-
#340
by
Lobo
on 30 Sep, 2013 18:07
-
Hey, on the article yesterday by William Graham, I noticed this little bit in it:
"Typically Faclon rockets are integrated horizontally, however some military payloads which SpaceX hopes to bid for, require vertical integration onto the rocket. The former Titan II pad at SLC-4W is still standing, having been derelict since 2003."
It says nothing more. And this is sort of an unusual statement. Doe he mean SpaceX plans to use 4W and the MSS there for vertically integrated payloads? Or maybe transport that MSS to 4E for use? Or simply using 4W as an example of a pad set up for vertical integration, unlike the new 4E?
Seems like there will only be a limited number of launches from VAFB, so I'd be curious if they'd want to refurbish a whole other pad for those limited payloads? Vs. constructing a new scaffold or MSS or whatever at 4E?
-
#341
by
Danderman
on 30 Sep, 2013 18:24
-
- I think we all expected more v1.0 flights before the block-II/v1.1 was introduced
I should not that we really didn't know that V 1.0-powered ISS re-supply flights could not carry enough cargo to meet CRS requirements. SpaceX was not clear that the original Falcon 9 could not fly a completely loaded Dragon to ISS.
If we had known that, then we would all have predicted that the 1.1 first launch would come early in CRS.
-
#342
by
Lars_J
on 30 Sep, 2013 18:51
-
Is there an audio or video recording of yesterdays post-flight press conference somewhere?
-
#343
by
Jarnis
on 30 Sep, 2013 18:52
-
Is there an audio or video recording of yesterdays post-flight press conference somewhere?
No video exists. It was teleconference (audio only).
-
#344
by
neoforce
on 30 Sep, 2013 18:55
-
Is there an audio or video recording of yesterdays post-flight press conference somewhere?
No video exists. It was teleconference (audio only).
The best summary of the call is the live tweeting by Jeff Foust at
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust Still not as good as a recording.
-
#345
by
Robotbeat
on 30 Sep, 2013 19:04
-
- I think we all expected more v1.0 flights before the block-II/v1.1 was introduced
I should not that we really didn't know that V 1.0-powered ISS re-supply flights could not carry enough cargo to meet CRS requirements. SpaceX was not clear that the original Falcon 9 could not fly a completely loaded Dragon to ISS.
If we had known that, then we would all have predicted that the 1.1 first launch would come early in CRS.
You're missing something, here. I think just about everyone who knew what they were talking about knew that the very first "Block I" version of Falcon 9 was only going to be used on a handful of flights. After all, the user's guide was written for Block II and presumably they sold just Block IIs to their customers (since that is what was advertised) except for COTS and the initial CRS, since they didn't require anything better. So we assumed some sort of upgrade for the majority of the CRS flights, just not as big.
The big thing is that they skipped Block II and went straight to a much, much improved vehicle (v1.1), not just an incremental improvement to Block II.
-
#346
by
sanman
on 30 Sep, 2013 20:54
-
Didn't Musk say that he was going to put up some further video relating to the 1st stage flameout, or something like that? Is that out yet - and if so, where can I get a look at it? If not, then when's it coming out?
-
#347
by
kirghizstan
on 30 Sep, 2013 20:55
-
Didn't Musk say that he was going to put up some further video relating to the 1st stage flameout, or something like that? Is that out yet - and if so, where can I get a look at it? If not, then when's it coming out?
they said maybe later this week
-
#348
by
Danderman
on 30 Sep, 2013 21:09
-
- I think we all expected more v1.0 flights before the block-II/v1.1 was introduced
I should not that we really didn't know that V 1.0-powered ISS re-supply flights could not carry enough cargo to meet CRS requirements. SpaceX was not clear that the original Falcon 9 could not fly a completely loaded Dragon to ISS.
If we had known that, then we would all have predicted that the 1.1 first launch would come early in CRS.
You're missing something, here. I think just about everyone who knew what they were talking about knew that the very first "Block I" version of Falcon 9 was only going to be used on a handful of flights. After all, the user's guide was written for Block II and presumably they sold just Block IIs to their customers (since that is what was advertised) except for COTS and the initial CRS, since they didn't require anything better. So we assumed some sort of upgrade for the majority of the CRS flights, just not as big.
The big thing is that they skipped Block II and went straight to a much, much improved vehicle (v1.1), not just an incremental improvement to Block II.
You are revising history.
Attached is the official F9 data sheet from 2007 (post COTS award) showing performance from the standard F9 as 10,000+ kg.
There is no mention of a Block II or 1.1 or anything other than a single F9 variant (plus the Heavy).
The emergence of an "evolved" F9 is relatively recent. I started up a thread way back when complaining that the payload numbers of the F9 as published did not make sense, and the vast majority of the responses from the SpaceX amazing people was that I was simply wrong. It took a couple of years for the SpaceX crowd to understand that the plan was to meet the numbers via an evolved F9, and then the official story became that it was Block II/Falcon 9 1.1 that was going to be the standard CRS launcher.
Looking through my files, I see a mention of Block II becoming the standard variant in the 2009 Falcon 9 User Guide. Does anyone have anything published by SpaceX mentioning a Block II or 1.1 earlier than 2009?
-
#349
by
Lars_J
on 30 Sep, 2013 21:32
-
Sigh, does this discussion need to come up again - and here - just because someone challenged yo on your "triple it" remark?
-
#350
by
ArbitraryConstant
on 30 Sep, 2013 21:57
-
Sigh, does this discussion need to come up again - and here - just because someone challenged yo on your "triple it" remark?
Especially now that v1.1 has flown, and its capabilities are strictly greater than any of the above, and that's the only thing they'll sell.
-
#351
by
sanman
on 30 Sep, 2013 21:58
-
-
#352
by
Lars_J
on 30 Sep, 2013 22:18
-
Have we seen this video yet? Credit here http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/1nevaf/external_video_with_first_views_of_first_stage/
Let's see...
4:01 first stage separation
4:12 first stage re-light / deceleration burn
4:24-4:47 first stage aero control system firing
Am I right?
No, the expanding gas bubble at 4:12-14 must be the 2nd stage lighting. The pulses may be first stage turning, but I don't think it would have started its retro burn so quickly.
The pulses observed at 4:30 onwards is definitely from the 1st stage though, since the 2nd stage is starting to visibly pull ahead.
The bubble expanding at 4:44 might be the 1st stage relighting, though. (Can the stage re-orient that fast?) It looks smaller than the first bubble, but it would also be firing away from the observer.
-
#353
by
Robotbeat
on 30 Sep, 2013 22:19
-
- I think we all expected more v1.0 flights before the block-II/v1.1 was introduced
I should not that we really didn't know that V 1.0-powered ISS re-supply flights could not carry enough cargo to meet CRS requirements. SpaceX was not clear that the original Falcon 9 could not fly a completely loaded Dragon to ISS.
If we had known that, then we would all have predicted that the 1.1 first launch would come early in CRS.
You're missing something, here. I think just about everyone who knew what they were talking about knew that the very first "Block I" version of Falcon 9 was only going to be used on a handful of flights. After all, the user's guide was written for Block II and presumably they sold just Block IIs to their customers (since that is what was advertised) except for COTS and the initial CRS, since they didn't require anything better. So we assumed some sort of upgrade for the majority of the CRS flights, just not as big.
The big thing is that they skipped Block II and went straight to a much, much improved vehicle (v1.1), not just an incremental improvement to Block II.
You are revising history.
Attached is the official F9 data sheet from 2007 (post COTS award) showing performance from the standard F9 as 10,000+ kg.
There is no mention of a Block II or 1.1 or anything other than a single F9 variant (plus the Heavy).
The emergence of an "evolved" F9 is relatively recent. I started up a thread way back when complaining that the payload numbers of the F9 as published did not make sense, and the vast majority of the responses from the SpaceX amazing people was that I was simply wrong. It took a couple of years for the SpaceX crowd to understand that the plan was to meet the numbers via an evolved F9, and then the official story became that it was Block II/Falcon 9 1.1 that was going to be the standard CRS launcher.
Looking through my files, I see a mention of Block II becoming the standard variant in the 2009 Falcon 9 User Guide. Does anyone have anything published by SpaceX mentioning a Block II or 1.1 earlier than 2009?
Yup, the user's guide only shows block 2. They never released the Block I equivalent publicly, but there is information on it in the NASA's NLS II contract performance query tool.
Again, this points strongly that they never planned to launch more than a handful of the v1.0 block Is.
-
#354
by
QuantumG
on 01 Oct, 2013 00:36
-
Is there an audio or video recording of yesterdays post-flight press conference somewhere?
No video exists. It was teleconference (audio only).
The best summary of the call is the live tweeting by Jeff Foust at https://twitter.com/jeff_foust Still not as good as a recording.
Does anyone have the audio?
-
#355
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 Oct, 2013 00:46
-
Is there an audio or video recording of yesterdays post-flight press conference somewhere?
No video exists. It was teleconference (audio only).
The best summary of the call is the live tweeting by Jeff Foust at https://twitter.com/jeff_foust Still not as good as a recording.
Does anyone have the audio?
Our reporter does, and we're going to create some articles out of it.
And can we get this thread on topic - I see there's some general posts above and if people haven't worked out how to use the relevant threads, they'll lose their posts.
-
#356
by
Danderman
on 01 Oct, 2013 01:46
-
Looking at the orbital elements for the various objects in orbit, it seems that the prime payload is in the highest orbit, whereas the upper stage is in a slightly lower orbit. And then there are a bunch of objects that seem randomly scattered between the satellite and upper stage orbits.
Presumably the various CubeSATS are near the upper stage orbital altitude, but there are probably another dozen objects that are not accounted for, and which are randomly scattered. Since some of these are lower than the upper stage, I would have to guess that it is because their drag coefficient is greater than an upper stage, meaning that they could be empty small objects, or flat objects like panels that are not flying edge on.
I don't think that SpaceX intended to leave the upper stage and these objects in such a high orbit, as the FAA AST frown upon that sort of thing.
-
#357
by
jcm
on 01 Oct, 2013 02:14
-
Looking at the orbital elements for the various objects in orbit, it seems that the prime payload is in the highest orbit, whereas the upper stage is in a slightly lower orbit. And then there are a bunch of objects that seem randomly scattered between the satellite and upper stage orbits.
Presumably the various CubeSATS are near the upper stage orbital altitude, but there are probably another dozen objects that are not accounted for, and which are randomly scattered. Since some of these are lower than the upper stage, I would have to guess that it is because their drag coefficient is greater than an upper stage, meaning that they could be empty small objects, or flat objects like panels that are not flying edge on.
I don't think that SpaceX intended to leave the upper stage and these objects in such a high orbit, as the FAA AST frown upon that sort of thing.
How can you tell which is the prime payload? (I wouldn't assume that the A object is Cassiope at this stage, it usually
takes them a few days or more to assign the right objects to the right catalog numbers
-
#358
by
mlindner
on 01 Oct, 2013 02:38
-
Looking at the orbital elements for the various objects in orbit, it seems that the prime payload is in the highest orbit, whereas the upper stage is in a slightly lower orbit. And then there are a bunch of objects that seem randomly scattered between the satellite and upper stage orbits.
Presumably the various CubeSATS are near the upper stage orbital altitude, but there are probably another dozen objects that are not accounted for, and which are randomly scattered. Since some of these are lower than the upper stage, I would have to guess that it is because their drag coefficient is greater than an upper stage, meaning that they could be empty small objects, or flat objects like panels that are not flying edge on.
I don't think that SpaceX intended to leave the upper stage and these objects in such a high orbit, as the FAA AST frown upon that sort of thing.
How can you tell which is the prime payload? (I wouldn't assume that the A object is Cassiope at this stage, it usually
takes them a few days or more to assign the right objects to the right catalog numbers
And sometimes they get changed around even after having names assigned to them.
http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=37855U (The satellite I worked on that got "stuck" to another cubesat that was in the same P-POD as us. Originally had different names, got re-assigned after we found they were stuck together. De-tuned our radios and prevents contact, still beacons just fine though
I think its the first accidental/purposeful docking of two nanosats.)
-
#359
by
yg1968
on 01 Oct, 2013 16:42
-
I think its the first accidental/purposeful docking of two nanosats.)