Sunday most likely for docking rather than Saturday.
Quote from: Star One on 03/01/2013 07:38 pmSunday most likely for docking rather than Saturday.I'll bet you 10 English pounds sterling it won't be Saturday
No Euros, eh?
Any thoughts on what would cause 3 out of 4 to fail? That sounds like a systematic error.
Musk: Pod 1 has 5 thrusters; pod 4 has 4.
None of this freezing oxidiser would happen if they stirred the tanks.
Well done everyone. Was nice to be able to sit back for once and watch about five of you banging away with the transcription So I've updated the launch article:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/03/spacex-milestone-falcon9-launch-dragon-crs2/And I'll start writing the next article tonight as good L2 info's starting to arrive now.
wait - the He sure as hell didn't freeze.If the oxidizer froze, how did this prevent the tank from pressurizing?I can see how it prevented oxidizer from reaching downstream towards the thruste... Maybe the pressure sensor is downstream from the tank? this makes little sense.
Quote from: mdo on 03/01/2013 05:56 pm... In terms of phase angle the two spacecraft currently approach each other at a rate of about 7.8 deg/hour or 185 deg/day (in terms of revs/day: ISS 16.04, Dragon 15.52). Shouldn't these be reversed? ISS - 15.52 revs/day, and Dragon 16.04? Otherwise, how is Dragon overtaking ISS?
... In terms of phase angle the two spacecraft currently approach each other at a rate of about 7.8 deg/hour or 185 deg/day (in terms of revs/day: ISS 16.04, Dragon 15.52).
Quote from: AJA on 03/01/2013 07:43 pmNone of this freezing oxidiser would happen if they stirred the tanks.Why would they need to stir the tank if it is well-insulated and perhaps heated? And how could it cause an explosion with storable oxidiser?I wonder if the fuel / oxidiser lines have insulation and heaters, as on the Shuttle.
Was this the only Falcon to have flown through heavy clouds? I wonder if there was some thermal issue on ascent that cause the systemic failure of the check valves...