Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS-2 (SpX-2) LAUNCH and FD-1 UPDATES (Read 278927 times)

Jason1701 · « **Reply #320 on:** 03/01/2013 05:06 pm »

Quote from: arkaska 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?

Not necessarily, if they can still berth within the two/three day timeframe.

JimO · « **Reply #321 on:** 03/01/2013 05:07 pm »

We're going to have some interesting visual passes this evening -- ISS, Dragon, and booster [or has it deorbited?]. And not in expected relative positions, for sure!

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #322 on:** 03/01/2013 05:10 pm »

Per SFN reporter Stephen Clark:

Stephen Clark ‏@StephenClark1
#SpaceX is targeting a telecon around 3 pm EST to discuss thruster problem on #Dragon.

hrissan · « **Reply #323 on:** 03/01/2013 05:12 pm »

Quote from: wolfpack 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.

Elon twitted: "Thruster pod 3 tank pressure trending positive." as an indication of some progress in restoring pod 3.

I infer, that there is insufficient pressure in fuel tanks on the pods 2,3,4?

Does each pod have its own pressurization system with helium tank? Or there are 2 helium tanks on the Dragon each supplying all 4 pods with the pressurized helium?

Liss · « **Reply #324 on:** 03/01/2013 05:12 pm »

Quote from: JimO on 03/01/2013 05:06 pm

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.

You may probably reverse this by sending Dragon temporaily to a higher orbit. I'm not sure though what is her lifetime in a non-docked flight.

Jim · « **Reply #325 on:** 03/01/2013 05:15 pm »

Quote from: arkaska 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?

Doubtful. They have power and they are in zero g.

psloss · « **Reply #326 on:** 03/01/2013 05:17 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?

Apparently still possible with different schedule of burns to make it tomorrow; not sure, though, and not sure how long that would remain a possibility.

arkaska · « **Reply #327 on:** 03/01/2013 05:17 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 03/01/2013 05:15 pm

Quote from: arkaska on 03/01/2013 05:05 pm

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

Doubtful. They have power and they are in zero g.

Thanks Jim didn't know that being in zero g mattered

Jim · « **Reply #328 on:** 03/01/2013 05:21 pm »

Quote from: arkaska on 03/01/2013 05:17 pm

Quote from: Jim on 03/01/2013 05:15 pm
Quote from: arkaska on 03/01/2013 05:05 pm

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

Doubtful. They have power and they are in zero g.

Thanks Jim didn't know that being in zero g mattered

Unless there is an "activation" time constraint with the experiments, they are in the environment that they want. Also, many of the experiments are use to the 3 day rendezvous of the shuttle.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #329 on:** 03/01/2013 05:23 pm »

Quote from: psloss on 03/01/2013 05:17 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?
Apparently still possible with different schedule of burns to make it tomorrow; not sure, though, and not sure how long that would remain a possibility.

Very good, thanks.

R7 · « **Reply #330 on:** 03/01/2013 05:25 pm »

Has there been confirmation that the SC is power positive?

AJA · « **Reply #331 on:** 03/01/2013 05:26 pm »

Will they have to retract the solar arrays for a stronger-than-nominal correction burn? I'm thinking of exhaust plume damage? Same question goes for attitude control with fewer than two pods.

corrodedNut · « **Reply #332 on:** 03/01/2013 05:27 pm »

Quote from: AJA on 03/01/2013 05:26 pm

Will they have to retract the solar arrays for a stronger-than-nominal correction burn? I'm thinking of exhaust plume damage? Same question goes for attitude control with fewer than two pods.

They can't be retracted.

Lars_J · « **Reply #333 on:** 03/01/2013 05:27 pm »

Quote from: AJA on 03/01/2013 05:26 pm

Will they have to retract the solar arrays for a stronger-than-nominal correction burn? I'm thinking of exhaust plume damage? Same question goes for attitude control with fewer than two pods.

No, solar panels are open during all burns, except for the initial maneuver to separate from the upper stage.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #334 on:** 03/01/2013 05:28 pm »

Quote from: AJA on 03/01/2013 05:26 pm

Will they have to retract the solar arrays for a stronger-than-nominal correction burn? I'm thinking of exhaust plume damage? Same question goes for attitude control with fewer than two pods.

I doubt it. I also don't think it's even possible to retract the Dragon's solar arrays.

R7 · « **Reply #335 on:** 03/01/2013 05:29 pm »

from SFnow:

"FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
1736 GMT (12:36 p.m. EST)
A NASA official says three Dragon thruster pods are required to approach the International Space Station. "

Targeteer · « **Reply #336 on:** 03/01/2013 05:31 pm »

Quote from a Bill Harwood update

"After Dragon achieved orbit, the spacecraft experienced an issue with a propellant valve," a SpaceX spokeswoman said. "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 two pods running, we will begin a series of burns to get to station."

Robotbeat · « **Reply #337 on:** 03/01/2013 05:32 pm »

From ISS live feed (paraphrased):
coelliptic burn is delayed for one rev, and if they can solve it, the arrival time at station tomorrow will not be affected... They aren't officially go for the burn, yet.

AJA · « **Reply #338 on:** 03/01/2013 05:32 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 03/01/2013 05:27 pm

Quote from: AJA on 03/01/2013 05:26 pm
Will they have to retract the solar arrays for a stronger-than-nominal correction burn? I'm thinking of exhaust plume damage? Same question goes for attitude control with fewer than two pods.
No, solar panels are open during all burns, except for the initial maneuver to separate from the upper stage.

Yeah... exactly. Post SECO separation of Dragon from the upper stage would involve bolts and these very thrust pods right? If they were down, how effectively did this happen?

Targeteer · « **Reply #339 on:** 03/01/2013 05:33 pm »

Per DPC, coelliptic burn delayed one rev to 1700 but there is not a go yet for the burn. If the burn occurs planned timeline tomorrow is intact.