Launch Replays
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8103

arkaska · « **Reply #318 on:** 03/01/2013 05:05 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/01/2013 04:57 pm

I assume there's no way around it on the coelliptic burn. If that did not happen as planned in the schedule, Saturday berthing is off the table?

Which means that time sensitive cargo that was stowed this morning is probably at risk?

JimO · « **Reply #319 on:** 03/01/2013 05:06 pm »

Without the 'NC' burn [in Apollo/STS terminology] they will quickly advance too far, closing the range to the target and passing below it. Are there any details of a delayed rendezvous profile?

What are the periods of the Dragon and ISS orbits, and then compute their lap time. L = lap time, D and I are the periods,

1/L = 1/D - 1/I

Also, if Dragon stays in its initial orbit too long, the plane will gradually shift out of alignment with the ISS plane. not quickly, but inexorably.