Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - CASSIOPE - September, 2013 - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD  (Read 514702 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Changed the thread title as we wait for a launch date.

Overall review of recent and upcoming commercial work:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/countdowns-testing-commercial-space-steps-gear/
« Last Edit: 08/26/2013 01:14 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline jak Kennedy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 760
well Chris hopefully SpaceX will put out more frequent updates as it looks like there is a bunch of fans about to turn blue  ;)
... the way that we will ratchet up our species, is to take the best and to spread it around everybody, so that everybody grows up with better things. - Steve Jobs

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8371
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2555
  • Likes Given: 8355
Seriously doubt for new information until they hit the next milestone (I think it's WDR). After that what's next? FRR?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14644
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14629
  • Likes Given: 1420
Good - just what I wanted to hear...

WDR still scheduled for this week (so nothing major cropped up) and they will launch as soon as possible but not earlier.

They can't tell us what they don't yet know.





ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline PattiM

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Everyone over at SpaceX, how about some in hangar pics for this flight? I wonder if the lack of pics has to do with USAF restrictions on base? Will SpaceX even have launch coverage for this flight?

The Air Force definitely doesn't have some sort of blanket ban on pictures taken on base at Vandenberg.  This spring they allowed part of the route of the Solvang Century bike ride to go through VAFB.  They only allowed U.S. citizens, checked IDs at the gate, and had personnel at every road intersection to make sure nobody wandered where they weren't supposed to go, but there was no restriction on picture taking along the (miles long) route of the ride through the base.  I got lots of great shots of many facilities on the base, though, sadly, the route didn't go near the SpaceX pad.


I was looking at heading up to Miguelito County Park or maybe on the side of the road on a local ridge nearby there to see if I could get good video of the launch.  Has anyone tried that?  (I don't have a base pass.)  I thought they might evacuate homes up there since it's inside the ILL, but the park itself isn't.  Still, you never know.
Thank You!!!
Patti Michelle

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 1323
  • Likes Given: 136
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Here is something new to chew on while we wait....


https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-20726.pdf

An excellent find! Wonder how this plays into things.

"The first stage will coast after stage separation, and then perform an experimental burn with three engines to reduce the entry velocity just prior to entry. Prior to landing in the water, it will perform a second experimental burn with one engine to impact the water with minimal velocity. The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion".

The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion". - This I don't think any of us knew. Looks like maybe SpaceX will set the second stage up for a false reentry as if it would have a landing profile.

Second stage burn as in "reetry burn"? Now that would be something.
 

« Last Edit: 08/26/2013 05:19 pm by mr. mark »

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
I can see this thread is impossible to control when people feel obligated to post their "thoughts of the day" all over it ;)

Look, they are a commercial company who - like most - have absolutely no need - or wish - to stick webcams all over their processing facilities, or provide some daily update blog, warts and all.

I have absolutely no doubt there are people at these companies who - if they had it their way - would have radio silence until after spacecraft separation, before issuing a post-mission presser, before saying "thanks! Didn't we do well!"

This is not NASA. This is not Shuttle. And I think a lot of the charm of Shuttle has been lost, because if she had a problem you had a NASA TV presser and about 20 meaty documents on L2 (with permission I might add). You respected Shuttle and her engineers a lot because when they solved issues and flew that big lady, it was a victory.

However, I do know - cause I speak with them - people at SpaceX who understand, appreciate, and wish they could probably do a bit more for the people on this very site, as they totally know 99.9 percent of the people posting on and reading these SpaceX threads only want them to succeed.

They do know it's a fan base, as opposed to a bunch of "I could do it better" types (as much as we've got a few of those).

So all we can do is cover this the best we can, respectfully, and what will happen will happen. No amount of "I want daily updates and I want them yesterday" posts on a space site's forum is going to change that. :)

Private company or not I think some of the frustration (and other stuff like the lack of information about how manned Dragon is doing) stems from the fact that SpaceX would not be flying this mission right now if not for our tax dollars (if you're a US Citizen). So, yeah, legally they are not obligated to share anything, but many wish they would. SNC releases quite a bit more info on their progress.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2013 04:51 pm by newpylong »

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 1323
  • Likes Given: 136
Can we get a source for the NET September 5 change to September TBD?
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 1323
  • Likes Given: 136
Here is something new to chew on while we wait....

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-20726.pdf

An excellent find! Wonder how this plays into things.

"The first stage will coast after stage separation, and then perform an experimental burn with three engines to reduce the entry velocity just prior to entry. Prior to landing in the water, it will perform a second experimental burn with one engine to impact the water with minimal velocity. The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion".

The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion". - This I don't think any of us knew. Looks like maybe SpaceX will set the second stage up for a false reentry as if it would have a landing profile.


And for those feeling just a bit nervous....

"The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a new launch vehicle. The U.S. Air Force has determined that its overall failure probability is nearly fifty percent for each of the first two launches."
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

Offline StephenB

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 201
And for those feeling just a bit nervous....

"The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a new launch vehicle. The U.S. Air Force has determined that its overall failure probability is nearly fifty percent for each of the first two launches."

I have trouble believing the Air Force did a thorough risk analysis in coming up with numbers like that.

And +1 on the nice find BTW.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2013 05:10 pm by StephenB »

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 86
has there been any talk to bringing the spent 1st stage back for inspection provided all recovery efforts up to that point are successful.  one would think it would be quite a big operation to do that so there would be some talk of it

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Here is something new to chew on while we wait....


https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-20726.pdf

An excellent find! Wonder how this plays into things.

"The first stage will coast after stage separation, and then perform an experimental burn with three engines to reduce the entry velocity just prior to entry. Prior to landing in the water, it will perform a second experimental burn with one engine to impact the water with minimal velocity. The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion".

The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion". - This I don't think any of us knew. Looks like maybe SpaceX will set the second stage up for a false reentry as if it would have a landing profile.

Second stage burn as in "reetry burn"? Now that would be something.

There is nothing to indicate that the second stage burn is a velocity reduction burn - note that this is specified for the first stage but *not* the second stage. It could just be simple restart to simulate GTO deployment.

BTW, I also noted this:
Quote
"The launch vehicle will also carry five secondary payloads to the same orbit."

Is this news? Or just new to me? ;)
« Last Edit: 08/26/2013 05:23 pm by Lars_J »

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 172
  • Likes Given: 0
Here is something new to chew on while we wait....


https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-20726.pdf

An excellent find! Wonder how this plays into things.

"The first stage will coast after stage separation, and then perform an experimental burn with three engines to reduce the entry velocity just prior to entry. Prior to landing in the water, it will perform a second experimental burn with one engine to impact the water with minimal velocity. The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion".

The second stage will coast and then perform an experimental burn to depletion". - This I don't think any of us knew. Looks like maybe SpaceX will set the second stage up for a false reentry as if it would have a landing profile.

Second stage burn as in "reetry burn"? Now that would be something.

There is nothing to indicate that the second stage burn is a velocity reduction burn - note that this is specified for the first stage but *not* the second stage. It could just be simple restart to simulate GTO deployment.

I thought that too. but, then I thought maybe not. Hard to say at this point. Just getting the first stage down in one piece is going to be a great leap forward.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4847
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3432
  • Likes Given: 741
Since next mission is GTO, more likely the S2 burn is to GTO, IMO.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2013 05:39 pm by Kabloona »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Since next mission is GTO, more likely the S2 burn is a sim of next mission profile, IMO.

And running it to depletion will also allow them to nail down the exact performance of the M1DVac.

Offline ClayJar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
  • Baton Rouge, LA, USA
  • Liked: 1290
  • Likes Given: 129
And for those feeling just a bit nervous....

"The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a new launch vehicle. The U.S. Air Force has determined that its overall failure probability is nearly fifty percent for each of the first two launches."

I have trouble believing the Air Force did a thorough risk analysis in coming up with numbers like that.

Regarding the overall failure probability, the PDF states on page five: "There is no way to reduce this estimated failure probability, which is derived from the historically high number of launch failures in new vehicles."

So, it's not so much that Falcon 9 v1.1 is likely to go boom.  It's that of all new launch vehicles, historically many go boom.  If it were Falcon 9 v1.1 specific, there would be ways of reducing that estimated failure probability.

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 1290
And for those feeling just a bit nervous....

"The Falcon 9 v1.1 is a new launch vehicle. The U.S. Air Force has determined that its overall failure probability is nearly fifty percent for each of the first two launches."

I have trouble believing the Air Force did a thorough risk analysis in coming up with numbers like that.

And +1 on the nice find BTW.

I don't think they have done a particular analysis on the F9R. The 50% number was probably based on all new rockets historically.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
I don't think they have done a particular analysis on the F9R. The 50% number was probably based on all new rockets historically.
Even so, to be fair:  F1 first flight = extra exciting.  F9 first flight = exciting, but nominal(ish).      A case can be made across the industry or specific to SpaceX.  Though I suspect the odds are a bit better than 50%.  A more relevant statistic might be comparing first launch of 3rd new launcher success rates per entity/company. 

Filet this red herring however you want; approval has been granted. 
« Last Edit: 08/26/2013 06:35 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline MP99

I don't think they have done a particular analysis on the F9R. The 50% number was probably based on all new rockets historically.
Even so, to be fair:  F1 first flight = extra exciting.  F9 first flight = exciting, but nominal(ish).      A case can be made across the industry or specific to SpaceX.  Though I suspect the odds are a bit better than 50%.  A more relevant statistic might be comparing first launch of 3rd new launcher success rates per entity/company. 

Filet this red herring however you want; approval has been granted. 

If they went conservative, and it still approved, then no problem.

Cheers, Martin

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0